This PDF is the current document as it appeared on Public Inspection on 02/13/2014 at 08:45 am.
Bureau of Prisons, Justice.
In this document, the Bureau of Prisons (Bureau) proposes to clarify that body imaging search devices are “electronic search devices” for routine or random use in searching inmates, and are distinguished from medical x-ray devices, which require the inmate's consent, or Regional Director approval, for use as search devices.
Comments are due by April 15, 2014.Start Further Info
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Sarah Qureshi, Office of General Counsel, Bureau of Prisons, phone (202) 307-2105.End Further Info End Preamble Start Supplemental Information
Posting of Public Comments
Please note that all comments received are considered part of the public record and are available for public inspection online at www.regulations.gov. Such information includes personal identifying information (such as your name, address, etc.) voluntarily submitted by the commenter.
If you want to submit personal identifying information (such as your name, address, etc.) as part of your comment, but do not want it to be posted online, you must include the phrase “PERSONAL IDENTIFYING INFORMATION” in the first paragraph of your comment. You must also locate all the personal identifying information you do not want posted online in the first paragraph of your comment and identify what information you want redacted.
If you want to submit confidential business information as part of your comment but do not want it to be posted online, you must include the phrase “CONFIDENTIAL BUSINESS INFORMATION” in the first paragraph of your comment. You must also prominently identify confidential business information to be redacted within the comment.
If a comment contains so much confidential business information that it cannot be effectively redacted, all or part of that comment may not be posted on www.regulations.gov.
Personal identifying information identified and located as set forth above will be placed in the agency's public docket file, but not posted online. Confidential business information identified and located as set forth above will not be placed in the public docket file. If you wish to inspect the agency's public docket file in person by appointment, please see the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT paragraph.
The Bureau proposes to amend its regulation on searches of inmates using x-ray devices and technology (28 CFR part 552, subpart B). We propose to change this regulation to clarify that body imaging search devices are “electronic search devices” for routine or random use in searching inmates, and are distinguished from medical x-ray devices, the use of which require the inmate's consent, or Regional Director approval, for use as search devices.
Section 552.11 Searches of inmates. The Bureau's regulation on searching inmates using electronic devices currently lists only metal detectors and ion spectrometry devices as examples of such devices. We now propose to clarify that the provision for “electronic search devices” includes the use of body imaging search devices which use x-ray technology, but which are functionally different from medical x-ray devices as described in § 552.13.
Section 552.13 Medical x-ray device, major instrument, or surgical intrusion. To conform with the change made in § 552.11, we likewise propose to alter § 552.13 to further clarify that body imaging search devices are functionally different from the medical x-ray devices as described in this regulation. To do this, we remove the generic term “x-ray” and replace it with “medical x-ray device” in § 552.13.
We also revise § 552.13(a) to delete the term “fluoroscope.” It is inaccurate to state that the Bureau uses fluoroscopes in the same way as major instruments (including anoscope or vaginal speculum) or surgical intrusion (i.e., only for medical reasons and with the inmate's consent). In fact, as we continue to state in subparagraph (b), medical x-rays devices such as fluoroscopes are also used to detect contraband under specifically delineated circumstances: Only when “determined necessary for the security, good order, or discipline of the institution,” and only “upon approval of the Regional Director.”
Except for the change in terminology from “x-ray” to “medical x-ray device”, the remainder of § 552.13 is unchanged.
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 Department of Justice Start Printed Page 8911has 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 been reviewed by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB).
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. Therefore, in accordance with Executive Order 13132, it is determined that this rule does not have sufficient federalism implications to warrant the preparation of a Federalism Assessment.
Regulatory Flexibility Act
The Director of the Bureau of Prisons, in accordance with the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 605(b)), has reviewed this regulation and by approving it certifies that this regulation will not have a significant economic impact upon a substantial number of small entities for the following reasons: This rule pertains to 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 result in the expenditure by State, local and tribal governments, in the aggregate, or by the private sector, of $100,000,000 or more in any one year, and it will not significantly or uniquely affect small governments. Therefore, no actions were deemed necessary under the provisions of 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 section 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 foreign-based companies in domestic and export markets.Start List of Subjects
List of Subjects 28 CFR Part 552 Prisoners.End List of Subjects Start Signature
Charles E. Samuels, Jr.,
Director, Bureau of Prisons.
Accordingly, 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 part 552 as set forth below.
SUBCHAPTER C—INSTITUTIONAL MANAGEMENTStart Part
PART 552—CUSTODYEnd Part Start Amendment Part
1. Revise the authority citation for 28 CFR part 552 to read as follows:End Amendment Part Start Amendment Part
2. Revise § 552.11(a) to read as follows:End Amendment Part
(a) Electronic devices. Inspection of an inmate's person using electronic devices (for example, metal detector, ion spectrometry device, or body imaging search device) does not require the inmate to remove clothing. The inspection may also include a search of the inmate's clothing and personal effects. Staff may conduct an electronic device search of an inmate on a routine or random basis to control contraband.
3. Revise § 552.13 to read as follows:End Amendment Part
(a) The institution physician may authorize use of a major instrument (including anoscope or vaginal speculum) or surgical intrusion for medical reasons only, with the inmate's consent.
(b) The institution physician may authorize use of a medical x-ray device for medical reasons and only with the consent of the inmate. When there exists no reasonable alternative, and an examination using a medical x-ray device is determined necessary for the security, good order, or discipline of the institution, the Warden, upon approval of the Regional Director, may authorize the institution physician to order a non-repetitive examination using a medical x-ray device for the purpose of determining if contraband is concealed in or on the inmate (for example: In a cast or body cavity). The examination using a medical x-ray device may not be performed if it is determined by the institution physician that it is likely to result in serious or lasting medical injury or harm to the inmate. Staff shall place documentation of the examination and the reasons for the examination in the inmate's central file and medical file.
(1) The Warden and Regional Director or persons officially acting in that capacity may not redelegate the authority to approve an examination using medical x-ray device for the purpose of determining if contraband is present. An Acting Warden or Acting Regional Director may, however, perform this function.
(2) Staff shall solicit the inmate's consent prior to an examination using a medical x-ray device. However, the inmate's consent is not required.
(c) The Warden may direct searches of inanimate objects using a medical x-ray device where the inmate is not exposed.
[FR Doc. 2014-03240 Filed 2-13-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4410-05-P