Intensive Confinement Center Program, 39863-39864 [E8-15784]

Download as PDF Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 134 / Friday, July 11, 2008 / Rules and Regulations (2) Give notice that violation of any provision of the order of protection constitutes contempt of court and may result in a fine or imprisonment, or both; and (3) Indicate whether the order of protection supersedes or alters prior orders pertaining to matters between the parties. (b) The order of protection may do any of the following: (1) Order the person who committed the act of domestic violence to refrain from acts or threats of violence against the petitioner or any other family member; (2) Order that the person who committed the act of domestic violence be removed from the home of the petitioner; (3) Grant sole possession of the residence or household to the petitioner during the period the order of protection is effective, or order the person who has committed an act of domestic violence to provide temporary suitable alternative housing for the petitioner and other family members to whom the respondent owes a legal obligation of support; (4) Award temporary custody of any children involved when appropriate and provide for visitation rights, child support, and temporary support for the petitioner on a basis which gives primary consideration to the safety of the petitioner and other household members; (5) Order the person who is found to have committed an act of domestic violence not to initiate contact with the petitioner; (6) Restrain the parties from transferring, concealing, encumbering, or otherwise disposing of one another’s property or the joint property of the parties except in the usual course of business or for the necessities of life, and order the parties to account to the court for all such transferring, encumbrances, and expenditures made after the order is served or communicated; and (7) Order other injunctive relief as the court deems necessary for the protection of the petitioner, including orders to law enforcement agencies as provided by this subpart. cprice-sewell on PRODPC61 with RULES § 11.1208 Service of the protection order. When an order of protection is granted under this subpart: (a) The petitioner must file it with the clerk of the court; (b) The clerk of the court must send a copy to a law enforcement agency with jurisdiction over the area in which the court is located; (c) The order must be personally served upon the respondent, unless the VerDate Aug<31>2005 14:58 Jul 10, 2008 Jkt 214001 respondent or his or her attorney was present at the time the order was issued; and (d) If the court finds the petitioner unable to pay court costs, the order will be served without cost to the petitioner. § 11.1210 Duration and renewal of a regular protection order. An order of protection granted by the court: (a) Is effective for a fixed period of time, which is up to a maximum of 6 months; and (b) May be extended for good cause upon motion of the petitioner for an additional period of up to 6 months each time a petition is presented. A petitioner may request as many extensions as necessary provided that the court determines that good cause exists. § 11.1212 Consequences of disobedience or interference. Any willful disobedience or interference with any court order constitutes contempt of court which may result in a fine or imprisonment, or both, in accordance with this part. § 11.1214 Relationship of this subpart to other remedies. The remedies provided in this subpart are in addition to the other civil or criminal remedies available to the petitioner. [FR Doc. E8–15599 Filed 7–10–08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4310–4J–P DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE Bureau of Prisons 28 CFR Part 524 [BOP–1141–F] RIN 1120–AB39 Intensive Confinement Center Program Federal Bureau of Prisons. Final rule. AGENCY: ACTION: SUMMARY: The Bureau of Prisons (Bureau) removes current rules on the intensive confinement center program (ICC). The ICC is a specialized program for non-violent offenders combining features of a military boot camp with traditional Bureau correctional values. The Bureau will no longer be offering the ICC program (also known as Shock Incarceration or Boot Camp) to inmates as a program option. This decision was made as part of an overall strategy to eliminate programs that do not reduce recidivism. PO 00000 Frm 00007 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 39863 This rule is effective on August 11, 2008. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Sarah Qureshi, Office of General Counsel, Bureau of Prisons, phone (202) 307–2105. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Through this rulemaking, the Bureau seeks to be clear to inmates and the public regarding the termination of the ICC program. A proposed rule on this subject was published in the Federal Register on November 2, 2006 (71 FR 64504). We received three comments. The issues raised by the commenters are addressed below. One commenter, a former inmate, recounted his positive experience in an ICC program in a Bureau facility, and suggested that such positive experiences should be sufficient to continue the ICC program. Although this inmate is to be commended for taking full advantage of the opportunities offered through the ICC program, we note that it is unfortunate that his experience was not repeated often enough to justify the extra costs implicated in the ICC program. As we stated in the preamble to the proposed rule, despite anecdotal successes, research has found no significant difference in recidivism rates between inmates who complete boot camp programs and similar offenders who serve their sentences in traditional institutions. Moreover, the costs associated with maintaining the federal boot camp programs exceed the costs of operating ordinary minimum security camps, as a result of (1) the staff resources necessary to maintain the intensive core programming that make up the ‘‘shock incarceration’’ or ‘‘intensive confinement’’ experience, and (2) the high costs of housing offenders for extended periods of time in Community Corrections Centers, where the per capita costs are higher than those of housing offenders in minimum security camps. While there are some cost savings due to the early release of offenders who successfully complete the program, these savings are minimal compared to the additional costs of operating the program, which create a net increased cost to the agency of more than $1 million per year. The remaining two commenters expressed the idea that ‘‘Congress clearly intends for the BOP to run a shock incarceration program; BOP merely has the discretion to decide which inmates it places therein. No logical reading of section 4046 implies that the discretionary ‘may’ in DATES: E:\FR\FM\11JYR1.SGM 11JYR1 39864 Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 134 / Friday, July 11, 2008 / Rules and Regulations subsection (a) refers to giving BOP discretion as to offering the shock incarceration program.’’ Several courts that have ruled on this issue since the discontinuance of the ICC program have found that 18 U.S.C. 4046 does not require the Bureau to operate a shock incarceration program— it merely authorizes the Bureau to grant certain benefits to those covered by the statute. Palomino v. Federal Bureau of Prisons, 408 F. Supp.2d 282 (S.D. Tex. 2005); Roman v. LaManna, C/A 8:05– 2806–MBS, 2006 WL 2370319 (D.S.C. Aug. 15, 2006); Serrato v. Clark, C 05– 03416 CRB, 2005 WL 3481442 (N.D. Cal. Dec. 19, 2005); U.S. v. McLean, CR 03– 30066–AA, 2005 WL 2371990 (D. Ore. Sept. 27, 2005). Indeed, the Bureau has always had the authority to operate a program like the ICC, but prior to passage of 4046 could not have offered the sentence reduction incentive. The commenters also remarked that Congress appropriated funds for the operation of the ICC program. However, regarding appropriations, Congress has never specifically appropriated funds for the ICC program, i.e., there was and is no line item appropriation. The ICC was merely considered as one of a variety of programs in the Bureau’s overall budget needs. For the aforementioned reasons, we now finalize the removal of the regulations in Subpart D of 28 CFR part 524. cprice-sewell on PRODPC61 with RULES 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, 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 VerDate Aug<31>2005 14:58 Jul 10, 2008 Jkt 214001 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 through 524.33, is removed and reserved. [FR Doc. E8–15784 Filed 7–10–08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4410–05–P DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE Bureau of Prisons 28 CFR Part 545 [BOP Docket No. BOP 1132–F] RIN 1120–AB33 Inmate Work and Performance Pay Program: Reduction in Pay for Drugand Alcohol-Related Disciplinary Offenses Bureau of Prisons, Justice. Final rule. AGENCY: ACTION: 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. SUMMARY: In this document, the Bureau of Prisons (Bureau) amends regulations on inmate work and performance pay to require that inmates receiving performance pay who are found through the disciplinary process (found in 28 CFR part 541) to have committed a level 100 or 200 series drug-or alcohol-related prohibited act will automatically have their performance pay reduced to maintenance pay level and will be removed from any assigned work detail outside the secure perimeter of the institution. List of Subjects in 28 CFR Part 524 DATES: Prisoners. Harley G. Lappin, Director, Bureau of Prisons. Under rulemaking authority vested in the Attorney General in 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and delegated to the Director, Bureau of Prisons, we amend 28 CFR part 524 as set forth below. I SUBCHAPTER B—INMATE ADMISSION, CLASSIFICATION, AND TRANSFER PART 524—CLASSIFICATION OF INMATES 1. The authority citation for part 524 continues to read as follows: I Authority: 5 U.S.C. 301; 18 U.S.C. 3521– 3528, 3621, 3622, 3624, 4001, 4042, 4046, 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; 21 U.S.C. 848; 28 U.S.C. 509, 510. Subpart D—[Removed] 2. Subpart D—Intensive Confinement Center Program, consisting of §§ 524.30 I PO 00000 Frm 00008 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 This rule is effective August 11, 2008. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Sarah Qureshi, Office of General Counsel, Bureau of Prisons, phone (202) 307–2105. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: In this document, the Bureau amends regulations on inmate work and performance pay to require that inmates receiving performance pay who are found through the disciplinary process (found in 28 CFR part 541) to have committed a level 100 or 200 series drug-or alcohol-related prohibited act will automatically have their performance pay reduced to maintenance pay level and will be removed from any assigned work detail outside the secure perimeter of the institution. We published this as a proposed rule on November 2, 2006 (71 FR 64505). We received three comments, which we address below. The first commenter questioned whether ‘‘imposing a financial penalty on the prisoner saddled with recognized disabilities like drug addiction and alcoholism * * * will have the benefit of strengthening ongoing efforts to target E:\FR\FM\11JYR1.SGM 11JYR1

Agencies

[Federal Register Volume 73, Number 134 (Friday, July 11, 2008)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 39863-39864]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E8-15784]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE

Bureau of Prisons

28 CFR Part 524

[BOP-1141-F]
RIN 1120-AB39


Intensive Confinement Center Program

AGENCY: Federal Bureau of Prisons.

ACTION: Final rule.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: The Bureau of Prisons (Bureau) removes current rules on the 
intensive confinement center program (ICC). The ICC is a specialized 
program for non-violent offenders combining features of a military boot 
camp with traditional Bureau correctional values. The Bureau will no 
longer be offering the ICC program (also known as Shock Incarceration 
or Boot Camp) to inmates as a program option. This decision was made as 
part of an overall strategy to eliminate programs that do not reduce 
recidivism.

DATES: This rule is effective on August 11, 2008.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Sarah Qureshi, Office of General 
Counsel, Bureau of Prisons, phone (202) 307-2105.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Through this rulemaking, the Bureau seeks to 
be clear to inmates and the public regarding the termination of the ICC 
program. A proposed rule on this subject was published in the Federal 
Register on November 2, 2006 (71 FR 64504). We received three comments. 
The issues raised by the commenters are addressed below.
    One commenter, a former inmate, recounted his positive experience 
in an ICC program in a Bureau facility, and suggested that such 
positive experiences should be sufficient to continue the ICC program.
    Although this inmate is to be commended for taking full advantage 
of the opportunities offered through the ICC program, we note that it 
is unfortunate that his experience was not repeated often enough to 
justify the extra costs implicated in the ICC program. As we stated in 
the preamble to the proposed rule, despite anecdotal successes, 
research has found no significant difference in recidivism rates 
between inmates who complete boot camp programs and similar offenders 
who serve their sentences in traditional institutions.
    Moreover, the costs associated with maintaining the federal boot 
camp programs exceed the costs of operating ordinary minimum security 
camps, as a result of (1) the staff resources necessary to maintain the 
intensive core programming that make up the ``shock incarceration'' or 
``intensive confinement'' experience, and (2) the high costs of housing 
offenders for extended periods of time in Community Corrections 
Centers, where the per capita costs are higher than those of housing 
offenders in minimum security camps.
    While there are some cost savings due to the early release of 
offenders who successfully complete the program, these savings are 
minimal compared to the additional costs of operating the program, 
which create a net increased cost to the agency of more than $1 million 
per year.
    The remaining two commenters expressed the idea that ``Congress 
clearly intends for the BOP to run a shock incarceration program; BOP 
merely has the discretion to decide which inmates it places therein. No 
logical reading of section 4046 implies that the discretionary `may' in

[[Page 39864]]

subsection (a) refers to giving BOP discretion as to offering the shock 
incarceration program.''
    Several courts that have ruled on this issue since the 
discontinuance of the ICC program have found that 18 U.S.C. 4046 does 
not require the Bureau to operate a shock incarceration program--it 
merely authorizes the Bureau to grant certain benefits to those covered 
by the statute. Palomino v. Federal Bureau of Prisons, 408 F. Supp.2d 
282 (S.D. Tex. 2005); Roman v. LaManna, C/A 8:05-2806-MBS, 2006 WL 
2370319 (D.S.C. Aug. 15, 2006); Serrato v. Clark, C 05-03416 CRB, 2005 
WL 3481442 (N.D. Cal. Dec. 19, 2005); U.S. v. McLean, CR 03-30066-AA, 
2005 WL 2371990 (D. Ore. Sept. 27, 2005). Indeed, the Bureau has always 
had the authority to operate a program like the ICC, but prior to 
passage of 4046 could not have offered the sentence reduction 
incentive.
    The commenters also remarked that Congress appropriated funds for 
the operation of the ICC program. However, regarding appropriations, 
Congress has never specifically appropriated funds for the ICC program, 
i.e., there was and is no line item appropriation. The ICC was merely 
considered as one of a variety of programs in the Bureau's overall 
budget needs.
    For the aforementioned reasons, we now finalize the removal of the 
regulations in Subpart D of 28 CFR part 524.

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, 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 Sec.  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.

List of Subjects in 28 CFR Part 524

    Prisoners.

Harley G. Lappin,
Director, Bureau of Prisons.

0
Under rulemaking authority vested in the Attorney General in 5 U.S.C. 
552(a) and delegated to the Director, Bureau of Prisons, we amend 28 
CFR part 524 as set forth below.

SUBCHAPTER B--INMATE ADMISSION, CLASSIFICATION, AND TRANSFER

PART 524--CLASSIFICATION OF INMATES

0
1. The authority citation for part 524 continues to read as follows:

    Authority: 5 U.S.C. 301; 18 U.S.C. 3521-3528, 3621, 3622, 3624, 
4001, 4042, 4046, 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; 21 U.S.C. 
848; 28 U.S.C. 509, 510.

Subpart D--[Removed]

0
2. Subpart D--Intensive Confinement Center Program, consisting of 
Sec. Sec.  524.30 through 524.33, is removed and reserved.

 [FR Doc. E8-15784 Filed 7-10-08; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4410-05-P

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.