Use of Less-Than-Lethal Force: Delegation, 6054-6056 [2011-2364]
Download as PDF
6054
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 23 / Thursday, February 3, 2011 / Rules and Regulations
Code of Federal Regulations, Part 97 (14
CFR part 97) is amended by
establishing, amending, suspending, or
revoking Standard Instrument Approach
Procedures and/or Takeoff Minimums
and/or Obstacle Departure Procedures
effective at 0902 UTC on the dates
specified, as follows:
PART 97—STANDARD INSTRUMENT
APPROACH PROCEDURES
1. The authority citation for part 97
continues to read as follows:
■
Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40103, 40106,
40113, 40114, 40120, 44502, 44514, 44701,
44719, 44721–44722.
2. Part 97 is amended to read as
follows:
jdjones on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with RULES
■
Effective 10 MAR 2011
Hayward, CA, Hayward Executive, VOR OR
GPS–A, Amdt 6C, CANCELLED
Sacramento, CA, Sacramento Mather, RNAV
(GPS) RWY 22L, Amdt 1A
San Francisco, CA, San Francisco Intl, VOR
RWY 19L, Amdt 9
San Francisco, CA, San Francisco Intl, VOR–
B, Amdt 6
Washington, DC, Ronald Reagan Washington
National, Takeoff Minimums and Obstacle
DP, Amdt 6
Kalaupapa, HI, Kalaupapa, KALAUPAPA
ONE Graphic DP
Kalaupapa, HI, Kalaupapa, RNAV (GPS)-A,
Orig
Kalaupapa, HI, Kalaupapa, Takeoff
Minimums and Obstacle DP, Orig
Anderson, IN, Anderson Muni-Darlington
Field, Takeoff Minimums and Obstacle DP,
Amdt 1
Winchester, IN, Randolph County, Takeoff
Minimums and Obstacle DP, Orig
Shreveport, LA, Shreveport Rgnl, RADAR–1,
Amdt 4
Tallulah-Vicksburg, MS, LA, Vicksburg
Tallulah Rgnl, LOC RWY 36, Amdt 3
Bedford, MA, Laurence G. Hanscom Field,
Takeoff Minimums and Obstacle DP, Amdt
5
Beverly, MA, Beverly Muni, Takeoff
Minimums and Obstacle DP, Amdt 3
Lawrence, MA, Lawrence Muni, Takeoff
Minimums and Obstacle DP, Amdt 4
Norwood, MA, Norwood Memorial, Takeoff
Minimums and Obstacle DP, Amdt 6
Frankfort, MI, Frankfort Dow Memorial Field,
Takeoff Minimums and Obstacle DP, Amdt
3
South Haven, MI, South Haven Area Rgnl,
Takeoff Minimums and Obstacle DP, Amdt
3
Caledonia, MN, Houston County, GPS RWY
31, Orig, CANCELLED
Branson, MO, M. Graham Clark-Taney
County, RNAV (GPS) RWY 12, Orig
Branson, MO, M. Graham Clark-Taney
County, RNAV (GPS) RWY 30, Orig
Branson, MO, M. Graham Clark-Taney
County, Takeoff Minimums and Obstacle
DP, Amdt 2
Point Lookout, MO, M. Graham Clark, GPS
RWY 11, Orig-C, CANCELLED
VerDate Mar<15>2010
13:38 Feb 02, 2011
Jkt 223001
Point Lookout, MO, M. Graham Clark, VOR/
DME RNAV OR GPS RWY 29, Amdt 2B,
CANCELLED
Potosi, MO, Washington County, Takeoff
Minimums and Obstacle DP, Amdt 1
Hattiesburg, MS, Hattiesburg Bobby L Chain
Muni, RNAV (GPS) Y RWY 13, Amdt 2
Hattiesburg, MS, Hattiesburg Bobby L Chain
Muni, RNAV (GPS) Z RWY 13, Amdt 1
Wadesboro, NC, Anson County-Jeff Cloud
Field, ILS OR LOC RWY 34, Orig
Wadesboro, NC, Anson County-Jeff Cloud
Field, RNAV (GPS) RWY 16, Amdt 1
Wadesboro, NC, Anson County-Jeff Cloud
Field, RNAV (GPS) RWY 34, Amdt 2
Wadesboro, NC, Anson County-Jeff Cloud
Field, Takeoff Minimums and Obstacle DP,
Amdt 2
Berlin, NH, Berlin Rgnl, Takeoff Minimums
and Obstacle DP, Amdt 1
Berlin, NH, Berlin Rgnl, VOR/DME RWY 18,
Amdt 2
Blairstown, NJ, Blairstown, RNAV (GPS)
RWY 25, Amdt 1
Blairstown, NJ, Blairstown, Takeoff
Minimums and Obstacle DP, Amdt 2
Ticonderoga, NY, Ticonderoga Muni, RNAV
(GPS) RWY 2, Amdt 1
Ticonderoga, NY, Ticonderoga Muni, RNAV
(GPS) RWY 20, Amdt 1
Columbus, OH, Ohio State University, GPS
RWY 27L, Amdt 1A, CANCELLED
Columbus, OH, Ohio State University, NDB
RWY 9R, Amdt 3
Columbus, OH, Ohio State University, RNAV
(GPS) RWY 9R, Amdt 1
Columbus, OH, Ohio State University, RNAV
(GPS) RWY 27L, Orig
Columbus, OH, Ohio State University,
Takeoff Minimums and Obstacle DP, Orig
Ardmore, OK, Ardmore Downtown
Executive, Takeoff Minimums and
Obstacle DP, Amdt 3
Mangum, OK, Scott Field, Takeoff Minimums
and Obstacle DP, Orig
Sallisaw, OK, Sallisaw Muni, Takeoff
Minimums and Obstacle DP, Amdt 2
East Stroudsburg, PA, Stroudsburg-Pocono,
Takeoff Minimums and Obstacle DP, Amdt
1
Aiken, SC, Aiken Muni, LOC RWY 7, Orig
Childress, TX, Childress Muni, Takeoff
Minimums and Obstacle DP, Amdt 1
Denton, TX, Denton Muni, Takeoff
Minimums and Obstacle DP, Amdt 2
Gruver, TX, Cluck Ranch, VOR/DME OR
GPS–A, Amdt 1, CANCELLED
Lubbock, TX, Lubbock Preston Smith Intl,
ILS OR LOC RWY 17R, Amdt 17A
Bryce Canyon, UT, Bryce Canyon, BRYCE
Two Graphic DP
Bryce Canyon, UT, Bryce Canyon, Takeoff
Minimums and Obstacle DP, Amdt 1
Salt Lake City, UT, South Valley Rgnl,
Takeoff Minimums and Obstacle DP, Amdt
5
Leesburg, VA, Leesburg Executive, ILS OR
LOC RWY 17, Orig
Leesburg, VA, Leesburg Executive, LOC RWY
17, Amdt 3, CANCELLED
Richmond, VA, Richmond Intl, ILS OR LOC
RWY 2, Amdt 2
Richmond, VA, Richmond Intl, ILS OR LOC
RWY 16, Amdt 9
Richmond, VA, Richmond Intl, ILS OR LOC
RWY 34, ILS RWY 34 (SA CAT I), ILS
PO 00000
Frm 00006
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
RWY 34 (CAT II), ILS RWY 34 (CAT III),
Amdt 14
Richmond, VA, Richmond Intl, RNAV (GPS)
RWY 2, Amdt 1
Richmond, VA, Richmond Intl, RNAV (GPS)
RWY 7, Amdt 1
Richmond, VA, Richmond Intl, RNAV (GPS)
RWY 16, Amdt 1
Richmond, VA, Richmond Intl, RNAV (GPS)
RWY 20, Amdt 1
Richmond, VA, Richmond Intl, RNAV (GPS)
RWY 25, Amdt 1
Richmond, VA, Richmond Intl, RNAV (GPS)
RWY 34, Amdt 1
Richmond, VA, Richmond Intl, VOR RWY 2,
Amdt 6
On January 10, 2011 (76 FR 06) the FAA
published an Amendment in Docket No.
30761; Amdt. No. 3406 to Part 97 of the
Federal Aviation Regulations under section
97.33. The following entries, effective 10
February 2011 * * *
Perkin, IL, Perkin Muni, RNAV (GPS) RWY
9, Orig-A
Perkin, IL, Perkin Muni, RNAV (GPS) RWY
27, Orig-A
Perkin, IL, Perkin Muni, VOR–A, Amdt 7A
* * * have incorrect city and airport
names. Each item should begin * * *
Pekin, IL, Pekin Muni.
The remaining information remains
unchanged.
[FR Doc. 2011–2051 Filed 2–2–11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910–13–P
DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
Bureau of Prisons
28 CFR Part 552
[BOP–1146–F]
RIN 1120–AB46
Use of Less-Than-Lethal Force:
Delegation
Bureau of Prisons, Justice.
Final rule.
AGENCY:
ACTION:
In this document, the Bureau
of Prisons (Bureau) finalizes its
proposed regulation on the use of
chemical agents and other non-lethal
(less-than-lethal) force to clarify that the
authority of the Warden to authorize the
use of chemical agents or other lessthan-lethal weapons may not be
delegated below the position of
Lieutenant.
DATES: This rule is effective on March 7,
2011.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Sarah Qureshi, Office of General
Counsel, Bureau of Prisons, phone (202)
307–2105.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: In this
document, the Bureau finalizes a
regulation proposed on June 25, 2008
(73 FR 39584), regarding the use of
SUMMARY:
E:\FR\FM\03FER1.SGM
03FER1
jdjones on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 23 / Thursday, February 3, 2011 / Rules and Regulations
chemical agents and other less-thanlethal force. In this regulation, we
clarify that the authority of the Warden
to authorize the use of less-than-lethal
weapons, including those containing
chemical agents, may not be delegated
below the position of Lieutenant. We
replace the term ‘‘non-lethal’’ with the
term ‘‘less-than-lethal’’ for reasons
described below.
We received four comments on the
proposed rule. One comment was in
support of the proposed rule. We
address issues raised by the comments
below.
One commenter stated the following:
‘‘We believe such authority, absent an
emergency, should be delegated no
further than Acting Warden or on-site
CEO. * * * Such low-level staff
[Lieutenants] have an egregious and
established history of abusing
incarcerated persons.’’ A second
commenter was similarly concerned
with the level of delegation.
First, the Bureau does not consider
Lieutenants to be ‘‘low-level staff.’’
Rather, they are part of the Bureau’s
management staff, with the requisite
training and experience to manage
emergency situations, including specific
training on situations which necessitate
the use of chemical agents or other lessthan-lethal weapons. The revision
effectuated by this final rule is
necessary to expedite decision-making
by the Lieutenant, who is often the
senior-most qualified staff physically
present at the scene of the emergency,
thereby ensuring the safety, security,
and good order of the institution, and
protection of the public.
Second, we note that all the
commenters discussed the regulation in
terms of delegation to one lieutenant
(singular). We must correct the apparent
assumption underlying these comments,
which may have been caused by the
language of the proposed regulation
stating that the Warden could delegate
authority to use less-than-lethal force ‘‘to
the senior facility supervisor on duty
and physically present, but not below
the position of Lieutenant.’’ We
therefore alter the language to clarify
that such authority will be delegated to
address multiple emergency situations
as needed. The language will read as
follows: ‘‘The Warden may delegate the
authority under this regulation to one or
more supervisors on duty and
physically present, but not below the
position of Lieutenant.’’
Limiting the Warden’s delegated
authority to one Lieutenant at a time
would prevent Bureau staff from quickly
and effectively responding to multiple
simultaneous emergency situations that
VerDate Mar<15>2010
13:38 Feb 02, 2011
Jkt 223001
may arise at different places within the
same Bureau facility.
Allowing the authority to prescribe
the use of less-than-lethal force to be
delegated to one person alone is
inappropriate, as it is impossible for that
one person to be ‘‘physically present’’ at
more than one emergency situation at a
time within the Bureau facility.
Third, with regard to the commenter’s
allegations of abuse of authority, it is
important to note that Bureau staff,
including Lieutenants, are held to the
highest standards of professionalism.
Although there is always the potential
for abuse of any rule or staff
requirement, the Bureau conducts
program reviews and quality control
inspections frequently to ensure staff
compliance with rules and policy.
Employees are subject to administrative
sanctions, personal liability, and even
criminal and civil penalties for
misconduct. If an inmate perceives staff
abuse of the rules, that inmate can take
advantage of our administrative remedy
procedures (28 CFR part 542).
A commenter who supported the
proposed rule suggested that it be
‘‘amended to include the requirement
and detailed description of how the
Lieutenants will receive training on the
use of chemical agents, and the affects
[sic]of the different kinds of chemical
agent[s] to those exposed.’’ The Bureau’s
corresponding use of force policy
provides detailed guidance to staff and
requires training of facility staff in the
use of chemical agents. The Bureau’s
program statements, rather than the
regulations themselves, are the
appropriate vehicle through which staff
receive direction regarding the
implementation of the regulations.
A commenter also stated that, ‘‘as
DOJ’s own statistics show, * * * more
incarcerated people are killed by use of
these so-called ‘‘non-lethal’’ weapons
than those designated as lethal.’’ The
commenter did not cite the ‘‘DOJ
statistics’’ to which the comment refers.
The Bureau’s experience with less-thanlethal weapons has not shown that
appropriate use of less-than-lethal
alternatives has had lethal effect.
As an example, the most commonly
used less-than-lethal alternatives used
by the Bureau involve chemical agents.
Oleoresin Capsicum (OC) is one of the
types of chemical agents that the Bureau
employs. OC is a naturally occurring
substance found in the oily resin of
cayenne and other varieties of peppers.
In March 1994, the National Institute of
Justice (NIJ) Technology Assessment
Program issued a paper describing OC
and its uses as a less-than-lethal
weapon. National Institute of Justice
Technology Assessment Program,
PO 00000
Frm 00007
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
6055
Oleoresin Capsicum: Pepper Spray as a
Force Alternative (March 1994).
The NIJ paper listed the following as
the benefits of OC that were found by
State Departments of Correction at the
time:
• OC sprays seem to leave few if any
residual effects, allowing suspects to be
transported without affecting
transporting officers. Decontamination
protocol normally requires only fresh air
and soap and water.
• Chemists assigned to the FBI’s
Forensic Science Research and Training
Center did not see any long-term health
risks associated with the use of OC.
• Thirty-nine police agencies and
three correctional institutions using OC
aerosols did not report any medical
problems encountered by subjects being
subdued and arrested, and no medical
problems were encountered by the
officers administering the OC.
• Departments that have adopted OC
sprays claim to have fewer allegations of
police use of excessive force or police
brutality charges, resulting in fewer
lawsuits.
• Departments have reported a
reduction in officer and arrestee injuries
as a result of the introduction of OC
sprays.
However, the NIJ paper also states that
if the subject has preexisting health
issues, such as a respiratory problem, it
is possible that OC sprays may cause
upper respiratory inflammation or have
other detrimental effects. In fact,
virtually any weapon, or even item,
considered to be ‘‘non-lethal’’ may be
used to lethal effect if used
inappropriately and contrary to Bureau
policy. Therefore, for accuracy in
terminology, we replace the term ‘‘nonlethal’’ with the more accurate term
‘‘less-than-lethal.’’ We also make a
conforming change in § 552.27, to
replace the term ‘‘non-lethal’’ in that
regulation with the term ‘‘less-thanlethal.’’
The term ‘‘less-than-lethal’’ is
synonymous with ‘‘less lethal’’, ‘‘nonlethal’’, ‘‘non-deadly’’, and other such
terms. We chose the term ‘‘less-thanlethal’’ because it most accurately
describes the types of devices
contemplated by this regulation. These
devices include impact devices (such as
batons, bean bag projectiles, etc.),
chemical agents, and conducted energy
devices (such as electronic
immobilization, control, and restraint
devices). ‘‘Less-than-lethal’’ devices are
those used with a reasonable
expectation that death or serious bodily
injury will not result. As technology in
this area evolves, the Bureau may use
different types of less-than-lethal
weapons.
E:\FR\FM\03FER1.SGM
03FER1
jdjones on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with RULES
6056
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 23 / Thursday, February 3, 2011 / Rules and Regulations
We therefore finalize the proposed
rule with minor changes as described
above.
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. This regulation has been
determined to be a ‘‘significant
regulatory action’’ under Executive
Order 12866, section 3(f), and
accordingly this rule has 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. Therefore, under
Executive Order 13132, we determine
that this regulation does not have
sufficient federalism implications to
warrant the preparation of 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 and by
approving it certifies that it will not
have a significant economic impact
upon a substantial number of small
entities for the following reasons: This
regulation 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 regulation 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
regulation is not a major rule as defined
by § 804 of the Small Business
Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of
1996. This regulation 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.
VerDate Mar<15>2010
13:38 Feb 02, 2011
Jkt 223001
List of Subjects in 28 CFR Part 552
Prisoners.
40 CFR Part 81
Harley G. Lappin,
Director, Bureau of Prisons.
[EPA–HQ–OAR–2007–0562; EPA–HQ–OAR–
2010–0163; FRL–9261–3]
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 amend 28 CFR part 552 as
follows.
SUBCHAPTER C—INSTITUTIONAL
MANAGEMENT
PART 552—CUSTODY
1. The authority citation for 28 CFR
part 552 continues to read as follows:
■
Authority: 5 U.S.C. 301; 18 U.S.C. 3050,
3621, 3622, 3624, 4001, 4042, 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; 28 U.S.C.
509, 510; 28 CFR 0.95–0.99.
■
2. Revise § 552.25 to read as follows:
§ 552.25 Use of less-than-lethal weapons,
including chemical agents.
(a) The Warden may authorize the use
of less-than-lethal weapons, including
those containing chemical agents, only
when the situation is such that the
inmate:
(1) Is armed and/or barricaded; or
(2) Cannot be approached without
danger to self or others; and
(3) It is determined that a delay in
bringing the situation under control
would constitute a serious hazard to the
inmate or others, or would result in a
major disturbance or serious property
damage.
(b) The Warden may delegate the
authority under this regulation to one or
more supervisors on duty and
physically present, but not below the
position of Lieutenant.
3. In § 552.27, remove the term ‘‘nonlethal’’ and add the term ‘‘less-thanlethal’’ in its place.
■
[FR Doc. 2011–2364 Filed 2–2–11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4410–05–P
PO 00000
Frm 00008
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
AGENCY
RIN 2060–AQ30
Additional Air Quality Designations for
the 2006 24-Hour Fine Particle National
Ambient Air Quality Standards,
110(k)(6) Correction and Technical
Correction Related to Prior
Designation, and Decisions Related to
the 1997 Air Quality Designations and
Classifications for the Annual Fine
Particles National Ambient Air Quality
Standards
Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Supplemental amendments;
Final rule.
AGENCY:
On November 13, 2009, EPA
promulgated air quality designations
nationwide for all but three areas for the
2006 24-hour fine particle (PM2.5)
National Ambient Air Quality Standards
(NAAQS). This rule takes several
additional actions related to the 2006
24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS designations. It
establishes the initial PM2.5 air quality
designations for three areas (Pinal
County, Arizona; Plumas County,
California; and Shasta County,
California) and their respective
surrounding counties that EPA deferred
in the November 13, 2009 promulgated
designations. Plumas and Shasta
counties and their surrounding counties
are being designated ‘‘unclassifiable/
attainment,’’ while a portion of Pinal
County is being designated as
‘‘nonattainment.’’ This action also
includes a 110(k)(6) error correction
(affecting Ravalli, Montana) and a
technical correction (affecting
Knoxville, Tennessee) related to the
2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS
designations. Finally, in this action,
EPA announces its decision to retain the
current designation of unclassifiable/
attainment for Harris County, Texas and
Pinal County, Arizona for the 1997
annual PM2.5 NAAQS.
DATES: Effective Date: The effective date
of this rule is March 7, 2011.
ADDRESSES: The EPA has established
two dockets for the actions contained in
this final rule. Docket ID No. EPA–HQ–
OAR–2007–0562 contains documents
related to the initial designations for the
three areas (Pinal County, Arizona;
Plumas County, California; and Shasta
County, California and their respective
surrounding counties) for the 2006
24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS. Docket ID No.
SUMMARY:
E:\FR\FM\03FER1.SGM
03FER1
Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 23 (Thursday, February 3, 2011)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 6054-6056]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2011-2364]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
Bureau of Prisons
28 CFR Part 552
[BOP-1146-F]
RIN 1120-AB46
Use of Less-Than-Lethal Force: Delegation
AGENCY: Bureau of Prisons, Justice.
ACTION: Final rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: In this document, the Bureau of Prisons (Bureau) finalizes its
proposed regulation on the use of chemical agents and other non-lethal
(less-than-lethal) force to clarify that the authority of the Warden to
authorize the use of chemical agents or other less-than-lethal weapons
may not be delegated below the position of Lieutenant.
DATES: This rule is effective on March 7, 2011.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Sarah Qureshi, Office of General
Counsel, Bureau of Prisons, phone (202) 307-2105.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: In this document, the Bureau finalizes a
regulation proposed on June 25, 2008 (73 FR 39584), regarding the use
of
[[Page 6055]]
chemical agents and other less-than-lethal force. In this regulation,
we clarify that the authority of the Warden to authorize the use of
less-than-lethal weapons, including those containing chemical agents,
may not be delegated below the position of Lieutenant. We replace the
term ``non-lethal'' with the term ``less-than-lethal'' for reasons
described below.
We received four comments on the proposed rule. One comment was in
support of the proposed rule. We address issues raised by the comments
below.
One commenter stated the following: ``We believe such authority,
absent an emergency, should be delegated no further than Acting Warden
or on-site CEO. * * * Such low-level staff [Lieutenants] have an
egregious and established history of abusing incarcerated persons.'' A
second commenter was similarly concerned with the level of delegation.
First, the Bureau does not consider Lieutenants to be ``low-level
staff.'' Rather, they are part of the Bureau's management staff, with
the requisite training and experience to manage emergency situations,
including specific training on situations which necessitate the use of
chemical agents or other less-than-lethal weapons. The revision
effectuated by this final rule is necessary to expedite decision-making
by the Lieutenant, who is often the senior-most qualified staff
physically present at the scene of the emergency, thereby ensuring the
safety, security, and good order of the institution, and protection of
the public.
Second, we note that all the commenters discussed the regulation in
terms of delegation to one lieutenant (singular). We must correct the
apparent assumption underlying these comments, which may have been
caused by the language of the proposed regulation stating that the
Warden could delegate authority to use less-than-lethal force ``to the
senior facility supervisor on duty and physically present, but not
below the position of Lieutenant.'' We therefore alter the language to
clarify that such authority will be delegated to address multiple
emergency situations as needed. The language will read as follows:
``The Warden may delegate the authority under this regulation to one or
more supervisors on duty and physically present, but not below the
position of Lieutenant.''
Limiting the Warden's delegated authority to one Lieutenant at a
time would prevent Bureau staff from quickly and effectively responding
to multiple simultaneous emergency situations that may arise at
different places within the same Bureau facility.
Allowing the authority to prescribe the use of less-than-lethal
force to be delegated to one person alone is inappropriate, as it is
impossible for that one person to be ``physically present'' at more
than one emergency situation at a time within the Bureau facility.
Third, with regard to the commenter's allegations of abuse of
authority, it is important to note that Bureau staff, including
Lieutenants, are held to the highest standards of professionalism.
Although there is always the potential for abuse of any rule or staff
requirement, the Bureau conducts program reviews and quality control
inspections frequently to ensure staff compliance with rules and
policy. Employees are subject to administrative sanctions, personal
liability, and even criminal and civil penalties for misconduct. If an
inmate perceives staff abuse of the rules, that inmate can take
advantage of our administrative remedy procedures (28 CFR part 542).
A commenter who supported the proposed rule suggested that it be
``amended to include the requirement and detailed description of how
the Lieutenants will receive training on the use of chemical agents,
and the affects [sic]of the different kinds of chemical agent[s] to
those exposed.'' The Bureau's corresponding use of force policy
provides detailed guidance to staff and requires training of facility
staff in the use of chemical agents. The Bureau's program statements,
rather than the regulations themselves, are the appropriate vehicle
through which staff receive direction regarding the implementation of
the regulations.
A commenter also stated that, ``as DOJ's own statistics show, * * *
more incarcerated people are killed by use of these so-called ``non-
lethal'' weapons than those designated as lethal.'' The commenter did
not cite the ``DOJ statistics'' to which the comment refers. The
Bureau's experience with less-than-lethal weapons has not shown that
appropriate use of less-than-lethal alternatives has had lethal effect.
As an example, the most commonly used less-than-lethal alternatives
used by the Bureau involve chemical agents. Oleoresin Capsicum (OC) is
one of the types of chemical agents that the Bureau employs. OC is a
naturally occurring substance found in the oily resin of cayenne and
other varieties of peppers. In March 1994, the National Institute of
Justice (NIJ) Technology Assessment Program issued a paper describing
OC and its uses as a less-than-lethal weapon. National Institute of
Justice Technology Assessment Program, Oleoresin Capsicum: Pepper Spray
as a Force Alternative (March 1994).
The NIJ paper listed the following as the benefits of OC that were
found by State Departments of Correction at the time:
OC sprays seem to leave few if any residual effects,
allowing suspects to be transported without affecting transporting
officers. Decontamination protocol normally requires only fresh air and
soap and water.
Chemists assigned to the FBI's Forensic Science Research
and Training Center did not see any long-term health risks associated
with the use of OC.
Thirty-nine police agencies and three correctional
institutions using OC aerosols did not report any medical problems
encountered by subjects being subdued and arrested, and no medical
problems were encountered by the officers administering the OC.
Departments that have adopted OC sprays claim to have
fewer allegations of police use of excessive force or police brutality
charges, resulting in fewer lawsuits.
Departments have reported a reduction in officer and
arrestee injuries as a result of the introduction of OC sprays.
However, the NIJ paper also states that if the subject has preexisting
health issues, such as a respiratory problem, it is possible that OC
sprays may cause upper respiratory inflammation or have other
detrimental effects. In fact, virtually any weapon, or even item,
considered to be ``non-lethal'' may be used to lethal effect if used
inappropriately and contrary to Bureau policy. Therefore, for accuracy
in terminology, we replace the term ``non-lethal'' with the more
accurate term ``less-than-lethal.'' We also make a conforming change in
Sec. 552.27, to replace the term ``non-lethal'' in that regulation
with the term ``less-than-lethal.''
The term ``less-than-lethal'' is synonymous with ``less lethal'',
``non-lethal'', ``non-deadly'', and other such terms. We chose the term
``less-than-lethal'' because it most accurately describes the types of
devices contemplated by this regulation. These devices include impact
devices (such as batons, bean bag projectiles, etc.), chemical agents,
and conducted energy devices (such as electronic immobilization,
control, and restraint devices). ``Less-than-lethal'' devices are those
used with a reasonable expectation that death or serious bodily injury
will not result. As technology in this area evolves, the Bureau may use
different types of less-than-lethal weapons.
[[Page 6056]]
We therefore finalize the proposed rule with minor changes as
described above.
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. This
regulation has been determined to be a ``significant regulatory
action'' under Executive Order 12866, section 3(f), and accordingly
this rule has 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. Therefore,
under Executive Order 13132, we determine that this regulation does not
have sufficient federalism implications to warrant the preparation of 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 and by approving it certifies that it will not have a
significant economic impact upon a substantial number of small entities
for the following reasons: This regulation 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 regulation 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
regulation is not a major rule as defined by Sec. 804 of the Small
Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996. This regulation
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 552
Prisoners.
Harley G. Lappin,
Director, Bureau of Prisons.
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 amend 28 CFR part 552 as follows.
SUBCHAPTER C--INSTITUTIONAL MANAGEMENT
PART 552--CUSTODY
0
1. The authority citation for 28 CFR part 552 continues to read as
follows:
Authority: 5 U.S.C. 301; 18 U.S.C. 3050, 3621, 3622, 3624, 4001,
4042, 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; 28 U.S.C. 509, 510; 28
CFR 0.95-0.99.
0
2. Revise Sec. 552.25 to read as follows:
Sec. 552.25 Use of less-than-lethal weapons, including chemical
agents.
(a) The Warden may authorize the use of less-than-lethal weapons,
including those containing chemical agents, only when the situation is
such that the inmate:
(1) Is armed and/or barricaded; or
(2) Cannot be approached without danger to self or others; and
(3) It is determined that a delay in bringing the situation under
control would constitute a serious hazard to the inmate or others, or
would result in a major disturbance or serious property damage.
(b) The Warden may delegate the authority under this regulation to
one or more supervisors on duty and physically present, but not below
the position of Lieutenant.
0
3. In Sec. 552.27, remove the term ``non-lethal'' and add the term
``less-than-lethal'' in its place.
[FR Doc. 2011-2364 Filed 2-2-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4410-05-P