Smoking/No Smoking Areas, 72545-72548 [2014-28620]
Download as PDF
72545
Rules and Regulations
Federal Register
Vol. 79, No. 235
Monday, December 8, 2014
This section of the FEDERAL REGISTER
contains regulatory documents having general
applicability and legal effect, most of which
are keyed to and codified in the Code of
Federal Regulations, which is published under
50 titles pursuant to 44 U.S.C. 1510.
The Code of Federal Regulations is sold by
the Superintendent of Documents. Prices of
new books are listed in the first FEDERAL
REGISTER issue of each week.
DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
Bureau of Prisons
28 CFR Part 551
[BOP Docket No. 1140–F]
RIN 1120–AB42
Smoking/No Smoking Areas
Bureau of Prisons, Justice.
Final rule.
AGENCY:
ACTION:
In this document, the Bureau
of Prisons (Bureau) finalizes without
change a proposed rule that was
published on this subject on May 12,
2006, to revise regulations pertaining to
smoking/no smoking in Bureau
facilities. The revised regulations
generally prohibit smoking in and on
the grounds of Bureau institutions and
offices, except as part of an authorized
inmate religious activity; and, for
Bureau staff and official visitors, only in
smoking areas designated by the
Warden. Possession of smoking
apparatus and tobacco in any form is
prohibited for inmates under this rule,
unless as part of an authorized inmate
religious activity. We intend this
amendment to promote a clean air
environment and to protect the health
and safety of staff and inmates.
DATES: This rule is effective January 7,
2015.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Sarah Qureshi, Office of General
Counsel, Bureau of Prisons, phone (202)
307–2105.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: In this
document, the Bureau revises
regulations pertaining to smoking/no
smoking for inmates in Bureau facilities.
The revised regulations indicate that
smoking is generally prohibited in and
on the grounds of Bureau institutions
and offices, with the following two
exceptions: Smoking is permitted as
part of an authorized inmate religious
tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES
SUMMARY:
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:55 Dec 05, 2014
Jkt 235001
activity; and, for Bureau staff and
official visitors, smoking is permitted
only in smoking areas designated by the
Warden.
This rule also clarifies that possession
of smoking apparatus and tobacco in
any form is prohibited for inmates,
unless as part of an authorized inmate
religious activity. Smoking is defined as
inhaling the smoke of any substance
through the use of smoking apparatus
including, but not limited to, cigars,
cigarettes, or pipes. We intend this
amendment to promote a clean air
environment and to protect the health
and safety of staff and inmates.
A proposed rule was published on
this subject on May 12, 2006 (71 FR
27652). The Bureau received a total of
66 comments. Approximately 57 of the
comments were copies of the same six
form letters. The remaining nine
comments addressed issues raised in the
six form letters. Because all the
comments related to the same set of
issues, we address each issue raised by
the commenters below.
Comment: The rule is contrary to 5
U.S.C. 7301, E.O. 13058 (banning
smoking of tobacco products in all
federal buildings except—see sec. 2(b)),
which says the order does not extend to
residential accommodation for persons
involuntarily residing in a federal
government building.
Bureau’s response: 5 U.S.C. 7301
states only that ‘‘[t]he President may
prescribe regulations for the conduct of
employees in the executive branch.’’
Executive Order 13058, Protecting
Federal Employees and the Public From
Exposure to Tobacco Smoke in the
Federal Workplace, issued on August 9,
1997, states that the smoking of tobacco
products is thus prohibited in all
interior space owned, rented, or leased
by the executive branch of the Federal
Government, and in any outdoor areas
under executive branch control in front
of air intake ducts. The Executive Order
carves out an exception to its smoking
prohibition for any residential
accommodation for persons voluntarily
or involuntarily residing, on a
temporary or long-term basis, in a
building owned, leased, or rented by the
Federal Government.
Although the Executive Order
prohibiting smoking in federal buildings
does not extend to buildings such as
Bureau facilities, it does not
affirmatively preclude the Bureau from
PO 00000
Frm 00001
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
exercising its authority to regulate in
this manner. The Bureau therefore has
determined that this regulation is
necessary to conform with the intention
of the Executive Order to protect
Federal Government employees and
members of the public from exposure to
tobacco smoke in the Federal
workplace.
The dangers of secondhand smoke
exposure are well-documented. An
August 2005 report from the American
Lung Association states that
secondhand smoke lingers in the air
hours after cigarettes have been
extinguished and can cause or
exacerbate a wide range of adverse
health effects, including cancer,
respiratory infections, and asthma.
Secondhand smoke has been classified
by the Environmental Protection Agency
(EPA) as a known cause of cancer in
humans (Group A carcinogen).
Secondhand smoke exposure causes
approximately 3,400 lung cancer deaths
and 22,700–69,600 heart disease deaths
in adult nonsmokers in the United
States each year. Nonsmokers exposed
to environmental smoke were 25
percent more likely to have coronary
heart diseases compared to nonsmokers
not exposed to smoke.
Further, a June 2006 report from the
Surgeon General concluded that
scientific evidence indicates that there
is no risk-free level of exposure to
second hand smoke. Even short
exposures to second hand smoke can
cause blood platelets to become stickier,
damage the lining of blood vessels,
decrease coronary flow velocity
reserves, and reduce heart rate
variability, potentially increasing the
risk of heart attack.
Comment: The Bureau increased
prices on other commissary items when
it removed tobacco products from the
commissary.
Bureau’s response: There has been no
policy change related to pricing of
institution commissary items for several
years. Prices of items in the commissary
fluctuate on a regular basis due to
changes in the cost to the Bureau of the
products themselves. Any increase in
pricing that may have been observed
when the Bureau removed tobacco
products from the commissaries would
be due to such regular fluctuations.
There was no change in the Bureau’s
pricing policy related to the removal of
tobacco from the commissaries.
E:\FR\FM\08DER1.SGM
08DER1
tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES
72546
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 235 / Monday, December 8, 2014 / Rules and Regulations
Comment: Banning tobacco products
will decrease the safety of staff. The
price of contraband tobacco will
increase, inciting inmate security issues.
Bureau’s response: Previous
regulations on inmate smoking allowed
Wardens to prohibit smoking at their
institutions with the concurrence of the
Regional Director where the institution
is located. At those institutions where
the Warden has prohibited smoking,
there has been no increase in assaults on
staff.
However, Bureau regulations on
inmate discipline were amended,
through a separate rulemaking
document, to increase the severity of
sanctions that may be imposed for
violation of the prohibited act codes (75
FR 76263, Dec. 8, 2010). The code
prohibiting possession of non-hazardous
contraband now includes smoking
apparatus and tobacco in any form
where prohibited. The specifically
worded code, combined with more
severe sanctions for violations, will
deter possession of tobacco products in
Bureau facilities.
Further, the Bureau implemented
measures to increase searches of
employees, to further ensure that
Bureau staff are not a source of
contraband on Bureau grounds. In a rule
published on June 6, 2007 (72 FR
31178), the Bureau revised its
regulations on searching non-inmates
(including staff) to include random
searches and searches using electronic
devices other than metal detectors. This
enhanced the Bureau’s ability to detect
and prevent contraband, thereby
increasing the safety of staff and inmates
in Bureau facilities.
Comment: The prohibition on
smoking and possession of tobacco and
smoking-related apparatus should also
apply to staff.
Bureau’s response: As a practical
matter, smoking is a lawful activity for
Bureau employees. In the interests of
balancing staff morale with institution
safety and security, the Director has
decided to allow for the possibility of
limited opportunities for staff smoking.
Under current policy, Wardendesignated staff smoking areas must be
outdoors, to minimize the impact of
second-hand smoke inhalation. Also,
current Bureau policy requires that
Bureau facilities maintain staff smoking
cessation programs, which are intended
to further minimize the likelihood that
tobacco or smoking apparatus will be
introduced upon institution grounds.
However, to ensure that persons
visiting inmates are prohibited from
smoking in and on the grounds of
Bureau institutions and offices, we are
altering the rule to state that smoking is
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:55 Dec 05, 2014
Jkt 235001
permitted, in smoking areas designated
by the Warden, only for Bureau staff and
official visitors.
The Bureau intends for § 551.162 (b)
of the rule to allow smoking for noninmates only in areas designated by the
Warden. Currently, Warden-designated
staff smoking areas are carefully
determined based on the unique
circumstances at each Bureau facility.
Comment: The Bureau violated the
Administrative Procedure Act by
discontinuing the sale of tobacco
products.
Bureau’s response: By discontinuing
the sale of tobacco products, the Bureau
did not violate any requirement set by
the Administrative Procedure Act (5
U.S.C. 551, et al.). The removal of
tobacco products from institution
commissaries was not a prohibition of
inmate possession of tobacco, which
Wardens were permitted to authorize
under the previous regulations. The
listing of products available for sale in
institution commissaries is not
appropriate subject matter for federal
regulations because particular brands,
items, and cost will vary frequently
depending on market fluctuations and
what particular products are available or
needed in different locales or in
institutions with different security
levels and needs.
Comment: The rule prohibiting
possession of tobacco in any form is too
broad in that it applies to snuff and/or
chewing tobacco, which produce no
smoke and do not implicate air
quality—the rule should only apply to
‘‘lighted’’ tobacco products.
Bureau’s response: Snuff and chewing
tobacco are also harmful to health in the
same way that ‘‘lighted’’ tobacco
products are. A February 13, 2006,
report by the American Cancer Society
(https://www.cancer.org/docroot/PED/
content/PED_10_13X_Quitting_
Smokeless_Tobacco.asp?#why_quit)
states that smokeless tobacco can cause
serious health problems, including
nicotine addiction, cancer of the mouth
and pharynx, leukoplakia, gum
recession, bone loss around the teeth,
and abrasion and staining of teeth. The
Bureau is therefore committed to
reducing these health risks in inmates
by prohibiting use and possession of
tobacco in any form.
Further, inmates may attempt to
smoke snuff and chewing tobacco if
such products are permitted in Bureau
facilities and smoking tobacco is not
permitted. To prevent this disparity, the
Bureau now prohibits all forms of
tobacco for inmates in Bureau facilities.
Comment: The regulation leads to
forced medical treatment that is not
properly implemented by qualified
PO 00000
Frm 00002
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
medical staff, in violation of the
Constitution.
Bureau’s response: The inmate
Smoking Cessation Program is not
‘‘forced’’ treatment. Participation in the
program is voluntary—inmates decide
of their own volition whether to
participate in the program. Under
current Bureau policy, Wardens are
required to establish an institution
Smoking Cessation Program consistent
with local resources. A Smoking
Cessation Program must, at a minimum,
address nutrition, physical activity
(exercise), stress management, and
nicotine replacement therapy (NRT).
Use of the NRT is optional, just as
program participation is voluntary.
Further, the programs are run by
qualified medical staff at each
institution. Either Bureau health
services or psychology services staff
coordinate Smoking Cessation Programs
at the institution level, and are trained
specifically to do so.
Comment: The smoking cessation
program is not available to indigent
inmates.
Bureau’s response: The Smoking
Cessation Program is available to
indigent inmates. Inmates may
participate on a voluntary basis in all
aspects of the program. There is no
charge for any aspect of the program
except for the nicotine replacement
therapy, which is optional. The NRT is
not considered medically necessary by
health services staff, and therefore will
not be provided to inmates who cannot
pay for it. However, inmates without
funds may participate in all other
aspects of the program.
Comment: This regulation is an
additional punishment on inmates
suffering from nicotine addiction.
Bureau’s response: This regulation is
no different from current policies and
regulations in place that prohibit inmate
possession of other contraband that is
harmful to health, such as illegal drugs.
The Bureau offers drug abuse treatment
programs for inmates who suffer from
drug addiction, and offers smoking
cessation programs for inmates suffering
from nicotine addiction. Prohibiting the
possession of tobacco and smoking
apparatus does not constitute
punishment.
Comment: The regulation is subject to
review under SBREFA because it creates
a black market that exceeds the
threshold of $100,000,000. It blocks
access to a long-standing market
segment for legitimate businesses. The
inmate trust fund is also impacted.
Bureau’s response: Title 5 of the
United States Code, section 804(1),
requires the Office of Management and
Budget (OMB) to review any federal
E:\FR\FM\08DER1.SGM
08DER1
tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 235 / Monday, December 8, 2014 / Rules and Regulations
regulation which ‘‘the Administrator of
the Office of Information and Regulatory
Affairs of the Office of Management and
Budget finds has resulted in or is likely
to result in . . . (A) an annual effect on
the economy of $100,000,000 or more.’’
Notwithstanding the fact that Congress
did not intend ‘‘economy’’ to encompass
the ‘‘black market’’ or other illegal
business ventures, this regulation was,
in fact, submitted to OMB for review.
OMB found this regulation to not be
significant under 5 U.S.C. 804(1), and
therefore decided that it did not warrant
further review. Therefore, even if the
regulation has an arguable economic
impact, the Bureau has complied with
SBREFA by submitting it to the Office
of Management and Budget for review
and approval.
Comment: This regulation creates a
massive enforcement burden for Bureau
staff.
Bureau’s response: Bureau staff are
trained to intercept contraband in all
forms. Intercepting tobacco and smoking
apparatus imposes no additional burden
on Bureau staff, but may be done while
staff perform routine searches of noninmates and their belongings, and
routine searches of inmates, their living
and working areas, and belongings.
Also, the previous regulation allowed
any Warden to decide, with the
Regional Director’s concurrence, not to
designate smoking areas for general use.
Several Wardens have already made this
choice for their facilities, and the
Bureau has not observed any further
enforcement burden on staff with
relation to this change.
Comment: The regulation
discriminates against the mentally ill,
who may find it difficult/impossible to
quit smoking.
Bureau’s response: A 2002 Psychiatric
Services journal article entitled,
‘‘Smoking Cessation Approaches for
Persons With Mental Illness or
Addictive Disorders,’’ a summary of 24
empirical studies with results from
1991–2001, found that the recorded
‘‘quit rates’’ of patients with psychiatric
disorders were similar to those of the
general population. It was no more
difficult for the mentally ill to quit
smoking than it was for someone with
no mental disorder.
Also, mentally ill inmates are
typically housed in no-smoking units
already, and are permitted only limited
time, under supervision, to visit any
currently-existing authorized outdoor
smoking areas. Such inmates already
have decreased their smoking activity
by virtue of limited access to smoking
areas. This regulation does not,
therefore, apply any differently to a
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:55 Dec 05, 2014
Jkt 235001
mentally ill inmate than to any other
inmate.
Comment: The regulation creates a
substantial burden as defined in 42
U.S.C. 2000cc on the religious exercise
of Native Americans in that it is not the
least restrictive means of furthering the
compelling government interest.
Bureau’s response: 42 U.S.C. 2000cc
relates to government imposition of a
state, not Federal, ‘‘land use regulation
in a manner that imposes a substantial
burden on the religious exercise of a
person’’ without demonstrating that it is
the ‘‘least restrictive means of furthering
[a] compelling governmental interest.’’
With regard to state governments, courts
have acknowledged the application of
this statute in a prison setting. See
Ephraim v. Angelone, 313 F.Supp.2d
569 (E.D.Va. 2003) (State prison’s
refusal to provide inmate with
vegetarian religious diet was not
required to be analyzed under strict
scrutiny test set forth in Religious Land
Use and Institutionalized Persons Act
(RLUIPA) because there was no showing
prison was receiving federal funding, or
that burden imposed on inmate affected
interstate commerce, as required for Act
to be applicable); Borzych v. Frank, 439
F.3d 388, (C.A.7 Wis. 2006) (State
prison procedure, prohibiting activities
and literature advocating racial or
ethnic supremacy or purity, was not
overbroad and therefore not substantial
in relation to its proper application
under RLUIPA).
The Bureau’s action in this document
is a Federal regulation, not a state
regulation, and therefore does not
violate RLUIPA. Further, the regulation
permits smoking as part of an
authorized inmate religious activity, and
therefore does not impact inmate
religious activity.
The statute governing Federal action
in this context is the Religious Freedom
Restoration Act (42 U.S.C. 2000bb, et
seq.) (RFRA). Although the regulation
does not burden inmate religious
activity, we note that preserving inmate
health has been found to constitute a
‘‘compelling penological interest’’ under
both RLUIPA and RFRA that would
override a burden on inmate religious
activity, if such a burden existed.
Ragland v. Angelone, 420 F.Supp.2d
507 (W.D.Va. 2006) (Virginia’s inmate
grooming policy did not violate
RLUIPA; policy furthered compelling
penological interests in security, staff
safety, inmate identification, and inmate
health.); See also Weir v. Nix, C.A.8
(1997), 114 F.3d 817 (Prison’s
prohibition of personal property in
prison yard did not place ‘‘substantial
burden’’ on inmate’s rights under RFRA,
he was free to use his Bible in his cell.);
PO 00000
Frm 00003
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
72547
Davie v. Wingard, (1997) 958 F.Supp.
1244, 166 A.L.R. Fed. 709 (Prison
officials’ safety, security, and discipline
concerns presented ‘‘compelling
government interest’’ justifying hair
length regulations challenged under
RFRA.).
For the aforementioned reasons, the
Bureau finalizes this rule without
change.
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 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.
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, 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.
E:\FR\FM\08DER1.SGM
08DER1
72548
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 235 / Monday, December 8, 2014 / Rules and Regulations
Small Business Regulatory Enforcement
Fairness Act of 1996
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. Inmate smoking has
been gradually decreasing in Bureau
facilities since publication of the final
rule in 2004 (see 69 FR 13737, Mar. 24,
2004), which restricted smoking to
authorized outdoor areas except for
authorized religious activities, and
allowed Wardens to choose, with
Regional Director concurrence, not to
designate smoking areas at all for
general inmate use (except for
authorized religious activity). The
determination to remove tobacco
products from sale in the inmate
commissaries likewise occurred several
years ago when it became apparent that
inmate smoking was decreasing.
Therefore, the economic impact is
expected to be minimal.
List of Subjects in 28 CFR Part 551
Prisoners.
551.160 Purpose and scope.
551.161 Definitions.
551.162 Smoking generally prohibited.
551.163 Possession of smoking apparatus
and tobacco prohibited.
§ 551.160
Purpose and scope.
To advance towards becoming a clean
air environment and to protect the
health and safety of staff and inmates,
the Bureau of Prisons will restrict areas
and circumstances where smoking is
permitted within its institutions and
offices.
§ 551.161
Definitions.
For the purposes of this subpart,
smoking is defined as inhaling the
smoke of any substance through the use
of smoking apparatus including, but not
limited to, cigars, cigarettes, or pipes.
§ 551.162
Smoking generally prohibited.
Smoking is generally prohibited in
and on the grounds of Bureau
institutions and offices, with the
following two exceptions:
(a) Smoking is permitted as part of an
authorized inmate religious activity; and
(b) For Bureau staff and official
visitors, smoking is permitted only in
smoking areas designated by the
Warden.
§ 551.163 Possession of smoking
apparatus and tobacco prohibited.
Possession of smoking apparatus and
tobacco in any form is prohibited for
inmates, unless as part of an authorized
inmate religious activity.
Charles E. Samuels, Jr.,
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 551 as set
forth below:
[FR Doc. 2014–28620 Filed 12–5–14; 8:45 am]
Subchapter C—Institutional
Management
40 CFR Part 52
1. The authority citation for 28 CFR
part 551 continues to read as follows:
tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES
■
Authority: 5 U.S.C. 301; 18 U.S.C. 1512,
3621, 3622, 3624, 4001, 4005, 4042, 4081,
4082 (Repealed in part as to offenses
committed on or after November 1, 1987),
4161–4166 (Repealed 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; Pub. L. 99–500 (sec. 209);
Attorney General’s May 1, 1995 Guidelines
for Victim and Witness Assistance.
2. Revise subpart N to read as follows:
Subpart N—Smoking/No Smoking
Areas
Sec.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:15 Dec 05, 2014
Jkt 235001
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
AGENCY
[EPA–R10–OAR–2014–0790; FRL–9918–76–
Region 10]
PART 551—MISCELLANEOUS
■
BILLING CODE 4410–05–P
Approval and Promulgation of Air
Quality Implementation Plans;
Washington; Update to Materials
Incorporated by Reference
Environmental Protection
Agency.
ACTION: Final rule; administrative
change.
AGENCY:
The Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA) is updating the materials
that are incorporated by reference (IBR)
into the Washington State
Implementation Plan (SIP). The
regulations affected by this update have
been previously submitted by the
Washington State Department of
Ecology (Ecology) and approved by the
SUMMARY:
PO 00000
Frm 00004
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
EPA. In this action, the EPA is also
notifying the public of a correction to a
typographical error the IBR tables. This
update affects the SIP materials that are
available for public inspection at the
National Archives and Records
Administration (NARA), the Air and
Radiation Docket and Information
Center located at EPA Headquarters in
Washington, DC, and the EPA Regional
Office.
DATES: This action is effective December
8, 2014.
ADDRESSES: SIP materials which are
incorporated by reference into 40 CFR
part 52 are available for inspection at
the following locations: Environmental
Protection Agency, Region 10, Office of
Air, Waste, and Toxics (AWT–150),
1200 Sixth Avenue, Seattle, WA 98101;
the Air and Radiation Docket and
Information Center, Environmental
Protection Agency, 1301 Constitution
Avenue NW., Room Number 3334, EPA
West Building, Washington, DC 20460;
or the National Archives and Records
Administration (NARA). For
information on the availability of this
material at NARA, call (202) 741–6030,
or go to: https://www.archives.gov/
federal_register/code_of_federal_
regulations/ibr_locations.html.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jeff
Hunt, EPA Region 10, (206) 553–0256,
hunt.jeff@epa.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
I. Background
The SIP is a living document which
a state revises as necessary to address its
unique air pollution problems.
Therefore, the EPA from time to time,
must take action on SIP revisions
containing new and/or revised
regulations as being part of the SIP. On
May 22, 1997, the EPA revised the
procedures for incorporating by
reference Federally-approved SIPs, as a
result of consultations between the EPA
and the Office of the Federal Register
(OFR) (62 FR 27968). The description of
the revised SIP document, IBR
procedures and ‘‘Identification of plan’’
format are discussed in further detail in
the May 22, 1997 Federal Register
document. On March 20, 2013, the EPA
published a Federal Register beginning
the new IBR procedure for Washington
(78 FR 17108).
Since the publication of the last IBR
update, the EPA approved into the
Washington SIP the regulatory changes
listed below. The EPA also reorganized
the content and order of the tables
contained in 40 CFR 52.2470 paragraph
(c) ‘‘EPA approved regulations’’ in order
to acknowledge the EPA’s approval of
Washington Administrative Code
E:\FR\FM\08DER1.SGM
08DER1
Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 235 (Monday, December 8, 2014)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 72545-72548]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2014-28620]
========================================================================
Rules and Regulations
Federal Register
________________________________________________________________________
This section of the FEDERAL REGISTER contains regulatory documents
having general applicability and legal effect, most of which are keyed
to and codified in the Code of Federal Regulations, which is published
under 50 titles pursuant to 44 U.S.C. 1510.
The Code of Federal Regulations is sold by the Superintendent of Documents.
Prices of new books are listed in the first FEDERAL REGISTER issue of each
week.
========================================================================
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 235 / Monday, December 8, 2014 /
Rules and Regulations
[[Page 72545]]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
Bureau of Prisons
28 CFR Part 551
[BOP Docket No. 1140-F]
RIN 1120-AB42
Smoking/No Smoking Areas
AGENCY: Bureau of Prisons, Justice.
ACTION: Final rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: In this document, the Bureau of Prisons (Bureau) finalizes
without change a proposed rule that was published on this subject on
May 12, 2006, to revise regulations pertaining to smoking/no smoking in
Bureau facilities. The revised regulations generally prohibit smoking
in and on the grounds of Bureau institutions and offices, except as
part of an authorized inmate religious activity; and, for Bureau staff
and official visitors, only in smoking areas designated by the Warden.
Possession of smoking apparatus and tobacco in any form is prohibited
for inmates under this rule, unless as part of an authorized inmate
religious activity. We intend this amendment to promote a clean air
environment and to protect the health and safety of staff and inmates.
DATES: This rule is effective January 7, 2015.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Sarah Qureshi, Office of General
Counsel, Bureau of Prisons, phone (202) 307-2105.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: In this document, the Bureau revises
regulations pertaining to smoking/no smoking for inmates in Bureau
facilities. The revised regulations indicate that smoking is generally
prohibited in and on the grounds of Bureau institutions and offices,
with the following two exceptions: Smoking is permitted as part of an
authorized inmate religious activity; and, for Bureau staff and
official visitors, smoking is permitted only in smoking areas
designated by the Warden.
This rule also clarifies that possession of smoking apparatus and
tobacco in any form is prohibited for inmates, unless as part of an
authorized inmate religious activity. Smoking is defined as inhaling
the smoke of any substance through the use of smoking apparatus
including, but not limited to, cigars, cigarettes, or pipes. We intend
this amendment to promote a clean air environment and to protect the
health and safety of staff and inmates.
A proposed rule was published on this subject on May 12, 2006 (71
FR 27652). The Bureau received a total of 66 comments. Approximately 57
of the comments were copies of the same six form letters. The remaining
nine comments addressed issues raised in the six form letters. Because
all the comments related to the same set of issues, we address each
issue raised by the commenters below.
Comment: The rule is contrary to 5 U.S.C. 7301, E.O. 13058 (banning
smoking of tobacco products in all federal buildings except--see sec.
2(b)), which says the order does not extend to residential
accommodation for persons involuntarily residing in a federal
government building.
Bureau's response: 5 U.S.C. 7301 states only that ``[t]he President
may prescribe regulations for the conduct of employees in the executive
branch.'' Executive Order 13058, Protecting Federal Employees and the
Public From Exposure to Tobacco Smoke in the Federal Workplace, issued
on August 9, 1997, states that the smoking of tobacco products is thus
prohibited in all interior space owned, rented, or leased by the
executive branch of the Federal Government, and in any outdoor areas
under executive branch control in front of air intake ducts. The
Executive Order carves out an exception to its smoking prohibition for
any residential accommodation for persons voluntarily or involuntarily
residing, on a temporary or long-term basis, in a building owned,
leased, or rented by the Federal Government.
Although the Executive Order prohibiting smoking in federal
buildings does not extend to buildings such as Bureau facilities, it
does not affirmatively preclude the Bureau from exercising its
authority to regulate in this manner. The Bureau therefore has
determined that this regulation is necessary to conform with the
intention of the Executive Order to protect Federal Government
employees and members of the public from exposure to tobacco smoke in
the Federal workplace.
The dangers of secondhand smoke exposure are well-documented. An
August 2005 report from the American Lung Association states that
secondhand smoke lingers in the air hours after cigarettes have been
extinguished and can cause or exacerbate a wide range of adverse health
effects, including cancer, respiratory infections, and asthma.
Secondhand smoke has been classified by the Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA) as a known cause of cancer in humans (Group A carcinogen).
Secondhand smoke exposure causes approximately 3,400 lung cancer deaths
and 22,700-69,600 heart disease deaths in adult nonsmokers in the
United States each year. Nonsmokers exposed to environmental smoke were
25 percent more likely to have coronary heart diseases compared to
nonsmokers not exposed to smoke.
Further, a June 2006 report from the Surgeon General concluded that
scientific evidence indicates that there is no risk-free level of
exposure to second hand smoke. Even short exposures to second hand
smoke can cause blood platelets to become stickier, damage the lining
of blood vessels, decrease coronary flow velocity reserves, and reduce
heart rate variability, potentially increasing the risk of heart
attack.
Comment: The Bureau increased prices on other commissary items when
it removed tobacco products from the commissary.
Bureau's response: There has been no policy change related to
pricing of institution commissary items for several years. Prices of
items in the commissary fluctuate on a regular basis due to changes in
the cost to the Bureau of the products themselves. Any increase in
pricing that may have been observed when the Bureau removed tobacco
products from the commissaries would be due to such regular
fluctuations. There was no change in the Bureau's pricing policy
related to the removal of tobacco from the commissaries.
[[Page 72546]]
Comment: Banning tobacco products will decrease the safety of
staff. The price of contraband tobacco will increase, inciting inmate
security issues.
Bureau's response: Previous regulations on inmate smoking allowed
Wardens to prohibit smoking at their institutions with the concurrence
of the Regional Director where the institution is located. At those
institutions where the Warden has prohibited smoking, there has been no
increase in assaults on staff.
However, Bureau regulations on inmate discipline were amended,
through a separate rulemaking document, to increase the severity of
sanctions that may be imposed for violation of the prohibited act codes
(75 FR 76263, Dec. 8, 2010). The code prohibiting possession of non-
hazardous contraband now includes smoking apparatus and tobacco in any
form where prohibited. The specifically worded code, combined with more
severe sanctions for violations, will deter possession of tobacco
products in Bureau facilities.
Further, the Bureau implemented measures to increase searches of
employees, to further ensure that Bureau staff are not a source of
contraband on Bureau grounds. In a rule published on June 6, 2007 (72
FR 31178), the Bureau revised its regulations on searching non-inmates
(including staff) to include random searches and searches using
electronic devices other than metal detectors. This enhanced the
Bureau's ability to detect and prevent contraband, thereby increasing
the safety of staff and inmates in Bureau facilities.
Comment: The prohibition on smoking and possession of tobacco and
smoking-related apparatus should also apply to staff.
Bureau's response: As a practical matter, smoking is a lawful
activity for Bureau employees. In the interests of balancing staff
morale with institution safety and security, the Director has decided
to allow for the possibility of limited opportunities for staff
smoking.
Under current policy, Warden-designated staff smoking areas must be
outdoors, to minimize the impact of second-hand smoke inhalation. Also,
current Bureau policy requires that Bureau facilities maintain staff
smoking cessation programs, which are intended to further minimize the
likelihood that tobacco or smoking apparatus will be introduced upon
institution grounds.
However, to ensure that persons visiting inmates are prohibited
from smoking in and on the grounds of Bureau institutions and offices,
we are altering the rule to state that smoking is permitted, in smoking
areas designated by the Warden, only for Bureau staff and official
visitors.
The Bureau intends for Sec. 551.162 (b) of the rule to allow
smoking for non-inmates only in areas designated by the Warden.
Currently, Warden-designated staff smoking areas are carefully
determined based on the unique circumstances at each Bureau facility.
Comment: The Bureau violated the Administrative Procedure Act by
discontinuing the sale of tobacco products.
Bureau's response: By discontinuing the sale of tobacco products,
the Bureau did not violate any requirement set by the Administrative
Procedure Act (5 U.S.C. 551, et al.). The removal of tobacco products
from institution commissaries was not a prohibition of inmate
possession of tobacco, which Wardens were permitted to authorize under
the previous regulations. The listing of products available for sale in
institution commissaries is not appropriate subject matter for federal
regulations because particular brands, items, and cost will vary
frequently depending on market fluctuations and what particular
products are available or needed in different locales or in
institutions with different security levels and needs.
Comment: The rule prohibiting possession of tobacco in any form is
too broad in that it applies to snuff and/or chewing tobacco, which
produce no smoke and do not implicate air quality--the rule should only
apply to ``lighted'' tobacco products.
Bureau's response: Snuff and chewing tobacco are also harmful to
health in the same way that ``lighted'' tobacco products are. A
February 13, 2006, report by the American Cancer Society (https://www.cancer.org/docroot/PED/content/PED_10_13X_Quitting_Smokeless_Tobacco.asp?#why_quit) states that
smokeless tobacco can cause serious health problems, including nicotine
addiction, cancer of the mouth and pharynx, leukoplakia, gum recession,
bone loss around the teeth, and abrasion and staining of teeth. The
Bureau is therefore committed to reducing these health risks in inmates
by prohibiting use and possession of tobacco in any form.
Further, inmates may attempt to smoke snuff and chewing tobacco if
such products are permitted in Bureau facilities and smoking tobacco is
not permitted. To prevent this disparity, the Bureau now prohibits all
forms of tobacco for inmates in Bureau facilities.
Comment: The regulation leads to forced medical treatment that is
not properly implemented by qualified medical staff, in violation of
the Constitution.
Bureau's response: The inmate Smoking Cessation Program is not
``forced'' treatment. Participation in the program is voluntary--
inmates decide of their own volition whether to participate in the
program. Under current Bureau policy, Wardens are required to establish
an institution Smoking Cessation Program consistent with local
resources. A Smoking Cessation Program must, at a minimum, address
nutrition, physical activity (exercise), stress management, and
nicotine replacement therapy (NRT). Use of the NRT is optional, just as
program participation is voluntary.
Further, the programs are run by qualified medical staff at each
institution. Either Bureau health services or psychology services staff
coordinate Smoking Cessation Programs at the institution level, and are
trained specifically to do so.
Comment: The smoking cessation program is not available to indigent
inmates.
Bureau's response: The Smoking Cessation Program is available to
indigent inmates. Inmates may participate on a voluntary basis in all
aspects of the program. There is no charge for any aspect of the
program except for the nicotine replacement therapy, which is optional.
The NRT is not considered medically necessary by health services staff,
and therefore will not be provided to inmates who cannot pay for it.
However, inmates without funds may participate in all other aspects of
the program.
Comment: This regulation is an additional punishment on inmates
suffering from nicotine addiction.
Bureau's response: This regulation is no different from current
policies and regulations in place that prohibit inmate possession of
other contraband that is harmful to health, such as illegal drugs. The
Bureau offers drug abuse treatment programs for inmates who suffer from
drug addiction, and offers smoking cessation programs for inmates
suffering from nicotine addiction. Prohibiting the possession of
tobacco and smoking apparatus does not constitute punishment.
Comment: The regulation is subject to review under SBREFA because
it creates a black market that exceeds the threshold of $100,000,000.
It blocks access to a long-standing market segment for legitimate
businesses. The inmate trust fund is also impacted.
Bureau's response: Title 5 of the United States Code, section
804(1), requires the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) to review
any federal
[[Page 72547]]
regulation which ``the Administrator of the Office of Information and
Regulatory Affairs of the Office of Management and Budget finds has
resulted in or is likely to result in . . . (A) an annual effect on the
economy of $100,000,000 or more.'' Notwithstanding the fact that
Congress did not intend ``economy'' to encompass the ``black market''
or other illegal business ventures, this regulation was, in fact,
submitted to OMB for review. OMB found this regulation to not be
significant under 5 U.S.C. 804(1), and therefore decided that it did
not warrant further review. Therefore, even if the regulation has an
arguable economic impact, the Bureau has complied with SBREFA by
submitting it to the Office of Management and Budget for review and
approval.
Comment: This regulation creates a massive enforcement burden for
Bureau staff.
Bureau's response: Bureau staff are trained to intercept contraband
in all forms. Intercepting tobacco and smoking apparatus imposes no
additional burden on Bureau staff, but may be done while staff perform
routine searches of non-inmates and their belongings, and routine
searches of inmates, their living and working areas, and belongings.
Also, the previous regulation allowed any Warden to decide, with
the Regional Director's concurrence, not to designate smoking areas for
general use. Several Wardens have already made this choice for their
facilities, and the Bureau has not observed any further enforcement
burden on staff with relation to this change.
Comment: The regulation discriminates against the mentally ill, who
may find it difficult/impossible to quit smoking.
Bureau's response: A 2002 Psychiatric Services journal article
entitled, ``Smoking Cessation Approaches for Persons With Mental
Illness or Addictive Disorders,'' a summary of 24 empirical studies
with results from 1991-2001, found that the recorded ``quit rates'' of
patients with psychiatric disorders were similar to those of the
general population. It was no more difficult for the mentally ill to
quit smoking than it was for someone with no mental disorder.
Also, mentally ill inmates are typically housed in no-smoking units
already, and are permitted only limited time, under supervision, to
visit any currently-existing authorized outdoor smoking areas. Such
inmates already have decreased their smoking activity by virtue of
limited access to smoking areas. This regulation does not, therefore,
apply any differently to a mentally ill inmate than to any other
inmate.
Comment: The regulation creates a substantial burden as defined in
42 U.S.C. 2000cc on the religious exercise of Native Americans in that
it is not the least restrictive means of furthering the compelling
government interest.
Bureau's response: 42 U.S.C. 2000cc relates to government
imposition of a state, not Federal, ``land use regulation in a manner
that imposes a substantial burden on the religious exercise of a
person'' without demonstrating that it is the ``least restrictive means
of furthering [a] compelling governmental interest.'' With regard to
state governments, courts have acknowledged the application of this
statute in a prison setting. See Ephraim v. Angelone, 313 F.Supp.2d 569
(E.D.Va. 2003) (State prison's refusal to provide inmate with
vegetarian religious diet was not required to be analyzed under strict
scrutiny test set forth in Religious Land Use and Institutionalized
Persons Act (RLUIPA) because there was no showing prison was receiving
federal funding, or that burden imposed on inmate affected interstate
commerce, as required for Act to be applicable); Borzych v. Frank, 439
F.3d 388, (C.A.7 Wis. 2006) (State prison procedure, prohibiting
activities and literature advocating racial or ethnic supremacy or
purity, was not overbroad and therefore not substantial in relation to
its proper application under RLUIPA).
The Bureau's action in this document is a Federal regulation, not a
state regulation, and therefore does not violate RLUIPA. Further, the
regulation permits smoking as part of an authorized inmate religious
activity, and therefore does not impact inmate religious activity.
The statute governing Federal action in this context is the
Religious Freedom Restoration Act (42 U.S.C. 2000bb, et seq.) (RFRA).
Although the regulation does not burden inmate religious activity, we
note that preserving inmate health has been found to constitute a
``compelling penological interest'' under both RLUIPA and RFRA that
would override a burden on inmate religious activity, if such a burden
existed. Ragland v. Angelone, 420 F.Supp.2d 507 (W.D.Va. 2006)
(Virginia's inmate grooming policy did not violate RLUIPA; policy
furthered compelling penological interests in security, staff safety,
inmate identification, and inmate health.); See also Weir v. Nix, C.A.8
(1997), 114 F.3d 817 (Prison's prohibition of personal property in
prison yard did not place ``substantial burden'' on inmate's rights
under RFRA, he was free to use his Bible in his cell.); Davie v.
Wingard, (1997) 958 F.Supp. 1244, 166 A.L.R. Fed. 709 (Prison
officials' safety, security, and discipline concerns presented
``compelling government interest'' justifying hair length regulations
challenged under RFRA.).
For the aforementioned reasons, the Bureau finalizes this rule
without change.
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 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.
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, 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.
[[Page 72548]]
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. Inmate smoking has been
gradually decreasing in Bureau facilities since publication of the
final rule in 2004 (see 69 FR 13737, Mar. 24, 2004), which restricted
smoking to authorized outdoor areas except for authorized religious
activities, and allowed Wardens to choose, with Regional Director
concurrence, not to designate smoking areas at all for general inmate
use (except for authorized religious activity). The determination to
remove tobacco products from sale in the inmate commissaries likewise
occurred several years ago when it became apparent that inmate smoking
was decreasing. Therefore, the economic impact is expected to be
minimal.
List of Subjects in 28 CFR Part 551
Prisoners.
Charles E. Samuels, Jr.,
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 551 as set forth below:
Subchapter C--Institutional Management
PART 551--MISCELLANEOUS
0
1. The authority citation for 28 CFR part 551 continues to read as
follows:
Authority: 5 U.S.C. 301; 18 U.S.C. 1512, 3621, 3622, 3624, 4001,
4005, 4042, 4081, 4082 (Repealed in part as to offenses committed on
or after November 1, 1987), 4161-4166 (Repealed 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; Pub. L. 99-500 (sec. 209); Attorney General's May 1, 1995
Guidelines for Victim and Witness Assistance.
0
2. Revise subpart N to read as follows:
Subpart N--Smoking/No Smoking Areas
Sec.
551.160 Purpose and scope.
551.161 Definitions.
551.162 Smoking generally prohibited.
551.163 Possession of smoking apparatus and tobacco prohibited.
Sec. 551.160 Purpose and scope.
To advance towards becoming a clean air environment and to protect
the health and safety of staff and inmates, the Bureau of Prisons will
restrict areas and circumstances where smoking is permitted within its
institutions and offices.
Sec. 551.161 Definitions.
For the purposes of this subpart, smoking is defined as inhaling
the smoke of any substance through the use of smoking apparatus
including, but not limited to, cigars, cigarettes, or pipes.
Sec. 551.162 Smoking generally prohibited.
Smoking is generally prohibited in and on the grounds of Bureau
institutions and offices, with the following two exceptions:
(a) Smoking is permitted as part of an authorized inmate religious
activity; and
(b) For Bureau staff and official visitors, smoking is permitted
only in smoking areas designated by the Warden.
Sec. 551.163 Possession of smoking apparatus and tobacco prohibited.
Possession of smoking apparatus and tobacco in any form is
prohibited for inmates, unless as part of an authorized inmate
religious activity.
[FR Doc. 2014-28620 Filed 12-5-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4410-05-P