Searches of Housing Units, Inmates, and Inmate Work Areas: Use of X-Ray Devices-Clarification of Terminology, 32000-32002 [2015-13710]
Download as PDF
<![CDATA[
32000
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 108 / Friday, June 5, 2015 / Rules and Regulations
attention Director, Appellate Staff. Consult
title 2 of the United States Attorney’s Manual
for procedures and time limitations. An
appeal of such a decision, as well as an
appeal of an adverse decision by a district
court or bankruptcy appellate panel
reviewing a bankruptcy court decision or a
direct appeal of an adverse bankruptcy court
decision to a court of appeals, cannot be
taken without approval of the Solicitor
General. Until the Solicitor General has made
a decision whether an appeal will be taken,
the Government attorney handling the case
must take all necessary procedural actions to
preserve the Government’s right to take an
appeal, including filing a protective notice of
appeal when the time to file a notice of
appeal is about to expire and the Solicitor
General has not yet made a decision. Nothing
in the foregoing directive affects this
obligation.
Section 7. Definitions
(a) For purposes of this directive, in the
case of claims involving only civil penalties,
other than claims defined in 28 CFR 0.169(b),
the phrase ‘‘gross amount of the original
claim’’ shall mean the maximum amount of
penalties sought.
(b) For purposes of this directive, in the
case of claims asserted in bankruptcy
proceedings, the phrase ‘‘gross amount of the
original claim’’ shall mean liquidation value.
Liquidation value is the forced sale value of
the collateral, if any, securing the claim(s)
plus the dividend likely to be paid for the
unsecured portion of the claim(s) in an actual
or hypothetical liquidation of the bankruptcy
estate.
Section 8. Supersession
This directive supersedes Civil Division
Directive No. 1–10 regarding redelegation of
the Assistant Attorney General’s authority in
Civil Division cases to Branch Directors,
heads of offices, and United States Attorneys.
Section 9. Applicability
This directive applies to all cases pending
as of the date of this directive and is effective
immediately.
Section 10. No Private Right of Action
This directive consists of rules of agency
organization, procedure, and practice and
does not create a private right of action for
any private party to challenge the rules or
actions taken pursuant to them.
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES
*
*
*
*
*
Dated: June 1, 2015.
Benjamin C. Mizer,
Principal Deputy Assistant Attorney General,
Civil Division.
[FR Doc. 2015–13782 Filed 6–4–15; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4410–12–P
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:17 Jun 04, 2015
Jkt 235001
DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
Bureau of Prisons
28 CFR Part 552
[BOP–1162–F]
RIN 1120–AB62
Searches of Housing Units, Inmates,
and Inmate Work Areas: Use of X-Ray
Devices—Clarification of Terminology
Bureau of Prisons, Justice.
Final rule.
AGENCY:
ACTION:
In this document, the Bureau
of Prisons (Bureau) clarifies that body
imaging search devices are ‘‘electronic
search devices’’ for routine or random
use in searching inmates, and are
distinguished from medical x-ray
devices, which require the inmate’s
consent, or Regional Director approval,
for use as search devices.
DATES: This rule is effective on July 6,
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 finalizes its
regulation on searches of inmates using
x-ray devices and technology (28 CFR
part 552, subpart B). We change this
regulation to clarify that body imaging
search devices are ‘‘electronic search
devices’’ for routine or random use in
searching inmates, and are
distinguished from medical x-ray
devices, the use of which require the
inmate’s consent, or Regional Director
approval, for use as search devices. We
published a proposed rule on this
subject on February 14, 2014 (79 FR
8910). We received a total of twenty
comments on the proposed rule. Three
comments were generally in favor of the
proposed changes. Eleven comments
were copies of the same form letter. We
respond below to the issues raised by
that form letter and the remaining six
comments.
SUMMARY:
The Electronic Devices That the Bureau
Uses Are Unsafe or Will Cause Harm to
Inmates
Fifteen comments (including the
eleven form letters) were concerned that
the electronic devices used by the
Bureau, particularly those which use xray technology, will be harmful to
inmates. Another commenter stated that
the use of x-ray technology as intended
by the Bureau is so unsafe that it ‘‘is a
clear violation of human rights.’’
The x-ray technology used for
searches by the Bureau employs a very
PO 00000
Frm 00030
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
low level of radiation. Radiation is
measured in units called ‘‘sieverts.’’ A
person scanned by a Bureau body
scanner would receive only 0.25 sieverts
and can be scanned up to 1,000 times
a year. For context, a scan from this
machine is equal to eating two and a
half bananas (the potassium in bananas
emit radiation). Sleeping next to
someone exposes you to .05 sieverts,
because we all have minerals in our
bones that emit radiation. Also, people
living in areas of high elevations are
exposed to almost 5 times (1.2 sieverts)
as much radiation as one scan from a
Bureau body scanner, because there is
more cosmic radiation at high
elevations. An airplane flight from New
York to Los Angeles exposes a human
body to 40 sieverts of radiation. Again,
the Bureau’s x-ray technology scanners
employ only .25 sieverts, so low a level
of radiation as to be safe.
Further, the Bureau requested an
independent study (‘‘Radiation
Protection Report’’) of its pilot program
use of the ‘‘Radpro SecurPass’’
technology. The review, conducted in
2012, was generated and peer reviewed
by radiological physicists holding
Certified Health Physicist credentials
and board certification of the American
Board of Radiology in Diagnostic
Radiology. The Report concluded that
the average effective reference dose was
0.233 sieverts, which is representative
of the maximum possible radiation dose
for the machine to one person for one
scan. The Report concluded that the
system may be operated at that dose
level up to 1,000 times per year while
maintaining the recommended safe
radiation dose.
The use of electronic search devices
described in the proposed rule is also
within established inmate search
procedures. There is no impact it will
have on the federal inmate population
which is not already present. The
proposed rule clarified that body x-ray
imaging search devices are ‘‘electronic
search devices’’ for routine or random
use in searching inmates. This change
does not affect physical contact with
inmates or require disrobement. Other
than increased effectiveness at
identifying contraband through the use
of new minimally invasive hand-held
technology, there exists no actual or
perceivable difference between alreadyin-use electronic search devices and the
proposed x-ray search device. In fact,
the use of the technology will cut down
the frequency and need for more
invasive searches of the type that
inmates seek to avoid.
Further, prisoners, visitors, and staff
have diminished Fourth Amendment
protections in a correctional setting
E:\FR\FM\05JNR1.SGM
05JNR1
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 108 / Friday, June 5, 2015 / Rules and Regulations
under the constellation of rules created
by Bell, Hudson, and Turner. In Bell v.
Wolfish, 441 U.S. 520 (1979) and
Hudson v. Palmer, 468 U.S. 517 (1984),
inmates brought challenges to searches
of their person and cells, respectively.
The Bell court noted prisons are
uniquely dangerous environments, and
held that the interest in keeping out
contraband outweighed inmate privacy
concerns. Similarly, the Hudson court
found prison cell searches are
categorically reasonable since a
prisoner’s expectation of privacy must
always yield to the paramount interest
in institutional security. Turner v.
Safley, 482 U.S. 78 (1987) created a new
standard: When a prison regulation
impinges on the constitutional rights of
an inmate, staff member, or visitor, the
regulation is valid if it is reasonably
related to legitimate penological
interests.
The Turner standard, with the factspecific principles of Bell have been
consistently used guidelines to
reference for inmate body searches. The
Supreme Court specifically invoked
both cases as primary guidance in
Florence v. Bd. of Chosen Freeholders of
County of Burlington. The Court held it
was reasonable in a physical search to
command ‘‘detainees to lift their
genitals or cough in a squatting
position.’’ These procedures, similar to
the ones upheld in Bell, are designed to
uncover contraband that can go
undetected by a patdown, metal
detector, and other less invasive
searches. 132 S. Ct. 1510, 1520, 182
L. Ed. 2d 566 (2012). Physical
manipulation of an unclothed area,
however, would not be permissible. Id.
The non-contact electronic device
search is precisely within the ‘‘lessinvasive,’’ non-controversial ambit
described in Florence.
It is also important to note that the
regulations will retain current language
stating that use of any electronic device
‘‘does not require the inmate to remove
clothing.’’ 28 CFR 552.11.
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES
Bureau Staff Do Not Have Adequate
Training To Use New X-Ray Body Scan
Technology
One commenter was concerned that
Bureau staff are not qualified to use new
technology. This is not true. Policy
accompanying the change to this
regulation and the implementation of
any new search device under these
regulations will require training on the
use of the devices. Operators Manuals
for the technological devices will be
required for all employees who operate
the scanners. This training will be reimplemented annually.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:17 Jun 04, 2015
Jkt 235001
Implementation of the Devices Will Be
Costly to the Public
One commenter felt that ‘‘the cost of
instituting [body scanners would be]
incredible.’’ The scanning technology
used by the Bureau is also routinely
used in other public safety sectors (e.g.
airport security, military, state jail
security, etc.) and is not prohibitively
expensive. The Bureau evaluated and
tested several different types of whole
body imaging devices, some acquired
through surplus acquisition at no cost
from other federal agencies. During the
evaluation period, a significant amount
of dangerous contraband (i.e., weapons,
drugs and contraband cell phones), were
detected with these devices and
confiscated. Because the technology
provides enhanced institution security,
promotes staff and inmate safety, and
ultimately increases the safety of the
public, the return on investment for the
cost of these devices is significant. In
the Bureau’s correctional judgment, the
loss of life or serious injury, whether
staff, inmate or a member of the public,
is immeasurable and as such, the use of
scanning technology to prevent such
occurrences is reasonable and
warranted.
For the aforementioned reasons, we
now finalize the proposed rule
published on February 14, 2014 (79 FR
8910), 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 Department of Justice
has determined that this rule is a
‘‘significant regulatory action’’ under
Executive Order 12866, section 3(f),
Regulatory Planning and Review, and
accordingly this rule has been reviewed
by the Office of Management and
Budget (OMB).
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
PO 00000
Frm 00031
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
32001
approving it certifies that this regulation
will not have a significant economic
impact upon a substantial number of
small entities for the following reasons:
This rule pertains to the correctional
management of offenders committed to
the custody of the Attorney General or
the Director of the Bureau of Prisons,
and its economic impact is limited to
the Bureau’s appropriated funds.
Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of
1995
This rule will not result in the
expenditure by State, local and tribal
governments, in the aggregate, or by the
private sector, of $100,000,000 or more
in any one year, and it will not
significantly or uniquely affect small
governments. Therefore, no actions were
deemed necessary under the provisions
of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
of 1995.
Small Business Regulatory Enforcement
Fairness Act of 1996
This rule is not a major rule as
defined by § 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.
List of Subjects in 28 CFR Part 552
Prisoners.
Charles E. Samuels, Jr.,
Director, Bureau of Prisons.
Accordingly, under rulemaking
authority vested in the Attorney General
in 5 U.S.C. 301; 28 U.S.C. 509, 510 and
delegated to the Director, Bureau of
Prisons in 28 CFR 0.96, we amend 28
CFR part 552 as set forth below.
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. 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.
2. Revise § 552.11(a) to read as
follows:
■
E:\FR\FM\05JNR1.SGM
05JNR1
32002
§ 552.11
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 108 / Friday, June 5, 2015 / Rules and Regulations
Searches of inmates.
(a) Electronic devices. Inspection of an
inmate’s person using electronic devices
(for example, metal detector, ion
spectrometry device, or body imaging
search device) does not require the
inmate to remove clothing. The
inspection may also include a search of
the inmate’s clothing and personal
effects. Staff may conduct an electronic
device search of an inmate on a routine
or random basis to control contraband.
*
*
*
*
*
■ 3. Revise § 552.13 to read as follows:
§ 552.13 Medical x-ray device, major
instrument, or surgical intrusion.
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES
(a) The institution physician may
authorize use of a major instrument
(including anoscope or vaginal
speculum) or surgical intrusion for
medical reasons only, with the inmate’s
consent.
(b) The institution physician may
authorize use of a medical x-ray device
for medical reasons and only with the
consent of the inmate. When there exists
no reasonable alternative, and an
examination using a medical x-ray
device is determined necessary for the
security, good order, or discipline of the
institution, the Warden, upon approval
of the Regional Director, may authorize
the institution physician to order a nonrepetitive examination using a medical
x-ray device for the purpose of
determining if contraband is concealed
in or on the inmate (for example: In a
cast or body cavity). The examination
using a medical x-ray device may not be
performed if it is determined by the
institution physician that it is likely to
result in serious or lasting medical
injury or harm to the inmate. Staff shall
place documentation of the examination
and the reasons for the examination in
the inmate’s central file and medical
file.
(1) The Warden and Regional Director
or persons officially acting in that
capacity may not redelegate the
authority to approve an examination
using medical x-ray device for the
purpose of determining if contraband is
present. An Acting Warden or Acting
Regional Director may, however,
perform this function.
(2) Staff shall solicit the inmate’s
consent prior to an examination using a
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:17 Jun 04, 2015
Jkt 235001
medical x-ray device. However, the
inmate’s consent is not required.
(c) The Warden may direct searches of
inanimate objects using a medical x-ray
device where the inmate is not exposed.
[FR Doc. 2015–13710 Filed 6–4–15; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4410–05–P
DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE
Department of the Navy
32 CFR Part 706
Certifications and Exemptions Under
the International Regulations for
Preventing Collisions at Sea, 1972
Department of the Navy, DoD.
Final rule.
AGENCY:
ACTION:
The Department of the Navy
(DoN) is amending its certifications and
exemptions under the International
Regulations for Preventing Collisions at
Sea, 1972, as amended (72 COLREGS),
to reflect that the Deputy Assistant
Judge Advocate General (DAJAG)
(Admiralty and Maritime Law) has
determined that USS DETROIT (LCS 7)
is a vessel of the Navy which, due to its
special construction and purpose,
cannot fully comply with certain
provisions of the 72 COLREGS without
interfering with its special function as a
naval ship. The intended effect of this
rule is to warn mariners in waters where
72 COLREGS apply.
DATES: This rule is effective June 5, 2015
and is applicable beginning May 13,
2015.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Commander Theron R. Korsak,
(Admiralty and Maritime Law), Office of
the Judge Advocate General, Department
of the Navy, 1322 Patterson Ave. SE.,
Suite 3000, Washington Navy Yard, DC
20374–5066, telephone number: 202–
685–5040.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Pursuant
to the authority granted in 33 U.S.C.
1605, the DoN amends 32 CFR part 706.
This amendment provides notice that
the DAJAG (Admiralty and Maritime
Law), of the DoN, under authority
delegated by the Secretary of the Navy,
has certified that USS DETROIT (LCS 7)
is a vessel of the Navy which, due to its
special construction and purpose,
SUMMARY:
PO 00000
Frm 00032
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
cannot fully comply with the following
specific provisions of 72 COLREGS
without interfering with its special
function as a naval ship: Annex I
paragraph 2(a)(i), pertaining to the
location of the forward masthead light at
a height not less than 12 meters above
the hull; Annex I, paragraph 3(a),
pertaining to the location of the forward
masthead light in the forward quarter of
the ship, and the horizontal distance
between the forward and after masthead
lights. The DAJAG (Admiralty and
Maritime Law) has also certified that the
lights involved are located in closest
possible compliance with the applicable
72 COLREGS requirements.
Moreover, it has been determined, in
accordance with 32 CFR parts 296 and
701, that publication of this amendment
for public comment prior to adoption is
impracticable, unnecessary, and
contrary to public interest since it is
based on technical findings that the
placement of lights on this vessel in a
manner differently from that prescribed
herein will adversely affect the vessel’s
ability to perform its military functions.
List of Subjects in 32 CFR Part 706
Marine safety, Navigation (water),
Vessels.
For the reasons set forth in the
preamble, the DoN amends part 706 of
title 32 of the Code of Federal
Regulations as follows:
PART 706—CERTIFICATIONS AND
EXEMPTIONS UNDER THE
INTERNATIONAL REGULATIONS FOR
PREVENTING COLLISIONS AT SEA,
1972
1. The authority citation for part 706
continues to read as follows:
■
Authority: 33 U.S.C. 1605.
2. Section 706.2 is amended by:
a. In Table One, adding, in alpha
numerical order, by vessel number, an
entry for USS DETROIT (LCS 7); and
■ b. In Table Five, adding, in alpha
numerical order, by vessel number, an
entry for USS DETROIT (LCS 7).
The additions read as follows:
■
■
§ 706.2 Certifications of the Secretary of
the Navy under Executive Order 11964 and
33 U.S.C. 1605.
*
E:\FR\FM\05JNR1.SGM
*
*
05JNR1
*
*
]]>Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 108 (Friday, June 5, 2015)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 32000-32002]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2015-13710]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
Bureau of Prisons
28 CFR Part 552
[BOP-1162-F]
RIN 1120-AB62
Searches of Housing Units, Inmates, and Inmate Work Areas: Use of
X-Ray Devices--Clarification of Terminology
AGENCY: Bureau of Prisons, Justice.
ACTION: Final rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: In this document, the Bureau of Prisons (Bureau) clarifies
that body imaging search devices are ``electronic search devices'' for
routine or random use in searching inmates, and are distinguished from
medical x-ray devices, which require the inmate's consent, or Regional
Director approval, for use as search devices.
DATES: This rule is effective on July 6, 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 finalizes its
regulation on searches of inmates using x-ray devices and technology
(28 CFR part 552, subpart B). We change this regulation to clarify that
body imaging search devices are ``electronic search devices'' for
routine or random use in searching inmates, and are distinguished from
medical x-ray devices, the use of which require the inmate's consent,
or Regional Director approval, for use as search devices. We published
a proposed rule on this subject on February 14, 2014 (79 FR 8910). We
received a total of twenty comments on the proposed rule. Three
comments were generally in favor of the proposed changes. Eleven
comments were copies of the same form letter. We respond below to the
issues raised by that form letter and the remaining six comments.
The Electronic Devices That the Bureau Uses Are Unsafe or Will Cause
Harm to Inmates
Fifteen comments (including the eleven form letters) were concerned
that the electronic devices used by the Bureau, particularly those
which use x-ray technology, will be harmful to inmates. Another
commenter stated that the use of x-ray technology as intended by the
Bureau is so unsafe that it ``is a clear violation of human rights.''
The x-ray technology used for searches by the Bureau employs a very
low level of radiation. Radiation is measured in units called
``sieverts.'' A person scanned by a Bureau body scanner would receive
only 0.25 sieverts and can be scanned up to 1,000 times a year. For
context, a scan from this machine is equal to eating two and a half
bananas (the potassium in bananas emit radiation). Sleeping next to
someone exposes you to .05 sieverts, because we all have minerals in
our bones that emit radiation. Also, people living in areas of high
elevations are exposed to almost 5 times (1.2 sieverts) as much
radiation as one scan from a Bureau body scanner, because there is more
cosmic radiation at high elevations. An airplane flight from New York
to Los Angeles exposes a human body to 40 sieverts of radiation. Again,
the Bureau's x-ray technology scanners employ only .25 sieverts, so low
a level of radiation as to be safe.
Further, the Bureau requested an independent study (``Radiation
Protection Report'') of its pilot program use of the ``Radpro
SecurPass'' technology. The review, conducted in 2012, was generated
and peer reviewed by radiological physicists holding Certified Health
Physicist credentials and board certification of the American Board of
Radiology in Diagnostic Radiology. The Report concluded that the
average effective reference dose was 0.233 sieverts, which is
representative of the maximum possible radiation dose for the machine
to one person for one scan. The Report concluded that the system may be
operated at that dose level up to 1,000 times per year while
maintaining the recommended safe radiation dose.
The use of electronic search devices described in the proposed rule
is also within established inmate search procedures. There is no impact
it will have on the federal inmate population which is not already
present. The proposed rule clarified that body x-ray imaging search
devices are ``electronic search devices'' for routine or random use in
searching inmates. This change does not affect physical contact with
inmates or require disrobement. Other than increased effectiveness at
identifying contraband through the use of new minimally invasive hand-
held technology, there exists no actual or perceivable difference
between already-in-use electronic search devices and the proposed x-ray
search device. In fact, the use of the technology will cut down the
frequency and need for more invasive searches of the type that inmates
seek to avoid.
Further, prisoners, visitors, and staff have diminished Fourth
Amendment protections in a correctional setting
[[Page 32001]]
under the constellation of rules created by Bell, Hudson, and Turner.
In Bell v. Wolfish, 441 U.S. 520 (1979) and Hudson v. Palmer, 468 U.S.
517 (1984), inmates brought challenges to searches of their person and
cells, respectively. The Bell court noted prisons are uniquely
dangerous environments, and held that the interest in keeping out
contraband outweighed inmate privacy concerns. Similarly, the Hudson
court found prison cell searches are categorically reasonable since a
prisoner's expectation of privacy must always yield to the paramount
interest in institutional security. Turner v. Safley, 482 U.S. 78
(1987) created a new standard: When a prison regulation impinges on the
constitutional rights of an inmate, staff member, or visitor, the
regulation is valid if it is reasonably related to legitimate
penological interests.
The Turner standard, with the fact-specific principles of Bell have
been consistently used guidelines to reference for inmate body
searches. The Supreme Court specifically invoked both cases as primary
guidance in Florence v. Bd. of Chosen Freeholders of County of
Burlington. The Court held it was reasonable in a physical search to
command ``detainees to lift their genitals or cough in a squatting
position.'' These procedures, similar to the ones upheld in Bell, are
designed to uncover contraband that can go undetected by a patdown,
metal detector, and other less invasive searches. 132 S. Ct. 1510,
1520, 182 L. Ed. 2d 566 (2012). Physical manipulation of an unclothed
area, however, would not be permissible. Id. The non-contact electronic
device search is precisely within the ``less-invasive,'' non-
controversial ambit described in Florence.
It is also important to note that the regulations will retain
current language stating that use of any electronic device ``does not
require the inmate to remove clothing.'' 28 CFR 552.11.
Bureau Staff Do Not Have Adequate Training To Use New X-Ray Body Scan
Technology
One commenter was concerned that Bureau staff are not qualified to
use new technology. This is not true. Policy accompanying the change to
this regulation and the implementation of any new search device under
these regulations will require training on the use of the devices.
Operators Manuals for the technological devices will be required for
all employees who operate the scanners. This training will be re-
implemented annually.
Implementation of the Devices Will Be Costly to the Public
One commenter felt that ``the cost of instituting [body scanners
would be] incredible.'' The scanning technology used by the Bureau is
also routinely used in other public safety sectors (e.g. airport
security, military, state jail security, etc.) and is not prohibitively
expensive. The Bureau evaluated and tested several different types of
whole body imaging devices, some acquired through surplus acquisition
at no cost from other federal agencies. During the evaluation period, a
significant amount of dangerous contraband (i.e., weapons, drugs and
contraband cell phones), were detected with these devices and
confiscated. Because the technology provides enhanced institution
security, promotes staff and inmate safety, and ultimately increases
the safety of the public, the return on investment for the cost of
these devices is significant. In the Bureau's correctional judgment,
the loss of life or serious injury, whether staff, inmate or a member
of the public, is immeasurable and as such, the use of scanning
technology to prevent such occurrences is reasonable and warranted.
For the aforementioned reasons, we now finalize the proposed rule
published on February 14, 2014 (79 FR 8910), 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 Department of Justice has determined that
this rule is a ``significant regulatory action'' under Executive Order
12866, section 3(f), Regulatory Planning and Review, and accordingly
this rule has been reviewed by the Office of Management and Budget
(OMB).
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.
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 552
Prisoners.
Charles E. Samuels, Jr.,
Director, Bureau of Prisons.
Accordingly, under rulemaking authority vested in the Attorney
General in 5 U.S.C. 301; 28 U.S.C. 509, 510 and delegated to the
Director, Bureau of Prisons in 28 CFR 0.96, we amend 28 CFR part 552 as
set forth below.
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. 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.
0
2. Revise Sec. 552.11(a) to read as follows:
[[Page 32002]]
Sec. 552.11 Searches of inmates.
(a) Electronic devices. Inspection of an inmate's person using
electronic devices (for example, metal detector, ion spectrometry
device, or body imaging search device) does not require the inmate to
remove clothing. The inspection may also include a search of the
inmate's clothing and personal effects. Staff may conduct an electronic
device search of an inmate on a routine or random basis to control
contraband.
* * * * *
0
3. Revise Sec. 552.13 to read as follows:
Sec. 552.13 Medical x-ray device, major instrument, or surgical
intrusion.
(a) The institution physician may authorize use of a major
instrument (including anoscope or vaginal speculum) or surgical
intrusion for medical reasons only, with the inmate's consent.
(b) The institution physician may authorize use of a medical x-ray
device for medical reasons and only with the consent of the inmate.
When there exists no reasonable alternative, and an examination using a
medical x-ray device is determined necessary for the security, good
order, or discipline of the institution, the Warden, upon approval of
the Regional Director, may authorize the institution physician to order
a non-repetitive examination using a medical x-ray device for the
purpose of determining if contraband is concealed in or on the inmate
(for example: In a cast or body cavity). The examination using a
medical x-ray device may not be performed if it is determined by the
institution physician that it is likely to result in serious or lasting
medical injury or harm to the inmate. Staff shall place documentation
of the examination and the reasons for the examination in the inmate's
central file and medical file.
(1) The Warden and Regional Director or persons officially acting
in that capacity may not redelegate the authority to approve an
examination using medical x-ray device for the purpose of determining
if contraband is present. An Acting Warden or Acting Regional Director
may, however, perform this function.
(2) Staff shall solicit the inmate's consent prior to an
examination using a medical x-ray device. However, the inmate's consent
is not required.
(c) The Warden may direct searches of inanimate objects using a
medical x-ray device where the inmate is not exposed.
[FR Doc. 2015-13710 Filed 6-4-15; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4410-05-P
