Request for Information Regarding the Manner of Execution Regulations, 58531-58534 [2022-20889]
Download as PDF
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 186 / Tuesday, September 27, 2022 / Notices
jspears on DSK121TN23PROD with NOTICES
C. 2019 Addendum to the Federal
Execution Protocol
In July 2019, the then-Attorney
General directed the Bureau of Prisons
to adopt an Addendum to the Federal
Execution Protocol that provided for the
use of a single drug, pentobarbital. See
Press Release, Department of Justice,
Federal Government to Resume Capital
Punishment After Nearly Two Decade
Lapse (July 25, 2019), https://
www.justice.gov/opa/pr/federalgovernment-resume-capitalpunishment-after-nearly-two-decadelapse; Memorandum for the Attorney
General, The Federal Bureau of Prisons’
Federal Execution Protocol Addendum
(July 24, 2019); Memorandum for the
Attorney General, Summary of the
Federal Bureau of Prisons’ Federal
Execution Protocol Addendum (July 24,
2019); see also Addendum to BOP
Execution Protocol: Federal Death
Sentence Implementation Procedures
(Effective July 25, 2019), available at
https://www.supremecourt.gov/
DocketPDF/19/19-1348/145068/
20200605210117775_
2020%2006%2005%20Appendix.pdf (at
210a).
The Bureau of Prisons indicated in a
memorandum to the then-Attorney
General that it had a ‘‘viable domestic
source’’ to obtain pentobarbital and that
the manufacturer is properly registered
as a bulk manufacturer of pentobarbital.
See Memorandum for the Attorney
General, Summary of the Federal
Bureau of Prisons’ Federal Execution
Protocol Addendum (July 24, 2019). The
Bureau of Prisons also ‘‘secured a
compounding pharmacy to store the
[active pharmaceutical ingredient] and
to convert the [active pharmaceutical
ingredient] into injectable form as
needed.’’ Id.
The 2019 Addendum, like at least one
previous addendum, asserts that the
‘‘identities of personnel considered for
and/or selected to perform death
sentence related functions . . . shall be
protected from disclosure to the fullest
extent permitted by law.’’ Addendum to
BOP Execution Protocol: Federal Death
Sentence Implementation Procedures
(Effective July 25, 2019). The 2019
Addendum also specifies other details
such as defining the ‘‘qualified
personnel’’ who can serve as the
executioner(s); the number of rehearsals
that non-medically licensed or certified
qualified personnel must participate in
prior to participating in an actual
execution; dosage; identification of
appropriate injection sites; the number
of backup syringes; and how and when
the condemned individual should be
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:51 Sep 26, 2022
Jkt 256001
escorted into the room, restrained, and
monitored. Id.
From July 2020 to January 2021, the
federal government executed thirteen
death row inmates pursuant to the 2019
Addendum.
DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
D. 2021 Moratorium on Federal
Executions Pending Review of Policies
and Procedures
ACTION:
As noted above, the Attorney General
issued a moratorium on federal
execution during the pendency of three
reviews. The first, and the subject of this
Request for Information, is a review to
‘‘assess the risk of pain and suffering
associated with the use of
pentobarbital.’’ The review may also
‘‘address any other relevant portion’’ of
the 2019 Addendum. See Memorandum
from the Attorney General, Moratorium
on Federal Executions Pending Review
of Policies and Procedures (July 1,
2021).
As noted in the Attorney General’s
memorandum, although some medical
experts have concluded that the use of
pentobarbital may risk inflicting painful
pulmonary edema, the Supreme Court
found that this risk was insufficient ‘‘to
justify last-minute intervention by a
Federal Court’’ shortly before an
execution was scheduled to occur. Barr
v. Lee, 140 S. Ct. 2590, 2591 (2020) (per
curiam). However, ‘‘[a] risk need not
meet the Court’s high threshold for such
relief, or violate the Eighth Amendment,
to raise important questions about our
responsibility to treat individuals
humanely and avoid unnecessary pain
and suffering.’’ Memorandum from the
Attorney General, Moratorium on
Federal Executions Pending Review of
Policies and Procedures (July 1, 2021).
To ensure that these considerations are
taken into account, the Attorney General
ordered this review.
III. Solicitation of Comments
The Department of Justice requests
information from individuals or
organizations regarding the risk of pain
and suffering associated with the use of
pentobarbital and any other relevant
portion of the 2019 Addendum. To
contribute effectively to this review, all
commenters are encouraged to provide
comments that are responsive
specifically to the topics of this review.
Dated: September 21, 2022.
Hampton Y. Dellinger,
Assistant Attorney General, Office of Legal
Policy.
[FR Doc. 2022–20886 Filed 9–26–22; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4410–BB–P
PO 00000
Frm 00059
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
58531
[Docket No. OLP 171]
Request for Information Regarding the
Manner of Execution Regulations
Department of Justice.
Request for information.
AGENCY:
The Department of Justice is
requesting information in the form of
written comments that may include
information, research, and data
regarding 28 CFR part 26, which
governs the implementation of federal
executions. On November 27, 2020, the
Department amended these regulations
to expand the permissible methods of
execution beyond lethal injection to
‘‘any other manner prescribed by the
law of the State in which the sentence
was imposed.’’ The amendments also
authorized the use of state facilities and
personnel in federal executions and
made a number of procedural changes,
including granting the Attorney General
authority to make exceptions to the
regulations and to delegate duties
within the Department.
DATES: Electronic comments must be
submitted, and written comments must
be postmarked, on or before November
28, 2022.
ADDRESSES: You may submit comments,
identified by Docket No. 171, through
the Federal eRulemaking Portal:
www.regulations.gov. Follow the
instructions for submitting comments.
• Postal Mail or Commercial Delivery:
If you do not have internet access or
electronic submission is not possible,
you may mail written comments to
Docket Clerk, Office of Legal Policy,
U.S. Department of Justice, 950
Pennsylvania Ave. NW, Washington, DC
20530. To ensure proper handling,
please reference the agency name and
Docket No. OLP 171 on your
correspondence.
• Please note that comments
submitted by email or fax may not be
reviewed by DOJ.
Privacy Note: The Justice
Department’s policy is to make all
comments received from members of the
public available for public viewing in
their entirety on the Federal
eRulemaking Portal at
www.regulations.gov. Therefore,
commenters should be careful to
include in their comments only
information that they wish to make
publicly available.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Robert Hinchman, Senior Counsel,
Office of Legal Policy, U.S. Department
of Justice, (202) 514–8059 (this is not a
toll-free number). If you use a
SUMMARY:
E:\FR\FM\27SEN1.SGM
27SEN1
58532
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 186 / Tuesday, September 27, 2022 / Notices
telecommunications device for the deaf
(TDD) or a text telephone (TTY), please
call the toll free Federal Information
Relay Service (FIRS) at 1–800–877–
8339.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
jspears on DSK121TN23PROD with NOTICES
I. Public Participation
Interested persons are invited to
comment on this notice by submitting
written data, views, or arguments.
II. Background
On July 1, 2021, Attorney General
Merrick Garland issued a moratorium
on federal executions pending a review
of certain policies and procedures. See
Memorandum from the Attorney
General, Moratorium on Federal
Executions Pending Review of Policies
and Procedures (July 1, 2021), https://
www.justice.gov/opa/page/file/1408636/
download. In issuing the moratorium,
the Attorney General noted that ‘‘[t]he
Department of Justice must ensure that
everyone in the federal criminal justice
system is not only afforded the rights
guaranteed by the Constitution and laws
of the United States, but is also treated
fairly and humanely. That obligation
has special force in capital cases.
Serious concerns have been raised about
the continued use of the death penalty
across the country, including
arbitrariness in its application, disparate
impact on people of color, and the
troubling number of exonerations in
capital and other serious cases.’’ Id.
The Attorney General noted that, in
the last two years preceding the
issuance of the moratorium, the
Department had made a series of
changes to its policies and procedures
governing capital sentences, which were
accompanied by the first federal
executions in nearly two decades. Id.
‘‘To ensure that the Department’s
policies and procedures are consistent
with the principles articulated in [the]
memorandum,’’ the Attorney General
asked the Deputy Attorney General to
supervise three reviews on this general
subject.
The second of these reviews directs
the Office of Legal Policy to consider
whether and to what extent
amendments made in November 2020 to
federal regulations governing the
manner of federal executions ‘‘should be
modified or rescinded’’ and ‘‘to consider
any other changes that should be made
to the regulations.’’ Id. That review is
the subject of this Request for
Information.
A. Statutory and Regulatory Framework
for Federal Executions
In 1993 (pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 301; 18
U.S.C. 4001(b), 4002; and 28 U.S.C. 509,
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:51 Sep 26, 2022
Jkt 256001
510), the Department of Justice issued
regulations providing for lethal injection
as the method of execution for federal
capital crimes ‘‘except to the extent a
court orders otherwise,’’ 28 CFR 26.3,
and governing various tasks related to
scheduling and carrying out the federal
death sentences, 58 FR 4898 (Jan. 19,
1993); 28 CFR part 26 (effective through
Dec. 27, 2020). Among other things, the
regulations provided that, except as
otherwise ordered by a court, a federal
sentence of death shall be executed
‘‘[o]n a date and at a time designated by
the Director of the Federal Bureau of
Prisons,’’ ‘‘[a]t a federal penal or
correctional institution designated by
the Director of the Federal Bureau of
Prisons,’’ and ‘‘[b]y a United States
Marshal designated by the Director of
the United States Marshals Service.’’ 28
CFR 26.3(a)(1)–(3) (effective through
Dec. 27, 2020).
A year later, Congress enacted the
Federal Death Penalty Act (‘‘FDPA’’),
Public Law 103–322, 60002, 108 Stat.
1796, 1959 (1994), which provides that
a federal death sentence shall be carried
out ‘‘in the manner prescribed by the
law of the State in which the sentence
is imposed.’’ 18 U.S.C. 3596(a). If the
law of the state in which the sentence
is imposed ‘‘does not provide for
implementation of a sentence of death,’’
then the FDPA instructs that ‘‘the court
shall designate another state, the law of
which does provide for the
implementation of a sentence of death,
and the sentence shall be implemented
. . . in the manner prescribed by such
law.’’ Id.
B. November 2020 Amendments to the
Manner of Execution Regulations
On November 27, 2020, the
Department of Justice amended the
regulations governing the manner of
federal executions ‘‘to provide the
Federal Government with greater
flexibility to conduct executions in any
manner authorized by’’ the FDPA. 85 FR
75846, 75847 (Nov. 27, 2020). The
amendments, which became effective on
December 28, 2020, made a number of
changes, detailed below.
Before the amendments were
promulgated, the Department published
a notice of proposed rulemaking
(‘‘NPRM’’) on August 5, 2020. See
Manner of Federal Executions, 85 FR
47324 (Aug. 5, 2020). By the end of the
30-day comment period on September 4,
2020, the Department had received 23
comments that were responsive to the
proposed rule. These comments were
addressed in the final rule, published in
the Federal Register on November 27,
2020. 85 FR 75846–75853.
PO 00000
Frm 00060
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
1. Manner of Execution Amendments
The Department of Justice amended
28 CFR 26.3(a)(4) to provide that federal
executions are to be carried out by lethal
injection ‘‘or by any other manner
prescribed by the law of the State in
which the sentence was imposed or
which has been designated by a court in
accordance with 18 U.S.C. 3596(a).’’ In
making this change, the Department
noted that it ‘‘would ensure that the
Department would be authorized to use
the widest range of manners of
execution permitted by law.’’ 85 FR at
75848.
The Department also amended section
26.4(a) so that the notice of the date of
execution provided to a prisoner also
stated the method of execution to be
used. The amendments also added a
new sentence at the end of the
paragraph to read as follows: ‘‘If
applicable law provides that the
prisoner may choose among multiple
manners of execution, the Director or
his designee shall notify the prisoner of
that option.’’ 28 CFR 26.4(a).
2. Use of State Facilities Amendments
The November 2020 amendments
authorized the use of state facilities and
personnel in federal executions by
striking ‘‘federal’’ before ‘‘penal or
correctional institution’’ in section
26.3(a)(2) and by replacing ‘‘[b]y’’ with
‘‘[u]nder the supervision of’’ a United
States Marshal in section 26.3(a)(3).
3. Section 26.1
The amendments added a new
provision, section 26.1(b), that
authorized the Attorney General to vary
from the regulations to the extent
necessary to comply with applicable
law. The provision reads: ‘‘Where
applicable law conflicts with any
provision of this part, the Attorney
General may vary from that provision to
the extent necessary to comply with the
applicable law.’’ 28 CFR 26.1(b).
The November 2020 amendments also
added a new provision, section 26.1(c),
that stated that any task or duty
assigned to any officer or employee of
the Department of Justice under Part 26
may be delegated by the Attorney
General to any other officer or employee
of the Department of Justice.
4. Section 26.2
The amendments removed section
26.2, which had required prosecutors to
submit a proposed Judgment and Order
to the court in cases in which the
defendant was sentenced to death. The
content of the Judgment and Order had
included four basic points: (1) The
sentence was to be executed by a United
States Marshal, (2) by injection of a
E:\FR\FM\27SEN1.SGM
27SEN1
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 186 / Tuesday, September 27, 2022 / Notices
lethal substance, (3) on a date and at a
place designated by BOP, and (4) the
prisoner under sentence of death was to
be committed to the custody of the
Attorney General or his designee for
detention pending execution of the
sentence.
jspears on DSK121TN23PROD with NOTICES
5. Section 26.3
In section 26.3(a)(3), the November
2020 amendments clarified that
‘‘qualified’’ personnel must carry out an
execution, regardless of manner.
The amendments to section 26.3(a)(3)
also provided that the sentence of death
be executed under the supervision of a
United States Marshal designated by the
Director of the United States Marshals
Service, assisted by additional qualified
personnel who are selected by the
Director of the United States Marshals
Service and the Director of the Federal
Bureau of Prisons, or their designees,
and acting at the direction of the
Marshal.
6. Section 26.4
Section 26.4(a) provides that a
prisoner will receive notice of the date
designated for execution ‘‘at least 20
days in advance, except when the date
follows a postponement of fewer than
20 days of a previously scheduled and
noticed date of execution, in which
case’’ the prisoner shall be notified ‘‘as
soon as possible.’’ The November 2020
amendments placed responsibility for
such notification with the ‘‘Director of
the Federal Bureau of Prisons or his
designee’’ instead of with the
‘‘Warden.’’
Section 26.4(b) governs prisoner
access to other persons in the week
before the designated execution date,
limiting such access to spiritual
advisers, defense attorneys, family
members, institution officials, and—
upon the approval of the BOP Director
or his designee—‘‘such other proper
persons as the prisoner may request.’’
The amendments clarified that the BOP
Director or his designee may approve
prisoner requests for types of visitors
not listed in the regulation, eliminating
a reference to the ‘‘Warden.’’
Section 26.4(c) governs execution
attendance, requiring certain official
personnel to attend and imposing limits
on the numbers and types of other
persons whom the prisoner and officials
may designate to attend. The
amendments eliminated references to
the ‘‘Warden,’’ thus eliminating the
requirement that the Warden attend
executions, while maintaining the
requirement that the Marshal attend.
The only other proposed change was to
vest authority for selecting necessary
personnel in the Marshal and the BOP
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:51 Sep 26, 2022
Jkt 256001
Director or his designee, instead of in
the Marshal and the Warden.
7. Section 26.5
The amendments to section 26.5
extended to non-Department of Justice
employees (including contractors)
existing protections that applied to
Department of Justice employees,
allowing them not to be in attendance
at or to participate in any execution if
such attendance or participation is
contrary to the moral or religious
convictions of the Department of Justice
employee.
C. 2021 Moratorium on Federal
Executions Pending Review of Policies
and Procedures
As noted above, Attorney General
Garland issued a moratorium on federal
execution during the pendency of three
reviews. The second, and the subject of
this Request for Information, is a review
‘‘to consider whether and to what extent
[the November 2020] amendments
should be modified or rescinded’’ and
‘‘to consider any other changes that
should be made to the regulations.’’ See
Memorandum from the Attorney
General, Moratorium on Federal
Executions Pending Review of Policies
and Procedures (July 1, 2021), https://
www.justice.gov/opa/page/file/1408636/
download.
III. Solicitation of Comments
The Department of Justice requests
information from individuals or
organizations regarding whether the
November 2020 amendments should be
modified or rescinded and whether any
other changes should be made to the
regulations in 28 CFR part 26. To
contribute effectively to this review, all
commenters are encouraged to provide
comments that are responsive
specifically to the topics of this review.
The Department is particularly
interested in responses to the questions
below, although the Department would
welcome any comment within the scope
of this inquiry.
Manner of Execution
1. If a State authorizes two or more
manners of execution (e.g., lethal
injection and firing squad), what
limitations or restrictions, if any, should
be placed on the federal government’s
ability or authority to choose which of
those manners of execution it would
employ for federal executions, both in
contexts where the State provides the
inmate a choice among methods as well
as in contexts where the State does not
have a choice provision but authorizes
two or more permissible manners?
PO 00000
Frm 00061
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
58533
2. If the manner of execution
prescribed by the law of the State in
which the sentence is imposed was
unconstitutional for violation of the 8th
Amendment’s ‘‘cruel and unusual
punishment’’ clause, how should the
federal government implement the
death sentence?
3. What obligation, if any, would the
federal government have to
independently analyze and assess the
constitutional validity of state-law
manners of execution before employing
one?
4. If an inmate’s medical conditions
made it likely that use of a State’s
manner of execution would subject the
inmate to unconstitutional pain and
suffering, should the federal government
be permitted to use an alternative form
of execution? Who would determine
and how would they determine that the
inmate’s medical conditions made it
likely that use of a State’s manner of
execution would subject the inmate to
unconstitutional pain and suffering?
5. Currently, the federal government
only has the equipment and personnel
to conduct executions by lethal
injection. What logistical, practical, or
legal steps would the federal
government need to take to implement
a State method of execution other than
lethal injection?
Use of State Facilities
6. Are there logistical or practical
concerns with allowing the federal
government to make arrangements or
agreements with the relevant State to
use State equipment, facilities, and
personnel for federal executions? Please
explain.
Notice
7. When regulations, guidance, or
policy regarding implementation of the
death sentence is changed, what process
should the federal government follow to
ensure appropriate notice?
8. Should inmates and/or inmate’s
counsel be notified of any potential
deviations from the regulations? If so,
how and by whom?
9. What limitations or modifications
should be made, if any, to the Attorney
General’s authority in 28 CFR 26.1(b) to
vary from the regulations ‘‘to the extent
necessary to comply with the applicable
law’’?
10. Should the notice requirement in
28 CFR 26.4 include notice to counsel?
If so, how and by whom?
11. Are the time periods for notice
provided in the regulations sufficient,
for example, to permit the filing of a
clemency petition or to request a stay of
execution? If not, how much time
should be allotted for notice and why?
E:\FR\FM\27SEN1.SGM
27SEN1
58534
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 186 / Tuesday, September 27, 2022 / Notices
Delegation of Duties
MATTERS TO BE CONSIDERED:
12. When duties are reassigned
between Department of Justice
components, what types of processes or
protocols should be implemented to
ensure transparency, effective
implementation of the law, and
consistency?
Judgment and Order Filings
13. What was the practical function
that a Judgment and Order filing had in
litigation?
Definitions
14. Are there any undefined terms in
the regulations or statute that would
benefit from a definition? If yes, please
explain why the term should be defined
and what the definition should be. In
particular, please consider whether the
following terms should be defined and,
if so, what the definitions should be:
• ‘‘When a stay is lifted’’
• ‘‘Promptly’’
• ‘‘Qualified’’
Visitors and Witnesses
15. What criteria should be applied
regarding access to visitors in the week
before the designated execution date?
16. What criteria should be applied to
the selection of witnesses who are
present during federal executions?
17. To what extent should the federal
government limit the number of—or
otherwise participate in the selection
of—spiritual advisers, attorneys, friends,
or relatives who may access a prisoner
prior to a designated date of execution?
Generally
18. Are there particular provisions of
the November 2020 amendments or the
prior regulatory scheme that should be
retained, modified, or rescinded and, if
so, why?
19. Should any other changes be made
to 28 CFR Ch. I, Pt. 26, Subpart A?
Dated: September 21, 2022.
Hampton Y. Dellinger,
Assistant Attorney General, Office of Legal
Policy.
[FR Doc. 2022–20889 Filed 9–26–22; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4410–BB–P
DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
jspears on DSK121TN23PROD with NOTICES
Parole Commission
Sunshine Act Meeting
Tuesday October 4, 2022,
at 1 p.m.
PLACE: U.S. Parole Commission, 90 K
Street NE, 3rd Floor, Washington, DC.
STATUS: Open.
DATE AND TIME:
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:51 Sep 26, 2022
Jkt 256001
1. Approval of April 2022 Quarterly
Meeting minutes.
2. Verbal Pandemic Updates since
October Quarterly Meeting from the
Acting Chairman, Commissioner, Acting
Chief of Staff/Case Operations
Administrator, Case Services
Administrator, Executive Officer, and
General Counsel.
3. Vote on final rule to modify 28 CFR
2.86, Release on Parole, Recission for
Misconduct.
5. Vote on final rule to modify 28 CFR
2.34, Rescission of Parole.
6. Wrap-up on jurisdiction over
military offenders.
7. Status of Transfer Treaty cases.
8. Update on status of treatment
programs (RSAT and Reentry and
Sanctions Center Treatment Program).
CONTACT PERSON FOR MORE INFORMATION:
Jacquelyn Graham, Staff Assistant to the
Chairman, U.S. Parole Commission, 90
K Street NE, 3rd Floor, Washington, DC
20530, (202) 346–7010.
Dated: September 23, 2022.
Patricia K. Cushwa,
Chairman (Acting), U.S. Parole Commission.
[FR Doc. 2022–20986 Filed 9–23–22; 4:15 pm]
BILLING CODE 4410–31–P
DEPARTMENT OF LABOR
Office of Federal Contract Compliance
Programs
Notice of Request Under the Freedom
of Information Act for Federal
Contractors’ Type 2 Consolidated
EEO–1 Report Data; Correction
Office of Federal Contract
Compliance Programs, Labor.
ACTION: Notice; correction and extension
of deadline to respond.
AGENCY:
The U.S. Department of
Labor’s Office of Federal Contract
Compliance Programs (OFCCP)
published a notice in the Federal
Register on August 19, 2022, providing
federal contractors instructions on how
to object to the release of their Type 2
EEO–1 Report data, requested under the
Freedom of Information Act (FOIA). The
notice omitted a hyperlink and
referenced a non-functional hyperlink
for a collection that is not currently
active. Additionally, this corrected
notice extends the deadline for
contractors to submit written objections
to October 19, 2022.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Candice Spalding, Deputy Director,
Division of Management and
Administrative Programs, Office of
SUMMARY:
PO 00000
Frm 00062
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
Federal Contract Compliance Programs,
200 Constitution Avenue NW, Room C–
3325, Washington, DC 20210.
Telephone: 1–855–680–0971 (voice) or
1–877–889–5627 (TTY).
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Corrections
OFCCP makes the following
corrections to its August 19, 2022,
Federal Register notice (87 FR 51145):
On page 51145, column 3, lines 36–
42 are corrected to remove the phrase,
‘‘see also EEO–1 Joint Reporting
Committee, EEO–1 Instruction Booklet
1, https://www.eeoc.gov/employers/
eeo1survey/upload/instructions_
form.pdf (describing the EEO–1 Report
as ‘‘jointly developed by the EEOC and
OFCCP’’).’’
On page 51145, column 3, the last full
sentence, ‘‘Although the EEOC and
OFCCP jointly collect the EEO–1 data
through the JRC, as a practical matter,
because the JRC is housed at the EEOC,
employers submit their data to the
EEOC,’’ is corrected so the sentence
reads as: ‘‘Employers submit their data
to the EEOC.’’
On page 51145, column 3, footnote 2
is removed in its entirety.
On page 51146, column 1, lines 11–
12, the phrase ‘‘compliance surveys’’ is
replaced with ‘‘data collections’’ so the
sentence reads as: ‘‘Section 709(e) of
Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964
imposes criminal penalties and makes it
unlawful for any officer or employee of
EEOC from making public the
employment data derived from any of
its data collections prior to the
institution of any proceeding under
EEOC’s authority involving such
information.’’
On page 51146, column 2, line 6 is
corrected to remove ‘‘[INSERT LINK]’’
and embed a hyperlink to the OFCCP
website at https://www.dol.gov/
agencies/ofccp/submitter-noticeresponse-portal and remove ‘‘15,000’’
and replace with ‘‘24,000,’’ to read,
‘‘Given OFCCP’s best estimate that the
CIR FOIA request covers approximately
24,000 unique Covered Contractors,
OFCCP is fulfilling its notification
obligation through this Federal Register
notice, a contemporaneous posting on
the OFCCP website, and notification to
all federal contractors and federal
contractor representatives that have
registered and provided electronic mail
contact information through the
agency’s Contractor Portal and/or have
subscribed to OFCCP’s GovDelivery
electronic mail listserv.’’
Extension of Deadline
The August 19, 2022, Federal Register
notice provided a deadline of September
E:\FR\FM\27SEN1.SGM
27SEN1
Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 87, Number 186 (Tuesday, September 27, 2022)]
[Notices]
[Pages 58531-58534]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2022-20889]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
[Docket No. OLP 171]
Request for Information Regarding the Manner of Execution
Regulations
AGENCY: Department of Justice.
ACTION: Request for information.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Department of Justice is requesting information in the
form of written comments that may include information, research, and
data regarding 28 CFR part 26, which governs the implementation of
federal executions. On November 27, 2020, the Department amended these
regulations to expand the permissible methods of execution beyond
lethal injection to ``any other manner prescribed by the law of the
State in which the sentence was imposed.'' The amendments also
authorized the use of state facilities and personnel in federal
executions and made a number of procedural changes, including granting
the Attorney General authority to make exceptions to the regulations
and to delegate duties within the Department.
DATES: Electronic comments must be submitted, and written comments must
be postmarked, on or before November 28, 2022.
ADDRESSES: You may submit comments, identified by Docket No. 171,
through the Federal eRulemaking Portal: www.regulations.gov. Follow the
instructions for submitting comments.
Postal Mail or Commercial Delivery: If you do not have
internet access or electronic submission is not possible, you may mail
written comments to Docket Clerk, Office of Legal Policy, U.S.
Department of Justice, 950 Pennsylvania Ave. NW, Washington, DC 20530.
To ensure proper handling, please reference the agency name and Docket
No. OLP 171 on your correspondence.
Please note that comments submitted by email or fax may
not be reviewed by DOJ.
Privacy Note: The Justice Department's policy is to make all
comments received from members of the public available for public
viewing in their entirety on the Federal eRulemaking Portal at
www.regulations.gov. Therefore, commenters should be careful to include
in their comments only information that they wish to make publicly
available.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Robert Hinchman, Senior Counsel,
Office of Legal Policy, U.S. Department of Justice, (202) 514-8059
(this is not a toll-free number). If you use a
[[Page 58532]]
telecommunications device for the deaf (TDD) or a text telephone (TTY),
please call the toll free Federal Information Relay Service (FIRS) at
1-800-877-8339.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
I. Public Participation
Interested persons are invited to comment on this notice by
submitting written data, views, or arguments.
II. Background
On July 1, 2021, Attorney General Merrick Garland issued a
moratorium on federal executions pending a review of certain policies
and procedures. See Memorandum from the Attorney General, Moratorium on
Federal Executions Pending Review of Policies and Procedures (July 1,
2021), https://www.justice.gov/opa/page/file/1408636/download. In
issuing the moratorium, the Attorney General noted that ``[t]he
Department of Justice must ensure that everyone in the federal criminal
justice system is not only afforded the rights guaranteed by the
Constitution and laws of the United States, but is also treated fairly
and humanely. That obligation has special force in capital cases.
Serious concerns have been raised about the continued use of the death
penalty across the country, including arbitrariness in its application,
disparate impact on people of color, and the troubling number of
exonerations in capital and other serious cases.'' Id.
The Attorney General noted that, in the last two years preceding
the issuance of the moratorium, the Department had made a series of
changes to its policies and procedures governing capital sentences,
which were accompanied by the first federal executions in nearly two
decades. Id. ``To ensure that the Department's policies and procedures
are consistent with the principles articulated in [the] memorandum,''
the Attorney General asked the Deputy Attorney General to supervise
three reviews on this general subject.
The second of these reviews directs the Office of Legal Policy to
consider whether and to what extent amendments made in November 2020 to
federal regulations governing the manner of federal executions ``should
be modified or rescinded'' and ``to consider any other changes that
should be made to the regulations.'' Id. That review is the subject of
this Request for Information.
A. Statutory and Regulatory Framework for Federal Executions
In 1993 (pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 301; 18 U.S.C. 4001(b), 4002; and 28
U.S.C. 509, 510), the Department of Justice issued regulations
providing for lethal injection as the method of execution for federal
capital crimes ``except to the extent a court orders otherwise,'' 28
CFR 26.3, and governing various tasks related to scheduling and
carrying out the federal death sentences, 58 FR 4898 (Jan. 19, 1993);
28 CFR part 26 (effective through Dec. 27, 2020). Among other things,
the regulations provided that, except as otherwise ordered by a court,
a federal sentence of death shall be executed ``[o]n a date and at a
time designated by the Director of the Federal Bureau of Prisons,''
``[a]t a federal penal or correctional institution designated by the
Director of the Federal Bureau of Prisons,'' and ``[b]y a United States
Marshal designated by the Director of the United States Marshals
Service.'' 28 CFR 26.3(a)(1)-(3) (effective through Dec. 27, 2020).
A year later, Congress enacted the Federal Death Penalty Act
(``FDPA''), Public Law 103-322, 60002, 108 Stat. 1796, 1959 (1994),
which provides that a federal death sentence shall be carried out ``in
the manner prescribed by the law of the State in which the sentence is
imposed.'' 18 U.S.C. 3596(a). If the law of the state in which the
sentence is imposed ``does not provide for implementation of a sentence
of death,'' then the FDPA instructs that ``the court shall designate
another state, the law of which does provide for the implementation of
a sentence of death, and the sentence shall be implemented . . . in the
manner prescribed by such law.'' Id.
B. November 2020 Amendments to the Manner of Execution Regulations
On November 27, 2020, the Department of Justice amended the
regulations governing the manner of federal executions ``to provide the
Federal Government with greater flexibility to conduct executions in
any manner authorized by'' the FDPA. 85 FR 75846, 75847 (Nov. 27,
2020). The amendments, which became effective on December 28, 2020,
made a number of changes, detailed below.
Before the amendments were promulgated, the Department published a
notice of proposed rulemaking (``NPRM'') on August 5, 2020. See Manner
of Federal Executions, 85 FR 47324 (Aug. 5, 2020). By the end of the
30-day comment period on September 4, 2020, the Department had received
23 comments that were responsive to the proposed rule. These comments
were addressed in the final rule, published in the Federal Register on
November 27, 2020. 85 FR 75846-75853.
1. Manner of Execution Amendments
The Department of Justice amended 28 CFR 26.3(a)(4) to provide that
federal executions are to be carried out by lethal injection ``or by
any other manner prescribed by the law of the State in which the
sentence was imposed or which has been designated by a court in
accordance with 18 U.S.C. 3596(a).'' In making this change, the
Department noted that it ``would ensure that the Department would be
authorized to use the widest range of manners of execution permitted by
law.'' 85 FR at 75848.
The Department also amended section 26.4(a) so that the notice of
the date of execution provided to a prisoner also stated the method of
execution to be used. The amendments also added a new sentence at the
end of the paragraph to read as follows: ``If applicable law provides
that the prisoner may choose among multiple manners of execution, the
Director or his designee shall notify the prisoner of that option.'' 28
CFR 26.4(a).
2. Use of State Facilities Amendments
The November 2020 amendments authorized the use of state facilities
and personnel in federal executions by striking ``federal'' before
``penal or correctional institution'' in section 26.3(a)(2) and by
replacing ``[b]y'' with ``[u]nder the supervision of'' a United States
Marshal in section 26.3(a)(3).
3. Section 26.1
The amendments added a new provision, section 26.1(b), that
authorized the Attorney General to vary from the regulations to the
extent necessary to comply with applicable law. The provision reads:
``Where applicable law conflicts with any provision of this part, the
Attorney General may vary from that provision to the extent necessary
to comply with the applicable law.'' 28 CFR 26.1(b).
The November 2020 amendments also added a new provision, section
26.1(c), that stated that any task or duty assigned to any officer or
employee of the Department of Justice under Part 26 may be delegated by
the Attorney General to any other officer or employee of the Department
of Justice.
4. Section 26.2
The amendments removed section 26.2, which had required prosecutors
to submit a proposed Judgment and Order to the court in cases in which
the defendant was sentenced to death. The content of the Judgment and
Order had included four basic points: (1) The sentence was to be
executed by a United States Marshal, (2) by injection of a
[[Page 58533]]
lethal substance, (3) on a date and at a place designated by BOP, and
(4) the prisoner under sentence of death was to be committed to the
custody of the Attorney General or his designee for detention pending
execution of the sentence.
5. Section 26.3
In section 26.3(a)(3), the November 2020 amendments clarified that
``qualified'' personnel must carry out an execution, regardless of
manner.
The amendments to section 26.3(a)(3) also provided that the
sentence of death be executed under the supervision of a United States
Marshal designated by the Director of the United States Marshals
Service, assisted by additional qualified personnel who are selected by
the Director of the United States Marshals Service and the Director of
the Federal Bureau of Prisons, or their designees, and acting at the
direction of the Marshal.
6. Section 26.4
Section 26.4(a) provides that a prisoner will receive notice of the
date designated for execution ``at least 20 days in advance, except
when the date follows a postponement of fewer than 20 days of a
previously scheduled and noticed date of execution, in which case'' the
prisoner shall be notified ``as soon as possible.'' The November 2020
amendments placed responsibility for such notification with the
``Director of the Federal Bureau of Prisons or his designee'' instead
of with the ``Warden.''
Section 26.4(b) governs prisoner access to other persons in the
week before the designated execution date, limiting such access to
spiritual advisers, defense attorneys, family members, institution
officials, and--upon the approval of the BOP Director or his designee--
``such other proper persons as the prisoner may request.'' The
amendments clarified that the BOP Director or his designee may approve
prisoner requests for types of visitors not listed in the regulation,
eliminating a reference to the ``Warden.''
Section 26.4(c) governs execution attendance, requiring certain
official personnel to attend and imposing limits on the numbers and
types of other persons whom the prisoner and officials may designate to
attend. The amendments eliminated references to the ``Warden,'' thus
eliminating the requirement that the Warden attend executions, while
maintaining the requirement that the Marshal attend. The only other
proposed change was to vest authority for selecting necessary personnel
in the Marshal and the BOP Director or his designee, instead of in the
Marshal and the Warden.
7. Section 26.5
The amendments to section 26.5 extended to non-Department of
Justice employees (including contractors) existing protections that
applied to Department of Justice employees, allowing them not to be in
attendance at or to participate in any execution if such attendance or
participation is contrary to the moral or religious convictions of the
Department of Justice employee.
C. 2021 Moratorium on Federal Executions Pending Review of Policies and
Procedures
As noted above, Attorney General Garland issued a moratorium on
federal execution during the pendency of three reviews. The second, and
the subject of this Request for Information, is a review ``to consider
whether and to what extent [the November 2020] amendments should be
modified or rescinded'' and ``to consider any other changes that should
be made to the regulations.'' See Memorandum from the Attorney General,
Moratorium on Federal Executions Pending Review of Policies and
Procedures (July 1, 2021), https://www.justice.gov/opa/page/file/1408636/download.
III. Solicitation of Comments
The Department of Justice requests information from individuals or
organizations regarding whether the November 2020 amendments should be
modified or rescinded and whether any other changes should be made to
the regulations in 28 CFR part 26. To contribute effectively to this
review, all commenters are encouraged to provide comments that are
responsive specifically to the topics of this review.
The Department is particularly interested in responses to the
questions below, although the Department would welcome any comment
within the scope of this inquiry.
Manner of Execution
1. If a State authorizes two or more manners of execution (e.g.,
lethal injection and firing squad), what limitations or restrictions,
if any, should be placed on the federal government's ability or
authority to choose which of those manners of execution it would employ
for federal executions, both in contexts where the State provides the
inmate a choice among methods as well as in contexts where the State
does not have a choice provision but authorizes two or more permissible
manners?
2. If the manner of execution prescribed by the law of the State in
which the sentence is imposed was unconstitutional for violation of the
8th Amendment's ``cruel and unusual punishment'' clause, how should the
federal government implement the death sentence?
3. What obligation, if any, would the federal government have to
independently analyze and assess the constitutional validity of state-
law manners of execution before employing one?
4. If an inmate's medical conditions made it likely that use of a
State's manner of execution would subject the inmate to
unconstitutional pain and suffering, should the federal government be
permitted to use an alternative form of execution? Who would determine
and how would they determine that the inmate's medical conditions made
it likely that use of a State's manner of execution would subject the
inmate to unconstitutional pain and suffering?
5. Currently, the federal government only has the equipment and
personnel to conduct executions by lethal injection. What logistical,
practical, or legal steps would the federal government need to take to
implement a State method of execution other than lethal injection?
Use of State Facilities
6. Are there logistical or practical concerns with allowing the
federal government to make arrangements or agreements with the relevant
State to use State equipment, facilities, and personnel for federal
executions? Please explain.
Notice
7. When regulations, guidance, or policy regarding implementation
of the death sentence is changed, what process should the federal
government follow to ensure appropriate notice?
8. Should inmates and/or inmate's counsel be notified of any
potential deviations from the regulations? If so, how and by whom?
9. What limitations or modifications should be made, if any, to the
Attorney General's authority in 28 CFR 26.1(b) to vary from the
regulations ``to the extent necessary to comply with the applicable
law''?
10. Should the notice requirement in 28 CFR 26.4 include notice to
counsel? If so, how and by whom?
11. Are the time periods for notice provided in the regulations
sufficient, for example, to permit the filing of a clemency petition or
to request a stay of execution? If not, how much time should be
allotted for notice and why?
[[Page 58534]]
Delegation of Duties
12. When duties are reassigned between Department of Justice
components, what types of processes or protocols should be implemented
to ensure transparency, effective implementation of the law, and
consistency?
Judgment and Order Filings
13. What was the practical function that a Judgment and Order
filing had in litigation?
Definitions
14. Are there any undefined terms in the regulations or statute
that would benefit from a definition? If yes, please explain why the
term should be defined and what the definition should be. In
particular, please consider whether the following terms should be
defined and, if so, what the definitions should be:
``When a stay is lifted''
``Promptly''
``Qualified''
Visitors and Witnesses
15. What criteria should be applied regarding access to visitors in
the week before the designated execution date?
16. What criteria should be applied to the selection of witnesses
who are present during federal executions?
17. To what extent should the federal government limit the number
of--or otherwise participate in the selection of--spiritual advisers,
attorneys, friends, or relatives who may access a prisoner prior to a
designated date of execution?
Generally
18. Are there particular provisions of the November 2020 amendments
or the prior regulatory scheme that should be retained, modified, or
rescinded and, if so, why?
19. Should any other changes be made to 28 CFR Ch. I, Pt. 26,
Subpart A?
Dated: September 21, 2022.
Hampton Y. Dellinger,
Assistant Attorney General, Office of Legal Policy.
[FR Doc. 2022-20889 Filed 9-26-22; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4410-BB-P