80 FR 32000 - Searches of Housing Units, Inmates, and Inmate Work Areas: Use of X-Ray Devices-Clarification of Terminology
DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
Bureau of Prisons Federal Register Volume 80, Issue 108 (June 5, 2015)
Bureau of Prisons
Federal Register Volume 80, Issue 108 (June 5, 2015)
| Page Range | 32000-32002 | |
| FR Document | 2015-13710 |
[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 108 (Friday, June 5, 2015)] [Rules and Regulations] [Pages 32000-32002] From the Federal Register Online [www.thefederalregister.org] [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
![32000 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 108 / Friday, June 5, 2015 / Rules and Regulations
attention Director, Appellate Staff. Consult DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE low level of radiation. Radiation is
title 2 of the United States Attorney’s Manual measured in units called ‘‘sieverts.’’ A
for procedures and time limitations. An Bureau of Prisons person scanned by a Bureau body
appeal of such a decision, as well as an scanner would receive only 0.25 sieverts
appeal of an adverse decision by a district 28 CFR Part 552 and can be scanned up to 1,000 times
court or bankruptcy appellate panel a year. For context, a scan from this
[BOP–1162–F]
reviewing a bankruptcy court decision or a machine is equal to eating two and a
direct appeal of an adverse bankruptcy court RIN 1120–AB62 half bananas (the potassium in bananas
decision to a court of appeals, cannot be emit radiation). Sleeping next to
taken without approval of the Solicitor Searches of Housing Units, Inmates, someone exposes you to .05 sieverts,
General. Until the Solicitor General has made and Inmate Work Areas: Use of X-Ray because we all have minerals in our
a decision whether an appeal will be taken, Devices—Clarification of Terminology bones that emit radiation. Also, people
the Government attorney handling the case living in areas of high elevations are
AGENCY: Bureau of Prisons, Justice.
must take all necessary procedural actions to exposed to almost 5 times (1.2 sieverts)
preserve the Government’s right to take an ACTION: Final rule.
as much radiation as one scan from a
appeal, including filing a protective notice of SUMMARY: In this document, the Bureau Bureau body scanner, because there is
appeal when the time to file a notice of of Prisons (Bureau) clarifies that body more cosmic radiation at high
appeal is about to expire and the Solicitor imaging search devices are ‘‘electronic elevations. An airplane flight from New
General has not yet made a decision. Nothing York to Los Angeles exposes a human
search devices’’ for routine or random
in the foregoing directive affects this body to 40 sieverts of radiation. Again,
use in searching inmates, and are
obligation. the Bureau’s x-ray technology scanners
distinguished from medical x-ray
Section 7. Definitions devices, which require the inmate’s employ only .25 sieverts, so low a level
consent, or Regional Director approval, of radiation as to be safe.
(a) For purposes of this directive, in the
for use as search devices. Further, the Bureau requested an
case of claims involving only civil penalties,
DATES: This rule is effective on July 6,
independent study (‘‘Radiation
other than claims defined in 28 CFR 0.169(b),
2015. Protection Report’’) of its pilot program
the phrase ‘‘gross amount of the original
use of the ‘‘Radpro SecurPass’’
claim’’ shall mean the maximum amount of FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
technology. The review, conducted in
penalties sought. Sarah Qureshi, Office of General 2012, was generated and peer reviewed
(b) For purposes of this directive, in the Counsel, Bureau of Prisons, phone (202) by radiological physicists holding
case of claims asserted in bankruptcy 307–2105. Certified Health Physicist credentials
proceedings, the phrase ‘‘gross amount of the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: In this and board certification of the American
original claim’’ shall mean liquidation value. document, the Bureau finalizes its Board of Radiology in Diagnostic
Liquidation value is the forced sale value of regulation on searches of inmates using
the collateral, if any, securing the claim(s)
Radiology. The Report concluded that
x-ray devices and technology (28 CFR the average effective reference dose was
plus the dividend likely to be paid for the part 552, subpart B). We change this
unsecured portion of the claim(s) in an actual
0.233 sieverts, which is representative
regulation to clarify that body imaging of the maximum possible radiation dose
or hypothetical liquidation of the bankruptcy
search devices are ‘‘electronic search for the machine to one person for one
estate.
devices’’ for routine or random use in scan. The Report concluded that the
Section 8. Supersession searching inmates, and are system may be operated at that dose
This directive supersedes Civil Division distinguished from medical x-ray level up to 1,000 times per year while
Directive No. 1–10 regarding redelegation of devices, the use of which require the maintaining the recommended safe
the Assistant Attorney General’s authority in inmate’s consent, or Regional Director radiation dose.
Civil Division cases to Branch Directors, approval, for use as search devices. We The use of electronic search devices
heads of offices, and United States Attorneys. published a proposed rule on this described in the proposed rule is also
subject on February 14, 2014 (79 FR within established inmate search
Section 9. Applicability 8910). We received a total of twenty procedures. There is no impact it will
This directive applies to all cases pending comments on the proposed rule. Three have on the federal inmate population
as of the date of this directive and is effective comments were generally in favor of the which is not already present. The
immediately. proposed changes. Eleven comments proposed rule clarified that body x-ray
were copies of the same form letter. We imaging search devices are ‘‘electronic
Section 10. No Private Right of Action
respond below to the issues raised by search devices’’ for routine or random
This directive consists of rules of agency that form letter and the remaining six use in searching inmates. This change
organization, procedure, and practice and comments. does not affect physical contact with
does not create a private right of action for inmates or require disrobement. Other
any private party to challenge the rules or The Electronic Devices That the Bureau than increased effectiveness at
actions taken pursuant to them. Uses Are Unsafe or Will Cause Harm to identifying contraband through the use
* * * * * Inmates of new minimally invasive hand-held
Fifteen comments (including the technology, there exists no actual or
Dated: June 1, 2015.
eleven form letters) were concerned that perceivable difference between already-
Benjamin C. Mizer, the electronic devices used by the in-use electronic search devices and the
Principal Deputy Assistant Attorney General, Bureau, particularly those which use x- proposed x-ray search device. In fact,
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES
Civil Division. ray technology, will be harmful to the use of the technology will cut down
[FR Doc. 2015–13782 Filed 6–4–15; 8:45 am] inmates. Another commenter stated that the frequency and need for more
BILLING CODE 4410–12–P the use of x-ray technology as intended invasive searches of the type that
by the Bureau is so unsafe that it ‘‘is a inmates seek to avoid.
clear violation of human rights.’’ Further, prisoners, visitors, and staff
The x-ray technology used for have diminished Fourth Amendment
searches by the Bureau employs a very protections in a correctional setting
VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:17 Jun 04, 2015 Jkt 235001 PO 00000 Frm 00030 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\05JNR1.SGM 05JNR1](https://thefederalregister.org/doc/80_FR_32108/page/1.svg)
![Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 108 / Friday, June 5, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 32001
under the constellation of rules created Implementation of the Devices Will Be approving it certifies that this regulation
by Bell, Hudson, and Turner. In Bell v. Costly to the Public will not have a significant economic
Wolfish, 441 U.S. 520 (1979) and One commenter felt that ‘‘the cost of impact upon a substantial number of
Hudson v. Palmer, 468 U.S. 517 (1984), instituting [body scanners would be] small entities for the following reasons:
inmates brought challenges to searches incredible.’’ The scanning technology This rule pertains to the correctional
of their person and cells, respectively. used by the Bureau is also routinely management of offenders committed to
The Bell court noted prisons are used in other public safety sectors (e.g. the custody of the Attorney General or
uniquely dangerous environments, and airport security, military, state jail the Director of the Bureau of Prisons,
held that the interest in keeping out security, etc.) and is not prohibitively and its economic impact is limited to
contraband outweighed inmate privacy expensive. The Bureau evaluated and the Bureau’s appropriated funds.
concerns. Similarly, the Hudson court tested several different types of whole Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of
found prison cell searches are body imaging devices, some acquired 1995
categorically reasonable since a through surplus acquisition at no cost
prisoner’s expectation of privacy must from other federal agencies. During the This rule will not result in the
always yield to the paramount interest evaluation period, a significant amount expenditure by State, local and tribal
in institutional security. Turner v. of dangerous contraband (i.e., weapons, governments, in the aggregate, or by the
Safley, 482 U.S. 78 (1987) created a new drugs and contraband cell phones), were private sector, of $100,000,000 or more
standard: When a prison regulation detected with these devices and in any one year, and it will not
impinges on the constitutional rights of confiscated. Because the technology significantly or uniquely affect small
an inmate, staff member, or visitor, the provides enhanced institution security, governments. Therefore, no actions were
regulation is valid if it is reasonably promotes staff and inmate safety, and deemed necessary under the provisions
related to legitimate penological ultimately increases the safety of the of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
interests. public, the return on investment for the of 1995.
The Turner standard, with the fact- cost of these devices is significant. In
specific principles of Bell have been the Bureau’s correctional judgment, the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement
consistently used guidelines to loss of life or serious injury, whether Fairness Act of 1996
reference for inmate body searches. The staff, inmate or a member of the public,
This rule is not a major rule as
Supreme Court specifically invoked is immeasurable and as such, the use of
defined by § 804 of the Small Business
both cases as primary guidance in scanning technology to prevent such
Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of
Florence v. Bd. of Chosen Freeholders of occurrences is reasonable and
1996. This rule will not result in an
County of Burlington. The Court held it warranted.
For the aforementioned reasons, we annual effect on the economy of
was reasonable in a physical search to $100,000,000 or more; a major increase
command ‘‘detainees to lift their now finalize the proposed rule
published on February 14, 2014 (79 FR in costs or prices; or significant adverse
genitals or cough in a squatting effects on competition, employment,
position.’’ These procedures, similar to 8910), without change.
investment, productivity, innovation, or
the ones upheld in Bell, are designed to Executive Order 12866 on the ability of United States-based
uncover contraband that can go companies to compete with foreign-
undetected by a patdown, metal This regulation has been drafted and
reviewed in accordance with Executive based companies in domestic and
detector, and other less invasive export markets.
searches. 132 S. Ct. 1510, 1520, 182 Order 12866, ‘‘Regulatory Planning and
L. Ed. 2d 566 (2012). Physical Review’’ section 1(b), Principles of List of Subjects in 28 CFR Part 552
manipulation of an unclothed area, Regulation. The Department of Justice
however, would not be permissible. Id. has determined that this rule is a Prisoners.
The non-contact electronic device ‘‘significant regulatory action’’ under
Executive Order 12866, section 3(f), Charles E. Samuels, Jr.,
search is precisely within the ‘‘less- Director, Bureau of Prisons.
Regulatory Planning and Review, and
invasive,’’ non-controversial ambit
accordingly this rule has been reviewed
described in Florence. Accordingly, under rulemaking
by the Office of Management and
It is also important to note that the authority vested in the Attorney General
Budget (OMB).
regulations will retain current language in 5 U.S.C. 301; 28 U.S.C. 509, 510 and
stating that use of any electronic device Executive Order 13132 delegated to the Director, Bureau of
‘‘does not require the inmate to remove This regulation will not have Prisons in 28 CFR 0.96, we amend 28
clothing.’’ 28 CFR 552.11. substantial direct effects on the States, CFR part 552 as set forth below.
Bureau Staff Do Not Have Adequate on the relationship between the national SUBCHAPTER C—INSTITUTIONAL
Training To Use New X-Ray Body Scan government and the States, or on MANAGEMENT
Technology distribution of power and
responsibilities among the various PART 552—CUSTODY
One commenter was concerned that levels of government. Therefore, in
Bureau staff are not qualified to use new accordance with Executive Order 13132, ■ 1. The authority citation for 28 CFR
technology. This is not true. Policy it is determined that this rule does not part 552 continues to read as follows:
accompanying the change to this have sufficient federalism implications Authority: 5 U.S.C. 301; 18 U.S.C. 3621,
regulation and the implementation of to warrant the preparation of a
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES
3622, 3624, 4001, 4042, 4081, 4082 (Repealed
any new search device under these Federalism Assessment. in part as to offenses committed on or after
regulations will require training on the November 1, 1987), 5006–5024 (Repealed
use of the devices. Operators Manuals Regulatory Flexibility Act
October 12, 1984, as to offenses committed
for the technological devices will be The Director of the Bureau of Prisons, after that date), 5039; 28 U.S.C. 509, 510.
required for all employees who operate in accordance with the Regulatory
the scanners. This training will be re- Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 605(b)), has ■ 2. Revise § 552.11(a) to read as
implemented annually. reviewed this regulation and by follows:
VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:17 Jun 04, 2015 Jkt 235001 PO 00000 Frm 00031 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\05JNR1.SGM 05JNR1](https://thefederalregister.org/doc/80_FR_32108/page/2.svg)
![32002 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 108 / Friday, June 5, 2015 / Rules and Regulations
§ 552.11 Searches of inmates. medical x-ray device. However, the cannot fully comply with the following
(a) Electronic devices. Inspection of an inmate’s consent is not required. specific provisions of 72 COLREGS
inmate’s person using electronic devices (c) The Warden may direct searches of without interfering with its special
(for example, metal detector, ion inanimate objects using a medical x-ray function as a naval ship: Annex I
spectrometry device, or body imaging device where the inmate is not exposed. paragraph 2(a)(i), pertaining to the
search device) does not require the [FR Doc. 2015–13710 Filed 6–4–15; 8:45 am] location of the forward masthead light at
inmate to remove clothing. The BILLING CODE 4410–05–P a height not less than 12 meters above
inspection may also include a search of the hull; Annex I, paragraph 3(a),
the inmate’s clothing and personal pertaining to the location of the forward
effects. Staff may conduct an electronic DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE masthead light in the forward quarter of
device search of an inmate on a routine the ship, and the horizontal distance
or random basis to control contraband. Department of the Navy between the forward and after masthead
* * * * * lights. The DAJAG (Admiralty and
32 CFR Part 706 Maritime Law) has also certified that the
■ 3. Revise § 552.13 to read as follows:
lights involved are located in closest
§ 552.13 Medical x-ray device, major
Certifications and Exemptions Under possible compliance with the applicable
instrument, or surgical intrusion. the International Regulations for 72 COLREGS requirements.
Preventing Collisions at Sea, 1972 Moreover, it has been determined, in
(a) The institution physician may
authorize use of a major instrument AGENCY: Department of the Navy, DoD. accordance with 32 CFR parts 296 and
(including anoscope or vaginal ACTION: Final rule. 701, that publication of this amendment
speculum) or surgical intrusion for for public comment prior to adoption is
medical reasons only, with the inmate’s SUMMARY: The Department of the Navy impracticable, unnecessary, and
consent. (DoN) is amending its certifications and contrary to public interest since it is
(b) The institution physician may exemptions under the International based on technical findings that the
authorize use of a medical x-ray device Regulations for Preventing Collisions at placement of lights on this vessel in a
for medical reasons and only with the Sea, 1972, as amended (72 COLREGS), manner differently from that prescribed
consent of the inmate. When there exists to reflect that the Deputy Assistant herein will adversely affect the vessel’s
no reasonable alternative, and an Judge Advocate General (DAJAG) ability to perform its military functions.
examination using a medical x-ray (Admiralty and Maritime Law) has
List of Subjects in 32 CFR Part 706
device is determined necessary for the determined that USS DETROIT (LCS 7)
security, good order, or discipline of the is a vessel of the Navy which, due to its Marine safety, Navigation (water),
institution, the Warden, upon approval special construction and purpose, Vessels.
of the Regional Director, may authorize cannot fully comply with certain For the reasons set forth in the
the institution physician to order a non- provisions of the 72 COLREGS without preamble, the DoN amends part 706 of
repetitive examination using a medical interfering with its special function as a title 32 of the Code of Federal
x-ray device for the purpose of naval ship. The intended effect of this Regulations as follows:
determining if contraband is concealed rule is to warn mariners in waters where
in or on the inmate (for example: In a 72 COLREGS apply. PART 706—CERTIFICATIONS AND
cast or body cavity). The examination DATES: This rule is effective June 5, 2015 EXEMPTIONS UNDER THE
using a medical x-ray device may not be and is applicable beginning May 13, INTERNATIONAL REGULATIONS FOR
performed if it is determined by the 2015. PREVENTING COLLISIONS AT SEA,
institution physician that it is likely to FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
1972
result in serious or lasting medical Commander Theron R. Korsak,
■ 1. The authority citation for part 706
injury or harm to the inmate. Staff shall (Admiralty and Maritime Law), Office of
continues to read as follows:
place documentation of the examination the Judge Advocate General, Department
and the reasons for the examination in of the Navy, 1322 Patterson Ave. SE., Authority: 33 U.S.C. 1605.
the inmate’s central file and medical Suite 3000, Washington Navy Yard, DC ■ 2. Section 706.2 is amended by:
file. 20374–5066, telephone number: 202– ■ a. In Table One, adding, in alpha
(1) The Warden and Regional Director 685–5040. numerical order, by vessel number, an
or persons officially acting in that SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Pursuant entry for USS DETROIT (LCS 7); and
capacity may not redelegate the to the authority granted in 33 U.S.C. ■ b. In Table Five, adding, in alpha
authority to approve an examination 1605, the DoN amends 32 CFR part 706. numerical order, by vessel number, an
using medical x-ray device for the This amendment provides notice that entry for USS DETROIT (LCS 7).
purpose of determining if contraband is the DAJAG (Admiralty and Maritime The additions read as follows:
present. An Acting Warden or Acting Law), of the DoN, under authority
Regional Director may, however, delegated by the Secretary of the Navy, § 706.2 Certifications of the Secretary of
perform this function. has certified that USS DETROIT (LCS 7) the Navy under Executive Order 11964 and
(2) Staff shall solicit the inmate’s is a vessel of the Navy which, due to its 33 U.S.C. 1605.
consent prior to an examination using a special construction and purpose, * * * * *
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES
VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:17 Jun 04, 2015 Jkt 235001 PO 00000 Frm 00032 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\05JNR1.SGM 05JNR1](https://thefederalregister.org/doc/80_FR_32108/page/3.svg)
Document Created: 2015-12-15 15:20:14
Document Modified: 2015-12-15 15:20:14
| Category | Regulatory Information | |
| Collection | Federal Register | |
| sudoc Class | AE 2.7: GS 4.107: AE 2.106: | |
| Publisher | Office of the Federal Register, National Archives and Records Administration | |
| Section | Rules and Regulations | |
| Action | Final rule. | |
| Dates | This rule is effective on July 6, 2015. | |
| Contact | Sarah Qureshi, Office of General Counsel, Bureau of Prisons, phone (202) 307-2105. | |
| FR Citation | 80 FR 32000 | |
| RIN Number | 1120-AB62 |
2025 Federal Register | Disclaimer | Privacy Policy
USC | CFR | eCFR