[Federal Register Volume 71, Number 212 (Thursday, November 2, 2006)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 64504-64505]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E6-18437]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE

Bureau of Prisons

28 CFR Part 524

[BOP-1141-P]
RIN 1120-AB39


Intensive Confinement Center Program

AGENCY: Federal Bureau of Prisons, Justice.

ACTION: Proposed rule.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: The Bureau of Prisons (Bureau) proposes to remove current 
rules on the intensive confinement center program (ICC). The ICC is a 
specialized program for non-violent offenders combining features of a 
military boot camp with traditional Bureau correctional values. The 
Bureau will no longer be offering the ICC program (also known as Shock 
Incarceration or Boot Camp) to inmates as a program option. This 
decision was made as part of an overall strategy to eliminate programs 
that do not reduce recidivism.

DATES: Comments due by January 2, 2007.

ADDRESSES: Our e-mail address is [email protected]. Comments should be 
submitted to the Rules Unit, Office of General Counsel, Bureau of 
Prisons, 320 First Street, NW., Washington, DC 20534. You may view an 
electronic version of this rule at http://www.regulations.gov. You may 
also comment via the Internet to BOP at [email protected] or by using 
the www.regulations.gov comment form for this regulation. When 
submitting comments electronically you must include the BOP Docket No. 
in the subject box.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Sarah Qureshi, Office of General 
Counsel, Bureau of Prisons, phone (202) 307-2105.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: We initially published these regulations 
describing ICC eligibility requirements and successful program 
completion requirements as an interim rule in the Federal Register on 
April 26, 1996 (61 FR 18658). We received no comments on the interim 
rule. We later amended these regulations through another interim rule 
on October 15, 1997 (62 FR 53691). Again, we received no comments on 
that interim rule. Through this rulemaking, the Bureau seeks to be 
clear to inmates and the public regarding the termination of the ICC 
program.
    The current ICC regulations state that ``[p]lacement in the 
intensive confinement center program is to be made by Bureau staff in 
accordance with sound correctional judgment and the availability of 
Bureau resources.'' 28 CFR 524.32(b). The Bureau could, without 
rulemaking, discontinue the ICC program because it is no longer 
supported by ``sound correctional judgment,'' and/or because it diverts 
Bureau resources from more successful programs.
    Also, 18 U.S.C. 4046 does not require the establishment of a 
``shock incarceration'' program. Rather, it authorizes the Bureau to 
grant sentence reductions to those inmates who successfully complete 
such a program, i.e. ``The Bureau of Prisons may place in a shock 
incarceration program * * *'' (emphasis added).
    However, because the Bureau seeks to minimize public confusion and 
accurately reflect its practice by eliminating unnecessary regulations, 
the Bureau now formally proposes the removal of the ICC regulations.
    The ICC program operated at Bureau institutions located in Bryan, 
Texas; Lewisburg, Pennsylvania; and Lompoc, California. Under this 
rule, no new ICC classes or associated extended community confinement 
and early release benefits will be offered. However, other pre-release

[[Page 64505]]

programming opportunities will continue to exist.
    Despite anecdotal successes, research has found no significant 
difference in recidivism rates between inmates who complete boot camp 
programs and similar offenders who serve their sentences in traditional 
institutions. There is a national trend among correctional agencies to 
phase out boot camp programs, as a result of many years of experience. 
(See National Institute of Justice Research for Practice Report, 
``Correctional Boot Camps: Lessons From a Decade of Research,'' June 
2003).
    The Bureau has determined that completion of boot camp programs 
does not tend to result in lower rates of recidivism as compared to 
offenders with similar background characteristics who did not 
participate in the program. (See National Institute of Justice Report, 
``Multisite Evaluation of Shock Incarceration,'' September 1994).
    Moreover, the costs associated with maintaining the federal boot 
camp programs exceed the costs of operating ordinary minimum security 
camps, as a result of (1) the staff resources necessary to maintain the 
intensive core programming that make up the ``shock incarceration'' or 
``intensive confinement'' experience, and (2) the high costs of housing 
offenders for extended periods of time in Community Corrections 
Centers, where the per capita costs are higher than those of housing 
offenders in minimum security camps.
    While there are some cost savings due to the early release of 
offenders who successfully complete the program, these savings are 
minimal compared to the additional costs of operating the program, 
which create a net increased cost to the agency of more than $1 million 
per year.
    The lack of significant beneficial results has led the Bureau to 
the conclusion that it can no longer justify the expenditure of public 
funds to operate the ICC program.
    It is important to note that the phase out of the ICC does not 
represent a change in the Bureau's mission; the Bureau remains fully 
committed to operating safe and secure institutions and to providing 
opportunities for inmates to gain the skills and the training necessary 
for a successful, crime-free, return to the community.
    The Bureau has renewed its emphasis on allocating its resources to 
support programs that are proven effective. The ICC program has some 
attractive features, but it does not reduce recidivism. The Bureau 
operates several programs that are proven to significantly reduce 
recidivism. Research conducted over the past 20 years has demonstrated 
convincingly that inmates who participate in the Bureau's major inmate 
programs are substantially less likely to recidivate as compared to 
similar inmates who do not participate. These programs include 
Residential Substance Abuse Treatment, Vocational Training and 
Apprenticeship, Education and Federal Prison Industries (operated 
without appropriated funds). There are also other inmate programs, such 
as skills building and values development, that have been found, 
preliminarily, to affect inmate misconduct which is a valid predictor 
of recidivism. These programs are being carefully reviewed to determine 
their impact on recidivism.
    Therefore, for the aforementioned reasons, we propose to remove our 
rules in Subpart D of 28 CFR part 524.

Executive Order 12866

    This regulation has been drafted and reviewed in accordance with 
Executive Order 12866, ``Regulatory Planning and Review'', section 
1(b), Principles of Regulation. The Director, Bureau of Prisons has 
determined that this rule is a ``significant regulatory action'' under 
Executive Order 12866, section 3(f), and accordingly this rule has been 
reviewed by the Office of Management and Budget.

Executive Order 13132

    This regulation will not have substantial direct effects on the 
States, on the relationship between the national government and the 
States, or on distribution of power and responsibilities among the 
various levels of government. Under Executive Order 13132, this rule 
does not have sufficient federalism implications for which we would 
prepare a Federalism Assessment.

Regulatory Flexibility Act

    The Director of the Bureau of Prisons, under the Regulatory 
Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 605(b)), reviewed this regulation. By 
approving it, the Director certifies that it will not have a 
significant economic impact upon a substantial number of small entities 
because: This rule is about 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 cause State, local and tribal governments, or 
the private sector, to spend $100,000,000 or more in any one year, and 
it will not significantly or uniquely affect small governments. We do 
not need to take action under 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 524

    Prisoners.

Harley G. Lappin,
Director, Bureau of Prisons.
    Under rulemaking authority vested in the Attorney General in 5 
U.S.C. 552(a) and delegated to the Director, Bureau of Prisons, we 
propose to amend 28 CFR part 524 as set forth below.

SUBCHAPTER B--INMATE ADMISSION, CLASSIFICATION, AND TRANSFER

PART 524--CLASSIFICATION OF INMATES

    1. The authority for part 524 continues to read as follows:

    Authority: 5 U.S.C. 301; 18 U.S.C. 3521-3528, 3621, 3622, 3624, 
4001, 4042, 4046, 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; 21 U.S.C. 
848; 28 U.S.C. 509, 510.

    2. Subpart D--Intensive Confinement Center Program is removed and 
reserved.
 [FR Doc. E6-18437 Filed 11-1-06; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4410-05-P