[Federal Register Volume 73, Number 134 (Friday, July 11, 2008)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 39863-39864]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E8-15784]


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

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE

Bureau of Prisons

28 CFR Part 524

[BOP-1141-F]
RIN 1120-AB39


Intensive Confinement Center Program

AGENCY: Federal Bureau of Prisons.

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Bureau of Prisons (Bureau) removes 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: This rule is effective on August 11, 2008.

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

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Through this rulemaking, the Bureau seeks to 
be clear to inmates and the public regarding the termination of the ICC 
program. A proposed rule on this subject was published in the Federal 
Register on November 2, 2006 (71 FR 64504). We received three comments. 
The issues raised by the commenters are addressed below.
    One commenter, a former inmate, recounted his positive experience 
in an ICC program in a Bureau facility, and suggested that such 
positive experiences should be sufficient to continue the ICC program.
    Although this inmate is to be commended for taking full advantage 
of the opportunities offered through the ICC program, we note that it 
is unfortunate that his experience was not repeated often enough to 
justify the extra costs implicated in the ICC program. As we stated in 
the preamble to the proposed rule, 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.
    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 remaining two commenters expressed the idea that ``Congress 
clearly intends for the BOP to run a shock incarceration program; BOP 
merely has the discretion to decide which inmates it places therein. No 
logical reading of section 4046 implies that the discretionary `may' in

[[Page 39864]]

subsection (a) refers to giving BOP discretion as to offering the shock 
incarceration program.''
    Several courts that have ruled on this issue since the 
discontinuance of the ICC program have found that 18 U.S.C. 4046 does 
not require the Bureau to operate a shock incarceration program--it 
merely authorizes the Bureau to grant certain benefits to those covered 
by the statute. Palomino v. Federal Bureau of Prisons, 408 F. Supp.2d 
282 (S.D. Tex. 2005); Roman v. LaManna, C/A 8:05-2806-MBS, 2006 WL 
2370319 (D.S.C. Aug. 15, 2006); Serrato v. Clark, C 05-03416 CRB, 2005 
WL 3481442 (N.D. Cal. Dec. 19, 2005); U.S. v. McLean, CR 03-30066-AA, 
2005 WL 2371990 (D. Ore. Sept. 27, 2005). Indeed, the Bureau has always 
had the authority to operate a program like the ICC, but prior to 
passage of 4046 could not have offered the sentence reduction 
incentive.
    The commenters also remarked that Congress appropriated funds for 
the operation of the ICC program. However, regarding appropriations, 
Congress has never specifically appropriated funds for the ICC program, 
i.e., there was and is no line item appropriation. The ICC was merely 
considered as one of a variety of programs in the Bureau's overall 
budget needs.
    For the aforementioned reasons, we now finalize the removal of the 
regulations 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 not a ``significant regulatory action'' 
under Executive Order 12866, section 3(f), and accordingly this rule 
has not been reviewed by the Office of Management and Budget.

Executive Order 13132

    This regulation will not have substantial direct effects on the 
States, on the relationship between the national government and the 
States, or on distribution of power and responsibilities among the 
various levels of government. 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.

0
Under rulemaking authority vested in the Attorney General in 5 U.S.C. 
552(a) and delegated to the Director, Bureau of Prisons, we amend 28 
CFR part 524 as set forth below.

SUBCHAPTER B--INMATE ADMISSION, CLASSIFICATION, AND TRANSFER

PART 524--CLASSIFICATION OF INMATES

0
1. The authority citation 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.

Subpart D--[Removed]

0
2. Subpart D--Intensive Confinement Center Program, consisting of 
Sec. Sec.  524.30 through 524.33, is removed and reserved.

 [FR Doc. E8-15784 Filed 7-10-08; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4410-05-P