6054 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 23 / Thursday, February 3, 2011 / Rules and Regulations 

Code of Federal Regulations, Part 97 (14 

CFR part 97) is amended by 

establishing, amending, suspending, or 

revoking Standard Instrument Approach 

Procedures and/or Takeoff Minimums 

and/or Obstacle Departure Procedures 

effective at 0902 UTC on the dates 

specified, as follows: 

PART 97—STANDARD INSTRUMENT 

APPROACH PROCEDURES 

■ 1. The authority citation for part 97 

continues to read as follows: 

Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40103, 40106, 

40113, 40114, 40120, 44502, 44514, 44701, 

44719, 44721–44722. 

■ 2. Part 97 is amended to read as 

follows: 

Effective 10 MAR 2011 

Hayward, CA, Hayward Executive, VOR OR 

GPS–A, Amdt 6C, CANCELLED 

Sacramento, CA, Sacramento Mather, RNAV 

(GPS) RWY 22L, Amdt 1A 

San Francisco, CA, San Francisco Intl, VOR 

RWY 19L, Amdt 9 

San Francisco, CA, San Francisco Intl, VOR– 

B, Amdt 6 

Washington, DC, Ronald Reagan Washington 

National, Takeoff Minimums and Obstacle 

DP, Amdt 6 

Kalaupapa, HI, Kalaupapa, KALAUPAPA 

ONE Graphic DP 

Kalaupapa, HI, Kalaupapa, RNAV (GPS)-A, 

Orig 

Kalaupapa, HI, Kalaupapa, Takeoff 

Minimums and Obstacle DP, Orig 

Anderson, IN, Anderson Muni-Darlington 

Field, Takeoff Minimums and Obstacle DP, 

Amdt 1 

Winchester, IN, Randolph County, Takeoff 

Minimums and Obstacle DP, Orig 

Shreveport, LA, Shreveport Rgnl, RADAR–1, 

Amdt 4 

Tallulah-Vicksburg, MS, LA, Vicksburg 

Tallulah Rgnl, LOC RWY 36, Amdt 3 

Bedford, MA, Laurence G. Hanscom Field, 

Takeoff Minimums and Obstacle DP, Amdt 

5 

Beverly, MA, Beverly Muni, Takeoff 

Minimums and Obstacle DP, Amdt 3 

Lawrence, MA, Lawrence Muni, Takeoff 

Minimums and Obstacle DP, Amdt 4 

Norwood, MA, Norwood Memorial, Takeoff 

Minimums and Obstacle DP, Amdt 6 

Frankfort, MI, Frankfort Dow Memorial Field, 

Takeoff Minimums and Obstacle DP, Amdt 

3 

South Haven, MI, South Haven Area Rgnl, 

Takeoff Minimums and Obstacle DP, Amdt 

3 

Caledonia, MN, Houston County, GPS RWY 

31, Orig, CANCELLED 

Branson, MO, M. Graham Clark-Taney 

County, RNAV (GPS) RWY 12, Orig 

Branson, MO, M. Graham Clark-Taney 

County, RNAV (GPS) RWY 30, Orig 

Branson, MO, M. Graham Clark-Taney 

County, Takeoff Minimums and Obstacle 

DP, Amdt 2 

Point Lookout, MO, M. Graham Clark, GPS 

RWY 11, Orig-C, CANCELLED 

Point Lookout, MO, M. Graham Clark, VOR/ 

DME RNAV OR GPS RWY 29, Amdt 2B, 

CANCELLED 

Potosi, MO, Washington County, Takeoff 

Minimums and Obstacle DP, Amdt 1 

Hattiesburg, MS, Hattiesburg Bobby L Chain 

Muni, RNAV (GPS) Y RWY 13, Amdt 2 

Hattiesburg, MS, Hattiesburg Bobby L Chain 

Muni, RNAV (GPS) Z RWY 13, Amdt 1 

Wadesboro, NC, Anson County-Jeff Cloud 

Field, ILS OR LOC RWY 34, Orig 

Wadesboro, NC, Anson County-Jeff Cloud 

Field, RNAV (GPS) RWY 16, Amdt 1 

Wadesboro, NC, Anson County-Jeff Cloud 

Field, RNAV (GPS) RWY 34, Amdt 2 

Wadesboro, NC, Anson County-Jeff Cloud 

Field, Takeoff Minimums and Obstacle DP, 

Amdt 2 

Berlin, NH, Berlin Rgnl, Takeoff Minimums 

and Obstacle DP, Amdt 1 

Berlin, NH, Berlin Rgnl, VOR/DME RWY 18, 

Amdt 2 

Blairstown, NJ, Blairstown, RNAV (GPS) 

RWY 25, Amdt 1 

Blairstown, NJ, Blairstown, Takeoff 

Minimums and Obstacle DP, Amdt 2 

Ticonderoga, NY, Ticonderoga Muni, RNAV 

(GPS) RWY 2, Amdt 1 

Ticonderoga, NY, Ticonderoga Muni, RNAV 

(GPS) RWY 20, Amdt 1 

Columbus, OH, Ohio State University, GPS 

RWY 27L, Amdt 1A, CANCELLED 

Columbus, OH, Ohio State University, NDB 

RWY 9R, Amdt 3 

Columbus, OH, Ohio State University, RNAV 

(GPS) RWY 9R, Amdt 1 

Columbus, OH, Ohio State University, RNAV 

(GPS) RWY 27L, Orig 

Columbus, OH, Ohio State University, 

Takeoff Minimums and Obstacle DP, Orig 

Ardmore, OK, Ardmore Downtown 

Executive, Takeoff Minimums and 

Obstacle DP, Amdt 3 

Mangum, OK, Scott Field, Takeoff Minimums 

and Obstacle DP, Orig 

Sallisaw, OK, Sallisaw Muni, Takeoff 

Minimums and Obstacle DP, Amdt 2 

East Stroudsburg, PA, Stroudsburg-Pocono, 

Takeoff Minimums and Obstacle DP, Amdt 

1 

Aiken, SC, Aiken Muni, LOC RWY 7, Orig 

Childress, TX, Childress Muni, Takeoff 

Minimums and Obstacle DP, Amdt 1 

Denton, TX, Denton Muni, Takeoff 

Minimums and Obstacle DP, Amdt 2 

Gruver, TX, Cluck Ranch, VOR/DME OR 

GPS–A, Amdt 1, CANCELLED 

Lubbock, TX, Lubbock Preston Smith Intl, 

ILS OR LOC RWY 17R, Amdt 17A 

Bryce Canyon, UT, Bryce Canyon, BRYCE 

Two Graphic DP 

Bryce Canyon, UT, Bryce Canyon, Takeoff 

Minimums and Obstacle DP, Amdt 1 

Salt Lake City, UT, South Valley Rgnl, 

Takeoff Minimums and Obstacle DP, Amdt 

5 

Leesburg, VA, Leesburg Executive, ILS OR 

LOC RWY 17, Orig 

Leesburg, VA, Leesburg Executive, LOC RWY 

17, Amdt 3, CANCELLED 

Richmond, VA, Richmond Intl, ILS OR LOC 

RWY 2, Amdt 2 

Richmond, VA, Richmond Intl, ILS OR LOC 

RWY 16, Amdt 9 

Richmond, VA, Richmond Intl, ILS OR LOC 

RWY 34, ILS RWY 34 (SA CAT I), ILS 

RWY 34 (CAT II), ILS RWY 34 (CAT III), 

Amdt 14 

Richmond, VA, Richmond Intl, RNAV (GPS) 

RWY 2, Amdt 1 

Richmond, VA, Richmond Intl, RNAV (GPS) 

RWY 7, Amdt 1 

Richmond, VA, Richmond Intl, RNAV (GPS) 

RWY 16, Amdt 1 

Richmond, VA, Richmond Intl, RNAV (GPS) 

RWY 20, Amdt 1 

Richmond, VA, Richmond Intl, RNAV (GPS) 

RWY 25, Amdt 1 

Richmond, VA, Richmond Intl, RNAV (GPS) 

RWY 34, Amdt 1 

Richmond, VA, Richmond Intl, VOR RWY 2, 

Amdt 6 

On January 10, 2011 (76 FR 06) the FAA 

published an Amendment in Docket No. 

30761; Amdt. No. 3406 to Part 97 of the 

Federal Aviation Regulations under section 

97.33. The following entries, effective 10 

February 2011 * * * 

Perkin, IL, Perkin Muni, RNAV (GPS) RWY 

9, Orig-A 

Perkin, IL, Perkin Muni, RNAV (GPS) RWY 

27, Orig-A 

Perkin, IL, Perkin Muni, VOR–A, Amdt 7A 

* * * have incorrect city and airport 

names. Each item should begin * * * 

Pekin, IL, Pekin Muni. 

The remaining information remains 

unchanged. 

[FR Doc. 2011–2051 Filed 2–2–11; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4910–13–P 

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE 

Bureau of Prisons 

28 CFR Part 552 

[BOP–1146–F] 

RIN 1120–AB46 

Use of Less-Than-Lethal Force: 

Delegation 

AGENCY: Bureau of Prisons, Justice. 

ACTION: Final rule. 

SUMMARY: In this document, the Bureau 

of Prisons (Bureau) finalizes its 

proposed regulation on the use of 

chemical agents and other non-lethal 

(less-than-lethal) force to clarify that the 

authority of the Warden to authorize the 

use of chemical agents or other lessthan-lethal weapons may not be 

delegated below the position of 

Lieutenant. 

DATES: This rule is effective on March 7, 

2011. 

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 a 

regulation proposed on June 25, 2008 

(73 FR 39584), regarding the use of 


jdjones on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 23 / Thursday, February 3, 2011 / Rules and Regulations 6055 

chemical agents and other less-thanlethal force. In this regulation, we 

clarify that the authority of the Warden 

to authorize the use of less-than-lethal 

weapons, including those containing 

chemical agents, may not be delegated 

below the position of Lieutenant. We 

replace the term ‘‘non-lethal’’ with the 

term ‘‘less-than-lethal’’ for reasons 

described below. 

We received four comments on the 

proposed rule. One comment was in 

support of the proposed rule. We 

address issues raised by the comments 

below. 

One commenter stated the following: 

‘‘We believe such authority, absent an 

emergency, should be delegated no 

further than Acting Warden or on-site 

CEO. * * * Such low-level staff 

[Lieutenants] have an egregious and 

established history of abusing 

incarcerated persons.’’ A second 

commenter was similarly concerned 

with the level of delegation. 

First, the Bureau does not consider 

Lieutenants to be ‘‘low-level staff.’’ 

Rather, they are part of the Bureau’s 

management staff, with the requisite 

training and experience to manage 

emergency situations, including specific 

training on situations which necessitate 

the use of chemical agents or other lessthan-lethal weapons. The revision 

effectuated by this final rule is 

necessary to expedite decision-making 

by the Lieutenant, who is often the 

senior-most qualified staff physically 

present at the scene of the emergency, 

thereby ensuring the safety, security, 

and good order of the institution, and 

protection of the public. 

Second, we note that all the 

commenters discussed the regulation in 

terms of delegation to one lieutenant 

(singular). We must correct the apparent 

assumption underlying these comments, 

which may have been caused by the 

language of the proposed regulation 

stating that the Warden could delegate 

authority to use less-than-lethal force ‘‘to 

the senior facility supervisor on duty 

and physically present, but not below 

the position of Lieutenant.’’ We 

therefore alter the language to clarify 

that such authority will be delegated to 

address multiple emergency situations 

as needed. The language will read as 

follows: ‘‘The Warden may delegate the 

authority under this regulation to one or 

more supervisors on duty and 

physically present, but not below the 

position of Lieutenant.’’ 

Limiting the Warden’s delegated 

authority to one Lieutenant at a time 

would prevent Bureau staff from quickly 

and effectively responding to multiple 

simultaneous emergency situations that 

may arise at different places within the 

same Bureau facility. 

Allowing the authority to prescribe 

the use of less-than-lethal force to be 

delegated to one person alone is 

inappropriate, as it is impossible for that 

one person to be ‘‘physically present’’ at 

more than one emergency situation at a 

time within the Bureau facility. 

Third, with regard to the commenter’s 

allegations of abuse of authority, it is 

important to note that Bureau staff, 

including Lieutenants, are held to the 

highest standards of professionalism. 

Although there is always the potential 

for abuse of any rule or staff 

requirement, the Bureau conducts 

program reviews and quality control 

inspections frequently to ensure staff 

compliance with rules and policy. 

Employees are subject to administrative 

sanctions, personal liability, and even 

criminal and civil penalties for 

misconduct. If an inmate perceives staff 

abuse of the rules, that inmate can take 

advantage of our administrative remedy 

procedures (28 CFR part 542). 

A commenter who supported the 

proposed rule suggested that it be 

‘‘amended to include the requirement 

and detailed description of how the 

Lieutenants will receive training on the 

use of chemical agents, and the affects 

[sic]of the different kinds of chemical 

agent[s] to those exposed.’’ The Bureau’s 

corresponding use of force policy 

provides detailed guidance to staff and 

requires training of facility staff in the 

use of chemical agents. The Bureau’s 

program statements, rather than the 

regulations themselves, are the 

appropriate vehicle through which staff 

receive direction regarding the 

implementation of the regulations. 

A commenter also stated that, ‘‘as 

DOJ’s own statistics show, * * * more 

incarcerated people are killed by use of 

these so-called ‘‘non-lethal’’ weapons 

than those designated as lethal.’’ The 

commenter did not cite the ‘‘DOJ 

statistics’’ to which the comment refers. 

The Bureau’s experience with less-thanlethal weapons has not shown that 

appropriate use of less-than-lethal 

alternatives has had lethal effect. 

As an example, the most commonly 

used less-than-lethal alternatives used 

by the Bureau involve chemical agents. 

Oleoresin Capsicum (OC) is one of the 

types of chemical agents that the Bureau 

employs. OC is a naturally occurring 

substance found in the oily resin of 

cayenne and other varieties of peppers. 

In March 1994, the National Institute of 

Justice (NIJ) Technology Assessment 

Program issued a paper describing OC 

and its uses as a less-than-lethal 

weapon. National Institute of Justice 

Technology Assessment Program, 

Oleoresin Capsicum: Pepper Spray as a 

Force Alternative (March 1994). 

The NIJ paper listed the following as 

the benefits of OC that were found by 

State Departments of Correction at the 

time: 

• OC sprays seem to leave few if any 

residual effects, allowing suspects to be 

transported without affecting 

transporting officers. Decontamination 

protocol normally requires only fresh air 

and soap and water. 

• Chemists assigned to the FBI’s 

Forensic Science Research and Training 

Center did not see any long-term health 

risks associated with the use of OC. 

• Thirty-nine police agencies and 

three correctional institutions using OC 

aerosols did not report any medical 

problems encountered by subjects being 

subdued and arrested, and no medical 

problems were encountered by the 

officers administering the OC. 

• Departments that have adopted OC 

sprays claim to have fewer allegations of 

police use of excessive force or police 

brutality charges, resulting in fewer 

lawsuits. 

• Departments have reported a 

reduction in officer and arrestee injuries 

as a result of the introduction of OC 

sprays. 

However, the NIJ paper also states that 

if the subject has preexisting health 

issues, such as a respiratory problem, it 

is possible that OC sprays may cause 

upper respiratory inflammation or have 

other detrimental effects. In fact, 

virtually any weapon, or even item, 

considered to be ‘‘non-lethal’’ may be 

used to lethal effect if used 

inappropriately and contrary to Bureau 

policy. Therefore, for accuracy in 

terminology, we replace the term ‘‘nonlethal’’ with the more accurate term 

‘‘less-than-lethal.’’ We also make a 

conforming change in § 552.27, to 

replace the term ‘‘non-lethal’’ in that 

regulation with the term ‘‘less-thanlethal.’’ 

The term ‘‘less-than-lethal’’ is 

synonymous with ‘‘less lethal’’, ‘‘nonlethal’’, ‘‘non-deadly’’, and other such 

terms. We chose the term ‘‘less-thanlethal’’ because it most accurately 

describes the types of devices 

contemplated by this regulation. These 

devices include impact devices (such as 

batons, bean bag projectiles, etc.), 

chemical agents, and conducted energy 

devices (such as electronic 

immobilization, control, and restraint 

devices). ‘‘Less-than-lethal’’ devices are 

those used with a reasonable 

expectation that death or serious bodily 

injury will not result. As technology in 

this area evolves, the Bureau may use 

different types of less-than-lethal 

weapons. 


jdjones on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with RULES
6056 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 23 / Thursday, February 3, 2011 / Rules and Regulations 

We therefore finalize the proposed 

rule with minor changes as described 

above. 

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. This regulation has been 

determined to be 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. Therefore, under 

Executive Order 13132, we determine 

that this regulation does not have 

sufficient federalism implications to 

warrant the preparation of 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 and by 

approving it certifies that it will not 

have a significant economic impact 

upon a substantial number of small 

entities for the following reasons: This 

regulation 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 regulation 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 

regulation is not a major rule as defined 

by § 804 of the Small Business 

Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 

1996. This regulation will not result in 

an annual effect on the economy of 

$100,000,000 or more; a major increase 

in costs or prices; or significant adverse 

effects on competition, employment, 

investment, productivity, innovation, or 

on the ability of United States-based 

companies to compete with foreignbased companies in domestic and 

export markets. 

List of Subjects in 28 CFR Part 552 

Prisoners. 

Harley G. Lappin, 

Director, Bureau of Prisons. 

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 

follows. 

SUBCHAPTER C—INSTITUTIONAL 

MANAGEMENT 

PART 552—CUSTODY 

■ 1. The authority citation for 28 CFR 

part 552 continues to read as follows: 

Authority: 5 U.S.C. 301; 18 U.S.C. 3050, 

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; 28 CFR 0.95–0.99. 

■ 2. Revise § 552.25 to read as follows: 

§ 552.25 Use of less-than-lethal weapons, 

including chemical agents. 

(a) The Warden may authorize the use 

of less-than-lethal weapons, including 

those containing chemical agents, only 

when the situation is such that the 

inmate: 

(1) Is armed and/or barricaded; or 

(2) Cannot be approached without 

danger to self or others; and 

(3) It is determined that a delay in 

bringing the situation under control 

would constitute a serious hazard to the 

inmate or others, or would result in a 

major disturbance or serious property 

damage. 

(b) The Warden may delegate the 

authority under this regulation to one or 

more supervisors on duty and 

physically present, but not below the 

position of Lieutenant. 

■ 3. In § 552.27, remove the term ‘‘nonlethal’’ and add the term ‘‘less-thanlethal’’ in its place. 

[FR Doc. 2011–2364 Filed 2–2–11; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4410–05–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 81 

[EPA–HQ–OAR–2007–0562; EPA–HQ–OAR– 

2010–0163; FRL–9261–3] 

RIN 2060–AQ30 

Additional Air Quality Designations for 

the 2006 24-Hour Fine Particle National 

Ambient Air Quality Standards, 

110(k)(6) Correction and Technical 

Correction Related to Prior 

Designation, and Decisions Related to 

the 1997 Air Quality Designations and 

Classifications for the Annual Fine 

Particles National Ambient Air Quality 

Standards 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Supplemental amendments; 

Final rule. 

SUMMARY: On November 13, 2009, EPA 

promulgated air quality designations 

nationwide for all but three areas for the 

2006 24-hour fine particle (PM2.5) 

National Ambient Air Quality Standards 

(NAAQS). This rule takes several 

additional actions related to the 2006 

24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS designations. It 

establishes the initial PM2.5 air quality 

designations for three areas (Pinal 

County, Arizona; Plumas County, 

California; and Shasta County, 

California) and their respective 

surrounding counties that EPA deferred 

in the November 13, 2009 promulgated 

designations. Plumas and Shasta 

counties and their surrounding counties 

are being designated ‘‘unclassifiable/ 

attainment,’’ while a portion of Pinal 

County is being designated as 

‘‘nonattainment.’’ This action also 

includes a 110(k)(6) error correction 

(affecting Ravalli, Montana) and a 

technical correction (affecting 

Knoxville, Tennessee) related to the 

2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS 

designations. Finally, in this action, 

EPA announces its decision to retain the 

current designation of unclassifiable/ 

attainment for Harris County, Texas and 

Pinal County, Arizona for the 1997 

annual PM2.5 NAAQS. 

DATES: Effective Date: The effective date 

of this rule is March 7, 2011. 

ADDRESSES: The EPA has established 

two dockets for the actions contained in 

this final rule. Docket ID No. EPA–HQ– 

OAR–2007–0562 contains documents 

related to the initial designations for the 

three areas (Pinal County, Arizona; 

Plumas County, California; and Shasta 

County, California and their respective 

surrounding counties) for the 2006 

24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS. Docket ID No. 


jdjones on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with RULES