I received this from the ******** group I belong to. Its good to know for those of us who have sent in softcover books up until now! It seems to be not allowed no more!

The following is verbatim from the December 17, 2002 issue of the Federal Register.

(Moderator's Note: Interestingly, this "change" has been in the works for quite a while as the summary indicates. The public comment period closed in 1994! The BOP's take on the substance - or not - of comments seems telling. Obviously, form letters are summarily disregarded.)

[Federal Register: December 17, 2002 (Volume 67, Number 242)] [Rules
and Regulations] [Page 77161-77164] From the Federal Register Online
via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov] [DOCID:fr17de02-7]
================================================== =====
================ -----------------------------------------------------
------------- ----- DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE Bureau of Prisons 28 CFR
Part 540 [BOP-1009-F] RIN 1120-AA15 Incoming Publications: Softcover
Materials AGENCY: Bureau of Prisons, DOJ. ACTION: Final rule. -------
----------------- -----------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: In this document, the Bureau of Prisons (Bureau) revises
its regulations on incoming publications. The amendment provides
that inmates in medium security, high security, and administrative
institutions may receive softcover materials only from a publisher,
book club, or bookstore. This amendment is necessary to reduce the
amount of contraband introduced into Federal prisons through
materials sent by mail. The presence of contraband in the prisons,
including drugs, weapons, and escape-related materials pose grave
dangers to staff, inmates and the public. We considered alternate
solutions to the problem of intercepting contraband, such as the use
of technological security devices or increased staffing, but
determined that these options were impracticable. This rule change
also allows the Unit Manager to make an exception to this
requirement and to the existing similar requirement for hardcover
publications and newspapers. We intend this rule change to
strengthen security procedures designed to prevent introduction to
contraband into Bureau institutions. EFFECTIVE DATE: January 16,
2003. ADDRESSES: Office of General Counsel, Bureau of Prisons, 320
First Street, NW., Washington, DC 20534. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION
CONTACT: Sarah Qureshi, Office of General Counsel, Bureau of
Prisons, phone (202) 307-2105. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Bureau
amends its regulations on incoming publications (28 CFR part 540,
subpart F). Regulations in 28 CFR 540.71 had allowed an inmate to
receive paperback books and magazines from any source. A proposed
rule was published in the Federal Register on January 18, 1994 (59
FR 2668). The proposed rule required that, in medium security, high
security, and administrative institutions, only softcover
publications from the publisher, book club, or book store would be
permitted. Existing regulations already required this restriction on
hardcover books and newspapers. The proposed rule also provided for
exceptions when a publication was no longer available from the
publisher, book club, or bookstore. In such cases, the Unit Manager
may require that the inmate provide written documentation that the
publication is no longer available from these sources. The proposed
amendment was intended to simplify, and consequently strengthen,
Bureau procedures designed to prevent the introduction of contraband
into Bureau institutions. Bureau regulations on inmate legal
activities (28 CFR part 543, subpart B) which restated in Sec. 543.11
(d) the policy on receipt of incoming publications were also
proposed to be revised in a conforming amendment. The public comment
period on the Bureau's proposed rule closed on March 21, 1994.
Comments were received from approximately 187 commenters
(approximately 176 submitting a form letter response). A summary of
the issues raised by these comments and agency response follow. The
form letter stated that the proposed regulation discriminated
against all prisoners, indigent prisoners, religious organizations
and groups, legal organizations and groups, news organizations and
groups, small and independent businesses and employees, and free
enterprise. The form letter also claimed that the proposed
regulation cut prisoners off from their local, national, and
international community contact and ties; impaired First Amendment
rights to religious freedom; impaired a right to read, learn, and
mentally, emotionally and spiritually grow and progress; and
inflicted severe economic additional hardships on the families and
friends of inmates, and on the general national and international
communities. Finally, the form letter claimed the proposed
regulations were in violation of the Constitution (in particular, the
First Amendment), and were in violation of the Geneva Convention,
international treaties and agreements, and the Universal Declaration
of Human Rights. No specifics were provided regarding the latter
alleged violations. As an initial response, the Bureau notes that
the rule applies to inmates in medium security, high security, and
administrative facilities only. As of September, 2002, approximately
51% of federal inmates were housed in minimum and low security
institutions, and would therefore be unaffected by this amendment.
Based upon a general reevaluation of security needs at all
facilities, the Bureau is considering extending the restriction to
minimum and low security level institutions. That amendment will be
addressed in a new proposed rule. In any case, the revised
regulations do not stop inmates from maintaining local, national,
and international community contact and ties. Rather, the
regulations address how the contact may be maintained through the
media of softcover materials. Further specific response is provided
below in conjunction with responses to other individual commenters
(including those [[Page 77162]] few form letters which contained
additional comments). Some commenters stated that this rule would
discriminate against the indigent and create severe economic
hardships, not only on indigent inmates, but also on their families,
who would not be able to send material which the family had acquired
initially for their own use. The Bureau believes that this concern
ignores other resources available to inmates and other avenues of
recirculating softcover materials. For example, inmates retain access
to a variety of reading materials in the institution's library.
Inmates and their families can mitigate the presumed severe economic
impact: Books sent to the inmate by family from a publisher,
bookstore, or book club could be mailed by the inmate back to family
or friends after the inmate has finished with the book. General
limitations on inmate personal property preclude an inmate from
amassing a large library of reading materials. Ordinarily the inmate
would need to dispose of excess personal material such as books.
Mailing the books back to family or friends accomplishes both
purposes. Even so, we believe that the Bureau's need to maintain a
secure facility free from contraband outweighs any presumed economic
hardship or inconvenience experienced by families or by inmates with
relation to the minimal cost of mailing materials to family. The
Bureau is mandated, in 18 U.S.C. 4042(a)(3), to provide for the
protection and discipline of those in our custody. This statutory
mandate compels us to limit the introduction of contraband, which
may endanger the health, safety, and security of inmates and Bureau
employees, despite minimal costs or inconveniences to the inmate,
family or friends. One commenter expressed concern that, because of
specific assessments and/or fines, many inmates would not be able to
afford magazine subscriptions or would have to make choices in the
expenditure of their available funds. If this is meant to imply that
the inmate's only recourse is to solicit magazines from family and
friends, the Bureau's response is that the revised regulations do
not preclude family and friends from responding to such requests by
initiating subscriptions under the inmate's name. With respect to
the inmate's having to make choices on the expenditure of his or her
funds, the Bureau notes that such decisions are not unique to
inmates, but are an ordinary practice for all responsible persons.
With respect to the general comment that the proposed rule was
unconstitutional (based on perceived violations of various
amendments), the Bureau disagrees, noting that the revised
regulations are a rational means of achieving a legitimate
correctional management goal (namely, to preserve internal order and
discipline and to maintain institutional security) and that the
inmate has other means to obtain similar information. More
specifically, one commenter argued that the proposed rule violates
the First Amendment rights of non- prisoners to mail what they
choose. We believe that security considerations support the proposed
restrictions on what inmates may receive in medium security, high
security, and administrative facilities. As noted above, the Bureau
believes that security needs at minimum and low security
institutions may warrant similar restrictions, and that will be the
subject of a separate proposed rulemaking. The same commenter felt
that the proposal is unconstitutionally over-inclusive. The
restrictions that the proposed amendment creates, however, are not
``unnecessarily broad.'' The amendment does not totally ban incoming
softcover materials; it merely restricts the sources that these
materials may come from, in the same manner as is done for hardcover
materials and newspapers. With respect to commenters who suggested
that the proposed rule impermissibly violated the First Amendment
right to religious freedom or discriminated against religious
organizations and groups, the Bureau disagrees. The rule is content
neutral. Inmates are still entitled to the same publications as
before the proposed rule; we only change the means of obtaining
these publications. One commenter suggested that the proposed rule
violates the Constitution on equal protection grounds. The commenter
felt the ``the proposed rule is discriminatory by denying equal
opportunity'' to those low and minimum security inmates who are
incarcerated in administrative facilities. The Bureau believes that
the nature of administrative facilities requires procedural
regulation based on the highest common denominator of inmates at the
facility. The dedication of monetary and staff resources to allow
for differentiation between security levels of inmates at any one
administrative institution would be impracticable. Placement in an
administrative facility is ordinarily a temporary assignment. Other
commenters further alleged that the rule is unconstitutional on the
grounds of Fifth Amendment due process. However, the amendment poses
neither a procedural nor a substantive due process violation. The
rulemaking's comment period provided the public, including inmates,
with an opportunity to voice their comments and concerns about the
proposed rule. The inmate retains further due process protection
through use of the administrative remedy program (28 CFR part 542).
Commenters argued that the proposed rule will deny them ``the right
to read, learn and mentally, spiritually, and emotionally grow and
progress.'' The Bureau disagrees. Inmates still retain the
opportunity to obtain the material; the means of access have been
limited for security reasons. As stated above, the goal of the
Bureau is to maintain security within the facilities free from
contraband. Under the new rule, inmates are still permitted to read
the same types of publications that they have been allowed to read
before the proposed rule. Additionally, inmates can always ``read,
learn and mentally, spiritually and emotionally grow and progress''
in the facility's library, which serves as an additional resource.
Inmates are also provided with educational programs within the
facility. Several commenters questioned the Bureau's motives for
issuing the amendment. In particular, a commenter suggested that the
Bureau may be attempting to control ``the free flow of ideas through
prison walls.'' Another commenter felt that ``the rule is aimed more
at controlling the political content of the information that inmates
receive rather than controlling the introduction of contraband.''
The Bureau emphasizes that this regulation operates in a content-
neutral fashion and is not part of any attempt to control the
content of the materials coming into Bureau correctional facilities.
A third commenter suggested that the rule is partly motivated by the
book publishers ``pushing for the sale of a new book rather than
have a used one passed on to prisoners'' from outside sources. The
Bureau's action is based on security concerns and has not been
spurred by the interests of book publishers. Some commenters argued
that the proposed rule was overly restrictive. One commenter claimed
the motivation behind this rule was ``a Bureau desire to re-
allocated staff resources'' without regard for the impact upon
inmates and the general public. This commenter felt that the
interest of the public in allowing inmates to receive softcover
publications outweighed the interest of the Bureau to re- allocate
staff resources. [[Page 77163]] The Bureau believes that the revised
regulations properly balance security needs of the higher rated
institutions and the inmate population, given the limitations of
budgetary constraints. The current restrictions on sources for
hardcover materials have functioned effectively to reduce the risk
of contraband entering the institution. In contrast, the lack of
restrictions on softcover materials has become problematic. for
example, at one high security institution, over the course of a year
approximately 25 softcover materials received at the institution
contained contraband. In most instances, the contraband was drug-
related. It is important to note that the presence of even minute
quantities of drug contraband pose serious problems to the security,
discipline, and good order of a correctional institution. Through
this rulemaking, extend to softcover materials procedures that have
proven effective for hardcover materials. As for the question of
reallocating staff time, one anticipated benefit is a reduction in
the amount of tome taken to process contraband which enters that
institution by minimizing the likelihood that contraband will be
mailed into the institution. Staff will continue to examine all mail
(including softcover materials from a publisher, book store, or book
club) for contraband. Several commenters felt that the threat of
contraband from soft cover materials should be addressed through use
of ``high tech security features'' or revised mail room procedures.
The Bureau believes reliance upon ``high tech security features'' is
not practicable in this instance, given the limitations of budget
and available technology. Staff currently examine all mail both
manually and with x-ray scanners. While these scanners are effective
for identifying metallic contraband, they are not effective for
paper contraband or for organic contraband such as drugs. The cost
of devices designed to detect drugs ranges from $36,000 to over
$100,000 per unit, depending upon the type of device selected. No
one type of device is technically suitable for all of the various
types of drug contraband. Consequently, an institution may need more
than one of these devices. The Bureau currently operates 107
institutions; 54 of these institutions are medium security level or
higher and consequently are covered under the revised regulations.
The minimum cost to purchase just one of these devices for each of
these 54 institutions ranges from 1.9 to 5.4 million dollars.
Additional costs for supplies. The appreciable length of time needed
to conduct tests with these devices is yet another consideration
which leads the Bureau to determine that the proposed restriction of
sources is the more reasonable solution for minimizing the possible
introduction of contraband to the institution through softcover
materials. One commenter recommended the use of dogs for
intercepting drugs. The Bureau notes that extensive use of dogs for
this purpose entails costs of maintenance and handling, and even so
may not provide adequate security against the wide range of possible
contraband. One commenter speculated that softcover material offered
less opportunity than hardbound material for the transmission of
contraband. In actuality, softcover material poses different
opportunities for such transmission. The presence of numerous
advertising or subscription inserts in a magazine complicates a
search for certain types of contraband. One commenter, apparently
assuming that the problem cloud be addressed through efficiencies in
operation, recommended processing softcover material on alternate
days. The daily volume of mail is sufficiently high that
efficiencies effected through the suggested change for processing
mail would be negligible. Commenters were also concerned that the
new rule would leave institution mail staff with nothing to do.
While the revised procedure should greatly reduce the likelihood
that contraband will enter the institutions through such mail, staff
must continue to monitor incoming publications. As one commenter
noted, under the revised provision, Bureau staff would have to
verify the legitimacy of the sender. The amount of time saved by the
procedure can be devoted to these or other duties. There are a
variety of other concerns raised by commenters regarding perceived
inconveniences of the rule. One commenter was concerned that reading
materials in foreign languages will be difficult to obtain. Other
commenters state that old manuscripts, books, and other publications
cannot be readily obtained from publishers. One commenter worried
that inmates whose friends and families live in small towns will be
especially burdened, because many small towns do not have bookstores
that offer a wide variety of reading materials. While the bureau
acknowledges that some inconveniences may result from this rule,
book clubs do offer a wide variety of reading material, typically at
a reduced cost, and are available to everyone regardless of
location. Furthermore, reading material in foreign languages is
available in most bookstores. The interests of the Bureau to
maintain security and order outweigh the minor inconveniences that
some inmates may experience. Some commenters objected to the rule,
stating that it would be too difficult to receive certain
publications which they speculated would not be readily available
from authorized sources. The Bureau notes that the rule contains an
exception provision which allows the Unit Manager to authorize the
receipt of publications from other sources if the publication is no
longer available from the publisher, book club, or bookstore. One
commenter argued that approved exceptions by the Unit Manager would
be difficult to obtain. The Bureau expects that the use of the
exception provision will be adequate for the purpose, and further
adjustments to the exception provision can be made if the need
becomes apparent. One commenter argued that most softcover books,
and magazines were purchased by family and friends at stores which
do not provide mailing services. The Bureau believes this comment is
highly speculative. Regardless, the Bureau contends that adequate
choice exists for individuals purchasing softcover material (as is
already the case for hardcover material). Some commenters expressed
concern that inmates would not be able to receive books from
bookstores which ship by United Parcel Service (UPS) because prison
addresses contain post office box numbers. These commenters stated
that UPS does not deliver to post office box addresses. This has not
proven to be a problem in the past with the delivery of hardcover
materials from bookstores. Bureau facilities do receive deliveries
from UPS and other package carriers. One commenter assumed that
books purchased from a used bookstore would not be acceptable. This,
however, is not the case. A used bookstore could be the agent for
mailing softcover material to an inmate. Several commenters suggest
that the proposed rule is inconsistent with the goals of
rehabilitation. They feel that the rule impairs inmate education and
self-improvement. The Bureau disagrees. While the rule places
limitations, for reasons of security, on how certain material may be
obtained, it is not intended to cut off total access to such
material. Furthermore, the Bureau itself offers educational programs
for inmates, including a mandatory literacy program with a GED
standard and, in certain circumstances, post- secondary education
programs. [[Page 77164]] The education department of the Bureau is
responsive, to the extent that its budget allows, to inmate requests
for library materials. The budget for an institution's education
department covers education programming and library operations
(including acquisitions). The statement by one commenter that
institution libraries have no funds for acquisition of books is not
generally true. This commenter stated that surplus books are donated
by inmates to the institution's library and, based upon the
assumption that fewer books would be sent into the institution, the
amendment would result in fewer books being donated. One commenter
is concerned that the proposed rule change will adversely affect the
inmate's ability to receive legal materials. The new rule will not
significantly affect the inmate's ability to receive legal materials.
Legal reference materials are available to inmates through the
institution's law library. Purchasing legal reference materials from
outside sources should not be problematic because they may be
procured in the same manner as other softcover or hardcover
publications. The commenter expressed a concern that this rule would
prevent his receiving softcover legal materials from his attorney.
First, this rule does not govern correspondence and mail sent by
attorneys to their clients. We have rules governing legal mail in 28
CFR 540.19. Secondly, this rule would only apply if an inmate
receives softcover materials from the attorney. It would not prevent
an inmate from receiving legal documents from his/her attorney of
record or materials such as books from the institution's law library
or directly from a publisher, book club or bookstore. The proposed
conforming amendment to the regulations on inmate legal activities
(28 CFR 543.11) which restated the policy on receipt of incoming
publications is not longer necessary because those provisions were
replaced by a cross-reference in an amendment published on January
31, 1997 (62 FR 4890). 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.
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, as required by 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 Direct 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. Plain Language
Instructions We try to write clearly. If you can suggest how to
improve the clarity of these regulations, call or write Sarah
Qureshi, Rules Unit, Office of General Counsel, Bureau of Prisons,
320 First St., NW., Washington, DC 20534; telephone (202) 307-2105.
List of Subjects in 28 CFR Part 540 Prisoners. Kathleen Hawk Sawyer,
Director, Bureau of Prisons. Under the rulemaking authority vested
in the Attorney General in 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and delegated to the
Director, Bureau of Prisons, we revise 28 CFR part 540 as follows:
SUBCHAPTER C--INSTITUTIONAL MANAGEMENT PART 540--CONTACT WITH
PERSONS IN THE COMMUNITY The authority citation for 28 CFR part 540
is revised to read as follows: Authority: 5 U.S.C. 301, 551, 552a;
18 U.S.C. 1791, 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. Revise paragraph (a) of Sec. 540.71
to read as follows: Sec. 540.71 Procedures. (a)(1) At all Bureau
institutions, an inmate may receive hardcover publications and
newspaper only from the publisher, from a book club, or from a
bookstore. (2) At medium security, high security, and administrative
institutions, an inmate may receive softcover publications (for
example, paperback books, newspaper, clippings, magazines, and other
similar items) only from the publisher, from a book club, or from a
bookstore. (3) At minimum security and low security institutions, an
inmate any receive softcover publications (other than newspapers)
from any source. (4) The Unit Manager may make an exception to the
provisions of paragraphs (a)(1) and (2) of this section of the
publication is no longer available from the publisher, book club, or
bookstore. The Unit Manager shall require that the inmate provide
written documentation that the publication is no longer available
from these sources. The approval or disapproval of any request for
an exception is to be documented, in writing, on an Authorization to
Receive a Package form which will be used to secure the item. * * *
* * [FR Doc. 02-31310 Filed 12- 11-02; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4410-05-M

Thanks for the info. This stinks because i got a lot of "authorized reading materials" in that were softcover books. Now, everyone will just have to use a publisher's return address when mailing into federal prisons. :p :)
(I didn't say that :p)

LOL....easy enough huh?! LOL

Will this include magazines--we send about 10-12 monthly?

Thanks!

Molly

Hi kintml2u!

What is the name of the BOP Watch group you belong to?

Thanks!

Molly

Doesn't this SUCK!!!??? Not that I send Billy many soft cover books, but I do send him tattoo magazines. He will be just as upset as I am. He's already mad about the change in the visition at his prison. This is one more thing to get upset about. But, really, what can he do? Nothing, just take it for the next 2 years until he comes home.

THEN HE'LL BE HOME...and I'll have him all to myself without the prison system getting in the way.

Denise.....

What changes have they made with visitation at FCI Beckley? Is it just there...or across the board with the feds?


Molly....the ******** group...is on ***********.(I hope I don't get in trouble for posting this!)
Its not really a group that is like this...its pretty much lawyers or something that post things dealing with the federal system. Like...if I have a serious question that I need advise on...they are good. They always have up to date happenings with this system! Check iat out...its helpful I think to anyone who has a loved one in the federal system.

Happy Holidays!

Well, I think I am going to open a small boutique business and ship books and magazines to fed inmates. If anyone has any suggestions, pm me. I could use the tax write off and besides, I want to buy furniture with my tax code. :)

fedcure is also a good source of information.

Diane,

Not any major visitation rules...they had a shake down the other day to try and find some drugs. They said it was coming in via the visitations.

They won't let the inmates wear their shoes they buy off commissary...it has to be those ugly black ones with the laces tied all the way up. They won't let the inmates walk over to the play room to get their children toys anymore. They are cracking down on people holding hands and getting physical. (YOU know that kills me). But I haven't been there since they started the rules--so it will be hard for me to keep my hands off him when I do see him. It's been about a month because of the weather...he'd just better watch out!! LOL

Ok I see Denise!

Hey Flygirl...thats a great idea! Mabey you could also get places to give you discounted prices...it might turn into a full time job around here!

Molly, since you send so many magazines every month, you really are better off getting him subscriptions to the magazines. I used to also send alot every month but the cost is expensive mailing them yourself. Also the time spent at the post office. It's also alot cheaper doing it by subscription. I saved about 60% just on the cost of the magazines alone.

Terry--you're right about the subscriptions--we should do that! However, his Dad really enjoys scouring the bookstores each week and selecting magazines--it makes him feel as if he is doing something--so I wouldn't want to deprive him of that. We did do 3 subcriptions though.

Thank you!

Molly

Alot of the bookstores (if you didn't hear FEd-X's advice, LOL) offer mailing for you. I know Barnes and Noble is a good one....you can go in...pick out what you want and they will send them from there....so his dad could still do what he does...feel good about it...and let the bookstore do the mailing! Just a helpful hint!

Border's does also, they charge a $5 fee to do it..

Diane--thanks for your advice--we just may be using it in time.

Molly

Thanks for the info as i just order a soft cover book for my dad and he has not heard of this as of yet. It will save me both time & money. I do think they are just trying to make it even harder on both the inmates as well as the family members.Will they ever stop??????

Chandra

I have not been told of this new change by the one "inside", lol.

I called his case worker a few days ago to talk with her....and asked to be sure. She too was unaware and had to get information from someone else. Everything has to come from a publisher.....if you notice in what the 2nd or 3rd post in this thread...there is a way. Shhh....lol.

They will still come up with more ways to make it harder on us all!

What about the guards who take stuff in for profit??????? Will they start checking them!