Three steps should not be collapsed into one in CDC's January 19 quarantine rule: serving an order, reassessing it and conducting a requested medical review. The final text scheduled effectiveness for February 21. It therefore describes a forthcoming framework in this February 2 account, not a newly operating procedure that day. [2017-00615][2016-18103]
Service was required no later than 72 hours after apprehension. For a group, publication or conspicuous posting could substitute when individual service was impracticable. Mandatory reassessment then ran from service, with a separate 72-hour deadline. A person could request medical review after reassessment and service of an order continuing or modifying the restriction. [2017-00615][2016-18103]
The framework included translation or interpretation as needed. Government-paid representatives required a request and certification of indigence. That definition covered annual family income below 200 percent of the applicable poverty guideline or, if no income was earned, liquid assets below 15 percent. Neither the deadline nor those eligibility conditions establishes universal counsel or automatic release. [2017-00615][2016-18103]
The August 2016 proposal supplies a different piece of the explanation. Its agreements provision contemplated consent to public-health measures but expressly did not make consent a prerequisite to existing authority. The final rule withdrew that provision. These documents trace one CDC rulemaking, not independent confirmation of its results; their useful comparison is between a proposed agreement mechanism and the procedural duties actually specified in the final instrument. [2017-00615][2016-18103]
Source documents
- Control of Communicable Diseaseshttps://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/FR-2017-01-19/html/2017-00615.htm
- Control of Communicable Diseaseshttps://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/FR-2016-08-15/html/2016-18103.htm