Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 22 / Thursday, February 1, 2024 / Proposed Rules 6455 

1U.S. Department of Justice Report & 

Recommendation Concerning the Use of Restrictive 

Housing, U.S. Department of Justice, Office of 

Justice Programs (January 2016), available at 

https://www.ojp.gov/ncjrs/virtual-library/abstracts/ 

us-department-justice-report-andrecommendations-concerning-use. 

performing a control column full and free 

movement inspection, in accordance with 

Section 8 of Britten-Norman SB 398, Issue 2, 

to inspect for free play, friction, binding, 

non-linear forces, and any remaining 

interference. 

(2) If interference between the control 

column, the rudder pedal adjuster cable, and 

any other wiring, including the Koiled Kord, 

or any free play, friction, binding, non-linear 

forces, or any remaining interference was 

found during the inspections required by 

paragraph (h)(1) of this AD, before further 

flight, securely tie any interfering electrical 

cables clear of the control column for its full 

range of motion and perform a final full and 

free movement inspection in accordance with 

Section 8 of Britten-Norman SB 398, Issue 2, 

to inspect for free play, friction, binding, 

non-linear forces, and any remaining 

interference. If there is any free play, friction, 

binding, non-linear forces, or any remaining 

interference, before further flight resolve 

these issues in accordance with a method 

approved by the Manager, International 

Validation Branch, FAA; or the Civil 

Aviation Authority United Kingdom (CAA 

UK); or Britten-Norman Aircraft Ltd.’s CAA 

UK Design Organization Approval (DOA). If 

approved by the DOA, the approval must 

include the DOA-authorized signature. 

(i) Alternative Methods of Compliance 

(AMOCs) 

The Manager, International Validation 

Branch, FAA, has the authority to approve 

AMOCs for this AD, if requested using the 

procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19. In 

accordance with 14 CFR 39.19, send your 

request to your principal inspector or local 

Flight Standards District Office, as 

appropriate. If sending information directly 

to the manager of the International Validation 

Branch, mail it to the address identified in 

paragraph (j)(2) of this AD or email to: 9- 

AVS-AIR-730-AMOC@faa.gov. If mailing 

information, also submit information by 

email. Before using any approved AMOC, 

notify your appropriate principal inspector, 

or lacking a principal inspector, the manager 

of the local Flight Standards District Office/ 

certificate holding district office. 

(j) Additional Information 

(1) Refer to CAA UK AD G–2022–0017, 

dated September 20, 2022, for related 

information. This CAA UK AD may be found 

in the AD docket at regulations.gov under 

Docket No. FAA–2024–0044. 

(2) For more information about this AD, 

contact Penelope Trease, Aviation Safety 

Engineer, FAA, 1600 Stewart Avenue, Suite 

410, Westbury, NY 11590; phone: (303) 342– 

1094; email: penelope.trease@faa.gov. 

(k) Material Incorporated by Reference 

(1) The Director of the Federal Register 

approved the incorporation by reference of 

the service information listed in this 

paragraph under 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR 

part 51. 

(2) You must use this service information 

as applicable to do the actions required by 

this AD, unless the AD specifies otherwise. 

(i) Britten-Norman Service Bulletin SB 398, 

Issue 2, dated May 30, 2022. 

(ii) [Reserved] 

(3) For service information identified in 

this AD, contact Britten-Norman Aircraft 

Ltd., Bembridge Airport, Bembridge, Isle of 

Wight, PO35 5PR United Kingdom; phone: 

+44 20 3371 4000; email: customer.support@

britten-norman.com; website: brittennorman.com/approvals-technicalpublications. 

(4) You may view this service information 

at the FAA, Airworthiness Products Section, 

Operational Safety Branch, 901 Locust, 

Kansas City, MO 64106. For information on 

the availability of this material at the FAA, 

call (817) 222–5110. 

(5) You may view this material at the 

National Archives and Records 

Administration (NARA). For information on 

the availability of this material at NARA, 

visit www.archives.gov/federal-register/cfr/ 

ibr-locations or email fr.inspection@nara.gov. 

Issued on January 26, 2024. 

Michael Linegang, 

Acting Director, Compliance & Airworthiness 

Division, Aircraft Certification Service. 

[FR Doc. 2024–01985 Filed 1–31–24; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4910–13–P 

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE 

Bureau of Prisons 

28 CFR Part 541 

[Docket No. BOP–1171–P] 

RIN 1120–AB71 

Inmate Discipline Program: 

Disciplinary Segregation and 

Prohibited Act Code Changes 

AGENCY: Bureau of Prisons, Justice. 

ACTION: Proposed rule. 

SUMMARY: In this document, the Bureau 

of Prisons (Bureau) proposes to amend, 

clarify, and streamline inmate discipline 

regulations to conform with current 

practice; to adopt recommendations of 

the January 2016 U.S. Department of 

Justice Report and Recommendations 

Concerning the Use of Restrictive 

Housing to reduce the potential length 

of the disciplinary segregation sanction; 

and to amend and clarify the list of 

prohibited act codes. 

DATES: Electronic comments must be 

submitted, and written comments must 

be postmarked, no later than 11:59 p.m. 

on April 1, 2024. 

ADDRESSES: Please submit electronic 

comments through the regulations.gov 

website, or mail written comments to 

the Legislative & Correctional Issues 

Branch, Office of General Counsel, 

Bureau of Prisons, 320 First Street NW, 

Washington, DC 20534. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Daniel J. Crooks III, Assistant General 

Counsel/Rules Administrator, Federal 

Bureau of Prisons, at the address above 

or at (202) 353–4885. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Please 

note that all comments received are 

considered part of the public record and 

made available for public inspection 

online at www.regulations.gov. If you 

want to submit personal identifying 

information (such as your name, 

address, etc.) as part of your comment, 

but do not want it to be posted online, 

you must include the phrase 

‘‘PERSONAL IDENTIFYING 

INFORMATION’’ in the first paragraph 

of your comment. You must also locate 

all the personal identifying information 

you do not want posted online in the 

first paragraph of your comment and 

identify what information you want 

redacted. 

If you want to submit confidential 

business information as part of your 

comment but do not want it to be posted 

online, you must include the phrase 

‘‘CONFIDENTIAL BUSINESS 

INFORMATION’’ in the first paragraph 

of your comment. You must also 

prominently identify confidential 

business information to be redacted 

within the comment. If a comment 

contains so much confidential business 

information that it cannot be effectively 

redacted, all or part of that comment 

may not be posted to 

www.regulations.gov. 

Personal identifying information 

identified and located as set forth above 

will be placed in the agency’s public 

docket file, but not posted online. 

Confidential business information 

identified and located as set forth above 

will not be placed in the public docket 

file. If you wish to inspect the agency’s 

public docket file in person by 

appointment, please see the FOR

FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT

paragraph. 

I. Background 

In this document, the Bureau of 

Prisons (Bureau) proposes to amend, 

clarify, and streamline inmate discipline 

regulations in 28 CFR part 541 to 

conform with current practice; to adopt 

recommendations of the U.S. 

Department of Justice Report and 

Recommendations Concerning the Use 

of Restrictive Housing (January 2016) 1

(hereinafter ‘‘Report’’) to reduce the 

potential length of the disciplinary 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
6456 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 22 / Thursday, February 1, 2024 / Proposed Rules 

segregation sanction; and to amend and 

clarify the list of prohibited act codes. 

A. Clarifying Changes 

Section 541.1 currently indicates that 

the purpose of the subpart is to describe 

the inmate discipline program. We first 

propose to add introductory language 

clarifying that the subpart does not 

create a private right of action or 

otherwise permit civil claims for alleged 

violations. We next propose to make 

non-substantive alterations in this 

section to clarify that inmate discipline 

helps ensure the safety, security, and 

orderly operation of correctional 

facilities as well as the protection of the 

public by sanctioning inmates who 

commit prohibited acts. We also retain 

language indicating that the subpart 

describes the inmate discipline program 

and ensures that sanctions will not be 

imposed in a capricious or retaliatory 

manner. Finally, we reiterate that, 

consistent with the Rehabilitation Act of 

1973, for all discipline cases, the Unit 

Discipline Committee or Disciplinary 

Hearing Officer shall consider the 

individual inmate’s mental health and 

disabilities when determining the 

appropriateness of sanctions. 

Section 541.2 states that the Bureau’s 

inmate discipline program applies to 

sentenced and unsentenced inmates in 

Bureau custody and those designated to 

any prison, institution, or facility in 

which persons are held in custody by 

direction of, or under an agreement 

with, the Bureau of Prisons. Although 

this language implicitly includes 

inmates designated to Bureau contract 

facilities, the Bureau proposes to make 

this inclusion explicit. 

We propose to alter this section to 

indicate that, for the purposes of these 

regulations, ‘‘staff’’ indicates staff 

authorized by the Bureau to implement 

the inmate discipline program as 

described in this subpart, and that the 

inmate discipline program applies to 

sentenced and unsentenced inmates in 

Bureau custody or in any facility, 

including community confinement 

facilities, in which persons are held in 

custody by the direction of, or under an 

agreement with, the Bureau. 

Section 541.3 describes prohibited 

acts and available sanctions. The 

current regulation divides prohibited 

acts into four separate categories based 

on severity: Greatest; High; Moderate; 

and Low. We now propose to eliminate 

the ‘‘Low’’ category to eliminate 

prohibited act codes that were 

underutilized. The revised list of 

prohibited acts is explained in more 

detail below. 

B. Prohibited Act Codes 

The Bureau proposes to make several 

changes to 28 CFR 541.3 Table 1 to 

§ 541.3—Prohibited Acts and Available 

Sanctions, as follows: 

Clarification of code 101, regarding 

assaulting any person, or an armed 

assault on the institution’s secure 

perimeter (to be used only when serious 

physical injury has been attempted or 

accomplished). 

We propose to clarify the language of 

this code to indicate that the prohibited 

conduct is the attempted or 

accomplished assault and/or battery of 

any person involving serious physical 

injury, or an armed assault on the 

institution’s secure perimeter. No 

changes will be made to the substance 

or application of this code. 

Expansion of code 102, regarding 

escape. 

We propose to expand this code, 

which currently includes ‘‘escape from 

escort; escape from any secure or nonsecure institution, including community 

confinement; escape from unescorted 

community program or activity;’’ and 

‘‘escape from outside a secure 

institution,’’ to clarify that this code 

prohibits any unauthorized departure 

from custody, including, but not limited 

to, unauthorized departure from the 

buildings, lands, property or perimeter 

(inside or outside) of any secure or nonsecure facility; unauthorized departure 

from community confinement, work 

detail, program or activity (whether 

escorted or unescorted); and 

unauthorized departure from any 

authorized location regardless of 

electronic monitoring devices. 

Escape from a work detail is currently 

included in prohibited act code 200, 

which we now propose to delete, as the 

language in that code will be 

encompassed by revised code 102. In 

the July 26, 2005, proposed rule on the 

subject, the Bureau explained that code 

200 was created to allow for a less 

severe sanction than that imposed for 

any other type of escape if an inmate 

voluntarily chooses to minimize his 

prohibited act by returning (70 FR 

43093). However, in the intervening 

years, the Bureau has found that 

allowing for a less severe sanction for 

escapes with voluntary return has 

resulted in greater incidences of inmate 

escapes and attempts to escape in order 

to procure contraband to introduce into 

Bureau facilities. 

Therefore, to deter any unauthorized 

departure from Bureau custody, 

regardless of whether the inmate 

chooses to voluntarily return, and to 

emphasize the severity of the prohibited 

act, we propose to delete code 200 and 

include escapes from work details 

within code 102 in the Greatest Severity 

Level. 

Clarification of code 103, regarding 

setting a fire. 

We propose to clarify the language of 

this code to prohibit causing ignition or 

combustion (including, but not limited 

to, fire or explosion) that either 

threatens serious bodily harm or is done 

in furtherance of another Greatest 

Severity Level prohibited act. No 

changes will be made to the substance 

or application of this code. 

Clarification of code 104, regarding 

possession, manufacture, or 

introduction of a gun, firearm, weapon, 

sharpened instrument, knife, dangerous 

chemical, explosive, ammunition, or 

any instrument that has been modified 

in order to be used as a weapon. 

We propose to clarify the language of 

this code to prohibit possession, 

manufacture, or introduction of any 

item that has been weaponized. Such an 

item can include firearms, sharpened 

instruments, unauthorized blades, 

explosives, ammunition, unauthorized 

chemicals, or any other object that has 

been modified in order to be used as a 

weapon. 

Combining codes 105 and 106, 

regarding rioting and encouraging 

others to riot. 

We propose to combine code 105, 

rioting, and 106, encouraging others to 

riot, into one code 105 that clarifies the 

prohibited act as rioting; promoting 

rioting; or encouraging others to 

participate in a riot. In this code, we 

also define the term ‘‘riot’’ as a 

disturbance with two or more people 

that involves violence or threats of 

violence or damage to government 

property, for the purpose of preventing 

or coercing official action. 

Expansion of code 108, regarding 

hazardous tools. 

We propose to expand this code, 

which currently includes ‘‘possession, 

manufacture, introduction or loss’’ of 

hazardous tools, to also include ‘‘use’’ of 

a hazardous tool. We also propose to 

include in the list of hazardous tool 

examples those ‘‘items necessary in the 

use of these devices.’’ Making these 

changes would allow for discipline if 

telltale evidence of such items as a 

cellphone, electronic device, or escape 

paraphernalia were not found, but items 

which could only be used with 

prohibited items are found to have been 

used. 

Separation of codes 110, 111, 112, 

113, regarding drugs, narcotics, and 

marijuana, from those regarding alcohol 

and intoxicants. 

We propose to make a technical 

amendment involving prohibited act 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 22 / Thursday, February 1, 2024 / Proposed Rules 6457 

codes 110, 111, 112, and 113, all of 

which currently cover the prohibited 

acts of refusing to be tested for, 

introducing, or making, using, or 

possessing drugs or alcohol/intoxicants 

not prescribed by medical staff. Having 

one set of prohibited acts that relates to 

both drugs and alcohol/intoxicants 

together has made it difficult for the 

Bureau to effectively track the number 

of incident reports related solely to 

drugs or solely to alcohol/intoxicants. 

We therefore propose to separate the 

one set of prohibited activities into two: 

one group of codes relating to drugs, 

and the other to alcohol/intoxicants. To 

accomplish this, we created four new 

prohibited act codes: 116, 117, 118, and 

119. Codes 110 through 113 will now 

relate solely to drugs, and codes 116 

through 119 will repeat the activities 

described in 110 through 113, but with 

regard to alcohol/intoxicants. The 

wording of the codes has not otherwise 

changed. 

Combination of codes 114, 205, 206, 

229, and 300, regarding non-consensual, 

sexually explicit conduct up to and 

including assault. 

We propose to combine codes 114, 

205, 206, 229, and 300 to clarify that the 

behavior we seek to prohibit 

encompasses additional nonconsensual, sexually explicit conduct, 

including ‘‘sexual assault.’’ Instead, we 

propose to clarify that code 114 

prohibits sexually explicit conduct 

involving force, threat of force, or threat 

of harm; or sexually explicit conduct 

without consent or through coercion; or 

attempts thereof. Revised code 114 

would encompass sexually explicit 

conduct that staff have observed and 

instructed an inmate to cease. 

In this code, we further define the 

term ‘‘sexually explicit conduct’’ as it is 

described in 18 U.S.C. 2256(2)(A): 

verbal or written sexual proposals or 

threats; actual or simulated sexual 

intercourse, including but not limited to 

genital-genital, oral-genital, anal-genital, 

or oral-anal, whether between persons 

of the same or opposite sex; bestiality; 

masturbation; sadistic or masochistic 

abuse; or lascivious exhibition of the 

anus, genitals, or pubic area of any 

person. 

There has been a general increase over 

several years in the occurrence of these 

prohibited acts, particularly as aimed at 

staff. This behavior, especially towards 

staff, rises to the greatest level of 

severity because it results in the 

existence of a sexually hostile work 

environment for staff. Accordingly, we 

seek to increase the severity level for 

these behaviors to underscore the level 

of seriousness of this conduct, to deter 

this type of activity, and to promote a 

healthy work environment for Bureau 

staff. 

As conforming amendments, the 

Bureau proposes to delete codes 205 

(engaging in sexual acts), 206 (making 

sexual proposals or threats to another), 

229 (sexual assault of any person, 

involving non-consensual touching 

without force or threat of force), and 300 

(indecent exposure) because the 

conduct those codes prohibit would be 

encompassed under revised code 114. 

Addition of code 194, regarding 

unauthorized use of social media and 

fund transfer services. 

We propose to add a Greatest Severity 

Level prohibited act code (194) for 

accessing, using, or maintaining social 

media accounts (including, but not 

limited to the following: Facebook, 

Twitter, Instagram, Snapchat, TikTok, 

etc. or any successor), or directing 

others to establish or maintain social 

media accounts on the inmate’s behalf 

for the purpose of committing or aiding 

in the commission of a criminal act; of 

committing or aiding in the commission 

of any Greatest category prohibited act; 

or of circumventing authorized 

communications monitoring for the 

purpose of committing or aiding in the 

commission of a criminal act or of any 

Greatest category prohibited act. This 

code also prohibits inmates’ use of fund 

transfer services such as CashApp, as 

explained in more detail below. 

In determining whether the Bureau 

can restrict inmate access to social 

media accounts, the appropriate 

standard to consider is whether such a 

restriction is reasonably related to 

legitimate penological interests. See, 

e.g., Aguiar v. Recktenwald, No. 3:13– 

2616, 2015 WL 5829727, at *8 (M.D. Pa. 

Sept. 30, 2015) (citing Solan v. 

Zickefoose, 530 F. App’x 109, 110 (3d 

Cir. 2013), cert. dismissed, 134 S. Ct. 

1499 (2014), reconsideration denied, 

134 S. Ct. 1927 (2014) (quoting Turner 

v. Safley, 482 U.S. 78, 89 (1987)). In 

Aguiar, the court articulated the Turner 

factors demonstrated by the Bureau’s 

policy of restricting social media use by 

inmates, as follows: 

The first Turner factor requires a valid, 

rational connection between the prison 

regulation and the legitimate governmental 

interest articulated to justify it. Here, the 

record supports a rational connection 

between controlling indirect communications 

with outsiders through effectuating the 

deactivation of inmates’ Facebook accounts, 

and the articulated goal of promoting the 

security of the prison institution and the 

protection of the community . . . . The 

policy . . . of restricting inmates from 

accessing social media platforms as a means 

to communicate with unauthorized contacts, 

‘‘is content neutral and does not work to 

exclude any particular message or 

expression.’’ McIntyre v. Bayer, 243 F.3d 548 

(9th Cir. 2000) . . . . 

If the prison facility acquiesced upon 

discovering that an inmate’s Facebook 

account was being operated to convey 

content from the inmate himself, it would 

open the door to inmates communicating 

with a virtually unlimited number of 

individuals. Those Facebook contacts could 

include other confined inmates, gang 

members with whom the inmate may be 

affiliated with and prohibited from 

contacting, or perhaps more disturbingly 

victims of the inmate’s crimes or other 

individuals who may be subject to deliberate 

intimidation by the inmate (or by the 

inmate’s contact who controls the account, 

harassing the victim in effective anonymity). 

The uncontroverted evidence indicates that 

administrators have determined, in their 

sound discretion, that permitting inmates to 

maintain Facebook accounts through third 

parties would jeopardize the security and 

order of the facility and would circumvent 

established policies regulating 

communication that enhance prison 

security. . . . 

With regard to the second factor, Aguiar’s 

First Amendment right to communication or 

association has not been impermissibly 

denied, as the challenged policy leaves 

ample alternatives to communicate with 

friends and family. Specifically, Aguiar 

retains the use of other methods of 

communication with outsiders through 

prison visitation, postal mail, telephone, and 

TRULINCS messaging. . . . Specifically, the 

First Amendment does not require ‘‘that the 

government provide telephones, 

videoconferencing, email, or any of the other 

marvelous forms of technology that allow 

instantaneous communication across 

geographical distances; the First Amendment 

is a limit on the exercise of governmental 

power, not a source of positive obligation.’’ 

Holloway v. Magness, No. 5:07–00088, 2011 

WL 204891, at *7 (E.D. Ark. Jan. 21, 2011). 

The third Turner factor considers the 

impact that the accommodation of the 

asserted constitutional right will have on 

Defendants. Here, the Court has considered 

the consequence of accommodating the 

asserted constitutional right on the allocation 

of prison resources generally, the other 

inmates, and the prison administration. 

‘‘When accommodation of an asserted right 

will have a significant ‘ripple effect’ on 

fellow inmates or prison staff, courts should 

be particularly deferential to the informed 

discretion of corrections officials.’’ Turner, 

482 U.S. at 89. Permitting inmates to 

effectively curate the content posted on their 

Facebook pages through an authorized agent 

would impose insurmountable burdens on 

prison staff tasked with monitoring inmates’ 

communications, would require incredible 

prison resources to effectively regulate, and 

would undermine the infrastructure of 

communication policies designed to 

safeguard prison operations. In toto, these 

considerations demonstrate a substantial 

burden on prison officials and resources as 

an impact of accommodating Aguiar’s access 

to Facebook. 

The fourth Turner factor, the availability of 

other alternatives to effectuate the BOP’s 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
6458 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 22 / Thursday, February 1, 2024 / Proposed Rules 

objective, weights in favor of the BOP, as 

Aguiar has not offered any meaningful 

alternatives to Defendants’ current 

arrangement of disclosing to Facebook 

inmates whose Facebook accounts are 

updated by third parties in violation of 

Facebook’s user agreement, and more 

generally of discouraging inmates from 

gaining access to social media platforms in 

order to communicate with unauthorized 

contacts. 

In sum, the Turner factors weigh in favor 

of the BOP’s informal policy of restricting 

inmates from maintaining social media 

platforms such as Facebook, as the decision 

to notify Facebook upon discovering an 

inmate with an active Facebook account does 

not impermissibly curtail an inmate’s right to 

communicate with persons outside the 

prison. As Aguiar has not alleged the 

deprivation of a constitutional right, 

Defendants are entitled to qualified 

immunity with respect to these First 

Amendment claims. 

Aguiar v. Recktenwald, 2015 WL 

5829727, at *9. In addition, several 

states currently have provisions in law 

or policies prohibiting prisoners from 

accessing social media. See, e.g., Ala. 

Code 14–11–70 (2013); Texas 

Department of Criminal Justice Offender 

Orientation Handbook, Ch. 1, III. N., p. 

24 (Apr. 2016); New Mexico Corrections 

Department Policy CD–044005, internet 

Use, page 5, M.1. (May 20, 2015); North 

Carolina Department of Public Safety, 

Prisons, Policy & Procedures, General, 

B.0300 Inmate Conduct Rules (y)(2) 

(July 10, 2013). 

We further propose to include 

language necessary to enable the Bureau 

to target and eliminate inmates’ use of 

fund transfer services like CashApp. 

When inmates use these services to send 

and receive money, Bureau staff are 

unable to monitor those transfers. 

CashApp and similar applications 

employ encryption technology that 

enables inmates to avoid detection, 

allowing them to use these platforms for 

unlawful purposes such as money 

laundering. Without the ability to 

closely monitor fund transfers using 

CashApp and similar applications, 

Bureau staff are unable to advise and 

assist other federal, state, and local law 

enforcement entities with identifying 

criminal or potentially criminal activity 

in which a particular inmate is engaged. 

Thus, inclusion of this language will 

provide us with a tool to disincentive an 

inmate’s use of these fund transfer 

services and to hold inmates 

accountable for violating the prohibition 

against such use. 

Addition of code 195, regarding use of 

video visits to commit or aid in the 

commission of a criminal act or any 

other Greatest category prohibited act. 

We propose to add a Greatest Severity 

Level prohibited act code (195) for use 

of video visits to commit or aid in the 

commission of a criminal act or any 

other Greatest category prohibited act. 

The Bureau adds this code to account 

for advances in technology that have 

allowed for the use of video visiting by 

inmates as an alternative to telephonic 

communication and visiting room 

visitation. This code is necessary to 

discipline for infractions similarly to 

current code 196, ‘‘use of the mail for 

an illegal purpose or to commit or 

further a Greatest category prohibited 

act;’’ and 197, ‘‘use of the telephone for 

an illegal purpose or to commit or 

further a Greatest category prohibited 

act.’’ 

Expansion of code 196, regarding use 

of the mail for an illegal purpose. 

Current code 196 allows for discipline 

for use of the mail for an illegal purpose 

or to commit or further a Greatest 

category prohibited act. We propose to 

expand this code to include misuse of 

any form of electronic mail and 

messaging, including messaging through 

the TRULINCS system. The Bureau 

makes this addition to account for 

advances in technology that have 

allowed for the use of electronic mail by 

inmates as an alternative to written 

correspondence and telephone 

communication. This change is 

necessary to discipline for infractions 

similarly to current code 196, ‘‘use of 

the mail for an illegal purpose or to 

commit or further a Greatest category 

prohibited act;’’ and 197, ‘‘use of the 

telephone for an illegal purpose or to 

commit or further a Greatest category 

prohibited act.’’ 

Clarification of code 201, regarding 

fighting. 

We propose to modify this code to 

clarify that the term ‘‘fighting’’ is 

defined as a hostile physical or verbal 

encounter between two or more persons. 

This is more descriptive than the 

previous code description, which was 

simply ‘‘fighting with another person.’’ 

No other changes are made in the 

substance or application of this code. 

Addition of code 202, regarding 

possession of forms used in fraudulent 

filing. 

We propose to create a new code 202 

prohibiting possession of any forms that 

may be used in the fraudulent filing of 

Uniform Commercial Code (UCC) liens 

and prohibiting any attempt to publicly 

disclose the private information of 

others for unlawful purposes. 

For several years, inmates have been 

filing fraudulent liens against Bureau 

staff, typically alleging that a particular 

Bureau staff member is financially 

indebted to the inmate because of 

something the Bureau staff did or did 

not do. Inmates frequently file these 

liens under the purported authority of 

the UCC, which has been adopted by 

most states. 

Under the UCC, a creditor files a 

financing statement with the required 

state office. This financing statement 

creates a lien. To remove the lien, the 

creditor must file a formal amendment. 

When Bureau legal staff learn that a lien 

has been filed against a staff member, 

they file a demand letter requesting to 

have the lien removed. If the inmate 

refuses to remove the lien, the Bureau 

staff may file a document contesting the 

lien. Specifically, the UCC provides a 

debtor the opportunity to file a 

correction on a record that is believed 

to be inaccurately or wrongfully filed. 

The filing of a correction statement does 

not invalidate the original financing 

statement but does serve to alert anyone 

searching the records for the debtor’s 

name that this financing statement is 

contested. 

Filing fraudulent liens or attempting 

to disclose the private information of 

others is prohibited by the Court 

Security Improvement Act of 2007 (Pub. 

L. 110–177, Jan. 7, 2008). That Act 

added two new provisions to the 

Federal Criminal Code: 18 U.S.C. 1521, 

which established a criminal offense for 

filing, attempting to file, or conspiring 

to file, a false lien or encumbrance 

against the real or personal property of 

a Federal Judge or Federal law 

enforcement officer; and 18 U.S.C. 119, 

which established a criminal offense for 

making publicly available ‘‘restricted 

personal information’’ about a covered 

person’’ with the intent to threaten, 

intimidate, or incite a crime of violence 

against such person. Such information, 

as defined in that section, includes an 

individual’s Social Security number, 

home address, home phone number, 

mobile phone number, personal email, 

or home fax number. The definition of 

‘‘covered persons’’ in 18 U.S.C. 

119(b)(2) includes court officers, jurors, 

witnesses, informants, and Federal law 

enforcement officers, which includes 

Bureau of Prisons staff. 

The Bureau’s current regulations 

explain, in 28 CFR 500.1(h), that 

contraband is material prohibited by 

law, regulation, or policy that can 

reasonably be expected to cause 

physical injury or adversely affect the 

safety, security or good order of the 

facility or protection of the public. The 

filing of fraudulent liens and the 

possession of documents that contain 

another’s restricted personal 

information impacts the security and 

good order of Bureau facilities. 

Federal courts have upheld 

prohibition of UCC forms and 

documents related to UCC filings, as 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 22 / Thursday, February 1, 2024 / Proposed Rules 6459 

2Public Law 107–77, Title VI, sec. 614, Nov. 28, 

2001, 115 Stat. 801, provided that: 

Hereafter, none of the funds appropriated or 

otherwise made available to the Federal Bureau of 

Prisons may be used to distribute or make available 

any commercially published information or 

material to a prisoner when it is made known to the 

Federal official having authority to obligate or 

expend such funds that such information or 

material is sexually explicit or features nudity. 

Similar provisions were contained in the 

following prior Appropriations Acts: 

Public Law 106–553, § 1(a)(2) [§ 614], Dec. 21, 

2000, 114 Stat. 2762A–106. 

Public Law 106–113, Div. B, § 1000(a)(1) [Title VI, 

§ 615], Nov. 29, 1999, 113 Stat. 1501A–54. 

Public Law 105–277, Div. A, § 101(b) [Title VI, 

§ 614], Oct. 21, 1998, 112 Stat. 2681–113. 

Public Law 105–119, Title VI, § 614, Nov. 26, 

1997, 111 Stat. 2518. 

Public Law 104–208, Div. A, § 101(a) [Title VI, 

§ 614], Sept. 30, 1996, 110 Stat. 3009–66. 

contraband. For instance, in Edmonds v. 

Sobina, 296 F. App’x 214 (3d Cir. 2008), 

the court held that discipline imposed 

upon a federal inmate in unauthorized 

possession of UCC filing forms did not 

implicate any constitutionally protected 

liberty interest. 296 F. App’x 217–18. 

The court upheld the Bureau’s policy of 

restricting possession of such items as 

contraband, indicating that this 

restriction did not violate the inmate’s 

First Amendment right to possess legal 

materials. Id.; see also Monroe v. Beard, 

536 F.3d 198 at 207–09 (3d Cir. 2008) 

(upholding Pennsylvania DOC 

prohibition of UCC forms, indicating 

that possession of such forms 

‘‘demonstrates the considerable ‘ripple 

effect’ that accommodating the 

plaintiff’s right to possess these items 

may have on DOC resources and on 

guards and DOC employees if other 

inmates were to successfully file false 

liens.’’); Dantzler v. Beard, No. 09–275, 

2010 WL 1008294, *10 (W.D. Pa. Mar. 

15, 2010) (Pennsylvania Department of 

Corrections confiscation of an inmate’s 

UCC materials ‘‘did not violate his 

procedural due process rights because, 

as a matter of law, Plaintiff has no 

property rights in UCC materials.’’); 

Lawson v. Stephens, No. 7:15–173, 2018 

WL 10731584, at *1 (N.D. Tex. June 22, 

2018) (Texas Department of Correction 

policy restricting inmate possession of 

UCC materials ‘‘does not violate 

plaintiff’s First Amendment right to 

possess legal materials . . . .’’); Torres 

v. Fla. Dep’t of Corr., 742 F. App’x 403 

(11th Cir. 2018) (Florida Department of 

Corrections ‘‘rule permitting 

confiscation of inmate’s UCC forms was 

reasonably related to legitimate 

penological interest in preventing 

prisoners from filing fraudulent UCC 

liens, and thus the rule did not violate 

inmate’s First Amendment rights.’’). 

Additionally, in United States v. 

Martin, 356 F. Supp. 2d 621 (W.D. Va. 

2005), the court held that imposition of 

a permanent injunction barring federal 

inmates from filing financing statement 

or liens without prior court approval 

was warranted, where inmates had filed 

meritless financing statements against 

federal judges and Bureau officials for 

purpose of intimidation and 

harassment, and where inmates 

continued to try to file liens against 

other federal officials involved in their 

cases after the government filed suit. Id. 

at 628–29. 

For these reasons, the Bureau now 

proposes to prohibit inmate possession 

of any forms that may be used in the 

fraudulent filing of UCC liens and any 

attempt to publicly disclose the private 

information of others for unlawful 

purposes. 

Clarification of code 203, regarding 

threatening. 

Current code 203 prohibits 

threatening another with bodily harm or 

any other offense. The Bureau now 

proposes to modify this code to clarify 

the prohibited conduct as 

communicating an intent to jeopardize 

the safety, security, and orderly 

operation of a Bureau facility, protection 

of the public, or the person or property 

of another. No substantive or 

application changes are made to this 

code. 

Clarification of code 204, regarding 

extortion and blackmail. 

Current code 204 prohibits extortion; 

blackmail; protection; demanding or 

receiving money or anything of value in 

return for protection against others, to 

avoid bodily harm, or under threat of 

informing. The Bureau now proposes to 

modify this code to clarify the 

prohibited conduct as extortion, 

blackmail, or otherwise demanding or 

receiving anything of value using actual 

or threatened force, violence, fear, or 

intimidation. No change is made to the 

substance or application of this rule. 

Reservation of code 205, regarding 

sexual acts. 

We propose to delete this code as 

explained above. 

Reservation of code 206, regarding 

making sexual proposals or threats to 

another. 

We propose to delete this code as 

explained above. 

Addition of code 210, regarding 

possession of sexually explicit material. 

We propose to create a new code 210 

prohibiting possession of sexually 

explicit material. Possession of sexually 

explicit and sexually provocative 

images, writings, or other materials can 

pose a danger to the security of the 

institution. Also, the presence of these 

materials in Bureau facilities creates a 

sexualized work environment, which is 

potentially disturbing to staff 

conducting routine searches of inmate 

property. This is particularly a concern 

when inmates openly display sexually 

provocative images in their cells. 

Furthermore, this is also a concern for 

inmates under specific correctional 

management plans relating to sexual 

offenses or under treatment for 

disorders related to sexual dysfunction, 

as ongoing possession of sexually 

explicit images or documents is a risk 

factor for recidivism and 

counterproductive to rehabilitation. 

Current Bureau regulations in 28 CFR 

part 540 prohibit inmates from receiving 

sexually explicit material. See, e.g., 28 

CFR 540.14(d)(7) (correspondence may 

be rejected if it is ‘‘[s]exually explicit 

material (for example, personal 

photographs) which by its nature or 

content poses a threat to an individual’s 

personal safety or security, or to 

institution good order . . .’’); 28 CFR 

540.71(b)(7) (an incoming publication 

may be rejected if it ‘‘is sexually explicit 

material which by its nature or content 

poses a threat to the security, good 

order, or discipline of the institution, or 

facilitates criminal activity.’’). 

Additionally, 28 CFR 540.72 explains 

the statutory restriction requiring return 

of commercially published information 

or material that is sexually explicit or 

features nudity. This derives from 

repeated Congressional mandates 

against making such information or 

material available to inmates. See 18 

U.S.C. 4042 note (‘‘Sexually Explicit 

Commercially Published Material’’).2 In 

section 540.72(b)(4), ‘‘sexually explicit’’ 

is defined as ‘‘a pictorial depiction of 

actual or simulated sexual acts 

including sexual intercourse, oral sex, 

or masturbation.’’ 

As indicated above in relation to 

revised code 114, the Bureau recognizes 

the definition of ‘‘sexually explicit 

conduct’’ in 18 U.S.C. 2256(2)(A), which 

is as follows: 

. . . ‘‘sexually explicit conduct’’ means 

actual or simulated— 

(i) sexual intercourse, including 

genital-genital, oral-genital, anal-genital, 

or oral-anal, whether between persons 

of the same or opposite sex; 

(ii) bestiality; 

(iii) masturbation; 

(iv) sadistic or masochistic abuse; or 

(v) lascivious exhibition of the anus, 

genitals, or pubic area of any person; 

As indicated, the Bureau defines 

‘‘materials’’ as any pictorial depiction, 

to include photos, drawings, digitally or 

computer-manipulated image, or other 

visual depictions (i.e., collages, posters). 

Therefore, this code seeks to prohibit 

inmate possession of visual depictions 

of actual or simulated sexual 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
6460 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 22 / Thursday, February 1, 2024 / Proposed Rules 

intercourse, bestiality, masturbation, 

sadistic or masochistic abuse, or 

lascivious exhibition of the anus, 

genitals, or pubic area of any person. 

By adding this code, we seek to 

reduce currently prohibited behaviors to 

clarify that the possession of sexually 

explicit material poses a potential harm 

to staff by creating and maintaining a 

sexually hostile work environment, and 

to the community when sexual 

offenders persist in conduct contrary to 

rehabilitation goals. 

Combination of current code 212, 

regarding group demonstrations; current 

High Severity Level code 213, 

encouraging others to refuse to work or 

to participate in a work stoppage; and 

current Moderate Severity Level code 

336, circulating a petition. 

We propose to combine current code 

212, regarding group demonstrations, 

current High Severity Level code 213, 

encouraging others to refuse to work or 

to participate in a work stoppage, and 

current Moderate Severity Level code 

336, circulating a petition. Each of these 

codes describes prohibited conduct 

which may be described as participating 

in or promoting others to participate in 

unauthorized conduct as a group. 

Therefore, we propose to create a new 

code 212, which would prohibit 

participating or promoting others to 

participate with two or more persons in 

unauthorized behavior, whether 

planned or unplanned (including, but 

not limited to, unauthorized work 

stoppage or refusal to work or eat, group 

demonstrations, sit-ins, creating or 

circulating a petition, etc.). 

Prohibiting participation by two or 

more inmates in authorized behavior, 

such as circulating petitions, for 

instance, to maintain control over group 

activity by prisoners is a reasonable 

response to a legitimate penological 

concern. See Duamutef v. O’Keefe, 98 

F.3d 22, 24 (2d Cir. 1996) (explaining 

that as long as individual grievance 

procedures are available, prisons may 

bar circulation of petitions); Wolfel v. 

Morris, 972 F.2d 712, 716 (6th Cir. 1992) 

(‘‘[I]t seems clear that a prison does not 

violate a prisoner’s rights by refusing to 

allow circulation of petitions.’’). If the 

group behavior is coupled with a 

demonstrated and evidenced threat to 

the safety, security, or good order of the 

facility or protection of the public, the 

penological concern is heightened and 

the necessity of disciplining such 

activity is even greater. 

The appropriate, legally authorized 

method for inmates to formally grieve 

prison conditions is through the 

Administrative Remedy Program, 

described in 28 CFR part 542. Under 

this Program, every inmate can raise 

individual complaints and receive three 

levels of review (at the institution, 

Region, and Central Office levels). 

Inmate petitions, group 

demonstrations, sit-ins, and other such 

group behavior are prohibited because 

these behaviors involve multiple 

inmates with goals of contravening 

prison operations and management, and 

as such, these activities pose a special 

risk of disruption that does not exist 

through the sanctioned, individual 

administrative remedy complaint 

system. Such unauthorized group 

conduct threatens the safety, security, 

and good order of the facility and the 

protection of the public. This behavior 

not only poses serious security risks, but 

also undermines the effectiveness and 

legitimacy of the Administrative 

Remedy Program 

Clarification of code 216, regarding 

giving or offering an official or staff 

member a bribe, or anything of value. 

We propose to make a minor 

modification to this code to clarify that 

the prohibited conduct is giving or 

offering a staff member something of 

value to persuade or induce favor or 

action, not simply giving anything of 

value without such an expectation. This 

is a more accurate statement of the 

problematic conduct. We do not 

propose to make substantive or 

application changes to this code. 

Clarification of code 218, regarding 

destroying property. 

Currently, code 218 prohibits 

destroying, altering, or damaging 

government property, or the property of 

another person, having a value in excess 

of $100.00, or destroying, altering, 

damaging life-safety devices (e.g., fire 

alarm) regardless of financial value. We 

propose to make minor edits to the 

language of this code to clarify that the 

prohibited conduct is destroying, 

altering, or damaging any of the 

following: property valued over $100.00 

belonging to the government or another 

person; or property necessary for the 

protection of life and/or safety (e.g., fire 

alarms), regardless of financial value. 

This proposal does not make 

substantive changes or changes in 

application of the code. 

Modification of code 219, regarding 

stealing and theft (including data 

obtained through the unauthorized use 

or access to any media or equipment on 

which electronic data is stored). 

We propose to modify High Severity 

Level prohibited act code 219 regarding 

stealing and theft to include theft of data 

obtained through unauthorized use or 

access to any media or equipment on 

which electronic data is stored. Inmates 

have previously been able to 

compromise certain electronic storage 

systems to obtain unauthorized 

information to ‘‘check the paperwork’’ 

of other inmates—i.e., to find out 

confidential information about another 

inmate for the purpose of targeting that 

inmate based on that confidential 

information. Targeting of other inmates 

based on this confidential information, 

in turn, presents safety and security 

concerns for inmates and staff due to the 

possibility of violence or other unlawful 

acts being committed upon the inmate 

whose confidential information was 

stolen. 

Modification of code 221, regarding 

being in an unauthorized area with a 

person of the opposite sex without staff 

permission. 

We propose to modify the High 

Severity Level prohibited act code 221, 

being in an unauthorized area with a 

person of the opposite sex without staff 

permission, to clarify that inmates will 

be disciplined for being in an 

unauthorized area without staff 

permission with any other person, 

regardless of sex. This is a more 

accurate statement of the prohibited 

conduct and will not change the 

application of this code. 

Modification of code 224, regarding 

assault that does not involve serious 

physical injury. 

Currently, this code prohibits 

assaulting any person, but also contains 

a parenthetical explanation that the 

code should only be used when ‘‘less 

serious physical injury or contact has 

been attempted or accomplished.’’ 

Rather than leave it to the discretion of 

staff to determine whether injuries are 

‘‘less serious,’’ we propose to modify 

this code to prohibit an assault of any 

person that does not involve serious 

physical injury, including nonconsensual touching. 

We also propose this modification to 

more clearly distinguish the behavior 

prohibited by this code, which is in the 

High Severity Level category, from the 

proposed revision to Greatest Severity 

Level code 101, which prohibits assault 

and/or battery of any person involving 

serious physical injury, or an armed 

assault on the institution’s secure 

perimeter. 

The revised code 224 also prohibits 

non-consensual touching, which is 

currently encompassed by code 229, 

sexual assault of any person, involving 

non-consensual touching without force 

or threat of force. Code 229 will be 

reserved, as this prohibited conduct is 

proposed to be encompassed by revised 

code 224 and possibly revised code 114. 

Modification of code 228, regarding 

tattooing or self-mutilation. 

We propose to modify the High 

Severity Level prohibited act code 228, 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 22 / Thursday, February 1, 2024 / Proposed Rules 6461 

tattooing or self-mutilation, to clarify 

that inmates will be disciplined for 

body modification, including but not 

limited to tattooing and piercing, and 

possession of any paraphernalia and/or 

tools for the use of any form of body 

modification. The code description will 

also include the caveat that this code 

shall not be applied to acts of selfdirected violence (e.g., cutting). 

This addition reflects the seriousness 

of the conduct, the disruptive nature of 

possession of such items, and the 

potential health concerns resulting from 

improper use. However, we also add the 

caveat that this code is not to be used 

in any instance involving self-directed 

violence or harm. This clarification 

reflects the Bureau’s recognition that an 

inmate’s mental health symptoms, 

including acute symptoms of 

withdrawal from drugs or other 

addictive substances, should not result 

in disciplinary sanctions. 

Reservation of code 229, regarding 

sexual assault of any person, involving 

non-consensual touching without force 

or threat of force. 

We propose to delete this code as 

explained above. 

Addition of code 230, regarding 

possession and/or use of tobacco or 

related paraphernalia. 

Currently, code 331 allows for 

discipline for possession, manufacture, 

introduction, or loss of a non-hazardous 

tool,’’ including ‘‘smoking apparatus 

and tobacco in any form where 

prohibited . . .’’ [Emphasis added]. We 

propose to remove the phrase ‘‘smoking 

apparatus and tobacco in any form 

where prohibited’’ and transfer it into 

new code 230. We also propose to 

clarify that smoking apparatus and 

tobacco in any form may include, but is 

not limited to, such items as vape 

devices and other non-conventional 

forms of delivery. 

Increasing the severity level of 

possession and/or use of tobacco or 

related paraphernalia underscores the 

seriousness of the offense. This is 

necessary because since the last revision 

of the prohibited act codes, 28 CFR 

551.163 codified the prohibition of 

possession of smoking apparatus and 

tobacco in any form, unless as part of an 

authorized religious activity. 

Furthermore, since the last revision of 

this code, the use of alternate forms of 

delivery, such as vape pens, has become 

more prevalent among inmates in 

Bureau facilities, leading to further 

introduction of this type of prohibited 

contraband and increased security 

issues. 

Modification of code 231, regarding 

requesting, demanding, pressuring, or 

otherwise intentionally creating a 

situation, which causes an inmate to 

produce or display his/her own court 

documents for any unauthorized 

purpose to another inmate. 

We propose to make two 

modifications to code 231. We first 

propose to amend the language of the 

offense code to more accurately focus on 

the coercive behavior involved when an 

inmate seeks to obtain another inmate’s 

personal court documents and 

information for unauthorized purposes. 

We also propose to include language 

clarifying that some documents beyond 

‘‘court documents’’ should be included 

as part of this code. Sensitive 

information about a particular inmate 

(including Walsh Act information) may 

appear on court documents or on noncourt documents, including, but not 

limited to, PATTERN scoresheets. We 

therefore propose to revise the code to 

clarify that the prohibited conduct is 

requesting, demanding, pressuring, or 

otherwise creating a situation that 

causes an inmate to produce or display 

their own court documents or other 

documents (e.g., PATTERN scoresheets) 

that contain information about the 

inmate’s current or prior offense(s) for 

any unauthorized purpose to another 

inmate. 

Addition of code 232, regarding 

introduction of any unauthorized nonhazardous item or contraband. 

We propose to add a new High 

Severity Level prohibited act code 232, 

to underscore the seriousness of 

introducing unauthorized items (i.e., 

contraband) into a correctional setting. 

Introduction of unauthorized items 

cannot be monitored for their potential 

in creating a hazardous environment for 

both staff and inmates; even seemingly 

harmless, non Bureau-purchased items 

like cosmetic products or cleaning 

supplies may contain harmful chemicals 

or other dangerous substances that pose 

health, safety, and security risks to all 

individuals within the correctional 

setting. 

Another institutional security 

consideration involves the unintended 

consequences of introduction of certain 

contraband into a correctional facility, 

including the creation or perpetuation 

of an unauthorized series of financial 

transactions. One example includes an 

inmate obtaining cosmetic items and 

dietary supplements and then marking 

up the price substantially to sell to other 

inmates who are unable to purchase 

such items through the official 

commissary. Then, the inmate who 

purchases the contraband from another 

inmate may owe a debt, which, if left 

unpaid, can create the precise type of 

volatile situation that may cause 

violence to erupt and risk the safety of 

both inmates and staff. 

This new code is designed to thwart 

contraband introduction and minimize 

the risks to the health and safety of 

Bureau inmates, staff, and members of 

the public. 

Addition of code 235, regarding 

communicating gang affiliation, 

participating in gang-related activities, 

and possession of paraphernalia 

indicating gang affiliation. 

We propose to increase the severity 

level of current code 335, 

communicating gang affiliation, 

participating in gang-related activities, 

or possession of paraphernalia 

indicating gang affiliation, from the 

Moderate Severity Level category to the 

High Severity Level category. This 

change is proposed to underscore the 

seriousness of the offense, as the 

existence of gangs jeopardizes the 

safety, security, and good order of 

Bureau facilities. 

Addition of code 294, regarding 

unauthorized use of social media. 

We propose to create a new High 

Severity Level prohibited act code (294) 

for accessing, using, or maintaining 

social media, or directing others to 

establish or maintain social media 

accounts on the inmate’s behalf 

(including, but not limited to the 

following: Facebook, Twitter, Instagram, 

Snapchat, TikTok, etc. or any 

successor). In contrast to proposed code 

194, code 294 acts will not involve 

commission or aid in the commission of 

any criminal act or any Greatest 

category prohibited act. 

Addition of code 295, regarding use of 

video visits for abuses other than 

criminal activity. 

We propose to create a new High 

Severity Level prohibited act code 

which prohibits use of video visits for 

abuses other than criminal activity, 

including, but not limited to, conduct 

that circumvents established video visit 

session monitoring procedures; conduct 

that permits communication with 

individuals other than the authorized 

visitors; conduct that would be 

unauthorized if it were to occur in an 

in-person visiting room; or use of the 

video session to commit or further 

another High category prohibited act. 

We propose the addition of this code 

to deter abuses of any video visiting 

system in place at a Bureau facility, 

such as sharing passwords, not logging 

off the system, nudity; and/or use of 

visual and/or verbal communicated 

actions by the inmate or approved 

contact such as hand/body gestures 

outside of general sign language. 

General sign language is not limited to 

American Sign language and includes 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
6462 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 22 / Thursday, February 1, 2024 / Proposed Rules 

‘‘home signs’’—i.e., communicative 

gestures invented or created by a Deaf 

person within their own family—as well 

as other visual or tactual 

communication forms that might be 

used by certified Deaf interpreters or 

other individuals who are Deaf or Hard 

of Hearing. General sign language does 

not include gang signs/signals, sexual 

acts/gestures/innuendos, prohibited 

substance/drug use, etc. 

The Bureau adds this code to account 

for advances in technology that have 

allowed for the use of video visiting by 

inmates as an alternative to telephonic 

communication and visiting room 

visitation. This code is necessary for 

infractions similar to those addressed by 

codes 296 and 297, which address 

similar conduct for use of the mail and 

telephone for such abuses ‘‘other than 

criminal activity which circumvent’’ 

monitoring or to ‘‘commit or further a 

High category prohibited act.’’ 

Expansion of code 296, regarding use 

of the mail for abuses other than 

criminal activity. 

Current code 296 allows for discipline 

for use of the mail for abuses other than 

criminal activity that circumvent mail 

monitoring procedures (e.g., use of the 

mail to commit or further a High 

category prohibited act, special mail 

abuse; writing letters in code; directing 

others to send, sending, or receiving a 

letter or mail through unauthorized 

means; sending mail for other inmates 

without authorization; sending 

correspondence to a specific address 

with directions or intent to have the 

correspondence sent to an unauthorized 

person; and using a fictitious return 

address in an attempt to send or receive 

unauthorized correspondence). 

We propose to expand this code to 

include misuse of any form of electronic 

mail and messaging, including, but not 

limited to, messaging through the 

TRULINCS system. The Bureau makes 

this addition to account for advances in 

technology that have allowed for the use 

of electronic mail by inmates as an 

alternative to written correspondence 

and telephone communication. This 

change is necessary to discipline for 

infractions similarly to current code 

296, and 297, ‘‘Use of the telephone for 

abuses other than illegal activity which 

circumvent the ability of staff to monitor 

frequency of telephone use, content of 

the call, or the number called; or to 

commit or further a High category 

prohibited act.’’ 

Reservation of code 300, regarding 

indecent exposure. 

We propose to delete this code as 

explained above. 

Clarification of code 313, regarding 

lying or providing a false statement to 

a staff member. 

We propose to modify this code to 

clarify that the prohibited conduct is 

providing a false statement to a staff 

member and includes feigning illness. 

This is a more accurate description of 

the prohibited behavior. Adding 

feigning illness to this code will serve 

to deter false inmate reports of illness, 

which not only subvert the inmate’s 

rehabilitative programming 

requirements, but also have the 

potential to unnecessarily burden both 

staff and medical professionals and 

cause unnecessary expenditures. 

Combination of code 324, regarding 

gambling, with code 325, preparing and 

conducting a gambling pool, and code 

326, possession of gambling 

paraphernalia. 

We propose to combine these three 

codes into one code 324, describing the 

prohibited conduct as gambling, 

possession of gambling paraphernalia, 

or preparing or conducting a gambling 

pool. The previous separation of these 

three types of conduct was unnecessary, 

as the conduct described is 

interconnected. 

Clarification of code 331 to remove 

reference to smoking ‘‘where 

prohibited.’’ 

Currently, code 331 prohibits 

possession, manufacture, introduction, 

or loss of a non-hazardous tool, 

equipment, supplies, or other nonhazardous contraband (tools not likely 

to be used in an escape or escape 

attempt, or to serve as a weapon capable 

of doing serious bodily harm to others, 

or not hazardous to institutional 

security or personal safety) (other nonhazardous contraband includes such 

items as food, cosmetics, cleaning 

supplies, smoking apparatus and 

tobacco in any form where prohibited, 

and unauthorized nutritional/dietary 

supplements)’’ [Emphasis added]. 

We propose to remove the phrase 

‘‘smoking apparatus and tobacco in any 

form where prohibited’’ and increase 

the severity level of this prohibited 

conduct to create High Severity code 

230. We also eliminate/delete code 

332—Smoking where prohibited, 

because smoking apparatus is 

prohibited and smoking is functionally 

disallowed for inmates unless part of an 

authorized religious activity. See 28 

CFR 551.162–.163. 

We also propose to streamline the 

conduct description in this code to 

prohibit possession, manufacture or loss 

of a non-hazardous item or contraband, 

further explaining in the parenthetical 

that the term ‘‘non-hazardous item or 

contraband’’ includes, but is not limited 

to, items not likely to be used in an 

escape; items not likely to serve as a 

weapon capable of doing serious bodily 

harm to others; items not hazardous to 

institutional security or personal safety; 

unauthorized food, cosmetics, cleaning 

supplies, and unauthorized nutritional/ 

dietary supplements. 

Reservation of code 332, regarding 

smoking where prohibited. 

We propose to delete this code as 

explained above. 

Reservation of code 335, regarding 

communicating gang affiliation; 

participating in gang related activities; 

possession of paraphernalia indicating 

gang affiliation. 

We propose to delete this code as 

explained above. 

Addition of code 337, increasing 

severity level for code 404, regarding 

using abusive or obscene language. 

We propose to increase the severity 

level of Low Severity Level code 404, 

using abusive or obscene language, to 

Moderate Severity Level prohibited act 

code 338. This code will be moved to 

the 300 level because, as will be 

explained below, we propose to 

eliminate the Low Severity Level 

prohibited act code (400) series entirely. 

We note that this code does not apply 

to use of abusive or obscene language 

uttered or written by an inmate with a 

relevant disability (e.g., Tourette 

Syndrome).’’ 

Addition of code 338, increasing 

severity level for codes 407 & 409, 

regarding conduct with a visitor in 

violation of Bureau regulations and 

unauthorized physical contact (e.g., 

kissing, embracing). 

We propose to increase the severity 

level of Low Severity Level code 407 

and 409 for inappropriate conduct in 

the visiting room. These codes would 

combine to become Moderate Severity 

Level prohibited act code 338, 

‘‘unauthorized conduct in the visiting 

room (e.g., kissing, embracing, etc.).’’ 

Also, as explained below, we propose to 

eliminate the Low Severity Level 

prohibited act code (400) series entirely. 

These changes will be further explained 

below. 

Addition of electronic mail to code 

396, regarding use of the mail for abuses 

other than criminal activity. 

Current code 396 allows for discipline 

for use of the mail for abuses other than 

criminal activity that do not circumvent 

mail monitoring; or use of the mail to 

commit or further a Moderate category 

prohibited act. We propose to add 

‘‘electronic mail’’ to this code to account 

for advances in technology that have 

allowed for the use of electronic mail by 

inmates as an alternative to written 

correspondence and telephone 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 22 / Thursday, February 1, 2024 / Proposed Rules 6463 

communication. The term ‘‘electronic 

mail’’ shall include any form of 

electronic mail and messaging, 

including, but not limited to, messaging 

through the TRULINCS system. This 

change is necessary for infractions 

similar to those addressed by code 396, 

for misuse of the mail. 

Reservation of code 397, regarding 

use of the telephone for abuses other 

than illegal activity which do not 

circumvent the ability of staff to monitor 

frequency of telephone use, content of 

the call, or the number called; or to 

commit or further a Moderate category 

prohibited act. 

We propose to delete this prohibited 

act code because it has been misused to 

prohibit conduct that actually has 

already circumvented the ability of staff 

to monitor telephone use, rather than 

activity that has the potential to 

circumvent monitoring. 

This code had been misunderstood as 

a less-severe version of code 297, which 

allows for discipline of conduct that 

circumvents monitoring for an illegal 

purpose. Inmates have been identified 

as having committed prohibited acts 

that would result in circumvention of 

telephone monitoring but did not 

actually result in circumvention of 

monitoring. These inmates were then 

downgraded or shown leniency by being 

charged with a 397-level code instead of 

the appropriate 297-level code. For this 

reason, we eliminate the 397 code to 

avoid confusion and to clarify that 

inmates should be disciplined for any 

conduct that may circumvent the ability 

of staff to monitor communications, 

regardless of whether monitoring is 

actually circumvented. 

Reservation of the Low Severity Level 

prohibited act codes (400 series). 

We propose to delete the Low 

Severity Level prohibited act code (400) 

series entirely. Currently, there are six 

active codes listed, which we propose to 

remove for the following reasons: 

‘‘402 Malingering, feigning illness.’’ 

We propose to remove this prohibited 

act code because malingering does not 

typically require disciplinary action. 

However, because feigning an illness 

equates to lying or providing a false 

statement to a staff member, we have 

incorporated that portion of this code 

into code 313 above. 

‘‘404 Using abusive or obscene 

language.’’ As described earlier, we 

propose to increase the severity level of 

Low Severity Level code 404, using 

abusive or obscene language, to 

Moderate Severity Level prohibited act 

code 337. Further, because we have 

significantly reduced the level of 

disciplinary segregation sanction that 

may be imposed for the Moderate 

Severity Level prohibited act codes, it 

must be noted that moving this conduct 

from the ‘‘Low’’ to the ‘‘Moderate’’ 

category does not change the severity of 

potential sanctions that may be 

imposed. Further, staff will be 

instructed that the inmate’s level of 

misconduct must be greater than that 

previously triggering an incident report 

for a ‘‘Low’’ prohibited act code. 

‘‘407 Conduct with a visitor in 

violation of Bureau regulations’’ and 

‘‘409 Unauthorized physical contact 

(e.g., kissing, embracing).’’ As described 

earlier, we propose to increase the 

severity level of Low Severity Level 

code 407 and 409 for inappropriate 

conduct in the visiting room. These 

codes would combine to become 

Moderate Severity Level prohibited act 

code 338, ‘‘unauthorized conduct in the 

visiting room (e.g., kissing, embracing, 

etc.).’’ 

Because we have significantly 

reduced the level of disciplinary 

segregation sanction that may be 

imposed for the Moderate Severity Level 

prohibited act codes, it must be noted 

that moving this conduct from the 

‘‘Low’’ to the ‘‘Moderate’’ category does 

not change the severity of potential 

sanctions that may be imposed. Because 

we increase the seriousness of the 

offense, staff will be instructed that the 

inmate’s level of misconduct must be 

greater than that previously triggering 

an incident report for either of the two 

previous 400-level ‘‘Low’’ prohibited act 

codes. 

‘‘498 Interfering with a staff member 

in the performance of duties most like 

another Low Severity prohibited act’’ 

and ‘‘499 Conduct which disrupts or 

interferes with the security or orderly 

running of the institution or the Bureau 

of Prisons most like another Low 

Severity prohibited act.’’ Both of these 

codes indicate that they are ‘‘to be used 

only when another charge of Low 

Severity is not accurate. The offending 

conduct must be charged as ‘most like’ 

one of the listed Low Severity 

prohibited acts.’’ We propose to 

eliminate these codes because they are 

vague and because the conduct 

described is more accurately specified 

by other codes listed in the Greatest, 

High, and Moderate Severity prohibited 

act codes. 

Because we propose to delete the Low 

Severity Level, we likewise propose to 

delete language relating to the Low 

Severity Level in Table 2 to § 541.3— 

Additional Available Sanctions for 

repeated Prohibited Acts Within the 

Same Severity Level. 

Modifications to the disciplinary 

segregation sanction. 

In the mid-2000s, the Bureau 

experienced a spike in prison violence, 

including the murder of a correctional 

officer. In response, the Bureau 

implemented several additional 

measures, including harsher penalties 

for inmates who violated disciplinary 

rules. In particular, this approach 

resulted in regulation changes that 

increased the length of maximum 

possible time for the penalties of 

disciplinary segregation time (75 FR 

76263, December 8, 2010; effective on 

March 1, 2011). 

Maximum terms of segregation under 

current Bureau regulations are as 

follows: 

Severity level First offense 

Subsequent 

offense(s) 

(days) 

Greatest (100) ............................................................................. 12 months (365 days) ................................................................ 545 

High (200) ................................................................................... 6 months (180 days) .................................................................. 365 

Moderate (300) ........................................................................... 3 months (90 days) .................................................................... 180 

Low (400) .................................................................................... Not permitted ............................................................................. 30 

After 2011, the Bureau experienced a 

decline in its restrictive housing 

population, which coincided with a 

reduction in inmate-on-staff assaults at 

Bureau facilities. The chart below 

compares the number of inmates in 

segregation to the total prison 

population between January 2012 and 

August 2021, illustrating the decline in 

restrictive housing population. 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
6464 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 22 / Thursday, February 1, 2024 / Proposed Rules 

OVERVIEW OF BUREAU’S RESTRICTIVE HOUSING

[Adapted from Bureau’s SENTRY Recordkeeping System] 

Type of housing 01/28/12 08/05/21 

Change 

Total reduction % Decline 

All Bureau inmates .......................................................................................... 175,244 138,235 37,009 21.12 

Total in Restrictive Housing ............................................................................. 13,196 10,236 2,960 22.43 

Special Housing Units (SHU) .......................................................................... 11,106 9,361 1,745 15.71 

Special Management Unit (SMU) .................................................................... 1,647 533 1,114 67.64 

Administrative Maximum (ADX) ....................................................................... 443 342 101 22.80 

As a result of the decline in 

imposition of the disciplinary 

segregation sanction, the Report 

recommended that the Bureau reduce 

the maximum time an inmate can be 

placed in segregation as a sanction for 

a disciplinary infraction. The Report 

recommended elimination of the 

disciplinary segregation sanction for all 

400-level prohibited acts, and for an 

inmate’s first adjudicated violation of all 

300-level prohibited acts, and that the 

Bureau reclassify some 300-level 

prohibited acts as 200-level acts due to 

the more serious nature of these 

offenses. The following chart illustrates 

the recommendations of the Report: 

Offense type 

Current maximum penalties Proposed maximum penalties 

First offense 

(days) 

Subsequent 

(days) 

First offense 

(days) 

Subsequent 

(days) 

100-Level ......................................................................................................... 365 545 60 90

200-Level (High) .............................................................................................. 180 365 30 60 

300-Level ......................................................................................................... 0 180 0 15 

400-Level (Low) ............................................................................................... 0 30 

Therefore, the Bureau now proposes 

that maximum penalties for disciplinary 

segregation sanctions for Greatest, High, 

and Moderate prohibited act codes be 

decreased as suggested in the Report 

(see chart above). This would effectively 

undo the change to disciplinary 

segregation sanction maximums made 

by the final rule of 2011. 

This change would result in changes 

to 28 CFR 541.3, Table 1 to § 541.3— 

Prohibited Acts and Available 

Sanctions, in the ‘‘Available Sanctions’’ 

listed for each severity level prohibited 

acts category. The disciplinary 

segregation sanction is listed in each 

‘‘Available Sanctions’’ sub-table as item 

C. and would be modified according to 

the chart shown above. Likewise, 28 

CFR 541.3 Table 2 to § 541.3— 

Additional Available Sanctions for 

Repeated Prohibited Acts Within the 

Same Severity Level, would be similarly 

modified to reflect the chart shown 

above. 

Changes to Loss of Privilege 

Sanctions. 

In 28 CFR 541.3 Table 1 to § 541.3— 

Prohibited Acts and Available 

Sanctions, each severity level of 

prohibited act codes is followed by a 

table listing available sanctions that may 

be imposed on inmates if they are found 

to have committed those acts by DHOs. 

One such sanction found in each table 

is the ‘‘loss of privileges’’ sanction. In 

each ‘‘available sanctions’’ list, the ‘‘loss 

of privileges’’ sanction is followed by a 

descriptive parenthetical, as follows: 

‘‘Loss of privileges (e.g., visiting, 

telephone, commissary, movies, 

recreation).’’ 

We now propose to add to that 

descriptive parenthetical the following 

additional examples of privileges that 

may be removed as a potential sanction: 

video visits, electronic device(s), and 

the use of electronic mail and messaging 

of any kind, including, but not limited 

to, through the TRULINCS system. We 

add these terms to accommodate 

advances in technology and to clarify 

that the Bureau views these items as 

privileges for inmates. However, the 

Bureau emphasizes that none of these 

sanctions should affect an inmate’s right 

to counsel and the ability of an inmate 

to meet or otherwise communicate with 

counsel. Accordingly, the Bureau 

clarifies that no employee may impose 

as a sanction any measure whatsoever 

that restricts an inmate’s right of access 

to counsel. 

Amendments to Table 2 to § 541.3— 

Additional Available Sanctions for 

Repeated Prohibited Acts Within the 

Same Severity Level. 

In addition to eliminating references 

to Low Severity Level (400-series) 

prohibited acts as described above, we 

propose the following changes to Table 

2: First, we propose to change second 

column heading from ‘‘Time period for 

prior offense (same code)’’ to ‘‘Time 

period for Prior Offense (same severity 

level).’’ We make this change because it 

has been misinterpreted as applying 

only to commission of the same specific 

code conduct. Instead, the application is 

intended to apply to commission of any 

prior offense within the same severity 

level as the first or second offense. In 

other words, if an inmate was found to 

have violated code 396, some staff 

mistakenly assumed that if the same 

inmate then violated code 334, the 

available sanctions in the table would 

not apply. This proposed change is 

meant to clarify that if an inmate is 

found to have committed a prohibited 

act in any severity level, and then 

commits any other prohibited act within 

the same severity level, whether it is the 

same actual code number or not, the 

inmate may be subject to additional 

sanctions for this additional prohibited 

conduct. 

Second, we modify the time periods 

for additional available sanctions in 

each severity level to decrease the 

amount of disciplinary segregation time, 

as described above. 

Third, to correct an oversight in 

changes made to conform to the 

requirements of the First Step Act of 

2018, we amend Table 2 to indicate that 

if an inmate commits the same Moderate 

Severity Level (300-series) offense, 

thereby violating the same prohibited 

act code within six months, up to seven 

days of FSA Earned Time Credits may 

be forfeited; and if an inmate commits 

a third violation of the same Moderate 

Severity Level prohibited act code 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 22 / Thursday, February 1, 2024 / Proposed Rules 6465 

within six months, the inmate may 

forfeit up to fourteen days of FSA 

Earned Time Credits. This amendment 

is consistent with the Bureau’s 

regulations regarding FSA Earned Time 

Credit, as published at 87 FR 2705 (Jan. 

19, 2022). No substantive changes are 

made to the sanctions as published in 

that regulation; rather, language relating 

to subsequent offenses of the same 

prohibited act code has been moved 

from Table 1 to Table 2, which is the 

correct location. 

Amendments to 28 CFR 541.5, 

regarding the discipline process. 

Currently, 28 CFR 541.5(a), describing 

the incident report, explains that the 

disciplinary process begins when staff 

reasonably believe the inmate has 

committed a prohibited act. We make a 

minor stylistic edit to the language 

regarding the composition of the 

incident report but make no substantive 

changes to this section. Likewise, we 

make similar stylistic edits to language 

in subparagraph (b) describing the 

investigation process, but do not change 

the substance of this regulation, or its 

application. 

Amendments to 28 CFR 541.7, 

regarding unit discipline committee 

review. 

We propose to clarify when the Unit 

Discipline Committee (UDC) will review 

the incident report. Currently, 28 CFR 

541.7(c) indicates that the UDC 

ordinarily reviews the incident report 

‘‘within five work days after it is issued, 

not counting the day it was issued, 

weekends, and holidays.’’ Inmates and 

staff found that description confusing 

and problematic, due to disparity 

between the time staff become aware of 

incidents and when incident reports are 

actually issued. At times, incident 

reports cannot be issued immediately 

for various reasons, including time and 

attention needed to resolve the situation 

that led to the incident in question. 

Therefore, we propose to clarify that 

the UDC will ordinarily review the 

incident report within five work days 

‘‘after the day staff become aware of the 

inmate’s involvement in the incident, 

not counting the day staff became aware 

of the inmate’s involvement, weekends, 

or holidays.’’ This will result in more 

immediate action and less confusion 

regarding discipline. 

We also propose to make a minor 

change to 28 CFR 541.7(f), to clarify that 

the UDC may not impose monetary 

restitution as a sanction for inmate 

disciplinary infractions. Subparagraph 

(f) of 28 CFR 541.7 currently indicates 

that the UDC may impose ‘‘any of the 

available sanctions listed in Tables 1 

and 2, except loss of good conduct 

sentence credit, disciplinary 

segregation, or monetary fines.’’ We 

propose to add ‘‘monetary restitution’’ 

to this list in order to clarify for staff 

that this is a sanction that may only be 

imposed at the DHO level. This is not 

a change to current practice or the 

substance of regulation, but rather a 

technical correction. 

Clarification of 28 CFR 541.8, 

regarding hearings by Discipline 

Hearing Officers. 

We make a minor change to the 

language of 28 CFR 541.8(a)(3) to clarify 

that the incident report may be referred 

back to the UDC for further 

investigation, review, disposition, or 

other action as recommended or 

necessary. This more accurately states 

the purpose of this section, but makes 

no substantive changes or changes in 

application. 

II. Regulatory Analyses 

Executive Orders 12866, 13563, and 

14094 (Regulatory Review) 

The Department has determined that 

this rulemaking is a ‘‘significant 

regulatory action’’ under section 3(f) of 

Executive Order 12866, Regulatory 

Planning and Review, but it is not a 

section 3(f)(1) significant action. 

Accordingly, this proposed rule has 

been submitted to the Office of 

Management and Budget (‘‘OMB’’) for 

review. This proposed rule has been 

drafted and reviewed in accordance 

with Executive Order 12866, 

‘‘Regulatory Planning and Review,’’ 

section 1(b), Principles of Regulation; in 

accordance with Executive Order 13563, 

‘‘Improving Regulation and Regulatory 

Review,’’ section 1(b), General 

Principles of Regulation, and in 

accordance with Executive Order 14094, 

‘‘Modernizing Regulatory Review’’. 

Executive Order 12988 (Plain Language) 

This proposed rule meets the 

applicable standards set forth in 

sections 3(a) and 3(b)(2) of Executive 

Order 12988, ‘‘Civil Justice Reform.’’ 

Executive Order 13132 (Federalism) 

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 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 inmates committed to the custody of 

the Attorney General or the Director of 

the Bureau of Prisons. Its economic 

impact is limited to the Bureau’s 

appropriated funds. 

Since January 2012, the Bureau has 

reduced the total number of inmates in 

restrictive housing by nearly 25 percent. 

The Department estimates that the 

changes made by this proposed rule will 

result in additional substantial 

reductions in the Bureau’s restrictive 

housing population. Although it is 

impossible to quantify the exact size of 

the future reductions, the Department 

notes that other state and local 

correctional systems implementing 

reforms, including those jurisdictions 

discussed earlier in this Report, have 

reported reductions in their restrictive 

housing populations in recent years by 

nearly 50 percent or more. 

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. 

Congressional Review Act 

This rule is not a major rule as 

defined by 5 U.S.C. 804 of the 

Congressional Review Act. 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 541 

Prisoners. 

Colette S. Peters, 

Director, Federal 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, we propose 

to amend 28 CFR part 541 as follows: 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
6466 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 22 / Thursday, February 1, 2024 / Proposed Rules 

PART 541—INMATE DISCIPLINE AND 

SPECIAL HOUSING UNITS 

■ 1. The authority citation for part 541 

continues to read as follows: 

Authority: 5 U.S.C. 301; 18 U.S.C. 3621, 

3622, 3624, 4001, 4042, 4081, 4082 (Repealed 

in part as to offenses committed on or after 

November 1, 1987), 4161–4166 (Repealed 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. 

Subpart A—Inmate Discipline Program 

■ 2. Revise § 541.1 to read as follows: 

§ 541.1 Purpose. 

(a) Nothing in this subpart shall be 

construed to create a private right of 

action or otherwise permit civil claims 

for alleged violations. 

(b) The purpose of the inmate 

discipline program is to help ensure the 

safety, security, and orderly operation of 

correctional facilities, and the 

protection of the public, by sanctioning 

inmates who commit prohibited acts. 

(c) The purpose of this subpart is to 

describe the inmate discipline program 

of the Federal Bureau of Prisons 

(Bureau), authorized by 18 U.S.C. 

4042(a)(3), and to ensure that 

disciplinary sanctions will not be 

imposed in a capricious or retaliatory 

manner. 

(d) Consistent with the Rehabilitation 

Act of 1973, for all discipline cases, the 

Unit Discipline Committee or 

Disciplinary Hearing Officer shall 

consider the individual inmate’s mental 

health and disabilities when 

determining the appropriateness of 

sanctions. 

■ 3. Revise § 541.2 to read as follows: 

§ 541.2 Application. 

(a) Staff authorized to implement the 

Inmate Discipline Program. For the 

purposes of this subpart, ‘‘staff’’ means 

staff authorized by the Bureau to 

implement the inmate discipline 

program as described in this subpart. 

Residential Reentry Center employees 

are staff authorized to implement the 

Inmate Discipline Program. 

(b) Application of the Inmate 

Discipline Program. This program 

applies to sentenced and unsentenced 

inmates in: 

(1) Bureau custody; and 

(2) Any prison, institution, or facility, 

including community confinement 

facilities, in which persons are held in 

custody by direction of, or under an 

agreement with, the Bureau of Prisons. 

■ 4. Revise § 541.3 to read as follows: 

§ 541.3 Prohibited acts and available 

sanctions. 

(a) Prohibited acts. The list of 

prohibited acts is divided into three 

separate categories based on severity: 

Greatest; High; and Moderate. 

(b) Available sanctions. The list of 

available sanctions for committing 

prohibited acts is listed in Table 1 to 

this section—Prohibited Acts and 

Available Sanctions. If you commit 

repetitive prohibited acts, we can 

impose increased sanctions, as listed in 

Table 2 to this section—Additional 

Available Sanctions for Repeated 

Prohibited Acts Within the Same 

Severity Level. No Bureau employee 

may impose as a sanction any measure 

whatsoever that restricts an inmate’s 

right of access to counsel. 

Table 1 to § 541.3—Prohibited Acts and 

Available Sanctions 

Greatest Severity Level Prohibited Acts 

101 An attempted or accomplished 

assault and/or battery of any person 

involving serious physical injury, or an 

armed assault on the institution’s secure 

perimeter. 

102 Escape (unauthorized departure 

from custody), including, but not 

limited to, any of the following: 

unauthorized departure from the 

buildings, lands, property or perimeter 

(inside or outside) of any secure or nonsecure facility; unauthorized departure 

from community confinement, work 

detail, program or activity (whether 

escorted or unescorted); and 

unauthorized departure from any 

authorized location regardless of 

electronic monitoring devices. 

103 Causing ignition or combustion 

(including, but not limited to, fire or 

explosion) which threatens serious 

bodily harm; or is done in furtherance 

of another Greatest Severity Level 

prohibited act. 

104 Possession, manufacture, or 

introduction of any item that has been 

weaponized (including, but not limited 

to, firearms, sharpened instruments, 

unauthorized blades, explosives, 

ammunition, unauthorized chemicals, 

or any other item that has been modified 

in order to be used as a weapon). 

105 Rioting; promoting rioting; or 

encouraging others to participate in a 

riot (‘‘riot’’ is defined as a disturbance 

with two or more people which involves 

violence or threats of violence or 

damage to government property, for the 

purpose of preventing or coercing 

official action). 

106 (Not to be used). 

107 Taking hostage(s). 

108 Use, possession, manufacture, 

introduction, or loss of a hazardous 

item, including, but not limited to, 

items which may facilitate escape; cause 

serious bodily harm to others; or are 

otherwise hazardous to institutional 

security or personal safety (e.g., 

hacksaw blade, body armor, maps 

which could facilitate escape, 

handmade rope, or other escape 

paraphernalia, portable telephone, 

pager, other electronic device or items 

necessary in the use of these devices). 

109 (Not to be used). 

110 Refusing to provide a urine 

sample or take part in any narcotics or 

drug testing. 

111 Introduction or manufacture of 

any narcotics, marijuana, drugs, or 

related paraphernalia, not prescribed for 

the individual by authorized medical 

staff. 

112 Use of any narcotics, marijuana, 

drugs, or related paraphernalia, not 

prescribed for the individual by 

authorized medical staff. 

113 Possession of any narcotics, 

marijuana, drugs, or related 

paraphernalia, not currently prescribed 

for the individual by authorized medical 

staff. 

114 Sexually explicit conduct 

involving force, threat of force, or threat 

of harm; or sexually explicit conduct 

without consent or through coercion; or 

attempts thereof. This definition 

encompasses, but is not limited to, 

conduct that rises to the level of assault 

and sexually explicit conduct that staff 

have observed and instructed an inmate 

to cease. The term ‘‘sexually explicit 

conduct’’ means actual or simulated— 

(i) sexual intercourse, including 

genital-genital, oral-genital, anal-genital, 

or oral-anal, whether between persons 

of the same or opposite sex; 

(ii) bestiality; 

(iii) masturbation; 

(iv) sadistic or masochistic abuse; or 

(v) lascivious exhibition of the anus, 

genitals, or pubic area of any person. 

115 Destroying and/or disposing of 

any item during a search or attempt to 

search. 

116 Refusing to breathe into a 

breathalyzer or take part in any alcohol 

or intoxicant testing. 

117 Introduction or manufacture of 

any alcohol, intoxicants, or related 

paraphernalia not prescribed for the 

individual by authorized medical staff. 

118 Use of any alcohol, intoxicants, 

or related paraphernalia not currently 

prescribed for the individual by 

authorized medical staff. 

119 Possession of any alcohol, 

intoxicants, or related paraphernalia not 

currently prescribed for the individual 

by authorized medical staff. 

194 Accessing, using, or maintaining 

social media accounts (including, but 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 22 / Thursday, February 1, 2024 / Proposed Rules 6467 

not limited to the following: Facebook, 

Twitter, Instagram, Snapchat, TikTok, 

etc.), or directing others to establish or 

maintain social media accounts on the 

inmate’s behalf for the purpose of 

committing or aiding in the commission 

of a criminal act; of committing or 

aiding in the commission of any 

Greatest category prohibited act; or of 

circumventing authorized 

communications monitoring for the 

purpose of committing or aiding in the 

commission of a criminal act or of any 

Greatest category prohibited act. This 

code also prohibits inmates’ use of fund 

transfer services such as CashApp, as 

explained in more detail below. 

195 Use of video visits to commit or 

aid in the commission of a criminal act 

or any Greatest category prohibited act. 

196 Use of the mail or any form of 

electronic mail and messaging 

(including messaging through the 

TRULINCS system), for an illegal 

purpose or to commit or further a 

Greatest Severity Level prohibited act. 

197 Use of the telephone for an 

illegal purpose or to commit or further 

a Greatest category prohibited act. 

198 Interfering with a staff member 

in the performance of duties most like 

another Greatest severity prohibited act. 

This charge is to be used only when 

another charge of Greatest severity is not 

accurate. The offending conduct must 

be charged as ‘‘most like’’ one of the 

listed Greatest severity prohibited acts. 

199 Conduct which disrupts or 

interferes with the security or orderly 

running of the institution or the Bureau 

of Prisons most like another Greatest 

severity prohibited act. This charge is to 

be used only when another charge of 

Greatest severity is not accurate. The 

offending conduct must be charged as 

‘‘most like’’ one of the listed Greatest 

severity prohibited acts. 

Available Sanctions for Greatest 

Severity Level Prohibited Acts 

A. Recommend parole date rescission 

or retardation. 

B. Forfeit and/or withhold earned 

statutory good time or non-vested good 

conduct time (up to 100%) and/or 

terminate or disallow extra good time 

(an extra good time or good conduct 

time sanction may not be suspended). 

B.1. Disallow ordinarily between 50% 

and 75% (27–41 days) of good conduct 

time credit available for year (a good 

conduct time sanction may not be 

suspended). 

B.2 Forfeit up to 41 days of earned 

First Step Act (FSA) Time Credits (see 

28 CFR part 523, subpart E) for each 

prohibited act committed. 

C. Disciplinary segregation (up to 60 

days). 

D. Make monetary restitution. 

E. Monetary fine. 

F. Loss of privileges (e.g., visiting, 

video visits, telephone, commissary, 

movies, recreation, electronic device(s), 

electronic mail, electronic messaging 

through the TRULINCS system). 

G. Change housing (quarters). 

H. Remove from program and/or 

group activity. 

I. Loss of job. 

J. Impound inmate’s personal 

property. 

K. Confiscate contraband. 

L. Restrict to quarters. 

M. Extra duty. 

High Severity Level Prohibited Acts 

200 (Not to be used). 

201 Fighting, defined as a hostile 

physical or verbal encounter between 

two or more persons. 

202 Possession of any forms that 

may be used in the fraudulent filing of 

Uniform Commercial Code liens, or 

attempting to publicly disclose the 

private information of others for 

unlawful purposes. 

203 Communicating intent to 

jeopardize the safety, security, and 

orderly operation of a Bureau facility, 

the public, or the person or property of 

another. 

204 Extortion, blackmail, or 

otherwise demanding or receiving 

anything of value through use of actual 

or threatened force, violence, fear, or 

intimidation. 

205 (Not to be used). 

206 (Not to be used). 

207 Wearing a disguise or a mask. 

208 Possession of any unauthorized 

locking device, or lock pick, or 

tampering with or blocking any lock 

device (includes keys), or destroying, 

altering, interfering with, improperly 

using, or damaging any security device, 

mechanism, or procedure. 

209 Adulteration of any food or 

drink. 

210 Possession of sexually explicit 

material. 

211 Possessing any officer’s or staff 

clothing. 

212 Participating or promoting 

others to participate with two or more 

persons in unauthorized behavior, 

whether planned or unplanned 

(including, but not limited to, group 

demonstrations, sit-ins, refusing to eat, 

creating or circulating a petition, refusal 

to work, work stoppage, etc.). 

213 (Not to be used). 

214 (Not to be used). 

215 (Not to be used). 

216 Giving or offering a staff 

member something of value to persuade 

or induce favor or action. 

217 Giving money to, or receiving 

money from, any person for the purpose 

of introducing contraband or any other 

illegal or prohibited purpose. 

218 Destroying, altering, or 

damaging any of the following: property 

valued over $100.00 belonging to the 

government or another person; property 

necessary for the protection of life and/ 

or safety (e.g., fire alarms), regardless of 

financial value. 

219 Stealing; theft (including data 

obtained through the unauthorized use 

or access to any media or equipment on 

which electronic data is stored). 

220 Demonstrating, practicing, or 

using martial arts, boxing (except for use 

of a punching bag), wrestling, or other 

forms of physical encounter, or military 

exercises or drill (except for drill 

authorized by staff). 

221 Being in an unauthorized area 

with another person without staff 

permission. 

222 (Not to be used). 

223 (Not to be used). 

224 An assault of any person not 

involving serious physical injury, 

including non-consensual touching. 

225 Stalking another person through 

repeated behavior which harasses, 

alarms, or annoys the person, after 

having been previously warned to stop 

such conduct. 

226 Possession of stolen property. 

227 Refusing to participate in a 

required physical test or examination 

unrelated to testing for drug abuse (e.g., 

DNA, HIV, tuberculosis). 

228 Body modification (including, 

but not limited to tattooing and 

piercing); and possession of any 

paraphernalia and/or tools for the use of 

any form of body modification.) This 

code shall not be applied to acts of selfdirected violence (e.g., cutting), nor 

shall it apply to any instance in which 

an inmate self-directs violence or harm. 

229 (Not to be used). 

230 Possession or use of smoking 

apparatus and tobacco in any form 

(including, but not limited to, vape 

devices and other non-conventional 

forms of delivery), or related 

paraphernalia. 

231 Requesting, demanding, or 

pressuring an inmate to produce or 

display his/her own court documents or 

other documents (e.g., PATTERN 

scoresheets) that contain information 

about the inmate’s current or prior 

offense(s) for any unauthorized purpose 

to another inmate. 

232 Introduction of any 

unauthorized non-hazardous item or 

contraband. (‘‘Non-hazardous items or 

contraband’’ include, but are not limited 

to, items not likely to facilitate escape; 

cause serious bodily harm to others; or 

otherwise be hazardous to institutional 

security or personal safety, e.g., food, 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
6468 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 22 / Thursday, February 1, 2024 / Proposed Rules 

cosmetics, cleaning supplies, 

unauthorized nutritional/dietary 

supplements.) 

235 Communicating gang affiliation; 

participating in gang related activities; 

possession of paraphernalia indicating 

gang affiliation. 

294 Accessing, using, or maintaining 

social media, or directing others to 

establish or maintain social media 

accounts on the inmate’s behalf 

(including, but not limited to the 

following: Facebook, Twitter, Instagram, 

Snapchat, TikTok, etc. or any 

successor). 

295 Use of video visits for abuses 

other than criminal activity, including, 

but not limited to, conduct which 

circumvents established video visit 

session monitoring procedures; conduct 

which permits communication with 

individuals other than the authorized 

visitors; conduct which would be 

unauthorized if it were to occur in an 

in-person visiting room; or use of the 

video session to commit or further a 

High category prohibited act. 

296 Use of the mail, including 

electronic mail and messaging (e.g., 

messaging through the TRULINCS 

system) for abuses other than criminal 

activity which circumvent mail 

monitoring procedures (e.g., use of the 

mail or email to commit or further a 

High category prohibited act, special 

mail abuse; writing letters or messages 

in code; directing others to send, 

sending, or receiving a letter, mail or 

email through unauthorized means; 

sending mail or email for other inmates 

without authorization; sending 

correspondence to a specific address or 

forwarding service with directions to 

have the correspondence forwarded; 

and using a fictitious return address in 

an attempt to send or receive 

unauthorized correspondence). 

297 Use of the telephone for abuses 

other than illegal activity which 

circumvent the ability of staff to monitor 

frequency of telephone use, content of 

the call, or the number called; or to 

commit or further a High category 

prohibited act. 

298 Interfering with a staff member 

in the performance of duties most like 

another High severity prohibited act. 

This charge is to be used only when 

another charge of High severity is not 

accurate. The offending conduct must 

be charged as ‘‘most like’’ one of the 

listed High severity prohibited acts. 

299 Conduct which disrupts or 

interferes with the security or orderly 

running of the institution or the Bureau 

of Prisons most like another High 

severity prohibited act. This charge is to 

be used only when another charge of 

High severity is not accurate. The 

offending conduct must be charged as 

‘‘most like’’ one of the listed High 

severity prohibited acts. 

Available Sanctions for High Severity 

Level Prohibited Acts 

A. Recommend parole date rescission 

or retardation. 

B. Forfeit and/or withhold earned 

statutory good time or non-vested good 

conduct time up to 50% or up to 60 

days, whichever is less, and/or 

terminate or disallow extra good time 

(an extra good time or good conduct 

time sanction may not be suspended). 

B.1 Disallow ordinarily between 25% 

and 50% (14–27 days) of good conduct 

time credit available for year (a good 

conduct time sanction may not be 

suspended). 

B.2 Forfeit up to 27 days of earned 

FSA Time Credits for each prohibited 

act committed. 

C. Disciplinary segregation (up to 30 

days). 

D. Make monetary restitution. 

E. Monetary fine. 

F. Loss of privileges (e.g., visiting, 

video visits, telephone, commissary, 

movies, recreation, electronic device(s), 

electronic mail, electronic mail and 

messaging through the TRULINCS 

system). 

G. Change housing (quarters). 

H. Remove from program and/or 

group activity. 

I. Loss of job. 

J. Impound inmate’s personal 

property. 

K. Confiscate contraband. 

L. Restrict to quarters. 

M. Extra duty. 

Moderate Severity Level Prohibited 

Acts 

300 (Not to be used). 

301 (Not to be used). 

302 Misuse of authorized 

medication. 

303 Possession of money or 

currency, unless specifically authorized, 

or in excess of the amount authorized. 

304 Loaning of property or anything 

of value for profit or increased return. 

305 Possession of anything not 

authorized for retention or receipt by 

the inmate, and not issued to him 

through regular channels. 

306 Refusing to work or to accept a 

program assignment. 

307 Refusing to obey an order of any 

staff member (may be categorized and 

charged in terms of greater severity, 

according to the nature of the order 

being disobeyed, e.g., failure to obey an 

order which furthers a riot would be 

charged as 105, Rioting; refusing to obey 

an order which furthers a fight would be 

charged as 201, Fighting; refusing to 

provide a urine sample when ordered as 

part of a drug-abuse test would be 

charged as 110). 

308 Violating a condition of a 

furlough. 

309 Violating a condition of a 

community program. 

310 Unexcused absence from work 

or any program assignment. 

311 Failing to perform work as 

instructed by the supervisor. 

312 Insolence towards a staff 

member. 

313 Providing a false statement to a 

staff member, to include feigning 

illness. 

314 Counterfeiting, forging, or 

unauthorized reproduction of any 

document, article of identification, 

money, security, or official paper (may 

be categorized in terms of greater 

severity according to the nature of the 

item being reproduced, e.g., 

counterfeiting release papers to effect 

escape, Code 102). 

315 Participating in an unauthorized 

meeting or gathering. 

316 Being in an unauthorized area 

without staff authorization. 

317 Failure to follow safety or 

sanitation regulations (including safety 

regulations, chemical instructions, tools, 

MSDS sheets, OSHA standards). 

318 Using any equipment or 

machinery without staff authorization. 

319 Using any equipment or 

machinery contrary to instructions or 

posted safety standards. 

320 Failing to stand count. 

321 Interfering with the taking of 

count. 

322 (Not to be used). 

323 (Not to be used). 

324 Gambling; possession of 

gambling paraphernalia; or preparing or 

conducting a gambling pool. 

325 (Not to be used). 

326 (Not to be used). 

327 Unauthorized contacts with the 

public. 

328 Giving money or anything of 

value to, or accepting money or 

anything of value from, another inmate 

or any other person without staff 

authorization. 

329 Destroying, altering, or 

damaging government property, or the 

property of another person, having a 

value of $100.00 or less. 

330 Being unsanitary or untidy; 

failing to keep one’s person or quarters 

in accordance with posted standards. 

331 Possession, manufacture, or loss 

of a non-hazardous item or contraband 

(‘‘non-hazardous item or contraband’’ 

includes, but is not limited to, items not 

likely to be used in an escape; items not 

likely to serve as a weapon capable of 

doing serious bodily harm to others; 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 22 / Thursday, February 1, 2024 / Proposed Rules 6469 

items not hazardous to institutional 

security or personal safety; 

unauthorized food, cosmetics, cleaning 

supplies, and unauthorized nutritional/ 

dietary supplements). 

332 (Not to be used). 

333 Fraudulent or deceptive 

completion of a skills test (e.g., cheating 

on a GED, or other educational or 

vocational skills test). 

334 Conducting a business; 

conducting or directing an investment 

transaction without staff authorization. 

335 (Not to be used). 

336 (Not to be used). 

337 Using obscene or abusive 

language directed at another person or 

people. 

338 Unauthorized conduct in the 

visiting room (e.g., kissing, embracing, 

etc.). 

396 Use of the mail, including 

electronic mail and messaging, for 

abuses other than criminal activity 

which do not circumvent mail or email 

monitoring; or use of the mail or email 

to commit or further a Moderate 

category prohibited act. 

397 (Not to be used). 

398 Interfering with a staff member 

in the performance of duties most like 

another Moderate severity prohibited 

act. This charge is to be used only when 

another charge of Moderate severity is 

not accurate. The offending conduct 

must be charged as ‘‘most like’’ one of 

the listed Moderate severity prohibited 

acts. 

399 Conduct which disrupts or 

interferes with the security or orderly 

running of the institution or the Bureau 

of Prisons most like another Moderate 

severity prohibited act. This charge is to 

be used only when another charge of 

Moderate severity is not accurate. The 

offending conduct must be charged as 

‘‘most like’’ one of the listed Moderate 

severity prohibited acts. 

Available Sanctions for Moderate 

Severity Level Prohibited Acts 

A. Recommend parole date rescission 

or retardation. 

B. Forfeit and/or withhold earned 

statutory good time or non-vested good 

conduct time up to 25% or up to 30 

days, whichever is less, and/or 

terminate or disallow extra good time 

(an extra good time or good conduct 

time sanction may not be suspended). 

B.1 Disallow ordinarily up to 25% (1– 

14 days) of good conduct time credit 

available for year (a good conduct time 

sanction may not be suspended). 

B.2 Forfeit up to 27 days of earned 

FSA Time Credits for each prohibited 

act committed. 

C. Disciplinary segregation (up to 15 

days). 

D. Make monetary restitution. 

E. Monetary fine. 

F. Loss of privileges (e.g., visiting, 

video visits, telephone, commissary, 

movies, recreation, electronic device(s), 

electronic mail, electronic mail and 

messaging through the TRULINCS 

system). 

G. Change housing (quarters). 

H. Remove from program and/or 

group activity. 

I. Loss of job. 

J. Impound inmate’s personal 

property. 

K. Confiscate contraband. 

L. Restrict to quarters. 

M. Extra duty. 

Low Severity Level Prohibited Acts 

(None). 

Available Sanctions for Low Severity Level Prohibited Acts 

(None). 

TABLE 2 TO § 541.3—ADDITIONAL AVAILABLE SANCTIONS FOR REPEATED PROHIBITED ACTS WITHIN THE SAME SEVERITY

LEVEL

Prohibited act 

severity level 

Time period for 

prior offense 

(same severity 

level) 

(months) 

Frequency of 

repeated offense Additional available sanctions 

Moderate Severity 

(300 level).

6 2nd offense ........... 1. Disciplinary segregation (up to 15 days). 

2. Forfeit earned SGT or non-vested GCT up to 371/2% or up to 45 days, 

whichever is less, and/or terminate or disallow EGT (an EGT sanction may 

not be suspended). 

3. Forfeit up to 7 days of earned FSA Time Credits (only where the inmate is 

found to have committed a second violation of the same prohibited act within 6 months. 

3rd or more offense within 6 

months.

1. Any available High Severity Level sanction (200 series). 

2. Forfeit up to 14 days of FSA Time Credits (only where the inmate is found 

to have committed a third violation of the same prohibited act within 6 

months). 

High Severity (200 

level).

10 2nd offense ........... 1. Disciplinary segregation (up to 60 days). 

2. Forfeit earned SGT or non-vested GCT up to 75% or up to 90 days, whichever is less, and/or terminate or disallow EGT (an EGT sanction may not 

be suspended). 

3rd or more offense.Any available Greatest severity level sanction (100 series). 

Greatest Severity 

(100 level).

24 2nd or more offense.Disciplinary segregation (up to 90 days). 

§ 541.4 [Amended] 

■ 5. Amend § 541.4 by removing 

paragraph (b)(4). 

■ 6. Amend § 541.5 by revising 

paragraphs (a), (b) introductory text, 

(b)(2) and (3) to read as follows: 

§ 541.5 Discipline process. 

(a) Incident report. The discipline 

process starts when staff witness or 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
6470 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 22 / Thursday, February 1, 2024 / Proposed Rules 

reasonably believe that you committed a 

prohibited act. An incident report 

describing the incident and the 

prohibited act(s) you are charged with 

committing will be issued to you, which 

you will ordinarily receive within 24 

hours of staff becoming aware of your 

involvement in the incident. 

(b) Investigation. After you receive an 

incident report, it will be investigated. 

* * * * * 

(2) Statement. When asked for your 

statement, you may give an explanation 

of the incident, request any witnesses be 

interviewed, or request that other 

evidence be obtained and reviewed. 

However, the investigation of the 

incident report may be suspended 

before requesting your statement if it is 

being investigated for possible criminal 

prosecution. 

(3) Informally resolving the incident 

report. The incident report may be 

informally resolved at any stage of the 

disciplinary process, for Moderate 

Severity Level prohibited acts, or as 

otherwise required by law or these 

regulations. The incident report will not 

be removed from your discipline 

records, unless it is informally resolved 

or expunged. 

■ 7. Amend § 541.7 by revising the 

section introductory text, paragraphs (c) 

and (f) to read as follows: 

§ 541.7 Unit Discipline Committee (UDC) 

review of the incident report. 

A Unit Discipline Committee (UDC) 

will review the incident report once the 

investigation is complete. The UDC’s 

review involves the following: 

* * * * * 

(c) Timing. The UDC will ordinarily 

review the incident report within five 

work days after the day staff became 

aware of the inmate’s involvement in 

the incident, not counting the day staff 

become aware of the inmate’s 

involvement, weekends, or holidays. 

UDC review of the incident report may 

also be suspended if it is being 

investigated for possible criminal 

prosecution. 

* * * * * 

(f) Sanctions. If you committed a 

prohibited act(s), the UDC can impose 

any of the available sanctions listed in 

Tables 1 and 2, except loss of good 

conduct sentence credit, FSA Time 

Credits, disciplinary segregation, 

monetary restitution, or monetary fines. 

* * * * * 

■ 8. Amend § 541.8 by revising 

paragraph (a)(3) to read as follows: 

§ 541.8 Discipline Hearing Officer (DHO) 

hearing. 

* * * * * 

(a) * * * 

* * * * * 

(3) The incident report will be 

referred back for further investigation, 

review, disposition, or other action as 

recommended or necessary. 

* * * * * 

[FR Doc. 2024–01088 Filed 1–31–24; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4410–05–P 

DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION 

34 CFR Chapter VI 

[ED–2024–OPE–0002] 

Proposed Priorities, Requirements, 

and Definition—Augustus F. Hawkins 

Centers of Excellence Program 

AGENCY: Office of Postsecondary 

Education, Department of Education. 

ACTION: Proposed priorities, 

requirements, and definition. 

SUMMARY: The Department of Education 

(Department) proposes priorities, 

requirements, and definition for use in 

the Augustus F. Hawkins Centers of 

Excellence (Hawkins) Program, 

Assistance Listing Number 84.428A. 

The Department may use one or more of 

these priorities, requirements, and 

definition for competitions in fiscal year 

(FY) 2024 and later years. We intend for 

these priorities, requirements, and 

definition to help increase the number 

of, and retain, well-prepared teachers 

from diverse backgrounds, resulting in a 

more diverse teacher workforce 

prepared to teach in our Nation’s 

underserved elementary and secondary 

schools and close student opportunity 

and achievement gaps. 

DATES: We must receive your comments 

on or before March 4, 2024. 

ADDRESSES: Comments must be 

submitted via the Federal eRulemaking 

Portal at www.regulations.gov. However, 

if you require an accommodation or 

cannot otherwise submit your 

comments via www.regulations.gov, 

please contact one of the program 

contact persons listed under FOR

FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT. The 

Department will not accept comments 

submitted by fax or by email, or 

comments submitted after the comment 

period closes. To ensure the Department 

does not receive duplicate copies, 

please submit your comments only 

once. In addition, please include the 

Docket ID at the top of your comments. 

Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to 

www.regulations.gov to submit your 

comments electronically. Information 

on using Regulations.gov, including 

instructions for accessing agency 

documents, submitting comments, and 

viewing the docket, is available on the 

site under ‘‘FAQ.’’ 

Note: The Department’s policy is 

generally to make comments received 

from members of the public available for 

public viewing in their entirety on the 

Federal eRulemaking Portal at 

www.regulations.gov. Therefore, 

commenters should be careful to 

include in their comments only 

information that they wish to make 

publicly available. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Dr. 

Vicki Robinson, U.S. Department of 

Education, 400 Maryland Avenue SW, 

5th Floor, Washington, DC 20202. 

Telephone: (202) 453–7907. Email: 

Vicki.Robinson@ed.gov. You may also 

contact Ashley Hillary, U.S. Department 

of Education, 400 Maryland Avenue 

SW, 5th floor, Washington, DC 20202. 

Telephone: (202) 453–7880. Email: 

Ashley.Hillary@ed.gov. 

If you are deaf, hard of hearing, or 

have a speech disability and wish to 

access telecommunications relay 

services, please dial 7–1–1. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Invitation to Comment: We invite you 

to submit comments regarding the 

proposed priorities, requirements, and 

definition. To ensure that your 

comments have maximum effect in 

developing the final priorities, 

requirements, and definition, we urge 

you to identify clearly the specific 

section of the proposed priorities, 

requirements, and definition that each 

comment addresses. 

We invite you to assist us in 

complying with the specific 

requirements of Executive Orders 

12866, 13563, and 14094 and their 

overall requirement of reducing 

regulatory burden that might result from 

these proposed priorities, requirements, 

and definition. Please let us know of 

any further ways we could reduce 

potential costs or increase potential 

benefits while preserving the effective 

and efficient administration of the 

program. 

During and after the comment period, 

you may inspect public comments about 

the proposed priorities, requirements, 

and definition by accessing 

Regulations.gov. To inspect comments 

in person, please contact one of the 

persons listed under FOR FURTHER

INFORMATION CONTACT. 

Assistance to Individuals with 

Disabilities in Reviewing the 

Rulemaking Record: On request we will 

provide an appropriate accommodation 

or auxiliary aid to an individual with a 

disability who needs assistance to 

review the comments or other 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS1