17324 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 65 / Tuesday, April 6, 2010 / Proposed Rules 

proposes to amend 14 CFR part 71 as 

follows: 

PART 71—DESIGNATION OF CLASS A, 

CLASS B, CLASS C, CLASS D, AND 

CLASS E AIRSPACE AREAS; AIR 

TRAFFIC SERVICE ROUTES; AND 

REPORTING POINTS 

1. The authority citation for 14 CFR 

part 71 continues to read as follows: 

Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40103, 40113, 

40120; E.O. 10854, 24 FR 9565, 3 CFR, 1959– 

1963 Comp., p. 389. 

§ 71.1 [Amended] 

2. The incorporation by reference in 

14 CFR 71.1 of Federal Aviation 

Administration Order 7400.9T, Airspace 

Designations and Reporting Points, 

signed August 27, 2009, and effective 

September 15, 2009, is to be amended 

as follows: 

* * * * * 

Paragraph 5000 General. 

* * * * * 

AAL AK D Big Delta, AK [Removed] 

* * * * * 

Paragraph 6002 Class E Airspace 

Designated as Surface Areas. 

* * * * * 

AAL AK E2 Big Delta, AK [Removed] 

* * * * * 

Paragraph 6004 Class E Airspace Areas 

Designated as an Extension to a Class D or 

Class E Surface Area. 

* * * * * 

AAL AK E4 Big Delta, AK [Removed] 

* * * * * 

Paragraph 6005 Class E Airspace Extending 

Upward From 700 Feet or More Above the 

Surface of the Earth. 

* * * * * 

AAL AK E5 Big Delta, AK [Removed] 

Issued in Anchorage, AK, on March 9, 

2010. 

Anthony M. Wylie, 

Manager, Alaska Flight Services Information 

Area Group. 

[FR Doc. 2010–7775 Filed 4–5–10; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4910–13–P 

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE 

Bureau of Prisons 

28 CFR Part 540 

[BOP Docket No. 1148–P] 

RIN 1120–AB48 

Communication Management Units 

AGENCY: Bureau of Prisons, Justice. 

ACTION: Proposed rule. 

SUMMARY: In this document, the Bureau 

of Prisons (Bureau) proposes to establish 

and describe Communication 

Management Units (CMUs) by 

regulation. CMUs are designed to 

provide an inmate housing unit 

environment that enables staff 

monitoring of all communication 

between CMU inmates and persons in 

the community. The ability to monitor 

such communication is necessary to 

ensure the safety, security, and orderly 

operation of correctional facilities, and 

protect the public. The Bureau currently 

operates CMUs in two of its facilities. 

This rule would clarify existing Bureau 

practices with respect to CMUs. 

DATES: Comments are due by June 7, 

2010. 

ADDRESSES: Written comments should 

be submitted to the Rules Unit, Office of 

General Counsel, Bureau of Prisons, 320 

First Street, NW., Washington, DC 

20534. You may view an electronic 

version of this regulation at 

www.regulations.gov. You may also 

comment by using the 

www.regulations.gov comment form for 

this regulation. When submitting 

comments electronically you must 

include the BOP Docket No. in the 

subject box. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Sarah Qureshi, Office of General 

Counsel, Bureau of Prisons, phone (202) 

307–2105. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Posting of Public Comments 

Please note that all comments 

received are considered part of the 

public record and made available for 

public inspection online at 

www.regulations.gov. Such information 

includes personal identifying 

information (such as your name, 

address, etc.) voluntarily submitted by 

the commenter. 

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 has 

so much confidential business 

information that it cannot be effectively 

redacted, all or part of that comment 

may not be posted on 

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. 

Discussion 

This proposed rule codifies and 

describes the Bureau’s procedures for 

designating inmates to, and limiting 

communication within, its 

Communication Management Units 

(CMU). Currently, the Bureau operates 

two CMUs, separately located at the 

Federal Correctional Complex (FCC), 

Terre Haute, Indiana (established in 

December 2006), and the United States 

Penitentiary (USP), Marion, Illinois 

(established in March 2008). 

Current regulatory authority. The 

Bureau currently has regulatory 

authority to restrict the communications 

of high-risk inmates. See, e.g. 28 CFR 

540.12 (authorizing Wardens to 

establish and exercise controls to 

protect individuals, security, discipline, 

and the good order of the institution); 28 

CFR 540.14 (a) (indicating that 

institution staff shall open and inspect 

all incoming general correspondence.); 

28 CFR 540.100 et seq. (authorizing 

limitations upon an inmate’s telephone 

privileges consistent with ensuring the 

security or good order of the institution 

or protection of the public, and 

authorizing Wardens to establish 

procedures that enable monitoring of 

telephone conversations); 28 CFR 

540.40, et seq. (authorizing Wardens to 

limit inmate visiting when necessary to 

ensure the security and good order of 

the institution). 

Purpose of the CMU regulations. The 

CMU regulations establish specific 

parameters for Bureau staff when 

operating CMUs while putting inmates 

and the public on notice of CMU 

operation. 

The purpose of CMUs is to provide an 

inmate housing unit environment that 

enables staff to more effectively monitor 

communication between CMU inmates 


sroberts on DSKD5P82C1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 65 / Tuesday, April 6, 2010 / Proposed Rules 17325 

and persons in the community. The 

CMU concept allows the Bureau to 

monitor inmates for whom such 

monitoring and communication limits 

are necessary, whether due to a terrorist 

link or otherwise, such as inmates who 

have previously committed an 

infraction related to mail tampering 

from within an institution, or inmates 

who may be attempting to communicate 

with past or potential victims. The 

ability to monitor such communication 

is necessary to ensure the safety, 

security, and orderly operation of 

correctional facilities, and protect the 

public. The volume, frequency, and 

methods of CMU inmate contact with 

persons in the community may be 

limited as necessary to achieve the goal 

of total monitoring, consistent with this 

subpart. 

A CMU is a general population 

housing unit where inmates will 

ordinarily reside, eat, and participate in 

educational, recreational, religious, 

visiting, unit management, and work 

programming, within the confines of the 

CMU. Additionally, CMUs may contain 

a range of cells dedicated to segregated 

housing of inmates in administrative 

detention or disciplinary segregation 

status. 

Under this regulation, initial 

consideration of inmates for CMU 

designation begins when the Bureau 

becomes aware of information relevant 

to the criteria described in § 540.201. 

The Bureau’s Assistant Director, 

Correctional Programs Division, will 

then make a determination based on a 

review of the evidence presented, and a 

conclusion that the inmate’s designation 

to a CMU is necessary to ensure the 

safety, security, and orderly operation of 

correctional facilities, or protect the 

public. 

Upon arrival at the designated CMU, 

inmates will receive written notice from 

the Warden of the facility in which the 

CMU exists. The written notice will 

explain that designation to a CMU 

allows greater Bureau staff management 

of communication with persons in the 

community through complete 

monitoring of telephone use, written 

correspondence, and visiting. The 

volume, frequency, and methods, of 

CMU inmate contact with persons in the 

community may be limited as necessary 

to achieve the goal of total monitoring, 

consistent with this subpart. The 

written notice will also explain that 

general conditions of confinement in the 

CMU may be limited as necessary to 

provide greater management of 

communications, and that designation 

to the CMU is not punitive and, by 

itself, has no effect on the length of the 

inmate’s incarceration. CMU inmates 

continue to earn sentence credit in 

accordance with law and Bureau policy. 

Through the written notice, inmates 

will also be informed that designation to 

the CMU follows the Assistant 

Director’s decision that such placement 

is necessary for the safe, secure, and 

orderly operation of Bureau institutions, 

or protection of the public. The inmate 

will be provided an explanation of the 

decision in sufficient detail, unless 

providing specific information would 

jeopardize the safety, security, or 

orderly operation of the facility, or 

protection of the public. 

Continued designation to the CMU 

will be reviewed regularly by the 

inmate’s Unit Team under 

circumstances providing the inmate 

notice and an opportunity to be heard, 

in accordance with the Bureau’s policy 

on Classification and Program Review of 

Inmates. The inmate may challenge the 

CMU designation decision and any 

aspect of confinement therein, through 

the Bureau’s administrative remedy 

program. While this regulation may 

allow for limiting the communication of 

inmates to whom it is applied, it will 

not extinguish their monitored 

communication abilities absent abuse or 

violations committed by the inmate. 

With this regulation, the Bureau 

seeks, when warranted, on a case-bycase basis, to more effectively monitor 

communication while still 

accommodating the rights guaranteed by 

the First Amendment to petition for 

redress of grievances. By limiting the 

communications of these inmates, the 

Bureau seeks to balance First 

Amendment rights with its correctional 

mission. 

The proposed regulation would 

clarify current authority for imposing 

limits and restrictions on the 

communications of inmates in the 

Bureau’s custody based on evidence, 

either from outside sources (such as 

other federal agencies) or from internal 

sources (such as intelligence gained 

through observation of inmates in 

Bureau custody). Communications 

would be limited if such evidence 

indicates, inter alia, a high degree of 

potential risk to national security. 

The approach of this rule will also 

provide a more effective means to 

implement a previously-published 

proposed rule (BOP Docket No. 1135) 

providing for limiting the 

communication opportunities of 

inmates who are: (1) Charged with, 

convicted of, or detained in relation to 

an offense under title 18 U.S. C. 

chapters 113B or 115; or (2) charged 

with having engaged in, have engaged 

in, are detained in relation to, or are 

linked in any way to terrorist-related 

activity as part of their current or 

previous offense conduct or conduct 

while incarcerated. 

BOP 1135 contemplated limiting the 

communications of inmates in a general 

population prison setting who were 

identified as having an identifiable link 

to terrorist-related activity. It is difficult 

to police inmate communication in the 

‘‘open’’ context of a general population 

setting because it is harder to detect 

activity such as inmates sending mail 

under another inmate’s name, or using 

another’s PIN number, without constant 

monitoring. 

By physically separating out the 

properly classified prisoners who need 

comprehensive monitoring, and 

involving the Assistant Director of the 

Bureau’s Correctional Programs Division 

in addition to the Warden in the initial 

decision to restrict communications, we 

hope to lessen any adverse impact on 

the vast majority of the other prisoners 

not subject to comprehensive 

monitoring but still only subject to 

random monitoring. 

After taking into consideration any 

public comment received after 

publication of this proposed rule, the 

Bureau will adopt a consolidated final 

rule. 

This regulation, however, will be 

applied differently from regulations in 

28 CFR part 501, which authorize the 

Attorney General to impose special 

administrative measures (SAMs). Under 

28 CFR part 501, SAMs are imposed 

after approval by the Attorney General 

and are generally based on information 

from the FBI and the U.S. Attorney’s 

Office (USAO), but are typically not 

based solely on information from 

internal Bureau of Prisons sources. 

Unlike 28 CFR part 501, the proposed 

regulations allow the Bureau to impose 

communication limits based on 

evidence from FBI or another federal 

law enforcement agency, or if Bureau of 

Prisons information indicates a similar 

need to impose communication 

restrictions, evidence which does not 

rise to the same degree of potential risk 

to national security or risk of acts of 

violence or terrorism which would 

warrant the Attorney General’s 

intervention by issuance of a SAM. 

Furthermore, while SAMs have the 

potential to restrict communication 

entirely, this regulation delineates a 

floor of limited communication, beneath 

which the Bureau cannot restrict unless 

precipitated by the inmate’s violation of 

imposed limitations, and then only as a 

disciplinary sanction following due 

process procedures in 28 CFR part 541. 

Also, the comprehensive monitoring 

provided by the new regulation would 

lead to greater protection for the public, 


sroberts on DSKD5P82C1PROD with PROPOSALS
17326 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 65 / Tuesday, April 6, 2010 / Proposed Rules 

since reconstruction of communications 

from random monitoring may not 

provide a full scenario if dangerous 

communications are discovered. 

Likewise, there would be greater 

protection for inmates as a result of the 

new proposed rule. The initial decision 

regarding which inmates to more closely 

monitor is made by the Assistant 

Director of the Bureau’s Correctional 

Programs Division, who has a broad 

scope of authority and a global 

understanding of the security concerns 

prevalent in the Bureau’s correctional 

setting. In addition, the inmate can 

challenge this classification-based 

treatment decision through the Bureau’s 

administrative remedy program. 

Further, the CMU inmate’s regular 

inmate associates will not be general 

population inmates. In the new 

proposed rule, the only inmates being 

specially monitored are the inmates 

placed in the CMU. 

Further, CMU monitoring would 

result in a fuller record that would more 

readily show whether an inmate’s use of 

words may have been taken out of 

context and whether the inmate might 

not need to remain under close 

communications scrutiny. 

Another advantage of CMU 

monitoring is that closer scrutiny and 

finer monitoring distinctions can be 

applied or removed in ‘‘stages’’ from the 

defined CMU inmate population, so that 

work and leisure opportunities can be 

adjusted for the population instead of 

simply excluding them from such 

opportunities. Also, consolidating highrisk inmates in the CMU would make it 

more operationally feasible to minimize 

the adverse consequences such as the 

communication delay to the monitored 

inmates, since the marshaling and 

organizing of resources into a standard 

approach should make it easier for 

translators and officials responding to 

requests for special exceptions to act 

quickly. 

Under the proposed regulation, 

inmates may be designated to a CMU if: 

• The inmate’s current offense(s) of 

conviction, or offense conduct, included 

association, communication, or 

involvement, related to international or 

domestic terrorism; 

• The inmate’s current offense(s) of 

conviction, offense conduct, or activity 

while incarcerated, indicates a 

propensity to encourage, coordinate, 

facilitate, or otherwise act in furtherance 

of, illegal activity through 

communication with persons in the 

community; 

• The inmate has attempted, or 

indicates a propensity, to contact 

victims of the inmate’s current 

offense(s) of conviction; 

• The inmate committed a prohibited 

activity related to misuse/abuse of 

approved communication methods 

while incarcerated; or 

• There is any other evidence of a 

potential threat to the safe, secure, and 

orderly operation of prison facilities, or 

protection of the public, as a result of 

the inmate’s communication with 

persons in the community. 

One important category of inmates 

which might be designated to a CMU is 

inmates whose current offense(s) of 

conviction, or offense conduct, included 

association, communication, or 

involvement, related to international or 

domestic terrorism. Past behaviors of 

terrorist inmates provide sufficient 

grounds to suggest a substantial risk that 

they may inspire or incite terroristrelated activity, especially if 

communicated to groups willing to 

engage in or to provide equipment or 

logistics to facilitate terrorist-related 

activity. The potential ramifications of 

this activity outweigh the inmate’s 

interest in unlimited communication 

with persons in the community. 

Communication related to terroristrelated activity can occur in codes 

which are difficult to detect and 

extremely time-consuming to interpret. 

Inmates involved in such 

communication, and other persons 

involved or linked to terrorist-related 

activities, take on an exalted status with 

other like-minded individuals. Their 

communications acquire a special level 

of inspirational significance for those 

who are already predisposed to these 

views, causing a substantial risk that 

such recipients of their communications 

will be incited to unlawful terroristrelated activity. 

The danger of coded messages from 

prisoners has been recognized by the 

courts. See Turner v. Safley, 482 U.S. 

78, 93 (1987) (‘‘In any event, prisoners 

could easily write in jargon or codes to 

prevent detection of their real 

messages.’’); United States v. Salameh, 

152 F.3d 88, 108 (2nd Cir. 1998) 

(‘‘Because Ajaj was in jail and his 

telephone calls were monitored, Ajaj 

and Yousef spoke in code when 

discussing the bomb plot.’’); United 

States v. Johnson, 223 F.3d 665, 673 

(7th Cir. 2000) (‘‘And we know that 

anyone who has access to a telephone 

or is permitted to receive visitors may 

be able to transmit a lethal message in 

code.’’); United States v. Hammoud, 381 

F.3d 316, 334 (4th Cir. 2004) (‘‘A 

conversation that seems innocuous on 

one day may later turn out to be of great 

significance, particularly if the 

individuals are talking in code.’’); 

United States v. Moncivais, 401 F.3d 

751, 757 (6th Cir. 2005) (noting that 

seemingly nonsensical conversations 

could be in code and interpreted as 

indicative of drug dealing activity). 

Also, an Al Qaeda training manual 

contains the following advice regarding 

communications from prison: ‘‘Take 

advantage of visits to communicate with 

brothers outside prison and exchange 

information that may be helpful to them 

in their work outside prison. The 

importance of mastering the art of 

hiding messages is self evident here.’’ 

There have been cases of imprisoned 

terrorists communicating with their 

followers regarding future terrorist 

activity. For example, after El Sayyid 

Nosair assassinated Rabbi Kahane, he 

was placed in Rikers Island, where ‘‘he 

began to receive a steady stream of 

visitors, most regularly his cousin ElGabrowny, and also Abouhalima, 

Salameh, and Ayyad. During these 

visits, as well as subsequent visits once 

Nosair was at Attica, Nosair suggested 

numerous terrorist operations, including 

the murders of the judge who sentenced 

him and of Dov Hikind, a New York 

City Assemblyman, and chided his 

visitors for doing nothing to further the 

jihad against the oppressors. Nosair also 

tape recorded messages while in 

custody * * *’’ United States v. 

Rahman, 189 F.3d 88, 105–06 (2d Cir. 

1999). Imprisoned, Sheikh Abdel 

Rahman had urged his followers to wage 

jihad to obtain his release. Violent 

attacks and murders followed. United 

States v. Sattar, 314 F.Supp.2d 279, 

288–89 (S.D.N.Y. 2004). 

To minimize the risk of terroristrelated communication and other 

similar dangerous communication to or 

from inmates in Bureau custody, this 

regulation clarifies the Bureau’s current 

authority to limit and monitor the 

communication of CMU inmates to 

immediate family members, U.S. courts, 

federal judges, U.S. Attorney’s Offices, 

members of U.S. Congress, the Bureau, 

other federal law enforcement entities, 

and the inmate’s attorney. The Bureau 

allows communication with these 

individuals to help inmates maintain 

family ties, and protect inmates’ access 

to courts and other government officials 

in order to raise issues related to their 

incarceration or their conditions of 

confinement, while minimizing 

potential internal or external threats. 

Particular consideration has also been 

given to the ability of CMU inmates to 

communicate via special mail. Special 

mail is defined in 28 CFR part 540. For 

the purposes of CMUs, however, this 

rule would limit special mail to 

privileged communication with the 

inmate’s attorney. Correspondence from 

the correspondents listed in 28 CFR 

540.2(c) as ‘‘special correspondence,’’ 


sroberts on DSKD5P82C1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 65 / Tuesday, April 6, 2010 / Proposed Rules 17327 

other than attorneys. (e.g. President and 

Vice President of the United States, the 

Department of Justice, members of 

Congress, Governors, State legislatures, 

courts, media etc.) will be treated as 

‘‘general correspondence’’ for the 

purposes of CMUs. There is no 

frequency or volume limitation on 

correspondence with an inmate’s 

attorney, unless necessary as a result of 

the inmate’s abuse or violation of these 

regulations. 

To effectively and efficiently allow 

monitoring and review of the general 

correspondence communications of 

CMU inmates, those communications 

may be limited in frequency and volume 

as follows: 

• Written correspondence may be 

limited to three pieces of paper, doublesided, once per week to and from a 

single recipient; 

• Telephone communication may be 

limited to a single completed call per 

calendar month for up to 15 minutes; 

and 

• Visiting may be limited to one hour 

each calendar month. 

Unless the quantity to be processed 

becomes unreasonable or the inmate 

abuses or violates these regulations, 

there is no frequency or volume 

limitation on written correspondence 

with the following entities: U.S. courts, 

Federal judges, U.S. Attorney’s Offices, 

Members of U.S. Congress, The Bureau 

of Prisons, other federal law 

enforcement entities, or, as stated 

earlier, the inmate’s attorney (privileged 

communications only). Correspondence 

with these entities is not limited under 

these regulations in furtherance of 

inmates’ access to courts and their 

ability to defend in litigation. 

By limiting the frequency and volume 

of the communication to/from inmates 

identified under this regulation, we will 

reduce the amount of communication 

requiring monitoring and review. 

Reducing the volume of 

communications will help ensure the 

Bureau’s ability to provide heightened 

scrutiny in reviewing communications, 

and thereby increasing both internal 

security within correctional facilities, 

and the security of members of the 

public. 

Inmates may incur additional 

limitations on their communications as 

the direct result of abusing or violating 

individualized communication limits 

imposed under this subsection, but 

additional limitations will occur only to 

the extent possible under this regulation 

and according to the procedures in this 

subsection. Unmonitored 

communications with verified attorneys 

may be limited in the form of 

monitoring only as provided in 28 CFR 

part 501 (regarding national security 

cases and prevention of acts of violence 

and terrorism) and part 543 (regarding 

inmate legal activities). Inmates may 

also be subject to disciplinary action or 

criminal prosecution for abusing or 

violating limits imposed under this 

subsection. 

Executive Order 12866 

This regulation falls within a category 

of actions that the Office of Management 

and Budget (OMB) has determined to 

constitute ‘‘significant regulatory 

actions’’ under section 3(f) of Executive 

Order 12866 and, accordingly, it was 

reviewed by OMB. The Bureau of 

Prisons has assessed the costs and 

benefits of this regulation as required by 

Executive Order 12866 Section 1(b)(6) 

and has made a reasoned determination 

that the benefits of this regulation justify 

its costs. There will be no new costs 

associated with this regulation. 

Executive Order 13132 

This regulation will not have 

substantial direct effects on the States, 

on the relationship between the national 

government and the States, or on 

distribution of power and 

responsibilities among the various 

levels of government. Therefore, under 

Executive Order 13132, we determine 

that this regulation does not have 

sufficient Federalism implications to 

warrant the preparation of a Federalism 

Assessment. 

Regulatory Flexibility Act 

The Director of the Bureau of Prisons, 

under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 

U.S.C. 605(b)), reviewed this regulation 

and by approving it certifies that it will 

not have a significant economic impact 

upon a substantial number of small 

entities for the following reasons: This 

regulation pertains to the correctional 

management of offenders and 

immigration detainees committed to the 

custody of the Attorney General or the 

Director of the Bureau of Prisons, and its 

economic impact is limited to the 

Bureau’s appropriated funds. 

Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 

1995 

This regulation will not result in the 

expenditure by State, local and tribal 

governments, in the aggregate, or by the 

private sector, of $100,000,000 or more 

in any one year, and it will not 

significantly or uniquely affect small 

governments. Therefore, no actions were 

deemed necessary under the provisions 

of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act 

of 1995. 

Small Business Regulatory Enforcement 

Fairness Act of 1996 

This regulation is not a major rule as 

defined by section 804 of the Small 

Business Regulatory Enforcement 

Fairness Act of 1996. This regulation 

will not result in an annual effect on the 

economy of $100,000,000 or more; a 

major increase in costs or prices; or 

significant adverse effects on 

competition, employment, investment, 

productivity, innovation, or on the 

ability of United States-based 

companies to compete with foreignbased companies in domestic and 

export markets. 

List of Subjects in 28 CFR Part 540 

Prisoners. 

Harley G. Lappin, 

Director, Bureau of Prisons. 

Under rulemaking authority vested in 

the Attorney General in 5 U.S.C 301; 28 

U.S.C. 509, 510 and delegated to the 

Director, Bureau of Prisons in 28 CFR 

0.96, we amend 28 CFR part 540 as 

follows: 

SUBCHAPTER C—INSTITUTIONAL 

MANAGEMENT 

PART 540—CONTACT WITH PERSONS 

IN THE COMMUNITY 

1. The authority citation for 28 CFR 

part 540 continues to read as follows: 

Authority: 5 U.S.C. 301, 551, 552a; 18 

U.S.C. Chapters 113b and 115, 1791, 3621, 

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

in part as to offenses committed on or after 

November 1, 1987), 5006–5024 (Repealed 

October 12, 1984 as to offenses committed 

after that date), 5039; 28 U.S.C. 509, 510, 

530C(b)(6). 

2. Add a new subpart J, to read as 

follows: 

SUBPART J—COMMUNICATION 

MANAGEMENT HOUSING UNITS 

Sec. 

540.200 Purpose and scope. 

540.201 Designation criteria. 

540.202 Designation procedures. 

540.203 Written correspondence 

limitations. 

540.204 Telephone communication 

limitations. 

540.205 Visiting limitations. 

§ 540.200 Purpose and scope. 

(a) Purpose of this subpart. This 

subpart authorizes and defines the 

Federal Bureau of Prisons’ (Bureau) 

authority to operate, and designate 

inmates to, Communication 

Management Housing Units (CMUs) 

within Bureau facilities. 

(b) CMU. A CMU is a general 

population housing unit where inmates 


sroberts on DSKD5P82C1PROD with PROPOSALS
17328 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 65 / Tuesday, April 6, 2010 / Proposed Rules 

ordinarily reside, eat, and participate in 

all educational, recreational, religious, 

visiting, unit management, and work 

programming, within the confines of the 

CMU. Additionally, CMUs may contain 

a range of cells dedicated to segregated 

housing of inmates in administrative 

detention or disciplinary segregation 

status. 

(c) Purpose of CMUs. The purpose of 

CMUs is to provide an inmate housing 

unit environment that enables staff to 

more effectively monitor 

communication between CMU inmates 

and persons in the community. The 

ability to monitor such communication 

is necessary to ensure the safety, 

security, and orderly operation of 

correctional facilities, and protect the 

public. The volume, frequency, and 

methods, of CMU inmate contact with 

persons in the community may be 

limited as necessary to achieve the goal 

of total monitoring, consistent with this 

subpart. 

(d) Application. Any inmate (as 

defined in 28 CFR § 500.1(c)) meeting 

criteria prescribed by this subpart may 

be designated to a CMU. 

(e) Relationship to other regulations. 

The regulations in this subpart 

supercede and control to the extent they 

conflict with, are inconsistent with, or 

impose greater limitations than the 

regulations in 28 CFR Part 540, or any 

other regulations in this chapter, except 

28 CFR Part 501. 

§ 540.201 Designation criteria. 

Inmates may be designated to a CMU 

if evidence of the following criteria 

exists: 

(a) The inmate’s current offense(s) of 

conviction, or offense conduct, included 

association, communication, or 

involvement, related to international or 

domestic terrorism; 

(b) The inmate’s current offense(s) of 

conviction, offense conduct, or activity 

while incarcerated, indicates a 

propensity to encourage, coordinate, 

facilitate, or otherwise act in furtherance 

of, illegal activity through 

communication with persons in the 

community; 

(c) The inmate has attempted, or 

indicates a propensity, to contact 

victims of the inmate’s current 

offense(s) of conviction; 

(d) The inmate committed prohibited 

activity related to misuse/abuse of 

approved communication methods 

while incarcerated; or 

(e) There is any other evidence of a 

potential threat to the safe, secure, and 

orderly operation of prison facilities, or 

protection of the public, as a result of 

the inmate’s communication with 

persons in the community. 

§ 540.202 Designation procedures. 

Inmates may be designated to CMUs 

only according to the following 

procedures: 

(a) Initial consideration. Initial 

consideration of inmates for CMU 

designation begins when the Bureau 

becomes aware of information relevant 

to the criteria described in § 540.201. 

(b) Assistant Director authority. The 

Bureau’s Assistant Director, 

Correctional Programs Division, has 

authority to approve CMU designations. 

The Assistant Director’s decision must 

be based on a review of the evidence, 

and a conclusion that the inmate’s 

designation to a CMU is necessary to 

ensure the safety, security, and orderly 

operation of correctional facilities, or 

protect the public. 

(c) Written notice. Upon arrival at the 

designated CMU, inmates will receive 

written notice from the facility’s 

Warden explaining that: 

(1) Designation to a CMU allows 

greater Bureau staff management of 

communication with persons in the 

community through complete 

monitoring of telephone use, written 

correspondence, and visiting. The 

volume, frequency, and methods, of 

CMU inmate contact with persons in the 

community may be limited as necessary 

to achieve the goal of total monitoring, 

consistent with this subpart; 

(2) General conditions of confinement 

in the CMU may also be limited as 

necessary to provide greater 

management of communications; 

(3) Designation to the CMU is not 

punitive and, by itself, has no effect on 

the length of the inmate’s incarceration. 

CMU inmates continue to earn sentence 

credit in accordance with law and 

Bureau policy. 

(4) Designation to the CMU follows 

the Assistant Director’s decision that 

such placement is necessary for the safe, 

secure, and orderly operation of Bureau 

institutions, or protection of the public. 

The inmate will be provided an 

explanation of the decision in sufficient 

detail, unless providing specific 

information would jeopardize the safety, 

security, and orderly operation of 

correctional facilities, or protection of 

the public. 

(5) Continued designation to the CMU 

will be reviewed regularly by the 

inmate’s Unit Team under 

circumstances providing the inmate 

notice and an opportunity to be heard, 

in accordance with the Bureau’s policy 

on Classification and Program Review of 

Inmates. 

(6) The inmate may challenge the 

CMU designation decision, and any 

aspect of confinement therein, through 

the Bureau’s administrative remedy 

program. 

§ 540.203 Written correspondence 

limitations. 

(a) General correspondence. General 

written correspondence as defined by 

Part 540, may be limited to three pieces 

of paper (not larger than 8.5 x 11 

inches), double-sided writing permitted, 

once per calendar week, to and from a 

single recipient at the discretion of the 

Warden, except as stated in (c) below. 

This correspondence is subject to staff 

inspection for contraband and for 

content. 

(b) Special mail. 

(1) Special mail, as defined in Part 

540, is limited to privileged 

communication with the inmate’s 

attorney. 

(2) All such correspondence is subject 

to staff inspection in the inmate’s 

presence for contraband and to ensure 

its qualification as privileged 

communication with the inmate’s 

attorney. Inmates may not seal such 

outgoing mail before giving it to staff for 

processing. After inspection for 

contraband, the inmate must then seal 

the approved outgoing mail material in 

the presence of staff and immediately 

give the sealed material to the observing 

staff for further processing. 

(c) Frequency and volume limitations. 

Unless the quantity to be processed 

becomes unreasonable or the inmate 

abuses or violates these regulations, 

there is no frequency or volume 

limitation on written correspondence 

with the following entities: 

(1) U.S. courts; 

(2) Federal judges; 

(3) U.S. Attorney’s Offices; 

(4) Members of U.S. Congress; 

(5) The Bureau of Prisons; 

(6) Other federal law enforcement 

entities; or 

(7) The inmate’s attorney (privileged 

communications only). 

§ 540.204 Telephone communication 

limitations. 

(a) Monitored telephone 

communication may be limited to 

immediate family members only. The 

frequency and duration of telephone 

communication may also be limited to 

a single connected call per calendar 

month, lasting no longer than 15 

minutes. The Warden may require such 

communication to be in English, or 

translated by an approved interpreter. 

(b) Unmonitored telephone 

communication is limited to privileged 

communication with the inmate’s 

attorney. Unmonitored privileged 

telephone communication with the 

inmate’s attorney is permitted as 


sroberts on DSKD5P82C1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 65 / Tuesday, April 6, 2010 / Proposed Rules 17329 

necessary in furtherance of active 

litigation, after establishing that 

communication with the verified 

attorney by confidential correspondence 

or visiting, or monitored telephone use, 

is not adequate due to an urgent or 

impending deadline. 

§ 540.205 Visiting limitations. 

(a) Regular visiting may be limited to 

immediate family members. The 

frequency and duration of regular 

visiting may also be limited to a one 

hour visit each calendar month. The 

number of visitors permitted during any 

visit is within the Warden’s discretion. 

Such visits must occur through noncontact visiting facilities. 

(1) Regular visits may be 

simultaneously monitored and 

recorded, both visually and auditorily, 

either in person or electronically. 

(2) The Warden may require such 

visits to be conducted in English, or 

simultaneously translated by an 

approved interpreter. 

(b) Attorney visiting is limited to 

attorney-client privileged 

communication as provided in Part 540. 

These visits may be visually, but not 

auditorily, monitored. Regulations and 

policies previously established under 28 

CFR part 543 are applicable. 

(2) For convicted inmates (as defined 

in 28 CFR part 551), regulations and 

policies previously established under 28 

CFR part 543 are applicable. 

[FR Doc. 2010–7728 Filed 4–5–10; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4410–05–P 

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND 

SECURITY 

Coast Guard 

33 CFR Part 165 

[Docket No. USCG–2010–0109] 

RIN 1625–AA00 

Safety Zone; Big Bay Fourth of July 

Fireworks, San Diego Bay, San Diego, 

CA 

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS. 

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking. 

SUMMARY: The Coast Guard proposes 

establishing a temporary safety zone on 

the navigable waters of the San Diego 

Bay in support of the Big Bay July 

Fourth Show to Benefit the San Diego 

Armed Services YMCA. This temporary 

safety zone is necessary to provide for 

the safety of crew, spectators, and other 

users and vessels of the waterway. 

Persons and vessels are prohibited from 

entering into, transiting through, or 

anchoring within this temporary safety 

zone unless authorized by the Captain 

of the Port or his designated 

representative. 

DATES: Comments and related material 

must be received by the Coast Guard on 

or before May 6, 2010. Requests for 

public meetings must be received by the 

Coast Guard on or before May 6, 2010. 

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments 

identified by docket number USCG– 

2010–0109 using any one of the 

following methods: 

(1) Federal eRulemaking Portal: 

http://www.regulations.gov. 

(2) Fax: 202–493–2251. 

(3) Mail: Docket Management Facility 

(M–30), U.S. Department of 

Transportation, West Building Ground 

Floor, Room W12–140, 1200 New Jersey 

Avenue, SE., Washington, DC 20590– 

0001. 

(4) Hand delivery: Same as mail 

address above, between 9 a.m. and 5 

p.m., Monday through Friday, except 

Federal holidays. The telephone number 

is 202–366–9329. 

To avoid duplication, please use only 

one of these four methods. See the 

‘‘Public Participation and Request for 

Comments’’ portion of the 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section 

below for instructions on submitting 

comments. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: If 

you have questions on this proposed 

rule, call or e-mail Petty Officer Corey 

McDonald, Waterways Management, 

U.S. Coast Guard Sector San Diego, 

Coast Guard; telephone 619–278–7262, 

e-mail Corey.R.McDonald@uscg.mil. If 

you have questions on viewing or 

submitting material to the docket, call 

Renee V. Wright, Program Manager, 

Docket Operations, telephone 202–366– 

9826. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Public Participation and Request for 

Comments 

We encourage you to participate in 

this rulemaking by submitting 

comments and related materials. All 

comments received will be posted 

without change to http:// 

www.regulations.gov and will include 

any personal information you have 

provided. 

Submitting Comments 

If you submit a comment, please 

include the docket number for this 

rulemaking (USCG–2010–0109), 

indicate the specific section of this 

document to which each comment 

applies, and provide a reason for each 

suggestion or recommendation. You 

may submit your comments and 

material online (via http:// 

www.regulations.gov) or by fax, mail, or 

hand delivery, but please use only one 

of these means. If you submit a 

comment online via 

www.regulations.gov, it will be 

considered received by the Coast Guard 

when you successfully transmit the 

comment. If you fax, hand deliver, or 

mail your comment, it will be 

considered as having been received by 

the Coast Guard when it is received at 

the Docket Management Facility. We 

recommend that you include your name 

and a mailing address, an e-mail 

address, or a telephone number in the 

body of your document so that we can 

contact you if we have questions 

regarding your submission. 

To submit your comment online, go to 

http://www.regulations.gov, click on the 

‘‘submit a comment’’ box, which will 

then become highlighted in blue. In the 

‘‘Document Type’’ drop down menu 

select ‘‘Proposed Rule’’ and insert 

‘‘USCG–2010–0109’’ in the ‘‘Keyword’’ 

box. Click ‘‘Search’’ then click on the 

balloon shape in the ‘‘Actions’’ column. 

If you submit your comments by mail or 

hand delivery, submit them in an 

unbound format, no larger than 81⁄2 by 

11 inches, suitable for copying and 

electronic filing. If you submit 

comments by mail and would like to 

know that they reached the Facility, 

please enclose a stamped, self-addressed 

postcard or envelope. We will consider 

all comments and material received 

during the comment period and may 

change the rule based on your 

comments. 

Viewing Comments and Documents 

To view comments, as well as 

documents mentioned in this preamble 

as being available in the docket, go to 

http://www.regulations.gov, click on the 

‘‘read comments’’ box, which will then 

become highlighted in blue. In the 

‘‘Keyword’’ box insert ‘‘USCG–2010– 

0109’’ and click ‘‘Search.’’ Click the 

‘‘Open Docket Folder’’ in the ‘‘Actions’’ 

column. You may also visit the Docket 

Management Facility in Room W12–140 

on the ground floor of the Department 

of Transportation West Building, 1200 

New Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, 

DC 20590, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., 

Monday through Friday, except Federal 

holidays. We have an agreement with 

the Department of Transportation to use 

the Docket Management Facility. 

Privacy Act 

Anyone can search the electronic 

form of comments received into any of 

our dockets by the name of the 

individual submitting the comment (or 

signing the comment, if submitted on 


sroberts on DSKD5P82C1PROD with PROPOSALS