1892 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 9 / Wednesday, January 14, 2009 / Rules and Regulations 

kits consisting of or containing APCP, 

black powder, or other similar low 

explosives, regardless of amount, do not 

fall within the ‘‘propellant actuated 

device’’ exception and are subject to all 

applicable Federal explosives controls 

pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 841 et seq., the 

regulations in part 555 of title 27 of the 

CFR, and applicable ATF policy. The 

Department believes that the rule will 

not have a significant impact on small 

businesses. Under the law and its 

implementing regulations, persons 

engaging in the business of 

manufacturing, importing, or dealing in 

explosive materials are required to be 

licensed (e.g., an initial fee of $200 for 

obtaining a dealer’s license for a 3-year 

period; $100 renewal fee for a 3-year 

period). Other persons who acquire or 

receive explosive materials are required 

to obtain a permit. Licensees and 

permittees must comply with the 

provisions of part 555, including those 

relating to storage and other safety 

requirements, as well as recordkeeping 

and theft-reporting requirements. This 

will not change upon the effective date 

of this rule. 

Rocket motors containing 62.5 grams 

or less of explosive propellants (e.g., 

APCP) and reload kits that can be used 

only in the assembly of a rocket motor 

containing a total of no more than 62.5 

grams of propellant are exempt from 

regulation, including permitting and 

storage requirements. Typically, rocket 

motors containing more than 62.5 grams 

of explosive propellant would be 

required to be stored in a type-4 

magazine that costs approximately $400; 

however, this rule does not impact 

ATF’s storage requirements, nor does it 

affect the applicability of ATF’s 62.5- 

gram exemption. 

E. Small Business Regulatory 

Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 

This rule is not a major rule as 

defined by section 251 of the Small 

Business Regulatory Enforcement 

Fairness Act of 1996. 5 U.S.C. 804. This 

rule will not result in an annual effect 

on the economy of $100 million or 

more; a major increase in costs or prices; 

or significant adverse effects on 

competition, employment, investment, 

productivity, innovation, or the ability 

of United States-based companies to 

compete with foreign-based companies 

in domestic and export markets. 

F. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 

1995 

This rule will not result in the 

expenditure by State, local, and tribal 

governments, in the aggregate, or by the 

private sector, of $100 million 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. 

G. Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 

This rule does not impose any new 

reporting or recordkeeping requirements 

under the Paperwork Reduction Act. 

Disclosure 

Copies of the notice of proposed 

rulemaking, all comments received in 

response to the NPRM, and this rule 

will be available for public inspection 

by appointment during normal business 

hours at: ATF Reading Room, Room 1E– 

063, 99 New York Avenue, NE., 

Washington, DC 20226; telephone: (202) 

648–7080. 

Drafting Information 

The author of this document is James 

P. Ficaretta; Enforcement Programs and 

Services; Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, 

Firearms, and Explosives. 

List of Subjects in 27 CFR Part 555 

Administrative practice and 

procedure, Authority delegations, 

Customs duties and inspection, 

Explosives, Hazardous materials, 

Imports, Penalties, Reporting and 

recordkeeping requirements, Safety, 

Security measures, Seizures and 

forfeitures, Transportation, and 

Warehouses. 

Authority and Issuance 

■ Accordingly, for the reasons discussed 

in the preamble, 27 CFR part 555 is 

amended as follows: 

PART 555—COMMERCE IN 

EXPLOSIVES 

■ 1. The authority citation for 27 CFR 

part 555 continues to read as follows: 

Authority: 18 U.S.C. 847. 

■ 2. Section 555.11 is amended by 

revising the definition for ‘‘Propellant 

actuated device’’ to read as follows: 

§ 555.11 Meaning of terms. 

* * * * * 

Propellant actuated device. (a) Any 

tool or special mechanized device or gas 

generator system that is actuated by a 

propellant or which releases and directs 

work through a propellant charge. 

(b) The term does not include— 

(1) Hobby rocket motors consisting of 

ammonium perchlorate composite 

propellant, black powder, or other 

similar low explosives, regardless of 

amount; and 

(2) Rocket-motor reload kits that can 

be used to assemble hobby rocket 

motors containing ammonium 

perchlorate composite propellant, black 

powder, or other similar low explosives, 

regardless of amount. 

* * * * * 

Dated: January 7, 2009. 

Michael B. Mukasey, 

Attorney General. 

[FR Doc. E9–578 Filed 1–13–09; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4410–FY–P 

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE 

Bureau of Prisons 

28 CFR Parts 545 and 550 

[Docket Nos. BOP–1093–F; BOP–1109–F; 

BOP–1139–F] 

RIN 1120–AA88; RIN 1120–AB07; RIN 1120– 

AB41 

Drug Abuse Treatment Program: 

Subpart Revision and Clarification and 

Eligibility of D.C. Code Felony 

Offenders for Early Release 

Consideration 

AGENCY: Bureau of Prisons, Justice. 

ACTION: Final rule. 

SUMMARY: In this document, the Bureau 

of Prisons (Bureau) finalizes three 

proposed rules on the drug abuse 

treatment program. Finalizing all three 

proposed rules together results in a 

more uniform and comprehensive 

revision of our drug abuse treatment 

program (DATP) regulations. 

Specifically, this amendment will 

streamline and clarify these regulations, 

eliminating unnecessary text and 

obsolete language, and removing 

internal agency procedures that need 

not be in rules text. 

This rule clarifies the distinction 

between mandatory and voluntary 

participation in the drug abuse 

education course, removes eligibility 

limitations pertaining to cognitive 

impairments and learning disabilities, 

and addresses the effects of nonparticipation both in the drug abuse 

education course and in the residential 

drug abuse treatment program (RDAP). 

In this rule, we also add escape and 

attempted escape to the list of reasons 

an inmate may be expelled from the 

RDAP. Furthermore, in our regulation 

on considering inmates for early release, 

we remove obsolete language, add as 

ineligible for early release inmates with 

a prior felony or misdemeanor 

conviction for arson or kidnapping, and 

clarify that inmates cannot earn early 

release twice. 

DATES: This rule is effective on March 

16, 2009. 


sroberts on PROD1PC70 with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 9 / Wednesday, January 14, 2009 / Rules and Regulations 1893 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Sarah Qureshi, Office of General 

Counsel, Bureau of Prisons, phone (202) 

307–2105, e-mail 

BOPRULES@BOP.GOV. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: In this 

document, the Bureau of Prisons 

(Bureau) finalizes three proposed rules. 

The first was published on September 

20, 2000 (65 FR 56840) (the 2000 

proposed rule), and the second was 

published on July 1, 2004 (69 FR 39887) 

(the 2004 proposed rule). The third, 

published on November 2, 2006, 

proposed to revise 28 CFR 550.55(a) of 

the 2004 proposed rule to extend early 

release consideration to D.C. Code 

felony offenders pursuant to D.C. Code 

§ 24–403.01 (71 FR 64507) (the 2006 

proposed rule). 

In this rule, we merge the three 

proposed rules, which will result in a 

more uniform and comprehensive 

revision of our DATP regulations. We 

discuss our responses to comments 

received for the three proposed rules 

separately. 

The 2000 Proposed Rule 

The 2000 rule proposed amendments 

to requirements for the drug abuse 

education course and participation in 

the RDAP. In these rules, we finalize the 

changes we proposed with regard to the 

regulations on the Drug Abuse 

Education Course (new § 550.51), the 

institution RDAP (new § 550.53), 

eligibility for performance pay (new 

§ 545.25), and incentives for 

participation (new § 550.54). 

This rule clarifies the distinction 

between mandatory and voluntary 

participation in the drug abuse 

education course, removes eligibility 

limitations pertaining to cognitive 

impairments and learning disabilities, 

and addresses the effects of nonparticipation both in the drug abuse 

education course and in the institution 

RDAP. 

For consistency, we also revise the 

consequences pertaining to work 

assignment pay in the provisions which 

pertain to the drug abuse education 

course. We amend our regulations on 

inmate work and performance pay (28 

CFR 545, subpart C) to conform with 

these requirements. 

Comments on the 2000 Proposed Rule 

Non-U.S. citizen inmates. One 

commenter was concerned that we 

routinely deny access to the Drug Abuse 

Treatment Program (DATP) to ‘‘non-U.S. 

citizens.’’ The Bureau does not deny 

drug abuse treatment to inmates based 

on their citizenship. Instead, we offer 

several program options, such as a drug 

abuse education course or nonresidential drug abuse treatment to 

inmates who have drug problems but 

who do not otherwise meet the 

admission criteria for the RDAP. These 

options are currently available for ‘‘nonU.S. citizen’’ inmates. 

However, in light of the commenter’s 

misunderstanding of our proposed rule, 

we do make a revision to clarify our 

intent. Section 550.53(b) stated that, 

‘‘[u]pon the expiration of their sentence, 

inmates are eligible to be transported 

only to the place of conviction or legal 

residence within the United States or its 

territories.’’ We do not intend this 

section to be understood to exclude 

non-U.S. citizens. We intended only 

that participants must be capable of 

completing each of the three 

components of the RDAP program (the 

unit-based component, follow-up 

services, and the transitional drug abuse 

treatment component) when they begin 

the program. We have therefore clarified 

this language in the regulation. 

Treatment for inmates who 

voluntarily participate. A commenter 

believed that the DATP incentives and 

program are limited to ‘‘individuals who 

may not seek therapy otherwise,’’ and 

asks us to ‘‘include those inmates who 

have taken it up on [sic] themselves to 

seek therapy.’’ 

This commenter mistakenly believes 

that we routinely deny participation to 

certain inmates. However, inmates who 

volunteer for the drug program and 

otherwise meet the admission 

requirements can enter the DATP. The 

program is not limited to only those 

inmates whom staff designate for 

treatment. 

Delay in getting inmates into DATP. A 

commenter complained that inmates 

who wish to participate remain too long 

on waiting lists. 

Currently, the Bureau has over 7000 

inmates waiting for residential 

treatment that is provided with limited 

Bureau resources. Also, inmates are 

selected for admission based on their 

proximity to release. Unfortunately, 

these two factors result in some inmates 

being on the waiting list for a long time. 

Drug abuse documentation. One 

commenter complained that it is unfair 

for inmates who want to participate in 

the drug abuse program to be rejected 

because ‘‘drug abuse was not in their 

PSI or * * * they did not have 

documentation from a doctor.’’ 

Because the early release is such a 

powerful incentive, as evidenced by 

over 7000 inmates waiting to enter 

treatment, the Bureau must take 

appropriate measures to ensure that 

inmates requesting treatment actually 

have a substance abuse problem that can 

be verified with documentation. For 

those inmates who want treatment but 

do not have the requisite documentation 

to enter the RDAP, non-residential 

counseling services are available and 

encouraged. However, because we find 

it necessary to require documentation of 

drug abuse problems as a criterion for 

RDAP participation, we are not altering 

this requirement in the final rule. 

Adding other incentives. Finally, with 

regard to a regulation on incentives for 

program participation, which was 

proposed in the 2000 rule, two 

commenters requested that we add other 

possible incentives, such as vocational 

training. However, residential drug 

program completers are always 

encouraged to improve their educational 

and vocational training when possible. 

Vocational training, as an incentive, and 

enhancing skills in a trade are covered 

by other Bureau policies and 

regulations. 

The commenters suggested possible 

‘‘incentives’’ that are already part of 

other regulations which have other 

benefits for participation, such as the 

Bureau’s Good Conduct Time 

regulations (28 CFR part 523), the 

Education regulations (28 CFR part 544), 

and Federal Prison Industries Inmate 

Work Programs (28 CFR part 345). 

Because we already provide these 

benefits in other regulations, we need 

not reiterate them or use them as 

incentives for drug abuse treatment. 

Also, the commenters recommended 

that, if we were not going to provide the 

enhanced incentives they 

recommended, that the incentives 

proposed in the regulation should be 

eliminated. The commenters suggested 

that the incentives we proposed were 

essentially meaningless and did not 

provide real motivation to voluntarily 

participate in the program. 

In anticipation of the incentives 

program, the Bureau conducted pilot 

programs to determine the usefulness of 

the enhanced incentives. As a follow 

up, we conducted focus groups of 

inmates at several institutions. The 

results of the pilot programs and the 

focus groups showed that the majority 

of inmates considered the enhanced 

incentives to be motivational. After 

internal deliberation, we have 

determined that the proposed incentives 

will encourage further inmate 

participation in the drug abuse 

treatment programs, contrary to the 

commenters’ suggestions. We therefore 

retain the proposed new incentives in 

the final rule. 

Further, these incentives work in 

tandem with new § 550.53(h)(1), which 

provides disincentives for noncompletion. This section states that if 


sroberts on PROD1PC70 with RULES
1894 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 9 / Wednesday, January 14, 2009 / Rules and Regulations 

inmates refuse to participate in RDAP, 

withdraw, or are otherwise removed 

from RDAP, they are not eligible for 

furloughs (other than possibly an 

emergency furlough); performance pay 

above maintenance pay level, bonus 

pay, or vacation pay; and/or Federal 

Prison Industries work program 

assignments (unless the Warden makes 

an exception on the basis of work 

program labor needs). 

Each of these three privileges are 

available for inmates to earn through 

various forms of good behavior, 

including participation in RDAP. It 

would be inconsistent to award an 

inmate a privilege in one area, such as 

a furlough, special pay, or special work 

assignment, if the inmate has 

demonstrated poor behavior in other 

areas, such as refusal, withdrawal, or 

removal from RDAP. The Bureau’s 

furlough regulations state that an inmate 

is only eligible for a furlough if, among 

other things, the inmate ‘‘has 

demonstrated sufficient responsibility to 

provide reasonable assurance that 

furlough requirements will be met’’ 

(§ 570.34(d)). If an inmate refuses to 

participate in drug treatment, 

withdraws, or is removed from drug 

treatment, the inmate does not 

demonstrate the level of responsibility 

necessary to qualify for a furlough. 

Additionally, the Bureau has similar 

disincentives in the literacy program: 

§ 544.74 provides that inmates who do 

not participate as required in the 

literacy program may not earn incentive 

pay or receive special work 

assignments. Similarly, the 

disincentives provided in § 550.53(h)(1), 

work with the incentives described 

above to maximize encouragement of 

inmates to participate in drug abuse 

treatment as necessary. 

The 2004 Proposed Rule 

The 2004 proposed rule streamlined 

and clarified the regulations on the drug 

abuse treatment program, eliminating 

unnecessary text and obsolete language 

and removing internal agency 

procedures that need not be in rules 

text. 

In this rule, we added escape and 

attempted escape to the list of reasons 

an inmate may be expelled from the 

Residential Drug Abuse Treatment 

Program (RDAP). We also clarified 

language describing ‘‘withdrawal/ 

expulsion’’ by reorganizing and 

breaking block paragraphs into smaller 

subdivisions. Essentially, inmates will 

be removed from RDAP for the reasons 

given in § 550.53(g) because allowing 

the participation of inmates who 

commit serious prohibited acts 

involving the use of alcohol or drugs, 

violence or threats of violence, escape or 

attempted escape, or any of the highest 

severity (100-level series) prohibited 

acts, would undermine the spirit and 

intent of the Bureau’s drug abuse 

treatment programs, minimize the 

seriousness of these offenses, and 

threaten the safety, security, and good 

order of the institution. 

Further, the commission of these 

types of prohibited acts is a violation of 

the trust given to inmates who are 

admitted into RDAP. An inmate who is 

found to have committed any of these 

prohibited acts demonstrates a 

propensity to impede or disrupt not 

only his/her own progress in 

overcoming a drug abuse problem, but, 

potentially, the progress of other 

inmates who are making a true effort to 

succeed in the program. Providing such 

consequences for these types of 

prohibited acts would be greater 

disincentive to commit such acts. 

Also in the 2004 proposed rule, we (1) 

deleted obsolete language, (2) added as 

ineligible for early release inmates with 

a prior felony or misdemeanor 

conviction for arson or kidnaping, and 

(3) clarified that inmates cannot earn an 

early release twice. 

Title 18 U.S.C. 3621(e) provides the 

Director of the Bureau of Prisons the 

discretion to grant an early release of up 

to one year upon the successful 

completion of a residential drug abuse 

treatment program. The regulation 

[550.55(b)(4)(i)–(vii)] provides that an 

inmate who has a prior misdemeanor or 

felony conviction for homicide, forcible 

rape, robbery, aggravated assault, arson, 

kidnaping, or child sexual abuse will 

not be eligible for early release. 

In exercising the Director’s statutory 

discretion, we considered the crimes of 

homicide, forcible rape, robbery, 

aggravated assault, arson, and 

kidnaping, as identified in the FBI’s 

Uniform Crime Reporting Program 

(UCR), which is a collective effort of 

city, county, state, tribal, and federal 

law enforcement agencies to present a 

nationwide view on crime. The 

definitions of these terms were 

developed for the National IncidentBased Reporting System and are 

identified in the UCR due to their 

inherently violent nature and particular 

dangerousness to the public. 

The Director of the Bureau exercises 

discretion to deny early release 

eligibility to inmates who have a prior 

felony or misdemeanor conviction for 

these offenses because commission of 

such offenses rationally reflects the 

view that such inmates displayed 

readiness to endanger the public. 

Likewise, we also deny early release 

eligibility to inmates who have a prior 

felony or misdemeanor conviction for 

an offense that involves sexual abuse 

committed against minors. Like the 

offenses identified in the UCR, sexual 

abuse offenses committed against 

minors exhibit a particular 

dangerousness to the public and often 

entail violent or threatening elements 

that resonate with victims and the 

community as a whole. Because of this, 

the Director has chosen to use his 

discretion to exclude offenders of these 

offenses from early release 

consideration. 

The Director’s rationale was mirrored 

by the enactment of the Adam Walsh 

Child Protection and Safety Act of 2006 

(Walsh Act). The Walsh Act specifically 

expanded the definition of ‘‘sex offense’’ 

to include ‘‘a criminal offense that is a 

specified offense against a minor’’ and 

to include all offenses by ‘‘child 

predators.’’ Public Law 109–248, section 

111, 120 Stat. 587, 591–92 (2006). The 

Walsh Act also expanded the National 

Sex Offender Registry by integrating the 

information in state sex offender registry 

systems to ensure that law enforcement 

has access to the same information 

across the United States. Section 113, 

120 Stat. at 593–94; see also 2006 

U.S.C.C.A.N. S35, S36. This evidences 

the intent of Congress to encompass any 

offense relating to minors that involves 

sexual conduct, and to limit public 

exposure, including early release 

opportunities, to inmates found to have 

these types of offenses in their 

backgrounds. We therefore deny early 

release eligibility to such inmates in 

conformance with Congressional intent 

and recognition of the seriousness of 

such offenses. 

Also, in the new rule, we added 

language to exempt from early release 

consideration inmates who previously 

earned early release under 18 U.S.C. 

3621(e) for the following reasons: As we 

stated in the preamble to the 2004 rule, 

Congress created the early release 

incentive to motivate drug-addicted 

inmates to enter residential drug abuse 

treatment who would not do so without 

this incentive. However, in our 

discretion, it is not appropriate to 

provide this incentive for inmates who 

completed RDAP, gained early release, 

but failed to remain drug and crime free. 

To provide this incentive to the same 

inmate twice would be counter to our 

drug treatment philosophy that inmates 

must be held accountable for their 

actions when released to the 

community. Allowing inmates the 

opportunity to receive early release 

twice would undermine the seriousness 

of the inmate’s offense, and essentially 

benefit recidivists. 


sroberts on PROD1PC70 with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 9 / Wednesday, January 14, 2009 / Rules and Regulations 1895 

It is arguable that recidivists have 

additional needs for drug abuse 

treatment programming. We therefore 

note that such inmates may still receive 

drug treatment, even if they have 

already been through the Bureau’s 

programs and received early release. 

This provision does not prevent an 

inmate from receiving further treatment 

programming. It simply removes early 

release as an incentive for further 

treatment. 

Comments on the 2004 Proposed Rule 

Award time off up to a year. One 

commenter recommended that the 

Bureau should, instead of giving a year 

off, award time off up to a year based 

on the inmate’s level of dedication to 

their sobriety, as determined by a 

council consisting of the local DAP 

Coordinator and specialists. 

In fact, we award time off of ‘‘up to’’ 

a year, based on several factors, 

including the inmate’s level of 

dedication to sobriety. Title 18 U.S.C. 

3621(e)(2)(B) gives the Bureau the 

discretion to reduce the period of 

incarceration for an inmate who 

successfully completes the drug abuse 

treatment program, but ‘‘such reduction 

may not be more than one year.’’ In 

§ 550.55(c), we have chosen to exercise 

this discretion by awarding early release 

based on successful completion of the 

program, the length of sentence imposed 

by the Court, and fulfillment of the 

inmate’s community-based treatment 

obligations by the presumptive release 

date. 

In § 550.55(c)(2), we add language 

explaining that, under the Director’s 

discretion allowed by 18 U.S.C. 3621(e), 

we may limit early release based upon 

the length of sentence imposed by the 

Court. We add this provision to adhere 

to the Court’s intent in determining the 

length of the sentence. An early release 

of a substantial period of time (e.g., 

twelve months) for relatively short 

sentences would diminish the 

seriousness of the offense and unduly 

undercut the sentencing court’s punitive 

intent, as manifested in the length of the 

sentence imposed. 

Also, as part of a general review 

undertaken to measure successful 

completion of the treatment program, 

the Bureau takes into consideration the 

inmate’s ‘‘level of dedication to their 

sobriety,’’ and the determination of 

successful completion of the treatment 

program is made by the local DAP 

coordinator and other specialists, just as 

the commenter recommends. 

Allowing all inmates to participate in 

drug treatment. The second commenter 

recommended that all inmates, not just 

those qualifying under our early release 

regulation, be allowed to participate in 

the drug abuse treatment program and 

be eligible for and receive a year off. 

Title 18 U.S.C. 3621(e) only 

authorizes the Bureau to extend drug 

abuse treatment participation and 

eligibility for early release to inmates 

with ‘‘a substance abuse problem,’’ not 

to all inmates. Although, by statute, 

inmates without a substance abuse 

problem may not have the opportunity 

for early release consideration, § 550.52 

allows all inmates to participate in nonresidential drug abuse treatment 

services. In the new rule, we remove 

several pre-existing eligibility 

requirements for the program to make it 

more inclusive. 

Early release eligibility of inmates 

convicted of an offense involving a 

firearm. The second commenter also 

recommended that § 550.55(b)(5)(ii) be 

altered so that inmates convicted of an 

offense that involved the carrying or 

possession (but not use) of a firearm or 

other dangerous weapon or explosives 

would be eligible for early release 

consideration. The commenter further 

recommended that § 550.55(b)(5)(iii) be 

deleted, granting eligibility for early 

release consideration to inmates 

convicted of an offense that, by its 

nature or conduct, presents a serious 

potential risk of physical force against 

the person or property of another. 

Under 18 U.S.C. 3621(e), the Bureau 

has the discretion to determine 

eligibility for early release consideration 

(See Lopez v. Davis, 531 U.S. 230 

(2001)). The Director of the Bureau 

exercises discretion to deny early 

release eligibility to inmates who have 

a felony conviction for the offenses 

listed in § 550.55(b)(5)(i)–(iv) because 

commission of such offenses illustrates 

a readiness to endanger the public. 

Denial of early release to all inmates 

convicted of these offenses rationally 

reflects the view that, in committing 

such offenses, these inmates displayed a 

readiness to endanger another’s life. 

The Director of the Bureau, in his 

discretion, chooses to preclude from 

early release consideration inmates 

convicted of offenses involving carrying, 

possession or use of a firearm and 

offenses that present a serious risk of 

physical force against person or 

property, as described in 

§ 550.55(b)(5)(ii) and (iii). Further, in 

the correctional experience of the 

Bureau, the offense conduct of both 

armed offenders and certain recidivists 

suggests that they pose a particular risk 

to the public. There is a significant 

potential for violence from criminals 

who carry, possess or use firearms. As 

the Supreme Court noted in Lopez v. 

Davis, ‘‘denial of early release to all 

inmates who possessed a firearm in 

connection with their current offense 

rationally reflects the view that such 

inmates displayed a readiness to 

endanger another’s life.’’ Id. at 240. The 

Bureau adopts this reasoning. The 

Bureau recognizes that there is a 

significant potential for violence from 

criminals who carry, possess or use 

firearms while engaged in felonious 

activity. Thus, in the interest of public 

safety, these inmates should not be 

released months in advance of 

completing their sentences. 

It is important to note that these 

inmates are not precluded from 

participating in the drug abuse 

treatment program. However, these 

inmates are not eligible for early release 

consideration because the specified 

elements of these offenses pose a 

significant threat of dangerousness or 

violent behavior to the public. This 

threat presents a potential safety risk to 

the public if inmates who have 

demonstrated such behavior are 

released to the community prematurely. 

Also, early release would undermine the 

seriousness of these offenses as reflected 

by the length of the sentence which the 

court deemed appropriate to impose. 

The 2006 proposed rule. The 

proposed rule published in 2006 

modified § 550.55(a) from the 2004 

proposed rule to state that inmates may 

be eligible for early release by a period 

not to exceed twelve months if they 

were sentenced to a term of 

imprisonment under either 18 U.S.C. 

Chapter 227, Subchapter D for a 

nonviolent offense, or D.C. Code 

§ 24–403.01 for a nonviolent offense, 

meaning an offense other than those in 

D.C. Code § 23–1331(4). There was no 

further change to the provisions in the 

2004 rule. 

The National Capital Revitalization 

and Self-Government Improvement Act 

of 1997, approved August 5, 1997, (Pub. 

L. 105–33; 111 Stat. 740) 

(‘‘Revitalization Act’’) dictates that D.C. 

Code felony offenders ‘‘shall be subject 

to any law or regulation applicable to 

persons committed for violations of 

laws of the United States consistent 

with the sentence imposed, and the 

Bureau of Prisons shall be responsible 

for the custody, care, subsistence, 

education, treatment and training of 

such persons.’’ D.C. Code § 24–101(b). 

Therefore, as with federal offenders, it is 

also within the Director’s discretion, as 

provided by 18 U.S.C. 3621(e), to 

determine D.C. Code felony offenders’ 

eligibility for early release according to 

the same criteria used for federal 

offenders. 


sroberts on PROD1PC70 with RULES
1896 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 9 / Wednesday, January 14, 2009 / Rules and Regulations 

Comments on the 2006 Proposed Rule 

We received three comments to the 

2006 proposed rule. One was in support 

of the regulation. We address issues 

raised by the other two commenters 

below. 

One commenter was concerned that 

there existed ‘‘literal disparity between 

the regulation as proposed and the plain 

language’’ of the D.C. Code, suggesting 

that § 550.55(a)(1)(ii) ‘‘track the 

statutory language of D.C. Code section 

24–403.01(d)(2) so as to prevent any 

current and more likely future conflict 

and confusion.’’ 

Section 550.55(a)(1)(ii) states that 

inmates may be eligible for early release 

by a period not to exceed twelve months 

if they were sentenced to a term of 

imprisonment ‘‘under D.C. Code § 24– 

403.01 for a nonviolent offense, 

meaning an offense other than those in 

D.C. Code § 23–1331(4).’’ D.C. Code 

§ 23–1331(4) begins with the phrase ‘‘(4) 

The term ‘crime of violence’ means’’ 

and then lists crimes that would 

constitute crimes of violence. 

The Bureau’s regulation language at 

§ 550.55(a)(1)(ii) is ‘‘offense other than 

those in D.C. Code § 23–1331(4).’’ The 

commenter wishes us to change this to 

‘‘offense other than those included 

within the definition of ‘crime of 

violence’ in D.C. Code § 23–1331(4),’’ to 

more closely track the language of D.C. 

Code § 24–403.01. We have changed this 

language accordingly. 

The second commenter was 

concerned that ‘‘[a]llowing the DC [sic] 

Superior Court inmates to get time off 

will only increase the number of serious 

attitude inmates in the program. These 

will be additional inmates who will not 

be expelled from the program for 

misconduct or lack of programming 

because it will mess up the statistics.’’ 

While the Revitalization Act 

authorizes the Bureau to expand the 

early release option to include D.C. 

Code felony offenders in Bureau 

custody, eligibility for participation in 

the Bureau’s drug abuse treatment 

programs remains the same. In other 

words, any inmate with a verified 

substance use disorder (§ 550.53(b)(1)) 

can be placed on the waiting list to 

receive drug treatment, but they will not 

receive early release unless they are 

eligible for that incentive. D.C. Code 

felony offenders are now eligible under 

the statute to receive early release for 

participation in drug treatment. 

Therefore, this regulation will result in 

D.C. Code felony offenders having a 

greater incentive for participation 

because of the new applicability of the 

early release option. For that reason, the 

number of D.C. Code felony offenders 

eligible for participation in the program 

may increase, but despite that, the 

Bureau does not anticipate significant 

change to any misconduct in the 

program or increase in other issues 

related to the program. 

The Revitalization Act dictates that 

D.C. Code felony offenders ‘‘shall be 

subject to any law or regulation 

applicable to persons committed for 

violations of laws of the United States 

consistent with the sentence imposed, 

and the Bureau of Prisons shall be 

responsible for the custody, care, 

subsistence, education, treatment and 

training of such persons.’’ D.C. Code 

section 24–101(b). 

D.C. Code § 24–403.01(d-1), amended 

on May 24, 2005, states that D.C. Code 

felony offenders sentenced under D.C. 

Code § 24–403.01 for a nonviolent 

offense are eligible for early release 

consideration in accordance with 18 

U.S.C. 3621(e)(2). Accordingly, the 

Director now extends early release 

eligibility pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 

3621(e)(2) to D.C. Code felony offenders 

for successful completion of the RDAP. 

Second Chance Act Changes 

The Second Chance Act of 2007, 

approved April 9, 2008, (Pub. L. 110– 

199; 122 Stat. 657) (‘‘Second Chance 

Act’’), section 231(a)(2)(A), states that, 

‘‘incentives for a prisoner who 

participates in reentry and skills 

development programs * * * may, at 

the discretion of the Director, include 

* * * the maximum allowable period in 

a community confinement facility.’’ 

Further, section 251 of the Second 

Chance Act amends 18 U.S.C. 3624(c) to 

require that the Director must, ‘‘to the 

extent practicable, ensure that a 

prisoner serving a term of imprisonment 

spends a portion of the final months of 

that term (not to exceed twelve months), 

under conditions that will afford the 

prisoner a reasonable opportunity to 

adjust to and prepare for the reentry of 

that prisoner into the community.’’ 

The Second Chance Act, section 251, 

also amends 18 U.S.C. 3624(c)(6) to 

require the Bureau to issue regulations 

reflecting these provisions ‘‘not later 

than 90 days after the date of the 

enactment of the Second Chance Act of 

2007 * * *.’’ In compliance with the 

Second Chance Act requirement 

regarding the timely issuance of revised 

regulations, we make the following two 

changes to the final regulation text. Both 

of these changes will be beneficial to 

inmates, as they will allow the Bureau 

to consider potentially longer periods of 

community confinement than 

previously contemplated by these 

regulations. 

First, we remove a reference in 

§ 550.53(h)(1)(ii) which stated that an 

inmate who is expelled from the RDAP, 

withdraws from the RDAP, or refuses to 

participate, is not eligible for ‘‘[m]ore 

than 90 days community-based program 

placement.’’ Because section 251 of the 

Second Chance Act contemplates a 

maximum allowable time of up to 

twelve months, we add a new provision 

(subparagraph (2)) which states that 

refusal, withdrawal, and/or expulsion 

will be a factor to consider in 

determining length of community 

confinement. This conforms with the 

Second Chance Act, section 231 

(a)(2)(A). We also make a conforming 

change to remove § 550.51(e)(1)(iii), 

which lists ineligibility for ‘‘community 

programs’’ as a consequence of nonparticipation in the drug abuse 

treatment course. The possibility of 

community confinement is a strong 

motivation for inmates to participate in 

drug treatment programs, as emphasized 

by several inmate comments to the 

previous proposed rules. Conversely, 

having a limitation imposed on 

community confinement as a possible 

consequence would strongly deter 

inmates from negative behavior which 

could jeopardize the effectiveness of 

their drug treatment. 

Second, we remove a parenthetical 

reference in § 550.54(a)(1)(ii) which 

states that the ‘‘maximum period of 

time’’ allowable ‘‘in a community-based 

treatment program’’ is 180 days. This 

reference also conflicted with section 

251 of the Second Chance Act, as 

explained above. 

Additionally, section 252 of the 

Second Chance Act amended 18 U.S.C. 

3621(e)(5)(A) to describe residential 

drug abuse treatment as ‘‘a course of 

individual and group activities and 

treatment, lasting at least 6 months 

* * *.’’ Section 252 therefore 

authorizes the Bureau to offer a 

residential drug abuse treatment course 

lasting ‘‘at least six months,’’ but leaves 

it in the discretion of the Director 

whether to expand it beyond six 

months. We therefore alter § 550.53 

(a)(1) to conform to the specific 

language of the Second Chance Act. 

That regulation will reflect that the unitbased component of the residential drug 

abuse treatment program should last for 

‘‘at least six months.’’ 

Technical Change 

We make one minor change to 

§ 550.51, regarding drug abuse 

education course placement. In 

§ 550.51(b)(3)(iii), we previously 

indicated that inmates may not be 

considered for course placement if they 

complete a structured drug abuse 


sroberts on PROD1PC70 with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 9 / Wednesday, January 14, 2009 / Rules and Regulations 1897 

treatment program at one of the 

Bureau’s Intensive Confinement Centers 

(ICC). However, we published a final 

rule on July 11, 2008 (73 FR 39863) 

which removed Bureau rules on the 

intensive confinement center program 

(ICC). The ICC was a specialized 

program for non-violent offenders 

combining features of a military boot 

camp with traditional Bureau 

correctional values. Discontinuing this 

program was a decision made as part of 

an overall strategy to eliminate 

programs that do not reduce recidivism. 

Because the Bureau is no longer offering 

the ICC program (also known as Shock 

Incarceration or Boot Camp) to inmates 

as a program option, we remove it from 

the list of reasons that render inmates 

ineligible for the drug abuse treatment 

course. 

Executive Order 12866 

This regulation has been drafted and 

reviewed in accordance with Executive 

Order 12866, ‘‘Regulatory Planning and 

Review,’’ section 1(b), Principles of 

Regulation. The Director, Bureau of 

Prisons has determined that this rule is 

a ‘‘significant regulatory action’’ under 

Executive Order 12866, section 3(f), and 

accordingly this rule has been reviewed 

by the Office of Management and 

Budget. 

Executive Order 13132 

This regulation will not have 

substantial direct effects on the States, 

on the relationship between the national 

government and the States, or on 

distribution of power and 

responsibilities among the various 

levels of government. Under Executive 

Order 13132, this rule does not have 

sufficient federalism implications for 

which we would prepare 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. 

By approving it, the Director certifies 

that it will not have a significant 

economic impact upon a substantial 

number of small entities because: This 

rule is about the correctional 

management of offenders committed to 

the custody of the Attorney General or 

the Director of the Bureau of Prisons, 

and its economic impact is limited to 

the Bureau’s appropriated funds. 

Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 

1995 

This rule will not cause State, local 

and tribal governments, or the private 

sector, to spend $100,000,000 or more in 

any one year, and it will not 

significantly or uniquely affect small 

governments. We do not need to take 

action under the Unfunded Mandates 

Reform Act of 1995. 

Small Business Regulatory Enforcement 

Fairness Act of 1996 

This rule is not a major rule as 

defined by § 804 of the Small Business 

Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 

1996. This rule will not result in an 

annual effect on the economy of 

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

in costs or prices; or significant adverse 

effects on competition, employment, 

investment, productivity, innovation, or 

on the ability of United States-based 

companies to compete with foreignbased companies in domestic and 

export markets. 

List of Subjects 

28 CFR Part 545 

Employment, Prisoners. 

28 CFR Part 550 

Prisoners. 

Harley G. Lappin, 

Director, Bureau of Prisons. 

■ Under the 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 parts 545 and 550 as follows: 

PART 545—WORK AND 

COMPENSATION 

■ 1. The authority citation for 28 CFR 

part 545 is revised to read as follows: 

Authority: 5 U.S.C. 301; 18 U.S.C. 3013, 

3571, 3572, 3621, 3622, 3624, 3663, 4001, 

4042, 4081, 4082 (Repealed in part as to 

offenses committed on or after November 1, 

1987), 4126, 5006–5024 (Repealed October 

12, 1984 as to offenses committed after that 

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

■ 2. In § 545.25, revise paragraph (d) to 

read as follows: 

§ 545.25 Eligibility for performance pay. 

* * * * * 

(d) An inmate who refuses 

participation, withdraws, is expelled, or 

otherwise fails attendance requirements 

of the drug abuse education course or 

the RDAP is subject to the limitations 

specified in § 550.51(e) or § 550.53(g) of 

this chapter. 

* * * * * 

PART 550—DRUG PROGRAMS 

■ 3. The authority citation for part 550 

is revised to read as follows: 

Authority: 5 U.S.C. 301; 18 U.S.C. 3521– 

3528, 3621, 3622, 3624, 4001, 4042, 4046, 

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; 21 

U.S.C. 848; 28 U.S.C. 509, 510; Title V, Pub. 

L. 91–452, 84 Stat. 933 (18 U.S.C. Chapter 

223). 

Subpart F—Drug Abuse Treatment 

Program 

■ 4. Revise Subpart F to read as follows: 

Sec. 

550.50 Purpose and scope. 

550.51 Drug abuse education course. 

550.52 Non-residential drug abuse 

treatment services. 

550.53 Residential Drug Abuse Treatment 

Program (RDAP). 

550.54 Incentives for RDAP participation. 

550.55 Eligibility for early release. 

550.56 Community Transitional Drug 

Abuse Treatment Program (TDAT). 

550.57 Inmate appeals. 

§ 550.50 Purpose and scope. 

The purpose of this subpart is to 

describe the Bureau’s drug abuse 

treatment programs. All Bureau 

institutions have a drug abuse treatment 

specialist who, under the Drug Abuse 

Program Coordinator’s supervision, 

provides drug abuse education and nonresidential drug abuse treatment 

services to the inmate population. 

Institutions with residential drug abuse 

treatment programs (RDAP) should have 

additional drug abuse treatment 

specialists to provide treatment services 

in the RDAP unit. 

§ 550.51 Drug abuse education course. 

(a) Purpose of the drug abuse 

education course. All institutions 

provide a drug abuse education course 

to: 

(1) Inform inmates of the 

consequences of drug/alcohol abuse and 

addiction; and 

(2) Motivate inmates needing drug 

abuse treatment to apply for further 

drug abuse treatment, both while 

incarcerated and after release. 

(b) Course placement. (1) Inmates will 

get primary consideration for course 

placement if they were sentenced or 

returned to custody as a violator after 

September 30, 1991, when unit and/or 

drug abuse treatment staff determine, 

through interviews and file review that: 

(i) There is evidence that alcohol or 

other drug use contributed to the 

commission of the offense; 

(ii) Alcohol or other drug use was a 

reason for violation either of supervised 

release (including parole) or Bureau 

community status; 

(iii) There was a recommendation (or 

evaluation) for drug programming 

during incarceration by the sentencing 

judge; or 


sroberts on PROD1PC70 with RULES
1898 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 9 / Wednesday, January 14, 2009 / Rules and Regulations 

(iv) There is evidence of a history of 

alcohol or other drug use. 

(2) Inmates may also be considered for 

course placement if they request to 

participate in the drug abuse education 

program but do not meet the criteria of 

paragraph (b)(1) of this section. 

(3) Inmates may not be considered for 

course placement if they: 

(i) Do not have enough time 

remaining to serve to complete the 

course; or 

(ii) Volunteer for, enter or otherwise 

complete a RDAP. 

(c) Consent. Inmates will only be 

admitted to the drug abuse education 

course if they agree to comply with all 

Bureau requirements for the program. 

(d) Completion. To complete the drug 

abuse education course, inmates must 

attend and participate during course 

sessions and pass a final course exam. 

Inmates will ordinarily have at least 

three chances to pass the final course 

exam before they lose privileges or the 

effects of non-participation occur (see 

paragraph (e) of this section). 

(e) Effects of non-participation. (1) If 

inmates considered for placement under 

paragraph (b)(1) of this section refuse 

participation, withdraw, are expelled, or 

otherwise fail to meet attendance and 

examination requirements, such 

inmates: 

(i) Are not eligible for performance 

pay above maintenance pay level, or for 

bonus pay, or vacation pay; and 

(ii) Are not eligible for a Federal 

Prison Industries work program 

assignment (unless the Warden makes 

an exception on the basis of work 

program labor needs). 

(2) The Warden may make exceptions 

to the provisions of this section for good 

cause. 

§ 550.52 Non-residential drug abuse 

treatment services. 

All institutions must have nonresidential drug abuse treatment 

services, provided through the 

institution’s Psychology Services 

department. These services are available 

to inmates who voluntarily decide to 

participate. 

§ 550.53 Residential Drug Abuse 

Treatment Program (RDAP). 

(a) RDAP. To successfully complete 

the RDAP, inmates must complete each 

of the following components: 

(1) Unit-based component. Inmates 

must complete a course of activities 

provided by drug abuse treatment 

specialists and the Drug Abuse Program 

Coordinator in a treatment unit set apart 

from the general prison population. This 

component must last at least six 

months. 

(2) Follow-up services. If time allows 

between completion of the unit-based 

component of the RDAP and transfer to 

a community-based program, inmates 

must participate in the follow-up 

services to the unit-based component of 

the RDAP. 

(3) Transitional drug abuse treatment 

(TDAT) component. Inmates who have 

completed the unit-based program and 

(when appropriate) the follow-up 

treatment and are transferred to 

community confinement must 

successfully complete community-based 

drug abuse treatment in a communitybased program to have successfully 

completed RDAP. The Warden, on the 

basis of his or her discretion, may find 

an inmate ineligible for participation in 

a community-based program. 

(b) Admission criteria. Inmates must 

meet all of the following criteria to be 

admitted into RDAP. 

(1) Inmates must have a verifiable 

substance use disorder. 

(2) Inmates must sign an agreement 

acknowledging program responsibility. 

(3) When beginning the program, the 

inmate must be able to complete all 

three components described in 

paragraph (a) of this section. 

(c) Application to RDAP. Inmates may 

apply for the RDAP by submitting 

requests to a staff member (ordinarily, a 

member of the unit team or the Drug 

Abuse Program Coordinator). 

(d) Referral to RDAP. Inmates will be 

identified for referral and evaluation for 

RDAP by unit or drug treatment staff. 

(e) Placement in RDAP. The Drug 

Abuse Program Coordinator decides 

whether to place inmates in RDAP 

based on the criteria set forth in 

paragraph (b) of this section. 

(f) Completing the unit-based 

component of RDAP. To complete the 

unit-based component of RDAP, inmates 

must: 

(1) Have satisfactory attendance and 

participation in all RDAP activities; and 

(2) Pass each RDAP testing procedure. 

Ordinarily, we will allow inmates who 

fail any RDAP exam to retest one time. 

(g) Expulsion from RDAP. (1) Inmates 

may be removed from the program by 

the Drug Abuse Program Coordinator 

because of disruptive behavior related to 

the program or unsatisfactory progress 

in treatment. 

(2) Ordinarily, inmates must be given 

at least one formal warning before 

removal from RDAP. A formal warning 

is not necessary when the documented 

lack of compliance with program 

standards is of such magnitude that an 

inmate’s continued presence would 

create an immediate and ongoing 

problem for staff and other inmates. 

(3) Inmates will be removed from 

RDAP immediately if the Discipline 

Hearing Officer (DHO) finds that they 

have committed a prohibited act 

involving: 

(i) Alcohol or drugs; 

(ii) Violence or threats of violence; 

(iii) Escape or attempted escape; or 

(iv) Any 100-level series incident. 

(4) We may return an inmate who 

withdraws or is removed from RDAP to 

his/her prior institution (if we had 

transferred the inmate specifically to 

participate in RDAP). 

(h) Effects of non-participation. (1) If 

inmates refuse to participate in RDAP, 

withdraw, or are otherwise removed, 

they are not eligible for: 

(i) A furlough (other than possibly an 

emergency furlough); 

(ii) Performance pay above 

maintenance pay level, bonus pay, or 

vacation pay; and/or 

(iii) A Federal Prison Industries work 

program assignment (unless the Warden 

makes an exception on the basis of work 

program labor needs). 

(2) Refusal, withdrawal, and/or 

expulsion will be a factor to consider in 

determining length of community 

confinement. 

(3) Where applicable, staff will notify 

the United States Parole Commission of 

inmates’ needs for treatment and any 

failure to participate in the RDAP. 

§ 550.54 Incentives for RDAP participation. 

(a) An inmate may receive incentives 

for his or her satisfactory participation 

in the RDAP. Institutions may offer the 

basic incentives described in paragraph 

(a)(1) of this section. Bureau-authorized 

institutions may also offer enhanced 

incentives as described in paragraph 

(a)(2) of this section. 

(1) Basic incentives. (i) Limited 

financial awards, based upon the 

inmate’s achievement/completion of 

program phases. 

(ii) Consideration for the maximum 

period of time in a community-based 

treatment program, if the inmate is 

otherwise eligible. 

(iii) Local institution incentives such 

as preferred living quarters or special 

recognition privileges. 

(iv) Early release, if eligible under 

§ 550.55. 

(2) Enhanced incentives. (i) Tangible 

achievement awards as permitted by the 

Warden and allowed by the regulations 

governing personal property (see 28 CFR 

part 553). 

(ii) Photographs of treatment 

ceremonies may be sent to the inmate’s 

family. 

(iii) Formal consideration for a nearer 

release transfer for medium and low 

security inmates. 


sroberts on PROD1PC70 with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 9 / Wednesday, January 14, 2009 / Rules and Regulations 1899 

(b) An inmate must meet his/her 

financial program responsibility 

obligations (see 28 CFR part 545) and 

GED responsibilities (see 28 CFR part 

544) before being able to receive an 

incentive for his/her RDAP 

participation. 

(c) If an inmate withdraws from or is 

otherwise removed from RDAP, that 

inmate may lose incentives he/she 

previously achieved. 

§ 550.55 Eligibility for early release. 

(a) Eligibility. Inmates may be eligible 

for early release by a period not to 

exceed twelve months if they: 

(1) Were sentenced to a term of 

imprisonment under either: 

(i) 18 U.S.C. Chapter 227, Subchapter 

D for a nonviolent offense; or 

(ii) D.C. Code § 24–403.01 for a 

nonviolent offense, meaning an offense 

other than those included within the 

definition of ‘‘crime of violence’’ in D.C. 

Code § 23–1331(4); and 

(2) Successfully complete a RDAP, as 

described in § 550.53, during their 

current commitment. 

(b) Inmates not eligible for early 

release. As an exercise of the Director’s 

discretion, the following categories of 

inmates are not eligible for early release: 

(1) Immigration and Customs 

Enforcement detainees; 

(2) Pretrial inmates; 

(3) Contractual boarders (for example, 

State or military inmates); 

(4) Inmates who have a prior felony or 

misdemeanor conviction for: 

(i) Homicide (including deaths caused 

by recklessness, but not including 

deaths caused by negligence or 

justifiable homicide); 

(ii) Forcible rape; 

(iii) Robbery; 

(iv) Aggravated assault; 

(v) Arson; 

(vi) Kidnaping; or 

(vii) An offense that by its nature or 

conduct involves sexual abuse offenses 

committed upon minors; 

(5) Inmates who have a current felony 

conviction for: 

(i) An offense that has as an element, 

the actual, attempted, or threatened use 

of physical force against the person or 

property of another; 

(ii) An offense that involved the 

carrying, possession, or use of a firearm 

or other dangerous weapon or 

explosives (including any explosive 

material or explosive device); 

(iii) An offense that, by its nature or 

conduct, presents a serious potential 

risk of physical force against the person 

or property of another; or 

(iv) An offense that, by its nature or 

conduct, involves sexual abuse offenses 

committed upon minors; 

(6) Inmates who have been convicted 

of an attempt, conspiracy, or other 

offense which involved an underlying 

offense listed in paragraph (b)(4) and/or 

(b)(5) of this section; or 

(7) Inmates who previously received 

an early release under 18 U.S.C. 3621(e). 

(c) Early release time-frame. (1) 

Inmates so approved may receive early 

release up to twelve months prior to the 

expiration of the term of incarceration, 

except as provided in paragraphs (c)(2) 

and (3) of this section. 

(2) Under the Director’s discretion 

allowed by 18 U.S.C. 3621(e), we may 

limit the time-frame of early release 

based upon the length of sentence 

imposed by the Court. 

(3) If inmates cannot fulfill their 

community-based treatment obligations 

by the presumptive release date, we may 

adjust provisional release dates by the 

least amount of time necessary to allow 

inmates to fulfill their treatment 

obligations. 

§ 550.56 Community Transitional Drug 

Abuse Treatment Program (TDAT). 

(a) For inmates to successfully 

complete all components of RDAP, they 

must participate in TDAT in the 

community. If inmates refuse or fail to 

complete TDAT, they fail the RDAP and 

are disqualified for any additional 

incentives. 

(b) Inmates with a documented drug 

abuse problem who did not choose to 

volunteer for RDAP may be required to 

participate in TDAT as a condition of 

participation in a community-based 

program, with the approval of the 

Transitional Drug Abuse Program 

Coordinator. 

(c) Inmates who successfully 

complete RDAP and who participate in 

transitional treatment programming at 

an institution must participate in such 

programming for at least one hour per 

month. 

§ 550.57 Inmate appeals. 

Inmates may seek formal review of 

complaints regarding the operation of 

the drug abuse treatment program by 

using administrative remedy procedures 

in 28 CFR part 542. 

[FR Doc. E9–593 Filed 1–13–09; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4410–05–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 52 

[EPA–R08–OAR–2007–1031; FRL–8754–7] 

Approval and Promulgation of Air 

Quality Implementation Plans; Utah’s 

Emission Inventory Reporting 

Requirements 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Direct final rule. 

SUMMARY: EPA is taking direct final 

action approving State Implementation 

Plan (SIP) revisions submitted by the 

State of Utah on September 7, 1999, and 

December 1, 2003. The revisions add the 

requirements of EPA’s Consolidated 

Emission Reporting Rule (CERR) to the 

State’s SIP. 

Utah has submitted four SIPs that 

relate to today’s action on the CERR 

requirements. The State of Utah 

submitted a SIP revision on September 

20, 1999, which did not make any 

substantive changes, but adopted a reorganization and renumbering of the air 

quality regulations. Although EPA is not 

acting on this particular submittal, EPA 

is approving and incorporating by 

reference rules using this new 

numbering scheme. Approving these 

rules rather than the earlier version will 

avoid confusion to the public and will 

obviate the need for future SIP revisions 

merely to renumber the SIP. In the 

remainder of this notice, we will refer 

to the rules by their current numbers, as 

reflected in the September 20, 1999 

submittal, unless the context dictates 

otherwise. 

EPA is acting on the submittal of 

September 7, 1999, which addresses 

inventory requirements for emissions 

from landfills. EPA is approving only 

the emission inventory requirement for 

larger landfills, located at Utah Rule 

R307–221–1 under the State’s new 

numbering system. As emissions from 

these larger landfills may exceed the 

emission reporting thresholds addressed 

in the CERR, Utah must include this 

information in its emission inventory 

report to EPA. The remainder of the 

September 7, 1999 revisions do not 

affect the State’s ability to comply with 

the CERR; therefore, EPA is not acting 

on them. 

The Governor submitted additional 

revisions to their air quality emission 

inventory rules on October 23, 2000, 

which addressed inventory 

requirements for ammonia emissions. 

These revisions are contrary to the 

CERR issued on June 10, 2002 and, 


sroberts on PROD1PC70 with RULES