101882 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 242 / Tuesday, December 17, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 

C. Discussion of Minor Edits to Section 

543.32(h) 

Upon further review of § 543.32(h), 

we decided to make two changes to that 

section to clarify the language and 

ensure it more closely aligns with the 

FTCA. The language of the second 

sentence to that section currently in 

effect via the interim final rule reads: ‘‘If 

you have not received a letter either 

proposing a settlement or denying your 

claim within six months after the date 

your claim was presented, you may 

assume your claim is denied.’’ The 

revised language included in the final 

rule reads: ‘‘If you have not received a 

letter denying your claim within six 

months after the date your claim was 

presented, you may deem the absence of 

a response to your claim as a denial.’’ 

The first change is to the first clause 

of the second sentence in section 

§ 543.32(h). We changed the language by 

removing the phrase ‘‘either proposing a 

settlement or’’ because we do not want 

to imply the Bureau’s proposal of a 

settlement within six months precludes 

the option of the claimant deeming a 

claim denied. As discussed more in the 

next paragraph, what triggers the option 

for the claimant to deem a claim denied 

and to file suit is the failure of an agency 

to make a final disposition of a claim 

within six months. Since a settlement 

offer is not a ‘‘final disposition,’’ it 

cannot serve to preclude the claimant 

from filing suit. 

The second change is to the second 

clause of the second sentence in 

§ 543.32(h). In reviewing our draft of the 

final rule, we determined that use of the 

word ‘‘assume’’ in the second sentence 

to § 543.32(h) was unnecessary and 

confusing inasmuch as the statute itself, 

28 U.S.C. 2675(a), does not mention 

‘‘assumptions.’’ That language confers 

upon the claimant the ‘‘option’’ to deem 

their claim finally denied; the claimant 

is not required to ‘‘assume’’ that the 

sending of a settlement proposal means 

they are not entitled to file suit if six 

months have elapsed since presentment. 

Instead, the claimant retains the option 

to continue negotiating with no statute 

of limitations penalty, or they may opt 

instead to ‘‘deem’’ the claim denied and 

pursue a lawsuit in federal court. 

II. Regulatory Analyses 

Executive Orders 12866, 13563 and 

14094. This rule does not fall within a 

category of actions that the Office of 

Management and Budget (OMB) has 

determined constitutes a ‘‘significant 

regulatory action’’ under section 3(f) of 

Executive Order 12866 and, 

accordingly, it was not reviewed by 

OMB. The economic impact of this final 

rule is limited to inmates in the custody 

of the Federal Bureau of Prisons. 

Executive Order 13132. This rule will 

not have substantial direct effect 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, the Bureau 

determines that this rule does not have 

sufficient federalism implications to 

warrant the preparation of a Federalism 

Assessment. 

Regulatory Flexibility Act. The 

Director of the Bureau of Prisons, under 

the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 

605(b)), reviewed this rule 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 

rule pertains to 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 result in the 

expenditure by State, local and tribal 

governments, in the aggregate, or by the 

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

in any one year, and it will not 

significantly or uniquely affect small 

governments. Therefore, no actions were 

deemed necessary under the provisions 

of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act 

of 1995. 

Congressional Review Act. This rule is 

a not major rule as defined by the 

Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 804. 

List of Subjects in 28 CFR Part 543 

Prisoners. 

Colette S. Peters, 

Director, Federal Bureau of Prisons. 

Under rulemaking authority vested in 

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

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

Director of the Bureau of Prisons in 28 

CFR 0.96, the Bureau finalizes with 

minor changes, the interim rule 

published on November 7, 2023, (88 FR 

76657) and the correction published on 

December 20, 2023 (88 FR 87903). 

PART 543—LEGAL MATTERS 

■ 1. The authority citation for 28 CFR 

part 543 continues to read as follows: 

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

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

in part as to offenses committed on or after 

November 1, 1987), 5006–5024 (Repealed 

October 12, 1984 as to Offenses committed 

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

1346(b), 2671–80; 28 CFR 0.95–0.99, 0.172, 

14.1–11. 

Subpart C—Federal Tort Claims Act 

■ 2. Revise § 543.32(h) to read as 

follows: 

§ 543.32 Processing the claim. 

* * * * * 

(h) Response timeline. Generally, you 

will receive a decision regarding your 

claim within six months of when you 

properly present the claim. If you have 

not received a letter denying your claim 

within six months after the date your 

claim was presented, you may deem the 

absence of a response to your claim as 

a denial. You may then proceed to file 

a lawsuit in the appropriate United 

States District Court. 

[FR Doc. 2024–29691 Filed 12–16–24; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4410–05–P 

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE 

Bureau of Prisons 

28 CFR Part 543 

[BOP–1175–F] 

RIN 1120–AB75 

Inmate Legal Activities: Visits by 

Attorneys 

AGENCY: Bureau of Prisons, Justice. 

ACTION: Final rule. 

SUMMARY: In this document, the Bureau 

of Prisons (‘‘Bureau’’ or ‘‘BOP’’) 

finalizes revisions to regulations related 

to attorney-client visits at BOP 

institutions. 

DATES: Effective December 17, 2024, 

BOP adopts the interim final rule 

published at 89 FR 8330 on Feb. 7, 

2024, as final without change. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Daniel J. Crooks III, Assistant General 

Counsel/Rules Administrator, Federal 

Bureau of Prisons, at (202) 353–4885. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

I. Background 

On February 7, 2024, BOP published 

an interim final rule that amended 

regulations related to attorney visits. 89 

FR 8330 (Feb. 7, 2024). The comment 

period closed on April 8, 2024, and we 

received six comments. Of those six 

comments, only two were related to the 

rule; each of those comments is 

discussed more fully below. Of the four 

unrelated comments, one noted 

generally that BOP should review its 

regulations annually for improvement; 

one was mistakenly posted to this 

docket instead of to the docket for 

another BOP rulemaking; another 

laments the general treatment of January 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with RULES1
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 242 / Tuesday, December 17, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 101883 

6 defendants; and the last advocates for 

revised regulations regarding clergy 

visits to BOP facilities. After 

consideration of the two relevant public 

comments, BOP is adopting the interim 

final rule on this subject without 

change. 

II. Discussion 

We received two relevant, substantive 

comments after publication of the 

interim final rule. Each comment is 

addressed below. 

Comment 1: The commenter states 

that the revised rule does not go far 

enough to address other means that 

facilitate attorney-client 

communications, emphasizing that the 

availability of private telephone calls is 

essential to facilitate attorney-client 

communications. The commenter gave 

several examples where inmates and 

their attorneys encountered difficulties 

obtaining approval from officials at BOP 

institutions for unmonitored telephone 

calls. However, the commenter did not 

address the specific changes to the 

regulation addressing in-person visits by 

attorneys. 

Response: BOP agrees that meaningful 

access to counsel includes reasonable 

access to unmonitored telephone calls 

to facilitate attorney-client 

communications. Through separate 

procedures, BOP enables confidential 

communications between an inmate and 

their attorney through legal visits, 

unmonitored telephone calls, and 

unmonitored legal correspondence. 

Title 28 CFR 540.102 and 540.103 

address unmonitored telephone calls, 

while 28 CFR 540.18 and 540.19 address 

unmonitored legal correspondence. 

However, the comment is out of scope 

as the interim final rule only addressed 

the procedures for in-person, 

confidential attorney visits as provided 

in Part 543, and did not address the 

different issue of rules applicable to 

telephone calls between inmates and 

their attorneys, which are in separate 

regulations at 28 CFR 540.102–540.103. 

To the extent the commenter’s 

suggestion is intended to be construed 

as a petition for rulemaking pursuant to 

5 U.S.C. 553(e), a comment to a rule 

pertaining to a different issue in a 

different set of regulations is not the 

proper mechanism to effectuate that 

provision. Individuals in BOP custody 

with individualized concerns or 

questions regarding the implementation 

of applicable regulations or policy are 

reminded of their rights to address such 

issues through the agency’s 

Administrative Remedy Program, as 

outlined at 28 CFR part 542 and in BOP 

Program Statement 1330.18 (available at 

www.bop.gov/policy). Thus, BOP 

concludes that no changes are needed in 

the final rule in light of this comment. 

Comment 2: The commenter states 

that the rule should address attorney 

visits for individuals located at 

administrative facilities in holdover 

status; that the rule does not address 

circumstances where a pretrial or 

unsentenced individual is in holdover 

status at a BOP institution that houses 

convicted individuals; that BOP’s 

explanation for the rule indicates that 

attorneys can visit a client in BOP 

custody like social visitors during 

normal visiting hours without advanced 

notice; that many attorneys are 

unwilling to be added to their client’s 

regular social visiting list and that some 

attorneys are unwilling to provide 

personally identifying information on 

the social visit application forms; and 

that BOP should clarify if attorneys can 

show up at an institution during normal 

social visiting hours for a visit in the 

common area (i.e., not in a private 

setting) without providing sensitive 

personal information. 

Response: As background, BOP is 

responsible for the custody and care of 

sentenced federal inmates, felony 

offenders convicted and sentenced to a 

term of imprisonment under the DC 

criminal code a number of state and 

military offenders who are housed on a 

contractual basis, and pretrial detainees 

and pre-sentenced offenders housed in 

BOP facilities on behalf of the United 

States Marshals Service (USMS). 

The USMS is responsible for the care 

and custody of individuals charged with 

a federal offense. Responsible for 

housing approximately 63,000 

detainees, the USMS acquires detention 

bedspace through agreements with state 

and local governments in addition to 

available BOP pretrial cells. 

Approximately 75 percent of the 

detainees in the custody of the USMS 

are detained in state, local, and private 

facilities; the remainder are housed in 

BOP facilities. Ordinarily, pretrial 

inmates in BOP custody are housed in 

administrative institutions including 

Metropolitan Detention Centers (MDCs), 

Federal Detention Centers (FDCs), and 

Metropolitan Correctional Centers 

(MCCs). These institutions may also 

house convicted inmates awaiting 

sentencing or movement to designated 

institutions, or sentenced inmates who 

require further court appearances. A 

small number of other BOP institutions 

also house pretrial inmates in specific 

units within the main facility or in jail 

units located in satellite buildings 

separate from the main facility. 

As explained in the preamble to the 

interim final rule, the prior version of 

§ 543.13(c) provided that, to schedule 

any legal visit at any BOP institution, an 

attorney must make an advance 

appointment for a visit through the 

warden, and that the warden must make 

every effort to accommodate a legal visit 

when prior notification is not 

practicable. That prior rule was 

promulgated on June 27, 1979. 

To clarify, the interim final rule 

updated § 543.13(c) to allow both 

scheduled and unscheduled attorney 

visits during designated attorney 

visitation hours at BOP institutions 

whose mission is to house pretrial 

detainees and unsentenced individuals. 

However, the rule retains the 

requirement that attorneys seeking to 

visit clients at BOP institutions whose 

mission is to house convicted 

individuals must make an advance 

appointment for a legal visit and that 

the warden must make every effort to 

accommodate a legal visit when prior 

notification is not practicable. 

Attorney visits for holdover inmates. 

The term ‘‘holdover’’ refers to 

individuals in BOP custody who are 

transferring from one BOP institution to 

another. These individuals are 

categorized as being in holdover status 

until they arrive at the institution to 

which they are officially designated. 

The interim final rule did nothing more 

than allow both scheduled and 

unscheduled attorney visits during 

designated attorney visitation hours at 

BOP institutions that have a pretrial 

mission housing pretrial and 

unsentenced individuals, and it retains 

the requirement for an advanced 

appointment for attorney visits at all 

other BOP institutions. Accordingly, 

attorney visits with any individual in 

holdover status housed at an institution 

that does not have a pretrial mission 

must ordinarily make an advance 

appointment for a legal visit. 

Individuals in holdover status and their 

attorneys may coordinate legal visits in 

the same manner as the offender 

population at the particular facility in 

which the individual is temporarily 

housed en route to their designated 

institution. To clarify, it is the type of 

institution and its specific mission that 

are determinative for purposes of 

scheduling attorney visits; an 

individual’s temporary status as a 

‘‘holdover’’ is not determinative. 

Further changes to the rule addressing 

attorney visits for pretrial and 

unsentenced individuals on holdover 

status are unnecessary. 

Adding attorneys to client’s social 

visiting list. The commenter urges that 

this rule address the option for attorneys 

to be added to their client’s social 

visiting list, but that subject is 

addressed by separate rules applicable 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with RULES1
101884 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 242 / Tuesday, December 17, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 

to regular visitors at 28 CFR part 540, 

subpart D. In coordination with their 

client, attorneys may seek to be added 

to their client’s regular social visiting 

list and visit under the same conditions 

as other visitors in accordance with part 

540, subpart D. 

Again, this comment is out of scope 

of what was addressed in the interim 

final rule. Such social visits are 

conducted in an open setting, not a 

confidential setting for attorneys to meet 

with their clients privately. By contrast, 

confidential attorney visits, which are 

the subject of this rule, are governed by 

part 543. To the extent the commenter’s 

suggestion is intended to be construed 

as a petition for rulemaking pursuant to 

5 U.S.C. 553(e), a comment to a rule 

pertaining to a different issue in a 

different set of regulations is not the 

proper mechanism to present such a 

petition. Thus, the BOP concludes that 

no changes are needed in the final rule 

in light of this comment. 

The commenter also urges that the 

rule clarify whether attorneys are 

required to submit the same personal 

information as other visitors to be added 

to the inmate’s approved social visitor 

list. As noted, attorneys may seek to be 

added to their client’s regular social 

visiting list and visit under the same 

conditions as other visitors pursuant to 

separate rules applicable to regular 

visitors at 28 CFR part 540, subpart D, 

and the more granular details regarding 

the processing of social visits are 

addressed in the BOP policy 

implementing those provisions. The 

BOP declines to make changes to Part 

543 in response to this comment. 

For the foregoing reasons, we 

conclude that no changes are needed in 

the regulatory language in § 543.13(c) 

and (e) as adopted in the interim final 

rule, and that no other changes are 

needed in BOP’s regulations in 

connection with this specific 

rulemaking action. Accordingly, this 

rule finalizes the interim final rule 

without change. 

IV. Regulatory Certifications 

Executive Orders 12866, 13563 and 

14094. This rule does not fall within a 

category of actions that the Office of 

Management and Budget (OMB) has 

determined constitutes a ‘‘significant 

regulatory action’’ under section 3(f) of 

Executive Order 12866 and, 

accordingly, it was not reviewed by 

OMB. The economic impact of this final 

rule is limited to inmates in the custody 

of the Bureau of Prisons and their 

attorneys. 

Executive Order 13132. This rule will 

not have substantial direct effect 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, BOP determines 

that this rule does not have sufficient 

federalism implications to warrant the 

preparation of a Federalism Assessment. 

Executive Order 12988—Civil Justice 

Reform (Plain Language). This final rule 

meets the applicable standards set forth 

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

Order 12988 to specify provisions in 

clear language. Pursuant to section 

3(b)(1)(I) of the Executive Order, 

nothing in this final rule or any 

previous rule (or in any administrative 

policy, directive, ruling, notice, 

guideline, guidance, or writing) directly 

relating to the Program that is the 

subject of this final rule is intended to 

create any legal or procedural rights 

enforceable against the United States. 

Regulatory Flexibility Act. The 

Director of the Bureau of Prisons, under 

the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 

605(b)), reviewed this rule 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 

rule pertains to the correctional 

management of offenders and detainees 

committed to the custody of the 

Attorney General or the Director of the 

Bureau of Prisons, and its economic 

impact is limited to BOP’s appropriated 

funds. 

Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 

1995. This rule will not result in the 

expenditure by State, local and tribal 

governments, in the aggregate, or by the 

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

(as adjusted for inflation) in any one 

year, and it will not significantly or 

uniquely affect small governments. 

Therefore, no actions were deemed 

necessary under the provisions of the 

Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 

1995. 

Congressional Review Act. This rule is 

a not major rule as defined by the 

Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 804. 

List of Subjects in 28 CFR Part 543 

Prisoners, Legal Activities. 

PART 543—LEGAL MATTERS 

■ Accordingly, 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 of the Bureau 

of Prisons in 28 CFR 0.96, BOP adopts 

the interim final rule on this subject, 

published at 89 FR 8330 on Feb. 7, 

2024, as a final rule, without change. 

Colette S. Peters, 

Director, Federal Bureau of Prisons. 

[FR Doc. 2024–29681 Filed 12–16–24; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4410–05–P 

DEPARTMENT OF LABOR 

Wage and Hour Division 

29 CFR Part 531 

RIN 1235–AA44 

Tip Regulations Under the Fair Labor 

Standards Act (FLSA); Restoration of 

Regulatory Language 

AGENCY: Wage and Hour Division, 

Department of Labor. 

ACTION: Final rule; technical 

amendment. 

SUMMARY: On October 29, 2021, the U.S. 

Department of Labor (Department) 

published a final rule (2021 Dual Jobs 

Rule) addressing the determination of 

when a tipped employee is employed in 

dual jobs under the Fair Labor 

Standards Act (FLSA or the Act). The 

2021 Dual Jobs Rule took effect on 

December 28, 2021.On October 29, 

2024, a federal appeals court issued an 

order vacating regulatory text from the 

Department’s 2021 Dual Jobs Rule, with 

the effect of reinstating the Department’s 

original FLSA regulation on the topic. In 

accordance with that court order, the 

Department is issuing this final rule to 

remove from the Code of Federal 

Regulations (CFR) the corresponding 

regulatory text that the Department 

promulgated through the 2021 Dual Jobs 

Rule and reinstate regulatory text as it 

existed in the CFR prior to the effective 

date of the 2021 Dual Jobs Rule. This 

action is a technical amendment 

accounting for changes in the law which 

have already occurred. 

DATES: This rule is effective December 

17, 2024. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Daniel Navarrete, Director of Division of 

Regulations, Legislation, and 

Interpretation, Wage and Hour Division, 

U.S. Department of Labor, Room S– 

3502, 200 Constitution Avenue NW, 

Washington, DC 20210, telephone: (202) 

693–0406 (this is not a toll-free 

number). Alternative formats are 

available upon request by calling 1– 

866–487–9243. If you are deaf, hard of 

hearing, or have a speech disability, 

please dial 7–1–1 to access 

telecommunications relay services. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with RULES1