102022 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 242 / Tuesday, December 17, 2024 / Proposed Rules 

August 2024, to determine whether low 

points exist, and, before further flight, do all 

applicable related investigative and 

corrective actions, in accordance with the 

Accomplishment Instructions of Israel 

Aerospace Industries Ltd., Service Bulletin 

368–34–106, dated August 2024. 

(h) Additional AD Provisions 

The following provisions also apply to this 

AD: 

(1) Alternative Methods of Compliance 

(AMOCs): The Manager, International 

Validation Branch, FAA, has the authority to 

approve AMOCs for this AD, if requested 

using the procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19. 

In accordance with 14 CFR 39.19, send your 

request to your principal inspector or 

responsible Flight Standards Office, as 

appropriate. If sending information directly 

to the manager of the International Validation 

Branch, send it to the attention of the person 

identified in paragraph (i) of this AD and 

email to: AMOC@faa.gov. Before using any 

approved AMOC, notify your appropriate 

principal inspector, or lacking a principal 

inspector, the manager of the responsible 

Flight Standards Office. 

(2) Contacting the Manufacturer: For any 

requirement in this AD to obtain instructions 

from a manufacturer, the instructions must 

be accomplished using a method approved 

by the Manager, International Validation 

Branch, FAA; or the Civil Aviation Authority 

of Israel (CAAI); or the CAAI’s authorized 

Designee. If approved by the CAAI Designee, 

the approval must include the Designee’s 

authorized signature. 

(i) Additional Information 

For more information about this AD, 

contact Joe Salameh, Aviation Safety 

Engineer, FAA, 1600 Stewart Avenue, Suite 

410, Westbury, NY 11590; telephone: 206– 

231–3536; email: Joe.Salameh@faa.gov. 

(j) Material Incorporated by Reference 

(1) The Director of the Federal Register 

approved the incorporation by reference of 

the material listed in this paragraph under 5 

U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR part 51. 

(2) You must use this material as 

applicable to do the actions required by this 

AD, unless this AD specifies otherwise. 

(i) Israel Aerospace Industries Ltd. Service 

Bulletin 368–34–106, dated August 2024. 

(ii) [Reserved] 

(3) For Israel Aerospace Industry Ltd. 

material identified in this AD, contact Israel 

Aerospace Industries, Ltd., Ben-Gurion 

International Airport, Israel 70100; telephone 

972–39359826; email tmazor@iai.co.il. 

(4) You may view this material at the FAA, 

Airworthiness Products Section, Operational 

Safety Branch, 2200 South 216th St., Des 

Moines, WA. For information on the 

availability of this material at the FAA, call 

206–231–3195. 

(5) You may view this material at the 

National Archives and Records 

Administration (NARA). For information on 

the availability of this material at NARA, 

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

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

Issued on December 11, 2024. 

Victor Wicklund, 

Deputy Director, Compliance & Airworthiness 

Division, Aircraft Certification Service. 

[FR Doc. 2024–29619 Filed 12–16–24; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4910–13–P 

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE 

Bureau of Prisons 

28 CFR Part 545 

[BOP–1178] 

RIN 1120–AB78 

Inmate Financial Responsibility 

Program: Procedures 

AGENCY: Bureau of Prisons, Justice. 

ACTION: Supplemental notice of 

proposed rulemaking. 

SUMMARY: This supplemental notice of 

proposed rulemaking would update and 

streamline regulations regarding the 

Inmate Financial Responsibility 

Program (IFRP). 

DATES: Written comments must be 

postmarked and electronic comments 

must be submitted on or before February 

18, 2025. Commenters should be aware 

that the electronic Federal Docket 

Management System will not accept 

comments after Midnight Eastern Time 

on the last day of the comment period. 

ADDRESSES: If you wish to provide 

comment regarding this rulemaking, you 

must submit comments, identified by 

the agency name and reference Docket 

No. BOP 1178, by one of the two 

methods below. 

Federal eRulemaking Portal: https://

www.regulations.gov. Follow the 

website instructions for submitting 

comments. The electronic Federal 

Docket Management System at 

www.regulations.gov will accept 

electronic comments until 11:59 p.m. 

Eastern Time on the comment due date. 

Mail: Paper comments that duplicate 

an electronic submission are 

unnecessary. If you wish to submit a 

paper comment in lieu of electronic 

submission, please direct the mail/ 

shipment to: Rules Administrator, 

Legislative and Correctional Issues 

Branch, Office of General Counsel, 

Bureau of Prisons, 320 First Street NW, 

Washington, DC 20534. To ensure 

proper handling, please reference the 

agency name and Docket No. BOP 1178 

on your correspondence. Mailed items 

must be postmarked or otherwise 

indicate a shipping date on or before the 

submission deadline. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Daniel J. Crooks III, Assistant General 

Counsel/Rules Administrator, Federal 

Bureau of Prisons, at the address above 

or at (202) 353–4885. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Please 

note that all comments received are 

considered part of the public record and 

generally will be made available for 

public inspection online at 

www.regulations.gov. If you want to 

submit personal identifying information 

(such as your name, address, etc.) as 

part of your comment, but do not want 

it to be posted online, you must include 

the phrase ‘‘PERSONAL IDENTIFYING 

INFORMATION’’ in the first paragraph 

of your comment. You must also locate 

all the personal identifying information 

you do not want posted online in the 

first paragraph of your comment and 

identify what information you want 

redacted. 

If you want to submit confidential 

business information as part of your 

comment but do not want it to be posted 

online, you must include the phrase 

‘‘CONFIDENTIAL BUSINESS 

INFORMATION’’ in the first paragraph 

of your comment. You must also 

prominently identify confidential 

business information to be redacted 

within the comment. If a comment 

contains so much confidential business 

information that it cannot be effectively 

redacted, all or part of that comment 

may not be posted 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. 

Background 

The purpose of the Inmate Financial 

Responsibility Program (Program or 

IFRP), operated by the Bureau of Prisons 

(Bureau) since 1987, is twofold: to 

encourage federal inmates in Bureau 

facilities to pay financial obligations; 

and to support federal inmates in 

developing financial planning skills. 

Inmate participation in the IFRP is 

non-compulsory. Subject to certain 

exemptions listed in 28 CFR 545.10, all 

sentenced federal inmates are eligible to 

participate. During an inmate’s initial 

classification, current Bureau policy 

requires staff to review the inmate’s 

financial obligations—by consulting the 

inmate’s presentence investigation 

report, judgment and commitment 

order(s) and other court documents, and 

any other available information—and 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 242 / Tuesday, December 17, 2024 / Proposed Rules 102023 

encourage inmates to satisfy any courtordered obligations either at the time of 

this initial review or throughout the 

inmate’s term of imprisonment. The 

Bureau strongly recommends that all 

inmates with financial obligations 

participate in the IFRP, along with other 

programs and activities designed to 

reduce recidivism, such as work, 

education, and drug rehabilitation 

programs. 

If an inmate chooses to participate in 

the IFRP, Bureau staff will work with 

the inmate to develop a financial plan, 

which is documented and signed by the 

inmate and includes financial 

obligations paid in the following order 

of priority: 

1. Special assessments imposed by the 

court under 18 U.S.C. 3013; 

2. Court-ordered restitution, including 

assessments related to bodily injury to 

victims occurring as a result of the 

offense, loss or destruction of victim 

property, or other assessments as 

indicated by the court; 

3. Fines and court costs; 

4. State or local court obligations 

(such as child support or alimony, as 

documented by a court order or letter 

from the relevant state authority); 

5. Other federal government 

obligations (including fees imposed 

under 18 U.S.C. 4001 for Cost of 

Incarceration, other judgments in favor 

of the United States, student loans, 

Veterans Administration claims, tax 

liabilities, and Freedom of Information 

or Privacy Act fees). 

Given the importance of satisfying 

outstanding financial obligations and 

reducing the amount of debt upon 

release, there are effects of nonparticipation. Documented refusal by 

inmates to participate in the IFRP, or to 

comply with the provisions of their 

agreed-upon financial plan, results in 

the specific consequences currently 

listed in 28 CFR 545.11(d), including 

notification to the Parole Commission, 

preclusion of furlough eligibility (other 

than emergency or medical furlough), 

preclusion of certain pay benefits or 

increases, preclusion of eligibility for 

premium work opportunities and/or 

removal from a UNICOR work 

assignment, commissary spending 

restrictions, loss of release gratuity 

(unless approved by the warden), and 

loss of incentives (such as early release 

and financial awards) otherwise 

available to an inmate who participates 

in residential drug treatment programs. 

As the IFRP is currently operated, 

Bureau staff review and reassess each 

inmate’s financial plan and IFRP 

payments during the inmate’s regularly 

scheduled program review meeting; 

these meetings generally occur every 

180 days, although the interval becomes 

90 days when the inmate is within 12 

months of release. As part of that 

review, Bureau staff first review the 

total funds deposited into the inmate’s 

commissary account over the previous 

six-month period from any source. As 

stated in 28 CFR 506.1, individual 

inmate commissary accounts allow the 

Bureau to maintain inmate monies 

while the inmate is incarcerated. Funds 

in inmate accounts can come from a 

number of sources: the inmate may earn 

pay from work assignments (including 

compensation earned through UNICOR); 

family members or friends may send 

funds to the inmate; the inmate may 

receive tax refunds or other governmentrelated issuances; or the inmate may 

receive other types of income (such as 

stock dividends, state benefits, litigation 

settlements, and inheritance). All 

money earned by the inmate from the 

Bureau is automatically deposited into 

the inmate’s commissary account. 

Next, to determine whether future 

payments under the IFRP plan should 

be adjusted based on the inmate’s 

financial activity over the previous sixmonth period under review, staff 

subtract the total amount of any 

payments an inmate has made during 

the previous six-month period under the 

IFRP plan (payments made toward the 

inmate’s financial obligations) from the 

amount deposited into the account over 

that same time period. Under current 

regulations in 28 CFR 545.11(b), when 

performing this calculation to determine 

the amount an inmate has available for 

payment of financial obligations, staff 

must also subtract a $75 per month 

allowance for telephone communication 

(a total of $450 for each six-month 

period). That amount is not included in 

the calculation of the total amount an 

inmate has available for payments under 

the IFRP. 

Then, based on the foregoing 

information, staff estimate the amount 

the inmate is likely to have remaining 

at the end of that six-month period. 

Based on that amount, staff determine 

whether to adjust the inmate’s financial 

plan and IFRP payments. Under the 

current regulation, the minimum 

payment for inmates who do not have 

a UNICOR work assignment, or who 

have a UNICOR grade 5 work 

assignment, is ordinarily $25 per 

quarter. For inmates assigned a UNICOR 

work assignment with a grade between 

1 and 4, the minimum payment is 

ordinarily expected to be 50 percent of 

the inmate’s pay. 

On January 10, 2023, the Federal 

Bureau of Prisons (Bureau) published a 

notice of proposed rulemaking (the 

‘‘January 2023 NPRM’’) in the Federal 

Register relating to the Inmate Financial 

Responsibility Program (IFRP). 88 FR 

1331 (Jan. 10, 2023). In the January 2023 

NPRM, the Bureau detailed its proposed 

changes to the IFRP regulation. Among 

the most significant changes were a 

requirement that all inmates 

participating in IFRP contribute a 

percentage of their pay towards the IFRP 

payment process; a requirement that all 

inmates participating in IFRP contribute 

75 percent of funds received from nonBureau sources (‘‘outside’’ or 

‘‘community’’ deposits) toward the IFRP 

payment process; and changes to the 

effects of IFRP non-participation, 

including noting that, as per Program 

Statement 5410.01, First Step Act of 

2018—Time Credits: Procedures for 

Implementation of 18 U.S.C. 3632(d)(4), 

participation is a Productive Activity as 

that relates to First Step Act (FSA) Time 

Credits, as described in 18 U.S.C. 3624 

and 3632(d)(4), and 28 CFR 523.40 

through 523.44. 

During the notice and comment 

period for the January 2023 NPRM, the 

Bureau received more than 1,300 

comments from members of the public, 

including inmates, inmates’ families 

and friends, advocacy organizations, 

and governmental officials. The large 

volume of comments received 

demonstrated to us that changes to the 

IFRP are of significant interest to the 

public. To ensure we obtain the benefit 

of the public’s comments on additional 

suggested revisions to the IFRP, the 

Bureau now publishes this 

supplemental notice of proposed 

rulemaking (SNPRM). While the 

provisions proposed in this SNPRM 

maintain some features of the January 

2023 NPRM, it differs in several 

material respects. The Bureau welcomes 

public comment on this alternative IFRP 

framework that considers an individual 

inmate’s financial circumstances. 

Comments submitted on the January 

2023 NPRM should not be resubmitted 

as new comments to this SNPRM. All 

relevant comments on the January 2023 

NPRM and this SNPRM will be 

addressed when a final rule is issued. 

Supplemental Proposed Rule 

This supplemental proposed rule 

would make changes to update, 

streamline, and clarify IFRP regulations 

in sections 28 CFR 545.11(a) through 

(d), as follows: 

Proposed Changes to 28 CFR 545.11(a) 

The current IFRP regulation provides 

that an inmate’s financial plan will 

include the following obligations, 

ordinarily paid in the priority order as 

listed: (1) special assessments under 18 

U.S.C. 3013; (2) court-ordered 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
102024 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 242 / Tuesday, December 17, 2024 / Proposed Rules 

1 Dear Colleague Letter (Apr. 20, 2023), available 

at https://www.justice.gov/d9/press-releases/ 

attachments/2023/04/20/doj_fines_and_fees_dear_

colleague_letter_final_with_signatures_0.pdf. 

restitution; (3) fines and court costs; (4) 

state or local court obligations; and (5) 

other federal government obligations. 

The January 2023 NPRM did not 

propose any alteration to this list of 

obligations. In this SNPRM, the Bureau 

is proposing to modify this list by 

altering paragraph (4) to read ‘‘child, 

spousal, or other familial support 

obligations,’’ and adding a new 

paragraph (6) for ‘‘other (non-family 

support) state or local court 

obligations’’. 

As initially proposed in 1986, no state 

or local financial obligations were 

included in the list of financial 

obligations collectible through IFRP. See 

NPRM, Control, Custody, Care, 

Treatment and Instruction of Inmates, 

Financial Responsibility Program, 51 FR 

42167–01 (Nov. 21, 1986). However, in 

response to public comments received 

on the initial proposed rule, the Bureau 

added ‘‘other court ordered obligations’’ 

to the list: 

We agree with several commenters who 

suggested the Bureau add family financial 

obligations and child support to its priority 

list of obligations. Based on public comment, 

and because court-ordered child support or 

alimony or other court-ordered judgments 

against an inmate are financial obligations 

similar to those in the proposed rule, the 

Bureau of Prisons is adding new 

§ 545.11(a)(6), other court-ordered 

obligations. 

Final Rule, Control, Custody, Care, 

Treatment and Instruction of Inmates; 

Inmate Financial Responsibility 

Program, 52 FR 10528–01 (Apr. 1, 1987). 

In 1991, the Bureau published a final 

rule that combined two categories of 

obligations into one (‘‘other federal 

government obligations’’), adjusted the 

paragraph numbering, and adopted the 

verbiage (‘‘State or local court 

obligations’’) that it has continued to 

use to the present. Final Rule, Control, 

Custody, Care, Treatment and 

Instruction of Inmates; Financial 

Responsibility Program, 56 FR 23476–01 

(May 21, 1991). 

The Bureau believes that 

disaggregating familial support 

obligations from other state and local 

obligations is beneficial for several 

reasons. First, it will allow for the 

prioritization of family support over 

other types of state and local obligations 

in the way initially contemplated. The 

Bureau believes that it is more 

important that—to the extent an 

inmate’s money is being sent to a state 

or local entity—it should go first 

towards supporting children or others 

for whom an order of support has been 

entered, rather than the state or local 

government for other purposes. Second, 

the Bureau (as a federal agency) believes 

that other federal obligations should be 

prioritized over non-family support 

state and local obligations, such as 

criminal fines and fees or fees imposed 

in civil cases or administrative 

proceedings. 

Third, the Department of Justice in an 

April 2023 Dear Colleague Letter noted 

that, in certain circumstances, unjust 

imposition and enforcement of fines and 

fees violate the civil rights of adults and 

youth accused of felonies, 

misdemeanors, quasi-criminal 

ordinance violations, and civil 

infractions.1 State and local fines and 

fees make up a miniscule portion (as of 

February 2024, less than one half of a 

percent) of the financial obligations 

subject to collection through IFRP. 

Nevertheless, as a Department 

component, the Bureau wants to ensure 

that it is operating consistent with the 

Department’s guidance on this topic, 

and is not collecting fines and fees 

imposed by states and localities in ways 

that may have violated the civil rights 

of those in Bureau custody. The Bureau 

will provide more specific guidance to 

Bureau employees, in the program 

statement implementing this regulation, 

on how to ensure that a fine or fee 

imposed by a state or local entity was 

lawfully imposed, such as verifying that 

an ability-to-pay determination was 

conducted. Fines and fees that that BOP 

determines were unfairly or improperly 

imposed will not be collected through 

IFRP. The Bureau welcomes public 

comment on what steps the Bureau 

should take to ensure that fines and fees 

imposed by states and localities were 

not done so in a way that is inconsistent 

with the constitutional and statutory 

provisions described in the Dear 

Colleague Letter. Given that these same 

concerns are not present in the familial 

support context, it makes sense to 

separate those types of obligations as 

their own category not subject to this 

guidance. 

Proposed Changes to 28 CFR 545.11(b) 

1. Introductory paragraph. The 

Bureau still intends to make the two 

changes to the introductory paragraph 

that were detailed in the January 2023 

NPRM. These changes were: (1) the 

deletion of language that was intended 

to serve as guidance for Bureau 

employees, and (2) the addition of 

language requiring that any payment 

plan laid out in the inmate’s judgment 

and commitment order (J&C) be 

implemented as the inmate’s IFRP 

payment plan. 

One purpose of the IFRP is to promote 

inmate financial understanding and selfregulation. To meet that goal, staff work 

with inmates to structure a reasonable 

payment plan that is attainable for the 

inmate, in light of any funds coming 

into the account (whether from inmate 

work assignment pay or through outside 

sources) and any reasonable 

expenditures required by the inmate. As 

discussed in this SNPRM, BOP is 

proposing to retain a version of the 

monetary set-aside that is part of the 

current regulation, without tying it to a 

monthly amount or to a specific purpose 

(e.g., phone calls). 

2. Addition of language regarding 

one-time payment. In this SNPRM, the 

Bureau proposes to add language to the 

rule that (1) encourages all inmates to 

make a payment towards fully satisfying 

their financial obligation(s) at the time 

of initial classification and program 

review; and (2) would require inmates 

with commissary account balances 

above $250 to make a one-time 

payment. This proposal differs from the 

January 2023 NPRM in an important 

way. While the January 2023 NPRM 

encouraged all inmates to make a onetime payment at the time of initial 

classification, it did not require any 

inmate to do so. In this SNPRM, inmates 

with commissary balances greater than 

or equal to $250 at the time of initial 

classification would be required to make 

a one-time payment from available 

funds in their commissary accounts to 

satisfy any identified financial 

obligations. Currently, guidance to 

Bureau staff notes that in certain 

circumstances, including when an 

inmate’s total financial obligation is 

$100 or less, the inmate should be 

encouraged to make a one-time payment 

to satisfy that obligation The purpose of 

this revision is to make clear that all 

inmates, regardless of the size of the 

financial obligation, would be 

encouraged—and in some 

circumstances required—to make a onetime payment. 

The proposed rule would require an 

inmate with more than a certain amount 

of money in their commissary account 

to make a one-time payment equal to a 

specific percentage of funds in the 

account: 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 242 / Tuesday, December 17, 2024 / Proposed Rules 102025 

2 In accordance with BOP Program Statement 

4500.12, Trust Fund/Deposit Fund Manual, each 

Bureau facility establishes its list of items to sell in 

the commissary. Consumable items and medical 

items sold shall complement, not supplement, diet 

and medical care provided to the inmate 

population. These examples are provided for 

illustrative purposes only. Commissary price lists 

are available on each BOP facility’s public website. 

TABLE 1 

Commissary account balance Percentage deducted for one-time initial payment 

$0.01–$249.99 ......................................... 0%. 

$250.00–$5,000.00 .................................. 50% of the amount between $250 and $5,000. 

$5,000.01 or more ................................... 50% of the amount between $250 and $5,000 plus 100% of the amount above $5,000. 

As depicted in the above chart, 

inmates with $249.99 or less in their 

commissary accounts would not be 

required to make an initial payment 

toward financial obligations. An inmate 

with between $250.00 and $5,000.00 in 

their account would be expected to pay 

50 percent of the amount within that 

range towards IFRP. Finally, inmates 

with $5,000.01 or more in their accounts 

would be expected to pay (1) 50 percent 

of the amount between $250.00 and 

$5,000.00, and (2) 100% of the amount 

in excess of $5,000.00 toward financial 

obligations. In determining these 

account balance thresholds, the Bureau 

reviewed data on commissary account 

balances, which showed that the 

overwhelming majority of inmates 

maintain balances of $1,000 or less. In 

fact, as of December 4, 2024, 

approximately 77 percent of 

commissary account balances are 

$249.99 or less, and only 2 percent of 

commissary accounts have balances 

greater than $5,000. 

The way this is intended to work is 

illustrated through the following 

examples: 

Example 1: Inmate John Doe, who 

owes a $100 special assessment 

imposed pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 3013, 

and federal restitution of $5,000, attends 

his initial classification and program 

review meeting with a commissary 

account balance of $150. He would not 

be required to make an initial IFRP 

payment, although he may choose to do 

so if, for example, he wants to fully pay 

off his $100 special assessment. 

Example 2: Inmate James Roe, who 

also owes a $100 special assessment 

imposed pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 3013, 

and federal restitution of $5,000, attends 

his initial classification and program 

review meeting with a commissary 

account balance of $500. He would be 

required to make a one-time IFRP 

payment of $125 (50% of the amount 

above $250), although as with John Doe, 

he may also pay more at this time if he 

chooses. This would leave James Roe 

with an account balance of $375. 

Example 3: Inmate Jane Smith also 

owes a $100 special assessment 

imposed pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 3013, 

and federal restitution of $5,000. She 

attends her initial classification and 

program review meeting with a 

commissary account balance of $6,000. 

She would be expected to pay a total of 

$3,375 (50% of the amount between 

$250 and $5,000 ($2,375), plus $1,000— 

the amount in her account in excess of 

$5,000). 

Because inmate financial plans 

developed under the IFRP focus on 

incoming deposits into the inmate’s 

commissary account, part of the intent 

of this provision is to prevent the 

inmate from accumulating a significant 

account balance prior to initial 

classification and program review, and 

then using that large initial balance to 

evade making any future payments. 

Initial classification and program review 

is the first opportunity Bureau staff have 

to assess an inmate’s financial 

obligations and available resources. 

While for some inmates this will occur 

relatively quickly after they enter 

Bureau custody, other inmates may have 

spent substantial time in Bureau 

custody pre-trial and accumulated 

significant funds in their commissary 

account. Similarly, inmates may enter 

Bureau custody following sentencing 

with a significant deposit or deposits 

made before their initial classification 

and review meeting occurs. 

The Bureau recognizes that newly 

sentenced and designated inmates need 

to maintain some funds to aid in the 

transition into custody, including by 

maintaining family contact and 

purchasing commissary items that may 

help ease that transition. Thus, the 

proposed rule would not require an 

initial payment from inmates with less 

than $250 in their commissary accounts, 

and would apply a 50 percent deduction 

to amounts in excess of $250, up to 

$5,000. Inmates would still be left with 

funds for purchases, while also learning 

that payment of financial obligations 

based on their financial means is an 

expected part of their term of 

imprisonment and that they would not 

be permitted to maintain significant 

balances (in excess of $5,000) and stay 

in compliance with IFRP. It is also 

important to note that nothing in this 

proposed rule would prevent an inmate 

from making a larger payment than 

would be required under the proposed 

rule. Rather, the intent of the proposed 

rule is to set a minimum expectation for 

payment of financial obligations. 

The Bureau believes that setting the 

threshold for this initial payment at a 

$250 commissary account balance 

adequately protects the ability of 

inmates in custody at Bureau facilities 

to maintain contact with members of the 

community and purchase 

supplementary items from institution 

commissaries.2 The proposed rule is 

also focused on the account balance at 

the time of the initial program review 

meeting, meaning (particularly for pretrial inmates) the inmate may have 

already purchased and banked phone 

minutes, or minutes used to access the 

electronic messaging (TRULINCS). They 

may also have purchased items from the 

commissary that they still have, 

including non-consumable items like 

shoes, an MP3 player, or a locker 

organizer. 

Using Mr. Roe as an example, the 

$375 remaining in his commissary 

account following his initial IFRP 

payment would be enough to purchase 

(all prices current as of October 29, 

2024, except where noted): 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
102026 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 242 / Tuesday, December 17, 2024 / Proposed Rules 

3Rates effective as of January 1, 2025. BOP policy 

generally limits inmates to 300 minutes of phone 

time per month. See BOP Program Statement 

5264.08, Inmate Telephone Regulations, p.9. An 

additional 100 minutes are permitted during the 

months of November and December, and individual 

calls are limited to 15 minutes. Id. Pursuant to the 

First Step Act of 2018, codified in pertinent part at 

18 U.S.C. 3632(d)(1)(A), inmates in Bureau custody 

who are successfully participating in evidencebased recidivism reduction programming receive up 

to 510 minutes of phone time per month. These 

inmates are not subject to the 300-minutes per 

month limit, and they are not required to pay for 

these minutes. 

4Additionally, on November 8, 2023, the Bureau 

published a notice of proposed rulemaking in the 

Federal Register proposing to modify regulations 

on compensation for inmate workers in accordance 

with Section 605(c) of the First Step of 2018 (FSA), 

Public Law 115–391, December 21, 2018, 132 Stat. 

5194. The proposed amendments to the regulations 

governing UNICOR and performance pay would 

require that 15 percent of an inmate’s pay be 

reserved (i.e., encumbered) to assist the inmate with 

costs associated with release from prison. 88 FR 

77064. 

TABLE 2 

Expenditure Total cost 

1,800 phone minutes for domestic calls 3 .................................................................................................. $108 ($.06/minute). 

500 minutes of access to TRULINCS public messaging service .............................................................. $25 ($.05/minute). 

Commissary purchases at FCI Lompoc I, to include: ............................................................................... $83.80. 

—radio ($31.25) & earbuds ($5.15).

—stamps ($12.60/book).

—alarm clock ($9.95).

—shower shoes ($1.95).

—sunglasses ($5.95).

—combination lock ($7.65).

—foot powder ($2.70).

—ibuprofen ($2.60).

—thermal mug ($4.00).

Total Cost .................................................................................................................................... $216.80 

Remaining Account Balance ....................................................................................................... $158.20 

Even with these purchases, which 

includes a purchase of the maximum 

number of minutes Mr. Roe could spend 

on the phone over the next six months, 

he still would have $158.20 remaining 

of his initial $500 balance to either save, 

or spend on additional commissary 

items (including snacks and hobbycraft 

materials). And, going forward, his 

account balance would be 

supplemented by any pay received for a 

work assignment or additional deposits 

made from outside sources. 

The Bureau is sensitive to the fact that 

this initial period of time at a designated 

institution can be a significant 

adjustment for many in its custody. 

Accordingly, the Bureau specifically 

invites comment on the $250 threshold 

from the public, and will consider 

responses received on this issue in 

formulating its final rule. 

3. Revision of language regarding 

payment plans. The Bureau also 

proposes to modify language included 

in the current rule indicating that the 

minimum payment for inmates who do 

not work in UNICOR positions and 

those who work in UNICOR positions at 

the grade 5 level would be $25 per 

quarter, and that inmates assigned to 

UNICOR grades 1 through 4 work 

assignments would be expected to allot 

50% of their monthly pay to IFRP 

payments. In the January 2023 NPRM, the 

Bureau proposed implementing IFRP 

payment plans that would require (1) 

inmates in UNICOR work assignments 

grade 1 through 4 to allot 50 percent of 

their monthly pay to the IFRP payment 

process; (2) inmates in non-UNICOR 

and UNICOR grade 5 work assignments 

to allot 25 percent of their monthly pay 

to the IFRP payment process; and (3) all 

inmates to pay 75 percent of deposits 

placed in their commissary account by 

non-institution (community) sources 

toward the IFRP payment process. In 

this SNPRM, the Bureau is still 

proposing to require that inmates make 

IFRP payments from both sources of 

funds (pay for work and commissary 

deposits). However, this SNPRM 

features the following proposals: • The regulation would indicate that, 

in the absence of some other courtordered payment plan, inmates would 

be expected to allot 10% of pay (to 

include performance pay, bonus pay, 

and special bonus pay) received from 

any work assignment, whether 

institution or UNICOR, toward the IFRP 

payment process. • The regulation would also clarify 

that all inmates, in the absence of some 

other court-ordered payment plan, 

would be expected to allot a specific 

percentage of each deposit from noninstitution (community) resources to the 

IFRP payment process. The percentage 

that the inmate would be expected to 

allot will be adjustable, and would be 

based on the total amount of funds 

deposited into the inmate’s commissary 

account over the prior six months. • Inmates with six-month deposit 

totals below a certain amount, and 

whose account balances are also below 

a certain amount, would be exempt from 

the required percentage. • Inmates who accumulate significant 

account balances, which the Bureau 

defines as a balance equal to or greater 

than $5,000, would be expected to allot 

all amounts in their accounts in excess 

of $5,000 to the IFRP payment process. Further, the regulation would explain 

that exceptions to the stated allotments 

must be approved by the inmate’s unit 

manager, in consultation with the 

associate warden of the inmate’s 

institution, and documented in writing. 

Changes to Pay 

This SNPRM proposes a specified 

percentage—10 percent—of inmate pay 

for work assignments that would be 

allotted towards the IFRP payment 

process. This percentage would apply to 

all inmate work assignments, including 

UNICOR, and to all forms of 

compensation received for work, 

including hourly pay and bonuses. As is 

currently done for UNICOR pay for 

IFRP-participating inmates, the 

percentage deduction would be made 

prior to the disbursement of pay to 

individual inmate trust accounts. 

The Bureau believes it is important 

that all inmates who are able to work 

have some of their pay remitted toward 

payment of their financial obligations. 

As a reentry tool, this obligation helps 

establish the expectation that earning 

income carries the requirement that one 

contribute financially to certain societal 

and personal obligations.4 Outside the 

Bureau, these contributions might take 

the form of payroll taxes, garnishments 

for child support, or other deductions. 

By introducing the concept of a ‘‘payroll 

deduction’’ for all IFRP-participating 

inmates, this would ensure that all 

inmates who can work are making some 

consistent contribution, even a small 

one, to their financial obligations. 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 242 / Tuesday, December 17, 2024 / Proposed Rules 102027 

Changes to Assessment of Outside 

Deposits 

The most significant difference 

between this SNPRM and the January 

2023 NPRM is how ‘‘outside’’ or 

‘‘community’’ deposits into the inmate’s 

commissary account will be considered 

for IFRP purposes. Currently, the IFRP 

regulation permits Bureau staff to 

‘‘consider’’ these deposits in developing 

the inmate’s financial plan, but a lack of 

more specific guidance has resulted in 

disparate application and widespread 

use of a $25/quarter minimum payment 

option. In this SNPRM, the Bureau 

proposes specific guidance for both 

Bureau staff and inmates for how any 

outside deposits would be assessed for 

IFRP financial planning purposes. The 

essence of the system proposed in this 

rulemaking is that those inmates who 

have more funds would be expected to 

pay more of each ‘‘outside’’ deposit 

toward their financial obligations. 

Under this proposed rule, Bureau staff 

reviewing an inmate’s IFRP 

participation would review the total 

value of deposits placed into the 

inmate’s account over the past six 

months. Depending on that total value, 

a specific percentage of each future 

deposit received would be paid toward 

IFRP. The specific percentages are 

reflected in the chart below: 

TABLE 3 

Total value of deposits over prior 

six months Percentage of future outside deposits deducted and paid toward IFRP 

$.01–$249.99 .................................. 0% if account balance is $249.99 or smaller. 

25% if account balance is $250 or larger. 

$250–$999.99 ................................. 25%. 

$1,000–$2,499.99 ........................... 35%. 

$2,500–$4,999.99 ........................... 55%. 

≥$5,000 ........................................... 100%. 

As noted previously, in developing 

this SNPRM the Bureau reviewed 

commissary account data, and 

determined that setting these thresholds 

would best balance the competing 

interests discussed in this SNPRM. 

Under this SNPRM, inmates who 

receive no deposits or deposits less than 

$249.99 over a six-month period, and 

who have account balances of $249.99 

or less, will not be required to pay any 

percentage of their outside deposits 

toward IFRP until such time as their 

payment plan is re-assessed (i.e., 

generally during their next program 

review). An inmate in this category who 

receives a $1,200 outside deposit while 

his 0% financial plan is in effect will 

not be required to pay any of that 

deposit toward IFRP. However, when 

his plan is re-assessed during his next 

program review, he will then fall into 

the $1,000–$2,499.99 category based on 

his deposit activity over the prior six 

months, and 35 percent of outside 

deposits he receives going forward— 

regardless of the size of each individual 

deposit—will be paid toward his 

financial obligations. 

The way this system works is further 

illustrated in the following examples: 

Example 1: Inmate John Doe, who 

owes federal restitution, attends his 

regularly scheduled program review. 

During this review, his Case Manager 

reviews Bureau systems to determine (1) 

the total amount deposited into Mr. 

Doe’s commissary account over the 

prior six months; and (2) Mr. Doe’s 

commissary account balance. 

The Case Manager’s review indicates 

that Mr. Doe has a current commissary 

account balance of $600, as well as 

deposits over the prior six months of 

$600 ($100/month). Thus, his IFRP 

payment obligation would be 25 percent 

of each outside deposit he receives 

while this payment plan is in effect. 

After Mr. Doe agrees to this financial 

plan, the Case Manager would enter this 

financial plan into the Bureau’s 

SENTRY system. While this financial 

plan is in effect, every time a deposit is 

made to Mr. Doe’s commissary account, 

25 percent would be withheld and paid 

toward his restitution obligation. 

Example 2: Inmate Jane Smith, who 

also owes federal restitution, attends her 

program review meeting. Her Case 

Manager determines that Ms. Smith has 

an account balance of $200, as well as 

total deposits over the prior six months 

of only $100. Thus, Ms. Smith’s 

financial plan would reflect that no 

percentage would be withheld from 

outside deposits she receives while the 

financial plan is in effect. 

Example 3: Inmate William Brown, 

who owes a federal assessment, has $0 

in deposits into his account over the 

previous six months. He attends his 

program review meeting, and has a 

commissary account balance of $300. 

Because his account balance is greater 

than $250, his payment plan will 

specify that 25 percent of each future 

outside deposit will be paid towards 

IFRP. While this plan is in effect, Mr. 

Brown receives a $1,200 tax refund 

deposit; $300 of this deposit will be 

paid toward his federal assessment 

through IFRP. 

Example 4: Inmate James Roe, who 

owes a federal tax debt, has been on a 

0% payment plan for multiple cycles 

because he receives less than $249.99 in 

deposits every six months, and his 

account balance is less than $250 at the 

time of his program review. While this 

plan is in effect, Mr. Roe receives a 

deposit of $5,000 from an inheritance, 

all of which he keeps. At his next 

program review, however, Mr. Roe’s 

payment plan will be adjusted so that 

100 percent of each outside deposit he 

receives, until such time as his financial 

plan is modified again or he satisfies his 

financial obligation, will be paid toward 

IFRP. 

In each of these examples, the 

inmates’ financial plans would also 

indicate that 10 percent of their work 

compensation would be paid toward the 

IFRP payment process. 

The Bureau’s intent in making this 

revision is to try to require inmates with 

greater financial resources to pay more 

toward their financial obligations. 

Admittedly, this system is not perfect. 

This proposal uses past deposit history 

to set a percentage of future deposits 

taken for IFRP. The Bureau elected to 

focus on total value of deposits (rather 

than account balances) because the total 

deposits figure more accurately depicts 

the individual inmate’s financial 

circumstances and because it is already 

reported by the Bureau’s SENTRY 

system and used as part of the current 

IFRP system to develop payment plans. 

If IFRP was designed around account 

balances, there would be a significant 

incentive for inmates to spend down 

their account balances in advance of the 

time at which their financial plan is 

established or reviewed, in order to 

evade financial responsibility 

obligations. Instead, by utilizing the 

total value of deposits, the Bureau will 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
102028 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 242 / Tuesday, December 17, 2024 / Proposed Rules 

be relying on a figure that gives the 

complete picture of how much money 

the inmate has available to spend, 

including on satisfying their financial 

obligations. 

As the Bureau explained in its 

January 2023 NPRM, it faces significant 

technological, administrative, and other 

challenges in establishing any kind of 

variable-rate system. The Bureau 

considered a system similar to 

progressive taxation, which would 

apply a lower marginal rate to amounts 

below a certain threshold, and higher 

marginal rate to amounts above that 

threshold. This type of proposal would 

offer several benefits. It would allow the 

Bureau to target large account balances 

while still preserving a minimum 

amount of funds for an inmate’s daily 

and future use. It is also more equitable, 

recognizing that an inmate with an 

account balance of $100 and minimal 

incoming deposits is differently situated 

than one with an account balance of 

$10,000 or one with numerous deposits. 

However, the Bureau also determined 

that there were significant 

technological, administrative, and other 

disadvantages associated with this 

alternative approach. First, there is the 

risk that inmates might maintain 

deliberately small account balances 

through unlawful or illegitimate means 

(including having money held by other 

inmates), or otherwise engage in 

‘‘structuring’’ of deposits and other 

transactions, to avoid paying a higher 

percentage toward IFRP. In addition, a 

system that set cut points based on the 

balance in an inmate’s account 

presented the risk of unfairness by 

treating inmates with similar balances 

differently. For example, an inmate 

whose account balance totaled $499 

might be expected to pay 25 percent of 

future deposits towards IFRP, while an 

inmate whose account balances totaled 

$500.01 might be expected to pay 50 

percent of community deposits towards 

IFRP. 

A ‘‘progressive’’ system tied to 

deposit amounts could mitigate this 

latter concern. For instance, such a 

system might set a marginal rate of 25% 

for the first $500 in community deposits 

during a time period, with a rate of 75% 

for any deposits over $500 during the 

same span. In that scenario, an inmate 

who deposited $500 in a 365-day period 

would pay $125 (25% of the $500). An 

inmate who deposited $501 in a 365-day 

period would pay $125.50 (25% of the 

first $500, and 75% of the amount— 

$1—over $500). 

This solution, however, brings 

technological and administrative 

challenges for the Bureau. The Bureau 

lacks a fully automated process to 

‘‘freeze’’ funds or make IFRP 

withdrawals from an inmate’s account, 

which prevents the Bureau from 

implementing any plan that would 

automatically adjust amounts withheld 

from individual deposits as the amount 

in the account increases or decreases, or 

an individual deposit is above or below 

a certain point. With the number of 

deposits received by the Bureau each 

day, the Trust Fund system would have 

to query each individual account, its 

balance or deposit history, the inmate’s 

IFRP status, and tie that to a specific 

percentage of the deposit to withhold. 

Under the current IFRP model, an 

individual inmate’s IFRP financial plan 

is first manually entered by a unit team 

member, and payments are withdrawn 

and paid to the correct payee by a Trust 

Fund staff member pursuant to the 

terms of the financial plan the inmate 

has agreed to. In developing the 

financial plan, unit team staff look at the 

prior 180 days of financial activity in 

the inmate’s account to determine what 

percentage the inmate would be 

expected to pay; the inmate then signs 

the financial plan and agrees to abide by 

that plan until the next review. If the 

financial plan involved variable rates of 

withholding of deposits, it would be 

more difficult for both Bureau staff to 

explain and for inmates to understand 

what they would be paying. 

This SNPRM tries to strike a middle 

ground between setting a single, flat rate 

that applies to all inmates regardless of 

their financial means, and a highly 

sophisticated system that would 

automatically adjust withholding 

amounts based on various factors (e.g., 

account balance, total sum of deposits 

over a specific period). Under the 

proposed rule, most inmates would 

keep a majority of their outside 

deposits; only those inmates who 

receive significant deposits (e.g., $2,500 

or more over a six-month period) would 

be assessed at a rate of 55 percent or 

higher. The Bureau plans to engage in 

significant notification and educational 

efforts for parties impacted by these 

IFRP changes when it issues its final 

rule and associated implementing 

policy. As part of those efforts, the 

Bureau anticipates informing members 

of the public (including ‘‘outside’’ 

depositors) that funds deposited into the 

account of an IFRP-participating inmate 

may be paid toward the inmate’s 

financial obligations, in accordance 

with the terms of the inmate’s agreed-to 

IFRP payment plan. 

Importantly, financial plans are 

subject to review and adjustment at a 

minimum during every program review 

meeting. Accordingly, an inmate who 

receives a single large deposit may see 

their financial plan percentage increase 

for the next six months. However, once 

their deposits return to lower amounts, 

that percentage can be adjusted 

downward by Bureau staff. 

Changes to Set-Aside Amounts 

In developing this SNPRM, the 

Bureau’s overarching intent is to 

establish that inmates with more money 

are expected to pay more towards their 

financial obligations. Under the current 

IFRP regulation, when developing an 

inmate’s financial plan, Bureau staff are 

required to subtract $450 (i.e., $75 × 6 

months, inmate telephone exclusion) 

from consideration in evaluating the 

inmate’s available financial resources. 

This SNPRM would retain a version 

of the set-aside, but it does not 

explicitly tie it to telephone use for two 

reasons. First, Bureau inmates have 

multiple avenues, including telephone 

calls, electronic messaging, and video 

visiting (where available), to maintain 

contact with family and other members 

of the community, so restricting the setaside consideration to just phone calls 

no longer reflects current realities. 

Second, the Bureau recognizes that 

inmates may choose to prioritize other 

purchases, including, for example, overthe-counter medications purchased from 

commissary, preferred hygiene 

products, hobbycraft materials, or 

materials for college or correspondence 

courses. 

Under the SNPRM, an inmate who 

receives less than $250 in deposits over 

the six months prior to program review 

would generally not be required to pay 

any percentage of their outside deposits 

towards IFRP. The only circumstance in 

which this inmate would be required to 

pay a percentage of his outside deposits 

is if the inmate has accumulated a 

commissary account balance of $250 or 

more at the time of program review. In 

the Bureau’s view, if the inmate has 

$250 in their commissary account, 

regardless of their deposit activity over 

that time period, then the rationale 

behind the set-aside is satisfied, and the 

inmate should pay a percentage of his 

future incoming deposits towards IFRP 

obligations. Importantly, that percentage 

would not be 100 percent, except for 

those inmates who receive more than 

$5,000 over a six-month period. Inmates 

who participate in IFRP would be 

guaranteed to keep a minimum of $250, 

and for all but the most well-off 

inmates, they would also be entitled to 

keep a majority of their external 

deposits in excess of that $250 amount 

as well. 

We will briefly revisit the example of 

John Doe, who had an account balance 

of $600 and was placed on an IFRP 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 242 / Tuesday, December 17, 2024 / Proposed Rules 102029 

payment plan that would withhold 25 

percent of future ‘‘outside’’ deposits. 

While that plan is in effect, Mr. Doe 

receives $100 every month deposited 

into his account by family members. For 

each deposit, he would be able to spend 

$75 on things like phone calls, 

electronic messaging, and commissary, 

in addition to the $600 he already had 

in his account. Meanwhile, $25 of each 

deposit would be paid towards his 

federal restitution. Given costs for 

phone calls ($.06/minute, with a limit of 

300 minutes per month) and electronic 

messaging access ($.05/minute), Mr. Doe 

would have sufficient funds remaining 

after his IFRP payment is deducted to 

maintain contact with his family and 

friends through either of these methods. 

With respect to commissary spending, 

Mr. Doe would likewise have sufficient 

funds to purchase items in the 

commissary at FCI Lompoc I like aspirin 

($1.90), hydrocortisone cream ($1.55), 

and antifungal foot cream ($2.70). 

By exempting inmates with minimal 

funds (i.e., less than $250) from the 

requirement regarding outside deposits, 

inmates will still be able to 

communicate with family and purchase 

some commissary items. While inmates 

with limited financial means may have 

to make choices about how to spend 

their funds, the exemption would 

ensure that they will all have some 

funds available. 

Specific Treatment of High-Value 

Accounts 

In the Bureau’s experience, the vast 

majority of inmates carry commissary 

account balances of under $5,000. As of 

November 2024, for example, only two 

percent of BOP’s inmate population of 

over 158,000 inmates had a commissary 

account balance of $5,000 or more. This 

SNPRM proposes to specifically target 

Bureau inmates who have significant 

account balances, which the Bureau 

defines as a balance greater than or 

equal to $5,000, and who also owe 

financial obligations. These inmates 

would be expected to allot all funds in 

excess of $5,000 held in their 

commissary accounts towards payment 

of financial obligations, in addition to 

100 percent of all ‘‘external’’ deposits 

received during times when their 

accounts are at or above that $5,000 

threshold. 

As previously noted, only two percent 

of inmates have account balances of 

$5,000 or above, and an even smaller 

subset of that percentage owes any 

financial obligations, and thus would be 

subject to this provision. By imposing 

this requirement only on those inmates 

who maintain significant balances, the 

Bureau is communicating the 

expectation that inmates would not be 

able to use their commissary accounts to 

shield their funds from being used to 

satisfy their financial obligations. 

Example: Inmate James Roe owes 

federal restitution of $100,000. He 

attends his program review meeting 

with a commissary account balance of 

$9,000, and deposits over the prior six 

months totaling $1,000. He would be 

expected to make a one-time payment of 

$4,000 (the amount in his commissary 

account in excess of $5,000), and would 

be placed on an IFRP payment plan that 

withholds 10% of his pay and 100% of 

his outside deposits. 

The Bureau recognizes that this 

approach may lead some inmates who 

have the available means to seek to 

deposit their funds in non-Bureau, 

external accounts. In these 

circumstances, alternative financial 

collection methods can be pursued by 

federal, state, and/or local authorities. 

This approach may also lead some 

inmates to decline to participate in 

IFRP, but that decision would subject 

them to the consequences of nonparticipation detailed in 28 CFR 

545.11(d). 

Proposed Changes to 28 CFR 545.11(c) 

In the January 2023 NPRM, the 

Bureau stated its intention to revise the 

proposed rule to explain that the 

inmate’s financial plan would be 

reviewed at a minimum during the 

inmate’s program review meeting. This 

SNPRM keeps this intended revision, 

and makes clear that the percentage of 

non-institution (community) resources 

deducted for IFRP payments may be 

revised at this time, based on the total 

value of deposits into the inmate’s 

commissary account over the prior six 

months. Modifications to an inmate’s 

financial plan may be made at times 

other than the inmate’s program review 

meeting if, for example, the inmate 

receives a significant deposit or loses a 

source of community support. 

The Bureau is also interested in 

receiving comments on the topic of 

whether an inmate should be exempt 

from IFRP participation for a certain 

length of time prior to reentry. For 

example, the inmate could be exempt 

from IFRP participation during the 90 or 

180 days prior to either (1) the inmate’s 

transition to a residential reentry center 

or home confinement, or (2) expiration 

of the inmate’s term of imprisonment, if 

the inmate is not participating in 

community confinement. 

Proposed Changes to 28 CFR 545.11(d) 

Paragraph (d) of 28 CFR 545.11 lists 

the effects of non-participation in the 

IFRP. In the January 2023 NPRM, the 

Bureau proposed to revise this 

paragraph to remove two listed 

consequences, as they are no longer in 

use, and to add one new consequence. 

This SNPRM keeps the changes 

proposed by the January 2023 NPRM 

and clarifies how this paragraph will be 

structured. As detailed below, the 

Bureau continues to invite comments 

specifically on the linkage between IFRP 

and time credits under the First Step 

Act. 

1. Deletion of language requiring 

quartering in lowest housing status as 

an effect of non-participation in IFRP. 

First, the Bureau still proposes to 

remove current paragraph (d)(7), which 

requires that if an inmate refuses to 

participate in or comply with the 

provisions of the IFRP, the inmate be 

quartered in the lowest housing status 

available (dormitory or double-bunking, 

for example). 

2. Deletion of language prohibiting 

placement in community-based 

programs as an effect of nonparticipation in IFRP. Second, the 

Bureau still proposes to remove current 

paragraph (d)(8), which states that if an 

inmate refuses to participate in or 

comply with the provisions of the IFRP, 

the inmate would not be placed in a 

community-based program. 

3. Relationship between IFRP and 

Time Credits under the First Step Act. 

The Bureau has taken very seriously the 

comments it received in response to the 

January 2023 NPRM that expressed 

concerns that conditioning FSA Time 

Credits on IFRP participation may take 

away from the FSA’s spirit and intent to 

encourage individuals in custody to 

prepare for reentry. However, the 

Bureau maintains that participation in 

IFRP demonstrates acceptance of 

responsibility and is an important step 

in preparing for reentry. Accordingly, 

the Bureau has proposed a number of 

the reforms to the IFRP program 

described above aimed at minimizing 

the perceived burden of IFRP 

participation on those eligible for FSA 

Time Credits and addresses the concern 

that participation may leave individuals 

without necessary resources. These 

proposed reforms include the 

exemption of individuals with limited 

funds ($249.99 or less) from IFRP 

payments and the newly proposed 

progressive payment system for outside 

deposits. We therefore invite additional 

comments on the relationship between 

IFRP and FSA Time Credits in light of 

the Bureau’s efforts to address the stated 

concerns through these and other 

reforms proposed in this rulemaking. 

4. Conforming amendments. Finally, 

the Bureau proposes to renumber 

current paragraphs (d)(9) and (d)(11) to 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
102030 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 242 / Tuesday, December 17, 2024 / Proposed Rules 

paragraphs (d)(7) and (d)(8) 

respectively; to remove current 

paragraph (d)(10); which is currently 

listed as ‘‘reserved’’; and to make 

amendments to redesignate the 

numbered list in this regulation to 

conform to the changes described in this 

proposed rule. 

Regulatory Certifications 

Executive Orders 12866, 13563, and 

14094 (Regulatory Review) 

This proposed 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 

proposed rule is limited to an existing 

BOP program that applies to sentenced 

inmates in the custody of the Federal 

Bureau of Prisons, and does not apply 

to inmates in study/observation; pretrial 

detainees; or inmates in holdover status 

pending designation. 

Executive Order 13132—Federalism 

This proposed rule 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, in 

accordance with Executive Order 13132, 

it is determined that this proposed rule 

does not have sufficient federalism 

implications to warrant the preparation 

of a Federalism Assessment. 

Executive Order 12988—Civil Justice 

Reform (Plain Language) 

This proposed 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 proposed 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 proposed rule is intended 

to create any legal or procedural rights 

enforceable against the United States. 

Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 

This proposed 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 (as adjusted for 

inflation), 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. 

Regulatory Flexibility Act 

The Director of the Bureau of Prisons, 

under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 

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

and certifies that it will not have a 

significant economic impact upon a 

substantial number of small entities for 

the following reasons: This regulation 

pertains to the correctional management 

of inmates committed to the custody of 

the Attorney General or the Director of 

the Bureau of Prisons. Its economic 

impact is limited to the Bureau’s 

appropriated funds, and the funds held 

by individuals in Bureau custody who 

owe the types of financial obligations 

collectible through this Program. The 

Department anticipates that changes 

made by this proposed rule will result 

in additional monies collected through 

the Inmate Financial Responsibility 

Program and paid toward inmates’ 

financial obligations, although the exact 

amount is unknown; in fiscal year 2023, 

the total collected from inmates through 

the Program was in excess of $9.2 

million (https://www.bop.gov/resources/ 

victim_resources.jsp). 

Congressional Review Act 

This proposed rule is not a major rule 

as defined by the Congressional Review 

Act, 5 U.S.C. 804. 

List of Subjects in 28 CFR Part 545 

Prisoners, Work and Compensation. 

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, the Bureau proposes to amend 28 

CFR part 545 as follows: 

SUBCHAPTER C—INSTITUTIONAL 

MANAGEMENT 

PART 545—WORK AND 

COMPENSATION 

■ 1. The authority citation for 28 CFR 

part 545 continues to read as follows: 

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

3571, 3572, 3621, 3622, 3624, 3632, 3663, 

3771, 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 28 CFR 545.11: 

■ a. Revise paragraphs (a)(4) and (5); 

■ b. Add paragraph (a)(6); 

■ c. Revise paragraphs (b), (c), and (d)(7) 

through (9); and 

■ d. Remove paragraphs (d)(10) and 

(11). 

The revisions and additions read as 

follows: 

§ 545.11 Procedures. 

* * * * * 

(a) * * * 

(4) Child, spousal, or other familial 

support obligations; 

(5) Other federal government 

obligations; and 

(6) Other (non-family support) state or 

local court obligations. 

(b) Payment of financial obligations. 

The inmate is responsible for making 

satisfactory progress in meeting the 

inmate’s financial responsibility plan 

and for providing documentation of 

these payments to unit team staff. 

Ordinarily, a plan for payment of 

financial obligations set out in the 

inmate’s Judgment & Commitment order 

(J&C) or other court order should be 

implemented as the inmate’s financial 

plan. In the event the J&C or other court 

order does not prescribe a payment plan 

or schedule, the following will apply. 

(1) Initial classification. During the 

initial classification and review of the 

inmate’s financial obligations, unit team 

staff will also review the inmate’s 

individual commissary account balance, 

and encourage the inmate to make a 

payment to satisfy any financial 

obligations in full. The inmate can make 

this payment through his/her 

commissary account or from other 

financial resources. For a payment made 

through a non-Bureau resource, the 

inmate is required to provide 

documentation of the payment to unit 

team staff. If the inmate is unwilling or 

unable to fully satisfy any financial 

obligation at the time of initial 

classification and review, the inmate 

will be required to make a one-time 

single payment toward his/her financial 

obligation(s) if his/her commissary 

account balance is greater than or equal 

to $250. The amount of this one-time 

payment will be based on the amount of 

money in the inmate’s commissary 

account at the time of initial 

classification and review: 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 242 / Tuesday, December 17, 2024 / Proposed Rules 102031 

TABLE 1 TO PARAGRAPH (b)(1) 

Commissary account balance Percentage deducted for one-time initial payment 

$0.01–$249.99 ......................................... 0%. 

$250.00–$5,000.00 .................................. 50% of the amount between $250 and $5,000. 

$5,000.01 or more ................................... 50% of the amount between $250 and $5,000 and 100% of the amount above $5,000. 

(2) Financial plans. For an inmate 

who is unwilling or unable to make a 

single payment to satisfy the inmate’s 

entire financial obligation(s) at the time 

of the initial classification and review, 

Bureau staff will establish a financial 

plan for the inmate. These financial 

plans shall be structured as follows: 

(i) Allotment of institution resources. 

The inmate will be required to pay 10 

percent of all pay received for an 

institution or UNICOR work assignment 

to the IFRP payment process. This 

includes performance pay, bonus pay, 

and special bonus pay. 

(ii) Allotment of non-institution 

(community) resources. The inmate will 

be expected to allot a specified 

percentage of all deposits received from 

non-institution (community) resources 

toward the IFRP payment process. 

(iii) Establishing financial plan at 

program review. During program review, 

BOP staff will review the inmate’s 

commissary account balance, and total 

value of deposits into the inmate’s 

commissary account over the prior six 

months. Based on the total value of 

deposits over the prior six months, BOP 

staff will place the inmate on a financial 

plan that specifies that a certain 

percentage of each future deposit from 

non-institution (community) resources 

will be deducted and paid toward the 

IFRP payment process. The specific 

percentages are reflected in the 

following table: 

TABLE 2 TO PARAGRAPH (b)(2)(iii) 

Total value of deposits over prior six 

months Percentage of future outside deposits deducted and paid toward IFRP 

$.01–$249.99 ........................................... 0% if commissary account balance is $249.99 or smaller. 

25% if commissary account balance is $250.00 or larger. 

$250.00–$999.99 ..................................... 25%. 

$1,000–$2,499.99 .................................... 35%. 

$2,500–$4,999.99 .................................... 55%. 

≥$5,000 .................................................... 100%. 

(iv) Balances greater than or equal to 

$5,000. For any inmate who has a 

commissary account balance greater 

than or equal to $5,000 at the time of 

review of the inmate’s participation 

and/or progress in the IFRP, the inmate 

will be expected to pay all of the 

amount in the account, in excess of 

$5,000, toward the IFRP payment 

process. 

(3) Exceptions to allotment amounts. 

Any allotment that differs from that 

described in part (2) of this subpart 

must be approved by the unit manager, 

after consultation with the associate 

warden, and documented in writing. 

(c) Monitoring. Participation and/or 

progress in the IFRP, including the 

inmate’s financial plan, will be 

reviewed, at a minimum, during an 

inmate’s program review meeting. The 

percentage of non-institution 

(community) resources deducted for 

IFRP payments may be revised at this 

time, based on the total value of 

deposits into the inmate’s commissary 

account over the prior six months. 

Modifications to an inmate’s financial 

plan may be made at times other than 

the inmate’s program review meeting. 

(d) * * * 

* * * * * 

(7) The inmate will not receive a 

release gratuity unless approved by the 

warden; 

(8) The inmate will not receive an 

incentive for participation in residential 

drug treatment programs; and 

(9) The inmate will not be eligible to 

earn or apply First Step Act Time 

Credits, as described in 18 U.S.C. 3624 

and 3632(d)(4), and 28 CFR 523.40 

through 523.44. 

Colette S. Peters, 

Director, Federal Bureau of Prisons. 

[FR Doc. 2024–29692 Filed 12–16–24; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4410–05–P 

DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS 

AFFAIRS 

38 CFR Part 17 

RIN 2900–AS25 

Updates to Waiver of Charges for 

Copayments 

AGENCY: Department of Veterans Affairs. 

ACTION: Proposed rule. 

SUMMARY: The Department of Veterans 

Affairs (VA) proposes to amend its 

medical regulations to allow VA to 

initiate a waiver request for debt 

accumulated from health care 

copayments on behalf of veterans in 

certain circumstances and to remove the 

requirement that veterans submit VA 

Form 5655 when seeking a waiver of 

copayment debt. 

DATES: Comments must be received on 

or before February 18, 2025. 

ADDRESSES: Comments must be 

submitted through www.regulations.gov. 

Except as provided below, comments 

received before the close of the 

comment period will be available at 

www.regulations.gov for public viewing, 

inspection, or copying, including any 

personally identifiable or confidential 

business information that is included in 

a comment. We post the comments 

received before the close of the 

comment period on 

www.regulations.gov as soon as possible 

after they have been received. VA will 

not post public comments on 

www.regulations.gov that make threats 

to individuals or institutions or suggest 

that the commenter will take actions to 

harm an individual. VA encourages 

individuals not to submit duplicative 

comments. We will post acceptable 

comments from multiple unique 

commenters even if the content is 

identical or nearly identical to other 

comments. Any public comment 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS1