`[Federal Register Volume 90, Number 9 (Wednesday, January 15, 2025)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 4398-4421]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2024-31206]



[[Page 4397]]

Vol. 90

Wednesday,

No. 9

January 15, 2025

Part IX





Department of Homeland Security





-----------------------------------------------------------------------





6 CFR Part 139





Protection of Federal Property; Proposed Rule

  Federal Register / Vol. 90 , No. 9 / Wednesday, January 15, 2025 / 
Proposed Rules  

[[Page 4398]]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

6 CFR Part 139

[Docket ID No. DHS-2024-0033]
RIN 1601-AB17


Protection of Federal Property

AGENCY: Department of Homeland Security.

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: The Department of Homeland Security (DHS), in consultation 
with the U.S. General Services Administration (GSA), proposes to 
promulgate regulations for the protection of Federal property. Within 
DHS, Federal Protective Service (FPS) maintains responsibility for the 
protection of buildings, grounds, and property owned, occupied, or 
secured by the Federal government. The proposed rule would adopt and 
revise the language of related-GSA regulations, consistent with DHS' 
statutory authority, to provide charging options for violations 
occurring on and adjacent to Federal property, update prohibited 
conduct to incorporate advancing technology, provide clearer public 
notice, and apply the regulations uniformly to all Federal property.

DATES: Written comments must be submitted on or before March 17, 2025. 
The electronic Federal Docket Management System will accept comments 
before midnight eastern time at the end of that day.

ADDRESSES: You may send comments on this notice, identified by Docket 
Number DHS-2024-0033, through the Federal e-Rulemaking portal at 
https://www.regulations.gov. Follow the website instructions for 
submitting comments. Comments submitted in a manner other than those 
discussed in this proposal will not be considered by DHS. Please note 
that DHS cannot accept any comments that are hand-delivered or 
couriered. In addition, DHS cannot accept any comments contained on any 
form of digital media storage devices, such as CDs/DVDs and USB drives. 
DHS is also not accepting mailed comments. If you cannot submit your 
comment using https://www.regulations.gov, please contact David Hess by 
email at [email protected]. For additional instructions regarding 
submitting comments, see Section I of this notice, ``Public 
Participation'' in the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION Section of this 
document.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. David Hess, Deputy Director, FPS 
Policy, Communications and Engagement, 202-447-0800, 
[email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Table of Contents

I. Public Participation
II. Background
    A. Statutory Authority
    B. History of Federal Facility Protection
    1. Federal Works Agency
    2. U.S. General Services Administration
    3. U.S. Department of Homeland Security
    C. Federal Protective Service Today
III. Comparison to GSA's Federal Management Regulations
IV. Proposed Rule
    Subpart A--General
    Subpart B--Personal Conduct Affecting Federal Property
V. Regulatory Analyses
    A. Executive Order 12866 and Executive Order 13563
    B. Regulatory Flexibility Act
    C. Paperwork Reduction Act
    D. Executive Order 13132 (Federalism)
    E. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
    F. National Environmental Policy Act
    G. Executive Order 13175

Table of Acronyms

CFR Code of Federal Regulations
DHS Department of Homeland Security
FSC Facility Security Committee
FMR Federal Management Regulations
FPS Federal Protective Service
FPS LEOs Federal Protective Service Law Enforcement Officers
FR Federal Register
GSA U.S. General Services Administration
HSA Homeland Security Act
ISC Interagency Security Committee
MOU Memorandum of Understanding
NARA National Archives and Records Administration
NPRM Notice of Proposed Rulemaking
PSO Protective Security Officer
UMRA Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
U.S.C. United States Code

I. Public Participation

    Interested persons are invited to participate in this rulemaking by 
submitting written comments, data, or views. DHS also invites comments 
relating to the economic, environmental, energy, or federalism 
considerations that might result from this proposed rulemaking action. 
Comments that will provide the most assistance to DHS in developing 
this proposed rule will refer to a specific provision of the NPRM, 
explain the reason for any comments, and include other information or 
authority that supports such comments.
    Instructions: If you submit a comment, you must submit it to DHS 
Docket Number DHS-2024-0033. All submissions may be posted, without 
change, to the Federal eRulemaking Portal at https://www.regulations.gov, and will include any personal information you 
provide. Therefore, submitting this information makes it public. You 
may wish to consider limiting the amount of personal information that 
you provide in any voluntary public comment submission you make. DHS 
may withhold information provided in comments from public viewing that 
it determines may impact the privacy of an individual or is offensive. 
For additional information, please read the Privacy and Security Notice 
available at https://www.regulations.gov.
    Docket: For access to the docket and to read background documents 
or comments received, go to https://www.regulations.gov, referencing 
the docket number listed above. You may also sign up for email alerts 
on the online docket to be notified when comments are posted or another 
Federal Register document is published.

II. Background

A. Statutory Authority

    In response to the terrorist attacks on September 11, 2001, 
Congress enacted the Homeland Security Act of 2002, Public Law 107-296, 
116 Stat 2135 (Nov. 25, 2002) (the Act) to better protect the assets 
and critical infrastructure of the United States. The Act expressly 
transfers the authority for law enforcement and related security 
functions for Federal properties from the GSA to the Secretary of 
DHS.\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ Section 403(3) of the Homeland Security Act, Public Law 107-
296, 116 Stat. 2315 (2002), codified at 6 U.S.C. 203(3) (transferred 
all law enforcement and related security functions of the Federal 
Protective Service from the Administrator of General Services to the 
Secretary of Homeland Security).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Act requires the Secretary to ``protect the buildings, grounds, 
and property that are owned, occupied, or secured by the Federal 
Government (including any agency, instrumentality, or wholly owned or 
mixed-ownership corporation thereof) and the persons on the property.'' 
40 U.S.C. 1315(a). The Act further authorizes the Secretary to 
designate officers and agents ``for duty in connection with the 
protection of property owned or occupied by the Federal Government and 
persons on the property, including duty in areas outside the property 
to the extent necessary to protect the property and persons on the 
property.'' 40 U.S.C. 1315(b)(1). Thus, in addition to moving the 
protective mission into DHS, the statute further expanded DHS's 
protective coverage to include duties in areas outside federal property 
to the extent necessary to protect federal property and persons 
thereon, as well as authorizing off-property investigations related to 
the protection of federal

[[Page 4399]]

property and the individuals on that property. 40 U.S.C. 
1315(b)(2)(E).\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ See 40 U.S.C. 318 (2000) (authorizing appointment of special 
policeman for GSA in connection with the policing of federal 
property with authority as sheriffs and constables upon that 
property.)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In addition, as directly related to this proposed rule, the statute 
authorizes the Secretary, in consultation with the Administrator of 
GSA, to ``prescribe regulations necessary for the protection and 
administration of property owned or occupied by the Federal Government 
and persons on the property.'' 40 U.S.C. 1315(c)(1).

B. History of Federal Facility Protection

1. Federal Works Agency
    On June 1, 1948, Congress authorized the Administrator of the 
Federal Works Agency to appoint uniformed guards to police federal 
buildings and other areas within the jurisdiction of the Federal Works 
Agency. Public Law 80-566, 62 Stat. 281. The special police were given 
the same responsibility on federal property as sheriffs and constables 
to enforce the laws enacted for the protection of persons and property, 
to prevent breaches of peace, and to address disturbances and unlawful 
assemblies. The Federal Works Agency published the original rules 
governing personal conduct at federal facilities in the Federal 
Register on May 26, 1949. See 14 FR 2799 (May 27, 1949).
2. U.S. General Services Administration
    One year after the establishment of the Federal Works Agency, 
Congress abolished it and transferred all its functions, including the 
protection of federal buildings, to GSA. Public Law 81-152, 63 Stat. 
377. In September 1961, Congress authorized the GSA Administrator to 
appoint non-uniformed special police to conduct investigations to 
protect property under the control of GSA, enforce federal law to 
protect persons and property, and make arrests without a warrant for 
any offense committed upon Federal property if a police officer had 
reason to believe the offense was a felony and the person to be 
arrested was guilty of the felony. Public Law 87-275, 75 Stat. 574.
    Pursuant to Public Law 87-275, the GSA Administrator formally 
established the FPS in January 1971 through GSA Administrative Order 
5440.46.\3\ FPS, as a component of GSA, continued to protect federal 
property and buildings with both uniformed and non-uniformed officers.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ See Shawn Reese, Cong. Rsch. Serv., RS22706, The Federal 
Protective Service and Contract Security Guards: A Statutory History 
and Current Status (2009).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

3. U.S. Department of Homeland Security
    As mentioned above, in 2002 Congress transferred FPS from GSA to 
DHS with enactment of the Homeland Security Act of 2002 (Pub. L. 107-
296). 6 U.S.C. 203. It further authorized the Secretary to designate 
officers and agents ``for duty in connection with the protection of 
property owned or occupied by the Federal Government and persons on the 
property, including duty in areas outside the property to the extent 
necessary to protect the property and persons on the property.'' 40 
U.S.C. 1315(b)(1).
    Thereafter, in 2009, the DHS Secretary transferred FPS from 
Immigration and Customs Enforcement to the National Protection and 
Programs Directorate.\4\ In 2018, Congress passed the Cybersecurity and 
Infrastructure Security Agency Act, Public Law 115-278, renaming the 
National Protection and Programs Directorate to the Cybersecurity and 
Infrastructure Security Agency and authorizing the Secretary of 
Homeland Security to coordinate a transfer or realignment of FPS within 
DHS.\5\ In 2019, FPS was transferred to the DHS Management Directorate.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ See Press Release, Secretary Napolitano Announces Transfer 
of Federal Protective Service to National Protection and Programs 
Directorate (https://www.dhs.gov/news/2009/10/29/transfer-federal-protective-service-national-protection-and-programs-directorate) 
(Oct. 29, 2009) (last accessed July 15, 2024).
    \5\ See 6 U.S.C. 452, note (directing reassignment of FPS within 
DHS). Effective October 1, 2019, the Secretary internally realigned 
FPS under the Department's Management Directorate.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

C. Federal Protective Service Today

    Over the past decade, DHS has encountered a myriad of criminal 
misconduct directed at and occurring on federal property, including 
violent acts committed by active shooters, assaults and disturbances 
committed by competing and conflicting individuals or groups, and 
increased threats, harassment, and hazards perpetrated or presented by 
bad-faith actors.\6\ DHS acts to mitigate these threats through the 
authority of 40 U.S.C. 1315 to protect Federal property owned, 
occupied, or secured by the Federal government and the persons thereon, 
and conducts enforcement operations commensurate with threats to this 
mission. Additionally, DHS partners with other federal, state, local, 
and tribal law enforcement agencies. FPS provides guidance to building 
owners and tenant agencies on physical security measures to promote 
public safety at Federal facilities, such as FPS's involvement in the 
development of a facility's Occupancy Emergency Plan and active shooter 
trainings. FPS also provides crime prevention education for agencies 
and individuals and recommends strategies to promote safety.\7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ See e.g. Rosana Hughes, Guilty plea after Molotov cocktail 
damages federal building in Atlanta in 2020, The Atlanta Journal-
Constitution (Oct. 27, 2022), https://www.ajc.com/news/crime/guilty-plea-after-molotov-cocktail-damages-federal-building-in-atlanta-in-2020/IJQEHRPXX5FD5MUPSOGPISXB24/(last accessed Sept. 10, 2024); see 
also, e.g., Aaron Katersky, Josh Margolin, and Meredith Deliso, 
Standoff ends after armed man allegedly tried to break into 
Cincinnati FBI office, ABC News (Aug. 12, 2022), https://abcnews.go.com/US/suspect-chased-break-fbis-cincinnati-office-police/story?id=88246982 (last accessed Sept. 10, 2024).
    \7\ See Cline Testimony, supra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Specifically, to accomplish the federal property protection mandate 
prescribed by Congress, the Secretary, through the delegation of 40 
U.S.C. 1315 authorities and police powers, relies upon the law 
enforcement and protective security services provided primarily by 
FPS.\8\ FPS employs nearly 900 Federal law enforcement officers 
designated under the Secretary's authority to protect over 8,500 
Federal non-military properties and the roughly 1.4 million people who 
work, visit, or conduct business on those properties across the United 
States and its territories. FPS officers utilize the police powers 
prescribed at 40 U.S.C. 1315(b)(2), including enforcement of federal 
law and regulations, for the protection of property and persons on the 
property.\9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ See DHS Delegations 0002, Rev. No. 00.4, approved on 10/11/
2022, and 02500, Rev. No. 00.1, approved on 11/23/2022. 
Additionally, pursuant to DHS Delegation 12000, Rev. No. 00.1, law 
enforcement officers of DHS's Office of the Chief Security Officer, 
the Federal Law Enforcement Training Center, and the Federal 
Emergency Management Agency Mt. Weather Police Department may also 
be delegated enforcement under 40 U.S.C 1315.
    \9\ See Hearing on Examining the Security of Federal Facilities 
(Nov. 29, 2023) (Testimony of Richard K. Cline, Director, FPS, 
Management Directorate, DHS), https://www.hsgac.senate.gov/hearings/examining-the-security-of-federal-facilities/(last accessed July 18, 
2024).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As noted, in accomplishing this security mission, FPS currently has 
authority to enforce GSA regulations at protected GSA facilities. The 
enforcement activities related to GSA regulations include but are not 
limited to: inspecting items subject to inspection; admitting persons 
to property; preserving property; controlling vehicular and pedestrian 
traffic in accordance with signs and directions; and enforcing 
regulations that prohibit disturbances, possession and use of narcotics 
and other drugs, use of alcoholic beverages, soliciting, vending, debt 
collection, posting and

[[Page 4400]]

distributing materials, taking photographs for news, advertising or 
commercial purposes; bringing dogs and other animals on Federal 
property; and possession of weapons and explosives on Federal property. 
See generally 41 CFR Part 102-74, Subpart C.
    FPS executes its mission by providing integrated security, law 
enforcement, and protective intelligence capabilities to ensure the 
Federal Government functions securely. For example, during Fiscal Year 
(FY) 2022, FPS:
     Responded to, investigated, and mitigated more than 1,292 
threats and assaults directed towards federal facilities and their 
occupants.
     Conducted 58,084 Protective Security Officer (PSO) post 
inspections, including 47,086 facility security checks.
     Stopped more than 189,462 weapons/prohibited items 
including knives, brass knuckles, pepper spray, and other items that 
could be used as weapons or are contraband such as illegal drugs, from 
entering federal facility entrances during routine checks.
     Made 505 arrests.
     Responded to 17,168 incidents involving people or 
property.
    In addition to enforcing GSA regulations, FPS has criminal 
jurisdiction that varies based on the jurisdiction of the facility. The 
Federal government obtains jurisdiction over Federal property through 
various methods resulting in three types of legislative jurisdiction 
discussed below: exclusive, concurrent, or proprietary. When a criminal 
incident occurs, the response and the applicable criminal laws depend 
on the facility's legislative jurisdiction: (1) Exclusive 
Jurisdiction--Federal government has sole law enforcement authority 
over these lands and only Federal criminal law applies; (2) Concurrent 
Jurisdiction--Both Federal and state governments have law enforcement 
authority over the area and both may prosecute those who violate their 
respective laws; and (3) Proprietary Jurisdiction--States have primary 
jurisdiction, but Federal laws of general application and agency 
regulations still apply. For criminal acts, FPS may enforce all Federal 
laws and regulations and the type of Federal charge is dependent on the 
type of legislative jurisdiction where the offense occurred. For 
example, although FPS may enforce all Federal criminal statutory laws, 
FPS most frequently enforces Title 18 of the U.S. Code, which covers 
``Crimes and Criminal Procedure.'' Title 18 of the U.S. Code covers 
both general crimes, such as murder and narcotics use, and restrictions 
particular to Federal facilities, such as prohibitions on weapons and 
explosives. FPS enforces these laws across all three jurisdictions, 
with the exception of Title 18 offenses pertinent to special maritime 
and territorial jurisdiction of the United States. These offenses can 
only be charged in exclusive and concurrent legislative jurisdictions 
and cannot be charged in proprietary jurisdictions. The proposed rule 
would not affect this statutory jurisdiction.
    In some circumstances, FPS may enforce state law under the 
Assimilative Crimes Act (ACA). 18 U.S.C. 13. The ACA applies state law 
to conduct occurring on Federal lands when the following three criteria 
are met: (1) the United States has exclusive or concurrent 
jurisdiction, (2) there is no Federal law covering the conduct, and (3) 
there is an applicable state law under the jurisdiction in which the 
lands are located. However, fewer than 10 percent of GSA facilities are 
under known concurrent or exclusive jurisdictions, limiting the 
applicability of the ACA in supporting FPS's mission. FPS may also 
enforce State and/or Local law via a Memorandum of Understanding or 
Agreement (MOU or MOA) where such agreements have been entered into 
with the jurisdictions. In summary, FPS enforces the GSA regulations 
and Federal law and regulations across jurisdictions. FPS enforces 
certain state law through the ACA in exclusive and concurrent 
jurisdictions, or through relevant MOUs or MOAs in concurrent or 
proprietary jurisdictions.
    In further executing this vital mission, FPS LEOs exercise their 
jurisdictional authority off Federal property to the extent necessary 
to protect federal property and persons on the property. This off-
property enforcement is spatially limited by the requirement of a nexus 
between the off-property enforcement action and the nature of the 
criminal offense directed at the federal property or persons on that 
property. In other words, FPS LEOs are authorized to take enforcement 
action for off-property conduct that affects the federal property. For 
example, FPS LEOs may take enforcement action where a person, located 
off of federal property, fires a weapon at a federal building. 40 
U.S.C. 1315(b)(1). Relatedly, FPS LEOs may act without geographical 
limitation where conducting investigations of off-property offenses 
that may have nevertheless been committed against property owned or 
occupied by the Federal government or persons on the property. For 
example, FPS LEOs may investigate a threat against a government 
employee without regard to whether the threat occurred on federal 
property. 40 U.S.C. 1315(b)(2)(E). In sum, FPS is authorized, and does, 
make arrests for off-property federal offenses committed against 
federal property or persons located thereon.
    The charging options available to FPS LEOs, however, vary for off-
property conduct. Specifically, as noted above, the GSA regulations 
cannot be used as they only apply when the prohibited activity is on 
the GSA property, in which case persons who commit low-level offenses 
on federal property may be cited and released under the GSA regulations 
(also referred to as the ``Federal Management Regulation (FMR)''). To 
illustrate the difference in charging options between off-property and 
on-property conduct, consider the case of two individuals who both 
throw a brick at a Federal building causing damage to the Federal 
property. The charging options will differ based on where the 
individuals were standing. If one of the individuals is standing on 
Federal (GSA) property, the government has the option to charge that 
individual under the FMR or under 18 U.S.C. 1361. In comparison, an 
individual who commits the same conduct one foot off Federal property 
cannot be cited under the FMR; instead, charging options are limited to 
18 U.S.C. 1361 (or under state law where appropriate).\10\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ Non-federal charges are either a result of FPS enforcing 
local laws through a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU), or by local 
authorities bring charges. See 40 U.S.C. 1315(e).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In sum, through its protection mission, DHS ensures the continuity 
and resilience of important government capabilities and functions. FPS 
law enforcement officers and contract security personnel support the 
enforcement of laws and regulations governing Federal buildings, 
maintain law and order, and protect life and property in workplaces 
controlled by the Federal Government.

III. Comparison to GSA's Federal Management Regulations

    The General Service Administration (GSA)'s Federal Management 
Regulations (FMR) currently include provisions in Title 41 of the Code 
of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 102-74, Subpart C, Conduct on Federal 
Property, that function as Class C Misdemeanor crimes subject to 
maximum penalties of 30-days' imprisonment, $5,000 fine, or both, 
consistent with 40 U.S.C. 1315(c)(2), 18 U.S.C. 3559(a)(8) (term of 
imprisonment), and 18 U.S.C. 3571(b)(6) (fines). FPS charges these FMR 
provisions by issuing a written citation akin to a traffic ticket. The 
FMR provisions provide FPS officers low-

[[Page 4401]]

level charging authority for the types of criminal misconduct routinely 
encountered while protecting federal property and occupants on the 
property across the Nation, as discussed in section II.C.
    DHS is proposing to mirror the requirements in part 102-74, Federal 
Management Regulations, in a new Part 139, Conduct on Federal Property, 
in Title 6 to ensure the protection of federal property under the 
Secretary's purview and the responsibility for such protection is 
clearly communicated to employees and visitors at Federal property. DHS 
welcomes comments on all the proposed changes set out in this proposed 
rule.
    For purposes of comparison and ease of reference, DHS provides the 
following distribution table listing the proposed rule and, as 
relevant, the current GSA FMR governing conduct for the protection of 
federal property as located in Title 41 of the Code of Federal 
Regulations (CFR).

------------------------------------------------------------------------
            DHS Title 6 Section                      FMR Section
------------------------------------------------------------------------
6 CFR 139.1 (Purpose).....................  N/A
6 CFR 139.5(a)............................  41 CFR 102-74.5
6 CFR 139.5(a)............................  41 CFR 102-74.365
6 CFR 139.5(b)............................  41 CFR 102-74.455
6 CFR 139.5(c)............................  41 CFR 102-74.15
6 CFR 139. 5(d)...........................  41 CFR 102-74.365
6 CFR 139.10 (Assessments)................  N/A
6 CFR 139.15..............................  41 CFR 102-71.20
6 CFR 139.20..............................  41 CFR 102-74.370
6 CFR 139.20..............................  41 CFR 102-74.375
6 CFR 139.25..............................  41 CFR 102-74.380
6 CFR 139.30..............................  41 CFR 102-74.385
6 CFR 139.35..............................  41 CFR 102-74.390
6 CFR 139.40..............................  41 CFR 102-74.395
6 CFR 139.45..............................  41 CFR 102-74.400
6 CFR 139.50..............................  41 CFR 102-74.405
6 CFR 139.55..............................  41 CFR 102-74.410
6 CFR 139.60..............................  41 CFR 102-74.415
6 CFR 139.65..............................  41 CFR 102-74.420
6 CFR 139.70..............................  41 CFR 102-74.430
6 CFR 139.75(a)...........................  41 CFR 102-74.440
6 CFR 139.75(b)...........................  41 CFR 102-74.435
6 CFR 139.80..............................  41 CFR 102-74.425
6 CFR 139.85..............................  41 CFR 102-74.450
------------------------------------------------------------------------

IV. Proposed Rule

    To better execute the Secretary's statutory mission to protect 
federal property and persons on and off the property pursuant to 40 
U.S.C. 1315, the proposed rule would create new DHS regulations that 
conform with the Secretary's statutory authority at 40 U.S.C. 1315. DHS 
developed this proposed rule in consultation with GSA and by using the 
current criminal regulations governing personal conduct on federal 
property found in 41 CFR Part 102-74, Subpart C, of the FMR as a 
guidepost.\11\ The current FMR, however, is applicable only to GSA 
property (rather than all property protected by FPS), and applies only 
when the conduct is committed on the property itself and not adjacent 
thereto. Accordingly, the current regulations are not as comprehensive 
as contemplated by 40 U.S.C. 1315 in accomplishing DHS's statutory 
mission to protect federal buildings. The proposed rulemaking is meant 
to close these enforcement gaps. Informed by lessons learned from 
terrorist attacks and other criminal misconduct, the proposed rule is 
also intended to address the day-to-day criminal activity encountered 
by DHS on Federal property by proposing responsive updates to the 
personal conduct regulations that provide a more current, flexible, and 
consistent law enforcement tool.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ DHS's proposed rule would not include non-criminal rules; 
specifically, 41 CFR 102-74.426 (permitting breastfeeding on federal 
property) and 41 CFR 102-74.445 (``Federal agencies must not 
discriminate by segregation or otherwise against any person or 
persons because of race, creed, religion, age, sex, color, 
disability, or national origin in furnishing or by refusing to 
furnish to such person or persons the use of any facility of a 
public nature, including all services, privileges, accommodations, 
and activities provided on the property.''). As these two rules do 
not relate to DHS' mission of protecting federal property, and 
remain under GSA's mission of maintaining federal property, they are 
not included in the proposed rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The primary changes brought about by the proposed rule would bring 
the criminal regulations out from GSA and under DHS; expand charging 
options for offenses committed on non-GSA property and promote charging 
consistency across federal facilities protected by DHS; modernize the 
personal conduct regulations to address current societal and 
technological advances, e.g., electronic cigarettes and unmanned 
aircraft systems (UAS); provide clearer guidance and notice of 
prohibited conduct to the public; and permit the charging of regulatory 
violations occurring near or adjacent to federal property.
    By expanding the scope of the regulations to off-property conduct 
and non-GSA buildings, FPS is able to meet several enforcement needs 
while adhering to its statutory authority under 40 U.S.C. 1315.\12\ 
First, DHS can more effectively effectuate crowd management by citing 
and releasing criminal actors rather than requiring an arrest and 
detention, thus permitting officers to respond to more serious criminal 
activity and preserve limited detention resources. Second, regulatory 
charges serve to fill the void where there is no applicable federal 
statutory charge applicable to the conduct and no MOU permitting DHS to 
charge state or local offenses. Further, regulatory charges serve as a 
lower-level charging option for subjects whose criminal conduct is less 
significant and does not warrant higher level charges under Title 18. 
These proposed revisions would also promote equity by allowing the same 
charging options for individuals committing the same conduct regardless 
of whether they are standing on or merely adjacent to the property.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ DHS is statutorily authorized to protect areas outside the 
federal property to the extent necessary to protect the property and 
persons on the property, 40 U.S.C 1315(b)(1), and the proposed rule 
would facilitate that protective mission by providing the charging 
authority to be commensurate with DHS's statutory enforcement 
authority.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Relatedly, the proposed regulations would provide updated criminal 
regulatory charging violations that are directly targeted, relevant, 
and applicable to the criminal misconduct encountered by FPS in the 
regular course of enforcement and operational efforts to protect the 
federal property and persons on the property.
    Furthermore, while the rule also covers non-GSA facilities, the 
proposed rule is limited in that it would only apply to the federal 
property protected by DHS pursuant to the Secretary's authority under 
40 U.S.C. 1315. Nothing in the proposed rule would alter the current 
landscape of authorities that permit federal agencies with their own 
realty authority to seek security and law enforcement services outside 
DHS. See 40 U.S.C. 1315(g). In particular, the provisions in this 
proposed rule would not be imposed upon federal agencies that do not 
otherwise procure security and law enforcement services from DHS. For 
example, under 38 U.S.C. 901, the Secretary of Veterans' Affairs has 
authority to prescribe regulations to provide for the maintenance of 
law and order and the protection of persons and property on VA 
property. These rules do not limit or alter the ability of VA or other 
agencies to maintain security not currently under FPS protection.

Subpart A--General

    Proposed Subpart A would establish the purpose, applicability, 
assessments, and definitions relevant to FPS's proposed regulations. 
Proposed Subpart A corresponds to GSA regulations, as set out in the 
distribution table, which describe the purpose, applicability, 
assessments, and definitions related to the existing FMR governing 
personal conduct on GSA-operated Federal property.
    Proposed Subpart A shifts the focus of these provisions from more 
general provisions outlining conduct on federal property to detailing 
the criminal nature

[[Page 4402]]

of the prohibited conduct as well as modernizing definitions to meet 
the expanded mission prescribed in 40 U.S.C. 1315, and corresponding 
operational needs. Congress expanded the DHS mission-set from the 
limited protection of property under the authority of GSA to directing 
the Secretary of Homeland Security to protect the buildings, grounds, 
and property that are owned, occupied, or secured by the Federal 
Government (including any agency, instrumentality, or wholly owned or 
mixed-ownership corporation thereof) and the persons on the property.
    The Secretary accomplishes this statutorily-mandated federal 
property protection mission, in large part, by and through the 
delegation of authorities and duties to designated officers and agents 
of the FPS. FPS protects approximately 8,500 federal facilities, 
including both GSA-operated facilities and other non-GSA federal 
property such as DHS and HHS Federal properties.\13\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ See Cline Testimony, supra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Under the existing FMR, FPS is limited to charging the misconduct 
proscribed in the regulations only for conduct occurring in or on GSA-
operated property even though FPS protects both non-GSA federal 
property and responds to criminal misconduct that occurs off-property 
but directly affects, threatens, or endangers the federal property and 
its occupants (i.e., persons standing across the street or sidewalk 
from federal property throwing objects at the property and its 
occupants, or persons blocking access to federal property while 
standing a few feet off the property line). See 41 CFR 102-74.365 
(``The rules in this subpart apply to all property under the authority 
of GSA and to all persons entering in or on such property.'').\14\ 
Additionally, there are circumstances where, because the property is 
not leased or owned by GSA, the FMR rules are inapplicable despite 
being protected by FPS.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ See United States v. Holdsworth, 990 F. Supp. 1274 (D. Col, 
Jan. 21, 1998) (GSA regulation prohibiting conduct that impeded or 
disrupted the performance official duties inapplicable to defendant 
who sent repetitive and threatening faxes from his home and off 
federal property.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Subpart A would allow DHS to provide FPS protection to all property 
protected by FPS, not just GSA-operated property. 6 CFR 139.5 
(proposed). The proposed regulations would also fill a critical 
enforcement gap by providing additional charging options when 
responding to criminal misconduct that occurs on the federal property 
and adjacent off-property misconduct that otherwise affects, threatens, 
or endangers the federal property and its occupants consistent with 40 
U.S.C. 1315(b)(1) and 40 U.S.C. 1315(b)(2)(E). 6 CFR 139.5 (proposed). 
The above is consistent with the statute, which does not distinguish 
between GSA and non-GSA federal property; authorizes DHS enforcement in 
areas outside the property to the extent necessary to protect the 
property and persons on the property; and permits off-property 
investigations for offenses that may have been committed against 
federal property or persons on the property. 40 U.S.C. 1315(a)-(b), 
(b)(2)(E).

Section 139.1 Purpose

    Section 139.1 would establish that the purpose of new part 139 is 
the protection of federal property and persons located on the property. 
It mirrors the statutory authorization from Congress in 40 U.S.C. 
1315(a), which directs the Secretary, by and through designated law 
enforcement officers, to protect federal property and persons on the 
property.

Section 139.5 Scope, Applicability, and Agency Cooperation

    Section 139.5(a) would set forth the scope and applicability, 
establishing to whom and on what properties the regulations would 
apply. Specifically, it proposes to apply to all federal property under 
the protection responsibility of the Secretary and all persons on such 
property. As described above and pursuant to the authority granted in 
40 U.S.C. 1315(b)(1), these proposed regulations would also apply to 
non-GSA properties and areas outside the Federal property to the extent 
necessary to protect the property and its occupants.
    The existing FMR, located in 41 CFR, Subpart C, are, as stated in 
41 CFR 102-74.365, limited in application to property under the 
authority of GSA and to persons entering in or on such property. The 
limited applicability of the existing FMR creates an inconsistency with 
the enabling statutory authority in 40 U.S.C. 1315 and leads to 
operational enforcement deficiencies. Specifically, as described 
previously, under the current regulations, DHS cannot readily utilize 
the FMR as charging authority either when protecting non-GSA Federal 
property, as authorized by 40 U.S.C. 1315(a), or when responding to 
misconduct that occurs off the federal property yet affects, threatens, 
or endangers the property and/or its occupants. Thus, the charging 
decisions under the current regulatory scheme may depend upon the 
nature of the property (GSA vs. non-GSA) or whether the individual is 
on the property, rather than the nature and effect of the criminal 
violation.
    The existing FMR, violations of which function as comparatively 
low-level Class C Misdemeanor crimes that can be charged through 
issuance of a written citation or the functional equivalent of issuing 
a traffic ticket, provides the most relevant charging authority for the 
types of misconduct FPS typically encounters during these incidents, 
including trespass, failure to follow lawful directions, and creating 
disturbances. The FMR's current limited application creates, at the 
very least, the potential for inconsistency in charging authority. For 
example, on GSA-operated property FPS may charge FMR violations as 
misdemeanor crimes; for non-GSA operated property, however, FPS must 
look to Title 18 of the U.S. Code or available state and local charging 
authority, including felony crimes, for the same or similar violations 
on non-GSA property.\15\ By contrast, the proposed regulations would 
allow FPS to charge under the regulations regardless of whether the 
individual committed the offense on non-GSA federal property protected 
by FPS, off the property, or on GSA property, lending to consistency 
for charging options.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \15\ In these instances, DHS can enforce state and local laws 
where there is an applicable MOU with local authorities allowing FPS 
to charge under state/local laws. See 40 U.S.C. 1315(e). 
Alternatively, DHS may contact local authorities, wait for an 
officer to respond to the scene, and request the local authorities 
charge the individuals.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    For example, FPS has encountered situations where individuals 
gathered on the city street or sidewalk immediately adjacent to federal 
property protected by FPS and formed human barricades, strategically 
placed spike-boards (i.e., plywood with nails protruding), and thrown 
objects at the federal property and/or occupants. While FPS LEOs 
conducted investigations of this off-property criminal activity 
consistent with 40 U.S.C. 1315(b)(2)(E), available charging authority 
was an operational issue as the misconduct did not occur ``in or on'' 
the federal property as required by 41 CFR 102-74.365.\16\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \16\ See Arun Gupta, How Portland Occupies Shut Down ICE, In 
These Times (Jul. 2, 2018), https://inthesetimes.com/article/how-portland-occupiers-shut-down-ice (last accessed July 18, 2024); see 
also Dirk VanderHart, ICE Temporarily Shutters Portland Facility Due 
to `Occupy' Protest, OPB (Jun. 20, 2018), https://www.opb.org/news/article/portland-occupy-ice-building-closed/(last accessed July 18, 
2024).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    This proposed provision would address both the operational 
inconsistency between the scope of the Secretary's statutory 40 U.S.C. 
1315

[[Page 4403]]

authority and applicability of the corresponding regulatory authority, 
and the operational deficiencies caused by the limited applicability of 
the FMR. Section 139.5(a) would extend application of the proposed 
regulations to match the scope of the statutory authority provided by 
Congress in 40 U.S.C. 1315. The expanded applicability in proposed 
Sec.  139.5(a) is both contemplated by the language of the statute and 
necessary for the protection and administration of all federal property 
under the Secretary's protection responsibility. In addition, it would 
both ensure the most relevant charging authority is readily available 
for when crimes occur which affect Federal property.
    As guidance for the application of this proposed rule to areas 
outside federal property, DHS looks to the Department of Agriculture's 
Forest Service's similar rulemaking that covers protection of forests. 
Just as 40 U.S.C. 1315(c) authorizes the Secretary of DHS to 
``prescribe regulations necessary for the protection and administration 
of property owned or occupied by the Federal Government and persons on 
the property,'' the Department of Agriculture's Forest Service is 
authorized to ``make such rules and regulations and establish such 
service as will insure the objects of such reservations, namely, to 
regulate their occupancy and use and to preserve the forests thereon 
from destruction.'' See 16 U.S.C. 551. In 36 CFR 261.1(a), the Forest 
Service's implementing regulatory provisions, the Forest Service 
expressly extends the scope of application to both prohibited conduct 
that occurs in the or on the National Forest System, as well as 
misconduct that ``affects, threatens, or endangers'' Federal property 
administered by the Forest Service. In 2014, the U.S. Court of Appeals 
for the Ninth Circuit affirmed the constitutional validity of this 
analogous Forest Service regulation in U.S. v. Parker, 761 F.3d 986, 
990-991 (9th Cir. 2014). The Court specifically recognized that 
regulations extending to activities that ``affect, threaten, or 
endanger'' property administered by the Forest Service fit within the 
agency's statutory authority at 16 U.S.C. 551 to make needful rules and 
regulations for federal property protection. Here, the proposed rule 
would similarly extend FPS's ability to charge conduct that affects, 
threatens, or endangers federal property protected by FPS consistent 
with 40 U.S.C. 1315(c).
    Section 139.5(b) would establish the applicability of the proposed 
part by affirming that these regulations may not be interpreted to 
invalidate any other federal, state, or local law or regulation 
applicable to the property. To that end, Sec.  139.5(b) specifically 
states that nothing in the proposed part restricts the authority of GSA 
or another relevant government entity to promulgate regulations related 
to federal property under its jurisdiction, custody, or control. 
Section 139.5(b) would be functionally identical to the existing 
provision in GSA's FMR, codified at 41 CFR 102-74.455. The only textual 
changes that Sec.  139.5(b) are to affirm GSA's regulatory authority.
    Section 139.5(c) would state the cooperation responsibilities of 
Federal agencies that operate or otherwise occupy space as tenants at 
Federal property under the Secretary's protection responsibility. 
Cooperation responsibilities include following all relevant provisions 
of the proposed rule, reporting all crimes and suspicious 
circumstances, providing training to employees regarding protection and 
emergency-situation responses, making recommendations for improved 
security, and posting all notices requested by DHS. Proposed Sec.  
139.5(c) is substantively identical to the existing provision in GSA's 
FMR at 41 CFR 102-74.15. Cooperation is important because federal 
tenant agencies and their employees, customers, and visitors provide 
vital, first-hand information and insight regarding activities that 
trigger security concerns or otherwise warrant law enforcement 
responses. For instance, federal employees regularly report incidents 
of suspicious loitering, harassment, or unattended items left on 
federal property, as well as express interest in active shooter and 
other emergency response training.
    Section 139.5(d) would state the notice requirement in the proposed 
rule. It would require the Facility Security Committee (FSC) or the 
highest-ranking official of the sole federal agency occupant or 
designee to post a Notice of the rules governing personal conduct 
affecting federal property in a conspicuous place at each federal 
property under the Secretary's protection. A conspicuous place is any 
location on federal property where persons entering the property will 
likely see it. The notice would be approximately 11 inches by 14 inches 
and describe generally the rules and regulations governing personal 
conduct contained in new Part 139, and would be similar to the existing 
notice provision in GSA's FMR at 41 CFR 102-74.365. The notice would 
ensure federal stakeholders and the general public are aware of the 
substantive content of this proposed part, including specific 
definitions, rules of behavior, prohibited conduct, and potential 
penalties for violations. The text of Sec.  139.5(d) would reflect the 
realignment of the general applicability provisions and emphasize the 
responsibility of the FSC or the highest-ranking official of the sole 
federal agency occupant or designee to ensure written notice is posted.
    Section 139.5(d) would also provide that DHS prescribe the notice 
on its website so that it can be updated to reflect the most user-
friendly content for the public. DHS is considering the use of a QR 
code, weblink or other uses of technology to ensure the information is 
easily available to visitors of federal facilities. The notice 
requirement in Sec.  139.5(d) is necessary for the protection and 
administration of federal property under the Secretary's protection to 
ensure the substance of the regulations, including prescribed 
penalties, in the proposed part is clearly communicated and otherwise 
imparted to employees and visitors at federal property.\17\ DHS notes 
that the burden to post such notice falls on the Federal agency.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \17\ In addition to this notice requirement found in 40 U.S.C. 
1315(c)(1) that addresses rules governing personal conduct affecting 
federal property, see 41 CFR part 102-81 that assigns responsibility 
to an occupant agency, if it is the only Federal occupant agency in 
the building, or the Facility Security Committee, for determining 
and enacting countermeasures and other security-related actions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Section 139.5(e) proposes that the operational implementation date 
for the regulations would occur six months after publication of the 
final rule in the Federal Register. During this period, GSA would 
conduct a review of its FMR in-light-of the newly published DHS 
regulations in this proposed rule, and GSA may consider eliminating, 
realigning, or otherwise modifying their FMR to avoid confusion or 
duplication between the two sets of regulations. In addition, DHS would 
undertake officer training and publication of written signage specific 
to the requirements of the new part to ensure both DHS officers and 
agents designated under 40 U.S.C. 1315 are trained on enforcement of 
the newly published regulations, and written signage is provided for 
posting at federal property under DHS protection. DHS specifically 
requests comments on whether a six-month delay in effective date is 
appropriate.

Section 139.10 Assessments for Protective Services

    Section 139.10 would state the Secretary's authority to charge 
federal agencies under the Secretary's protection for the law 
enforcement and protective security services provided to those agencies 
by FPS. The FPS security fees charged to federal tenant agencies

[[Page 4404]]

are authorized in accordance with the Secretary's statutory authority, 
codified at 40 U.S.C. 586(c), which authorizes any federal executive-
branch agency to charge for services provided to other agencies 
receiving the services. Section 139.10 would also be consistent with 
the Secretary's statutory authority, codified at 6 U.S.C. 203(3) and 
232(a) and 40 U.S.C. 1315, to protect federal property and persons on 
the property utilizing FPS personnel and assets.
    FPS is a fee-funded law enforcement entity, meaning FPS is entirely 
funded by the security fees collected from the federal tenant agencies 
FPS protects.\18\ FPS collected security fees through GSA while the two 
entities were organizationally aligned. In 2003, Congress expressly 
transferred GSA's law enforcement and protective security functions, 
including personnel, assets, and liabilities of FPS, to the Secretary 
of Homeland Security with the passage of sections 403 and 422 of the 
Homeland Security Act (6 U.S.C. 203(3) and 232(a)). Section 232(a) 
specifies that nothing in the statute shall affect GSA's functions or 
authorities, with the exception of law enforcement and related security 
functions which were transferred to the Secretary. Accordingly, 
Congress vested the Secretary with the authority to assess and collect 
fees for the law enforcement and protective security services provided 
by FPS in furtherance of the Secretary's statutory responsibility to 
protect federal property and its occupants.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \18\ Congress originally prescribed statutory authority, 
codified at 40 U.S.C. 121 (formerly cited as 40 U.S.C. 486), for the 
GSA Administrator to prescribe regulations necessary for the 
administration of GSA-operated Federal property, and authority at 40 
U.S.C. 586 authorizing Federal agencies other than GSA to impose 
fees for services at such Federal property. Consistent with these 
statutory authorities, GSA prescribed a regulation in the FMR at 41 
CFR 102-85.135 that authorizes DHS (and other Federal agencies 
besides GSA) to charge for services furnished to Federal tenant 
agencies, including law enforcement and protective security services 
furnished by FPS.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    FPS remains entirely fee funded; FPS relies upon the collection of 
security fees to execute the Secretary's statutory law enforcement 
mission under 40 U.S.C. 1315 by providing law enforcement and 
protective security services at approximately 8,500 federal facilities 
nationwide, including both GSA-operated and non-GSA Federal properties. 
Accordingly, the assessments provision in Sec.  139.10 provides federal 
stakeholders a direct, unambiguous statement of the Secretary's 
authority to assess and collect security fees from the federal tenant 
agencies that utilize FPS law enforcement and protective security 
services.

Section 139.15 Definitions

    Section 139.15 would state the definitions of key words and phrases 
used throughout the substantive provisions in the proposed part. In 
developing the definitions in the proposed rule, DHS sought guidance 
from other federal agency regulations, comparable statutory definitions 
in the U.S. Code, existing definitions in the GSA FMR, or relevant 
policy guidance related to the protection of federal property.
    GSA's FMR definitions section at 41 CFR 102-71.20 is largely 
specific to key words and phrases related to GSA's mission of 
administering the business and logistical aspects associated with 
Federal real estate, as opposed to key words and phrases related to the 
Secretary's law enforcement and protective security mission. For, 
example, the current FMR do not define the terms ``facility security 
committee,'' ``protective security officer,'' and ``security 
personnel,'' all of which are defined in proposed Sec.  139.15 and 
integral to understanding the protective security and law enforcement 
services provided at Federal property protected by the Secretary. The 
proposed rule also includes definitions for ``crime of violence,'' 
``tobacco product,'' ``unmanned aircraft,'' and ``unmanned aircraft 
system'' to add meaning and clarity to new substantive provisions in 
the prohibited conduct provisions described in Sec.  139.35.
    For a starting point in drafting the proposed rule, DHS utilized as 
guidance other statutory and regulatory definitions, or logical 
derivatives thereof, that relate to the same or substantially similar 
subject matter that is included in the proposed rule. To that end, 
proposed Sec.  139.15 defines the following terms using the same or 
substantially similar definitions from GSA's existing FMR at 41 CFR 
102-71.20: ``building manager/property manager/facility manager'' 
(referred to as ``Federal agency buildings manager'' in FMR), 
``designated official,'' ``emergency,'' and ``public area.'' Section 
139.15 also uses the same definition of ``gambling per se'' as found in 
the FMR at 102-74.395(b) and derives the definition of ``nuisance'' 
from the disturbances provision in the FMR at 41 CFR 102-74.390.
    Section 139.15 would also include language from the authority in 40 
U.S.C. 1315(a) to define ``Secretary'' as specific to the Department of 
Homeland Security Secretary and ``Federal Government'' as inclusive of 
any agency, instrumentality, or wholly owned or mixed-ownership 
corporation thereof. DHS derived the definitions of ``federal 
property,'' ``federal grounds,'' and ``federal facility'' from 40 
U.S.C. 1315 to clarify that Congress authorized the Secretary to 
protect federal property, which is an umbrella term that includes both 
federal facilities (buildings and physical structures) and federal 
grounds (the land operated by GSA or another Federal agency). DHS also 
derived the definition of ``security personnel'' from 40 U.S.C. 
1315(b), which authorizes the Secretary to designate specific officers 
and agents, including FPS personnel, for duties in connection to the 
protection of federal property and persons on the property.
    In addition, Section 139.15 would define the following terms with 
the same or substantially similar definition from an analogous 
statutory authority: ``aircraft,'' ``unmanned aircraft,'' and 
``unmanned aircraft system,'' which appear in the prohibited conduct 
provisions in Sec.  139.35(k), (l), with the same definitions used in 
Federal aviation law at 49 U.S.C. 40102(6) (defining aircraft) and 
44801(12) (and the implementing regulation at 14 CFR 1.1 ((defining 
unmanned aircraft system))); ``crime of violence,'' which appears in 
the criminal threats prohibition in Sec.  139.35(f), with the same 
definition in the elements clause at 18 U.S.C. 16(a); ``dangerous 
weapon,'' which appears in the prohibited carriage and possession 
provision at Sec.  139.75(a), with the same definition in Federal 
firearms law codified at 18 U.S.C. 930(g)(2); ``labor organization,'' 
which appears in Sec.  139.55(b) as one of the categories of persons 
exempt from the general prohibition on soliciting, with the same 
definition in the Civil Service Reform Act codified at 5 U.S.C. 
7103(a)(4); ``service animal,'' which appears in the animals provision 
in Sec.  139.80, with the same definition as the Department of Justice 
regulation at 28 CFR 36.104 that implements the Americans with 
Disabilities Act, Public Law 101-336, 104 Stat. 327; \19\ and

[[Page 4405]]

``tobacco product,'' which appears in the prohibited conduct provision 
in Sec.  139.35(j), with substantially the same definition as the Food, 
Drug, and Cosmetics Act codified at 21 U.S.C. 321.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \19\ Other species of animals, whether wild or domestic, trained 
or untrained, are not service animals for the purposes of this 
definition. The work or tasks performed by a service animal must be 
directly related to the individual's disability. Examples of work or 
tasks include, but are not limited to, assisting individuals who are 
blind or have low vision with navigation and other tasks, alerting 
individuals who are deaf or hard of hearing to the presence of 
people or sounds, providing non-violent protection or rescue work, 
pulling a wheelchair, assisting an individual during a seizure, 
alerting individuals to the presence of allergens, retrieving items 
such as medicine or the telephone, providing physical support and 
assistance with balance and stability to individuals with mobility 
disabilities, and helping persons with psychiatric and neurological 
disabilities by preventing or interrupting impulsive or destructive 
behaviors. The crime deterrent effects of an animal's presence and 
the provision of emotional support, well-being, or comfort or 
companionship do not constitute work for purposes of this 
definition. Proposed Sec.  139.80 is similar to the Department of 
Justice (DOJ) definition at 28 CFR 36.104 of service animal as 
limited to trained dogs. This modification to the definition of 
service animal is made to provide uniformity and ensure operational 
consistency with DOJ's implementation of the Americans with 
Disabilities Act. It is noted that while the DOJ definition is 
limited to dogs, Titles II and III of the ADA include a requirement 
of modification of polices, practices or procedures to permit the 
use of miniature horses when certain requirements are met. See Legal 
Brief: Service Animals and Individuals with Disabilities Under the 
Americans with Disabilities Act (ACA) adala.org) (2019)(last 
accessed July 18, 2024).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    DHS also reviewed regulations promulgated by other federal agencies 
with similarly aligned law enforcement entities or statutory law 
enforcement authority, such as the Department of Interior's National 
Park Service, Department of Agriculture's Forest Service, and 
Department of Defense's Army Corps of Engineers as guidance. Section 
139.15 derives the definitions of ``camping'' and ``open container'' 
from analogous provisions in the Park Service regulations at 36 CFR 1.4 
(camping), and 4.14 (open container). Section 139.15 would use a 
substantially similar definition for ``damaging'' as found in the 
Forest Service regulation at 36 CFR 261.2. The proposed definitions of 
``littering'' and ``vehicles'' are similar to definitions in the Army 
Corps of Engineers regulations at 36 CFR 327.2 (vehicles) and 327.9 
(sanitation).
    Section 139.15 also would include definitions of ``audio 
recording'' and ``image recording'' that are similar to the 
``audiovisual'' class of definitions found in the National Archives and 
Records Administration (NARA) regulation at 36 CFR 1237.4(b). The 
definition of ``commercial purpose'' is similar to the Rules for 
Filming, Photographing, or Videotaping on NARA Property or in NARA 
facilities at 36 CFR 1280.40. The term ``tobacco product'' would be 
defined in proposed Sec.  139.15 as any item made or derived from 
tobacco that is intended for human consumption, including any 
component, part, or accessory of a tobacco product (except for raw 
materials other than tobacco used in manufacturing a component, part, 
or accessory of a tobacco product. This definition of tobacco product 
in the proposed rule is consistent with the definition in Federal Food, 
Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FFDCA) at 21 U.S.C. 321(rr), which is 
incorporated into the FDA regulations at 21 CFR 1140.3 and 1140.2 and 
includes electronic nicotine delivery systems (ENDS), including e-
cigarettes, e-hookah, e-cigars, e-pipes, personal vaporizers, and vape 
pens. See 81 FR 28974 (May 10, 2016). However, the FFDCA definition of 
``tobacco product'' includes ``any product made or derived from 
tobacco, or containing nicotine from any source, that is intended for 
human consumption, including any component, part, or accessory of a 
tobacco product.'' 21 U.S.C. 321(rr) (italics added). The definition of 
tobacco products proposed at Sec.  139.15 would not include accessories 
that merely facilitate the use of tobacco products such as ashtrays, 
spittoons, and clips, as the mere possession of these items without use 
of nicotine does not impact the safety or security of the federal 
building or its occupants.
    Finally, Sec.  139.15 would utilize relevant federal property 
protection and security policy to define the following terms: 
``building,'' ``facility security committee,'' ``Federal tenant,'' 
``personal property,'' ``protective security officer,'' and ``secure 
area.'' Section 139.15 would use definitions for these terms from 
policy guidance and standards established either by FPS, or the DHS 
Interagency Security Committee. See Executive Orders 14111 and 13286; 
\20\ see also CISA, ISC Standard: Risk Management Process, https://www.cisa.gov/resources-tools/resources/isc-standard-risk-management-process, (2024)(last accessed April 15, 2024).\21\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \20\ E.O. 14111, Interagency Security Committee (88 FR 83809 
(Nov. 27, 2023)) and E.O. 13286, Amendment of Executive Orders, and 
Other Actions, in Connection with the Transfer of Certain Functions 
to the Secretary of Homeland Security (68 FR 10617 (Mar. 5, 2003)).
    \21\ Definition of Facility Security Committee: A committee that 
is responsible for addressing facility-specific security issues and 
approving the implementation of security measures and practices. The 
Facility Security Committee (FSC) consists of representatives of all 
Federal tenants in the facility, the security organization, and the 
owning or leasing department or agency. In the case of new 
construction or pending lease actions, the FSC will also include the 
project team and the planned tenant(s). The FSC was formerly known 
as the Building Security Committee ``BSC.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Subpart B--Personal Conduct Affecting Federal Property

    Proposed Subpart B would contain sections related to specific 
personal conduct affecting Federal property protected by the Secretary 
to be codified at 6 CFR 139.20-85. Proposed Subpart B corresponds to 
GSA regulations, currently codified at 41 CFR 102-74.370-450, which 
describe the rules, prohibitions, and exceptions associated with 
inspections, admissions, preservation of property, conformity with 
written and verbal instructions, disturbances, gambling, narcotics, 
alcoholic beverages, solicitation, distribution and posting, 
photography and recording, animals, vehicular traffic, weapons 
possession, and the associated penalties for violations.
    Based upon the jurisdictional authority outlined in 40 U.S.C. 1315, 
proposed Subpart B would contain more preservation of property and 
prohibited conduct sections, and more precise sections on admissions 
and animals, posting and distribution, recording, and weapons, than 
existing GSA regulations that have not been updated to include specific 
definitions for prohibited conduct. This is in recognition of both the 
evolving landscape of threats and security risks directed at Federal 
property and its occupants, and corresponding operational needs to 
detect, prevent, mitigate, and respond to threats at Federal property. 
The sections in Subpart B would also be revised to reflect updates in 
and consistency with relevant case law, federal statutes and 
regulations, and policy guidance related to federal property 
protection.
    Accordingly, the proposed sections in Subpart B would provide 
updates, consistent with the authorizing statutory authority in 40 
U.S.C. 1315(c), necessary for the protection and administration of 
federal property under the Secretary's protection. The sections in 
Subpart B would move away from ministerial real estate oversight 
equities and focus expressly on the law enforcement and protective 
security equities related to personal conduct affecting federal 
property protected by the Secretary.
    Proposed Subpart B would fill critical enforcement gaps by 
addressing prohibitions on emerging areas of criminal threats (for 
example, electronic threats to commit a crime of violence (Sec.  
139.35(f)), drone activity (Sec.  139.35(k)-(l)), and impersonation of 
security personnel (Sec.  139.35(n))). Compared to the current GSA 
regulations, Subpart B would also better inform and protect Federal 
stakeholders and the general public who work on and visit federal 
property by expressly and plainly stating the parameters associated 
with admitting, inspecting, and otherwise policing persons on federal 
property in accordance with and in recognition of First and Fourth 
Amendment considerations. For instance, the distribution (Sec.  139.60) 
and recording (Sec.  139.65) provisions are revised to reflect updates 
in relevant case law and policy regarding First Amendment equities 
related to assembly, expression,

[[Page 4406]]

and speech. Likewise, the admissions and inspection provision (proposed 
Sec.  139.20) is revised to more precisely state the operational 
prerequisites and parameters in light of Fourth Amendment equities 
related to searches and seizures. The sections in proposed Subpart B 
are described and otherwise explained in detail below.

Section 139.20 Admissions and Inspections Related to Federal Property

    Proposed Sec.  139.20 would state the requirements for admissions 
and inspections related to Federal property under the Secretary's 
protection responsibility. Section 139.20 would provide a statement of 
the inspection requirements and consequences for non-compliance with 
the screening procedures.
    The current FMR at 41 CFR 102-74.370 states that Federal agencies 
have discretionary authority to inspect items in the immediate 
possession of persons arriving on, working at, visiting, or departing 
from Federal property, and agencies may conduct a full search of a 
person and his/her vehicle upon arrest. Section 139.20 of the proposed 
rule would update this inspection authority in 41 CFR 102-74.370 by 
making substantive textual changes to more precisely state the 
parameters of inspections occurring on federal property protected by 
the Secretary.
    Specifically, proposed Sec.  139.20 would state the FSC or the 
highest-ranking official of the sole federal agency occupant or 
designee may determine who must be screened. Once the FSC requires 
inspections, Sec.  139.20 states that designated security personnel 
would screen and inspect individuals and all accessible personal 
property and vehicles for dangerous items that would pose a security 
and safety risk, i.e., for firearms, explosives, dangerous weapons, and 
the component parts thereof. Section 139.20 also clarifies that once an 
inspection of a person, article of personal property, or associated 
vehicle starts, the inspection process would not terminate until 
completed by designated security personnel, i.e., the visitor may not 
leave the screening process once it has begun.
    Consistent with Fourth Amendment protections against unreasonable 
searches and seizures, Sec.  139.20 would balance the Secretary's 
security mission in ensuring the security of federal property and the 
persons thereon, with the Fourth Amendment privacy interests by 
limiting inspections to examinations for firearms, explosives, 
dangerous weapons, and component parts. Security personnel may not use 
administrative inspections with the principal purpose of detecting 
contraband or evidence of crimes unrelated to the protection of federal 
property. However, as currently conducted in accordance with Fourth 
Amendment constraints, security personnel may report and take 
appropriate law enforcement action if unlawful items, such as 
contraband, are detected during an otherwise lawful inspection for 
firearms, explosives, dangerous weapons, and component parts. Moreover, 
nothing in Sec.  139.20 would alter the established legal precedent on 
Fourth Amendment requirements and exceptions relating to administrative 
inspections.
    The current FMR at 41 CFR 102-74.375 states the policy on admitting 
persons to GSA-operated Federal property. The substance of 41 CFR 102-
74.375 is focused on the administrative rules regarding hours of 
operation, registration upon entry, and presenting identification. 
Section 139.20 of the proposed rule would make substantive textual 
changes to focus on the law enforcement and protective security aspect 
of admitting persons on federal property as opposed to the existing 
emphasis on administration. Section 139.20 would streamline the 
existing admissions provision in 41 CFR 102-74.375 by merging it with 
the administrative inspection authority in 41 CFR 102-74.370 to 
emphasize the precise security requirements, such as administrative 
inspection, for persons entering a secure area on federal property 
protected by the Secretary. Nothing in Sec.  139.20 impedes the 
authority of GSA or other federal tenant agencies to retain or 
establish administrative policies regarding hours of operation, sign-
in, or identification requirements specific to their property.

Section 139.25 Preservation of Federal Property

    Proposed Sec.  139.25 includes seven categories of conduct that 
would be prohibited to preserve federal property under the Secretary's 
protection. Section 139.25 would incorporate the six existing 
categories of prohibited conduct related to preserving GSA-operated 
property in the current FMR at 41 CFR 102-74.380: littering, 
destruction, theft, hazards, throwing articles, and climbing, and add a 
seventh category to prohibit the unauthorized use, operation, parking, 
locking, or storage of vehicles or other personal transportation 
devices on federal property. Overall, the proposed categories of 
prohibited conduct are consistent with and derived from either the 
existing prohibitions in GSA's FMR, or the operational and security 
challenges presented in relation to preserving federal property in-
light-of technology and threat developments across the modern 
landscape.
    Section 139.25(a), in comparison to the existing FMR at 41 CFR 102-
74.380(a), would prohibit ``littering'' as defined in Sec.  139.15, to 
include the same prohibited behavior currently described as 
``improperly disposing of rubbish on property'' in 41 CFR 102-
74.380(a). Section 139.25(b) would prohibit damaging or unauthorized 
changing of the appearance of federal property, which mirrors the 
prohibition in 41 CFR 102-74.380(b) against destroying or damaging 
property. Section 139.25(b) would omit ``willfully,'' a reference to 
the required intent or state-of-mind, in recognition of the fact that 
all violations of the regulations in the proposed rule require some 
degree of intent--as opposed to accidental or mistaken incidents--and 
the degree of intent is best interpreted by a Federal court of 
jurisdiction consistent with other Class C Misdemeanor crimes in the 
jurisdiction.
    Section 139.25(c) would prohibit the unauthorized removal of 
federal property, which is functionally identical to the prohibition in 
41 CFR 102-74.380(c) against stealing property. Section 139.25(d) would 
build on the prohibition in 41 CFR 102-74.380(d) against creating any 
hazard to persons or things on federal property by also prohibiting the 
creation of any threat of such a hazard. Consistent with the 
Secretary's statutory authority to protect federal property and the 
persons thereon, Sec.  139.25 would add the provision for creating a 
threat of hazard to address operational and security concerns that 
arise when individuals or groups of individuals erect temporary 
structures or displays, such as ladders and elevated platforms, that 
may damage or impede property or harm persons on the property. Section 
139.25(e) and (f), respectively, would prohibit the same behavior of 
either throwing articles of any kind at/from federal property, or 
climbing structures (fountains, statues, etc.) on federal property as 
currently prohibited in 41 CFR 102-74.380(e).
    Proposed Sec.  139.25(g) would add a seventh and final category of 
prohibited conduct concerning the preservation of property with a 
prohibition on unauthorized use, operation, parking, locking, or 
storage of any vehicle or other personal transportation device, with 
exceptions allowed for personal transportation devices used as required 
by individuals with mobility impairments or when specifically allowed 
in designated areas. FPS has

[[Page 4407]]

proposed this prohibition due to the security threat that vehicles and 
other transportation devices can pose. For example, such devices/
vehicles may be used to block entrance and exit to federal facilities, 
and individuals may use them to ram or crash into federal facilities or 
immediately adjacent courtyards or plazas. They can also be outfitted 
with improvised explosive devices or other dangerous weapons to 
vehicles and personal transportation devices as means of damaging and 
harming federal property and its occupants. Accordingly, DHS believes 
that including this prohibition in the proposed rule is an important 
tool to ensure the Secretary fulfills his mission of securing federal 
property.
    DHS has also observed the threat of vehicles and transportation 
devices left unattended for extended periods of time while parked or 
stored on or immediately adjacent to federal property.\22\ For 
instance, much of the federal property protected by the Secretary 
through FPS security personnel is geographically located in large, 
urban city-centers where there is an increase in the use of personal 
transportation devices for mobility purposes as technology and 
enterprise continue to develop. In addition, parking, whether on 
Federal property or adjacent thereto, is typically situated in-the-
midst of these densely populated city-centers. Consequently, DHS 
remains vigilant for the threat posed by attaching improvised explosive 
devices or other dangerous weapons to vehicles and personal 
transportation devices as means of damaging and harming federal 
property and its occupants. FPS has therefore proposed including Sec.  
139.25(g) in the proposed rule to reasonably ensure the use, operation, 
parking, locking, and storage of vehicles and transportation devices 
does not harm, destroy, or otherwise compromise the security of federal 
property and its occupants.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \22\ See Oklahoma City Bombing, History.com (Apr. 19, 2023), 
https://www.history.com/topics/1990s/oklahoma-city-bombing (last 
accessed July 18, 2024).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Section 139.30 Conformance With Signs and Directions

    Section 139.30 would require individuals on federal property 
protected by the Secretary to comply with official signage that is 
prohibitory, regulatory, or directive in nature and with the lawful 
verbal directions of security personnel. This proposed provision would 
ensure the orderly passage of federal stakeholders and the general 
public while traversing federal property, to include passing through 
any security or screening stations, and would ensure the ability of 
security personnel to direct persons on federal property regarding 
conduct that impacts the security of the property and its occupants. 
For example, security personnel regularly direct persons through the 
security screening checkpoints and direct visitors as to closed or 
restricted access areas on federal property. Proposed Sec.  139.30 
would be both functionally identical and textually similar to the 
existing provision in GSA's FMR at 41 CFR 102-74.385.

Section 139.35 Prohibited Conduct

    Section 139.35 would prohibit certain types of conduct that 
adversely affect or compromise the safety and security of federal 
property protected by the Secretary, people working at or visiting the 
property, and Government functions occurring on the property. Proposed 
Sec.  139.35 is functionally similar to, and largely derived from, the 
existing disturbances provision in GSA's FMR at 41 CFR 102-74.390 with 
notable additions to enhance federal property and occupant protection 
and security.
    Consistent with the discussion earlier in the preamble, proposed 
Sec.  139.5(a) would state that the section applies to all federal 
property protected by the Secretary, as well as all areas outside such 
property to the extent necessary to protect the property and its 
occupants. The introductory paragraph would explain that persons are 
prohibited from engaging in the specified forms of conduct both on 
federal property itself as well in areas outside federal property.
    Enforcement in areas outside federal property, as contemplated by 
40 U.S.C. 1315 for prohibited conduct that affects, threatens, or 
endangers federal property and occupants, would be similar to the 
approach taken by other federal land management agencies, e.g., United 
State Forest Service, and is operationally necessary to implement the 
security mission envisioned in section 1315. This proposed change is 
necessary to address situations where individuals commit criminal acts 
off property that affect the federal property, such as obstructing 
access to federal property with the placement of spike-boards or 
throwing objects at federal property while physically standing off, but 
immediately adjacent to, federal property. This limitation compromises 
the immediate safety of federal employees and efficient operations of 
the Federal Government as well as consistency by limiting the use of 
otherwise applicable charging authority when criminal acts are 
physically committed off federal property, but directed at and 
otherwise meant to endanger federal property and occupants. In such 
instances, absent an applicable statutory Federal charge, the 
Secretary's ability to execute the statutorily prescribed law 
enforcement duties in 40 U.S.C. 1315 is unnecessarily hampered by a 
lack of readily available charging authority, and federal property and 
occupant protection becomes reliant on the availability and willingness 
of applicable state/local authorities, e.g., spike boards placed off of 
GSA property but blocking entrances to the building.
    In total, Sec.  139.35 would include 14 categories of prohibited 
conduct, including five categories of disturbances currently prohibited 
by 41 CFR 102-74.390, as described in greater detail below.
    Section 139.35(a) would prohibit disorderly conduct, which would 
expressly include assaulting, fighting, harassing, intimidating, 
threatening or other violent behavior, lewd acts, or the inappropriate 
disposal of feces, urine, and other bodily fluids. Section 139.35(a) 
would be functionally identical to but substantively more precise than 
the existing prohibition on ``exhibiting disorderly conduct'' stated in 
the opening line of the FMR at 41 CFR 102-74.390. Notably, Sec.  
139.35(a) would make textual changes to the disorderly conduct 
prohibition by specifically identifying the types of behavior subject 
to the prohibition to better notify Federal stakeholders and the 
general public as to what behavior constitutes prohibited disorderly 
conduct.
    Federal property and persons on the property remain high-profile 
targets of criminal activity, such as fights, harassment, and 
intimidation. FPS and other relevant security personnel continue to use 
the disorderly conduct prohibition in the FMR regulations to address 
instances of violent and lewd behavior while protecting federal 
property and its occupants. Accordingly, the disorderly conduct 
prohibition is necessary for the protection and administration of 
property under the Secretary's protection and to continue addressing 
operational needs in responding to actual, real-life threats posed by 
persons causing harm to/on federal property and its occupants.
    Section 139.35(b) would introduce a new category of prohibited 
conduct that prohibits wearing masks and other articles to avoid 
detection when committing crimes to address instances where criminal 
actors intentionally hide their identity through face masks or

[[Page 4408]]

facial attire when committing a crime against federal property or 
persons on the property. The concealed identity prohibition in Sec.  
139.35(b) is modeled after existing municipality codes, e.g., Code of 
the District of Columbia Section 22-3312.03, Wearing hoods or masks, 
and would be expressly limited to instances when a person is concealing 
his/her identity to avoid detection while violating an applicable 
law.\23\ Nothing in Sec.  139.35(b) would prohibit a law-abiding 
citizen from wearing a mask or concealing his/her identity as part of a 
peaceful assembly, demonstration, disease prevention, religious 
observance, or other exercise of speech absent some indicia of criminal 
activity. Instead, the concealed identity prohibition in Sec.  
139.35(b) would address operational needs to protect against the 
actual, real-life crimes committed by criminal actors seeking to avoid 
detection.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \23\ There are many jurisdictions that contain analogous 
prohibitions, including, among others, California, Connecticut, and 
Delaware. See generally Cal. Penal Code sect. 185; Conn. Gen. Stat. 
Ann. sect. 53-37a; Del. Code Ann. tit. 11, sect. 1239; Fla. Stat. 
Ann. sect. 876.12; Ga. Code Ann. sect. 16-11-38; La. Stat. Ann. 
sect. 14:313; Mich. Comp. Laws Ann. sect. 750.396; Minn. Stat. Ann. 
sect. 609.735; N.M. Stat. Ann. sect. 30-22-3.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Section 139.35(c) would prohibit creating loud or unusual noises, 
noxious odors, or other nuisances that affect the safety of persons on 
Federal property, or otherwise disrupts Government functions on the 
property. Section 139.35(c) would be functionally identical and 
textually similar to the existing provision in 41 CFR 102-74.390(a). 
However, proposed Sec.  139.35(c) would differ from 41 CFR 102-
74.390(a) because it includes a prohibition of noxious odors as a 
specific type of prohibited nuisance. The inclusion of odors is a 
result of real-world, operational incidents whereby individuals place 
or release stink-bombs or other odor-emitting devices in such a manner 
as to adversely impact Federal property and its occupants.\24\ The 
existing prohibition against loud or unusual noises remains necessary 
to ensure persons, particularly through use of bullhorns, megaphones, 
or other audio equipment, do not disturb or otherwise interfere with 
the performance of official Government functions, particularly the 
provision of services to the general public.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \24\ See ``Irritating Substance''; York, Peel and Toronto Police 
Investigating After 3 Movie Theaters Evacuated Following Release of 
``Unknown'' Spray Into Air, www.toronto.com (Dec. 6, 2023) (last 
accessed July 24, 2024).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Proposed Sec.  139.35(d) would prohibit obstructing the usual use, 
enjoyment, or access to a federal facility, including entrances, exits, 
offices, courtyards, parking garages, other common areas, and areas 
closed during an emergency. Section 139.35(d) would be functionally 
identical and textually similar to the existing disturbances provision 
at 41 CFR 102-74.390(b). Proposed Sec.  139.35(d) would include 
additional examples of common areas subject to the obstruction 
prohibition, such as exterior areas, plazas, and areas designated as 
closed during an emergency to reflect a more precise and accurate 
accounting of the physical spaces on federal property where obstruction 
would be prohibited. This would ensure the safety and security of 
persons on the property, especially during emergency situations 
including fires, active shooters, or other natural or man-made 
disasters. For example, federal property is often structured to 
accommodate multiple federal tenant entities, and obstruction in common 
areas directed at one federal tenant may, if unchecked, quickly devolve 
into obstruction of and safety hazards for another federal tenant. This 
prohibition would also apply to blocking stairwells, elevators, and 
escalators. Accordingly, the obstruction provision in Sec.  139.35(d) 
would ensure both the free flow of vehicular and pedestrian traffic on 
and through federal property for orderly operations and the unimpeded 
ability to exit or otherwise navigate federal property during any 
emergency circumstances.
    Section 139.35(e) proposes to prohibit impeding or disrupting the 
security inspection process administered by security personnel, the 
performance of official duties by federal employees, or the ability of 
the general public to obtain government services. Section 139.35(e) 
would be functionally identical and textually similar to the existing 
provisions at 41 CFR 102-74.390(c) and (d). To that end, Sec.  
139.35(e) would streamline and consolidate the existing prohibitions on 
impeding the performance of official duties by government employees in 
41 CFR 102-74.390(c) and preventing the public from obtaining 
administrative services in 41 CFR 102-74.390(d) into a single 
provision. Proposed Sec.  139.35(e) would also add a prohibition on the 
impediment or disruption of the security inspection process, which is 
detailed above in Sec.  139.20 regarding admission and inspections 
related to federal property.
    The added prohibition on impeding/disrupting the security 
inspection process in Sec.  139.35(e) is operationally necessary to 
ensure the integrity and effectiveness of security screening performed 
in furtherance of detecting firearms, explosives, dangerous weapons, 
and component parts before these items enter or cause harm to Federal 
property and persons on the property. As noted, Sec.  139.20 
administrative inspection or screening is a security countermeasure 
that federal agencies use to better ensure safety at/on federal 
property. While the current FMR at 41 CFR 102-74.370 authorizes 
administrative inspections, there is no express prohibition under 41 
CFR 102-74.390 for impeding or disrupting the inspection process. 
Rather, security personnel must rely on the more generic charging 
authority under 41 CFR 102-74.385 for failure to follow directions. 
Reliance on generic charging authority in the context of executing a 
critical security countermeasure is counterproductive as the generic 
charge fails to clearly notify the public that impeding or disrupting 
the inspection process is prohibited.
    Moreover, executing effective inspections necessarily involves some 
degree of waiting or delay on the part of persons subject to 
inspection. When an individual disrupts or impedes the inspection 
process by failing to comply with instructions, providing unclear or 
evasive answers to security personnel questions, or otherwise 
attempting to evade detection of unlawful items, the security risks and 
wait-time or delays increase, which disrupts the overall safety and 
orderly operations on the federal property. Accordingly, the prohibited 
impediment and disruption provision at Sec.  139.35(e) is necessary to 
ensure the Federal Government functions properly and without 
unnecessary risk to safety or delay to operations through the unimpeded 
performance of security inspections, execution of government duties, 
and receipt of government services.
    While FPS has the authority to investigate and charge, e.g., 18 
U.S.C. 115, individuals who threaten government employees regardless of 
where the threat is made, Sec.  139.35(f) would allow another charging 
option by prohibiting threatening by any means, including mail, 
facsimile, telephone, or electronic communication, to commit any crime 
of violence. The companion term ``crime of violence'' would be defined 
in Sec.  139.15, and mirror the definition found in 18 U.S.C. 16(a), to 
wit, as an offense that has as an element the use, attempted use, or 
threatened use of physical force against the person or property of 
another, such as assaultive acts. Proposed Sec.  139.35(f) is a 
prohibition added to address operational incidents of individuals off 
federal property who deliver, transmit, or otherwise direct violent 
threats

[[Page 4409]]

towards federal employees and other visitors or customers on federal 
property. This provision would allow DHS to fully perform the 
protection duties authorized by 40 U.S.C. 1315(b)(2)(e) by allowing 
regulatory charging authority for off property commission of crimes 
against federal property or persons on federal property. The proposed 
violent threats prohibition is analogous to statutory provisions such 
as the criminal threats provision at 18 U.S.C. 115 (specific to federal 
officials and their family members), 18 U.S.C. 875 (threats by 
interstate communications), and 42 U.S.C. 1320a-8b (threats of force 
specific to designated Social Security Administration personnel). 
Enforcement of these analogous statutory provisions often involves 
competing resource constraints and other prosecutorial considerations, 
whereas under the proposed rule the offender can be cited with a 
comparatively lesser offense (Class C Misdemeanor) that is charged 
through issuance of a written citation, penalized through payment of a 
fine or imprisonment of not more than 30 days (or both), and, all the 
while, remains subject to judicial review and other due process 
protections without implicating more time consuming processes 
associated with felony or higher-grade misdemeanor charges.
    Proposed Sec.  139.35(f) is necessary because in the modern 
landscape of federal property protection, there is greater ease and 
opportunity with relatively accessible technology, such as email, 
social media, and text/direct messaging, for individuals to make 
violent threats that intimidate and harass federal employees and 
visitors or customers at federal property. For example, FPS has 
observed increased threats over the last several years at federal 
property where monetary Government services or benefits are provided or 
processed, or where the federal entity performs official functions 
associated which may be subject to public controversy or heightened 
public interest. Violent threats, at the very least, cause panic or 
insecurity that destabilizes and disrupts the Federal Government, and, 
at the very worst, escalates into assault or other harmful acts that 
cause injury, loss of life, or significant property damage or 
destruction. Accordingly, the violent threats provision at Sec.  
139.35(f) is necessary to ensure readily available charging authority 
exists to address violent threats that directly undermine the safe and 
effective administration of the Federal Government.
    Proposed Sec.  139.35(g) would prohibit unauthorized bathing, 
wading, or swimming in or polluting any water areas, to include 
fountains, basins, or reservoirs. This new prohibition is necessary 
because the presence of water areas may attract unauthorized use of the 
area and require additional security considerations for the general 
safety of federal property and its occupants. Such unauthorized use 
includes bathing, wading, or swimming in water areas on federal 
property. Additionally, prohibiting unauthorized use would address 
public safety concerns related to polluting or damaging the water area, 
e.g., urinating or defecating in the pools or fountains on federal 
property. The existing disturbances provision at 41 CFR 102-74.390 does 
not expressly prohibit unauthorized use of water areas, which leaves 
security personnel with the comparatively generic failure to follow 
directions provision at 41 CFR 102-74.385 for enforcement purposes. 
Accordingly, the prohibition against the unauthorized use of water 
areas puts the public on notice and ensures readily available charging 
authority exists to address such unauthorized use for the safety of 
federal property and occupants.
    Section 139.35(h) would prohibit unauthorized camping on federal 
property. The companion term ``camping'' would be defined in Sec.  
139.15, in pertinent part, as the use of federal property for living 
accommodations, to include sleeping activities, storing personal 
property, or altering the federal property for shelter. Section 
139.35(h) would be added to address operational incidents of 
unauthorized camping that occurs at federal property on both interior 
and exterior spaces. Such unauthorized camping degrades the 
preservation of federal property, impedes public access for lawful 
business on federal property, and presents unnecessary security risks 
in the form of potentially hidden or obstructed persons and items that 
may be used to disrupt or harm Federal property and occupants.
    Section 139.35(h) is consistent with other federal land management 
agency regulations, such as the National Park Service (36 CFR 2.10) and 
U.S. Forest Service (36 CFR 261.16, and 261.58), that similarly 
prohibit unauthorized camping in non-designated areas. The unauthorized 
camping provision better informs federal stakeholders and the general 
public of the express prohibition on camping without authorization on 
federal property, including interior and exterior areas, and ensures a 
readily available charging authority exists to address such 
unauthorized camping for the safety of federal property and occupants.
    Section 139.35(i) would prohibit trespassing, entering, or 
remaining in or on areas of Federal property closed to the public. 
Section 139.35(i) is a new prohibition directly derived from the hours 
of operation language in the existing admissions provision at 41 CFR 
102-74.375. Persons who engage in trespassing pose a security risk to 
federal property and occupants, and as such, DHS proposes to expressly 
prohibit such conduct, instead of the current and comparatively 
cumbersome reference to the general hours of operation and admissions 
to Federal property in 41 CFR 102-74.375. Accordingly, the trespassing 
provision in Sec.  139.35(i) would better inform federal stakeholders 
and the general public of the express prohibition on trespassing, 
entering, or remaining in or on closed areas of federal property, and 
would ensure readily available charging authority exists to address 
such unauthorized trespassing for the safety of federal property and 
occupants.
    Section 139.35(j) would prohibit consuming a tobacco product in all 
interior space owned, rented, or leased by the Federal Government, as 
well as all courtyards, terraces, and plazas within 25 feet of doorways 
and air intake ducts under the custody, control, or jurisdiction of the 
Federal Government. This new paragraph would add a new category of 
expressly prohibited conduct that is directly derived from existing 
federal authorities. While there is signage stating that no smoking is 
allowed, and violators might be cited for failing to follow the written 
signage, there is no specific criminal charge related to smoking on 
Federal property. Instead, DHS must rely on other charges to address 
smoking on Federal property. Specifically, E.O. 13058, Protecting 
Federal Employees and the Public from Exposure to Tobacco Smoke in the 
Federal Workplace,\25\ establishes a smoke-free environment for federal 
employees and members of the public visiting or using Federal 
facilities by expressly prohibiting the smoking of tobacco products. 
The 1997 Executive Order also authorizes agencies to establish more 
protective policies. GSA subsequently implemented the Order with 
promulgation of the FMR provisions at 41 CFR 102-74.315-351, including 
the addition of ``within 25 feet of doorways and air intake ducts'' in 
41 CFR 102-74.330. Then, in 2016, the FDA promulgated a rule to deem

[[Page 4410]]

ENDS as covered within the definition of tobacco products.\26\ Given 
this sequence of events, the existing landscape of applicable 
authorities supports the proposed rule definition for tobacco products, 
as well as the prohibition on the use or consumption of these products 
while on or near federal property protected by the Secretary as stated 
in Sec.  139.35(j).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \25\ Executive Order, 13058, Protecting Federal Employees and 
the Public from Exposure to Tobacco Smoke in the Federal Workplace, 
62 FR 43451 (Aug. 13, 1997).
    \26\ FDA, Final Rule: Deeming Tobacco Products to Be Subject to 
the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act, as Amended by the Family 
Smoking Prevention and Tobacco Control Act; Restrictions on the Sale 
and Distribution of Tobacco Products and Required Warning Statements 
for Tobacco Products, 81 FR 28974 (May 10, 2016).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    While the category of prohibited conduct in Sec.  139.35(j) would 
be new, the prohibition on tobacco products is not. Smoking tobacco 
products is currently prohibited through the posting of written signage 
stating the prohibition, consistent with 41 CFR 102-74.315-351, and 
follow-on enforcement by security personnel, consistent with 41 CFR 
102-74.385, for failure to comply with lawful signage of a prohibitory 
nature. Accordingly, the consumption of tobacco products prohibition in 
Sec.  139.35(j) is necessary for the protection and administration of 
federal property protected by the Secretary. This prohibition would 
both better inform federal stakeholders and the general public of the 
express prohibition and parameters associated with the prohibition on 
consuming tobacco products on or near federal property, inclusive of 
all forms of smoking and the use of ENDS and ensure readily available 
charging authority exists to address unauthorized consumption of 
tobacco products for the safety of federal property and occupants.
    Section 139.35(k) would prohibit causing an unmanned aircraft to 
take off or land on federal property without authorization from 
designated officials. The provision explicitly prohibits take-offs and 
landings on or from federal property without permission from the 
Facility Security Committee, Designated Official, or another federal 
agency responsible for the property. The proposed rule does not 
regulate lawful overflights of unmanned aircraft over federal property. 
Overflights are exclusively regulated by the Federal Aviation 
Administration (FAA). See 14 CFR part 107.
    Section 139.35(k) is necessary to address operational concerns 
because DHS has observed an increase in unmanned aircraft activity on, 
near, and around federal property, and there is no existing authority 
in the FMR that expressly prohibits unauthorized unmanned aircraft 
take-offs and landings, which leaves security personnel with the 
comparatively generic preservation of property or creating a hazard 
provision at 41 CFR 102-74.380 for enforcement purposes. Accordingly, 
the unauthorized unmanned aircraft take-offs and landing provision in 
Sec.  139.35(k) is necessary for the protection and administration of 
Federal property protected by the Secretary to both better inform 
federal stakeholders and the general public of the express prohibition 
and parameters associated with the take-offs and landings of unmanned 
aircraft on federal property, and ensure readily available charging 
authority exists to address such unauthorized use of unmanned aircraft 
for the safety of federal property and occupants.
    This regulation would address the launch or retrieval of unmanned 
aircrafts while on federal property. Securing air domain awareness and 
defense from unmanned aircraft system (UAS) threats at federal 
facilities is addressed by 6 U.S.C. 124n and through civil enforcement 
authority retained by FAA. However, this statutory construct does not 
provide criminal charging options for UAS activity that threatens the 
safety and security of federal property and persons on the property. 
The proposed rule would not infringe upon the FAA's regulatory 
authority, as the prohibition only addresses the impact unlawful UAS 
conduct has on federal real property. The regulation does not address 
the prohibitions on operating UAS in certain airspace or other 
prohibited areas which remain in the bailiwick of FAA. See, e.g., 14 
CFR 107.41 and 107.45.
    Section 139.35(l) would prohibit using an unmanned aircraft to 
cause damage, destruction, harm, or a hazard to Federal property or 
persons on the property. Similar to Sec.  139.35(k), the prohibition in 
Sec.  139.35(l) would be added to address operational instances of 
unsafe usage of unmanned aircrafts on Federal property. For example, 
DHS has observed instances of unmanned aircraft operated in such a 
manner as to fly low enough to the ground to come into contact with 
persons or objects on federal property. Such usage of unmanned aircraft 
presents a direct threat to the safety of persons and preservation of 
structures and objects on federal property. There is no existing 
prohibition on the unsafe usage or operation of unmanned aircraft on 
federal property, which leaves security personnel with the 
comparatively generic causing a disturbance provision at 41 CFR 102-
74.390 for enforcement purposes. Accordingly, the unauthorized unmanned 
aircraft usage provision in Sec.  139.35(l) is necessary for the 
protection and administration of Federal property protected by the 
Secretary to both better inform Federal stakeholders and the general 
public of the express prohibition associated with using unmanned 
aircraft to cause damage, destruction, harm, or a hazard to Federal 
property or persons thereon, and ensure readily available charging 
authority exists to address such prohibited use of unmanned aircraft 
for the safety of Federal property and occupants.
    Section 139.35(m) would prohibit tampering with, accessing, 
damaging, or interfering with the operation of a computer, digital 
network, industrial control system or Supervisory Control and Data 
Acquisition (SCADA) system without proper authorization. Section 
139.35(m) would be added to address emerging operational needs to 
thwart unauthorized use or interference with functional electronic 
systems on Federal property. Many HVAC and electrical systems that 
operate on internet connectivity and control the electricity, heating, 
air conditioning, and overall air flow within federal facilities and 
also power security alarms, door locking mechanisms, elevators, and 
escalators.
    The emerging operational need for Sec.  139.35(m) is supported by 
the findings in the U.S. Government Accountability Office July 2019 
Report to Congressional Requesters, Cybersecurity, Agencies Need to 
Fully Establish Risk Management Programs and Address Challenges,\27\ 
which put Congress on notice that ``federal agencies face cyber threats 
that continue to grow in number and sophistication.'' There is no 
existing provision in GSA's FMR that expressly prohibits the 
unauthorized use or interference with electronic operating systems on 
federal property, which leaves security personnel with the 
comparatively less descriptive, and potentially inapplicable, 
prohibitions on destroying or damaging property or creating a hazard on 
property under 41 CFR 102-74.380(b), (d). Section 139.35(m) would 
provide a more precise and targeted means to respond to emerging cyber 
threats that affect the security and functionality of Federal 
facilities protected by DHS.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \27\ https://www.gao.gov/assets/gao-19-384.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Proposed Sec.  139.35(n) would prohibit impersonating security 
personnel. Section 139.35(n) would be a new prohibition added to 
address the use of fake or unauthorized security badges, insignia, 
identification cards, etc., to gain unauthorized entry into Federal 
facilities and workspace.

[[Page 4411]]

    Section 139.35(n) is necessary to address an ongoing issue, the use 
of fake law enforcement badges and credentials to gain entry into 
federal facilities. First identified in a 2002 Senate Report, Phony 
Identification and Credentials Via the Internet, Report 107-133, 107th 
Congress (2d Session),\28\ the report highlighted the ability of 
investigators in the General Accounting Office to breach numerous 
Federal agency facilities utilizing fake law enforcement badges and 
credentials. Additionally, in 2015, DHS reiterated the threat of 
individuals impersonating first responders such as law enforcement in 
public messaging to emergency services sections.\29\ Most states 
recognize this threat through criminalizing the use of fake law 
enforcement badges and credentials.\30\ However, there is currently a 
gap in GSA's FMR and there is no express prohibition of the 
impersonation of security personnel. This deficiency is challenging 
where an individual attempts to pose as security personnel to access 
federal property with weapons or other tools with the intent to cause 
damage or do harm to occupants. Section 139.35(n) is thus necessary to 
ensure readily available charging authority exists to address the 
impersonation of security personnel and to better inform Federal 
stakeholders and the general public of the express prohibition.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \28\ www.congress.gov/congressional-report/107th-congress/senate-report/133/1.
    \29\ U.S. Dep't of Homeland Sec., Impersonation of First 
Responders (2015), available at https://www.hsdl.org/c/view?docid=800800.
    \30\ See, e.g., Fla. Stat. sect. 843.08 (2024) (False 
Personation); see also, e.g., S.C. Code Ann. sect. 16-17-720 
(Impersonating law enforcement officer) (2023); see also, e.g., Iowa 
Code sect. 718.2 (2024) (Impersonating a public official).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Section 139.40 Gambling

    Section 139.40 proposes, with limited exceptions, a prohibition on 
gambling activities on federal property. This section would be similar 
to the current prohibition on gambling in the GSA regulations, codified 
at 41 CFR 102-74.395. Notably, Sec.  139.40 would not alter the 
statutory exceptions provided in the Randolph-Sheppard Act, as codified 
at 20 U.S.C. 107 et seq., or prize drawings for personal property at 
otherwise permitted functions on federal property. Rather, this 
proposed section would continue the existing general prohibitions on 
games for money or other personal property, operating gambling devices, 
conducting a lottery or pool, and purchasing/selling gambling tickets 
on Federal property.

Section 139.45 Narcotics, Other Drugs, and Drug Paraphernalia

    Section 139.45 would establish the prohibition on using, 
possessing, operating a vehicle while under the influence of, or being 
under the influence of narcotics, or possessing illegal drug 
paraphernalia on Federal property. This section would be functionally 
identical and textually similar to the existing provision in the GSA 
regulations, codified at 41 CFR 102-74.400
    The unlawful use of narcotics continues to present security risks 
associated with elevated, delayed, or otherwise impaired behavior of 
visitors to federal property. Section 139.45 is reasonable and 
necessary to address the illegal use or possession of controlled 
substances on federal property as federal misdemeanor offenses instead 
of defaulting to prosecution under the Controlled Substances Act found 
in Title 21, United States Code. Specifically, this proposed provision 
would provide that an individual in violation of this section is 
temporarily detained, issued a citation, and released on his/her own 
recognizance rather than experiencing a formal arrest. Without the 
option of charging a narcotics offense as a Class C misdemeanor, DHS 
would have to look to the statutory counterpart and charge the 
individual with either a higher-level misdemeanor or felony under the 
code.

Section 139.50 Alcoholic Beverages

    Section 139.50 would prohibit individuals from consuming or being 
under the influence of alcoholic beverages, except where authorized by 
the head of an agency or the agency head's designee. This provision 
would not alter the written exemption or related procedures for 
obtaining an exemption to the prohibition against the consumption of 
alcoholic beverages on federal property in the current regulation.\31\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \31\ 41 CFR 102-74.405.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    This proposed section would also prohibit the possession of an 
``open container'' on property owned, occupied, or secured by the 
federal government. ``Open container'' would be defined in proposed 
Sec.  139.15 as a bottle, can, or any other receptable containing an 
alcoholic beverage that is open, has a broken seal, or from which the 
contents are partially removed. The prohibition on possessing open 
containers would address operational concerns with security risks posed 
by instances of elevated or otherwise altered behavior by intoxicated 
persons. Finally, the proposed section would prohibit the operation of 
a motor vehicle under the influence of alcohol. Accordingly, the 
alcoholic beverage provision in Sec.  139.50 is necessary for the 
protection and administration of federal property protected by the 
Secretary to continue prohibiting the unauthorized use of alcohol for 
the security and safety of federal property and occupants.

Section 139.55 Soliciting, Vending, and Debt Collection

    Section 139.55 would prohibit soliciting, vending merchandise, 
displaying or distributing commercial advertising, and engaging in debt 
collection activities on federal property, except under certain 
conditions. This section would be functionally identical and textually 
similar to the existing FMR provision at 41 CFR 102-74.410. Notably, 
all six categories of permissible activity currently listed in 41 CFR 
102-74.410 would be included in the exceptions for Sec.  139.55, to 
include Government sponsored or approved activities.\32\ Accordingly, 
FPS believes this proposed section prohibiting solicitation, vending, 
and debt collection strikes the appropriate balance between activities 
that could disrupt or distract the orderly administration of government 
functions and approved activities that do not compromise or otherwise 
degrade the administration of government.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \32\ 41 CFR 102.74.410(c)-(d) have been merged and are now 
reflected in proposed rule Sec.  139.55(b)(3).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Section 139.60 Posting and Distributing Materials

    Proposed Sec.  139.60 would prohibit the posting and distribution 
of printed materials on federal property, except as specifically 
authorized. Although this proposed section is functionally identical to 
the GSA regulations, codified at 41 CFR 102-74.415, it would provide 
better clarity and notice to the public of the precise nature of 
prohibited conduct for the preservation and safety of property and 
occupants through more precise terminology. Proposed Sec.  139.60 would 
not disturb the current exceptions for the lawful exercise of 
distributing materials during permitted events on public areas of 
federal property in furtherance of free speech and assembly.
    The unauthorized distribution of materials can create significant 
problems for the maintenance and security of federal property. For 
example, in the Fall of 2019, an individual in Portland, Oregon, threw

[[Page 4412]]

hundreds of pamphlets on the grounds of a federal plaza in protest. The 
pamphlets covered the entire plaza affecting the plaza water drainage 
system. The individual did so without a permit. It was then left to FPS 
as the security provider and GSA as the federal landlord to secure the 
area and remove the pamphlets. This effort diverted both FPS law 
enforcement personnel and GSA employees over 8 hours from their normal 
duties.
    The prohibition in proposed Sec.  139.60 would also help prevent 
individuals or groups from interfering with the judicial process and 
the jurors by precluding the unauthorized distribution of materials 
that may be the subject of litigation to jurors on the Federal 
property, which undermines the fair administration of justice during 
trials at Federal courthouse facilities.

Section 139.65 Photography and Recording

    Proposed Sec.  139.65(a) would establish that image and audio 
recording of federal facilities and grounds is prohibited if conducted 
in a manner that either impedes or disrupts access to or operations on 
federal property, or if it is prohibited by any federal security 
regulation, rule, order, or directive. For example, if the image or 
audio recording prevents or disrupts security screening, or the 
provision of services by the federal government.
    Proposed Sec.  139.65(b) would provide exceptions to prohibitions 
on photographing and video or audio recording in proposed Sec.  
139.65(a). Specifically, proposed Sec.  139.65(b) would allow image and 
audio recording of the publicly accessible exterior of federal 
properties from outdoor public areas when not impeding or disrupting 
access to or operations on federal property. Recording still and motion 
images and audio would also be allowed in the entrance and common areas 
of federal facilities open to the public, provided the recording does 
not disrupt access to or operations on the federal property. Image and 
audio recording within interior areas occupied by federal agencies 
would be prohibited except with the express permission of the tenant 
agency, and written permission would be required for any photography or 
recording done for a commercial purpose.
    This section would mirror, though not replicate, a similar 
provision in the GSA regulations, codified at 41 CFR 102-74.420. By 
comparison to the existing provision, Sec.  139.65 would be 
restructured stylistically to state the general rule and three 
applicable exceptions. The proposed substantive language would provide 
better clarity and notice to the public of the precise nature of 
prohibited and permitted recording conduct and ensure consistency with 
corresponding First Amendment case law related to photography and 
recording at/on Federal property.\33\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \33\ The public has the right to photograph/videotape officials 
carrying out public duties. Glik v. Cunniffe, 655 F.3d 78, 82 (1st 
Cir.2011). However, content neutral restrictions on photography 
regulating time/manner or in non-public fora (e.g., polling place or 
courtroom) for privacy or to maintain order are consistent with the 
First Amendment. Silberberg v. Board of Election of New York, 272 F. 
Supp. 3d (S.D. N.Y. 2017).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Section 139.70 Vehicle Operations and Removal

    Section 139.70 would require persons to operate vehicles in a safe 
manner, possess a valid operator's license, comply with signs and 
directions by security personnel and obey traffic and safety signals 
and posted signage. The section additionally prohibits certain conduct 
such as blocking driveways and sidewalks and parking on federal 
property without a permit or authorization in restricted parking areas. 
This section would also state that vehicles determined to be in 
violation of this section are subject to seizure and removal with the 
owner of the vehicle responsible for associated costs in removal.
    This section is derived from similar provisions in the GSA 
regulations, codified at 41 CFR 102-74.370 and 430, but, significantly, 
this proposed section would allow LEOs to enforce these traffic 
concerns adjacent to the federal property where the conduct, while off 
federal property, affects the security of the property or the persons 
on the property as envisioned by 40 U.S.C. 1315. Overall, the vehicle 
operation and removal provision in Sec.  139.70 would provide clarity 
and notice to the public of the precise nature of prohibited conduct 
with plainly stated parameters for safe operation, prohibited 
operations, specific responsibilities, and authority for enforcement, 
removal, and seizure.

Section 139.75 Firearms, Dangerous Weapons, and Explosives

    Section 139.75 would prohibit the possession and carrying of 
firearms, dangerous weapons and explosives. This section would 
streamline and combine the existing GSA regulations on weapons and 
explosives in Federal facilities, codified at 41 CFR 102-74.435, 440. 
Notably, Sec.  139.75 would cross-reference both the definitions of the 
companion term ``firearm'' and ``dangerous weapon'' found in federal 
firearms laws in 18 U.S.C. 921 and 930(g), respectively, and the same 
three categories of persons eligible to possess weapons on Federal 
property as stated in 18 U.S.C. 930(d). Section 139.75 would also 
cross-reference the definition of explosives found in 18 U.S.C. 841. 
The real-world threats posed by active shooters, improvised explosive 
devices, and other dangerous weapons remains a top concern for the 
security of federal property and occupants. Accordingly, proposed Sec.  
139.75 would ensure readily available charging authority for instances 
of unlawful possession of firearms, dangerous weapons, and explosives.

Section 139.80 Animals

    Section 139.80 would prohibit any person from bringing animals in 
or on federal property for other than official purposes with the 
limited exception of service animals for persons with disabilities. The 
companion term ``service animal'' would be defined in proposed Sec.  
139.15 to mean any dog that is individually trained to do work or 
perform tasks for the benefit of an individual with a disability, 
including a physical, sensory, psychiatric, intellectual, or other 
mental disability.
    The substance of Sec.  139.80 would be like the existing provision 
in the FMR at 41 CFR 102-74.425 with the notable exclusion of ``other 
animals'' as qualifying service animals. This is consistent with the 
Department of Justice's definition of ``service animal''. 28 CFR 
35.104. Accordingly, proposed Sec.  139.80 regarding the prohibition of 
animals on federal property, with one limited exception, is proposed to 
ensure the definition of a service animal is consistent with other 
agencies' definitions of ``service animal,'' in compliance with the 
Americans with Disability Act of 1990, and ensure proper order and 
security is maintained on federal property while allowing the lawful 
presence of service animals.

Section 139.85 Penalties

    Proposed Sec.  139.85 would establish the penalties for violating 
the rules and regulations in the proposed rule in accordance with the 
maximum penalties set forth in 40 U.S.C. 1315(c)(2). Section 139.85 
would establish that violations of proposed subpart B may be punished 
by a fine in accordance with title 18 U.S.C. 3571, imprisonment for not 
more than 30 days, or both. DHS has updated the language of proposed 
Sec.  139.85 slightly but has maintained the same penalties as 
established in GSA's FMR at 41 CFR 102-74.450. In other words, the rule 
would maintain that a conviction for a violation of the proposed rule's

[[Page 4413]]

provisions would be a Class C misdemeanor. See 18 U.S.C. 3559(a)(8). 
This proposed section would ensure that the appropriate penalties and 
sanctions are available to address minor criminal misconduct not 
warranting prosecution under Title 18, United States Code, and provides 
a degree of deterrence for minor criminal violations that cause damage 
or harm to Federal property and occupants.

V. Regulatory Analyses

A. Executive Order 12866, Regulatory Planning and Review

    Executive Orders 12866 (Regulatory Planning and Review), as amended 
by Executive Order 14094 (Modernizing Regulatory Review), and 13563 
(Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review) direct agencies to assess 
the costs and benefits of available regulatory alternatives and, if 
regulation is necessary, to select regulatory approaches that maximize 
net benefits (including potential economic, environmental, public 
health and safety effects, distributive impacts, and equity). Executive 
Order 13563 emphasizes the importance of quantifying costs and 
benefits, reducing costs, harmonizing rules, and promoting flexibility.
    The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) has not designated this 
proposed rule a significant regulatory action under section 3(f) of 
Executive Order 12866, as amended by Executive Order 14094. 
Accordingly, OMB has not reviewed this proposed rule.
    Below is FPS's assessment of the benefits and costs of this 
regulatory action. A detailed discussion of FPS's approach and 
assumptions is provided separately in the regulatory impact analysis 
(RIA) included in the docket for this proposed rule.
    OMB's Circular A-4 provides guidance to Federal agencies on the 
development of regulatory analyses estimating the benefits and costs of 
regulatory actions. It asks Federal agencies to analyze alternative 
regulatory approaches for achieving the desired outcome. At a minimum, 
agencies should evaluate the preferred alternative, a more stringent 
option, and a less stringent option. FPS evaluates the following 
regulatory alternatives:
    Proposed Rule: This proposed rule implements the authority of the 
Federal Protective Services for the protection of buildings, grounds, 
and property that are owned, occupied, or secured by the federal 
Government with the specific revisions discussed in this preamble. 40 
U.S.C. 1315, specifically authorizes the Secretary of DHS to protect 
property owned, leased, or secured by the Federal government and the 
persons on that property. This authority also authorizes off property 
enforcement to the extent necessary to protect the Federal property or 
the persons thereon and for DHS LEOs to conduct investigations off 
property of offenses that may have been committed against property 
owned or occupied by the Federal government or persons on the property. 
Additionally, 40 U.S.C. 1315 permits the Secretary of DHS, in 
consultation with GSA, to prescribe regulations necessary for the 
protection and administration of Federal property and to include 
reasonable penalties.
    Alternative 1 (less stringent): Under the less stringent 
alternative, in order to accomplish its goal of aligning regulations 
under DHS authority, DHS would incorporate the existing GSA regulations 
governing personal conduct on federal property from Title 41 with no 
changes in the language or content of those regulations. Specifically, 
DHS would copy each GSA provision to the proposed rule and re-issue the 
posted rules and regulations relating to and governing conduct on 
Federal property identifying DHS as the regulatory authority. Thus, the 
posted rules and regulations would display the DHS seal instead of the 
GSA logo. Incorporating the existing GSA rules and regulations to DHS 
would not result in any other changes in current law enforcement 
practices at Federal facilities. Alternative 1 would not expand upon 
the prohibited conduct outlined in existing GSA provisions nor modify 
the charging options for non-GSA property.
    Alternative 2 (more stringent): Under the more stringent 
alternative, DHS would incorporate and update the existing GSA rules 
and regulations to DHS as in the proposed rule. In addition, 
Alternative 2 would further improve protection of Federal facilities 
and persons thereon through enforcement of state and local laws by 
authorizing FPS to apply state and local laws relating to the security 
of Federal property or the people thereon where there is no applicable 
Federal law or regulation. Unlike the application of the Assimilative 
Crimes Act, 18 U.S.C. 13, which allows prosecution of state law 
criminal violations in federal court under certain circumstances, this 
alternative would incorporate state laws into the federal regulation by 
reference. In other words, state laws would be incorporated into 
federal law. DHS LEOS would not be enforcing state laws. Instead, 
federal LEOs would thereby apply Federal law that incorporates State 
law by reference. The approach would be similar to that of the National 
Park Service regulation that incorporates state boat safety laws into 
the federal regulation.\34\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \34\ See U.S. v. Bohn, 622 F.3d 1129 (9th Cir. 2010) (upholding 
conviction under NPS regulation that adopts substantive provisions 
of state law; Property Clause power of Constitution extends to 
conduct threatening designated purpose of federal lands whether than 
conduct occurs on or off federal land); see also U.S. CONST. art. 
IV, sec. 3, cl.2 (The Property Clause) (``Congress shall have Power 
to dispose of and make all needful Rules and Regulations respecting 
the Territory or other Property belonging to the United States.''); 
40 U.S.C. 1315(c) (DHS required by Congress to create regulations 
necessary for the protection and administration of property owned or 
occupied by the Federal government and the persons thereon).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    For each alternative, a cost/benefit analysis would ideally compare 
the monetized costs of implementing the regulations to the monetized 
estimates of the resulting reduction in security risk at Federal 
facilities. However, data limitations make it challenging to quantify 
the incremental change in risks likely to result from the proposed 
rule. Instead, DHS provides a qualitative discussion of the likely 
benefits of the proposed rule.
    The economic costs associated with the proposed rule include one-
time and ongoing costs incurred by FPS to implement the proposed rule, 
one-time costs incurred by GSA to comply with the requirements of the 
proposed rule, and ongoing costs incurred by U.S. district courts to 
implement and comply with the requirements of the proposed rule.
    These economic costs represent the incremental costs above and 
beyond those that would already be incurred absent the proposed 
regulation in order to protect Federal property and persons located on 
or within those properties. The incremental costs of the proposed rule 
are estimated over a 5-year analysis period (2024 to 2028) and 
calculated on a present value basis.
    Under the analytic baseline, FPS issues citations for regulatory 
violations under 41 CFR 102-74 Subpart C and charges for statutory 
violations under Title 18 of the U.S. Code. In 2021 and 2022, FPS 
issued approximately 900 citations annually on average that were 
processed by the Central Violation Bureau (CVB). A number of citations 
within the baseline are issued under ``All Other Charges,'' which 
represent FPS enforcement of criminal charges under statutory Federal 
law, primarily Title 18 of the U.S. Code. Many of the GSA regulations 
do not apply to incidences that occur adjacent to Federal property, 
including regulations pertaining to throwing objects, wearing 
disguises, obstructing federal property, and operating unmanned 
aircrafts without authorization. FPS responds to

[[Page 4414]]

threatening incidents and conducts full investigations, which may 
result in issuing a citation for criminal misconduct, detaining, or 
arresting individuals making such threats. However, FPS LEOs do not 
have regulatory authority to issue citations for off-property incidents 
that do not rise to the level of a U.S. Code violation. Building 
managers are also required to maintain and replace signage as needed 
under 41 CFR 102-74.365. The RIA in the docket provides additional 
discussion and analysis of potential changes to enforcement and the 
issuance of citations under the proposed rule compared to the baseline.
    Table 1 summarizes the estimated costs of the proposed rule. As 
shown in the exhibit, the present value costs of the proposed rule are 
estimated to be approximately $1,186,310 during the next 5 years, or 
approximately $251,686 annualized (discounted at two percent). The 
majority of the incremental costs of the proposed rule are associated 
with replacing signage at all Federal facilities protected by FPS 
(Sec.  139.5(d)); the associated costs of which would be shared roughly 
equally between FPS and GSA. FPS would also incur initial training 
costs for LEOs to become familiar with the proposed regulatory changes. 
Furthermore, FPS and U.S. district courts may experience an increase in 
labor and administrative costs, respectively, associated with an 
increase in the number of citations issued by FPS (Sec. Sec.  139.25 
and 139.35).

                                                Table 1--Summary of Costs of the Proposed Rule by Section
                                                                     [2023 Dollars]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                               Sec.        Sec.   139.25
                                                                             139.5(d)      Preservation    Sec.   139.35   Undiscounted    Present value
                          Year                            Training costs      Notice        of Federal      Prohibited         total         total (2%
                                                                            requirement   property costs   conduct costs                  discount rate)
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------costs--------------------------------------------------------------------
2024....................................................        $364,198        $722,570          $1,084         $24,555      $1,112,408      $1,090,596
2025....................................................               0               0           1,084          24,555          25,640          24,644
2026....................................................               0               0           1,084          24,555          25,640          24,161
2027....................................................               0               0           1,084          24,555          25,640          23,687
2028....................................................               0               0           1,084          24,555          25,640          23,223
                                                         -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Total...............................................         364,198         722,570           5,421         122,777       1,214,966       1,186,310
                                                         -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Annualized..........................................  ..............  ..............  ..............  ..............  ..............         251,686
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Table Note: Totals may not sum due to rounded values in the table.

    Under Alternative 1, DHS would replicate the rules relating to and 
governing personal conduct on Federal property from GSA, and would 
leave in place the existing GSA language and requirements. FPS would 
print new signs and coordinate with GSA to have them posted at Federal 
facilities to comply with the proposed regulations. However, 
replicating the existing GSA rules and regulations to DHS would not 
result in any other changes in current law enforcement practices at 
Federal facilities. Thus, the costs of the less stringent alternative 
would only include the one-time costs of replacing existing signage at 
Federal facilities, $708,402, annualized discounted at two percent.
    Under Alternative 2, DHS would be the same as the proposed rule 
with modifications to improve protection of Federal facilities and 
persons thereon through enforcement of state and local laws by 
authorizing FPS to apply state and local laws relating to the security 
of Federal property or the people thereon where there is no applicable 
Federal statutory law or regulation. Table 2 compares the costs of the 
two quantified regulatory alternatives. While the costs of Alternative 
2 are not quantified, FPS anticipates the costs to be substantially 
higher than the proposed rule.

     Table 2--Cost of Regulatory Alternatives for Proposed FPS Rule
                             [2023 Dollars]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                           5-year  total
                                                              cost (2
                       Alternative                            percent
                                                             discount
                                                               rate)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Proposed Rule...........................................      $1,186,310
Alternative 1 (less stringent)..........................         708,402
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    With respect to benefits, the primary purpose of the proposed rule 
is to improve security at Federal properties. Increased enforcement and 
successful prosecution of misconduct is intended to reduce the risk of 
future incidents of misconduct, thereby avoiding adverse consequences 
such as injuries, property damage and loss, and temporary workplace 
closures.
    Ideally, the evaluation of the proposed rule would compare the 
monetized values for all benefits arising from the proposed rule to the 
cost of implementing the proposed rule. Estimating benefits requires 
information about (1) the incremental change in security risk at 
Federal facilities and (2) the value individuals place on such risk 
reductions. In practice, precise quantification and valuation of such 
risk reductions is difficult.
    As discussed in the RIA, this analysis of benefits includes a 
review of published academic literature evaluating the linkages between 
increased enforcement and clearer regulations and reduced misconduct. 
The literature generally suggests that increased enforcement is likely 
to result in decreased misconduct. Based on this literature, DHS 
expects that implementing the proposed rule, which DHS expects to lead 
to increased enforcement, is likely to reduce the incidence of 
misconduct at Federal properties; however, the literature does not 
provide a strong basis to quantify likely reductions in such incidents. 
DHS also reviews studies providing monetary estimates of the value of 
reductions in various types of misconduct. This literature does not 
provide a sufficient basis to monetize all the types of misconduct that 
might be affected by the proposed rule. Thus, this analysis provides a 
qualitative discussion of the potential benefits of each element of the 
proposed rule. The benefits broadly fall into three categories:
     Extending FPS's regulatory enforcement authority, which 
would allow FPS LEOs to prevent incidents of misconduct;
     Removing ambiguities in current regulations, leading to 
higher rates of successful prosecution and therefore greater deterrence 
of repeat offenses; and;
     Clarifying the language of prohibited activities and 
behavior, which would increase compliance by

[[Page 4415]]

raising the public's awareness of prohibited activities and behavior.
    DHS has concluded that the proposed rule would best balance the 
security needs for Federal properties with the potential costs imposed 
on DHS and other Federal agencies as well as facility occupants and 
visitors. By incorporating GSA regulations and adding definitions to 
further clarify the regulations relating to and governing personal 
conduct on Federal properties, the proposed rule would increase the 
enforcement (e.g., for certain off-property misconduct) and successful 
prosecution of misconduct (e.g., due to higher specificity of the 
regulations), which in turn is expected to reduce the risk of future 
incidents, thereby avoiding adverse consequences such as injuries, 
property damage and loss, and temporary workplace closures.
    DHS determined that Alternative 1 (the less stringent alternative) 
would have the lowest costs, but would also yield the fewest benefits. 
By establishing the regulations under DHS, this alternative resolves 
the legal ambiguity of FPS's enforcement of the GSA regulations on 
prohibited conduct at Federal properties. Alternative 1, however, would 
not enhance security measures at Federal facilities because it does not 
clarify the language of regulations relating to and governing personal 
conduct on Federal property or include new, more detailed provisions. 
Therefore, DHS believes that Alternative 1 is unlikely to reduce 
incidents involving prohibited conduct relative to existing levels.
    DHS determined that Alternative 2 (more stringent alternative) 
would have higher costs than the other regulatory alternatives, but may 
also provide additional benefits. Under this alternative, FPS would 
issue additional citations related to state and local laws. In addition 
to providing the same benefits as the proposed rule, Alternative 2 may 
further reduce incidence of misconduct by providing FPS another 
mechanism for charging violations of misconduct that fall under state 
law. However, DHS recognized that the administrative and oversight 
burden for Alternative 2 (more stringent alternative) would not be 
possible with FPS's current funding and manpower level. First, this 
alternative would require significant resources to implement, adding an 
expanded training requirement for all FPS LEOs and requiring FPS 
attorneys to undertake extensive research to understand the laws 
potentially applicable to each Federal facility in all 50 states and 
many local jurisdictions. Second, it would require FPS attorneys to 
constantly monitor state and local law to identify and interpret 
changes in such laws, which may then necessitate changes in officer 
procedures, guidance, and associated training materials.
    In evaluating these alternatives, FPS recognized uncertainty in the 
estimates of the costs and benefits. For a complete discussion of the 
analysis, see the complete RIA provided in the docket.

B. Regulatory Flexibility Act

    Under the requirements of the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA), the 
Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act (SBREFA) and E.O. 
13272, entitled ``Proper Consideration of Small Entities in Agency 
Rulemaking,'' agencies must consider the potential impact of 
regulations on small businesses, small governmental jurisdictions, and 
small organizations during the development of their rules. As discussed 
above, costs are likely to be incurred by FPS, other Federal agencies 
(including tenants of Federal facilities), and U.S. district courts. 
The Federal Government is not considered to be a small entity. Thus, 
FPS certifies under 5 U.S.C. 605(b) that this proposed rule would not 
have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small 
entities.

C. Paperwork Reduction Act

    The Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) of 1995, 44 U.S.C. 3507(d) 
requires that DHS consider the impact of paperwork and other 
information collection burdens imposed on the public. According to the 
Paperwork Reduction Act, an agency may not collect or sponsor the 
collection of information, nor may it impose an information collection 
requirement unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number. 
DHS has determined that the proposed rule would not result in a new 
collection nor modify an existing collection of information. The 
proposed rule is amending prohibited conduct on and adjacent to federal 
property. The proposed rule places burden on the Federal Government and 
not directly on the public. In accordance with the authority vested in 
the Secretary of DHS under 18 U.S.C. 1315, this rulemaking would 
establish regulations governing conduct on federal property and 
establish additional Federal charging options off of Federal property 
to the extent necessary to protect that property or the persons 
thereon. The proposed rule does not impose any additional burden on the 
public for the collection of information, so the provisions of the PRA 
do not apply to this rule and no new collection of information is 
warranted.\35\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \35\ Insofar as DHS may collect information from individuals 
charged under statute or with regulatory violations under the 
proposed rule, the PRA exempts from its provisions the collection of 
information during the conduct of a Federal criminal investigation 
or prosecution or administrative action or investigation involving 
an agency against specific individuals or entities. 44 U.S.C. 
3518(c)(1)(A), (c)(1)(B)(ii).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

D. Executive Order 13132, Federalism

    Executive Order 13132, 64 FR 43255 (Aug. 10, 1999), sets forth 
principles and criteria that agencies must adhere to in formulating and 
implementing policies that have federalism implications, that is, 
regulations that have ``substantial direct effects on the States, on 
the relationship between the national government and the States, or on 
the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels 
of government.'' Federal agencies must closely examine the statutory 
authority supporting any action that would limit the policymaking 
discretion of the States, and to the extent practicable, must consult 
with state and local officials before implementing any such action.
    DHS has reviewed this proposed rule under Executive Order 13132 and 
has concluded that it does not have substantial direct effects on the 
States, on the relationship between the national government and the 
States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the 
various levels of government. Therefore, this proposed rule does not 
have federalism implications as defined by the Executive Order. This 
rulemaking would not significantly affect the rights, roles, and 
responsibilities of States, and involves no preemption of State law. In 
accordance with the authority vested in the Secretary of DHS under 18 
U.S.C. 1315, this rulemaking would establish regulations governing 
conduct on federal property and establish additional Federal charging 
options off of Federal property to the extent necessary to protect that 
property or the persons thereon. The rule does not usurp or otherwise 
effect existing state or local law enforcement authority on or adjacent 
to federal property. Specifically, DHS rejected the alternative of 
authorizing FPS to apply state and local laws where there is no 
applicable Federal law or regulation (see discussion on Alternative 2 
in Section V.A. (``Executive Order 12866, Regulatory Planning and 
Review'')). Instead, the proposed rule merely mirrors DHS's current 
statutory enforcement authority under 40 U.S.C.

[[Page 4416]]

1315 and does not adopt state laws or otherwise affect State or local 
enforcement authority. The proposed rule similarly does not affect or 
alter DHS's jurisdictional requirements under the Assimilative Crimes 
Act or DHS's current ability to enter into agreements with State or 
local authorities for enforcement of State or local laws.
    Therefore, under Executive Order 13132, DHS analyzed this proposed 
rule and determined that the rule does not have sufficient federalism 
implications to warrant the preparation of a Federalism Assessment.

E. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

    The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995, 2 U.S.C. 1531-1538, 
requires Federal agencies to assess the effects of their discretionary 
regulatory actions. The Act addresses actions that may result in the 
expenditure by a State, local, or tribal government, in the aggregate, 
or by the private sector of $100 million (adjusted for inflation) or 
more in any one year. In particular, the Act addresses actions that may 
result in the expenditure by a State, local, or tribal government, in 
the aggregate, or by the private sector of $100 million (adjusted for 
inflation) or more in any one year) an identification of the provision 
of Federal law under which the rule is being promulgated. The proposed 
rule does not require action or costs by State, local, and tribal 
governments or the private sector, nor does it affect the health, 
safety, and the natural environment of these entities. The proposed 
rule establishes the regulations governing the conduct on Federal 
property, and off property to the extent that there is a nexus to that 
Federal property under 40 U.S.C. 1315. Because the rule does not result 
in expenditures by a State, local, or tribal government, DHS does not 
need to assess the effects of this proposed rule.

F. National Environmental Protection Act (NEPA)

    Section 102 of the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 
(NEPA), Public Law 91-190, 83 Stat. 852 (Jan. 1, 1970) (42 U.S.C. 4321 
et seq.), as amended, requires Federal agencies to evaluate the impacts 
of a proposed major Federal action that may significantly affect the 
human environment, consider alternatives to the proposed action, 
provide public notice and opportunity to comment, and properly document 
its analysis. DHS and its agency components analyze proposed actions to 
determine whether NEPA applies to them and, if so, what level of 
documentation and analysis is required.
    DHS Directive 023-01, Rev. 01 and DHS Instruction Manual 023-01-
001-01, Rev. 01 (Instruction Manual) establish the policies and 
procedures DHS and its component agencies use to comply with NEPA and 
the Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) regulations for implementing 
NEPA codified in 40 CFR parts 1500-1508. The CEQ regulations allow 
Federal agencies to establish, in their implementing procedures, with 
CEQ review and concurrence, categories of actions (``categorical 
exclusions'') that experience has shown do not, individually or in the 
aggregate, have a significant effect on the human environment and, 
therefore, do not require preparation of an environmental assessment or 
environmental impact statement. 40 CFR 1501.4, 1507.3(e)(2)(ii). 
Appendix A of the Instruction Manual lists the DHS categorical 
exclusions. Under DHS NEPA implementing procedures, for an action to be 
categorically excluded, it must satisfy each of the following three 
conditions: (1) the entire action clearly fits within one or more 
categorical exclusions; (2) the action is not a piece of a larger 
action; and (3) no extraordinary circumstances exist that create the 
potential for a significant environmental effect. This proposed rule 
would establish DHS regulations for permissible and prohibited conduct 
on property owned, operated, or secured by the Federal government. 
Additionally, pursuant to the authority granted in 18 U.S.C. 1315, the 
rule would provide additional charging authority for LEOs for conduct 
occurring off property which affects the Federal property or the 
persons thereon. DHS has analyzed the proposed rule in accordance with 
its NEPA implementing procedures and has determined that no 
extraordinary circumstances are present that may create a potential for 
significant environmental effects. DHS has analyzed this proposed rule 
and has determined it clearly fits within categorical exclusion A3 
because it is a rule is a standalone rulemaking that is not part of a 
larger DHS action. The conclusion, when the three criteria are met, is 
that the action is categorically excluded and that no further review or 
documentation is necessary. DHS has determined that the proposed rule 
does not constitute a major Federal action significantly affecting the 
quality of the human environment. DHS has also determined that the 
proposed rule does not involve any of the extraordinary circumstances 
that require further NEPA analysis. Therefore, DHS has determined 
preparation of an environmental assessment or impact statement is not 
required in promulgating this proposed rule.

G. Executive Order 13175, Consultation and Coordination With Indian 
Tribal Governments

    The 2000 Executive Order 13175 directs Federal agencies to 
coordinate and consult with Indian tribal governments whose interests 
might be directly and substantially affected by activities on federally 
administered lands.\36\ Of the 8,520 Federal facilities protected by 
FPS, the agency identified 21 such Federal facilities located on tribal 
lands. As discussed in Chapter 3, the costs of implementing the 
proposed rule would be incurred solely by the Federal government, 
including FPS, other Federal agencies that are tenants of Federal 
facilities protected by FPS, and U.S. district courts. Accordingly, the 
proposed rule would not impose any costs on local or tribal 
governments. As discussed in Chapter 4, data limitations prevent the 
quantification of the incremental improvement in security resulting 
from the proposed rule. However, this improvement is focused on Federal 
facilities and persons thereon. Thus, DHS certifies that the proposed 
rule does not directly and substantially affect tribal government 
interests as specified in E.O. 13175.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \36\ E.O. No. 13175, 64 FR 67249 (Nov. 10, 2000), https://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR-2000-11-09/pdf/00-29003.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

List of Subjects in 6 CFR Part 139

    Aircraft, Alcohol and alcoholic beverages, Animals, Buildings and 
facilities, Civil disorders, Crime, Explosives, Federal buildings and 
facilities, Firearms, Gambling, Government employees, Government 
property, Government property management, Homeland Security, Law 
enforcement, Law enforcement officers, Penalties, Public buildings, 
Safety, Search warrants, Security measures, Terrorism, Tobacco, 
Unmanned aircraft.

    For the reasons set forth in the preamble, DHS proposes to add part 
139, under the authority of 40 U.S.C. 1315(c), to chapter I of title 6 
of the Code of Federal Regulations as set forth below:

0
1. Add part 139 to read as follows:

PART 139--CONDUCT ON FEDERAL PROPERTY

Subpart A--General
Sec.
139.1 Purpose.
139.5 Scope, applicability, and agency cooperation.

[[Page 4417]]

139.10 Assessments for protective services.
139.15 Definitions.
Subpart B--Personal Conduct Affecting Federal Property
139.20 Admissions and inspections related to federal property.
139.25 Preservation of federal property.
139.30 Conformance with signs and directions.
139.35 Prohibited conduct.
139.40 Gambling.
139.45 Narcotics, other drugs, and drug paraphernalia.
139.50 Alcoholic beverages.
139.55 Soliciting, vending, and debt collection.
139.60 Posting and distributing materials.
139.65 Photography and recording.
139.70 Vehicle operation and removal.
139.75 Firearms, dangerous weapons, and explosives
139.80 Animals.
139.85 Penalties.

    Authority:  6 U.S.C. 203(3) and 232(a); 40 U.S.C. 586(c) and 
1315.

PART 139--CONDUCT ON FEDERAL PROPERTY

Subpart A--General


Sec.  139.1  Purpose.

    The regulations in this part provide for the protection and 
administration of the buildings, grounds, and property or portions 
thereof that are owned, occupied, or secured by the federal Government 
(including any agency, instrumentality, or wholly owned or mixed-
ownership corporation thereof) and the persons on the property.


Sec.  139.5  Scope, applicability, and agency cooperation.

    (a) Scope. This part applies to all federal property under the 
protection responsibility of the Secretary of Homeland Security and all 
persons on such property, as well as areas outside such federal 
property to the extent necessary to protect the property and persons on 
the property.
    (b) Applicability. This part shall not be construed to nullify any 
other federal, state, or local laws or regulations applicable to any 
area in which federal property is situated; preclude or limit the 
authority of any federal law enforcement agency; or restrict the 
authority of the Administrator of General Services or other federal 
government entity to promulgate regulations affecting property under 
its jurisdiction, custody, or control.
    (c) Cooperation. Federal tenants must cooperate to the fullest 
extent possible with all applicable provisions set out in this part; 
promptly report all crimes and suspicious circumstances occurring on 
federal property first to the Federal Protective Service MegaCenter at 
1-877-4FPS-411, and, as appropriate, the local responding law 
enforcement authority; provide training to employees regarding 
protection and responses to emergency situations; and make 
recommendations for improving the effectiveness of protection on 
federal property.
    (d) Notice. The Facility Security Committee or highest-ranking 
official of the sole federal agency occupant or a designee must ensure 
a Notice is posted in a conspicuous place at each federal facility 
under the protection responsibility of the Secretary of Homeland 
Security. The posted notice:
    (1) Shall be 11 inches by 14 inches;
    (2) Shall describe the rules and regulations governing personal 
conduct contained in this part; and
    (3) Shall be prescribed in accordance with directions provided by 
DHS and found on its website at: https://www.dhs.gov/fps-visitors.
    (d) Effective Date. The regulations in this part are effective 
[INSERT DATE SIX MONTHS AFTER PUBLICATION OF THE FINAL RULE IN THE 
FEDERAL REGISTER].


Sec.  139.10  Assessments for protective services.

    The Secretary of Homeland Security is authorized to charge federal 
agencies under the Secretary's protection responsibility for security 
services provided by the Federal Protective Service.


Sec.  139.15  Definitions.

    For purposes of this part--
    Aircraft means any contrivance invented, used, or designed to 
navigate, or fly in, the air.
    Audio recording means the use of any microphone, device, material, 
or equipment to capture a sound, including any tape recorder, digital 
recorder, or other recording device.
    Building means an enclosed structure (above or below grade).
    Building Manager/Property Manager/Facility Manager means the 
individual employed by or through contract with a federal agency that 
has real property management and operations authority.
    Camping means the use of federal property for living accommodation 
purposes. The following activities constitute camping when it 
reasonably appears, based on the totality of the circumstances, that 
the participant, in conducting these activities, is in fact using the 
area as a living accommodation: sleeping or preparing to sleep, 
including the laying down of bedding for the purpose of sleeping; 
storing personal belongings; making any fire; using a tent, shelter, 
other structure, or vehicle for sleeping; doing any digging or earth 
breaking; or carrying on cooking activities.
    Commercial purpose means to undertake an activity with the 
objective of furthering, promoting, or selling a good or service 
regardless of whether the activity is intended to produce a profit.
    Crime of violence means any offense that has as an element the use, 
attempted use, or threatened use of physical force against the person 
or property of another.
    Damaging means injuring, mutilating, defacing, destroying, or 
impairing the use of any property owned, occupied, or secured by the 
federal government without the consent of the federal government.
    Dangerous weapon means a weapon, device, instrument, material, or 
substance, animate or inanimate, that is used for, or is readily 
capable of causing, death or serious bodily injury, except that a 
pocketknife with a blade of less than two and a half inches in length 
is not a dangerous weapon.
    Designated official is the highest-ranking official of the primary 
federal occupant agency of a federal facility, or, alternatively, a 
designee selected by agreement of federal occupant agency officials.
    Emergency means a situation that causes or has the potential to 
cause imminent danger to life or property, including, but not limited 
to, terrorist attacks, bombings and bomb threats, shootings, civil 
disturbances, fires, explosions, electrical failures, loss of water 
pressure or other critical infrastructure failures, chemical and gas 
leaks, medical emergencies, natural disasters, or other threats to 
public safety and security.
    Facility Security Committee means a group of representatives from 
federal tenants in the facility responsible for addressing facility-
specific security issues and approving the implementation of security 
measures and practices. The Facility Security Committee (FSC) consists 
of representatives of all federal tenants in the facility, the federal 
Protective Service or the Government agency or internal agency 
component responsible for physical security for the specific facility, 
and the owning or leasing department or agency with jurisdiction, 
custody, or control over the property. In the case of new construction 
or pending lease actions, the FSC will also include the project team 
and the planned tenant(s).
    Federal facility means a federally owned or leased building, 
structure, or

[[Page 4418]]

the land it resides on, in whole or in part, that is regularly occupied 
by Federal employees or Federal contractor workers for nonmilitary 
activities. The term ``Federal facility'' also means any building or 
structure acquired by a contractor through ownership or leasehold 
interest, in whole or in part, solely for the purpose of executing a 
nonmilitary Federal mission or function under the direction of an 
agency. The term ``Federal facility'' does not include public domain 
land, including improvements thereon; withdrawn lands; or buildings or 
facilities outside of the United States.
    Federal Government means the United States Government, including 
any agency, instrumentality, or wholly owned or mixed-ownership 
corporation thereof.
    Federal grounds mean all parts outside a federal facility (e.g., 
lands, walkways, and roadways) that are owned, occupied, or secured by 
the federal Government.
    Federal property means any facility, grounds, or other property, to 
include vehicles, equipment, and any movable article, that is owned, 
occupied, or secured by the federal Government and under the protection 
responsibility of the Secretary of Homeland Security.
    Federal tenant means a federal department or agency that occupies 
space and pays rent on space in any federal facility under the 
protection responsibility of the Secretary of Homeland Security.
    Gambling per se means a game of chance where the participant risks 
something of value for the chance to gain or win a prize.
    Image recording means use of any camera, device, material, or 
equipment to capture an image, including any photograph, sketch, 
picture, drawing, map, or graphical representation.
    Labor organization means an organization composed in whole or in 
part of employees, in which employees participate and pay dues, and 
which has as a purpose the dealing with an agency concerning grievances 
and conditions of employment, but does not include--an organization 
that, by its constitution, bylaws, tacit agreement among its members, 
or otherwise, denies membership because of race, color, creed, national 
origin, sex, age, preferential or non-preferential civil service 
status, political affiliation, marital status, or handicapping 
condition; an organization that advocates the overthrow of the 
constitutional form of government of the United States; an organization 
sponsored by an agency; or an organization that participates in the 
conduct of a strike against the Government or any agency thereof or 
imposes a duty or obligation to conduct, assist, or participate in such 
a strike.
    Littering means discarding wastepaper, cans, bottles, or other 
refuse or rubbish on the ground or in any other area not designated for 
disposal.
    Nuisance means a condition, activity, or situation, to include a 
loud noise or foul odor, that interferes with the use or enjoyment of 
federal property.
    Open container means a bottle, can, or any other receptacle 
containing an alcoholic beverage that is open, has a broken seal, or 
from which the contents are partially removed.
    Personal property means any article or item, including but not 
limited to outer clothing, purses, backpacks, briefcases, suitcases, 
packages, and other containers within the possession, custody, or 
control of a person.
    Personal transportation device means any method of conveyance, 
whether motorized or non-motorized, including but not limited to any 
personal transportation vehicle, skateboards, roller skates (including 
inline skates), roller shoes, roller skis, scooters, bicycles, non-
medical use personal transporters, and similar devices or vehicles.
    Protective Security Officer means a security guard employed by a 
private security contractor who provides contract security services to 
the Federal Protective Service (FPS). The contract security services 
provided by a Protective Security Officer include, but are not limited 
to, the performance of security screenings and inspections of persons, 
personal property, and vehicles entering federal property; confronting 
individuals who have violated or are suspected of violating building 
rules and regulations; and reporting all such security-related 
information to FPS.
    Public area means any part or section on federal property that is 
ordinarily open to members of the public.
    Secretary means the Secretary of the Department of Homeland 
Security or any person, officer, or entity within the Department to 
whom the Secretary's authority under 40 U.S.C. 1315 is delegated.
    Secure area means any part or section on federal property marked by 
signage where persons present themselves to enter the property and 
submit to the security inspection and screening process.
    Security personnel means persons authorized to ensure compliance 
with this Part, including FPS law enforcement officers, protective 
security officers, court security officers, or other security personnel 
charged by the federal Government with security duties under this Part 
such as other DHS component armed security guards performing similar 
duties as contract PSOs.
    Service animal means any dog that is individually trained to do 
work or perform tasks for the benefit of an individual with a 
disability, including a physical, sensory, psychiatric, intellectual, 
or other mental disability. Other species of animals, whether wild or 
domestic, trained or untrained, are not service animals for the 
purposes of this definition.
    Tobacco product means any item made or derived from tobacco that is 
intended for human consumption, including any component, part, or 
accessory of a tobacco product (except for raw materials other than 
tobacco used in manufacturing a component, part, or accessory of a 
tobacco product). Tobacco product does not mean any item specifically 
excluded by the Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act, 21 U.S.C. 301 et seq. [ 
add the devices listed in the preamble to this definition.]
    Unmanned Aircraft means an aircraft that is operated without the 
possibility of direct human intervention from within or on the 
aircraft.
    Unmanned Aircraft System means an unmanned aircraft and associated 
elements (including communication links and components that control the 
unmanned aircraft) that are required for the operator to operate safely 
and efficiently in the national airspace system.
    Vehicle means any method of conveyance, whether motorized or non-
motorized, including but not limited to any motorcycle, automobile, 
truck, tractor, bus, motorhome, agricultural machinery, construction 
equipment, and other similar vehicle, even if autonomously operated.
    Water Area means any area where water is retained or collected such 
as a fountain, basin, pool, pond, septic or sewer, reservoir, or other 
manmade water feature maintained on federal property.

Subpart B--Personal Conduct Affecting Federal Property


Sec.  139.20  Admissions and inspections related to federal property.

    When a Facility Security Committee (FSC) or the highest-ranking 
official of the sole federal agency occupant or designee requires 
inspections at a federal facility, then no person required to be 
screened may enter a secure area without submitting to the screening 
and inspection of that person and all accessible personal property or 
vehicles.

[[Page 4419]]

Security personnel shall conduct inspections and screening as follows:
    (a) Security personnel shall inspect any person, article of 
personal property, or vehicle, when entering in or present on federal 
property, for firearms, explosives, dangerous weapons, and the 
component parts thereof.
    (b) Once a person, article of personal property, or vehicle enters 
a secure area, the inspection process will not terminate until 
completed by security personnel.
    (c) Security personnel may deny admission, remove, or take other 
appropriate law enforcement action with respect to any person, article 
of personal property, or vehicle that fails to comply with security 
procedures, delays or impairs the inspection process, or presents a 
threat to either security personnel or other persons in or on federal 
property.


Sec.  139.25  Preservation of federal property.

    All persons are prohibited from the following conduct affecting 
federal property:
    (a) Littering;
    (b) Damaging or otherwise changing the appearance of federal 
property in any way except through authorized normal and customary use;
    (c) Removing federal property without proper authority;
    (d) Creating any hazard or threat of hazard on federal property to 
persons or things;
    (e) Throwing articles of any kind from or at federal property;
    (f) Climbing on any statue, fountain, or part of a federal 
facility, or any tree, shrub, or plant on federal property;
    (g) Using, operating, parking, locking, or storing any vehicle or 
personal transportation device on federal property, except as either 
required by individuals with mobility impairments, or otherwise 
specifically allowed in designated areas.


Sec.  139.30  Conformance with signs and directions.

    Any person on federal property must at all times comply with 
official signs of a prohibitory, regulatory, or directive nature and 
with the lawful direction of security personnel.


Sec.  139.35  Prohibited conduct.

    All persons are prohibited from engaging in the following conduct, 
on federal property or in areas outside federal property, that affects, 
threatens, or endangers federal property or persons on the federal 
property--
    (a) Disorderly conduct, which includes, but is not limited to, 
assaulting, fighting, harassing, intimidating, threatening or other 
violent behavior, lewd acts, or the inappropriate disposal of feces, 
urine, and other bodily fluids.
    (b) Wearing a mask, hood, disguise, or device that conceals the 
identity of the wearer when attempting to avoid detection or 
identification while violating any federal, state, or local law, 
ordinance, or regulation.
    (c) Creating a loud or unusual noise, noxious odor, or other 
nuisance.
    (d) Obstructing the usual use, enjoyment, or access to federal 
property, including but not limited to use of entrances, exits, 
exterior areas, plazas, courtyards, foyers, lobbies, corridors, 
offices, elevators, escalators, stairways, parking areas, garages, 
loading docks, and areas on federal property designated as closed 
during an emergency.
    (e) Impeding or disrupting the security inspection process 
administered by security personnel, the performance of official duties 
by federal employees, or the ability of the general public to obtain 
services provided by the federal Government.
    (f) Threatening by any means, including but not limited to by mail, 
facsimile, telephone, or electronic communications, to commit any crime 
of violence.
    (g) Bathing, wading, or swimming in or polluting any water area, 
except where authorized by the federal agency responsible for the 
property.
    (h) Camping, except in designated areas and as expressly authorized 
by the Facility Security Committee, Designated Official, or federal 
agency responsible for the property.
    (i) Trespassing, entering, or remaining in or upon areas of federal 
property closed to the public.
    (j) Consuming a tobacco product in all interior space owned, 
rented, or leased by the federal Government, as well as all courtyards, 
terraces, and plazas within 25 feet of doorways and air intake ducts 
under the custody, control, or jurisdiction of the federal Government.
    (k) Causing an unmanned aircraft to take off or land on federal 
property without express permission from the Facility Security 
Committee, Designated Official, or federal agency responsible for the 
property.
    (l) Using an unmanned aircraft to cause interference, damage, 
destruction, harm, or a hazard to federal property or persons on the 
property.
    (m) Tampering with, accessing, damaging, or interfering with the 
operation of a computer, digital network, industrial control system or 
Supervisory Control and Data Acquisition (SCADA) system without proper 
authorization.
    (n) No person, except authorized security personnel or sworn law 
enforcement officers, may wear, display, present, or possess any 
indicia of law enforcement or security authority, to include any badge, 
insignia, emblem, identification card, uniform or part of a uniform, or 
any imitation thereof.


Sec.  139.40  Gambling.

    (a) General Rule. Any person on federal property is prohibited 
from--
    (1) Participating in games for money or other personal property;
    (2) Operating gambling devices;
    (3) Conducting a lottery or pool; or
    (4) Selling or purchasing gambling tickets.
    (b) Exceptions. This provision is not intended to prohibit:
    (1) Vending or exchange of chances by licensed blind operators of 
vending facilities for any lottery set forth in a State law and 
authorized by section 2(a)(5) of the Randolph-Sheppard Act (20 U.S.C. 
107 et seq.); and
    (2) Prize drawings for personal property at otherwise permitted 
functions on federal property, provided that the game or drawing does 
not constitute gambling per se.


Sec.  139.45  Narcotics, other drugs, and drug paraphernalia.

    (a) Narcotics and Other Drugs. Except when a patient uses a 
narcotic or drug as prescribed by a licensed health care provider in 
accordance with federal law, any person on federal property is 
prohibited from being under the influence of, using, possessing, or 
operating a vehicle while under the influence of any controlled 
substance as defined in 21 U.S.C. 802, 812, 841.
    (b) Drug Paraphernalia. Any person on federal property is 
prohibited from possessing drug paraphernalia as defined in 21 U.S.C. 
863.


Sec.  139.50  Alcoholic beverages.

    (a) General Rule. Any person on federal property is prohibited from 
either consuming, or otherwise being under the influence of alcoholic 
beverages, possessing an open container of alcohol, or operating a 
vehicle while under the influence of alcohol.
    (b) Exception. The head of the occupant agency for the designee in 
the space where the alcohol is to be served may grant a written 
exemption to the prohibition against the consumption of alcoholic 
beverages on federal property. A copy of any granted exemption must be 
provided to the building manager and the officials responsible for the 
security of the property before the event at which alcohol will be 
consumed is held.

[[Page 4420]]

Sec.  139.55  Soliciting, vending, and debt collection.

    (a) General Rule. Soliciting, begging, or demanding gifts, money, 
goods, or services on federal property is prohibited, unless otherwise 
provided in paragraph (b) of this section. Any person on federal 
property is specifically prohibited from:
    (1) Soliciting on behalf of:
    (i) Charitable organizations.
    (ii) Political campaigns.
    (iii) Commercial enterprises.
    (2) Vending merchandise of any kind.
    (3) Displaying or distributing commercial advertising.
    (4) Collecting private debts, including repossession of vehicles.
    (b) Exceptions. The following activities are allowed:
    (1) Soliciting on behalf of charitable organizations as authorized 
by 5 CFR part 950, Solicitation of Federal Civilian and Uniformed 
Service Personnel for Contributions to Private Voluntary Organizations 
and sponsored or approved by the occupant agency.
    (2) Posting concessions or personal notices by employees on 
authorized bulletin boards.
    (3) Soliciting on behalf of labor organizations authorized by 
federal occupant agencies and/or labor organizations representing or 
seeking to represent contractors working in Federal Government 
facilities.
    (4) Lessee, or its agents and employees, with respect to space 
leased for commercial, cultural, educational, or recreational use under 
40 U.S.C. 581(h). Public areas of GSA-controlled property may be used 
for other activities in accordance with 41 CFR part 102-74, Subpart D, 
Occasional Use of Public Buildings.
    (5) Collection of non-monetary items that are sponsored or approved 
by the federal occupant agencies.
    (6) Commercial activities sponsored by recognized federal employee 
associations and on-site childcare centers.


Sec.  139.60  Posting and distributing materials.

    (a) General Rule. Any person on federal property is prohibited from 
the following activities:
    (1) Posting or affixing materials, such as pamphlets, handbills, or 
flyers on federal property, including vehicles, bulletin boards, and 
other equipment.
    (2) Distributing materials, such as pamphlets, handbills or flyers, 
or free samples, including samples of tobacco products.
    (b) Exceptions. (1) The posting or distribution of materials is 
allowed when conducted as part of an authorized federal activity.
    (2) An individual may distribute materials in public areas on 
federal property, provided the person first obtains a permit from the 
building manager, as specified in 42 CFR 102.74 subpart D, and the 
person does not leave behind any of the materials.


Sec.  139.65  Photography and recording.

    (a) General. Any person on federal property may not photograph or 
create video, image, or audio recordings of federal facilities and 
grounds in a manner that either impedes or disrupts access to or 
operations on federal property, or is prohibited by a security 
regulation, rule, order, or directive. Photography and recording on 
federal property are allowed as provided paragraph (b) of this section.
    (b) Exceptions. The following activities are allowed:
    (1) Any person, including persons affiliated with the media and 
commercial entities, may photograph or record video, images, and audio 
of publicly accessible exterior areas of federal facilities and grounds 
from public areas, including public streets, sidewalks, parks, and 
plazas, when not impeding or disrupting access to or operations on the 
federal property.
    (2) Any person, including persons affiliated with the media and 
commercial entities, may photograph or record video, images, and audio 
of publicly accessible interior areas of federal facilities and grounds 
from public areas, including public entrances, lobbies, foyers, 
corridors, or auditoriums, when not impeding or disrupting access to or 
operations on the federal property.
    (3) Any person, including persons affiliated with the media and 
commercial entities, may only photograph or record video, images, and 
audio of interior areas occupied by a federal tenant with the express 
permission of the occupying tenant. Persons must obtain written 
permission in advance from the occupying tenant when photographing or 
recording tenant-occupied space for a commercial purpose.


Sec.  139.70  Vehicle operation and removal.

    (a) Safe operation. All vehicle operators on federal property must:
    (1) Drive/operate in a careful and safe manner at all times;
    (2) Possess a valid driver's/operator's license;
    (3) Comply with the lawful signals and directions of security 
personnel; and
    (4) Comply with traffic and safety signals and posted signs.
    (b) Prohibited operations. All vehicle operators on federal 
property or in areas outside federal property that affect, threaten, or 
endanger federal property or persons on the property, are prohibited 
from:
    (1) Blocking entrances, driveways, walks, loading platforms, fire 
hydrants, docking areas, or other passageways; and
    (2) Parking on or adjacent to federal property in unauthorized 
locations, or contrary to the direction of posted signs consistent with 
41 CFR 102-74.265-102-74.310.
    (c) Responsibility. Registered vehicle owners will be responsible 
for violations of this regulation when the vehicle operator is not 
present.
    (d) Enforcement. Security personnel may stop any vehicle that is 
observed operating on federal property in violation of this section.
    (e) Removal and Seizure. Any vehicle used in violation of these 
regulations may be seized, removed, immobilized, towed, stored, marked 
with warning tags or notices, and booted in addition to any law 
enforcement actions or citations. All expenses incurred because of any 
seizure, removal, immobilization, towing, storage, marking, booting, or 
other law enforcement actions will be the responsibility of the owner, 
driver, operator, or other person using or operating the vehicle that 
is in violation of these regulations.


Sec.  139.75  Firearms, dangerous weapons, and explosives.

    (a) Any person on federal property is prohibited from knowingly 
carrying or otherwise possessing a firearm or other dangerous weapon, 
as defined by 18 U.S.C. 921 and 930, whether carried or otherwise 
possessed either openly or concealed, unless authorized by 18 U.S.C. 
930(d).
    (b) Any person on federal property is prohibited from knowingly 
carrying or otherwise possessing explosives, as defined by 18 U.S.C. 
841, or items intended to be used to fabricate an explosive or 
incendiary device, whether carried or otherwise possessed either openly 
or concealed, except for official purposes as authorized by the 
Facility Security Committee, Designated Official, FPS, or other primary 
law enforcement agency responsible for the security of the federal 
property.


Sec.  139.80  Animals.

    (a) General Rule. All persons are prohibited from bringing animals 
in or on federal property for other than official purposes.
    (b) Exception. Persons with disabilities, as defined under the 
Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990, may bring a service animal 
that is

[[Page 4421]]

trained to do work or perform tasks for the benefit of that individual. 
The work or tasks performed by a service animal must be directly 
related to the individual's disability. Examples of work or tasks 
include, but are not limited to, assisting individuals who are blind or 
have low vision with navigation and other tasks, alerting individuals 
who are deaf or hard of hearing to the presence of people or sounds, 
providing non-violent protection or rescue work, pulling a wheelchair, 
assisting an individual during a seizure, alerting individuals to the 
presence of allergens, retrieving items such as medicine or the 
telephone, providing physical support and assistance with balance and 
stability to individuals with mobility disabilities, and helping 
persons with psychiatric and neurological disabilities by preventing or 
interrupting impulsive or destructive behaviors. The crime deterrent 
effects of an animal's presence and the provision of emotional support, 
well-being, comfort, or companionship do not constitute work or tasks 
for purposes of this exception. Persons with disabilities may be 
required to state whether the animal is a service animal required 
because of a disability.


Sec.  139.85  Penalties.

    A person who violates any provision of Subpart B of this Part may 
be punished by a fine under title 18, United States Code, imprisoned 
for not more than 30 days, or both.

Alejandro Mayorkas,
Secretary, Department of Homeland Security.
[FR Doc. 2024-31206 Filed 1-10-25; 4:15 pm]
BILLING CODE 9111-CC-P`