4398 Federal Register / Vol. 90, No. 9 / Wednesday, January 15, 2025 / Proposed Rules 

1Section 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). 

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 handdelivered 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 FPSNPRM@

fps.dhs.gov. 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, 

FPSNPRM@fps.dhs.gov. 

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

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 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS6
Federal Register / Vol. 90, No. 9 / Wednesday, January 15, 2025 / Proposed Rules 4399 

2See 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.) 

3See Shawn Reese, Cong. Rsch. Serv., RS22706, 

The Federal Protective Service and Contract 

Security Guards: A Statutory History and Current 

Status (2009). 

4See Press Release, Secretary Napolitano 

Announces Transfer of Federal Protective Service to 

National Protection and Programs Directorate 

(https://www.dhs.gov/news/2009/10/29/transferfederal-protective-service-national-protection-andprograms-directorate) (Oct. 29, 2009) (last accessed 

July 15, 2024). 

5See 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. 

6See 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-federalbuilding-in-atlanta-in-2020/IJQEHRPXX5FD5

MUPSOGPISXB24/(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-fbiscincinnati-office-police/story?id=88246982 (last 

accessed Sept. 10, 2024). 

7See Cline Testimony, supra. 

8See 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. 

9See 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-federalfacilities/(last accessed July 18, 2024). 

property and the individuals on that 

property. 40 U.S.C. 1315(b)(2)(E).2

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 nonuniformed 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 nonuniformed officers. 

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. 

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

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

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 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS6
4400 Federal Register / Vol. 90, No. 9 / Wednesday, January 15, 2025 / Proposed Rules 

10Non-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). 

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 offproperty 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 lowlevel 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

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 lowVerDate Sep<11>2014 20:51 Jan 14, 2025 Jkt 265001 PO 00000 Frm 00004 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\15JAP6.SGM 15JAP6

lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS6
Federal Register / Vol. 90, No. 9 / Wednesday, January 15, 2025 / Proposed Rules 4401 

11 DHS’s proposed rule would not include noncriminal 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. 

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. 

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-today 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. 

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. 

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 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS6
4402 Federal Register / Vol. 90, No. 9 / Wednesday, January 15, 2025 / Proposed Rules 

13See Cline Testimony, supra. 

14See 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.). 

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. 

16See Arun Gupta, How Portland Occupies Shut 

Down ICE, In These Times (Jul. 2, 2018), https://

inthesetimes.com/article/how-portland-occupiersshut-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). 

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

Under the existing FMR, FPS is 

limited to charging the misconduct 

proscribed in the regulations only for 

conduct occurring in or on GSAoperated 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. 

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 nonGSA 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 nonGSA 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 nonGSA 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. 

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

This proposed provision would 

address both the operational 

inconsistency between the scope of the 

Secretary’s statutory 40 U.S.C. 1315 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS6
Federal Register / Vol. 90, No. 9 / Wednesday, January 15, 2025 / Proposed Rules 4403 

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. 

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 § 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, 

§ 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 § 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 § 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 § 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 

§ 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. 

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 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS6
4404 Federal Register / Vol. 90, No. 9 / Wednesday, January 15, 2025 / Proposed Rules 

18Congress 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. 

19Other 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 nonviolent 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 

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. 

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 § 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 § 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 § 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 § 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 § 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 § 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 § 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 § 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 

§ 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 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS6
Federal Register / Vol. 90, No. 9 / Wednesday, January 15, 2025 / Proposed Rules 4405 

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 § 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). 

20E.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.’’ 

‘‘tobacco product,’’ which appears in 

the prohibited conduct provision in 

§ 139.35(j), with substantially the same 

definition as the Food, Drug, and 

Cosmetics Act codified at 21 U.S.C. 321. 

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 § 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 ecigarettes, 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 § 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, § 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-riskmanagement-process, (2024)(last 

accessed April 15, 2024).21

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 

(§ 139.35(f)), drone activity (§ 139.35(k)– 

(l)), and impersonation of security 

personnel (§ 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 (§ 139.60) and recording 

(§ 139.65) provisions are revised to 

reflect updates in relevant case law and 

policy regarding First Amendment 

equities related to assembly, expression, 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS6
4406 Federal Register / Vol. 90, No. 9 / Wednesday, January 15, 2025 / Proposed Rules 

and speech. Likewise, the admissions 

and inspection provision (proposed 

§ 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 § 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 noncompliance 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 § 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, § 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, § 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 § 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 § 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 § 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 GSAoperated 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 § 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, § 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 § 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 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS6
Federal Register / Vol. 90, No. 9 / Wednesday, January 15, 2025 / Proposed Rules 4407 

22See Oklahoma City Bombing, History.com (Apr. 

19, 2023), https://www.history.com/topics/1990s/ 

oklahoma-city-bombing (last accessed July 18, 

2024). 

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 inthe-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 § 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. 

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 § 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 

§ 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 § 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, § 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, § 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 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS6
4408 Federal Register / Vol. 90, No. 9 / Wednesday, January 15, 2025 / Proposed Rules 

23There 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. 

24See ‘‘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). 

facial attire when committing a crime 

against federal property or persons on 

the property. The concealed identity 

prohibition in § 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 § 139.35(b) would prohibit a lawabiding 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 § 139.35(b) would 

address operational needs to protect 

against the actual, real-life crimes 

committed by criminal actors seeking to 

avoid detection. 

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 

§ 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 realworld, 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. 

Proposed § 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 

§ 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 § 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, 

§ 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 § 139.35(e) 

would also add a prohibition on the 

impediment or disruption of the 

security inspection process, which is 

detailed above in § 139.20 regarding 

admission and inspections related to 

federal property. 

The added prohibition on impeding/ 

disrupting the security inspection 

process in § 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, § 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 § 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, § 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 § 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 § 139.35(f) is a 

prohibition added to address 

operational incidents of individuals off 

federal property who deliver, transmit, 

or otherwise direct violent threats 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS6
Federal Register / Vol. 90, No. 9 / Wednesday, January 15, 2025 / Proposed Rules 4409 

25Executive Order, 13058, Protecting Federal 

Employees and the Public from Exposure to 

Tobacco Smoke in the Federal Workplace, 62 FR 

43451 (Aug. 13, 1997). 

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 § 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 § 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 § 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 

§ 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 § 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 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS6
4410 Federal Register / Vol. 90, No. 9 / Wednesday, January 15, 2025 / Proposed Rules 

26FDA, 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). 27https://www.gao.gov/assets/gao-19-384.pdf. 

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 § 139.35(j). 

While the category of prohibited 

conduct in § 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 § 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 takeoffs 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 § 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 § 139.35(k), the 

prohibition in § 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 § 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 

§ 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. 

Proposed § 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. 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS6
Federal Register / Vol. 90, No. 9 / Wednesday, January 15, 2025 / Proposed Rules 4411 

28www.congress.gov/congressional-report/107thcongress/senate-report/133/1. 

29U.S. Dep’t of Homeland Sec., Impersonation of 

First Responders (2015), available at https://

www.hsdl.org/c/view?docid=800800. 

30See, 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). 31 41 CFR 102–74.405. 

32 41 CFR 102.74.410(c)–(d) have been merged 

and are now reflected in proposed rule 

§ 139.55(b)(3). 

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. 

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, § 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

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 § 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 § 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 § 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. 

Section 139.60 Posting and 

Distributing Materials 

Proposed § 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 § 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 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS6
4412 Federal Register / Vol. 90, No. 9 / Wednesday, January 15, 2025 / Proposed Rules 

33The 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 nonpublic 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). 

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 § 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 § 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 § 139.65(b) would provide 

exceptions to prohibitions on 

photographing and video or audio 

recording in proposed § 139.65(a). 

Specifically, proposed § 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, § 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

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 § 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, § 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 § 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 § 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 § 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 

§ 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 § 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 § 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 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS6
Federal Register / Vol. 90, No. 9 / Wednesday, January 15, 2025 / Proposed Rules 4413 

34See 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). 

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

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 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS6
4414 Federal Register / Vol. 90, No. 9 / Wednesday, January 15, 2025 / Proposed Rules 

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 (§ 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 (§§ 139.25 and 139.35). 

TABLE 1—SUMMARY OF COSTS OF THE PROPOSED RULE BY SECTION

[2023 Dollars] 

Year Training costs 

§ 139.5(d) 

Notice 

requirement 

costs 

§ 139.25 

Preservation 

of Federal 

property costs 

§ 139.35 

Prohibited 

conduct costs 

Undiscounted 

total 

Present 

value total 

(2% discount 

rate) 

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] 

Alternative 

5-year 

total cost 

(2 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 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS6
Federal Register / Vol. 90, No. 9 / Wednesday, January 15, 2025 / Proposed Rules 4415 

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). 

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

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. 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS6
4416 Federal Register / Vol. 90, No. 9 / Wednesday, January 15, 2025 / Proposed Rules 

36E.O. No. 13175, 64 FR 67249 (Nov. 10, 2000), 

https://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR-2000-11-09/pdf/ 

00-29003.pdf. 

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. 

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: 

■ 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. 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS6
Federal Register / Vol. 90, No. 9 / Wednesday, January 15, 2025 / Proposed Rules 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 

§ 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. 

§ 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]. 

§ 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. 

§ 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 highestranking 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 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS6
4418 Federal Register / Vol. 90, No. 9 / Wednesday, January 15, 2025 / Proposed Rules 

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 nonmotorized, 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 

§ 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. 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS6
Federal Register / Vol. 90, No. 9 / Wednesday, January 15, 2025 / Proposed Rules 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. 

§ 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. 

§ 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. 

§ 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. 

§ 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. 

§ 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. 

§ 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. 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS6
4420 Federal Register / Vol. 90, No. 9 / Wednesday, January 15, 2025 / Proposed Rules 

§ 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. 

§ 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. 

§ 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. 

§ 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. 

§ 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. 

§ 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 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS6
Federal Register / Vol. 90, No. 9 / Wednesday, January 15, 2025 / Proposed Rules 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. 

§ 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 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS6