86 Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 1 / Tuesday, January 2, 1996 / Rules and Regulations

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE

Bureau of Prisons

28 CFR Part 542

[BOP–1014–F]

RIN 1120–AA20

Administrative Remedy Program

AGENCY: Federal Bureau of Prisons,

Justice.

ACTION: Final rule.

SUMMARY: In this document, the Bureau

of Prisons is revising its regulations on

the Administrative Remedy Program.

These regulations describe the process

through which inmates may seek formal

review of any issue related to their

confinement. The changes are deemed

necessary in order to attend to increased

numbers of remedy requests occasioned

by the continued growth of the inmate

population. Specific procedural changes

include increases in the time limits set

for inmate filing of requests and for

Bureau responses; additional

specifications for the provision of

assistance to inmates; and increased

access to Administrative Remedy

indexes.

EFFECTIVE DATE: February 5, 1996.

ADDRESSES: Office of General Counsel,

Bureau of Prisons, HOLC Room 754, 320

First Street, NW., Washington, DC

20534.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Roy

Nanovic, Office of General Counsel,

Bureau of Prisons, phone (202) 514–

6655.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The

Bureau of Prisons (Bureau) is amending

its regulations on the Administrative

Remedy Procedure for Inmates. A

proposed rule on this subject was

published in the Federal Register on

October 3, 1994 (59 FR 50179). The

Bureau received comment from six

individuals. In general, the comments

expressed dissatisfaction in varying

degrees on the following points:

informal resolution, time limits,

handling of appeals and responses by

staff, and administrative matters (such

as the posting of the proposed rule at

the institution). A summary of the

comments and the Bureau’s responses

follow.

The proposed rule had included

increased time limits for submission of

an initial remedy request by an inmate

(20 calendar days following the date on

which the basis for the request had

occurred, rather than the 15 calendar

days then currently specified). The

proposed rule also increased the time

limits for agency responses at the

institution level (20 rather than 15

calendar days) and at the Central Office

level (40 rather than 30 calendar days).

There were no objections to the

increased time limit for submission of

an initial remedy request by an inmate.

Several commenters, however, objected

to the extension of the time limits for

Bureau response, stating these were too

long, or were ‘‘slanted completely in

favor of the BOP.’’

Commenters recommended a variety

of procedural changes intended to

extend the effective filing time for

submission of inmate appeals by linking

the filing time to an event other than the

date of the Bureau’s response. For

example, commenters suggested that the

filing time should exclude any time past

the date the appeal is handed over to the

institution mailroom, or the filing time

for an appeal should not begin until the

inmate has actually received a Bureau

response.

The Bureau believes it is not currently

practicable to date stamp outgoing mail

or to verify the date inmates receive

Bureau responses. The proposed filing

times include adequate adjustment for

mail time. The Bureau also believes that

the extended response times for its staff

are realistic and reasonable. Good

reason exists for the different filing time

limits. While the inmate is responsible

for preparing his or her individual

request(s) or appeal(s), Bureau staff

must prepare responses to whatever

requests or appeals have been submitted

from the inmate population.

Furthermore, in those instances where

staff need more time to respond to an

appeal, staff may currently claim an

extension as allowed by the regulations

(see § 542.14). In claiming the extension,

staff notify the inmate in writing.

Increasing the initial time limit for

response should reduce the necessity for

claiming extensions. In either case, the

actual time taken to respond would

likely be the same. With the increased

time limit, staff would spend less time

completing the administrative

paperwork necessary for claiming

extensions.

Some commenters expressed the

belief that the mandatory filing of a

complaint initially at the institutional

level was cumbersome and unnecessary.

One commenter recommended that an

inmate be allowed to make an appeal

‘‘directly to the level of management

that has jurisdiction and the authority to

make the decision.’’

The Bureau believes that such

amendment is not necessary. The

principle underlying the administrative

remedy procedure is that the resolution

of problems can be remedied at the

lowest possible level. If informal

resolution is successful, the formal

administrative remedy procedure would

not be necessary. Moreover, those few

issues that can only be remedied at

certain levels are permitted, per policy,

to go directly to that level. Similarly,

responses to emergency appeals are

expedited. The administrative remedy

procedure typically is used to address

questions regarding the application of

policy to individual inmates. Provisions

for appeal help ensure consistency in

application and can also serve to

measure the adequacy of policy. The

primary vehicle for inmate participation

in the general formulation of Bureau

policy remains through the rulemaking

process (for example, through comment

on the October 3, 1994 proposed rule).

Some commenters recommended that

either a receipt for a filed complaint be

given by the correctional counselor who

‘‘accepts’’ the complaint or that the

inmate be allowed to file the initial

request with the institution’s

administrative remedy coordinator.

These commenters expressed the

concern that extensive delays may occur

before the counselor forwards the

administrative remedy to the

institution’s administrative remedy

coordinator. The Bureau believes that

no change is necessary, as the counselor

is responsible for forwarding the

administrative remedy to the

appropriate staff in a timely manner and

internal instructions to staff require that

this occur ordinarily no later than the

next business day.

Two commenters objected to the form

of receipt acknowledgements or

responses returned to the inmate. One of

these commenters expressed concern

that because the receipt

acknowledgements are not signed, these

receipts do not prove that the appeals

ever left the institution. In response, the

Bureau notes that receipts from the

regional and central offices are

generated electronically from those

offices. Therefore, a receipt

acknowledgement indicates that the

administrative remedy reached its

intended destination.

The second commenter objected to

the provisions in § 542.11(a)(4) relating

to the delegation of signatory authority,

which had been previously issued as an

administrative amendment. This

commenter stated that, at a minimum,

the regulation should require that the

name and title of the person signing the

response be typed below the signature

rather than have the person sign ‘‘for’’

the official as is the Bureau’s practice in

this administrative detail. The

commenter presumably believes this

change is important in the pursuit of

further judicial action involving an
Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 1 / Tuesday, January 2, 1996 / Rules and Regulations 87

inmate’s complaint. The Bureau

believes its standard procedures for the

exercise of delegated authority is

adequate and no further amendment is

necessary in this matter.

One commenter objected to the

omission of a requirement that staff

responses be in good faith, honest, and

straightforward, as is required for

inmate submissions (see § 542.11(b)).

There is no necessity to address this

matter in these regulations because

Bureau staff are trained professionals

governed by the Standards of Conduct

for Bureau employees, which are

sufficient to support the integrity of staff

responses.

One commenter objected to a variety

of specific administrative procedures.

Section 542.14(c)(2) states that the

inmate shall place a single complaint or

a reasonable number of closely related

issues on the appropriate form. This is

intended to facilitate indexing of

remedy requests and to simplify the

resolution process by presenting remedy

requests as discrete matters. The

commenter claimed that inmate access

to forms at one institution was limited

by requiring one form to be filled out

and submitted before staff would issue

another to the same inmate. We note

that this institution practice does not

necessarily limit access (i.e., it merely

requires the inmate to follow through on

one complaint before starting another).

Nevertheless, because the Bureau does

not wish to encourage such a

perception, the Bureau is issuing

internal instructions to staff advising

against such institutional administrative

practice.

This same commenter also objected to

limiting the length of inmate complaints

by only allowing one additional page

per form. The Bureau believes that

limiting additions to one page is useful

and reasonable. This emphasis on

brevity along with the above-mentioned

requirement limiting the inmate to the

presentation of a single complaint or a

reasonable number of closely related

issues is intended to encourage inmates

to submit their concerns in a

straightforward manner. The commenter

also objected to requirements in

§ 542.14(c)(3) regarding the submission

of exhibits with a request. The

commenter suggested that the provision

was ambiguous as to the number of

required copies at different stages of the

remedy appeals process. The Bureau’s

procedure is to require only one copy of

an exhibit with the request. If the

inmate appeals a response, the inmate is

responsible for furnishing a copy of the

exhibit with the appeal along with

copies of the previously-submitted

complaints.

One commentator objected to the

provision in § 542.17 allowing the

administrative remedy coordinator at

any level to reject a request or appeal.

This commenter, presumably focusing

on an example at the institution level,

stated that only the Warden may sign

responses and consequently should be

the only one to reject the request or

appeal. The Bureau wishes to note that

the very purpose of § 542.17 is to

provide the administrative remedy

coordinator with this authority.

Paragraph (b) of this section provides

the inmate with the opportunity to

correct the defects, when possible, so

that the matter can be resubmitted.

Three commenters raised questions

about the lack of detail provided in

these regulations for the informal

resolution of complaints. Two

commenters objected to the lack of a

specified time limit for informal

resolution. One commenter

recommended 48 hours as a reasonable

time period for that purpose. Another

commenter stated that paperwork

associated with informal resolution at

one particular institution appeared to be

duplicative of the paperwork generated

for an initial request submitted after an

adverse decision on the informal

resolution.

In response, the Bureau notes that by

its very definition, procedures for

informal resolution should not be

formalized. The informal resolution

policy is not explicitly detailed in these

regulations in order to preserve

maximum flexibility for institution staff

in attempting to resolve complaints. As

for the particular informal resolution

procedures at particular institutions, the

Bureau wishes to preserve the Warden’s

discretion in formulating these

procedures and adds language to the

rule providing for the exercise of the

Warden’s discretion.

In response to the concerns over the

lack of a specified time limit for

informal resolution, the Bureau has

revised the provisions in § 542.14(a) to

include informal resolution under the

deadline for the submission of an initial

filing. This is intended to encourage

quick informal resolution. Because a

lengthy period of time for attempted

informal resolution constitutes a valid

reason for the granting of an extension

in filing time, including informal

resolution under this deadline should

not unduly impair the inmate’s ability

to file the initial request in instances

where the informal resolution attempt

has failed.

Two commenters raised concerns

about the posting of the proposed rule

changes at one particular Bureau

institution, stating that their access to

the proposed rule, and consequently

their ability to timely comment on it,

were intentionally hindered. We have

been assured by institution staff that

pursuant to Bureau policy, the proposed

rule was posted in the inmate law

library and was also maintained by unit

case managers. Inmates at this

institution were advised through

postings in their housing units that they

could review the proposed rule either in

the inmate law library or through a

request to the case manager. The two

commenters stated that their requests to

review the proposed rule were not

answered in a timely fashion. The

Bureau believes that the institution’s

posting procedures do not constitute

intentional hinderance to public

comment. The two requests in question

came from inmates in the same housing

areas, which suggests that any problem

was of a local, not systemic, nature. In

addition, the proposed rule was also

available at the institution’s law library.

In any event, the Bureau has considered

these comments in finalizing these

regulations.

One commenter, expressing general

dissatisfaction with Bureau regulations,

stated that Bureau regulations were so

poorly written that two different

institutions would interpret them

differently on the same day to fit their

particular desire. It is the Bureau’s

intent that the Administrative Remedy

Program helps to ensure the consistent

application of Bureau rules and policies

by allowing for hierarchial review of

inmate complaints.

The Bureau of Prisons has determined

that this rule is not a significant

regulatory action for the purpose of E.O.

12866, and accordingly this rule was not

reviewed by the Office of Management

and Budget. After review of the law and

regulations, the Director, Bureau of

Prisons has certified that this rule, for

the purpose of the Regulatory Flexibility

Act (Pub. L. 96–354), does not have a

significant impact on a substantial

number of small entities.

List of Subjects in 28 CFR Part 542

Prisoners.

Kathleen M. Hawk,

Director, Bureau of Prisons.

Accordingly, pursuant to the

rulemaking authority vested in the

Attorney General in 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and

delegated to the Director, Bureau of

Prisons in 28 CFR 0.96(p), it is proposed

to amend part 542 in subchapter C of 28

CFR, chapter V as set forth below.

SUBCHAPTER C—INSTITUTIONAL

MANAGEMENT

1. 28 CFR part 542 is revised to read

as follows:
88 Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 1 / Tuesday, January 2, 1996 / Rules and Regulations

PART 542—ADMINISTRATIVE

REMEDY

Subpart A—[Reserved]

Subpart B—Administrative Remedy

Program

Sec.

542.10 Purpose and scope.

542.11 Responsibility.

542.12 Excluded matters.

542.13 Informal resolution.

542.14 Initial filing.

542.15 Appeals.

542.16 Assistance.

542.17 Resubmission.

542.18 Response time.

542.19 Access to indexes and responses.

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

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

in part as to offenses committed on or after

November 1, 1987), 5006–5024 (Repealed

October 12, 1984 as to offenses committed

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

CFR 0.95–0.99.

Subpart A—[Reserved]

Subpart B—Administrative Remedy

Program

§ 542.10 Purpose and scope.

The Administrative Remedy Program

is a process through which inmates may

seek formal review of an issue which

relates to any aspect of their

confinement, except as excluded in

§ 542.12, if less formal procedures have

not resolved the matter. This Program

applies to all inmates confined in

institutions operated by the Bureau of

Prisons, to inmates designated to

contract Community Corrections

Centers (CCCs) under Bureau of Prisons’

responsibility, and to former inmates for

issues that arose during their

confinement, but does not apply to

inmates confined in other non-federal

facilities.

§ 542.11 Responsibility.

(a) The Community Corrections

Manager (CCM), Warden, Regional

Director, and General Counsel are

responsible for the implementation and

operation of the Administrative Remedy

Program at the Community Corrections

Center (CCC), institution, regional and

Central Office levels, respectively, and

shall:

(1) Establish procedures for receiving,

recording, reviewing, investigating, and

responding to Administrative Remedy

Requests (Requests) or Appeals

(Appeals) submitted by an inmate;

(2) Acknowledge receipt of a Request

or Appeal by returning a receipt to the

inmate;

(3) Conduct an investigation into each

Request or Appeal;

(4) Respond to and sign all Requests

or Appeals filed at their levels. At the

regional level, signatory authority may

be delegated to the Deputy Regional

Director. At the Central Office level,

signatory authority may be delegated to

the National Inmate Appeals

Administrator. Signatory authority

extends to staff designated as acting in

the capacities specified in this § 542.11,

but may not be further delegated

without the written approval of the

General Counsel.

(b) Inmates have the responsibility to

use this Program in good faith and in an

honest and straightforward manner.

§ 542.12 Excluded matters.

(a) An inmate may not use this

Program to submit a Request or Appeal

on behalf of another inmate. This

program is intended to address concerns

that are personal to the inmate making

the Request or Appeal, but shall not

prevent an inmate from obtaining

assistance in preparing a Request or

Appeal, as provided in § 542.16 of this

part.

(b) Requests or Appeals will not be

accepted under the Administrative

Remedy Program for claims for which

other administrative procedures have

been established, including tort claims,

Inmate Accident Compensation claims,

and Freedom of Information or Privacy

Act requests. Staff shall inform the

inmate in writing of the appropriate

administrative procedure if the Request

or Appeal is not acceptable under the

Administrative Remedy Program.

§ 542.13 Informal resolution.

(a) Informal Resolution. Except as

provided in § 542.13(b), an inmate shall

first present an issue of concern

informally to staff, and staff shall

attempt to informally resolve the issue

before an inmate submits a Request for

Administrative Remedy. Each Warden

shall establish procedures to allow for

the informal resolution of inmate

complaints.

(b) Exceptions. Inmates in CCCs are

not required to attempt informal

resolution. An informal resolution

attempt is not required prior to

submission to the Regional or Central

Office as provided for in § 542.14(d) of

this part. An informal resolution

attempt may be waived in individual

cases at the Warden or institution

Administrative Remedy Coordinator’s

discretion when the inmate

demonstrates an acceptable reason for

bypassing informal resolution.

§ 542.14 Initial filing.

(a) Submission. The deadline for

completion of informal resolution and

submission of a formal written

Administrative Remedy Request, on the

appropriate form (BP–9), is 20 calendar

days following the date on which the

basis for the Request occurred.

(b) Extension. Where the inmate

demonstrates a valid reason for delay,

an extension in filing time may be

allowed. In general, valid reason for

delay means a situation which

prevented the inmate from submitting

the request within the established time

frame. Valid reasons for delay include

the following: an extended period intransit during which the inmate was

separated from documents needed to

prepare the Request or Appeal; an

extended period of time during which

the inmate was physically incapable of

preparing a Request or Appeal; an

unusually long period taken for

informal resolution attempts; indication

by an inmate, verified by staff, that a

response to the inmate’s request for

copies of dispositions requested under

§ 542.19 of this part was delayed.

(c) Form.

(1) The inmate shall obtain the

appropriate form from CCC staff or

institution staff (ordinarily, the

correctional counselor).

(2) The inmate shall place a single

complaint or a reasonable number of

closely related issues on the form. If the

inmate includes on a single form

multiple unrelated issues, the

submission shall be rejected and

returned without response, and the

inmate shall be advised to use a separate

form for each unrelated issue. For DHO

and UDC appeals, each separate

incident report number must be

appealed on a separate form.

(3) The inmate shall complete the

form with all requested identifying

information and shall state the

complaint in the space provided on the

form. If more space is needed, the

inmate may use up to one letter-size

(81⁄2’’ by 11’’) continuation page. The

inmate must provide an additional copy

of any continuation page. The inmate

must submit one copy of supporting

exhibits. Exhibits will not be returned

with the response. Because copies of

exhibits must be filed for any appeal

(see § 542.15(b)(3)), the inmate is

encouraged to retain a copy of all

exhibits for his or her personal records.

(4) The inmate shall date and sign the

Request and submit it to the institution

staff member designated to receive such

Requests (ordinarily a correctional

counselor). CCC inmates may mail their

Requests to the CCM.

(d) Exceptions to Initial Filing at

Institution.

(1) Sensitive Issues. If the inmate

reasonably believes the issue is sensitive

and the inmate’s safety or well-being

would be placed in danger if the
Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 1 / Tuesday, January 2, 1996 / Rules and Regulations 89

Request became known at the

institution, the inmate may submit the

Request directly to the appropriate

Regional Director. The inmate shall

clearly mark ‘‘Sensitive’’ upon the

Request and explain, in writing, the

reason for not submitting the Request at

the institution. If the Regional

Administrative Remedy Coordinator

agrees that the Request is sensitive, the

Request shall be accepted. Otherwise,

the Request will not be accepted, and

the inmate shall be advised in writing

of that determination, without a return

of the Request. The inmate may pursue

the matter by submitting an

Administrative Remedy Request locally

to the Warden. The Warden shall allow

a reasonable extension of time for such

a resubmission.

(2) DHO Appeals. DHO appeals shall

be submitted initially to the Regional

Director for the region where the inmate

is currently located.

(3) Control Unit Appeals. Appeals

related to Executive Panel Reviews of

Control Unit placement shall be

submitted directly to the General

Counsel.

(4) Controlled Housing Status

Appeals. Appeals related to the

Regional Director’s review of controlled

housing status placement may be filed

directly with the General Counsel.

§ 542.15 Appeals.

(a) Submission. An inmate who is not

satisfied with the Warden’s response

may submit an Appeal on the

appropriate form (BP–10) to the

appropriate Regional Director within 20

calendar days of the date the Warden

signed the response. An inmate who is

not satisfied with the Regional

Director’s response may submit an

Appeal on the appropriate form (BP–11)

to the General Counsel within 30

calendar days of the date the Regional

Director signed the response. When the

inmate demonstrates a valid reason for

delay, these time limits may be

extended. Valid reasons for delay

include those situations described in

§ 542.14(b) of this part. Appeal to the

General Counsel is the final

administrative appeal.

(b) Form.

(1) Appeals to the Regional Director

shall be submitted on the form designed

for regional Appeals (BP–10) and

accompanied by one complete copy or

duplicate original of the institution

Request and response. Appeals to the

General Counsel shall be submitted on

the form designed for Central Office

Appeals (BP–11) and accompanied by

one complete copy or duplicate original

of the institution and regional filings

and their responses. Appeals shall state

specifically the reason for appeal.

(2) An inmate may not raise in an

Appeal issues not raised in the lower

level filings. An inmate may not

combine Appeals of separate lower level

responses (different case numbers) into

a single Appeal.

(3) An inmate shall complete the

appropriate form with all requested

identifying information and shall state

the reasons for the Appeal in the space

provided on the form. If more space is

needed, the inmate may use up to one

letter-size (81⁄2’’ x 11’’) continuation

page. The inmate shall provide two

additional copies of any continuation

page and exhibits with the regional

Appeal, and three additional copies

with an Appeal to the Central Office

(the inmate is also to provide copies of

exhibits used at the prior level(s) of

appeal). The inmate shall date and sign

the Appeal and mail it to the

appropriate Regional Director, if a

Regional Appeal, or to the National

Inmate Appeals Administrator, Office of

General Counsel, if a Central Office

Appeal (see 28 CFR part 503 for

addresses of the Central Office and

Regional Offices).

§ 542.16 Assistance.

(a) An inmate may obtain assistance

from another inmate or from institution

staff in preparing a Request or an

Appeal. An inmate may also obtain

assistance from outside sources, such as

family members or attorneys. However,

no person may submit a Request or

Appeal on the inmate’s behalf, and

obtaining assistance will not be

considered a valid reason for exceeding

a time limit for submission unless the

delay was caused by staff.

(b) Wardens shall ensure that

assistance is available for inmates who

are illiterate, disabled, or who are not

functionally literate in English. Such

assistance includes provision of

reasonable accommodation in order for

an inmate with a disability to prepare

and process a Request or an Appeal.

§ 542.17 Resubmission.

(a) Rejections. The Coordinator at any

level (CCM, institution, region, Central

Office) may reject and return to the

inmate without response a Request or an

Appeal that is written by an inmate in

a manner that is obscene or abusive, or

does not meet any other requirement of

this part.

(b) Notice. When a submission is

rejected, the inmate shall be provided a

written notice, signed by the

Administrative Remedy Coordinator,

explaining the reason for rejection. If the

defect on which the rejection is based is

correctable, the notice shall inform the

inmate of a reasonable time extension

within which to correct the defect and

resubmit the Request or Appeal.

(c) Appeal of Rejections. When a

Request or Appeal is rejected and the

inmate is not given an opportunity to

correct the defect and resubmit, the

inmate may appeal the rejection,

including a rejection on the basis of an

exception as described in § 542.14(d), to

the next appeal level. The Coordinator

at that level may affirm the rejection,

may direct that the submission be

accepted at the lower level (either upon

the inmate’s resubmission or direct

return to that lower level), or may

accept the submission for filing. The

inmate shall be informed of the decision

by delivery of either a receipt or

rejection notice.

§ 542.18 Response time.

If accepted, a Request or Appeal is

considered filed on the date it is logged

into the Administrative Remedy Index

as received. Once filed, response shall

be made by the Warden or CCM within

20 calendar days; by the Regional

Director within 30 calendar days; and

by the General Counsel within 40

calendar days. If the Request is

determined to be of an emergency

nature which threatens the inmate’s

immediate health or welfare, the

Warden shall respond not later than the

third calendar day after filing. If the

time period for response to a Request or

Appeal is insufficient to make an

appropriate decision, the time for

response may be extended once by 20

days at the institution level, 30 days at

the regional level, or 20 days at the

Central Office level. Staff shall inform

the inmate of this extension in writing.

Staff shall respond in writing to all filed

Requests or Appeals. If the inmate does

not receive a response within the time

allotted for reply, including extension,

the inmate may consider the absence of

a response to be a denial at that level.

§ 542.19 Access to indexes and

responses.

Inmates and members of the public

may request access to Administrative

Remedy indexes and responses, for

which inmate names and Register

Numbers have been removed, as

indicated below. Each institution shall

make available its index, and the

indexes of its regional office and the

Central Office. Each regional office shall

make available its index, the indexes of

all institutions in its region, and the

index of the Central Office. The Central

Office shall make available its index and

the indexes of all institutions and

regional offices. Responses may be
90 Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 1 / Tuesday, January 2, 1996 / Rules and Regulations

requested from the location where they

are maintained and must be identified

by Remedy ID number as indicated on

an index. Copies of indexes or responses

may be inspected during regular office

hours at the locations indicated above,

or may be purchased in accordance with

the regular fees established for copies

furnished under the Freedom of

Information Act (FOIA).

[FR Doc. 95–31496 Filed 12–29–95; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4410–05–P

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE

Bureau of Prisons

28 CFR Parts 540 and 545

[BOP–1049–I]

RIN 1120–AA39

Telephone Regulations and Inmate

Financial Responsibility

AGENCY: Bureau of Prisons, Justice.

ACTION: Interim Rule With Request for

Comments, and Withdrawal of Effective

Date-Delayed Provisions.

SUMMARY: In this document, the Bureau

of Prisons (Bureau) is withdrawing the

provisions in its regulations relating to

limitations on telephone privileges for

inmates who have refused participation

in the inmate financial responsibility

program, (IFRP) which were to become

effective January 4, 1996. In addition,

the Bureau is increasing to $75.00 the

amount of money to be excluded from

assessment in an inmate’s financial

responsibility plan. These actions are

made pursuant to the terms of a

settlement approved by the District

Court in a nationwide federal prisoner

class action, Washington v. Reno, Nos.

93–217, 93–290 (E.D.KY.).

DATES: The withdrawal of 28 CFR

540.105(c) and 545.11(d)(10), and the

amendment to 28 CFR 540.100(a) is

effective January 2, 1996; the

amendment to 28 CFR 545.11(b)

introductory text is effective January 3,

1996. Comments on 28 CFR 545.11(b)

are due on March 4, 1996.

ADDRESSES: Office of General Counsel,

Bureau of Prisons, HOLC Room 754, 320

First Street, NW., Washington, DC

20534.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Roy

Nanovic, Office of General Counsel,

Bureau of Prisons, telephone (202) 514–

6655.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The

Bureau of Prisons (Bureau) is

withdrawing certain provisions in its

rules on telephone regulations and on

the inmate financial responsibility

program (IFRP) which were published

in the Federal Register on April 4, 1994

(59 FR 15812).

In the April 4, 1994, revision of its

rules on telephone regulations and on

the IFRP, the Bureau delayed the

effective date for provisions in

§§ 540.105(c) and 545.11(d)(10) which

imposed limitations on the telephone

privileges of inmates refusing to

participate in the IFRP. These

provisions were to become effective

January 3, 1995. Due to ongoing

litigation in Washington v. Reno, the

effective date for these provisions was

further delayed until January 4, 1996 (60

FR 240). In accordance with the Courtapproved settlement in Washington v.

Reno, the Bureau is withdrawing these

provisions and the reference to the IFRP

telephone restrictions contained in 28

CFR 540.100(a), and is publishing

elsewhere in today’s Federal Register a

new proposed rule to impose a different

restriction on the telephone privileges of

inmates who refuse to participate in the

IFRP.

In accordance with the settlement in

Washington v. Reno, the Bureau is also

amending, on an interim basis with

request for comments, the provision in

28 CFR 545.11(b) which relates to the

exclusion of certain funds from an

inmate’s financial responsibility plan.

Under this provision, unit team staff

currently exclude $50.00 per month

from assessment in developing the

inmate’s payment plan in the IFRP. This

provision is revised to raise the

exclusion to $75.00 per month, per the

terms of the settlement in Washington v.

Reno and, for clarification purposes, the

third and fourth sentences of this

paragraph are being combined into one

sentence.

Because the revisions to 28 CFR

545.11(b) are made pursuant to the

court-approved settlement in

Washington v. Reno, the Bureau is

issuing the revisions as an interim rule

pursuant to the ‘‘good cause’’ exemption

of 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3). Interested persons

may participate in this rulemaking by

submitting data, views, or arguments in

writing to the Bureau of Prisons, 320

First Street, NW., HOLC Room 754,

Washington, DC 20534. Comments

received on the interim rule provisions

during the comment period will be

considered before final action is taken.

All comments received remain on file

for public inspection at the above

address.

The Bureau of Prisons has determined

that this rule is not a significant

regulatory action for the purpose of E.O.

12866, and accordingly this rule has not

been reviewed by the Office of

Management and Budget pursuant to

E.O. 12866. After review of the law and

regulations, the Director, Bureau of

Prisons has certified that this rule, for

the purpose of the Regulatory Flexibility

Act (Pub. L. 96–354), does not have a

significant impact on a substantial

number of small entities.

List of Subjects in 28 CFR Parts 540 and

545

Prisoners.

Kathleen M. Hawk,

Director, Bureau of Prisons.

Accordingly, pursuant to the

rulemaking authority vested in the

Attorney General in 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and

delegated to the Director, Bureau of

Prisons in 28 CFR 0.96(p), parts 540 and

545 in subchapter C of 28 CFR, chapter

V are amended as set forth below.

SUBCHAPTER C—INSTITUTIONAL

MANAGEMENT

PART 540—CONTACT WITH PERSONS

IN THE COMMUNITY

1. The authority citation for 28 CFR

part 540 continues to read as follows:

Authority: 5 U.S.C. 301, 551, 552a; 18

U.S.C. 1791, 3013, 3571, 3572, 3621, 3622,

3624, 3663, 4001, 4042, 4081, 4082 (Repealed

in part as to offenses committed on or after

November 1, 1987), 5006–5024 (Repealed

October 12, 1984 as to offenses committed

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

CFR 0.95–0.99.

2. In § 540.100, paragraph (a) is

amended by revising the fifth sentence

to read as follows:

§ 540.100 Purpose and scope.

* * * * *

(a) * * * In addition to the

procedures set forth in this subpart,

inmate telephone use is subject to those

limitations which the Warden

determines are necessary to ensure the

security or good order, including

discipline, of the institution or to

protect the public. * * *

§ 540.105 [Amended]

3. In § 540.105, paragraph (c), which

was previously to become effective

January 4, 1996, (59 FR 15824, 60 FR

240) is removed and reserved.

PART 545—WORK AND

COMPENSATION

4. The authority citation for 28 CFR

part 545 continues to read as follows:

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

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

4042, 4081, 4082 (Repealed in part as to

offenses committed on or after November 1,

1987), 4126, 5006–5024 (Repealed October

12, 1984 as to offenses committed after that

date), 5039; 28 U.S.C. 509, 510; 28 CFR 0.95–

0.99.