Inmate Legal Activities: Visits by Attorneys, 101882-101884 [2024-29681]
Download as PDF
<![CDATA[
101882
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 242 / Tuesday, December 17, 2024 / Rules and Regulations
rule is limited to inmates in the custody
of the Federal Bureau of Prisons.
Executive Order 13132. This rule will
Upon further review of § 543.32(h),
not have substantial direct effect on the
we decided to make two changes to that
States, on the relationship between the
section to clarify the language and
National Government and the States, or
ensure it more closely aligns with the
on distribution of power and
FTCA. The language of the second
responsibilities among the various
sentence to that section currently in
levels of government. Therefore, under
effect via the interim final rule reads: ‘‘If
Executive Order 13132, the Bureau
you have not received a letter either
determines that this rule does not have
proposing a settlement or denying your
sufficient federalism implications to
claim within six months after the date
warrant the preparation of a Federalism
your claim was presented, you may
Assessment.
assume your claim is denied.’’ The
Regulatory Flexibility Act. The
revised language included in the final
Director of the Bureau of Prisons, under
rule reads: ‘‘If you have not received a
the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C.
letter denying your claim within six
605(b)), reviewed this rule and by
months after the date your claim was
approving it certifies that it will not
presented, you may deem the absence of
have a significant economic impact
a response to your claim as a denial.’’
upon a substantial number of small
The first change is to the first clause
entities for the following reasons: This
of the second sentence in section
rule pertains to the correctional
§ 543.32(h). We changed the language by
management of offenders committed to
removing the phrase ‘‘either proposing a
the custody of the Attorney General or
settlement or’’ because we do not want
the Director of the Bureau of Prisons,
to imply the Bureau’s proposal of a
and its economic impact is limited to
settlement within six months precludes
the Bureau’s appropriated funds.
the option of the claimant deeming a
Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of
claim denied. As discussed more in the
1995. This rule will not result in the
next paragraph, what triggers the option expenditure by State, local and tribal
for the claimant to deem a claim denied governments, in the aggregate, or by the
and to file suit is the failure of an agency private sector, of $100,000,000 or more
to make a final disposition of a claim
in any one year, and it will not
within six months. Since a settlement
significantly or uniquely affect small
offer is not a ‘‘final disposition,’’ it
governments. Therefore, no actions were
cannot serve to preclude the claimant
deemed necessary under the provisions
from filing suit.
of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
The second change is to the second
of 1995.
clause of the second sentence in
Congressional Review Act. This rule is
§ 543.32(h). In reviewing our draft of the a not major rule as defined by the
final rule, we determined that use of the Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 804.
word ‘‘assume’’ in the second sentence
List of Subjects in 28 CFR Part 543
to § 543.32(h) was unnecessary and
confusing inasmuch as the statute itself,
Prisoners.
28 U.S.C. 2675(a), does not mention
Colette S. Peters,
‘‘assumptions.’’ That language confers
upon the claimant the ‘‘option’’ to deem Director, Federal Bureau of Prisons.
Under rulemaking authority vested in
their claim finally denied; the claimant
the Attorney General in 5 U.S.C 301; 28
is not required to ‘‘assume’’ that the
U.S.C. 509, 510 and delegated to the
sending of a settlement proposal means
Director of the Bureau of Prisons in 28
they are not entitled to file suit if six
months have elapsed since presentment. CFR 0.96, the Bureau finalizes with
minor changes, the interim rule
Instead, the claimant retains the option
published on November 7, 2023, (88 FR
to continue negotiating with no statute
76657) and the correction published on
of limitations penalty, or they may opt
instead to ‘‘deem’’ the claim denied and December 20, 2023 (88 FR 87903).
pursue a lawsuit in federal court.
PART 543—LEGAL MATTERS
II. Regulatory Analyses
■ 1. The authority citation for 28 CFR
Executive Orders 12866, 13563 and
part 543 continues to read as follows:
14094. This rule does not fall within a
ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with RULES1
C. Discussion of Minor Edits to Section
543.32(h)
category of actions that the Office of
Management and Budget (OMB) has
determined constitutes a ‘‘significant
regulatory action’’ under section 3(f) of
Executive Order 12866 and,
accordingly, it was not reviewed by
OMB. The economic impact of this final
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:03 Dec 16, 2024
Jkt 265001
Authority: 5 U.S.C. 301; 18 U.S.C. 3621,
3622, 3624, 4001, 4042, 4081, 4082 (Repealed
in part as to offenses committed on or after
November 1, 1987), 5006–5024 (Repealed
October 12, 1984 as to Offenses committed
after that date), 5039; 28 U.S.C. 509, 510,
1346(b), 2671–80; 28 CFR 0.95–0.99, 0.172,
14.1–11.
PO 00000
Frm 00046
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
Subpart C—Federal Tort Claims Act
2. Revise § 543.32(h) to read as
follows:
■
§ 543.32
Processing the claim.
*
*
*
*
*
(h) Response timeline. Generally, you
will receive a decision regarding your
claim within six months of when you
properly present the claim. If you have
not received a letter denying your claim
within six months after the date your
claim was presented, you may deem the
absence of a response to your claim as
a denial. You may then proceed to file
a lawsuit in the appropriate United
States District Court.
[FR Doc. 2024–29691 Filed 12–16–24; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4410–05–P
DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
Bureau of Prisons
28 CFR Part 543
[BOP–1175–F]
RIN 1120–AB75
Inmate Legal Activities: Visits by
Attorneys
Bureau of Prisons, Justice.
Final rule.
AGENCY:
ACTION:
In this document, the Bureau
of Prisons (‘‘Bureau’’ or ‘‘BOP’’)
finalizes revisions to regulations related
to attorney-client visits at BOP
institutions.
SUMMARY:
Effective December 17, 2024,
BOP adopts the interim final rule
published at 89 FR 8330 on Feb. 7,
2024, as final without change.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Daniel J. Crooks III, Assistant General
Counsel/Rules Administrator, Federal
Bureau of Prisons, at (202) 353–4885.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
DATES:
I. Background
On February 7, 2024, BOP published
an interim final rule that amended
regulations related to attorney visits. 89
FR 8330 (Feb. 7, 2024). The comment
period closed on April 8, 2024, and we
received six comments. Of those six
comments, only two were related to the
rule; each of those comments is
discussed more fully below. Of the four
unrelated comments, one noted
generally that BOP should review its
regulations annually for improvement;
one was mistakenly posted to this
docket instead of to the docket for
another BOP rulemaking; another
laments the general treatment of January
E:\FR\FM\17DER1.SGM
17DER1
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 242 / Tuesday, December 17, 2024 / Rules and Regulations
ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with RULES1
6 defendants; and the last advocates for
revised regulations regarding clergy
visits to BOP facilities. After
consideration of the two relevant public
comments, BOP is adopting the interim
final rule on this subject without
change.
II. Discussion
We received two relevant, substantive
comments after publication of the
interim final rule. Each comment is
addressed below.
Comment 1: The commenter states
that the revised rule does not go far
enough to address other means that
facilitate attorney-client
communications, emphasizing that the
availability of private telephone calls is
essential to facilitate attorney-client
communications. The commenter gave
several examples where inmates and
their attorneys encountered difficulties
obtaining approval from officials at BOP
institutions for unmonitored telephone
calls. However, the commenter did not
address the specific changes to the
regulation addressing in-person visits by
attorneys.
Response: BOP agrees that meaningful
access to counsel includes reasonable
access to unmonitored telephone calls
to facilitate attorney-client
communications. Through separate
procedures, BOP enables confidential
communications between an inmate and
their attorney through legal visits,
unmonitored telephone calls, and
unmonitored legal correspondence.
Title 28 CFR 540.102 and 540.103
address unmonitored telephone calls,
while 28 CFR 540.18 and 540.19 address
unmonitored legal correspondence.
However, the comment is out of scope
as the interim final rule only addressed
the procedures for in-person,
confidential attorney visits as provided
in Part 543, and did not address the
different issue of rules applicable to
telephone calls between inmates and
their attorneys, which are in separate
regulations at 28 CFR 540.102–540.103.
To the extent the commenter’s
suggestion is intended to be construed
as a petition for rulemaking pursuant to
5 U.S.C. 553(e), a comment to a rule
pertaining to a different issue in a
different set of regulations is not the
proper mechanism to effectuate that
provision. Individuals in BOP custody
with individualized concerns or
questions regarding the implementation
of applicable regulations or policy are
reminded of their rights to address such
issues through the agency’s
Administrative Remedy Program, as
outlined at 28 CFR part 542 and in BOP
Program Statement 1330.18 (available at
www.bop.gov/policy). Thus, BOP
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:03 Dec 16, 2024
Jkt 265001
concludes that no changes are needed in
the final rule in light of this comment.
Comment 2: The commenter states
that the rule should address attorney
visits for individuals located at
administrative facilities in holdover
status; that the rule does not address
circumstances where a pretrial or
unsentenced individual is in holdover
status at a BOP institution that houses
convicted individuals; that BOP’s
explanation for the rule indicates that
attorneys can visit a client in BOP
custody like social visitors during
normal visiting hours without advanced
notice; that many attorneys are
unwilling to be added to their client’s
regular social visiting list and that some
attorneys are unwilling to provide
personally identifying information on
the social visit application forms; and
that BOP should clarify if attorneys can
show up at an institution during normal
social visiting hours for a visit in the
common area (i.e., not in a private
setting) without providing sensitive
personal information.
Response: As background, BOP is
responsible for the custody and care of
sentenced federal inmates, felony
offenders convicted and sentenced to a
term of imprisonment under the DC
criminal code a number of state and
military offenders who are housed on a
contractual basis, and pretrial detainees
and pre-sentenced offenders housed in
BOP facilities on behalf of the United
States Marshals Service (USMS).
The USMS is responsible for the care
and custody of individuals charged with
a federal offense. Responsible for
housing approximately 63,000
detainees, the USMS acquires detention
bedspace through agreements with state
and local governments in addition to
available BOP pretrial cells.
Approximately 75 percent of the
detainees in the custody of the USMS
are detained in state, local, and private
facilities; the remainder are housed in
BOP facilities. Ordinarily, pretrial
inmates in BOP custody are housed in
administrative institutions including
Metropolitan Detention Centers (MDCs),
Federal Detention Centers (FDCs), and
Metropolitan Correctional Centers
(MCCs). These institutions may also
house convicted inmates awaiting
sentencing or movement to designated
institutions, or sentenced inmates who
require further court appearances. A
small number of other BOP institutions
also house pretrial inmates in specific
units within the main facility or in jail
units located in satellite buildings
separate from the main facility.
As explained in the preamble to the
interim final rule, the prior version of
§ 543.13(c) provided that, to schedule
PO 00000
Frm 00047
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
101883
any legal visit at any BOP institution, an
attorney must make an advance
appointment for a visit through the
warden, and that the warden must make
every effort to accommodate a legal visit
when prior notification is not
practicable. That prior rule was
promulgated on June 27, 1979.
To clarify, the interim final rule
updated § 543.13(c) to allow both
scheduled and unscheduled attorney
visits during designated attorney
visitation hours at BOP institutions
whose mission is to house pretrial
detainees and unsentenced individuals.
However, the rule retains the
requirement that attorneys seeking to
visit clients at BOP institutions whose
mission is to house convicted
individuals must make an advance
appointment for a legal visit and that
the warden must make every effort to
accommodate a legal visit when prior
notification is not practicable.
Attorney visits for holdover inmates.
The term ‘‘holdover’’ refers to
individuals in BOP custody who are
transferring from one BOP institution to
another. These individuals are
categorized as being in holdover status
until they arrive at the institution to
which they are officially designated.
The interim final rule did nothing more
than allow both scheduled and
unscheduled attorney visits during
designated attorney visitation hours at
BOP institutions that have a pretrial
mission housing pretrial and
unsentenced individuals, and it retains
the requirement for an advanced
appointment for attorney visits at all
other BOP institutions. Accordingly,
attorney visits with any individual in
holdover status housed at an institution
that does not have a pretrial mission
must ordinarily make an advance
appointment for a legal visit.
Individuals in holdover status and their
attorneys may coordinate legal visits in
the same manner as the offender
population at the particular facility in
which the individual is temporarily
housed en route to their designated
institution. To clarify, it is the type of
institution and its specific mission that
are determinative for purposes of
scheduling attorney visits; an
individual’s temporary status as a
‘‘holdover’’ is not determinative.
Further changes to the rule addressing
attorney visits for pretrial and
unsentenced individuals on holdover
status are unnecessary.
Adding attorneys to client’s social
visiting list. The commenter urges that
this rule address the option for attorneys
to be added to their client’s social
visiting list, but that subject is
addressed by separate rules applicable
E:\FR\FM\17DER1.SGM
17DER1
101884
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 242 / Tuesday, December 17, 2024 / Rules and Regulations
ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with RULES1
to regular visitors at 28 CFR part 540,
subpart D. In coordination with their
client, attorneys may seek to be added
to their client’s regular social visiting
list and visit under the same conditions
as other visitors in accordance with part
540, subpart D.
Again, this comment is out of scope
of what was addressed in the interim
final rule. Such social visits are
conducted in an open setting, not a
confidential setting for attorneys to meet
with their clients privately. By contrast,
confidential attorney visits, which are
the subject of this rule, are governed by
part 543. To the extent the commenter’s
suggestion is intended to be construed
as a petition for rulemaking pursuant to
5 U.S.C. 553(e), a comment to a rule
pertaining to a different issue in a
different set of regulations is not the
proper mechanism to present such a
petition. Thus, the BOP concludes that
no changes are needed in the final rule
in light of this comment.
The commenter also urges that the
rule clarify whether attorneys are
required to submit the same personal
information as other visitors to be added
to the inmate’s approved social visitor
list. As noted, attorneys may seek to be
added to their client’s regular social
visiting list and visit under the same
conditions as other visitors pursuant to
separate rules applicable to regular
visitors at 28 CFR part 540, subpart D,
and the more granular details regarding
the processing of social visits are
addressed in the BOP policy
implementing those provisions. The
BOP declines to make changes to Part
543 in response to this comment.
For the foregoing reasons, we
conclude that no changes are needed in
the regulatory language in § 543.13(c)
and (e) as adopted in the interim final
rule, and that no other changes are
needed in BOP’s regulations in
connection with this specific
rulemaking action. Accordingly, this
rule finalizes the interim final rule
without change.
IV. Regulatory Certifications
Executive Orders 12866, 13563 and
14094. This rule does not fall within a
category of actions that the Office of
Management and Budget (OMB) has
determined constitutes a ‘‘significant
regulatory action’’ under section 3(f) of
Executive Order 12866 and,
accordingly, it was not reviewed by
OMB. The economic impact of this final
rule is limited to inmates in the custody
of the Bureau of Prisons and their
attorneys.
Executive Order 13132. This rule will
not have substantial direct effect on the
States, on the relationship between the
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:03 Dec 16, 2024
Jkt 265001
National Government and the States, or
on distribution of power and
responsibilities among the various
levels of government. Therefore, under
Executive Order 13132, BOP determines
that this rule does not have sufficient
federalism implications to warrant the
preparation of a Federalism Assessment.
Executive Order 12988—Civil Justice
Reform (Plain Language). This final rule
meets the applicable standards set forth
in sections 3(a) and 3(b)(2) of Executive
Order 12988 to specify provisions in
clear language. Pursuant to section
3(b)(1)(I) of the Executive Order,
nothing in this final rule or any
previous rule (or in any administrative
policy, directive, ruling, notice,
guideline, guidance, or writing) directly
relating to the Program that is the
subject of this final rule is intended to
create any legal or procedural rights
enforceable against the United States.
Regulatory Flexibility Act. The
Director of the Bureau of Prisons, under
the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C.
605(b)), reviewed this rule and by
approving it certifies that it will not
have a significant economic impact
upon a substantial number of small
entities for the following reasons: This
rule pertains to the correctional
management of offenders and detainees
committed to the custody of the
Attorney General or the Director of the
Bureau of Prisons, and its economic
impact is limited to BOP’s appropriated
funds.
Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of
1995. This rule will not result in the
expenditure by State, local and tribal
governments, in the aggregate, or by the
private sector, of $100,000,000 or more
(as adjusted for inflation) in any one
year, and it will not significantly or
uniquely affect small governments.
Therefore, no actions were deemed
necessary under the provisions of the
Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of
1995.
Congressional Review Act. This rule is
a not major rule as defined by the
Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 804.
List of Subjects in 28 CFR Part 543
Prisoners, Legal Activities.
PART 543—LEGAL MATTERS
Accordingly, under rulemaking
authority vested in the Attorney General
in 5 U.S.C 301; 28 U.S.C. 509, 510 and
delegated to the Director of the Bureau
of Prisons in 28 CFR 0.96, BOP adopts
the interim final rule on this subject,
■
PO 00000
Frm 00048
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
published at 89 FR 8330 on Feb. 7,
2024, as a final rule, without change.
Colette S. Peters,
Director, Federal Bureau of Prisons.
[FR Doc. 2024–29681 Filed 12–16–24; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4410–05–P
DEPARTMENT OF LABOR
Wage and Hour Division
29 CFR Part 531
RIN 1235–AA44
Tip Regulations Under the Fair Labor
Standards Act (FLSA); Restoration of
Regulatory Language
Wage and Hour Division,
Department of Labor.
ACTION: Final rule; technical
amendment.
AGENCY:
On October 29, 2021, the U.S.
Department of Labor (Department)
published a final rule (2021 Dual Jobs
Rule) addressing the determination of
when a tipped employee is employed in
dual jobs under the Fair Labor
Standards Act (FLSA or the Act). The
2021 Dual Jobs Rule took effect on
December 28, 2021.On October 29,
2024, a federal appeals court issued an
order vacating regulatory text from the
Department’s 2021 Dual Jobs Rule, with
the effect of reinstating the Department’s
original FLSA regulation on the topic. In
accordance with that court order, the
Department is issuing this final rule to
remove from the Code of Federal
Regulations (CFR) the corresponding
regulatory text that the Department
promulgated through the 2021 Dual Jobs
Rule and reinstate regulatory text as it
existed in the CFR prior to the effective
date of the 2021 Dual Jobs Rule. This
action is a technical amendment
accounting for changes in the law which
have already occurred.
DATES: This rule is effective December
17, 2024.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Daniel Navarrete, Director of Division of
Regulations, Legislation, and
Interpretation, Wage and Hour Division,
U.S. Department of Labor, Room S–
3502, 200 Constitution Avenue NW,
Washington, DC 20210, telephone: (202)
693–0406 (this is not a toll-free
number). Alternative formats are
available upon request by calling 1–
866–487–9243. If you are deaf, hard of
hearing, or have a speech disability,
please dial 7–1–1 to access
telecommunications relay services.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
SUMMARY:
E:\FR\FM\17DER1.SGM
17DER1
]]>Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 89, Number 242 (Tuesday, December 17, 2024)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 101882-101884]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2024-29681]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
Bureau of Prisons
28 CFR Part 543
[BOP-1175-F]
RIN 1120-AB75
Inmate Legal Activities: Visits by Attorneys
AGENCY: Bureau of Prisons, Justice.
ACTION: Final rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: In this document, the Bureau of Prisons (``Bureau'' or
``BOP'') finalizes revisions to regulations related to attorney-client
visits at BOP institutions.
DATES: Effective December 17, 2024, BOP adopts the interim final rule
published at 89 FR 8330 on Feb. 7, 2024, as final without change.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Daniel J. Crooks III, Assistant
General Counsel/Rules Administrator, Federal Bureau of Prisons, at
(202) 353-4885.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
I. Background
On February 7, 2024, BOP published an interim final rule that
amended regulations related to attorney visits. 89 FR 8330 (Feb. 7,
2024). The comment period closed on April 8, 2024, and we received six
comments. Of those six comments, only two were related to the rule;
each of those comments is discussed more fully below. Of the four
unrelated comments, one noted generally that BOP should review its
regulations annually for improvement; one was mistakenly posted to this
docket instead of to the docket for another BOP rulemaking; another
laments the general treatment of January
[[Page 101883]]
6 defendants; and the last advocates for revised regulations regarding
clergy visits to BOP facilities. After consideration of the two
relevant public comments, BOP is adopting the interim final rule on
this subject without change.
II. Discussion
We received two relevant, substantive comments after publication of
the interim final rule. Each comment is addressed below.
Comment 1: The commenter states that the revised rule does not go
far enough to address other means that facilitate attorney-client
communications, emphasizing that the availability of private telephone
calls is essential to facilitate attorney-client communications. The
commenter gave several examples where inmates and their attorneys
encountered difficulties obtaining approval from officials at BOP
institutions for unmonitored telephone calls. However, the commenter
did not address the specific changes to the regulation addressing in-
person visits by attorneys.
Response: BOP agrees that meaningful access to counsel includes
reasonable access to unmonitored telephone calls to facilitate
attorney-client communications. Through separate procedures, BOP
enables confidential communications between an inmate and their
attorney through legal visits, unmonitored telephone calls, and
unmonitored legal correspondence. Title 28 CFR 540.102 and 540.103
address unmonitored telephone calls, while 28 CFR 540.18 and 540.19
address unmonitored legal correspondence.
However, the comment is out of scope as the interim final rule only
addressed the procedures for in-person, confidential attorney visits as
provided in Part 543, and did not address the different issue of rules
applicable to telephone calls between inmates and their attorneys,
which are in separate regulations at 28 CFR 540.102-540.103. To the
extent the commenter's suggestion is intended to be construed as a
petition for rulemaking pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 553(e), a comment to a
rule pertaining to a different issue in a different set of regulations
is not the proper mechanism to effectuate that provision. Individuals
in BOP custody with individualized concerns or questions regarding the
implementation of applicable regulations or policy are reminded of
their rights to address such issues through the agency's Administrative
Remedy Program, as outlined at 28 CFR part 542 and in BOP Program
Statement 1330.18 (available at www.bop.gov/policy). Thus, BOP
concludes that no changes are needed in the final rule in light of this
comment.
Comment 2: The commenter states that the rule should address
attorney visits for individuals located at administrative facilities in
holdover status; that the rule does not address circumstances where a
pretrial or unsentenced individual is in holdover status at a BOP
institution that houses convicted individuals; that BOP's explanation
for the rule indicates that attorneys can visit a client in BOP custody
like social visitors during normal visiting hours without advanced
notice; that many attorneys are unwilling to be added to their client's
regular social visiting list and that some attorneys are unwilling to
provide personally identifying information on the social visit
application forms; and that BOP should clarify if attorneys can show up
at an institution during normal social visiting hours for a visit in
the common area (i.e., not in a private setting) without providing
sensitive personal information.
Response: As background, BOP is responsible for the custody and
care of sentenced federal inmates, felony offenders convicted and
sentenced to a term of imprisonment under the DC criminal code a number
of state and military offenders who are housed on a contractual basis,
and pretrial detainees and pre-sentenced offenders housed in BOP
facilities on behalf of the United States Marshals Service (USMS).
The USMS is responsible for the care and custody of individuals
charged with a federal offense. Responsible for housing approximately
63,000 detainees, the USMS acquires detention bedspace through
agreements with state and local governments in addition to available
BOP pretrial cells. Approximately 75 percent of the detainees in the
custody of the USMS are detained in state, local, and private
facilities; the remainder are housed in BOP facilities. Ordinarily,
pretrial inmates in BOP custody are housed in administrative
institutions including Metropolitan Detention Centers (MDCs), Federal
Detention Centers (FDCs), and Metropolitan Correctional Centers (MCCs).
These institutions may also house convicted inmates awaiting sentencing
or movement to designated institutions, or sentenced inmates who
require further court appearances. A small number of other BOP
institutions also house pretrial inmates in specific units within the
main facility or in jail units located in satellite buildings separate
from the main facility.
As explained in the preamble to the interim final rule, the prior
version of Sec. 543.13(c) provided that, to schedule any legal visit
at any BOP institution, an attorney must make an advance appointment
for a visit through the warden, and that the warden must make every
effort to accommodate a legal visit when prior notification is not
practicable. That prior rule was promulgated on June 27, 1979.
To clarify, the interim final rule updated Sec. 543.13(c) to allow
both scheduled and unscheduled attorney visits during designated
attorney visitation hours at BOP institutions whose mission is to house
pretrial detainees and unsentenced individuals. However, the rule
retains the requirement that attorneys seeking to visit clients at BOP
institutions whose mission is to house convicted individuals must make
an advance appointment for a legal visit and that the warden must make
every effort to accommodate a legal visit when prior notification is
not practicable.
Attorney visits for holdover inmates. The term ``holdover'' refers
to individuals in BOP custody who are transferring from one BOP
institution to another. These individuals are categorized as being in
holdover status until they arrive at the institution to which they are
officially designated. The interim final rule did nothing more than
allow both scheduled and unscheduled attorney visits during designated
attorney visitation hours at BOP institutions that have a pretrial
mission housing pretrial and unsentenced individuals, and it retains
the requirement for an advanced appointment for attorney visits at all
other BOP institutions. Accordingly, attorney visits with any
individual in holdover status housed at an institution that does not
have a pretrial mission must ordinarily make an advance appointment for
a legal visit. Individuals in holdover status and their attorneys may
coordinate legal visits in the same manner as the offender population
at the particular facility in which the individual is temporarily
housed en route to their designated institution. To clarify, it is the
type of institution and its specific mission that are determinative for
purposes of scheduling attorney visits; an individual's temporary
status as a ``holdover'' is not determinative. Further changes to the
rule addressing attorney visits for pretrial and unsentenced
individuals on holdover status are unnecessary.
Adding attorneys to client's social visiting list. The commenter
urges that this rule address the option for attorneys to be added to
their client's social visiting list, but that subject is addressed by
separate rules applicable
[[Page 101884]]
to regular visitors at 28 CFR part 540, subpart D. In coordination with
their client, attorneys may seek to be added to their client's regular
social visiting list and visit under the same conditions as other
visitors in accordance with part 540, subpart D.
Again, this comment is out of scope of what was addressed in the
interim final rule. Such social visits are conducted in an open
setting, not a confidential setting for attorneys to meet with their
clients privately. By contrast, confidential attorney visits, which are
the subject of this rule, are governed by part 543. To the extent the
commenter's suggestion is intended to be construed as a petition for
rulemaking pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 553(e), a comment to a rule pertaining
to a different issue in a different set of regulations is not the
proper mechanism to present such a petition. Thus, the BOP concludes
that no changes are needed in the final rule in light of this comment.
The commenter also urges that the rule clarify whether attorneys
are required to submit the same personal information as other visitors
to be added to the inmate's approved social visitor list. As noted,
attorneys may seek to be added to their client's regular social
visiting list and visit under the same conditions as other visitors
pursuant to separate rules applicable to regular visitors at 28 CFR
part 540, subpart D, and the more granular details regarding the
processing of social visits are addressed in the BOP policy
implementing those provisions. The BOP declines to make changes to Part
543 in response to this comment.
For the foregoing reasons, we conclude that no changes are needed
in the regulatory language in Sec. 543.13(c) and (e) as adopted in the
interim final rule, and that no other changes are needed in BOP's
regulations in connection with this specific rulemaking action.
Accordingly, this rule finalizes the interim final rule without change.
IV. Regulatory Certifications
Executive Orders 12866, 13563 and 14094. This rule does not fall
within a category of actions that the Office of Management and Budget
(OMB) has determined constitutes a ``significant regulatory action''
under section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866 and, accordingly, it was
not reviewed by OMB. The economic impact of this final rule is limited
to inmates in the custody of the Bureau of Prisons and their attorneys.
Executive Order 13132. This rule will not have substantial direct
effect on the States, on the relationship between the National
Government and the States, or on distribution of power and
responsibilities among the various levels of government. Therefore,
under Executive Order 13132, BOP determines that this rule does not
have sufficient federalism implications to warrant the preparation of a
Federalism Assessment.
Executive Order 12988--Civil Justice Reform (Plain Language). This
final rule meets the applicable standards set forth in sections 3(a)
and 3(b)(2) of Executive Order 12988 to specify provisions in clear
language. Pursuant to section 3(b)(1)(I) of the Executive Order,
nothing in this final rule or any previous rule (or in any
administrative policy, directive, ruling, notice, guideline, guidance,
or writing) directly relating to the Program that is the subject of
this final rule is intended to create any legal or procedural rights
enforceable against the United States.
Regulatory Flexibility Act. The Director of the Bureau of Prisons,
under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 605(b)), reviewed this
rule and by approving it certifies that it will not have a significant
economic impact upon a substantial number of small entities for the
following reasons: This rule pertains to the correctional management of
offenders and detainees committed to the custody of the Attorney
General or the Director of the Bureau of Prisons, and its economic
impact is limited to BOP's appropriated funds.
Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995. This rule will not result in
the expenditure by State, local and tribal governments, in the
aggregate, or by the private sector, of $100,000,000 or more (as
adjusted for inflation) in any one year, and it will not significantly
or uniquely affect small governments. Therefore, no actions were deemed
necessary under the provisions of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of
1995.
Congressional Review Act. This rule is a not major rule as defined
by the Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 804.
List of Subjects in 28 CFR Part 543
Prisoners, Legal Activities.
PART 543--LEGAL MATTERS
0
Accordingly, under rulemaking authority vested in the Attorney General
in 5 U.S.C 301; 28 U.S.C. 509, 510 and delegated to the Director of the
Bureau of Prisons in 28 CFR 0.96, BOP adopts the interim final rule on
this subject, published at 89 FR 8330 on Feb. 7, 2024, as a final rule,
without change.
Colette S. Peters,
Director, Federal Bureau of Prisons.
[FR Doc. 2024-29681 Filed 12-16-24; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4410-05-P
