[Federal Register Volume 75, Number 65 (Tuesday, April 6, 2010)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 17324-17329]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2010-7728]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
Bureau of Prisons
28 CFR Part 540
[BOP Docket No. 1148-P]
RIN 1120-AB48
Communication Management Units
AGENCY: Bureau of Prisons, Justice.
ACTION: Proposed rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: In this document, the Bureau of Prisons (Bureau) proposes to
establish and describe Communication Management Units (CMUs) by
regulation. CMUs are designed to provide an inmate housing unit
environment that enables staff monitoring of all communication between
CMU inmates and persons in the community. The ability to monitor such
communication is necessary to ensure the safety, security, and orderly
operation of correctional facilities, and protect the public. The
Bureau currently operates CMUs in two of its facilities. This rule
would clarify existing Bureau practices with respect to CMUs.
DATES: Comments are due by June 7, 2010.
ADDRESSES: Written comments should be submitted to the Rules Unit,
Office of General Counsel, Bureau of Prisons, 320 First Street, NW.,
Washington, DC 20534. You may view an electronic version of this
regulation at www.regulations.gov. You may also comment by using the
www.regulations.gov comment form for this regulation. When submitting
comments electronically you must include the BOP Docket No. in the
subject box.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Sarah Qureshi, Office of General
Counsel, Bureau of Prisons, phone (202) 307-2105.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Posting of Public Comments
Please note that all comments received are considered part of the
public record and made available for public inspection online at
www.regulations.gov. Such information includes personal identifying
information (such as your name, address, etc.) voluntarily submitted by
the commenter.
If you want to submit personal identifying information (such as
your name, address, etc.) as part of your comment, but do not want it
to be posted online, you must include the phrase ``PERSONAL IDENTIFYING
INFORMATION'' in the first paragraph of your comment. You must also
locate all the personal identifying information you do not want posted
online in the first paragraph of your comment and identify what
information you want redacted.
If you want to submit confidential business information as part of
your comment but do not want it to be posted online, you must include
the phrase ``CONFIDENTIAL BUSINESS INFORMATION'' in the first paragraph
of your comment. You must also prominently identify confidential
business information to be redacted within the comment. If a comment
has so much confidential business information that it cannot be
effectively redacted, all or part of that comment may not be posted on
www.regulations.gov.
Personal identifying information identified and located as set
forth above will be placed in the agency's public docket file, but not
posted online. Confidential business information identified and located
as set forth above will not be placed in the public docket file. If you
wish to inspect the agency's public docket file in person by
appointment, please see the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT paragraph.
Discussion
This proposed rule codifies and describes the Bureau's procedures
for designating inmates to, and limiting communication within, its
Communication Management Units (CMU). Currently, the Bureau operates
two CMUs, separately located at the Federal Correctional Complex (FCC),
Terre Haute, Indiana (established in December 2006), and the United
States Penitentiary (USP), Marion, Illinois (established in March
2008).
Current regulatory authority. The Bureau currently has regulatory
authority to restrict the communications of high-risk inmates. See,
e.g. 28 CFR 540.12 (authorizing Wardens to establish and exercise
controls to protect individuals, security, discipline, and the good
order of the institution); 28 CFR 540.14 (a) (indicating that
institution staff shall open and inspect all incoming general
correspondence.); 28 CFR 540.100 et seq. (authorizing limitations upon
an inmate's telephone privileges consistent with ensuring the security
or good order of the institution or protection of the public, and
authorizing Wardens to establish procedures that enable monitoring of
telephone conversations); 28 CFR 540.40, et seq. (authorizing Wardens
to limit inmate visiting when necessary to ensure the security and good
order of the institution).
Purpose of the CMU regulations. The CMU regulations establish
specific parameters for Bureau staff when operating CMUs while putting
inmates and the public on notice of CMU operation.
The purpose of CMUs is to provide an inmate housing unit
environment that enables staff to more effectively monitor
communication between CMU inmates
[[Page 17325]]
and persons in the community. The CMU concept allows the Bureau to
monitor inmates for whom such monitoring and communication limits are
necessary, whether due to a terrorist link or otherwise, such as
inmates who have previously committed an infraction related to mail
tampering from within an institution, or inmates who may be attempting
to communicate with past or potential victims. The ability to monitor
such communication is necessary to ensure the safety, security, and
orderly operation of correctional facilities, and protect the public.
The volume, frequency, and methods of CMU inmate contact with persons
in the community may be limited as necessary to achieve the goal of
total monitoring, consistent with this subpart.
A CMU is a general population housing unit where inmates will
ordinarily reside, eat, and participate in educational, recreational,
religious, visiting, unit management, and work programming, within the
confines of the CMU. Additionally, CMUs may contain a range of cells
dedicated to segregated housing of inmates in administrative detention
or disciplinary segregation status.
Under this regulation, initial consideration of inmates for CMU
designation begins when the Bureau becomes aware of information
relevant to the criteria described in Sec. 540.201. The Bureau's
Assistant Director, Correctional Programs Division, will then make a
determination based on a review of the evidence presented, and a
conclusion that the inmate's designation to a CMU is necessary to
ensure the safety, security, and orderly operation of correctional
facilities, or protect the public.
Upon arrival at the designated CMU, inmates will receive written
notice from the Warden of the facility in which the CMU exists. The
written notice will explain that designation to a CMU allows greater
Bureau staff management of communication with persons in the community
through complete monitoring of telephone use, written correspondence,
and visiting. The volume, frequency, and methods, of CMU inmate contact
with persons in the community may be limited as necessary to achieve
the goal of total monitoring, consistent with this subpart. The written
notice will also explain that general conditions of confinement in the
CMU may be limited as necessary to provide greater management of
communications, and that designation to the CMU is not punitive and, by
itself, has no effect on the length of the inmate's incarceration. CMU
inmates continue to earn sentence credit in accordance with law and
Bureau policy.
Through the written notice, inmates will also be informed that
designation to the CMU follows the Assistant Director's decision that
such placement is necessary for the safe, secure, and orderly operation
of Bureau institutions, or protection of the public. The inmate will be
provided an explanation of the decision in sufficient detail, unless
providing specific information would jeopardize the safety, security,
or orderly operation of the facility, or protection of the public.
Continued designation to the CMU will be reviewed regularly by the
inmate's Unit Team under circumstances providing the inmate notice and
an opportunity to be heard, in accordance with the Bureau's policy on
Classification and Program Review of Inmates. The inmate may challenge
the CMU designation decision and any aspect of confinement therein,
through the Bureau's administrative remedy program. While this
regulation may allow for limiting the communication of inmates to whom
it is applied, it will not extinguish their monitored communication
abilities absent abuse or violations committed by the inmate.
With this regulation, the Bureau seeks, when warranted, on a case-
by-case basis, to more effectively monitor communication while still
accommodating the rights guaranteed by the First Amendment to petition
for redress of grievances. By limiting the communications of these
inmates, the Bureau seeks to balance First Amendment rights with its
correctional mission.
The proposed regulation would clarify current authority for
imposing limits and restrictions on the communications of inmates in
the Bureau's custody based on evidence, either from outside sources
(such as other federal agencies) or from internal sources (such as
intelligence gained through observation of inmates in Bureau custody).
Communications would be limited if such evidence indicates, inter alia,
a high degree of potential risk to national security.
The approach of this rule will also provide a more effective means
to implement a previously-published proposed rule (BOP Docket No. 1135)
providing for limiting the communication opportunities of inmates who
are: (1) Charged with, convicted of, or detained in relation to an
offense under title 18 U.S. C. chapters 113B or 115; or (2) charged
with having engaged in, have engaged in, are detained in relation to,
or are linked in any way to terrorist-related activity as part of their
current or previous offense conduct or conduct while incarcerated.
BOP 1135 contemplated limiting the communications of inmates in a
general population prison setting who were identified as having an
identifiable link to terrorist-related activity. It is difficult to
police inmate communication in the ``open'' context of a general
population setting because it is harder to detect activity such as
inmates sending mail under another inmate's name, or using another's
PIN number, without constant monitoring.
By physically separating out the properly classified prisoners who
need comprehensive monitoring, and involving the Assistant Director of
the Bureau's Correctional Programs Division in addition to the Warden
in the initial decision to restrict communications, we hope to lessen
any adverse impact on the vast majority of the other prisoners not
subject to comprehensive monitoring but still only subject to random
monitoring.
After taking into consideration any public comment received after
publication of this proposed rule, the Bureau will adopt a consolidated
final rule.
This regulation, however, will be applied differently from
regulations in 28 CFR part 501, which authorize the Attorney General to
impose special administrative measures (SAMs). Under 28 CFR part 501,
SAMs are imposed after approval by the Attorney General and are
generally based on information from the FBI and the U.S. Attorney's
Office (USAO), but are typically not based solely on information from
internal Bureau of Prisons sources. Unlike 28 CFR part 501, the
proposed regulations allow the Bureau to impose communication limits
based on evidence from FBI or another federal law enforcement agency,
or if Bureau of Prisons information indicates a similar need to impose
communication restrictions, evidence which does not rise to the same
degree of potential risk to national security or risk of acts of
violence or terrorism which would warrant the Attorney General's
intervention by issuance of a SAM.
Furthermore, while SAMs have the potential to restrict
communication entirely, this regulation delineates a floor of limited
communication, beneath which the Bureau cannot restrict unless
precipitated by the inmate's violation of imposed limitations, and then
only as a disciplinary sanction following due process procedures in 28
CFR part 541.
Also, the comprehensive monitoring provided by the new regulation
would lead to greater protection for the public,
[[Page 17326]]
since reconstruction of communications from random monitoring may not
provide a full scenario if dangerous communications are discovered.
Likewise, there would be greater protection for inmates as a result
of the new proposed rule. The initial decision regarding which inmates
to more closely monitor is made by the Assistant Director of the
Bureau's Correctional Programs Division, who has a broad scope of
authority and a global understanding of the security concerns prevalent
in the Bureau's correctional setting. In addition, the inmate can
challenge this classification-based treatment decision through the
Bureau's administrative remedy program. Further, the CMU inmate's
regular inmate associates will not be general population inmates. In
the new proposed rule, the only inmates being specially monitored are
the inmates placed in the CMU.
Further, CMU monitoring would result in a fuller record that would
more readily show whether an inmate's use of words may have been taken
out of context and whether the inmate might not need to remain under
close communications scrutiny.
Another advantage of CMU monitoring is that closer scrutiny and
finer monitoring distinctions can be applied or removed in ``stages''
from the defined CMU inmate population, so that work and leisure
opportunities can be adjusted for the population instead of simply
excluding them from such opportunities. Also, consolidating high-risk
inmates in the CMU would make it more operationally feasible to
minimize the adverse consequences such as the communication delay to
the monitored inmates, since the marshaling and organizing of resources
into a standard approach should make it easier for translators and
officials responding to requests for special exceptions to act quickly.
Under the proposed regulation, inmates may be designated to a CMU
if:
The inmate's current offense(s) of conviction, or offense
conduct, included association, communication, or involvement, related
to international or domestic terrorism;
The inmate's current offense(s) of conviction, offense
conduct, or activity while incarcerated, indicates a propensity to
encourage, coordinate, facilitate, or otherwise act in furtherance of,
illegal activity through communication with persons in the community;
The inmate has attempted, or indicates a propensity, to
contact victims of the inmate's current offense(s) of conviction;
The inmate committed a prohibited activity related to
misuse/abuse of approved communication methods while incarcerated; or
There is any other evidence of a potential threat to the
safe, secure, and orderly operation of prison facilities, or protection
of the public, as a result of the inmate's communication with persons
in the community.
One important category of inmates which might be designated to a
CMU is inmates whose current offense(s) of conviction, or offense
conduct, included association, communication, or involvement, related
to international or domestic terrorism. Past behaviors of terrorist
inmates provide sufficient grounds to suggest a substantial risk that
they may inspire or incite terrorist-related activity, especially if
communicated to groups willing to engage in or to provide equipment or
logistics to facilitate terrorist-related activity. The potential
ramifications of this activity outweigh the inmate's interest in
unlimited communication with persons in the community.
Communication related to terrorist-related activity can occur in
codes which are difficult to detect and extremely time-consuming to
interpret. Inmates involved in such communication, and other persons
involved or linked to terrorist-related activities, take on an exalted
status with other like-minded individuals. Their communications acquire
a special level of inspirational significance for those who are already
predisposed to these views, causing a substantial risk that such
recipients of their communications will be incited to unlawful
terrorist-related activity.
The danger of coded messages from prisoners has been recognized by
the courts. See Turner v. Safley, 482 U.S. 78, 93 (1987) (``In any
event, prisoners could easily write in jargon or codes to prevent
detection of their real messages.''); United States v. Salameh, 152
F.3d 88, 108 (2nd Cir. 1998) (``Because Ajaj was in jail and his
telephone calls were monitored, Ajaj and Yousef spoke in code when
discussing the bomb plot.''); United States v. Johnson, 223 F.3d 665,
673 (7th Cir. 2000) (``And we know that anyone who has access to a
telephone or is permitted to receive visitors may be able to transmit a
lethal message in code.''); United States v. Hammoud, 381 F.3d 316, 334
(4th Cir. 2004) (``A conversation that seems innocuous on one day may
later turn out to be of great significance, particularly if the
individuals are talking in code.''); United States v. Moncivais, 401
F.3d 751, 757 (6th Cir. 2005) (noting that seemingly nonsensical
conversations could be in code and interpreted as indicative of drug
dealing activity). Also, an Al Qaeda training manual contains the
following advice regarding communications from prison: ``Take advantage
of visits to communicate with brothers outside prison and exchange
information that may be helpful to them in their work outside prison.
The importance of mastering the art of hiding messages is self evident
here.''
There have been cases of imprisoned terrorists communicating with
their followers regarding future terrorist activity. For example, after
El Sayyid Nosair assassinated Rabbi Kahane, he was placed in Rikers
Island, where ``he began to receive a steady stream of visitors, most
regularly his cousin El-Gabrowny, and also Abouhalima, Salameh, and
Ayyad. During these visits, as well as subsequent visits once Nosair
was at Attica, Nosair suggested numerous terrorist operations,
including the murders of the judge who sentenced him and of Dov Hikind,
a New York City Assemblyman, and chided his visitors for doing nothing
to further the jihad against the oppressors. Nosair also tape recorded
messages while in custody * * *'' United States v. Rahman, 189 F.3d 88,
105-06 (2d Cir. 1999). Imprisoned, Sheikh Abdel Rahman had urged his
followers to wage jihad to obtain his release. Violent attacks and
murders followed. United States v. Sattar, 314 F.Supp.2d 279, 288-89
(S.D.N.Y. 2004).
To minimize the risk of terrorist-related communication and other
similar dangerous communication to or from inmates in Bureau custody,
this regulation clarifies the Bureau's current authority to limit and
monitor the communication of CMU inmates to immediate family members,
U.S. courts, federal judges, U.S. Attorney's Offices, members of U.S.
Congress, the Bureau, other federal law enforcement entities, and the
inmate's attorney. The Bureau allows communication with these
individuals to help inmates maintain family ties, and protect inmates'
access to courts and other government officials in order to raise
issues related to their incarceration or their conditions of
confinement, while minimizing potential internal or external threats.
Particular consideration has also been given to the ability of CMU
inmates to communicate via special mail. Special mail is defined in 28
CFR part 540. For the purposes of CMUs, however, this rule would limit
special mail to privileged communication with the inmate's attorney.
Correspondence from the correspondents listed in 28 CFR 540.2(c) as
``special correspondence,''
[[Page 17327]]
other than attorneys. (e.g. President and Vice President of the United
States, the Department of Justice, members of Congress, Governors,
State legislatures, courts, media etc.) will be treated as ``general
correspondence'' for the purposes of CMUs. There is no frequency or
volume limitation on correspondence with an inmate's attorney, unless
necessary as a result of the inmate's abuse or violation of these
regulations.
To effectively and efficiently allow monitoring and review of the
general correspondence communications of CMU inmates, those
communications may be limited in frequency and volume as follows:
Written correspondence may be limited to three pieces of
paper, double-sided, once per week to and from a single recipient;
Telephone communication may be limited to a single
completed call per calendar month for up to 15 minutes; and
Visiting may be limited to one hour each calendar month.
Unless the quantity to be processed becomes unreasonable or the
inmate abuses or violates these regulations, there is no frequency or
volume limitation on written correspondence with the following
entities: U.S. courts, Federal judges, U.S. Attorney's Offices, Members
of U.S. Congress, The Bureau of Prisons, other federal law enforcement
entities, or, as stated earlier, the inmate's attorney (privileged
communications only). Correspondence with these entities is not limited
under these regulations in furtherance of inmates' access to courts and
their ability to defend in litigation.
By limiting the frequency and volume of the communication to/from
inmates identified under this regulation, we will reduce the amount of
communication requiring monitoring and review. Reducing the volume of
communications will help ensure the Bureau's ability to provide
heightened scrutiny in reviewing communications, and thereby increasing
both internal security within correctional facilities, and the security
of members of the public.
Inmates may incur additional limitations on their communications as
the direct result of abusing or violating individualized communication
limits imposed under this subsection, but additional limitations will
occur only to the extent possible under this regulation and according
to the procedures in this subsection. Unmonitored communications with
verified attorneys may be limited in the form of monitoring only as
provided in 28 CFR part 501 (regarding national security cases and
prevention of acts of violence and terrorism) and part 543 (regarding
inmate legal activities). Inmates may also be subject to disciplinary
action or criminal prosecution for abusing or violating limits imposed
under this subsection.
Executive Order 12866
This regulation falls within a category of actions that the Office
of Management and Budget (OMB) has determined to constitute
``significant regulatory actions'' under section 3(f) of Executive
Order 12866 and, accordingly, it was reviewed by OMB. The Bureau of
Prisons has assessed the costs and benefits of this regulation as
required by Executive Order 12866 Section 1(b)(6) and has made a
reasoned determination that the benefits of this regulation justify its
costs. There will be no new costs associated with this regulation.
Executive Order 13132
This regulation will not have substantial direct effects on the
States, on the relationship between the national government and the
States, or on distribution of power and responsibilities among the
various levels of government. Therefore, under Executive Order 13132,
we determine that this regulation does not have sufficient Federalism
implications to warrant the preparation of a Federalism Assessment.
Regulatory Flexibility Act
The Director of the Bureau of Prisons, under the Regulatory
Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 605(b)), reviewed this regulation and 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 regulation pertains to the correctional management of
offenders and immigration detainees committed to the custody of the
Attorney General or the Director of the Bureau of Prisons, and its
economic impact is limited to the Bureau's appropriated funds.
Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995
This regulation will not result in the expenditure by State, local
and tribal governments, in the aggregate, or by the private sector, of
$100,000,000 or more in any one year, 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.
Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996
This regulation is not a major rule as defined by section 804 of
the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996. This
regulation will not result in an annual effect on the economy of
$100,000,000 or more; a major increase in costs or prices; or
significant adverse effects on competition, employment, investment,
productivity, innovation, or on the ability of United States-based
companies to compete with foreign-based companies in domestic and
export markets.
List of Subjects in 28 CFR Part 540
Prisoners.
Harley G. Lappin,
Director, Bureau of Prisons.
Under rulemaking authority vested in the Attorney General in 5
U.S.C 301; 28 U.S.C. 509, 510 and delegated to the Director, Bureau of
Prisons in 28 CFR 0.96, we amend 28 CFR part 540 as follows:
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. Chapters 113b and
115, 1791, 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, 530C(b)(6).
2. Add a new subpart J, to read as follows:
SUBPART J--COMMUNICATION MANAGEMENT HOUSING UNITS
Sec.
540.200 Purpose and scope.
540.201 Designation criteria.
540.202 Designation procedures.
540.203 Written correspondence limitations.
540.204 Telephone communication limitations.
540.205 Visiting limitations.
Sec. 540.200 Purpose and scope.
(a) Purpose of this subpart. This subpart authorizes and defines
the Federal Bureau of Prisons' (Bureau) authority to operate, and
designate inmates to, Communication Management Housing Units (CMUs)
within Bureau facilities.
(b) CMU. A CMU is a general population housing unit where inmates
[[Page 17328]]
ordinarily reside, eat, and participate in all educational,
recreational, religious, visiting, unit management, and work
programming, within the confines of the CMU. Additionally, CMUs may
contain a range of cells dedicated to segregated housing of inmates in
administrative detention or disciplinary segregation status.
(c) Purpose of CMUs. The purpose of CMUs is to provide an inmate
housing unit environment that enables staff to more effectively monitor
communication between CMU inmates and persons in the community. The
ability to monitor such communication is necessary to ensure the
safety, security, and orderly operation of correctional facilities, and
protect the public. The volume, frequency, and methods, of CMU inmate
contact with persons in the community may be limited as necessary to
achieve the goal of total monitoring, consistent with this subpart.
(d) Application. Any inmate (as defined in 28 CFR Sec. 500.1(c))
meeting criteria prescribed by this subpart may be designated to a CMU.
(e) Relationship to other regulations. The regulations in this
subpart supercede and control to the extent they conflict with, are
inconsistent with, or impose greater limitations than the regulations
in 28 CFR Part 540, or any other regulations in this chapter, except 28
CFR Part 501.
Sec. 540.201 Designation criteria.
Inmates may be designated to a CMU if evidence of the following
criteria exists:
(a) The inmate's current offense(s) of conviction, or offense
conduct, included association, communication, or involvement, related
to international or domestic terrorism;
(b) The inmate's current offense(s) of conviction, offense conduct,
or activity while incarcerated, indicates a propensity to encourage,
coordinate, facilitate, or otherwise act in furtherance of, illegal
activity through communication with persons in the community;
(c) The inmate has attempted, or indicates a propensity, to contact
victims of the inmate's current offense(s) of conviction;
(d) The inmate committed prohibited activity related to misuse/
abuse of approved communication methods while incarcerated; or
(e) There is any other evidence of a potential threat to the safe,
secure, and orderly operation of prison facilities, or protection of
the public, as a result of the inmate's communication with persons in
the community.
Sec. 540.202 Designation procedures.
Inmates may be designated to CMUs only according to the following
procedures:
(a) Initial consideration. Initial consideration of inmates for CMU
designation begins when the Bureau becomes aware of information
relevant to the criteria described in Sec. 540.201.
(b) Assistant Director authority. The Bureau's Assistant Director,
Correctional Programs Division, has authority to approve CMU
designations. The Assistant Director's decision must be based on a
review of the evidence, and a conclusion that the inmate's designation
to a CMU is necessary to ensure the safety, security, and orderly
operation of correctional facilities, or protect the public.
(c) Written notice. Upon arrival at the designated CMU, inmates
will receive written notice from the facility's Warden explaining that:
(1) Designation to a CMU allows greater Bureau staff management of
communication with persons in the community through complete monitoring
of telephone use, written correspondence, and visiting. The volume,
frequency, and methods, of CMU inmate contact with persons in the
community may be limited as necessary to achieve the goal of total
monitoring, consistent with this subpart;
(2) General conditions of confinement in the CMU may also be
limited as necessary to provide greater management of communications;
(3) Designation to the CMU is not punitive and, by itself, has no
effect on the length of the inmate's incarceration. CMU inmates
continue to earn sentence credit in accordance with law and Bureau
policy.
(4) Designation to the CMU follows the Assistant Director's
decision that such placement is necessary for the safe, secure, and
orderly operation of Bureau institutions, or protection of the public.
The inmate will be provided an explanation of the decision in
sufficient detail, unless providing specific information would
jeopardize the safety, security, and orderly operation of correctional
facilities, or protection of the public.
(5) Continued designation to the CMU will be reviewed regularly by
the inmate's Unit Team under circumstances providing the inmate notice
and an opportunity to be heard, in accordance with the Bureau's policy
on Classification and Program Review of Inmates.
(6) The inmate may challenge the CMU designation decision, and any
aspect of confinement therein, through the Bureau's administrative
remedy program.
Sec. 540.203 Written correspondence limitations.
(a) General correspondence. General written correspondence as
defined by Part 540, may be limited to three pieces of paper (not
larger than 8.5 x 11 inches), double-sided writing permitted, once per
calendar week, to and from a single recipient at the discretion of the
Warden, except as stated in (c) below. This correspondence is subject
to staff inspection for contraband and for content.
(b) Special mail.
(1) Special mail, as defined in Part 540, is limited to privileged
communication with the inmate's attorney.
(2) All such correspondence is subject to staff inspection in the
inmate's presence for contraband and to ensure its qualification as
privileged communication with the inmate's attorney. Inmates may not
seal such outgoing mail before giving it to staff for processing. After
inspection for contraband, the inmate must then seal the approved
outgoing mail material in the presence of staff and immediately give
the sealed material to the observing staff for further processing.
(c) Frequency and volume limitations. Unless the quantity to be
processed becomes unreasonable or the inmate abuses or violates these
regulations, there is no frequency or volume limitation on written
correspondence with the following entities:
(1) U.S. courts;
(2) Federal judges;
(3) U.S. Attorney's Offices;
(4) Members of U.S. Congress;
(5) The Bureau of Prisons;
(6) Other federal law enforcement entities; or
(7) The inmate's attorney (privileged communications only).
Sec. 540.204 Telephone communication limitations.
(a) Monitored telephone communication may be limited to immediate
family members only. The frequency and duration of telephone
communication may also be limited to a single connected call per
calendar month, lasting no longer than 15 minutes. The Warden may
require such communication to be in English, or translated by an
approved interpreter.
(b) Unmonitored telephone communication is limited to privileged
communication with the inmate's attorney. Unmonitored privileged
telephone communication with the inmate's attorney is permitted as
[[Page 17329]]
necessary in furtherance of active litigation, after establishing that
communication with the verified attorney by confidential correspondence
or visiting, or monitored telephone use, is not adequate due to an
urgent or impending deadline.
Sec. 540.205 Visiting limitations.
(a) Regular visiting may be limited to immediate family members.
The frequency and duration of regular visiting may also be limited to a
one hour visit each calendar month. The number of visitors permitted
during any visit is within the Warden's discretion. Such visits must
occur through non-contact visiting facilities.
(1) Regular visits may be simultaneously monitored and recorded,
both visually and auditorily, either in person or electronically.
(2) The Warden may require such visits to be conducted in English,
or simultaneously translated by an approved interpreter.
(b) Attorney visiting is limited to attorney-client privileged
communication as provided in Part 540. These visits may be visually,
but not auditorily, monitored. Regulations and policies previously
established under 28 CFR part 543 are applicable.
(2) For convicted inmates (as defined in 28 CFR part 551),
regulations and policies previously established under 28 CFR part 543
are applicable.
[FR Doc. 2010-7728 Filed 4-5-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4410-05-P