1630 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 7 / Tuesday, January 11, 2011 / Notices 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Catherine Poston, Attorney Advisor, 

Office on Violence Against Women, 

United States Department of Justice, 145 

N Street, NE., Suite 10W 121, 

Washington, DC 20530; by telephone at: 

(202) 514–5430; e-mail: 

Catherine.poston@usdoj.gov; or fax: 

(202) 305–2589. You may also view 

information about the NAC on the 

Office on Violence Against Women Web 

site at: http://www.ovw.usdoj.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Notice of 

this meeting is required under section 

10(a)(2) of the Federal Advisory 

Committee Act. The National Advisory 

Committee on Violence Against Women 

(NAC) was re-chartered on March 3, 

2010 by the Attorney General. The 

purpose of this Federal advisory 

committee is to provide advice and 

recommendations to the Department of 

Justice and the Department of Health 

and Human Services on how to improve 

the Nation’s response to violence 

against women, with a specific focus on 

successful interventions with children 

and teens who witness and/or are 

victimized by domestic violence, dating 

violence, and sexual assault. The NAC 

will bring together experts, advocates, 

researchers, and criminal justice 

professionals for the exchange of 

innovative ideas and the development 

of practical solutions to help the Federal 

government address and prevent these 

serious problems. This Federal advisory 

committee will develop 

recommendations for successful 

interventions with children and teens 

who witness and/or are victimized by 

domestic violence, dating violence, and 

sexual assault. The NAC members will 

also examine the relationship between 

children and teens who are witnesses to 

or victims of such violence and the 

overall public safety of communities 

across the country. 

This is the first meeting of the NAC 

and will include an introduction of 

Federal advisory committee members, 

presentations by Department of Justice 

staff on Federal efforts to address these 

problems, and a discussion of the goals 

for the NAC. The Director of the Office 

on Violence Against Women, the 

Honorable Susan B. Carbon, serves as 

the Designated Federal Official of the 

NAC. 

The NAC is also welcoming public 

oral comment at this meeting and has 

reserved an estimated 30 minutes for 

this purpose. Time will be reserved for 

public comment on January 28, 2011 

from 12:05 p.m. to 12:20 p.m. and from 

4:30 p.m. to 4:45 p.m. See the section 

below for information on reserving time 

for public comment. 

Access: This meeting will be open to 

the pubic but registration on a space 

available basis and for security reasons 

is required. All members of the public 

who wish to attend must register at least 

six (6) days in advance of the meeting 

by contacting Catherine Poston, 

Attorney Advisor, Office on Violence 

Against Women, United States 

Department of Justice, 145 N Street, NE., 

Suite 10W 121, Washington, DC 20530; 

by telephone at: (202) 514–5430; e-mail: 

Catherine.poston@usdoj.gov; or fax: 

(202) 305–2589. All attendees will be 

required to sign in at the Department of 

Justice security entrance and at the 

meeting registration desk. Please bring 

photo identification and allow extra 

time prior to the start of the meeting. 

The meeting site is accessible to 

individuals with disabilities. 

Individuals who require special 

accommodation in order to attend the 

meeting should notify Catherine Poston 

no later than January 21, 2011. 

Written Comments: Interested parties 

are invited to submit written comments 

by January 21, 2011 to Catherine Poston, 

Attorney Advisor, Office on Violence 

Against Women, United States 

Department of Justice, 145 N Street, NE., 

Suite 10W 121, Washington, DC 20530; 

by telephone at: (202) 514–5430; 

e-mail: Catherine.poston@usdoj.gov; or 

fax: (202) 305–2589. 

Public Comment: Persons interested 

in participating during the public 

comment periods of the meeting are 

requested to reserve time on the agenda 

by contacting Catherine Poston, 

Attorney Advisor, Office on Violence 

Against Women, United States 

Department of Justice, 145 N Street, NE., 

Suite 10W 121, Washington, DC 20530; 

by telephone at: (202) 514–5430; 

e-mail: Catherine.poston@usdoj.gov; or 

fax: (202) 305–2589. Requests must 

include the participant’s name, 

organization represented, if appropriate, 

and a brief description of the subject of 

the comments. Each participant will be 

permitted approximately 3 to 5 minutes 

to present comments, depending on the 

number of individuals reserving time on 

the agenda. Participants are also 

encouraged to submit written copies of 

their comments. Comments that are 

submitted to Catherine Poston, Attorney 

Advisor, Office on Violence Against 

Women, United States Department of 

Justice, 145 N Street, NE., Suite 10W 

121, Washington, DC 20530; by 

telephone at: (202) 514–5430; 

e-mail: Catherine.poston@usdoj.gov; or 

fax: (202) 305–2589 will be circulated to 

NAC members prior to the meeting. 

Given the expected number of 

individuals interested in presenting 

comments at the meeting, reservations 

should be made as soon as possible. 

Persons unable to obtain reservations to 

speak during the meeting are 

encouraged to submit written 

comments, which will be accepted at 

the meeting location or may be mailed 

to the NAC, to the attention of Catherine 

Poston, Attorney Advisor, Office on 

Violence Against Women, United States 

Department of Justice, 145 N Street, NE., 

Suite 10W 121, Washington, DC 20530; 

by telephone at: (202) 514–5430; e-mail: 

Catherine.poston@usdoj.gov; or fax: 

(202) 305–2589. 

Dated: January 5, 2010. 

Susan B. Carbon, 

Director, Office on Violence Against Women. 

[FR Doc. 2011–365 Filed 1–10–11; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4410–FX–P 

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE 

Office of the Attorney General 

[Docket No. OAG 134; AG Order No. 3241– 

2011] 

RIN 1105–AB36 

Supplemental Guidelines for Sex 

Offender Registration and Notification 

AGENCY: Department of Justice. 

ACTION: Final guidelines. 

SUMMARY: The Sex Offender Registration 

and Notification Act (SORNA), 

establishes minimum national standards 

for sex offender registration and 

notification. The Attorney General 

issued the National Guidelines for Sex 

Offender Registration and Notification 

(‘‘SORNA Guidelines’’ or ‘‘Guidelines’’) 

on July 2, 2008, to provide guidance and 

assistance to jurisdictions in 

implementing the SORNA standards in 

their sex offender registration and 

notification programs. These 

supplemental guidelines augment or 

modify certain features of the SORNA 

Guidelines in order to make a change 

required by the KIDS Act and to address 

other issues arising in jurisdictions’ 

implementation of the SORNA 

requirements. The matters addressed 

include certain aspects of public Web 

site posting of sex offender information, 

interjurisdictional tracking and 

information sharing regarding sex 

offenders, the review process 

concerning jurisdictions’ SORNA 

implementation, the classes of sex 

offenders to be registered by 

jurisdictions retroactively, and the 

treatment of Indian tribes newly 

recognized by the Federal government 

subsequent to the enactment of SORNA. 

DATES: Effective Date: January 11, 2011. 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with NOTICES

Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 7 / Tuesday, January 11, 2011 / Notices 1631 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Linda M. Baldwin, Director, Office of 

Sex Offender Sentencing, Monitoring, 

Apprehending, Registering, and 

Tracking; Office of Justice Programs, 

United States Department of Justice, 

Washington, DC, 202 305–2463. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Overview 

The Sex Offender Registration and 

Notification Act, which is title I of the 

Adam Walsh Child Protection and 

Safety Act of 2006, Public Law 109–248, 

was enacted on July 27, 2006. SORNA 

(42 U.S.C. 16901 et seq.) establishes 

minimum national standards for sex 

offender registration and notification in 

the jurisdictions to which it applies. 

‘‘Jurisdictions’’ in the relevant sense are 

the 50 states, the District of Columbia, 

the five principal U.S. territories, and 

Indian tribes that satisfy certain criteria. 

42 U.S.C. 16911(10). SORNA directs the 

Attorney General to issue guidelines 

and regulations to interpret and 

implement SORNA. See id. 16912(b). 

To this end, the Attorney General 

issued the National Guidelines for Sex 

Offender Registration and Notification, 

73 FR 38030, on July 2, 2008. The 

SORNA standards are administered by 

the Office of Sex Offender Sentencing, 

Monitoring, Apprehending, Registering, 

and Tracking (‘‘SMART Office’’), which 

assists all jurisdictions in their SORNA 

implementation efforts and determines 

whether jurisdictions have successfully 

completed these efforts. See 42 U.S.C. 

16945; 73 FR at 38044, 38047–48. 

Since the publication of the SORNA 

Guidelines, issues have arisen in 

SORNA implementation that require 

that some aspects of the Guidelines be 

augmented or modified. Consequently, 

the Department of Justice proposed and 

solicited public comment on 

supplemental guidelines addressing 

these issues, which were published in 

the Federal Register on May 14, 2010, 

at 75 FR 27362. The public comment 

period closed on July 13, 2010. 

Following consideration of the public 

comments received, the Department of 

Justice is now finalizing the 

supplemental guidelines, which do the 

following: 

(1) Allow jurisdictions, in their 

discretion, to exempt information 

concerning sex offenders required to 

register on the basis of juvenile 

delinquency adjudications from public 

Web site posting. 

(2) Require jurisdictions to exempt 

sex offenders’ e-mail addresses and 

other Internet identifiers from public 

Web site posting, pursuant to the KIDS 

Act, 42 U.S.C. 16915a. 

(3) Require jurisdictions to have sex 

offenders report international travel 21 

days in advance of such travel and to 

submit information concerning such 

travel to the appropriate Federal 

agencies and databases. 

(4) Clarify the means to be utilized to 

ensure consistent interjurisdictional 

information sharing and tracking of sex 

offenders. 

(5) Expand required registration 

information to include the forms signed 

by sex offenders acknowledging that 

they were advised of their registration 

obligations. 

(6) Provide additional information 

concerning the review process for 

determining that jurisdictions have 

substantially implemented the SORNA 

requirements in their programs and 

continue to comply with these 

requirements. 

(7) Afford jurisdictions greater 

latitude regarding the registration of sex 

offenders who have fully exited the 

justice system but later reenter through 

a new (non-sex-offense) criminal 

conviction by providing that 

jurisdictions may limit such registration 

to cases in which the new conviction is 

for a felony. 

(8) Provide, for Indian tribes that are 

newly recognized by the Federal 

government following the enactment of 

SORNA, authorization and time frames 

for such tribes to elect whether to 

become SORNA registration 

jurisdictions and to implement SORNA. 

Summary of Comments on the Proposed 

Supplemental Guidelines 

About 280 separate comments were 

received from a wide variety of 

agencies, organizations, and 

individuals. Many of the comments 

were favorable to the supplemental 

guidelines, either generally or with 

respect to particular measures therein. 

The grounds of support included the 

value of the changes in the 

supplemental guidelines in facilitating 

jurisdictions’ implementation of 

SORNA or enhancing the efficacy of sex 

offender registration and notification. 

Some commenters criticized the 

supplemental guidelines as potentially 

resulting in greater disparity among 

jurisdictions in sex offender registration 

or notification standards by increasing 

jurisdictions’ discretion in certain areas. 

SORNA, however, does not aim at 

complete uniformity among 

jurisdictions, but rather establishes a 

national baseline of sex offender 

registration and notification standards 

and generally leaves jurisdictions free to 

adopt different approaches and 

provisions beyond the required 

minimum. See 73 FR at 38032–35. The 

provisions in the supplemental 

guidelines that broaden jurisdictions’ 

discretion affect limited areas, 

specifically, whether jurisdictions will 

publicly disclose information 

concerning sex offenders required to 

register on the basis of juvenile 

delinquency adjudications, and whether 

jurisdictions will require registration by 

sex offenders who have left the justice 

system but later reenter the system 

through subsequent non-felony, nonsex-offense convictions. By relaxing a 

couple of requirements that have been 

impediments to SORNA 

implementation in some jurisdictions, 

these changes further the nationwide 

implementation of the remainder of the 

SORNA requirements and hence are 

likely to promote greater overall 

uniformity among jurisdictions in sex 

offender registration and notification 

standards. Considering the foregoing, 

the public comments that criticized 

certain features of the supplemental 

guidelines as resulting in an undesirable 

loss of uniformity do not persuasively 

establish that there will be such an 

effect that outweighs the benefits of 

these changes. 

Some commenters criticized changes 

made in these supplemental guidelines 

as an inappropriate or impermissible 

exercise of legislative power by the 

Attorney General, and urged that such 

changes could properly be made only by 

Congress. However, SORNA expressly 

affords the Attorney General authority 

to expand the range of required 

registration information and to create 

exceptions to the required disclosure of 

registration information. See 42 U.S.C. 

16914(a)(7), (b)(8), 16918(b)(4), (c)(4), 

16921(b). SORNA further charges the 

Attorney General with responsibility for 

issuing guidelines and regulations to 

interpret and implement SORNA and 

for determining whether jurisdictions 

have substantially implemented SORNA 

in their programs. See 42 U.S.C. 

16912(b), 16925. These authorities 

adequately support the measures 

adopted in these supplemental 

guidelines. 

Some of the comments received 

concerned matters outside the scope of 

these supplemental guidelines. Those 

comments, and the Department’s 

responses thereto, include the 

following: (i) Some comments generally 

criticized SORNA, state sex offender 

registration and notification laws, or 

state laws imposing measures that 

SORNA does not require, such as 

residency restrictions on sex offenders, 

and explicitly or implicitly urged that 

such laws should be repealed or 

amended. The Attorney General has no 

authority to repeal or amend Federal or 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with NOTICES

1632 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 7 / Tuesday, January 11, 2011 / Notices 

State laws by issuing guidelines. (ii) 

Some comments criticized measures in 

the preexisting SORNA Guidelines that 

the proposed supplemental guidelines 

did not attempt to address. The final 

supplemental guidelines have not been 

changed on the basis of such comments 

because they did not concern matters 

within the scope of these supplemental 

guidelines. Moreover, these comments 

did not provide persuasive reasons for 

changing other requirements under 

SORNA or its implementing guidelines. 

(iii) Some comments raised questions 

regarding SORNA implementation by 

jurisdictions that did not specifically 

concern the measures adopted in these 

supplemental guidelines. Questions of 

this type should be addressed directly to 

the SMART Office. The SMART Office 

is available at all times to answer 

jurisdictions’ questions regarding 

SORNA implementation and to assist 

them in such implementation. 

Some commenters, on varying 

grounds, were critical of particular 

changes made by these supplemental 

guidelines or urged that the changes do 

not go far enough in qualifying or 

supplementing SORNA’s requirements. 

The main substantive comments and 

criticisms are most conveniently 

discussed on a topic-by-topic basis: 

Juvenile Delinquents 

Many favorable comments were 

received concerning Part I.A of these 

supplemental guidelines, which 

provides that it is within jurisdictions’ 

discretion whether they will publicly 

disclose information concerning 

juvenile delinquent sex offenders. Some 

commenters, however, urged that the 

Attorney General should go further in 

limiting public disclosure of such 

information, or that the Attorney 

General should also restrict or eliminate 

SORNA’s registration requirements for 

juvenile delinquent sex offenders. The 

grounds urged for further changes 

included that, absent such changes, 

juvenile delinquent sex offenders would 

be improperly equated to adult sex 

offenders, stigmatized, unjustifiably 

subjected to lifetime registration, and 

not effectively rehabilitated in 

conformity with the objectives of 

juvenile justice systems. 

In assessing these comments, it must 

be understood that, following the 

issuance of these supplemental 

guidelines, there is no remaining 

requirement under SORNA that 

jurisdictions publicly disclose 

information about sex offenders whose 

predicate sex offense ‘‘convictions’’ are 

juvenile delinquency adjudications. 

There are two provisions in SORNA that 

require public disclosure of certain 

information concerning sex offenders. 

One of these provisions is 42 U.S.C. 

16918, which generally requires that 

jurisdictions make sex offender 

information available on publicly 

accessible Internet sites. The other is 42 

U.S.C. 16921(b), which requires targeted 

disclosures of sex offender information, 

some aspects of which could be 

characterized as involving public 

disclosure. Specifically, the required 

disclosures under the latter provision 

include disclosure to certain school, 

public housing, social service, and 

volunteer entities, and to other 

organizations, companies, or 

individuals who request notification. As 

a practical matter, the public disclosures 

required under § 16921(b) may 

effectively merge with the Internet 

disclosure required under § 16918(b), 

because the SORNA Guidelines explain 

that jurisdictions may satisfy the public 

disclosure aspects of § 16921(b) by 

including functions on their public sex 

offender Web sites that enable members 

of the public to request automatic 

notification when sex offenders 

commence residence, employment, or 

school attendance in specified areas. 

See 73 FR at 38061. 

Under both public disclosure 

provisions in SORNA, the Attorney 

General has express statutory authority 

to limit the required disclosure of 

information. See 42 U.S.C. 16918(c)(4) 

(‘‘[a] jurisdiction may exempt from 

disclosure * * * any other information 

exempted from disclosure by the 

Attorney General’’); id. § 16921(b) 

(registry information to be provided to 

specified entities ‘‘other than 

information exempted from disclosure 

by the Attorney General’’). Moreover, 

under both of these provisions, the 

Attorney General has exercised his 

authority in these supplemental 

guidelines to provide that jurisdictions 

need not publicly disclose information 

concerning persons required to register 

on the basis of juvenile delinquency 

adjudications. 

Given this change, the effect of the 

remaining registration requirements 

under SORNA for certain juvenile 

delinquent sex offenders is, in essence, 

to enable registration authorities to track 

such offenders following their release 

and to make information about them 

available to law enforcement agencies. 

See 73 FR at 38060; Part I.A of these 

supplemental guidelines. There is no 

remaining requirement under SORNA 

that jurisdictions engage in any form of 

public disclosure or notification 

regarding juvenile delinquent sex 

offenders. Jurisdictions are free to do so, 

but need not do so to any greater extent 

than they may wish. 

The comments that proposed some 

further restriction or elimination of 

SORNA’s registration requirements in 

relation to juveniles often appeared to 

reflect misunderstanding of the 

foregoing points or other 

misunderstandings regarding SORNA’s 

provisions relating to juveniles. One 

possible misunderstanding concerns the 

Attorney General’s legal authorities 

under SORNA. As noted above, the 

Attorney General has express statutory 

authority to create exceptions to the 

required public disclosure of 

registration information under SORNA. 

In contrast, SORNA affords the Attorney 

General no open-ended authority to 

restrict or eliminate registration (as 

opposed to information disclosure) 

requirements under SORNA. Hence, 

these comments misconceived the legal 

situation to the extent they assumed the 

Attorney General could simply 

eliminate registration requirements 

under SORNA in relation to juveniles or 

other classes of offenders, parallel to his 

authority to create exceptions to 

SORNA’s information disclosure 

requirements. 

Regarding other apparent 

misunderstandings that appeared in the 

comments, the following points may 

help to provide a clear picture of 

SORNA’s registration requirements and 

their effects on juveniles: 

First, SORNA’s treatment of juvenile 

sex offenders is very different from its 

treatment of adult sex offenders. 

Registration is required on the basis of 

a juvenile delinquency adjudication 

only if the juvenile is at least 14 years 

old at the time of the offense and the 

adjudication is for an offense 

comparable to or more severe than 

aggravated sexual abuse as defined in 

Federal law or an attempt or conspiracy 

to commit such a crime. See 42 U.S.C. 

16911(8). The SORNA Guidelines 

explain that it suffices for substantial 

implementation of SORNA if 

jurisdictions register individuals in this 

class who have been adjudicated 

delinquent for the most serious types of 

sexually assaultive crimes, which 

generally limits the required coverage to 

juveniles adjudicated delinquent for 

committing nonconsensual sex offenses 

involving penetration or related 

attempts or conspiracies. See 73 FR at 

38030, 38040–41, 38050. There is no 

requirement that jurisdictions register 

juveniles adjudicated delinquent for 

lesser sexual assaults or for nonviolent 

sexual conduct whose criminality 

depends on the age of the victim. See id. 

Moreover, SORNA does not require 

lifetime registration without 

qualification even for juveniles 

adjudicated delinquent for the most 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with NOTICES

Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 7 / Tuesday, January 11, 2011 / Notices 1633 

serious sexually assaultive crimes, but 

allows registration to be terminated after 

25 years for those maintaining a clean 

record. See 42 U.S.C. 16915(b)(2)(B), 

(3)(B); 73 FR at 38068–69. 

Second, SORNA does not bar taking 

account of differences between juveniles 

and adults in the manner in which 

registration is carried out. For example, 

SORNA requires in-person appearances 

to report certain important changes in 

registration information and for periodic 

verification, see 42 U.S.C. 16913(c), 

16916, but this does not mean that 

juveniles must be required to appear at 

locations that will result in their being 

exposed to adult sex offenders or in 

public exposure of their status as sex 

offenders. Rather, jurisdictions have 

discretion as to how meetings between 

sex offenders and persons responsible 

for their registration will be carried out 

and may adopt different approaches for 

different classes of registrants. See 73 

FR at 38065, 38067. 

Third, following the adoption of these 

supplemental guidelines, there is no 

requirement that jurisdictions engage in 

any form of public disclosure or 

notification for juvenile delinquents 

subject to SORNA’s requirements. 

Rather, as discussed above, the effect of 

the remaining registration requirements 

under SORNA is essentially to enable 

registration authorities to track such 

delinquents following their release and 

to make information about them 

available to law enforcement. 

Internet Identifiers 

Part I.B of these supplemental 

guidelines creates a mandatory 

exemption of sex offenders’ e-mail 

addresses and other Internet identifiers 

from public Web site posting, a measure 

required by 42 U.S.C. 16915a(c). Some 

commenters urged that there should be 

further restriction of the disclosure of 

such information. Specifically, some 

argued that jurisdictions should also be 

restrained from disclosing sex offenders’ 

Internet identifiers by means other than 

public Web site posting, and that 

entities other than registration 

jurisdictions should be prohibited or 

prevented from disclosing such 

information. 

As noted, the measure concerning 

Internet identifiers included in these 

supplemental guidelines is required by 

42 U.S.C. 16915a(c), which directs the 

Attorney General to utilize the authority 

provided in 42 U.S.C. 16918(b)(4) to 

exempt Internet identifier information 

from disclosure. Section 16918 is the 

statute that directs registration 

jurisdictions to establish Internet sites 

that disclose information on registered 

sex offenders to the public, and 

subsection (b)(4) in that section 

authorizes the Attorney General to 

create mandatory exemptions of 

information from such disclosure. There 

is no corresponding authorization in 

SORNA to prohibit jurisdictions from 

disseminating registration information 

by means other than public Web site 

posting, or to prohibit entities other 

than registration jurisdictions from 

disclosing information about sex 

offenders. 

Looking beyond the question of legal 

authority, the comments received did 

not provide persuasive reasons for 

adopting new Federal restrictions on the 

disclosure of information about sex 

offenders’ Internet identifiers, 

supplementary to the limitation 

required by 42 U.S.C. 16915a(c) and 

other existing legal restrictions. As a 

practical matter, there are legitimate 

reasons for disclosure of such 

information by means other than public 

Web site posting and by entities other 

than registration jurisdictions, such as 

disclosure by jurisdictions or private 

individuals or entities of information 

about sex offenders’ Internet identifiers 

to law enforcement agencies 

investigating sex crimes involving 

solicitation of the victims through the 

Internet. 

Some of the comments received 

included complaints or criticisms 

relating to 42 U.S.C. 16915b, which 

directs the Attorney General to establish 

a system enabling social networking 

Web sites to compare the Internet 

identifiers of their users to information 

in the National Sex Offender Registry. 

Section 16915b was separately enacted 

by the KIDS Act, Public Law 110–400. 

It is not part of SORNA. Any measures 

that may be needed in the 

implementation of § 16915b would not 

belong in these supplemental 

guidelines, which are concerned with 

the implementation of SORNA. 

International Travel 

Part II.A of these supplemental 

guidelines exercises ‘‘[t]he authority 

under 42 U.S.C. 16914(a)(7) to expand 

the range of required registration 

information * * * to provide that 

registrants must be required to inform 

their residence jurisdictions of intended 

travel outside of the United States at 

least 21 days in advance of such travel.’’ 

Some commenters objected to this 

requirement on the ground that it would 

prevent sex offenders from engaging in 

legitimate international travel, because 

it may be necessary for sex offenders to 

travel abroad for business, familial, or 

other reasons without being able to 

anticipate the need three weeks in 

advance. However, these supplemental 

guidelines recognize that there may be 

circumstances in which requiring 21 

days advance notice would be 

unnecessary or inappropriate, and 

expressly allow jurisdictions to adopt 

policies accommodating such situations 

subject to approval by the SMART 

Office. 

Some commenters claimed that there 

is no authority for the Attorney General 

to adopt notice requirements concerning 

sex offenders leaving the United States, 

or concerning domestic travel by sex 

offenders, because 42 U.S.C. 16928 only 

directs the Attorney General to establish 

a system for informing relevant 

jurisdictions about persons entering the 

United States who are required to 

register under SORNA. These 

commenters apparently did not 

understand the legal basis for the 

Attorney General’s adoption of 

additional requirements relating to 

reporting of travel or intended travel by 

sex offenders. Such requirements are 

adequately supported by 42 U.S.C. 

16914(a)(7), which provides general 

authority for the Attorney General to 

expand the information sex offenders 

are required to provide for inclusion in 

sex offender registries. The reporting 

requirement relating to intended 

international travel adopted in these 

supplemental guidelines is expressly 

premised on § 16914(a)(7), as are preexisting reporting requirements adopted 

in the SORNA Guidelines relating to 

international and domestic travel that go 

beyond those expressly stated in 

SORNA itself, see 73 FR at 38056. 

Some comments expressed concern or 

frustration that jurisdictions have been 

presented with a moving target in their 

SORNA implementation efforts, a 

concern apparently felt with particular 

force in relation to the new reporting 

requirement regarding international 

travel. Relatively little time remains 

until the end of the compliance periods 

allowed under 42 U.S.C. 16924, which 

can create a difficult situation for 

jurisdictions attempting to carry out 

new requirements. 

These comments are well taken. 

Congress in SORNA has authorized the 

Attorney General to augment or modify 

SORNA’s express requirements in 

certain areas, including authority to 

expand the range of required 

registration information and authority to 

create discretionary or mandatory 

exceptions to disclosure of such 

information. See 42 U.S.C. 16914(a)(7), 

(b)(8), 16918(b)(4), (c)(4), 16921(b). 

These authorities could be exercised by 

the Attorney General at any time during 

the periods afforded for SORNA 

implementation under 42 U.S.C. 16924 

or thereafter. Given the inclusion in 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with NOTICES

1634 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 7 / Tuesday, January 11, 2011 / Notices 

SORNA of these express authorities to 

augment or modify certain SORNA 

requirements, SORNA is reasonably 

read so as not to require that 

jurisdictions be regarded as falling short 

of substantial implementation based on 

new requirements without time afforded 

to correct the deficiency. Accordingly, 

the SMART Office will take account of 

the novelty of requirements and the 

time that has been available to carry 

them out in determining whether 

jurisdictions have substantially 

implemented SORNA, and will afford 

jurisdictions a reasonable amount of 

time to implement new requirements, 

which may extend beyond the 

implementation deadlines otherwise 

applicable under SORNA. Cf. Chicago & 

Alton R.R. Co. v. Tranbarger, 238 U.S. 

67, 73–74 (1915) (statute may be 

construed to allow a reasonable amount 

of time to take an action where the 

normal statutory time limit for taking 

such actions cannot sensibly be 

applied). 

The comments received included a 

concern that the new requirement 

relating to international travel reporting 

will unduly burden jurisdictions. This 

concern appears to reflect an 

exaggerated impression of the nature of 

the requirement and its impact on 

jurisdictions. Under pre-existing 

requirements of SORNA and the 

SORNA Guidelines, jurisdictions are 

required to obtain a range of information 

from sex offenders and to make that 

information available to other 

registration jurisdictions and 

appropriate Federal agencies, including 

information regarding domestic and 

international travel by sex offenders. 

See 42 U.S.C. 16913(c), 16919(b), 16921; 

73 FR at 38055–56, 38065–67. The 

requirement under these supplemental 

guidelines to obtain information 

concerning international travel by sex 

offenders more consistently does not 

differ fundamentally in character from 

these pre-existing requirements and the 

mechanisms utilized in carrying out the 

pre-existing requirements can be 

extended and adapted to encompass this 

additional information. To the extent 

the concern about a resulting burden on 

jurisdictions reflects the novelty of this 

requirement and the apprehension that 

inadequate time will be afforded to 

implement it, the information in the 

preceding paragraph about how 

implementation of new requirements 

will be treated is responsive to the 

concern. 

While the comments received did not 

provide persuasive reasons to abrogate 

or restrict the international travel 

reporting requirements as set forth in 

Part II.A of the proposed supplemental 

guidelines, in one respect the provisions 

regarding this requirement are modified 

in the final supplemental guidelines. 

The proposed supplemental guidelines 

noted that, as the international tracking 

system continues to develop, the 

SMART Office may issue additional 

directions to jurisdictions to notify 

certain agencies concerning 

international travel by sex offenders. 

Additional direction may also be 

needed concerning the specific 

information sex offenders should be 

required to provide in notifying their 

residence jurisdictions about intended 

international travel. This is so because 

obtaining the bare information that a 

registrant will be going somewhere 

outside of the United States at some 

time three weeks or more in the future 

may not be sufficient to achieve the 

objectives of the international tracking 

system—objectives that include reliably 

tracking sex offenders as they leave and 

return to the United States, and 

notifying as appropriate U.S. or foreign 

authorities in foreign countries to which 

sex offenders travel. See 73 FR at 

38066–67. More specific information 

may be needed to realize these 

objectives, such as information 

concerning expected itinerary, 

departure and return dates, and means 

and purpose of travel. 

The final supplemental guidelines 

accordingly state that the SMART Office 

may issue additional directions 

concerning the information to be 

required in international travel 

notifications by sex offenders. To the 

extent that the SMART Office’s exercise 

of the authority to flesh out the 

international tracking system results in 

new, more specific requirements 

relating to international travel reporting, 

the novelty of these requirements will 

be taken into account, as with other new 

requirements under SORNA as 

discussed above. The amount of time 

that has been available to carry out such 

requirements will be considered by the 

SMART Office in assessing substantial 

implementation and jurisdictions will 

be afforded a reasonable amount of time 

to carry them out. 

Domestic Interjurisdictional Tracking 

Part II.B of the supplemental 

guidelines, relating to use of the SORNA 

Exchange Portal in domestic 

interjurisdictional sex offender tracking, 

was commented on favorably as 

improving and facilitating such 

tracking. There were also some general 

questions in the comments relating to 

use of the SORNA Exchange Portal and 

interjurisdictional notifications. As 

noted above, the SMART Office is 

available at all times to answer 

questions from jurisdictions regarding 

SORNA implementation and such 

questions should be addressed directly 

to the SMART Office. 

The second paragraph in Part II.B 

explains that regular use of the SORNA 

Exchange Portal is essential to effective 

interjurisdictional information sharing 

and sex offender tracking. In relation to 

these objectives, the wording of the final 

sentence in this paragraph in the 

proposed supplemental guidelines was 

unduly narrow, referring to use of the 

Portal to access messages from other 

jurisdictions but not to use of the Portal 

for other information sharing purposes 

required under SORNA. The sentence 

accordingly has been modified in the 

final supplemental guidelines to 

reference more generally use of the 

Portal in information sharing in 

conformity with guidance issued by the 

SMART Office. 

Acknowledgment Forms 

Part II.C of these supplemental 

guidelines expands the range of 

required registration information to 

include the acknowledgment forms used 

to inform sex offenders of their 

registration obligations. Favorable 

comment was received on this change as 

facilitating the prosecution of sex 

offenders who violate those obligations. 

Other commenters were critical of this 

change on the ground that 

acknowledgment forms should be 

utilized to inform sex offenders of their 

registration obligations, rather than to 

prosecute them if they violate those 

obligations. However, there is no 

inconsistency in using the 

acknowledgment forms for both 

purposes. The forms both advise sex 

offenders of the registration 

requirements to which they are subject 

and can help to show that they were 

aware of those requirements in 

prosecutions for violations. 

Some commenters complained that 

the acknowledgment forms do not 

provide sufficient information, for 

example, because they only advise sex 

offenders of their registration 

obligations under state law and do not 

advise them of their registration 

obligations under SORNA. However, the 

SORNA standards require that sex 

offenders be informed of their duties 

under SORNA and that sex offenders be 

required to sign a form stating that the 

duty to register has been explained and 

understood. See 42 U.S.C. 16917(a); 73 

FR at 38063. In jurisdictions that have 

implemented SORNA in their 

registration programs, the jurisdictions’ 

registration laws and policies will 

encompass the SORNA requirements 

and sex offenders will be informed 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with NOTICES

Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 7 / Tuesday, January 11, 2011 / Notices 1635 

concerning these requirements. In any 

event, regardless of what limitations 

there may be in the information 

currently provided in particular 

jurisdictions’ acknowledgment forms, 

that does not weigh against requiring 

the inclusion of these forms in sex 

offenders’ registration information. The 

forms do provide sex offenders with 

information concerning their 

registration obligations and may be 

useful in the prosecution of violations of 

those obligations by helping to establish 

that sex offenders were aware of the 

requirement to register. 

Ongoing Implementation Assurance 

Some comments objected to the 

requirements of Part III of the 

supplemental guidelines, relating to 

‘‘ongoing implementation assurance,’’ on 

the ground that they would unduly 

burden jurisdictions and would 

inappropriately require the state 

administering agencies for the Byrne 

Justice Assistance Grant program to 

certify the state’s SORNA 

implementation status, though these 

agencies are not generally responsible 

for sex offender registration matters. 

These comments reflect 

misunderstandings of this part of the 

supplemental guidelines. The 

supplemental guidelines state that 

Byrne grantees will need to establish 

that their systems continue to meet the 

SORNA standards in connection with 

the annual grant application process 

because such continuing compliance is 

a condition of full Byrne Grant 

eligibility in each program year. See 42 

U.S.C. 16925. This does not mean that 

the state agencies responsible for Byrne 

Grant matters must verify the status of 

SORNA implementation. Rather, states 

(and other jurisdictions that apply for 

Byrne Grants) may obtain information 

concerning ongoing implementation 

from their agencies that generally deal 

with the SMART Office on SORNA 

implementation matters and include the 

information with their Byrne Grant 

applications. 

The requirement appearing in Part III 

of the supplemental guidelines is not 

new in principle. SORNA was preceded 

by the original Federal law setting 

national standards for sex offender 

registration and notification, the Jacob 

Wetterling Crimes Against Children and 

Sexually Violent Offender Registration 

Act. The Attorney General’s guidelines 

under the Wetterling Act similarly 

required an annual determination of 

continuing compliance with the 

national standards. See, e.g., 64 FR 572, 

587 (1999) (‘‘After the reviewing 

authority has determined that a state is 

in compliance with the [Wetterling] Act, 

the state will be required as part of the 

Byrne Formula Grant application 

process in subsequent program years to 

certify that the state remains in 

compliance with the Act.’’). Given the 

connection to eligibility for full Byrne 

Grant funding under both Acts, annual 

determinations of continuing 

compliance are as necessary under 

SORNA as they were under the 

predecessor law, and in neither case 

should this requirement be unduly 

burdensome for jurisdictions. 

Retroactive Classes 

Many commenters approved of the 

change in Part IV of these supplemental 

guidelines. Part IV provides that it 

suffices for substantial implementation 

of SORNA, with respect to sex offenders 

reentering the justice system through 

subsequent (non-sex offense) criminal 

convictions, if registration of such 

offenders by jurisdictions is limited to 

cases in which the subsequent 

conviction is for a felony. However, 

some commenters proposed that the 

requirement to register sex offenders 

whose convictions predate SORNA or 

SORNA’s implementation in particular 

jurisdictions should be further restricted 

or eliminated. The grounds urged for 

such further limitation included the 

following: 

Some commenters argued that 

requiring sex offenders who reenter the 

justice system through subsequent (nonsex offense) criminal convictions to 

register discriminates against sex 

offenders because non-sex offenders 

who reenter the justice system through 

subsequent (non-sex offense) criminal 

convictions are not subject to such a 

requirement. However, differences in 

the treatment of different classes of 

offenders are not intrinsically unfair and 

such differences are not 

unconstitutionally discriminatory where 

there is a rational basis for the 

distinction. See Chapman v. United 

States, 500 U.S. 453, 465 (1991). Sex 

offender registration by its nature 

involves imposing certain requirements 

on sex offenders that are not applied to 

non-sex offenders. This is so regardless 

of whether registration requirements are 

imposed on sex offenders whose 

convictions occur after SORNA’s 

enactment or its implementation or on 

sex offenders whose convictions 

occurred at earlier times. 

Some commenters claimed that the 

remaining retroactivity requirements 

under SORNA would, absent further 

changes, have anomalous and 

unwarranted effects on juvenile 

delinquent sex offenders. For example, 

some comments asserted that juveniles 

adjudicated delinquent for sex offenses 

committed when they were below the 

age of 14 will have to be registered if 

they have subsequent adult convictions 

for (non-sex offense) felonies, and some 

claimed that public notification will be 

required concerning persons qualifying 

as sex offenders on the basis of juvenile 

delinquency adjudications if they have 

subsequent adult convictions for (nonsex offense) felonies. These comments 

reflect misunderstandings of SORNA 

and its implementing guidelines. 

SORNA and the guidelines never 

require registration on the basis of 

juvenile delinquency adjudications 

except for adjudications for offenses 

comparable to aggravated sexual abuse 

(or related attempt or conspiracy) 

committed when the juvenile was at 

least 14 years old. Persons with juvenile 

adjudications not satisfying these 

criteria are not ‘‘sex offenders’’ as 

defined in SORNA and are not subject 

to SORNA’s requirements at all. See 42 

U.S.C. 16911(1), (8). Likewise, following 

the adoption of these supplemental 

guidelines, public disclosure or 

notification is never required under 

SORNA regarding persons whose 

predicate sex offense convictions are 

juvenile delinquency adjudications. 

Some comments pointed in this 

connection to the decision in United 

States v. Juvenile Male, 590 F.3d 924 

(9th Cir. 2010), which held that SORNA 

cannot constitutionally be applied to a 

sex offender on the basis of a Federal 

juvenile delinquency adjudication 

predating SORNA’s enactment. 

However, Juvenile Male is not binding 

precedent for Federal courts outside of 

the Ninth Circuit and not binding 

precedent for state courts anywhere. 

Considered on its own terms, the 

decision has no bearing on SORNA’s 

application to sex offenders with adult 

convictions. The Department of Justice 

has sought review of the Juvenile Male 

decision by the U.S. Supreme Court 

and, as a result, further proceedings in 

the case are pending before the U.S. 

Supreme Court and the Montana 

Supreme Court. See United States v. 

Juvenile Male, 130 S.Ct. 2518 (2010). 

Considering the foregoing, there is no 

basis at this time for making changes in 

the implementing guidelines or rules for 

SORNA on the basis of the Juvenile 

Male decision. 

Some commenters expressed the 

concern that the remaining retroactivity 

requirements under SORNA will unduly 

burden jurisdictions. However, under 

the SORNA Guidelines, it suffices for 

substantial implementation of SORNA if 

a jurisdiction registers sex offenders 

who remain in the justice system as 

prisoners, supervisees, or registrants, or 

who reenter the justice system through 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with NOTICES

1636 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 7 / Tuesday, January 11, 2011 / Notices 

a subsequent criminal conviction. The 

Guidelines note that such offenders are 

within the cognizance of the 

jurisdiction, and the jurisdiction will 

often have independent reasons to 

review their criminal histories for penal, 

correctional, or registration/notification 

purposes. See 73 FR at 38046. This 

point applies with greater force now 

that the covered class of ‘‘reentrants’’ 

who must be registered is limited to 

those with subsequent felony 

convictions, as provided in these 

supplemental guidelines. 

Various other features of SORNA and 

the SORNA Guidelines limit any 

resulting burden on jurisdictions. 

Jurisdictions are not required to register 

sex offenders in the retroactive classes 

whose SORNA registration periods have 

already run, and jurisdictions may 

credit such sex offenders with the time 

that has elapsed from their release (or 

from sentencing in case of a 

nonincarcerative sentence) in 

determining what, if any, remaining 

registration time is required, even if 

they have never actually been 

registered. See 73 FR at 38035–36, 

38046–47. Jurisdictions may rely on 

their normal methods and standards for 

obtaining and reviewing criminal 

history information, and on the 

information available in the records 

obtained by such means, in ascertaining 

SORNA registration requirements for 

sex offenders in the retroactive classes. 

This point applies both in determining 

whether such sex offenders need to be 

registered at all and in determining the 

sex offender’s ‘‘tier’’ for SORNA 

purposes. See 73 FR at 38043, 38064. In 

relation to sex offenders in the 

retroactive classes, there is no 

requirement that jurisdictions make 

special efforts to obtain records or 

information that would not turn up 

through the normal type of criminal 

history searches they conduct. 

In light of these considerations, the 

comments received do not persuasively 

establish that the public safety benefits 

of registering in conformity with 

SORNA sex offenders who remain in the 

justice system as prisoners, supervisees, 

or registrants, or who reenter through 

subsequent felony convictions, are 

outweighed by a resulting burden on 

jurisdictions. 

Newly Recognized Tribes 

A number of favorable comments 

were received about affording newly 

recognized Indian tribes the option of 

becoming SORNA registration 

jurisdictions, as provided in Part V of 

these supplemental guidelines. 

Tribal commenters urged that 

additional matters under SORNA 

affecting the tribes should be addressed, 

including particularly the possibility of 

involuntary delegation of tribal 

registration functions to the states 

pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 16927(a)(2)(C), 

which permits such delegation if the 

Attorney General determines that a 

tribal jurisdiction has not substantially 

implemented SORNA and is not likely 

to become capable of doing so within a 

reasonable amount of time. The 

comments urged that such involuntary 

delegations should occur only as an 

absolute last resort and through a 

transparent process. Comments 

submitted on behalf of state 

jurisdictions also expressed concern 

about the resulting burden on states if 

they were required to assume 

responsibility for tribal registration 

functions based on the failure of a tribe 

or tribes to substantially implement 

SORNA. 

The Department of Justice and the 

SMART Office fully agree that 

involuntary delegation of tribal 

registration functions to the states 

should occur only as a last resort, if at 

all. The SORNA Guidelines state: ‘‘The 

Department of Justice hopes and expects 

* * * that the occurrence of such an 

involuntary delegation will never be 

necessary, given the strong interest of 

the tribes in effective registration and 

notification for sex offenders subject to 

their jurisdictions, and the priority that 

the SMART Office gives to working with 

all tribes and other jurisdictions to 

facilitate the implementation of 

SORNA’s requirements in relation to 

tribal areas.’’ 73 FR at 38039. This matter 

is not addressed in these supplemental 

guidelines because the Department did 

not solicit public comment about it in 

the proposed supplemental guidelines 

and further input from the affected 

jurisdictions would be desirable prior to 

any articulation of more detailed 

standards or procedures for such 

delegations. 

Some additional tribal issues were 

raised in the comments, including the 

need for cooperative activities between 

the tribes that are not SORNA 

registration jurisdictions and the states 

in order to effect the registration of sex 

offenders within the jurisdiction of such 

tribes, and concern that law 

enforcement agencies in such tribes will 

not be adequately notified or informed 

concerning sex offenders in their 

territories. These issues were previously 

raised by tribal commenters in the 

public comments on the SORNA 

Guidelines and they are addressed at 

some length in those Guidelines. See 73 

FR at 38039, 38049, 38060. The 

measures relating to these matters 

outlined in the Guidelines are integral 

elements of SORNA’s implementation 

in relation to tribal areas and the 

SMART Office will continue to work 

with all tribes and state jurisdictions to 

ensure that they are effectively carried 

out. 

The Department of Justice and the 

SMART Office seek and welcome the 

counsel and views of Indian tribal 

governments and communities at all 

times and will continue to consult with 

them on SORNA implementation 

matters affecting the tribes in 

conformity with Executive Order 13175. 

Supplemental Guidelines for Sex 

Offender Registration and Notification 

Contents 

I. Public Notification 

A. Juvenile Delinquents 

B. Internet Identifiers 

II. Interjurisdictional Tracking and 

Information Sharing 

A. International Travel 

B. Domestic Interjurisdictional Tracking 

C. Acknowledgment Forms 

III. Ongoing Implementation Assurance 

IV. Retroactive Classes 

V. Newly Recognized Tribes 

I. Public Notification 

A. Juvenile Delinquents 

SORNA includes as covered ‘‘sex 

offender[s]’’ juveniles at least 14 years 

old who are adjudicated delinquent for 

particularly serious sex offenses. See 42 

U.S.C. 16911(1), (8). While the SORNA 

Guidelines endeavored to facilitate 

jurisdictions’ compliance with this 

aspect of SORNA, see 73 FR at 38030, 

38040–41, 38050, resistance by some 

jurisdictions to public disclosure of 

information about sex offenders in this 

class has continued to be one of the 

largest impediments to SORNA 

implementation. 

Hence, the Attorney General is 

exercising his authority under 42 U.S.C. 

16918(c)(4) to create additional 

discretionary exemptions from public 

Web site disclosure to allow 

jurisdictions to exempt from public Web 

site disclosure information concerning 

sex offenders required to register on the 

basis of juvenile delinquency 

adjudications. This change creates a 

new discretionary, not mandatory, 

exemption from public Web site 

disclosure. It does not limit the 

discretion of jurisdictions to include 

information concerning sex offenders 

required to register on the basis of 

juvenile delinquency adjudications on 

their public Web sites if they so wish. 

The change regarding public Web site 

disclosure does not authorize treating 

sex offenders required to register on the 

basis of juvenile delinquency 

adjudications differently from sex 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with NOTICES

Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 7 / Tuesday, January 11, 2011 / Notices 1637 

offenders with adult convictions in 

other respects. Whether a case involves 

a juvenile delinquency adjudication in 

the category covered by SORNA or an 

adult conviction, SORNA’s registration 

requirements remain applicable, see 42 

U.S.C. 16913–16, as do the requirements 

to transmit or make available 

registration information to the national 

(non-public) databases of sex offender 

information, to law enforcement and 

supervision agencies, and to registration 

authorities in other jurisdictions, see 73 

FR at 38060. 

Jurisdictions are not required to 

provide registration information 

concerning sex offenders required to 

register on the basis of juvenile 

delinquency adjudications to the 

entities described in the SORNA 

Guidelines at 73 FR 38061, i.e., certain 

school, public housing, social service, 

and volunteer entities, and other 

organizations, companies, or 

individuals who request notification. 

This reflects an exercise of the Attorney 

General’s authority to create exceptions 

to required information disclosure 

under 42 U.S.C. 16921(b). Accordingly, 

if a jurisdiction decides not to include 

information on a juvenile delinquent 

sex offender on its public Web site, as 

is allowed by these supplemental 

guidelines, information on the sex 

offender does not have to be disclosed 

to these entities. 

B. Internet Identifiers 

The KIDS Act, which was enacted in 

2008, directed the Attorney General to 

utilize pre-existing legal authorities 

under SORNA to adopt certain measures 

relating to sex offenders’ ‘‘Internet 

identifiers,’’ defined to mean e-mail 

addresses and other designations used 

for self-identification or routing in 

Internet communication or posting. The 

KIDS Act requires the Attorney General 

to (i) include appropriate Internet 

identifier information in the registration 

information sex offenders are required 

to provide, (ii) specify the time and 

manner for keeping that information 

current, (iii) exempt such information 

from public Web site posting, and (iv) 

ensure that procedures are in place to 

notify sex offenders of resulting 

obligations. See 42 U.S.C. 16915a. 

The SORNA Guidelines incorporate 

requirements (i)–(ii) and (iv), as 

described above. See 73 FR at 38055 

(Internet identifiers to be included in 

registration information), 38066 

(reporting of changes in Internet 

identifiers), 38063–65 (notifying sex 

offenders of SORNA requirements). 

However, while the Guidelines 

discouraged the inclusion of sex 

offenders’ Internet identifiers on the 

public Web sites, they did not adopt a 

mandatory exclusion of this information 

from public Web site posting, which the 

KIDS Act now requires. See 42 U.S.C. 

16915a(c); 73 FR at 38059–60. 

The authority under 42 U.S.C. 

16918(b)(4) to create additional 

mandatory exemptions from public Web 

site disclosure is accordingly exercised 

to exempt sex offenders’ Internet 

identifiers from public Web site posting. 

This means that jurisdictions cannot, 

consistent with SORNA, include sex 

offenders’ Internet identifiers (such as email addresses) in the sex offenders’ 

public Web site postings or otherwise 

list or post sex offenders’ Internet 

identifiers on the public sex offender 

Web sites. 

This change does not limit 

jurisdictions’ retention and use of sex 

offenders’ Internet identifier 

information for purposes other than 

public disclosure, including submission 

of the information to the national (nonpublic) databases of sex offender 

information, sharing of the information 

with law enforcement and supervision 

agencies, and sharing of the information 

with registration authorities in other 

jurisdictions. See 73 FR at 38060. The 

change also does not limit the discretion 

of jurisdictions to include on their 

public Web sites functions by which 

members of the public can ascertain 

whether a specified e-mail address or 

other Internet identifier is reported as 

that of a registered sex offender, see id. 

at 38059–60, or to disclose Internet 

identifier information to any one by 

means other than public Web site 

posting. 

The exemption of sex offenders’ 

Internet identifiers from public Web site 

disclosure does not override or limit the 

requirement that sex offenders’ names, 

including any aliases, be included in 

their public Web site postings. See 73 

FR at 38059. A sex offender’s use of his 

name or an alias to identify himself or 

for other purposes in Internet 

communications or postings does not 

exempt the name or alias from public 

Web site disclosure. 

II. Interjurisdictional Tracking and 

Information Sharing 

A. International Travel 

Certain features of SORNA and the 

SORNA Guidelines require the 

Department of Justice, in conjunction 

with other Federal agencies, to develop 

reliable means for identifying and 

tracking sex offenders who enter or 

leave the United States. See 42 U.S.C. 

16928; 73 FR at 38066–67. To that end, 

the Guidelines provide that sex 

offenders must be required to inform 

their residence jurisdictions if they 

intend to commence residence, 

employment, or school attendance 

outside of the United States, and that 

jurisdictions that are so informed must 

notify the U.S. Marshals Service and 

update the sex offender’s registration 

information in the national databases. 

See 73 FR at 38067. (Regarding the 

general requirement to provide 

registration information for inclusion in 

the National Sex Offender Registry and 

other appropriate databases at the 

national level, see 42 U.S.C. 16921(b)(1); 

73 FR at 38060.) In addition, the 

Guidelines provide that sex offenders 

must be required to inform their 

residence jurisdictions about lodging at 

places away from their residences for 

seven days or more, regardless of 

whether that results from domestic or 

international travel. See 73 FR at 38056, 

38066. 

Since the issuance of the Guidelines, 

the SMART Office has continued to 

work with other agencies of the 

Department of Justice, the Department 

of Homeland Security, the Department 

of State, and the Department of Defense 

on the development of a system for 

consistently identifying and tracking sex 

offenders who engage in international 

travel. Although, as noted, the current 

Guidelines require reporting of 

international travel information in 

certain circumstances, the existing 

requirements are not sufficient to 

provide the information needed for 

tracking such travel consistently. 

The authority under 42 U.S.C. 

16914(a)(7) to expand the range of 

required registration information is 

accordingly exercised to provide that 

registrants must be required to inform 

their residence jurisdictions of intended 

travel outside of the United States at 

least 21 days in advance of such travel. 

Pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 16921(b), 

jurisdictions so informed must provide 

the international travel information to 

the U.S. Marshals Service, and must 

transmit or make available that 

information to national databases, law 

enforcement and supervision agencies, 

and other jurisdictions as provided in 

the Guidelines. See 73 FR at 38060. 

Jurisdictions need not disclose 

international travel information to the 

entities described in the SORNA 

Guidelines at 73 FR 38061—i.e., certain 

school, public housing, social service, 

and volunteer entities, and other 

organizations, companies, or 

individuals who request notification. 

See 42 U.S.C. 16921(b). As the 

international tracking system continues 

to develop, the SMART Office may issue 

additional directions to jurisdictions to 

provide notification concerning 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with NOTICES

1638 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 7 / Tuesday, January 11, 2011 / Notices 

international travel by sex offenders, 

such as notice to Interpol, or notice to 

Department of Defense agencies 

concerning sex offenders who may live 

on U.S. military bases abroad. Likewise, 

the SMART Office may issue additional 

directions to jurisdictions concerning 

the information to be required in sex 

offenders’ reports of intended 

international travel, such as information 

concerning expected itinerary, 

departure and return dates, and means 

and purpose of travel. 

While notice of international travel 

will generally be required as described 

above, it is recognized that requiring 21 

days advance notice may occasionally 

be unnecessary or inappropriate. For 

example, a sex offender may need to 

travel abroad unexpectedly because of a 

family or work emergency. Or separate 

advance notice of intended international 

trips may be unworkable and 

pointlessly burdensome for a sex 

offender who lives in a northern border 

state and commutes to Canada for work 

on a daily basis. Jurisdictions that wish 

to accommodate such situations should 

include information about their policies 

or practices in this area in their 

submissions to the SMART Office and 

the SMART Office will determine 

whether they adequately serve SORNA’s 

international tracking objectives. 

B. Domestic Interjurisdictional Tracking 

SORNA and the SORNA Guidelines 

require interjurisdictional sharing of 

registration information in various 

contexts and SORNA directs the 

Attorney General, in consultation with 

the jurisdictions, to develop and 

support software facilitating the 

immediate exchange of information 

among jurisdictions. See 42 U.S.C. 

16913(c), 16919(b), 16921(b)(3), 16923; 

73 FR at 38047, 38062–68. The SMART 

Office accordingly has created and 

maintains the SORNA Exchange Portal, 

which enables the immediate exchange 

of information about registered sex 

offenders among the jurisdictions. 

Regular use of this tool is essential to 

ensuring that information is reliably 

shared among jurisdictions and that 

interjurisdictional tracking of sex 

offenders occurs consistently and 

effectively as SORNA contemplates. For 

example, if a jurisdiction sends notice 

that a sex offender has reported an 

intention to change his residence to 

another jurisdiction, but the destination 

jurisdiction fails to access the notice 

promptly, the sex offender’s failure to 

appear or register in the destination 

jurisdiction may go unnoticed or 

detection of the violation may be 

delayed. Accordingly, as a necessary 

part of SORNA implementation, 

jurisdictions must use the SORNA 

Exchange Portal in their information 

sharing regarding sex offenders in 

conformity with any guidance issued by 

the SMART Office on use of the Portal. 

Technological improvements may 

facilitate the creation of new tools that 

may eventually replace the existing 

SORNA Exchange Portal. If that occurs, 

the SMART Office may issue directions 

to jurisdictions concerning the use of 

these new tools that jurisdictions will 

need to follow to be approved as 

substantially implementing SORNA. 

C. Acknowledgment Forms 

SORNA provides that sex offenders 

are to be informed of their registration 

obligations and required to sign 

acknowledgments that this information 

has been provided upon their initial 

registration. See 42 U.S.C. 16917. Even 

before the enactment of SORNA, similar 

requirements were included in the 

predecessor national standards for sex 

offender registration and notification of 

the Jacob Wetterling Crimes Against 

Children and Sexually Violent Offender 

Registration Act (42 U.S.C. 

14071(b)(1)(A), prior to its repeal by 

SORNA). 

SORNA requires jurisdictions to 

provide criminal penalties for sex 

offenders who fail to comply with 

SORNA’s requirements, see 42 U.S.C. 

16913(e), and Federal criminal liability 

is authorized for sex offenders who 

knowingly fail to register or update a 

registration as required by SORNA 

under circumstances supporting Federal 

jurisdiction, see 18 U.S.C. 2250. 

Successful prosecution of sex offenders 

for registration violations under these 

provisions may require proof that they 

were aware of a requirement to register. 

The acknowledgment forms signed by 

sex offenders regarding their registration 

obligations are likely to be the most 

consistently available and definitive 

proof of such knowledge. Including 

these forms in registration information 

will make them readily available in the 

jurisdictions in which sex offenders are 

initially registered, and will make them 

available to other jurisdictions pursuant 

to the provisions of SORNA and the 

Guidelines for transmission of 

registration information to other 

jurisdictions. See 42 U.S.C. 16921(b)(3); 

73 FR at 38060. 

The authority under 42 U.S.C. 

16914(b)(8) to expand the range of 

required registration information is 

accordingly exercised to require that sex 

offenders’ signed acknowledgment 

forms be included in their registration 

information. The existing Guidelines 

already provide that acknowledgment 

forms covering the SORNA 

requirements are to be obtained from 

registrants as part of the SORNA 

implementation process and thereafter. 

See 73 FR at 38063–65. As with other 

forms of documentary registration 

information, the inclusion of these 

forms in registration information can be 

effected by scanning the forms and 

including the resulting electronic 

documents in the registry databases or 

by including links or information that 

provides access to other databases in 

which the signed acknowledgments are 

available in electronic form. See 73 FR 

at 38055. 

III. Ongoing Implementation Assurance 

The SORNA Guidelines explain that 

the SMART Office will determine 

whether jurisdictions have substantially 

implemented the SORNA requirements 

in their programs and that jurisdictions 

are to provide submissions to the 

SMART Office to facilitate this 

determination. See 42 U.S.C. 16924–25; 

73 FR at 38047–48. 

SORNA itself and the Guidelines 

assume throughout that jurisdictions 

must implement SORNA in practice, not 

just on paper, and the Guidelines 

provide many directions and 

suggestions for putting the SORNA 

standards into effect. See, e.g., 42 U.S.C. 

16911(9), 16912(a), 16913(c), 16914(b), 

16917, 16918, 16921(b), 16922; 73 FR at 

38059–61, 38063–70. The Department of 

Justice and the SMART Office are 

making available to jurisdictions a wide 

range of practical aids to SORNA 

implementation, including software and 

communication systems to facilitate the 

exchange of sex offender information 

among jurisdictions and other 

technology and documentary tools. See 

42 U.S.C. 16923; 73 FR at 38031–32, 

38047. 

Hence, implementation of SORNA is 

not just a matter of adopting laws or 

rules that facially direct the 

performance of the measures required 

by SORNA. It entails actually carrying 

out those measures and, as noted, 

various forms of guidance and 

assistance have been provided to that 

end. Accordingly, in reviewing 

jurisdictions’ requests for approval as 

having substantially implemented 

SORNA, the SMART Office will not be 

limited to facial examination of 

registration laws and policies, but rather 

will undertake such inquiry as is 

needed to ensure that jurisdictions are 

substantially implementing SORNA’s 

requirements in practice. Jurisdictions 

can facilitate approval of their systems 

by including in their submissions to the 

SMART Office information concerning 

practical implementation measures and 

mechanisms, in addition to relevant 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with NOTICES

Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 7 / Tuesday, January 11, 2011 / Notices 1639 

laws and rules, such as policy and 

procedure manuals, description of 

infrastructure and technology resources, 

and information about personnel and 

budgetary measures relating to the 

operation of the jurisdiction’s 

registration and notification system. The 

SMART Office may require jurisdictions 

to provide additional information, 

beyond that proffered in their 

submissions, as needed for a 

determination. 

Jurisdictions that have substantially 

implemented SORNA have a continuing 

obligation to maintain their system’s 

consistency with current SORNA 

standards. Those that are grantees under 

the Byrne Justice Assistance Grant 

program will be required in connection 

with the annual grant application 

process to establish that their systems 

continue to meet SORNA standards. 

This will entail providing information 

as directed by the SMART Office, in 

addition to the information otherwise 

included in Byrne Grant applications, so 

that the SMART Office can verify 

continuing implementation. 

Jurisdictions that do not apply for Byrne 

Grants will also be required to 

demonstrate periodically that their 

systems continue to meet SORNA 

standards as directed by the SMART 

Office, and to provide such information 

as the SMART Office may require to 

make this determination. 

If a jurisdiction’s Byrne Justice 

Assistance Grant funding is reduced 

because of non-implementation of 

SORNA, it may regain eligibility for full 

funding in later program years by 

substantially implementing SORNA in 

such later years. The SMART Office will 

continue to work with all jurisdictions 

to ensure substantial implementation of 

SORNA and verify that they continue to 

meet the requirements of SORNA on an 

ongoing basis. 

IV. Retroactive Classes 

SORNA’s requirements apply to all 

sex offenders, regardless of when they 

were convicted. See 28 CFR 72.3. 

However, the SORNA Guidelines state 

that it will be deemed sufficient for 

substantial implementation if 

jurisdictions register sex offenders with 

pre-SORNA or pre-SORNAimplementation sex offense convictions 

who remain in the system as prisoners, 

supervisees, or registrants, or who 

reenter the system through a subsequent 

criminal conviction. See 73 FR at 

38035–36, 38043, 38046–47, 38063–64. 

This feature of the Guidelines reflects an 

assumption that it may not be possible 

for jurisdictions to identify and register 

all sex offenders who fall within the 

SORNA registration categories, 

particularly where they have left the 

justice system and merged into the 

general population long ago, but that it 

will be feasible for jurisdictions to do so 

in relation to sex offenders who remain 

in the justice system or reenter it 

through a subsequent criminal 

conviction. See 73 FR at 38046. 

Experience supports a qualification of 

this assumption in relation to sex 

offenders who have fully exited the 

justice system but later reenter it 

through a subsequent criminal 

conviction for a non-sex offense that is 

relatively minor in character. (Where 

the subsequent conviction is for a sex 

offense it independently requires 

registration under SORNA.) In many 

jurisdictions the volume of 

misdemeanor prosecutions is large and 

most such cases may need to be 

disposed of in a manner that leaves little 

time or opportunity for examining the 

defendant’s criminal history and 

ascertaining whether it contains some 

past sex offense conviction that would 

entail a present registration requirement 

under SORNA. In contrast, where the 

subsequent offense is a serious crime, 

ordinary practice is likely to involve 

closer scrutiny of the defendant’s past 

criminal conduct, and ascertaining 

whether it includes a prior conviction 

requiring registration under SORNA 

should not entail an onerous new 

burden on jurisdictions. 

These supplemental guidelines 

accordingly are modifying the 

requirements for substantial 

implementation of SORNA in relation to 

sex offenders who have fully exited the 

justice system, i.e., those who are no 

longer prisoners, supervisees, or 

registrants. It will be sufficient if a 

jurisdiction registers such offenders 

who reenter the system through a 

subsequent criminal conviction in cases 

in which the subsequent criminal 

conviction is for a felony, i.e., for an 

offense for which the statutory 

maximum penalty exceeds a year of 

imprisonment. This allowance is 

limited to cases in which the 

subsequent conviction is for a non-sex 

offense. As noted above, a later 

conviction for a sex offense 

independently requires registration 

under SORNA, regardless of whether it 

is a felony or a misdemeanor. 

This allowance only establishes the 

minimum required for substantial 

implementation of SORNA in this 

context. Jurisdictions remain free to 

look more broadly and to establish 

systems to identify and register sex 

offenders who reenter the justice system 

through misdemeanor convictions, or 

even those who do not reenter the 

system through later criminal 

convictions but fall within the 

registration categories of SORNA or the 

jurisdiction’s registration law. 

V. Newly Recognized Tribes 

SORNA affords eligible federallyrecognized Indian tribes a one-year 

period, running from the date of 

SORNA’s enactment on July 27, 2006, to 

elect whether to become SORNA 

registration jurisdictions or to delegate 

their registration functions to the states 

within which they are located. See 42 

U.S.C. 16927(a)(1), (2)(B); 73 FR at 

38049–50. In principle there is no 

reason why an Indian tribe that initially 

receives recognition by the Federal 

government following the enactment of 

SORNA should be treated differently for 

SORNA purposes from other federally 

recognized tribes. But if such a tribe is 

initially recognized more than a year 

after the enactment of SORNA, then the 

limitation period of § 16927 will have 

passed before the tribe became the kind 

of entity (a federally recognized tribe) 

that may be eligible to become a SORNA 

registration jurisdiction. 

Where the normal starting point of a 

statutory time limit for taking an action 

cannot sensibly be applied to a certain 

entity, statutes have been construed in 

some circumstances to allow the entity 

a reasonable amount of time to take the 

action. See Chicago & Alton R.R. Co. v. 

Tranbarger, 238 U.S. 67, 73–74 (1915). 

This principle will be applied to 42 

U.S.C. 16927 to allow Indian tribes that 

receive Federal recognition following 

the enactment of SORNA a reasonable 

amount of time to elect whether to 

become SORNA registration 

jurisdictions as provided in that section, 

and to allow such tribes a reasonable 

amount of time for substantial 

implementation of SORNA if they elect 

to be SORNA registration jurisdictions. 

In assessing what constitutes a 

reasonable amount of time for these 

purposes, the Department of Justice will 

look to the amount of time SORNA 

generally affords for tribal elections and 

for jurisdictions’ implementation of the 

SORNA requirements. Hence, a tribe 

receiving Federal recognition after 

SORNA’s enactment that otherwise 

qualifies to make the election under 

§ 16927(a) will be afforded a period of 

one year to make the election, running 

from the date of the tribe’s recognition 

or the date of publication of these 

supplemental guidelines, whichever is 

later. Likewise, such a tribe will be 

afforded a period of three years for 

SORNA implementation, running from 

the same starting point, subject to up to 

two possible one-year extensions. See 

42 U.S.C. 16924. 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with NOTICES

1640 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 7 / Tuesday, January 11, 2011 / Notices 

Dated: January 7, 2011. 

Eric H. Holder, Jr., 

Attorney General. 

[FR Doc. 2011–505 Filed 1–10–11; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4410–18–P 

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE 

Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, 

and Explosives 

[OMB Number 1140–0098] 

Agency Information Collection 

Activities: Proposed Collection; 

Comments Requested 

ACTION: 30-Day Notice of Information 

Collection Under Review: Prevent All 

Cigarette Trafficking (PACT) Act 

Registration Form. 

The Department of Justice (DOJ), 

Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, 

and Explosives (ATF) will be submitting 

the following information collection 

request to the Office of Management and 

Budget (OMB) for review and approval 

in accordance with the Paperwork 

Reduction Act of 1995. The proposed 

information collection is published to 

obtain comments from the public and 

affected agencies. This proposed 

information collection was previously 

published in the Federal Register 

Volume 75, Number 210, page 67119 on 

November 1, 2010, allowing for a 60-day 

comment period. 

The purpose of this notice is to allow 

for an additional 30 days for public 

comment until February 10, 2011. This 

process is conducted in accordance with 

5 CFR 1320.10. 

Written comments and/or suggestions 

regarding the items contained in this 

notice, especially the estimated public 

burden and associated response time, 

should be directed to the Office of 

Management and Budget. To ensure that 

comments on the information collection 

are received, OMB recommends that 

written comments be faxed to the Office 

of Information and Regulatory Affairs, 

OMB, Attn: DOJ Desk Officer, Fax: 202– 

395–7285, or e-mailed to 

oira_submission@omb.eop.gov. All 

comments should be identified with the 

OMB control number [1140–XXXX]. 

Also include the DOJ docket number 

found in brackets in the heading of this 

document. 

Comments and suggestions from the 

public and affected agencies concerning 

the proposed collection of information 

are encouraged. Your comments should 

address one or more of the following 

four points: 

—Evaluate whether the proposed 

collection of information is necessary 

for the proper performance of the 

functions of the agency, including 

whether the information will have 

practical utility; 

—Evaluate the accuracy of the agencies 

estimate of the burden of the 

proposed collection of information, 

including the validity of the 

methodology and assumptions used; 

—Enhance the quality, utility, and 

clarity of the information to be 

collected; and 

—Minimize the burden of the collection 

of information on those who are to 

respond, including through the use of 

appropriate automated, electronic, 

mechanical, or other technological 

collection techniques or other forms 

of information technology, e.g., 

permitting electronic submission of 

responses. 

Overview of This Information 

Collection 

(1) Type of Information Collection: 

Extension of a currently approved 

collection. 

(2) Title of the Form/Collection: 

Prevent All Cigarette Trafficking (PACT) 

Act Registration Form. 

(3) Agency form number, if any, and 

the applicable component of the 

Department of Justice sponsoring the 

collection: Form Number: ATF F 5070.1. 

Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms 

and Explosives. 

(4) Affected public who will be asked 

or required to respond, as well as a brief 

abstract: Primary: Business or ForProfit. Other: None. Abstract: The 

purpose of this information collection is 

to register delivery sellers of cigarettes 

and/or smokeless tobacco products with 

the Attorney General in order to 

continue to sell and/or advertise these 

tobacco products. Respondents will 

register the information on ATF F 

5070.1. 

(5) An estimate of the total number of 

respondents and the amount of time 

estimated for an average respondent to 

respond: There will be an estimated 

3,000 respondents, who will take 1 hour 

to complete the form. 

(6) An estimate of the total burden (in 

hours) associated with the collection: 

There are an estimated 3,000 total 

burden hours associated with this 

collection. 

If additional information is required 

contact: Lynn Murray, Department 

Clearance Officer, United States 

Department of Justice, Policy and 

Planning Staff, Justice Management 

Division, Two Constitution Square, 

Room 2E–502, 145 N Street, NE., 

Washington, DC 20530. 

Dated: January 6, 2011. 

Lynn Murray, 

Department Clearance Officer, PRA, United 

States Department of Justice. 

[FR Doc. 2011–388 Filed 1–10–11; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4810–FY–P 

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE 

Office of Justice Programs 

[OJP (BJA) Docket No. 1542] 

Establishment of the Office of Justice 

Programs’ Science Advisory Board 

AGENCY: Office of Justice Programs 

(OJP), Justice. 

ACTION: Notice of establishment of 

federal advisory committee. 

SUMMARY: The OJP Science Advisory 

Board is being established in accordance 

with the provisions of the Federal 

Advisory Committee Act (FACA), as 

amended, 5 U.S.C., App. 2. The OJP 

Science Advisory Board will provide 

OJP, a component of the Department of 

Justice, with valuable advice in the 

areas of social science and statistics for 

the purpose of enhancing the overall 

impact and performance of its programs 

and activities in criminal and juvenile 

justice. The Board will provide input 

into developing long-range plans, advise 

on program development, and provide 

guidance to ensure adherence to the 

highest levels of scientific rigor, as 

appropriate. The Board will provide an 

important base of contact with the 

criminal justice academic and 

practitioner communities, and is 

necessary and in the public interest. The 

Board’s Charter is subject to renewal 

and will expire two years from its filing. 

The OJP Science Advisory Board is 

continuing in nature, to remain 

functional until the Attorney General 

determines that all necessary duties 

have been performed. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Marlene Beckman, Designated Federal 

Officer (DFO), Office of the Assistant 

Attorney General, Office of Justice 

Programs, 810 7th Street Northwest, 

Washington, DC 20531; Phone: (202) 

616–3562 [Note: this is not a toll-free 

number]; E-mail: 

marlene.beckman@usdoj.gov. 

Dated: January 5, 2011. 

Marlene Beckman, 

Counsel and SAB DFO, Office of the Assistant 

Attorney General, Office of Justice Programs. 

[FR Doc. 2011–290 Filed 1–10–11; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4410–18–P 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with NOTICES