Federal Register / Vol. 90, No. 12 / Tuesday, January 21, 2025 / Proposed Rules 6879 

Expense categories Subcategories and conditions Expense limits 

Miscellaneous expenses ................................ Includes, without limitation, temporary lodging up to 30 

days, local transportation, telephone costs, etc.; with respect to emergency travel, two family members’ transportation costs to country where incident occurred (or other 

location, as appropriate) to recover remains, care for victim, care for victim’s dependents, accompany victim to 

receive medical care abroad, accompany victim back to 

U.S., and attend to victim’s affairs in host country.

Up to $25,000. 

Brent J. Cohen, 

Acting Assistant Attorney General, Office of 

Justice Programs. 

[FR Doc. 2025–00071 Filed 1–17–25; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4410–18–P 

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE 

28 CFR Part 95 

[Docket No. OAG 182; AG Order No. 6144– 

2025] 

RIN 1105–AB70 

Homicide Victims’ Families’ Rights Act 

AGENCY: Office of the Attorney General, 

Department of Justice. 

ACTION: Proposed rule. 

SUMMARY: The Department of Justice is 

proposing a rule to implement the 

Homicide Victims’ Families’ Rights Act 

of 2021. The proposed rule would 

explain and effectuate the Act’s system 

for reviewing and, as warranted, 

reinvestigating murders investigated by 

Federal law enforcement agencies that 

remain unsolved after three years. 

DATES: Written and electronic comments 

must be sent or submitted on or before 

March 24, 2025. Comments received by 

mail will be considered timely if they 

are postmarked on or before the last day 

of the comment period. The electronic 

Federal Docket Management System 

will accept electronic comments until 

midnight eastern time at the end of that 

day. 

ADDRESSES: Comments may be mailed to 

Regulations Docket Clerk, Office of 

Legal Policy, U.S. Department of Justice, 

950 Pennsylvania Avenue NW, Room 

4234, Washington, DC 20530. To ensure 

proper handling, please reference RIN 

1105–AB70 or Docket No. OAG 182 on 

your correspondence. You may submit 

comments electronically or view an 

electronic version of this proposed rule 

at http://www.regulations.gov. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

David J. Karp, Senior Counsel, Office of 

Legal Policy, U.S. Department of Justice, 

Washington, DC, 202–514–3273. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

I. Public Participation 

Posting of Public Comments. 

Interested persons are invited to 

participate in this rulemaking by 

submitting written data, views, or 

arguments on all aspects of this rule via 

one of the methods and by the deadline 

stated above. The Department of Justice 

(‘‘Department’’) also invites comments 

that relate to the economic, 

environmental, or federalism effects that 

might result from this rule. Comments 

that will provide the most assistance to 

the Department in developing these 

procedures will reference a specific 

portion of the rule, explain the reason 

for any recommended change, and 

include data, information, or authority 

that support such recommended change. 

Please note that all comments 

received are considered part of the 

public record and made available for 

public inspection at http://

www.regulations.gov. Such information 

includes personally identifying 

information (‘‘PII’’) (such as your name, 

address, etc.). 

Interested persons are not required to 

submit their PII in order to comment on 

this rule. However, any PII that is 

submitted is subject to being posted to 

the publicly accessible website at http:// 

www.regulations.gov without redaction. 

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 http://

www.regulations.gov. 

Confidential business information 

identified and located as set forth above 

will not be placed in the public docket 

file. The Department may withhold from 

public viewing information provided in 

comments that it determines may 

impact the privacy of an individual or 

is offensive. For additional information, 

please read the Privacy Act notice that 

is available via the link in the footer of 

http://www.regulations.gov. To inspect 

the agency’s public docket file in 

person, you must make an appointment 

with the agency. Please see the FOR

FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT

paragraph above for agency contact 

information. 

II. Overview 

The Homicide Victims’ Families’ 

Rights Act of 2021 (‘‘Act’’ or ‘‘HVFRA’’), 

which was enacted on August 3, 2022, 

Public Law 117–164, 136 Stat. 1358, 

provides a system for the review of case 

files, and for carrying out further 

investigation as warranted, in murder 

cases investigated by Federal law 

enforcement agencies that have gone 

unsolved for over three years. The 

general objective of the Act is to 

facilitate the identification of the 

perpetrators of these ‘‘cold case’’ 

murders and thereby help to bring the 

perpetrators to justice and provide 

closure for the victims’ families. 

The Act specifically provides for 

carrying out case file reviews in cold 

case murder investigations on 

application by certain family members 

of the victim, and for further 

investigation if the case file review 

concludes that a full reinvestigation 

would result in probative investigative 

leads. The Act also directs the collection 

and publication of statistics on the 

number of cold case murders and 

reports to the House and Senate 

Judiciary Committees on the operation 

and results of the system established by 

the Act. 

This proposed rule would add a new 

part 95 to title 28 of the Code of Federal 

Regulations to implement the Act. The 

new part would explain the Act’s 

requirements and key concepts, and it 

would specify assignments of 

responsibility and procedures to ensure 

that the Act is effectively carried out. 

III. Legal Authority 

The Department of Justice is issuing 

this rule pursuant to the HVFRA and the 

authority of the Attorney General under 

Executive Order 11396, 33 FR 2689 

(Feb. 7, 1968). 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
6880 Federal Register / Vol. 90, No. 12 / Tuesday, January 21, 2025 / Proposed Rules 

IV. Section-by-Section Analysis 

The proposed rule would provide a 

statement of purpose in § 95.1 and 

define key terms in § 95.2. Section 95.3 

would explain what is required in cold 

case murder file reviews. Section 95.4 

would set out procedures for victims’ 

family members to apply for file reviews 

and for action on the applications by the 

responsible investigative agencies. 

Section 95.5 would explain the Act’s 

requirements relating to full 

reinvestigations. Section 95.6 would 

direct that case file reviews and 

reinvestigations be carried out in a 

cohesive manner when multiple 

agencies are involved. Section 95.7 

would address consulting with and 

informing applicants, and keeping them 

up to date about case file reviews and 

reinvestigations. Section 95.8 would 

articulate the Act’s timing rules for 

successive applications. Sections 95.9, 

95.10, and 95.11 would address the 

Act’s requirements relating to 

compliance, data collection, and annual 

reports. Section 95.12 would 

incorporate a provision of the Act that 

allows the withholding of information 

whose disclosure would have serious 

adverse effects or be unlawful. More 

detailed descriptions of these provisions 

follow. 

A. Section 95.1—Purpose 

The Act creates a system for 

reviewing and, as warranted, 

reinvestigating murder cases previously 

investigated by Federal agencies in 

which ‘‘all probative investigative leads 

have been exhausted’’ and ‘‘no likely 

perpetrator has been identified’’ after 

three years, HVFRA 12(6), upon 

application by certain persons. Section 

95.1 would state this general purpose of 

the Act in terms similar to the Act’s full 

title (‘‘To provide for a system for 

reviewing the case files of cold case 

murders at the instance of certain 

persons, and for other purposes.’’). 

B. Section 95.2—Definitions 

1. Paragraph (a)—Designated Person 

Section 95.2(a) would define 

‘‘designated person’’ for purposes of the 

Act, which refers to the class of 

individuals who may apply for cold 

case murder reviews. Section 12(1) and 

(2) of the Act state that the term 

includes an ‘‘immediate family 

member,’’ defined to mean a parent, 

parent-in-law, grandparent, 

grandparent-in-law, sibling, spouse, 

child, or step-child of a murder victim, 

and ‘‘someone similarly situated’’ to an 

immediate family member, ‘‘as defined 

by the Attorney General.’’ While the 

express statutory definition of 

immediate family member includes a 

parent, child, or step-child, it does not 

include a step-parent. Pursuant to the 

Attorney General’s authority under 

section 12(1) of the Act, § 95.2(a) would 

define ‘‘designated person’’ to include a 

step-parent, as a person ‘‘similarly 

situated’’ to a parent, in addition to 

immediate family members as defined 

in the statute. 

2. Paragraph (b)—Victim 

Section 95.2(b) of the proposed rule, 

as provided in section 12(3) of the Act, 

would define ‘‘victim’’ to mean a 

natural person who died as a result of 

a cold case murder. 

3. Paragraph (c)—Murder 

Section 95.2(c) of the proposed rule 

would implement section 12(4) of the 

Act, which defines ‘‘murder’’ to mean 

‘‘any criminal offense under section 

1111(a) of title 18, United States Code, 

or any offense the elements of which are 

substantially identical to such section.’’ 

Section 1111 of title 18 of the United 

States Code is the Federal murder 

offense that applies directly in cases 

arising in the special maritime and 

territorial jurisdiction of the United 

States, which includes Federal lands 

and facilities as provided in 18 U.S.C. 

7(3). The first sentence of section 

1111(a) defines ‘‘murder’’ as ‘‘the 

unlawful killing of a human being with 

malice aforethought.’’ Malice 

aforethought is generally understood to 

mean killing a person intentionally, 

knowingly, or with extreme 

recklessness, albeit with variations in 

the verbal formulas that courts use to 

explicate the concept. See, e.g., United 

States v. Begay, 33 F.4th 1081, 1091 (9th 

Cir. 2022). The second sentence of 

section 1111 specifies that certain types 

of murder are first-degree murder, 

including premeditated murders and 

murders committed in the course of 

other specified offenses. The list of 

predicate offenses for this purpose 

includes ‘‘arson, escape, murder, 

kidnapping, treason, espionage, 

sabotage, aggravated sexual abuse or 

sexual abuse, child abuse, burglary, 

[and] robbery.’’ Courts have interpreted 

the sentence in conformity with the 

traditional felony-murder doctrine, 

which categorically treats the specified 

offenses as involving murder if someone 

dies during the commission of the 

offense, without requiring any particular 

culpability of the offender with respect 

to resulting death. See, e.g., United 

States v. Garcia Ortiz, 528 F.3d 74, 80– 

81 (1st Cir. 2008); United States v. 

Tham, 118 F.3d 1501, 1508 (11th Cir. 

1997). 

The inclusion of ‘‘any criminal 

offense under section 1111(a) of title 

18’’ in the definition of murder in 

section 12(4) of the Act broadly brings 

within the scope of the Act murders 

committed on Federal lands, such as 

national parks and military bases. The 

proposed rule would parallel the 

statutory inclusion of murders that 

directly violate 18 U.S.C. 1111 by 

providing in the first sentence of 

§ 95.2(c)(1) that murder ‘‘means an 

offense under 18 U.S.C. 1111.’’ 

The second clause of the statutory 

definition of ‘‘murder’’ in section 12(4) 

of the Act refers to offenses whose 

elements are ‘‘substantially identical’’ to 

section 1111(a). The first sentence of 

paragraph (c)(1) in § 95.2 of the 

proposed rule would interpret this to 

mean other Federal offenses ‘‘that 

incorporate[ ] by reference the elements 

of 18 U.S.C. 1111.’’ This interpretation 

understands the ‘‘substantially 

identical’’ language in section 12(4) of 

the Act to include offenses whose 

substantive elements are identical to 

elements of the substantive offense 

defined in 18 U.S.C. 1111(a), regardless 

of differences in jurisdictional elements. 

For example, the offense of murdering a 

Federal officer, in violation of 18 U.S.C. 

1114(1), is within the scope of the 

HVFRA, although the basis for 

jurisdiction under 18 U.S.C. 1114 

(Federal officer victim) is different from 

the basis for jurisdiction under 18 

U.S.C. 1111 (special maritime and 

territorial jurisdiction). 

The requirement of substantial 

identity to 18 U.S.C. 1111 is satisfied by, 

and only by, offenses that appropriate 

the elements of section 1111 by crossreference. Other Federal homicidal 

offenses (except those cross-referencing 

section 1111) define their elements in 

varying ways—see, e.g., 18 U.S.C. 1112 

(manslaughter); 21 U.S.C. 841(b) (up to 

life imprisonment for drug trafficking if 

death results from use of controlled 

substance)—but they are not defined to 

be the killing of a human being with 

malice aforethought as that concept is 

understood in section 1111. The 

offenses identified in § 95.2(c)(1), all of 

which incorporate by reference the 

elements of section 1111, provide a 

comprehensive compilation of the 

Federal offenses whose substantive 

elements match those of section 1111. 

Offenses can incorporate by reference 

the elements of 18 U.S.C. 1111, and 

hence be ‘‘substantially identical’’ to 

section 1111, in three ways—by 

expressly cross-referencing section 

1111, e.g., 18 U.S.C. 1114(1); by 

referring to ‘‘murder’’ without further 

definition, which is understood to mean 

murder as defined in 18 U.S.C. 1111(a), 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
Federal Register / Vol. 90, No. 12 / Tuesday, January 21, 2025 / Proposed Rules 6881 

e.g., 18 U.S.C. 1153; see United States v. 

Antelope, 430 U.S. 641, 642–43, 647–48 

& n.9 (1977); or by referencing a broader 

class of crimes that includes 18 U.S.C. 

1111, e.g., 18 U.S.C. 1152. Regardless of 

the particular way in which an offense 

incorporates by reference the elements 

of 18 U.S.C. 1111, offenses that satisfy 

this criterion are within the scope of the 

HVFRA. 

The initial language in § 95.2(c)(1) 

includes ‘‘an offense under 18 U.S.C. 

1111.’’ This encompasses murders 

committed in the special maritime and 

territorial jurisdiction of the United 

States, see 18 U.S.C. 7, in which section 

1111 applies directly. 

Section 95.2(c)(1)(i), which refers to 

18 U.S.C. 1152 and 1153, confirms the 

Act’s coverage of Indian country 

murders. The first paragraph of section 

1152 says that Federal criminal laws 

that apply ‘‘in any place within the sole 

and exclusive jurisdiction of the United 

States . . . shall extend to the Indian 

Country’’—the referenced Federal 

criminal laws include section 1111(a)— 

subject to exceptions in the second 

paragraph, such as offenses committed 

by Indians against Indians. Section 1153 

reaches ‘‘major crimes’’ committed by 

Indians in Indian country, including 

‘‘murder,’’ which is understood to mean 

murder as defined in section 1111(a). 

Section 95.2(c)(1)(i) would make the 

coverage of Indian Country murders 

explicit. 

Section 1114 of title 18 proscribes 

killings of Federal officers or employees 

performing their duties, and provides 

that violators shall be punished ‘‘in the 

case of murder, as provided under 

section 1111.’’ Section 1114 through 

this cross-reference expressly 

incorporates the elements and penalties 

of section 1111, satisfying in such cases 

the Act’s coverage of offenses whose 

elements are substantially identical to 

section 1111(a). Section 95.2(c)(1)(ii) 

would make the Act’s coverage of 

murders of Federal officers or 

employees in violation of section 1114 

explicit, as well as murders of federally 

protected persons under several other 

provisions. The other provisions, and 

their relevant language and subdivisions 

that incorporate the elements of section 

1111(a) by reference, are: 

• 18 U.S.C 115(b)(3) (murder under 

statute protecting certain Federal 

officials, former officials, and their 

immediate family members ‘‘shall be 

punished as provided in section[ ] 

1111’’); 

• 18 U.S.C. 351(a) (killing of certain 

high level Federal officials ‘‘shall be 

punished as provided by section[ ] 

1111’’); 

• 18 U.S.C. 1116(a) (killing of foreign 

official, official guest, or internationally 

protected person ‘‘shall be punished as 

provided under section[ ] 1111’’); 

• 18 U.S.C. 1121(a) (whoever 

intentionally kills a person aiding a 

Federal criminal investigation ‘‘shall be 

sentenced according to the terms of 

section 1111’’); 

• 18 U.S.C. 1503(b)(1), 1512(a)(3)(A), 

1513(a)(2)(A) (killings under Federal 

obstruction of justice provisions subject 

to ‘‘the punishment provided in 

section[ ] 1111’’); 

• 18 U.S.C. 1751(a) (killing of 

President, Vice President, or members of 

their staffs ‘‘shall be punished as 

provided by section[ ] 1111’’); 

• 18 U.S.C. 1841(a), (b)(1) (applying 

section 1111 to murder of child in utero 

and applying penalties of section 1111 

to intentional killing of child in utero 

under other specified provisions); and 

• 7 U.S.C. 2146(b); 15 U.S.C. 

1825(a)(2)(C); 21 U.S.C. 461(c), 675, 

1041(b) (killing of persons while 

engaged in or on account of their 

performance of official duties under 

Federal regulatory schemes punishable 

‘‘as provided under section[ ] 1111’’). 

Section 1119(b) of title 18, in relevant 

part, provides that killing by a U.S. 

national of a U.S. national who is 

outside the United States but within the 

jurisdiction of another country ‘‘shall be 

punished as provided under section[ ] 

1111.’’ Section 2332(a)(1), relating to the 

context of terrorist murders of U.S. 

nationals abroad, provides that ‘‘if the 

killing is murder (as defined in section 

1111(a))’’ the perpetrator shall be 

‘‘punished by death or imprisonment for 

any term of years or for life.’’ Section 

95.2(c)(1)(iii) would expressly confirm 

the Act’s coverage of murder offenses 

under these provisions, which proscribe 

killings of U.S. nationals outside of the 

United States. 

Section 95.2(c)(1)(iv) would identify 

other Federal murder offenses that 

satisfy the criteria for coverage by the 

Act. These are: 

• 18 U.S.C. 36(b)(2) (providing, in 

relation to drive-by shootings in the 

context of major drug offenses, that a 

killing that is ‘‘a first degree murder (as 

defined in section 1111(a))’’ is 

punishable by death or imprisonment 

for any term of years or life and that ‘‘a 

murder other than a first degree murder 

(as defined in section 1111(a))’’ is 

punishable by imprisonment for any 

term of years or life); 

• 18 U.S.C. 924(j)(1) (providing, in 

relation to killing with a firearm in a 

Federal crime of violence or drug 

trafficking crime, that ‘‘if the killing is 

a murder (as defined in section 1111),’’ 

the punishment is death or 

imprisonment for any term of years or 

life); 

• 18 U.S.C. 930(c) (killings in the 

course of armed attacks in or on Federal 

facilities ‘‘shall be punished as provided 

in section[ ] 1111’’); 

• 18 U.S.C. 1118 (person serving 

Federal life term of imprisonment who 

commits ‘‘a first degree or second degree 

murder (as defined in section 1111)’’ 

shall be punished by death or life 

imprisonment); 

• 18 U.S.C. 1120 (killing by person 

escaped from a Federal correctional 

institution where he was serving a life 

term ‘‘shall be punished as provided in 

section[ ] 1111’’); 

• 18 U.S.C. 1652 (U.S. citizen pirate 

who ‘‘commits any murder . . . on the 

high seas . . . shall be imprisoned for 

life’’); 

• 18 U.S.C. 1958 (murder for hire 

punishable by death or life 

imprisonment); 

• 18 U.S.C. 1959(a)(1) (murder in aid 

of racketeering punishable by death or 

life imprisonment); 

• 18 U.S.C. 2245 (murder in course of 

sex offenses punishable by death or up 

to life imprisonment); 

• 18 U.S.C. 3261(a) (members of, and 

persons accompanying, the armed forces 

who engage in conduct that would 

constitute a felony if engaged in within 

the special maritime and territorial 

jurisdiction of the United States—which 

includes murder under 18 U.S.C. 1111— 

shall be punished as provided for that 

offense); 

• 18 U.S.C. 3273(a) (certain Federal 

personnel stationed or deployed in 

Canada who engage in conduct that 

would be federally prosecutable had the 

conduct occurred within the special 

maritime and territorial jurisdiction of 

the United States—which includes 

murder under 18 U.S.C. 1111—shall be 

imprisoned as provided for that 

offense); and 

• 49 U.S.C. 46506(1) (individual on 

an aircraft in the special aircraft 

jurisdiction of the United States ‘‘who 

commits an act that . . . if committed 

in the special maritime and territorial 

jurisdiction of the United States . . . 

would violate section . . . 1111 . . . 

shall be . . . imprisoned under that 

section’’). 

The proposed rule’s definition of 

covered ‘‘murder’’ offenses in 

§ 95.2(c)(1) accords with and 

encompasses the types of offenses that 

the legislative history specifically 

references as within the intended scope 

of the Act. The Act’s sponsor, Rep. 

Swalwell, stated regarding the Act: ‘‘It 

also assists investigators in homicide 

cases that serve important underserved 

communities such as Native Americans 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
6882 Federal Register / Vol. 90, No. 12 / Tuesday, January 21, 2025 / Proposed Rules 

on Indian Reservations, Federal law 

enforcement officers killed in action, 

U.S. citizens who are murdered abroad, 

or homicides that take place on Federal 

land and the high seas.’’ 168 Cong. Rec. 

H3877; see id. H3876 (remarks of Rep. 

Bentz) (‘‘The majority of cold cases at 

issue under this bill are likely to be 

cases arising from Tribal 

jurisdictions.’’). 

In the sponsor’s statement, 

‘‘homicides that take place on Federal 

land and the high seas’’ is a reference to 

the special maritime and territorial 

jurisdiction of the United States, see 18 

U.S.C. 7, in which 18 U.S.C. 1111 

applies directly. The prefatory language 

in § 95.2(c)(1), referring to ‘‘an offense 

under 18 U.S.C. 1111,’’ includes these 

cases. ‘‘Native Americans on Indian 

Reservations’’ in the statement refers to 

Indian Country cases, which are 

prosecuted under 18 U.S.C. 1152 and 

1153. Section 95.2(c)(1)(i), which refers 

to 18 U.S.C. 1152 and 1153, confirms 

the Act’s coverage of Indian country 

murders. ‘‘Federal law enforcement 

officers killed in action’’ alludes to 

murders in violation of 18 U.S.C. 1114, 

which is included in § 95.2(c)(ii). ‘‘U.S. 

citizens who are murdered abroad’’ 

refers to the offenses that proscribe 

extraterritorial killings of U.S. nationals, 

18 U.S.C. 1119 and 2332, which are 

included in § 95.2(c)(1)(iii). 

In addition to clarifying the types of 

offenses that are ‘‘murders’’ for purposes 

of the Act, the proposed rule, in 

§ 95.2(c)(2), would identify certain types 

of offenses that are not covered. 

Section 95.2(c)(2)(i) would state that 

murders in which the victims died 

before January 1, 1970, are not covered. 

This provision implements section 11 of 

the Act, which limits the Act’s 

applicability to cold case murders 

occurring on or after January 1, 1970. 

Section 95.2(c)(2)(ii) would provide 

that the scope of the Act and the 

proposed rule is limited to cases 

involving murders in violation of 

Federal law, as opposed to offenses that 

violate only the laws of a State, the 

District of Columbia, or a U.S. territory. 

While Federal agencies may help State 

and local agencies in the investigation 

of non-Federal crimes, see, e.g., 28 

U.S.C. 540–540B, that does not bring 

those investigations within the scope of 

the Act, which is intended to apply 

‘‘[i]n federal cases.’’ H. Rep. No. 117– 

280, at 6; see 168 Cong. Rec. H3876 

(remarks of Rep. Bentz) (‘‘[T]his bill 

would only apply to Federal cases of 

murder, and it wouldn’t apply to 

murder cases investigated by State and 

local law enforcement, which are most 

cases.’’). The Act was not intended to 

supplant the role of State and local law 

enforcement, which have primary 

responsibility for the investigation of 

murders under the laws of their 

jurisdictions and are best situated to 

review and reinvestigate cold cases 

involving those crimes; rather, the 

expectation was that the enactment of 

such a law for Federal cases ‘‘will . . . 

serve as a crucial model for the States 

to . . . adopt a local Homicide Victims 

Bill of Rights.’’ 168 Cong. Rec. H3877 

(remarks of Rep. Swalwell). 

As a corollary to the limitation to 

cases involving Federal crimes, case file 

reviews and reinvestigation are not 

required in cases in which it has been 

determined that Federal jurisdiction is 

lacking. For example, suppose that a 

witness or informant in a Federal case 

is killed and the case is initially 

investigated as a possible retaliatory 

murder under 18 U.S.C. 1513. 

Interviews with witnesses to the 

incident show, however, that the killing 

resulted from the victim’s provoking a 

bar fight with a stranger that turned 

lethal, with no connection to the 

victim’s involvement in Federal 

proceedings. Such a case is outside the 

scope of the Act because it does not 

involve a murder in violation of Federal 

law. 

More broadly, § 95.2(c)(2)(iii) would 

provide that the Act’s scope does not 

include incidents in which there was no 

murder as defined in § 95.2(c)(1). For 

example, suppose that a Federal agent is 

found dead, and the case is initially 

investigated as a possible murder in 

violation of 18 U.S.C. 1114 because the 

agent had been pursuing dangerous 

criminals who would have reason to kill 

him. The investigation is closed when a 

fuller examination of the evidence 

shows that the agent died of natural 

causes or because of an accident. Such 

cases are outside the scope of the Act 

because its application is limited to 

murder cases that satisfy certain criteria. 

See HVFRA 12(6). 

Conversely, a case may be within the 

scope of the Act even if it was not 

initially investigated as a murder. For 

example, the investigation may begin as 

a missing person case, in which it is 

uncertain whether the person is alive or 

dead. Or it may start as a case involving 

a fatality, but one in which the known 

facts are consistent with accidental 

death, suicide, or involuntary 

manslaughter. As the case progresses, 

however, fuller knowledge of the facts 

and circumstances indicates the 

commission of a murder as defined in 

§ 95.2(c). If the other conditions 

defining a ‘‘cold case murder’’ are also 

satisfied, see HVFRA 12(6), such a case 

would be subject to the Act. 

The definition of ‘‘murder’’ in section 

12(4) of the Act, and its construction in 

§ 95.2(c) of the proposed rule, also limit 

the class of Federal crimes that are 

subject to the Act. Beyond the statutes 

identified in § 95.2(c)(1), there are many 

other provisions of Federal law that 

define and prescribe penalties for 

homicidal crimes. For example, 21 

U.S.C. 841 prohibits producing or 

distributing a controlled substance, and 

it provides for imprisonment between 

20 years and life if death results from 

the use of the controlled substance. 

Such provisions, though they include 

parts defining homicidal offenses, are 

not within the scope of the Act because 

their elements are not substantially 

identical to 18 U.S.C. 1111, as required 

by the statutory and regulatory 

definition of ‘‘murder’’ for purposes of 

the Act. 

4. Paragraph (d)—Agency 

Section 95.2(d) of the proposed rule 

would track the definition of ‘‘agency’’ 

in section 12(5) of the Act, which means 

Federal law enforcement entities with 

jurisdiction to engage in the detection, 

investigation, or prosecution of cold 

case murders. The proposed rule would 

explain that this definition excludes 

State and local law enforcement 

agencies and agencies of the District of 

Columbia and U.S. territories from the 

class of agencies subject to the Act. 

5. Paragraph (e)—Principal Investigative 

Agency 

Section 95.2(e) of the proposed rule 

would define ‘‘principal investigative 

agency’’ to mean ‘‘the federal 

investigative agency that had the 

primary responsibility for the initial 

investigation of a murder.’’ Section 

95.2(e) would exclude a Federal agency 

from this definition if a ‘‘a murder was 

investigated by state or other nonfederal authorities and the role of 

federal agencies was the provision of 

investigative assistance,’’ if ‘‘a murder 

was investigated by a federal agency but 

thereafter state or other non-federal 

authorities assumed the primary 

responsibility for the investigation,’’ or 

if the Federal agency is a prosecutorial 

agency of the Department of Justice. The 

definition would serve three purposes: 

First, more than one Federal agency 

may be involved in the investigation of 

a murder. The Act presupposes that the 

case file reviews and reinvestigations it 

requires will be carried out by the 

agency that ‘‘conducted the initial 

investigation,’’ as provided in section 10 

of the Act. This is naturally understood 

to refer to the agency with the lead role 

in the prior investigation, as opposed to 

agencies that just assisted or played a 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
Federal Register / Vol. 90, No. 12 / Tuesday, January 21, 2025 / Proposed Rules 6883 

peripheral role. The agency with the 

lead role in the prior investigation 

logically should be responsible for 

receiving and acting on applications by 

family members of the victim for case 

file reviews. That agency is best situated 

to carry out such reviews and to 

undertake further investigation if 

warranted. The definition of ‘‘principal 

investigative agency’’ in the proposed 

rule accordingly would assign these 

functions to the Federal investigative 

agency that had the primary 

responsibility for the initial 

investigation. If it is unclear which of a 

number of Federal agencies had primary 

responsibility—for example, because 

different agencies had the lead role at 

different stages in the previous 

investigation—§ 95.4(c)(1) of the rule 

would make them jointly responsible for 

ensuring that the Act’s requirements are 

carried out. 

Second, the proposed rule would 

make clear that the Federal agencies 

with responsibilities under the Act are 

Federal investigative agencies, as 

opposed to prosecutorial agencies. The 

prosecution of Federal crimes is carried 

out by the United States Attorneys’ 

Offices and by the prosecutorial 

components of the Justice Department’s 

litigating divisions, such as the Criminal 

Division and the National Security 

Division. Federal prosecutors may be 

involved to varying degrees at the 

investigative stage of murder cases 

within Federal jurisdiction, and they are 

necessarily involved where there is a 

need to secure or use legal process in 

the investigation, such as search 

warrants or grand jury subpoenas. 

Nevertheless, the functions required 

under the Act are properly carried out 

by investigative agencies rather than 

prosecutors, and the proposed rule 

would specify that the Justice 

Department’s prosecutorial units are not 

to be considered the principal 

investigative agency in any case. 

Third, in cases in which there is 

concurrent State and Federal 

jurisdiction over a murder, both State 

and Federal authorities may be involved 

in the investigation. The question then 

arises whether the investigation was a 

Federal investigation, which is within 

the scope of the Act, or a State 

investigation, which is not. See 168 

Cong. Rec. H3876 (remarks of Rep. 

Jackson Lee) (stating that the Act applies 

‘‘in cases investigated at the Federal 

level’’); id. (remarks of Rep. Bentz) 

(stating that the Act ‘‘wouldn’t apply to 

murder cases investigated by State and 

local law enforcement’’). 

The proposed rule’s definition of 

‘‘principal investigative agency’’ would 

provide for Federal agency 

responsibility where the Federal agency 

was primarily responsible for the 

investigation of a murder, but not where 

the investigation was pursued as a State 

matter and the role of Federal agencies 

was limited to providing investigative 

assistance. Federal law enforcement 

agencies frequently provide 

investigative assistance to their State 

and local counterparts, which may 

involve such measures as sharing 

information and intelligence, carrying 

out forensic testing and analysis, 

interviewing witnesses, and other 

collection of evidence and information. 

Federal legal process may also come 

into play, complementing and 

supplementing the capabilities of the 

responsible State agencies—for 

example, execution of Federal search 

warrants or subpoenas in places outside 

the State agency’s jurisdiction, or at the 

early stages of an investigation that is 

ultimately pursued primarily as a State 

matter. The proposed rule’s definition 

would make it clear that such measures 

in the regular conduct of Federal-State 

cooperation in criminal investigations 

do not convert State investigations into 

Federal investigations. 

6. Paragraph (f)—Initial Investigation 

Section 95.2(f) would define ‘‘initial 

investigation’’ to mean ‘‘the 

investigation of a murder before it 

became a cold case murder.’’ This is a 

technical definition that, in the context 

of the proposed rule, would assign 

responsibility for case file reviews and 

potential reinvestigation of a cold case 

murder to the agency that previously 

investigated the murder. 

7. Paragraph (g)—Cold Case Murder 

Section 95.2(g) would track the 

definition of ‘‘cold case murder’’ in 

section 12(6) of the Act. The conditions 

in the definition are that (i) the time of 

the murder’s commission (interpreted to 

mean the time when the victim died) 

was more than three years prior to the 

application for case file review, (ii) the 

murder was previously investigated by 

a Federal law enforcement entity, (iii) 

all probative leads have been exhausted, 

and (iv) no likely perpetrator has been 

identified. Murders involving multiple 

perpetrators in which one or more of 

them have been identified are not 

within the scope of the Act. 

8. Paragraph (h)—Probative Leads 

Section 95.2(h) would define 

‘‘probative leads’’ to mean ‘‘information 

that identifies the perpetrator or that 

provides a sufficient likelihood of 

enabling the identification of the 

perpetrator to warrant further 

investigation, in the agency’s judgment 

and consistent with the agency’s 

policies and practices regarding the use 

of investigative methods.’’ This key 

concept in the Act determines, among 

other things, whether the results of a 

case file review warrant further 

investigation, and what the objective of 

a reinvestigation should be. The Act 

uses this term or similar phrases in a 

number of places, but with varying 

wording and without further definition. 

See HVFRA 2(a) (requiring case file 

review to determine if a full 

reinvestigation would result in ‘‘the 

identification of probative investigative 

leads or a likely perpetrator’’); id. 

(2)(b)(4) (requiring update of case file 

using the most current investigative 

standards to the extent it would ‘‘help 

develop probative leads’’); id. (2)(c) 

(requiring certification that ‘‘all 

probative investigative leads have been 

exhausted or that a likely perpetrator 

will not be identified’’); id. 4(a) 

(requiring reinvestigation if ‘‘a full 

reinvestigation . . . would result in 

probative investigative leads’’); id. 4(b) 

(requiring analysis of all evidence in a 

reinvestigation ‘‘for the purpose of 

developing probative investigative leads 

or a likely perpetrator’’); id. 12(6)(C) 

(defining ‘‘cold case murder’’ in part as 

one ‘‘for which all probative 

investigative leads have been 

exhausted’’). 

These provisions do not require 

pursuit of all possible leads, but only 

those that are ‘‘probative.’’ Determining 

what leads are ‘‘probative,’’ so as to 

warrant further investigation, calls for 

exercises of judgment by the 

investigative agency. The reference to 

‘‘probative’’ leads also raises the 

question—probative of what?—a matter 

for which further definition is required 

to provide clear guidance to 

investigative agencies in discharging 

their responsibilities under the Act. 

Section 95.2(h) in the proposed rule 

would provide the needed clarification 

by defining this term—probative leads— 

to mean information that identifies the 

perpetrator, or that provides a sufficient 

likelihood of enabling the identification 

of the perpetrator so as to warrant 

further investigation in the agency’s 

judgment. The definition is based on the 

contexts in which the Act uses the term 

or similar terms and the Act’s general 

design and purpose to address and solve 

cases in which ‘‘no likely perpetrator 

has been identified.’’ HVFRA § 12(6)(D). 

Variant terminology, ‘‘probative 

investigative leads,’’ which is used in 

some provisions of the Act, is 

understood to have the same meaning. 

The proposed rule’s definition of 

‘‘probative leads’’ also would specify 

that the agency’s policies and practices 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
6884 Federal Register / Vol. 90, No. 12 / Tuesday, January 21, 2025 / Proposed Rules 

regarding the use of investigative 

methods must be taken into account— 

policies and practices that affect 

whether leads are potentially probative 

regarding the perpetrator’s identity, as 

bearing on the reliability of investigative 

methods and what methods would 

actually be used in a reinvestigation. In 

the investigation of murders and other 

crimes, Federal agencies are guided and 

constrained by policies and practices 

that ensure the reliability and 

effectiveness of the methods utilized in 

the investigation, and ensure respect for 

legal norms and the privacy of persons 

affected by the investigation. These 

policies and practices apply in 

reinvestigations under the HVFRA as 

they do in other investigative contexts. 

To the extent that a method would not 

be utilized under the applicable policies 

and practices, the theoretical possibility 

of using it is not a positive factor in 

judging whether further investigation is 

warranted under the Act. 

For example, the legislative history of 

the Act emphasizes the use of 

technological improvements to solve 

cold cases: 

Because advances in science progress 

rapidly, new technology could have been 

discovered and implemented in the time 

since detectives last revisited the case. The 

Office of Justice Programs reports 

advancements in DNA technology are 

breathing new life into old, cold, and 

unsolved criminal cases. Investigators in 

California used new DNA technology to 

apprehend the Golden State Killer, a case 

that had remained cold for decades. 

H. Rep. No. 117–280, at 6 (internal 

quotation marks omitted); see 168 Cong. 

Rec. H3877 (remarks of Rep. Swalwell) 

(‘‘Improvements in technology . . . will 

also better equip law enforcement 

agencies with tools . . . that would 

assist in identifying new leads . . . to 

solve crimes’’). 

As the Committee Report notes, H. 

Rep. No. 117–280, at 6, the emergence 

and progressive development of DNA 

identification technology has 

revolutionized the investigation of cold 

cases and has produced remarkable 

results in innumerable cases. At the 

same time, the use of DNA methods is 

subject to policies and practices that 

promote its sound use and guard against 

adverse effects. Regular DNA testing in 

criminal investigations is carried out in 

conformity with the rules and 

procedures of the Combined DNA Index 

System. See generally Maryland v. King, 

569 U.S. 435, 442–46, 463–66 (2013). 

The use of forensic genetic genealogy— 

referenced in the Act’s Committee 

Report for solving the Golden State 

Killer case—is subject to policies 

tailored to its operation and 

characteristics. See United States 

Department of Justice, Interim Policy, 

Forensic Genetic Genealogical DNA 

Analysis and Searching (Nov. 1, 2019). 

Thus, in assessing whether further 

investigation is warranted under the 

HVFRA, it is not sufficient to note that 

there is some retained evidence in the 

case to which an investigative method 

or technique might in theory be applied. 

The agency would also need to consider 

whether and to what extent the relevant 

investigative method would actually be 

used in a reinvestigation, consistent 

with applicable policy and practice, and 

whether it holds sufficient promise 

under the facts of the case to warrant 

further investigation in the agency’s 

judgment. For example, if a family 

member of the victim sought reopening 

of a cold case murder investigation, 

based on a novel DNA identification 

method they read about that has not 

been scientifically validated, an agency 

would not be required to act on such a 

request under the HVFRA if it would 

not use that unproven method in other 

investigative contexts. 

The same consideration applies in 

relation to other methods the use of 

which is restricted or forgone under an 

agency’s general policies and practices. 

For example, in a cold case murder, a 

relative of the victim may seek to have 

the victim’s body exhumed for purposes 

of additional examination or forensic 

testing. Investigative agencies may not 

often agree with such requests. Rather, 

the likelihood that significant new 

information will be obtained is assessed, 

and any potential value is balanced 

against the sensitivity of disinterring the 

deceased. General policies and practices 

regarding exhumation need to be taken 

into account in assessing whether it 

should be done in a case subject to the 

HVFRA, as in other investigative 

contexts. 

While the requirement under the Act 

to pursue ‘‘probative leads,’’ as defined 

in § 95.2(h), pertains only to matters that 

could facilitate the identification of the 

perpetrator, this does not limit the 

authority of any agency to carry out case 

file reviews or investigate or 

reinvestigate murder cases for other 

purposes. As with other aspects of the 

Act, this proposed rule would only 

articulate what agencies must do to 

comply with the Act and would not 

restrict their ability to go beyond the 

Act’s requirements, on their own 

initiative or as requested by others. In 

relation to investigative leads, in 

particular, agencies are free to review 

and reinvestigate murder cases for any 

lawful purpose, such as learning more 

about the circumstances of a murder or 

what happened to the victim, regardless 

of whether the review or reinvestigation 

may help to identify the perpetrator. 

C. Section 95.3—Case File Review 

Section 95.3 of the proposed rule 

would implement section 2 of the Act, 

relating to case file reviews. 

Section 95.3(a) of the proposed rule 

would provide for review of case files 

upon written application by one 

designated person, following section 

2(a) of the Act. 

Section 95.3(b) of the proposed rule 

would reproduce the required elements 

of a case file review, as set forth in 

section 2(b) of the Act, and explain 

specifically how they should be carried 

out by reviewers. Paragraphs (1) through 

(3) of § 95.3(b) would detail the 

requirements for reviewing what 

investigative steps may have been 

missed, whether witnesses should be 

interviewed or reinterviewed, and 

whether all appropriate forensic testing 

and analysis was performed in the first 

instance or if additional testing may be 

productive. 

Paragraph (4) in § 95.3(b) would 

resolve ambiguous language in section 

2(b)(4) of the Act, which requires that a 

case file review include ‘‘an update of 

the case file using the most current 

investigative standards as of the date of 

the review to the extent it would help 

develop probative leads.’’ The initial 

phrase in this quoted language, ‘‘an 

update of the case file,’’ might be 

understood to require technical 

enhancements of the case file, such as 

digitizing documents and creating links 

to other records. The latter language, 

‘‘using the most current investigative 

standards as of the date of the review,’’ 

would more naturally be understood as 

requiring consideration of whether 

reinvestigation in conformity with 

current investigative standards would 

help develop probative leads. 

Section 95.3(b)(4) of the proposed rule 

would give weight to the latter language 

in interpreting section 2(b)(4) of the 

statute because it is more consistent 

with the statutory context of case file 

review to determine whether 

reinvestigation is warranted, and 

because an intended aspect of the 

review would otherwise not be 

referenced in the statute. The other 

three paragraphs in section 2(b) of the 

Act are concerned respectively with 

whether there were missed steps in the 

original investigation, whether there 

were shortfalls in interviewing 

witnesses, and whether there were 

shortfalls in forensic testing and 

analysis. They do not require 

consideration of whether there were 

shortfalls in comparison with current 

investigative standards, though such 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
Federal Register / Vol. 90, No. 12 / Tuesday, January 21, 2025 / Proposed Rules 6885 

consideration should be part of case file 

review in unsolved murder cases— 

including in particular Indian country 

murders—in line with the legislative 

intent in the HVFRA: 

The majority of cold cases at issue under 

this bill are likely to be cases arising from 

Tribal jurisdictions . . . . [E.O. 13898] took 

steps to try to solve cold cases in Tribal 

jurisdictions . . . creat[ing] the Operation 

Lady Justice Task Force . . . . In its first 

year, this task force opened seven offices 

across the country to address the number of 

missing and murdered indigenous women. 

The task force held listening sessions, Tribal 

consultations, webinars, meetings with law 

enforcement, and victims’ services programs, 

and formed domestic violence and sexual 

assault coalitions . . . . The task force put 

out guidance and protocols, developed 

relationships with entities like missing 

persons clearing-houses, began training for 

investigators and volunteers, and started a 

public awareness campaign . . . . This 

legislation is cut from similar cloth . . . . 

168 Cong. Rec. H3876–77 (remarks of 

Rep. Bentz); see id. H3878 (‘‘The 

HVFRA assists families and loved ones 

of homicide victims by . . . [p]roviding 

a full reinvestigation using the most upto-date technologies and investigative 

standards’’); About DOJ Efforts to 

Address MMIP, http://www.justice.gov/ 

tribal/mmip/about (containing a 

description and sources regarding 

enhanced investigative measures, 

relating to missing or murdered 

indigenous persons, under E.O. 14053 

and 13898). 

Paragraph (5) of § 95.3(b) would direct 

the reviewer to notify any other known 

Federal investigative agency that has 

been involved in the case and to 

consider any information provided by 

such other agency. The Act aims to 

ensure that reinvestigation decisions 

and the conduct of reinvestigations are 

informed by all available evidence. See 

HVFRA 4(b), 6(a). Reaching out to other 

agencies that have investigated or 

participated in the investigation of a 

murder is instrumental to realizing this 

objective. For example, another Federal 

investigative agency may have 

additional information about the case 

because it initially responded to or 

investigated the crime before engaging 

the principal investigative agency, or 

because it assisted the principal 

investigative agency in carrying out its 

investigation. The requirements of 

§ 95.3(b)(5) accordingly would help to 

ensure that reinvestigation decisions 

and the conduct of reinvestigations are 

informed by all available evidence. 

Section 95.3(c) of the proposed rule 

would implement section 2(d) of the 

Act, which bars having the reviewer be 

a person who previously investigated 

the murder. The proposed rule would 

add that this restriction does not limit 

the reviewer in getting information from 

or consulting with people who were 

previously involved. Consulting such 

people may be especially valuable in 

understanding the case, and the reasons 

why things were done or not done in the 

previous investigation, and doing so 

does not conflict with the Act’s 

objective of having ‘‘fresh eyes’’ cast on 

the case. H. Rep. No. 117–280, at 6; 168 

Cong. Rec. H3876, 3879 (remarks of Rep. 

Jackson Lee). 

Section 95.3(d) of the proposed rule 

would track section 2(e) of the Act, 

which requires the agency to promptly 

notify the applicant regarding receipt of 

the application and the applicant’s 

rights under the Act. 

Section 95.3(e) of the proposed rule 

would implement section 2(c) of the 

Act, which states that case file review is 

unnecessary where the case ‘‘does not 

satisfy the criteria for a cold case 

murder,’’ and directs the agency to 

certify in such a case ‘‘that final review 

is not necessary because all probative 

investigative leads have been exhausted 

or that a likely perpetrator will not be 

identified.’’ The certification described 

in section 2(c) does not reflect the 

circumstances in which the criteria for 

a cold case murder under the Act are 

not satisfied. Rather, the criteria for a 

‘‘cold case murder’’ are not satisfied if 

the murder was committed within three 

years prior to the application, the 

murder was not previously investigated 

by a Federal law enforcement entity, all 

probative investigative leads have not 

been exhausted, or a likely perpetrator 

has been identified. HVFRA 12(6). To 

resolve this inconsistency, the proposed 

rule would provide that the agency is to 

certify in such a case that the cold case 

murder criteria are not satisfied and to 

inform the applicant of the reason for 

the denial. 

D. Section 95.4—Review Procedures 

Section 95.4(a) of the proposed rule 

would implement section 3 of the Act, 

which requires each agency to develop 

a written application to be used in 

requesting case file reviews. The 

proposed rule would add that this 

requirement can be satisfied by an 

agency’s adopting a standard form 

developed by the Government or 

another organizational unit of the 

Government. 

Section 95.4(b) would state that an 

application for case file review may be 

denied if it is submitted to the wrong 

agency, i.e., an agency that did not 

previously investigate the murder or 

was not the principal investigative 

agency in the investigation. However, in 

such a case, the proposed rule would 

require the agency that receives the 

application to advise the applicant of 

the problem, and, if that agency is aware 

of another Federal investigative agency 

that was the principal investigative 

agency, to transfer the application to the 

appropriate agency if the applicant so 

wishes. If no Federal agency was the 

principal investigative agency in the 

initial investigation, then the case is 

outside the scope of the Act, but the 

proposed rule would direct the agency 

to which the application was submitted 

to point the applicant toward any 

known State or local agency that 

investigated the case. 

Section 95.4(c)(1) would address 

situations in which more than one 

agency participated in the investigation 

of a murder. It would require 

coordination among the agencies so that 

there is only one case file review or full 

reinvestigation going on at any one time, 

following sections 2(f), 4(d), and 10 of 

the Act. The proposed rule generally 

assigns responsibility for case file 

reviews and reinvestigation to the 

principal investigative agency in the 

initial investigation. In case of 

disagreement among the agencies 

involved about who had primary 

responsibility for the prior investigation, 

§ 95.4(c)(1) would direct them to jointly 

consider the application and collaborate 

in carrying out any case file review or 

reinvestigation, or responsibility for 

those functions could be assumed by or 

assigned to one of the agencies. 

Section 95.4(c)(2) would address 

situations in which a family member of 

the victim submits an application for 

case file review, and then another 

family member submits an application 

with respect to the same victim during 

the pendency of the first application or 

a resulting case file review or 

reinvestigation. The latter application 

would conflict with the specification in 

section 2(a) of the Act that ‘‘one 

designated person’’ may apply for a case 

file review, which ensures that the 

responsible agency can deal in an 

orderly and efficient way with a single 

family contact. Section 95.4(c)(2) would 

provide that the agency need not take 

any action based on the later 

application, but in such a case the 

agency shall advise the later applicant 

that there was an earlier application, 

and the agency may consider any 

information provided by the later 

applicant. 

Section 95.4(c)(3) would state that 

only one case file review shall be 

undertaken at any one time with respect 

to the same cold case murder victim, 

tracking section 2(f) of the Act. The 

proposed rule would add that, for cases 

in which multiple applications are 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
6886 Federal Register / Vol. 90, No. 12 / Tuesday, January 21, 2025 / Proposed Rules 

received with respect to different 

victims of a murder, any resulting case 

file reviews may be consolidated. While 

the Act does not require consolidation 

in the latter circumstance, conducting a 

single unified case file review may 

further the Act’s objective of ensuring 

that all available evidence is fully 

considered. 

Section 95.4(d) would implement 

section 2(g) and (h) of the Act, setting 

up a general six-month time limit for 

completing case file reviews, but 

allowing one extension of up to six 

months in certain circumstances. 

E. Section 95.5—Full Reinvestigation 

Section 95.5(a) of the proposed rule 

would require a full reinvestigation if a 

case file review concludes that it would 

result in probative leads, following 

section 4(a) of the Act. Section 95.5(a) 

would refer to the proposed rule’s 

definition of ‘‘probative leads’’ in 

§ 95.2(h), which requires reinvestigation 

if there is information that identifies the 

perpetrator or that provides a sufficient 

likelihood of enabling the identification 

of the perpetrator to warrant further 

investigation, in the agency’s judgment 

and consistent with its policies and 

practices for use of investigative 

methods. In referring to the conclusion 

of a case file review, the Act 

contemplates, in accordance with its 

objective of solving cold case murders, 

that the agency will consider all the 

information it has at the time of the 

review in deciding whether to 

reinvestigate, including any new 

information provided by the applicant, 

not only information that appears 

directly in the case file. See HVFRA § 6 

(implying that newly discovered 

evidence would be taken into account in 

case file review and reinvestigation 

decisions); H. Rep. No. 117–280, at 6 

(‘‘[N]on-law enforcement personnel 

finding new evidence in homicide cases 

serve as examples where a fresh 

perspective can help break a case 

open.’’); 168 Cong. Rec. H3877 (daily ed. 

Mar. 28, 2022) (remarks of Rep. 

Swalwell) (explaining that the HVFRA 

‘‘requires a complete reexamination of 

the file and accompanying evidence’’). 

Section 95.5(b) of the proposed rule 

would specify what an investigative 

agency needs to do in conducting a full 

reinvestigation under the HVFRA. 

Section 95.5(b) first would define a full 

reinvestigation as one in which all new 

probative leads are exhausted. This 

definition is based on section 12(6)(C) of 

the Act, which defines a cold case 

murder in part as a murder ‘‘for which 

all probative investigative leads have 

been exhausted’’; section 2(a) of the Act, 

which directs the agency to review the 

case file to determine if a full 

reinvestigation would result in ‘‘the 

identification of probative investigative 

leads or a likely perpetrator’’; and 

section 4(a) of the Act, which directs the 

agency to conduct a full reinvestigation 

if the case file review concludes that it 

would result in ‘‘probative investigative 

leads.’’ These provisions manifest a 

purpose to address cases that have gone 

cold, in the sense that previously 

investigated leads that might have 

resulted in the identification of the 

perpetrator have not panned out; 

provide means for developing new 

potentially perpetrator-identifying leads 

through case file review; and follow up 

on those new leads to determine 

whether their promise for identifying 

the perpetrator can be realized. 

Section 95.5(b) next would provide 

additional specifications regarding the 

conduct of full reinvestigations. 

Paragraph (b)(1) would require an 

investigative agency to analyze all 

evidence regarding the murder for the 

purpose of developing probative leads, 

following section 4(b) of the Act. The 

evidence available to the agency at the 

time of an HVFRA reinvestigation 

includes the content of the case file 

from the initial investigation and 

associated evidence retained from the 

initial investigation; any additional 

information that has been provided by 

the relative of the victim who applied 

for the case file review or that has come 

to the agency from other sources; and 

any additional leads or information that 

the agency may discover or develop in 

the course of the reinvestigation. The 

direction of § 95.5(b)(1) is to apply the 

whole body of evidence in furtherance 

of identifying the perpetrator. 

Paragraph (b)(2) would provide that a 

full reinvestigation under the HVFRA 

does not require pursuit of leads that are 

insufficiently probative with respect to 

the potential identification of the 

perpetrator to warrant further 

investigation in the agency’s judgment, 

or that would require the use of 

investigative methods inconsistent with 

the agency’s policies or practices. This 

is a reiteration, for clarity and 

explicitness, of limitations appearing in 

the definition of ‘‘probative leads’’ in 

§ 95.2(h). 

The reinvestigation criteria of 

§ 95.5(a) and (b) of the proposed rule do 

not require investigative agencies to 

modify or waive their normal standards 

for initiating and conducting 

investigations, if consistent with the 

Act’s requirements. For example, 

consider the Attorney General’s 

Guidelines for Domestic FBI Operations 

(‘‘FBI Guidelines’’ or ‘‘Guidelines’’), 

http://www.justice.gov/archive/opa/ 

docs/guidelines.pdf. These Guidelines 

apply only to the FBI’s investigative 

activities, but other investigative 

agencies may have similar policies or 

guidelines. As relevant to the HVFRA, 

the FBI Guidelines authorize three 

levels of investigative activity: 

assessments, preliminary investigations, 

and full investigations. Id. Part II, pp. 

16–22. 

An assessment may be opened to 

obtain information about a Federal 

crime. Assessments may be used to 

check out or resolve allegations or other 

information concerning Federal crimes 

through the relatively non-intrusive 

methods authorized in assessments, 

such as obtaining publicly available 

information, checking government 

records, using online services and 

resources, and interviewing witnesses. 

Id. at 17–20. An HVFRA reinvestigation 

could be opened as an assessment under 

the Guidelines in any case because the 

reinvestigation has the purpose of 

obtaining information about the murder 

in question, specifically, the identity of 

the perpetrator. 

The Guidelines authorize the FBI to 

initiate a preliminary investigation if 

there is information or an allegation 

indicating that (i) a Federal crime may 

have occurred and (ii) investigation may 

obtain information relating to the crime 

or the involvement or role of an 

individual in the crime. Preliminary 

investigations may involve all lawful 

investigative methods, with the 

exception of electronic surveillance and 

intrusive searches. Id. Part II.B, pp. 20– 

22. 

In the context of the HVFRA, the FBI’s 

initial investigation of the murder for 

which reinvestigation is sought implies 

that the FBI already has information 

indicating the possible commission of a 

Federal crime—i.e., the murder in 

question—which satisfies the first 

precondition for opening a preliminary 

investigation. The second precondition 

under the Guidelines for opening a 

preliminary investigation is also 

satisfied, because the HVFRA’s basis for 

requiring a reinvestigation is probative 

leads resulting from the case file review. 

This ensures that there is now a new 

lead such that further investigation may 

obtain information relating to the 

murder or the involvement or role of an 

individual (i.e., the heretofore unknown 

perpetrator) in the murder. 

Accordingly, reinvestigations under 

the HVFRA may be opened as 

preliminary investigations under the 

Guidelines. The methods excluded in 

preliminary investigations—electronic 

surveillance and intrusive searches— 

would then not be available. But if these 

methods were needed to pursue the 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
Federal Register / Vol. 90, No. 12 / Tuesday, January 21, 2025 / Proposed Rules 6887 

probative leads underlying the 

reinvestigation and legally permitted, 

they could be secured by opening or 

reopening the HVFRA reinvestigation as 

a full investigation under the 

Guidelines. 

The Guidelines allow the FBI to 

initiate a full investigation if there is an 

articulable factual basis for the 

investigation that reasonably indicates 

that (i) a Federal crime may have 

occurred and (ii) the investigation may 

obtain information relating to the crime 

or the involvement or role of an 

individual in the crime. Full 

investigations may involve all lawful 

investigative methods. Id. 

The preconditions for opening a full 

investigation under the Guidelines are 

likely to be satisfied in any case 

involving reinvestigation under the 

HVFRA. This is so because it is unlikely 

that the FBI would have previously 

investigated a murder, and now judges, 

following a case file review, that new 

leads are sufficiently likely to enable the 

identification of the perpetrator to 

warrant further investigation, in the 

absence of articulable facts that 

reasonably indicate that (i) the murder 

may have occurred and (ii) the 

reinvestigation may obtain information 

relating to the murder or the 

involvement or role of an individual 

(i.e., the heretofore unknown 

perpetrator) in the murder. 

The preconditions for opening a full 

investigation under the Guidelines will 

always be satisfied in HVFRA 

reinvestigation cases in which opening 

a full investigation under the Guidelines 

is needed to pursue the investigative 

methods excluded in preliminary 

investigations—electronic surveillance 

and intrusive searches—and use of 

those methods is legally permitted. This 

is so because the legal predication 

requirements for authorizing those 

methods, including probable cause, 

exceed the ‘‘articulable factual basis’’ 

required for opening a full investigation 

under the Guidelines. On the other 

hand, if the legal predication required 

for use of electronic surveillance or 

intrusive searches is not satisfied, use of 

those methods would not be required in 

an HVFRA reinvestigation, because only 

investigative methods consistent with 

agency policy need be used, see 

§ 95.5(b)(2), and only lawful methods 

are consistent with the Guidelines. 

It follows that when the conditions for 

required reinvestigation under the 

HVFRA and the rule are satisfied, the 

conditions for initiating an investigation 

under the Guidelines for the FBI’s 

investigative activities will also be 

satisfied. There is accordingly no 

conflict or inconsistency between 

investigation or reinvestigation in 

conformity with the Guidelines’ 

standards and investigation or 

reinvestigation in conformity with the 

HVFRA’s requirements. The same point 

would apply to other investigative 

agencies with investigative policies 

resembling the FBI’s in relevant 

respects. 

Section 95.5(c) of the proposed rule 

would implement section 4(c) of the 

Act, which provides that a 

reinvestigation shall not be conducted 

by a person who previously investigated 

the murder. The proposed rule would 

add that this does not limit consulting 

with or obtaining information from a 

previously involved person, or using 

such a person in a subordinate role in 

the reinvestigation. Engaging people 

with previous knowledge of the case in 

a reinvestigation has similar value to 

engaging such persons in case file 

reviews, as discussed above, and does 

not conflict with the objectives of the 

Act. 

Section 95.5(c) does not bar a person 

who carried out a case file review under 

the Act from conducting or being 

involved in an ensuing reinvestigation. 

It only precludes reinvestigation by a 

person who previously investigated the 

murder. The heading of section 4(c) of 

the Act, ‘‘Reviewer,’’ does not signify 

the contrary. It replicates the heading of 

the corresponding provision regarding 

case file reviews, section 2(d), and 

reflects in both contexts a policy of 

ensuring that ‘‘fresh eyes’’ will be cast 

on the case, H. Rep. No. 117–280, at 6; 

168 Cong. Rec. H3876, 3879 (remarks of 

Rep. Jackson Lee), by prohibiting people 

who previously investigated the case 

from conducting case file review and 

any resulting reinvestigation. This 

policy does not imply that the role of 

the case file reviewer in subsequent 

reinvestigation should be restricted. The 

legislative history of the HVFRA further 

confirms that the case file reviewer may 

conduct a resulting reinvestigation 

under the HVFRA. H. Rep. No.117–280, 

at 10 (‘‘The person(s) conducting the 

full reinvestigation must not have 

previously investigated the cold case 

murder at issue, except for the case file 

review described in section 2.’’) 

(emphasis added). 

Section 95.5(d) would provide that 

there can be only one full 

reinvestigation at any time with respect 

to the same cold case murder victim, 

tracking section 4(d) of the Act. As with 

case file reviews, the proposed rule 

would add that if reinvestigation is 

found to be warranted with respect to 

multiple victims, the resulting 

reinvestigations may be consolidated. 

F. Section 95.6—Multiple Agencies 

Section 95.6, which would track 

section 10 of the Act, would require that 

case file reviews and reinvestigations be 

carried out in a cohesive way when 

more than one agency is involved, so 

that there is only one joint case file 

review or reinvestigation happening 

with respect to a cold case murder at 

any time. 

G. Section 95.7—Consultation, Updates, 

and Explanation 

Section 95.7 would implement 

section 5 of the Act, regarding agency 

consultations, updates, and explanation 

of reinvestigation decisions. 

Section 95.7(a) and (b) would require 

investigative agencies to consult with 

applicants and provide them with 

periodic updates. With respect to 

consultation, the proposed rule would 

explain that this requires discussing the 

application with the applicant on at 

least one occasion. 

Section 95.7(c) would require 

investigative agencies to meet with the 

applicant and discuss the evidence to 

explain the decision whether or not to 

reinvestigate at the conclusion of a case 

file review. There are constraints on 

discussing the evidence in pending 

investigations with private persons, as 

the Act recognizes in section 9, which 

provides that information may be 

withheld if it would endanger the safety 

of any person, unreasonably impede an 

ongoing investigation, violate a court 

order, or violate legal obligations 

regarding privacy. Additional concerns 

about disclosing investigative 

information include potentially 

damaging the reputation of persons who 

come under suspicion, but may 

eventually be cleared, and exposing 

them to harassment and other adverse 

social consequences. Accordingly, 

§ 95.7(c) would make clear that the 

discussion of the evidence with an 

applicant may be at an appropriate level 

of generality that does not involve 

disclosing the information described in 

section 9 of the Act and that is 

consistent with the general policies and 

practices affecting the sharing of 

information with murder victims’ family 

members. See, e.g., The Attorney 

General Guidelines for Victim and 

Witness Assistance, Arts. II.B, IV.I (2022 

ed.). 

Section 95.7(d) would provide that 

meetings required under § 95.7 may be 

carried out in person, or through remote 

video communication, the latter option 

often being more convenient for both 

the agency and victims’ family 

members. It further states that 

consultations and updates may be 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
6888 Federal Register / Vol. 90, No. 12 / Tuesday, January 21, 2025 / Proposed Rules 

carried out in person, or through other 

means of communication, such as over 

the phone or by email. 

H. Section 95.8—Subsequent Reviews 

Section 95.8 of the proposed rule 

would implement section 6 of the Act, 

which provides that case file reviews 

and reinvestigations generally do not 

have to be undertaken more frequently 

than at five-year intervals. 

Paragraph (a) of § 95.8 would 

incorporate the basic rule that case file 

reviews and reinvestigations need not 

be undertaken more frequently than at 

five-year intervals, subject to a proviso 

for situations in which ‘‘there is newly 

discovered, materially significant 

evidence.’’ 

Paragraph (b) of § 95.8 would explain 

the proviso for situations involving new, 

material evidence. The proposed rule 

would interpret this proviso in a 

manner consistent with the definition of 

‘‘probative leads’’ in § 95.2(h). 

Specifically, case file reviews and 

reinvestigations may need to be 

undertaken at intervals of less than five 

years only if there is evidence 

discovered subsequent to the previous 

case file review or reinvestigation that 

identifies the perpetrator, or that 

provides a sufficient likelihood of 

enabling the identification of the 

perpetrator to warrant further 

investigation, in the agency’s judgment 

and consistent with its policies and 

practices regarding the use of 

investigative methods. 

Paragraph (c) of § 95.8 would resolve 

an inconsistency in the language of 

section 6 of the Act. Section 6(a) says 

that if a case is not reinvestigated, ‘‘no 

additional case file review shall be 

required to be undertaken . . . for a 

period of five years.’’ Section 6(b) says 

that if a full reinvestigation is completed 

without identifying the perpetrator, ‘‘no 

additional case file review or full 

reinvestigation shall be undertaken . . . 

for a period of five years.’’ In other 

words, where subsection (a) says that an 

agency is not required to engage in 

further review of the case for five years, 

subsection (b) seems to say that the 

agency cannot engage in further review 

of the case for five years. 

Considering the Act’s purpose of 

promoting the solution of cold case 

murders, the prohibitory language of 

subsection (b) appears to reflect a 

drafting error that resulted from adding 

the ‘‘required to be’’ language appearing 

in subsection (a) but neglecting to add 

the same language in subsection (b). Cf. 

H.R. 3359, 117th Cong., 1st Sess., § 7 

(proposed HVFRA as originally 

introduced). No reason appears why 

Congress, in enacting the HVFRA, 

would have sought to prohibit agencies 

from exercising their broad discretion to 

reopen cold case murder investigations 

if a case was reinvestigated 

unsuccessfully under the HVFRA. 

‘‘Congress could not plausibly have 

intended’’ this ‘‘illogical’’ outcome, 

Stovic v. Railroad Retirement Board, 

826 F.3d 500, 505 (D.C. Cir. 2016), 

which would deprive agencies of their 

pre-existing discretion to reopen the 

investigation of cold case murders at 

any time, as warranted in their 

judgment, and would impose a 

restriction on agency discretion to 

reopen murder investigations that does 

not apply to reopening investigations of 

any other type of crime. The rule would 

resolve the inconsistency by providing 

in § 95.8 that ‘‘[a]n agency may, in its 

discretion, review case files, continue 

investigation, or reinvestigate 

notwithstanding the absence of an 

application by a designated person or 

the time when previous review, 

investigation, or reinvestigation 

occurred.’’ 

I. Section 95.9—Procedures To Promote 

Compliance 

Section 95.9(a) would implement 

section 8 of the Act by requiring each 

agency to promulgate regulations to 

enforce the rights of designated persons 

under the Act and ensure compliance, 

including designation of an 

administrative authority to receive and 

investigate complaints, training of 

appropriate personnel regarding the Act, 

disciplinary sanctions for ‘‘willful or 

wanton’’ noncompliance, and a 

procedure for resolving complaints. 

Section 95.9(a)(1) would provide that 

the requirement to issue such 

regulations applies to agencies that may 

be the principal investigative agencies 

in murder investigations, because the 

proposed rule assigns responsibility for 

carrying out the Act to those agencies. 

The proposed rule would further specify 

that agencies need not separately 

promulgate regulations to the extent 

they adopt, or are subject to, regulations 

issued by another organizational unit of 

the Government regarding these matters. 

For example, a Department that 

includes a number of agencies that 

investigate murders may have 

Department-wide rules and processes 

regarding training and disciplinary 

sanctions for violations of the Act. 

Section 95.9(a)(2) would specify the 

content of the regulations that agencies 

must promulgate. 

Section 95.9(a)(3) would provide that 

the ‘‘agency’’ for these purposes may be 

a broader organizational unit of the 

Government in which the principal 

investigative agency is situated. Many 

provisions of the Act direct the 

responsible ‘‘agency’’ (or head of the 

agency) to take certain actions. See 

HVFRA 2(a) (review of case file), 2(c) 

(certification in lieu of review), 2(e) 

(confirmation of receipt of application 

and notice of rights), 2(g) through (h) 

(time limits for agency to conclude 

review), 4(a) (conduct of full 

reinvestigation), 5 (agency to consult, 

update, and meet with the applicant), 8 

(complaint and disciplinary functions to 

ensure compliance with the Act), 10 

(multiple agencies to coordinate), 13 

(submission of reports to congressional 

committees). Depending on the nature 

of the required action and the 

operational conditions and practices of 

the affected governmental entities, it 

may make sense for the required actions 

to be carried out by the particular 

governmental component that 

investigated a case, or alternatively, at 

the departmental level or another 

broader level. Either approach is 

legitimate and consistent with the Act’s 

definition of ‘‘agency’’ as ‘‘a Federal law 

enforcement entity with jurisdiction to 

engage in the detection, investigation, or 

prosecution of a cold case murder,’’ 

HVFRA 12(5), since both the individual 

component and the broader 

organizational unit of Government in 

which it is situated are governmental 

entities with law enforcement functions. 

Section 95.9(a)(3) confirms this point 

with respect to the training, complaint, 

and disciplinary functions described in 

HVFRA 8. For example, with respect to 

the requirement of section 8(b)(1) of the 

Act that the regulations designate an 

administrative authority ‘‘within the 

agency to receive and investigate 

complaints,’’ a Department may decide 

to assign this function to its Inspector 

General for all of its components, taking 

‘‘the agency’’ in this context to refer to 

the Department as a whole. But it is also 

consistent with the Act if a Department 

decides to assign these functions to its 

individual investigative components, as 

§ 95.9(b) provides for the Department of 

Justice. 

Section 95.9(b) would implement the 

requirements of section 8 of the Act 

with respect to the agencies of the 

Department of Justice specifically, 

including the FBI, which is broadly 

responsible for investigating murders 

within the scope of the Act. For the 

Justice Department agencies, the 

training, complaint, and disciplinary 

matters required by section 8 of the Act 

are most appropriately carried out by 

the individual investigative agencies 

within the Department. 

Section 95.9(b)(1) would require each 

such agency to provide training for 

officers and employees involved in 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
Federal Register / Vol. 90, No. 12 / Tuesday, January 21, 2025 / Proposed Rules 6889 

carrying out the Act, following the 

requirement of section 8(b)(2) of the Act. 

Section 95.9(b)(2) would require each 

agency to designate an official to receive 

and investigate complaints of HVFRA 

violations, following the requirement of 

section 8(b)(1) of the Act. In some 

instances the designated official may 

have a conflict of interest in 

investigating a complaint, such as when 

the complaint relates to actions the 

designated official was involved in. In 

such cases, the proposed rule would 

direct the official to notify the entity 

within the agency responsible for 

addressing or resolving such conflicts, 

and investigation of the complaint may 

be assigned to a different official. 

Section 95.9(b)(3) and (4) would carry 

out the requirement of section 8(b)(4) of 

the Act to provide a procedure for the 

resolution of complaints under the Act. 

Section 95.9(b)(3) would provide 

initially that a complaint may be 

submitted in writing by the person who 

requested the case file review under 

section 95.3(a). Since the persons who 

have requested a case file review under 

the Act are the individuals who have 

rights under the Act, they are the 

appropriate persons to complain if the 

Act’s requirements have not been 

complied with. This would comport 

with the Act’s direction in section 8(a) 

that the agency must ‘‘promulgate 

regulations to enforce the right of a 

designated person to request a review 

under this Act,’’ and the Act’s direction 

in section 8(b)(4) that the agency must 

provide a procedure for the resolution of 

complaints filed by ‘‘the designated 

person,’’ i.e., the person who requested 

a case file review. 

Section 95.9(b)(3) further would 

provide timing rules for the submission 

of complaints. These timing rules are 

designed both to provide applicants 

adequate time to bring alleged violations 

of the Act to the agency’s attention, and 

to promote the prompt investigation of 

potential violations and fairness to 

agency personnel who may be the 

subject of complaints. The general time 

limit to submit a complaint is one year 

after the complainant becomes aware of 

a violation. However, a complaint 

would be timely within one year of the 

complainant’s being informed of the 

completion of a case file review or 

reinvestigation, regardless of when the 

complainant became aware of the 

violation. The time would be extended 

to five years after the application for 

case file review was submitted if the 

agency did not inform the applicant 

about completion of a case file review 

or reinvestigation, either because a 

review or reinvestigation is ongoing or 

because the agency failed to inform the 

applicant of the completion of a case file 

review or reinvestigation as required by 

§ 95.7(b) and (c). Section 95.9(b)(3) also 

would state that a complaint submitted 

outside the specified time frames must 

include an explanation for why it was 

not timely submitted. If satisfied by the 

explanation, the agency could entertain 

an untimely complaint, but only as a 

matter of discretion. 

The remainder of § 95.9(b)(3) would 

specify information to be included in a 

complaint, to the extent the 

complainant is able, which is needed to 

enable the agency official to investigate 

the complaint. This includes providing 

identifying information for the 

complainant, the case, and any agency 

officer or employee whose conduct is 

the subject of the complaint, together 

with information about the nature of the 

alleged violation, when and how it 

occurred, and any prior dealings with 

agency personnel about it. 

Section 95.9(b)(4) would direct the 

agency official to investigate a 

complaint that satisfies the proposed 

rule’s conditions, document and close 

the investigation in conformity with 

agency procedures, and inform the 

complainant about the disposition of the 

complaint. It further directs the agency 

official to determine whether further 

action is warranted. For example, if it is 

determined that measures required by 

the Act were not taken, such as the 

consultation, updating, and explanation 

requirements of section 5 of the Act, 

supplying the omitted measures may 

now be warranted, and retraining or 

referral for disciplinary action may be 

warranted for officers and employees 

who violated the Act, depending on 

their culpability and the nature of the 

violation. 

Section 95.9(b)(4) would provide, 

however, that the complaint procedure 

is not available to entertain complaints 

about the initial investigation of the 

murder, or to revisit the agency’s 

decision whether reinvestigation is 

warranted under the Act. This reflects 

the complaint procedure’s function of 

promoting compliance with the Act and 

addressing violations of the Act. Its 

purposes do not include reviewing the 

conduct of the initial investigation or 

providing a second opinion whether the 

results of a case file review under the 

Act warrant reinvestigation. 

Section 8 of the HVFRA, which is 

titled ‘‘Procedures to Promote 

Compliance,’’ requires agencies to 

promulgate regulations that provide a 

procedure for resolving complaints 

‘‘concerning the agency’s handling of a 

cold case murder investigation or the 

case file evaluation,’’ in order ‘‘to 

enforce the right of a designated person 

to request a review under this Act and 

to ensure compliance by the agency 

with the obligations described in this 

Act.’’ This statutory language is 

naturally understood to require a 

complaint procedure to address 

violations of the HVFRA—not to 

second-guess the agency’s handling of 

the initial investigation, which is not 

subject to the HVFRA, or to secure a reexamination or redetermination of 

whether the results of an HVFRA case 

file review warrant reinvestigation. On 

the latter point, nothing in the HVFRA 

suggests that the personnel responsible 

for the complaint and disciplinary 

process must be empowered to 

redetermine the matter and potentially 

override the judgment of the responsible 

agents who carried out the case file 

review and decided whether to conduct 

a reinvestigation. Rather, the HVFRA 

entitles a qualifying applicant to one 

case file review, and provides that the 

agency is not required to do another for 

five years, absent newly discovered and 

materially significant evidence. HVFRA 

6. Section 95.9(b)(4) would make these 

points clear. 

Section 95.9(b)(4) would also specify 

that the agency’s complaint procedure is 

not available to entertain complaints 

about personnel of other agencies, 

whose conduct is properly the 

responsibility of their employing 

agencies. 

Section 95.9(b)(5) would make the 

agency head or a designee the final 

arbiter of the complaint, and preclude 

judicial review, following section 8(b)(5) 

of the Act. 

Section 95.9(b)(6) would provide that 

officers or employees of the agency who 

have failed to comply with the Act may 

be required to undergo retraining or 

additional training, and it would carry 

out the requirement of section 8(b)(3) of 

the Act for disciplinary sanctions, 

including potentially suspension or 

termination of employment, for willful 

or wanton violations. 

Section 95.9(b)(7) would provide that 

the complaint process provisions do not 

authorize the agency to exercise 

authority over, take disciplinary action 

against, or involve officers or employees 

of other agencies. This reflects the 

normal division of authority and 

responsibility among Federal agencies. 

For example, an Assistant U.S. Attorney 

(‘‘AUSA’’) may have some involvement 

in an HVFRA case file review or 

reinvestigation, such as being consulted 

on a legal question, being asked to 

secure a warrant or subpoena, or being 

presented with the results of a 

reinvestigation for a decision whether to 

prosecute. As in other investigative 

contexts, that would not bring the 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
6890 Federal Register / Vol. 90, No. 12 / Tuesday, January 21, 2025 / Proposed Rules 

AUSA within the scope of the 

investigative agency’s complaint 

processes or subject the AUSA to any 

authority of the investigative agency. 

J. Section 95.10—Data Collection 

Section 95.10 would implement 

section 7 of the Act, which requires the 

National Institute of Justice to publish 

annual statistics regarding cold case 

murders. The proposed rule would 

provide that the Attorney General may 

delegate this function to the Bureau of 

Justice Statistics or another Justice 

Department component, which may be 

more appropriate agencies to carry out 

this function. Delegating statutory 

functions to other components is within 

the Attorney General’s authority under 

28 U.S.C. 509, 510. The proposed rule 

would also specify the relevant time 

frames and classes of cold case murders 

to be covered in each annual 

publication of statistics. 

K. Section 95.11—Annual Report 

Section 95.11 would implement 

section 13 of the Act, which requires 

each agency to submit annual reports to 

the House and Senate Judiciary 

Committees describing actions taken 

and results achieved under the Act. The 

proposed rule would specify that the 

reporting requirement applies to 

agencies that may be the principal 

investigative agencies in the 

investigation of murders, because the 

rule assigns responsibility for carrying 

out the Act to those agencies, and other 

agencies would have nothing to report. 

The proposed rule further would 

provide that an agency need not submit 

a separate report if the required 

information with respect to the agency 

is included in a report submitted by 

another organizational unit of the 

Government. For example, a Department 

may wish to submit consolidated annual 

reports providing the required 

information for all of its investigative 

agencies. The latter approach may be 

more consistent with the Department’s 

general procedures in dealing with 

Congress and more useful to the 

Committees than separate reports from 

individual agencies. 

L. Section 95.12—Withholding 

Information 

Section 95.12, tracking section 9 of 

the Act, would make it clear that the Act 

does not require an agency to disclose 

information that would endanger the 

safety of any person, unreasonably 

impede an ongoing investigation, violate 

a court order, or violate legal obligations 

regarding privacy. 

V. Regulatory Requirements 

A. Regulatory Flexibility Act 

The Attorney General, in accordance 

with the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 

U.S.C. 605(b)), has reviewed this 

regulation and by approving it certifies 

that this regulation will not have a 

significant economic impact on a 

substantial number of small entities for 

the purposes of that Act because the 

regulation only concerns the review and 

reinvestigation of cold case murders by 

Federal investigative agencies. 

B. Executive Orders 12866, 13563, and 

14094—Regulatory Review 

The Office of Management and Budget 

has determined that this rulemaking is 

a ‘‘significant regulatory action’’ under 

section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866, 

58 FR 51735, 51738 (Oct. 4, 1993), but 

it is not a section 3(f)(1) significant 

action. Accordingly, this proposed rule 

has been submitted to the Office of 

Management and Budget (‘‘OMB’’) for 

review. This proposed rule has been 

drafted and reviewed in accordance 

with section 1(b) of Executive Order 

12866, Executive Order 13563, 76 FR 

3821 (Jan. 21, 2011), and Executive 

Order 14094, 88 FR 21879 (Apr. 11, 

2023). 

Executive Orders 12866 and 13563 

direct agencies to assess all costs and 

benefits of available regulatory 

alternatives and, if regulation is 

necessary, to select regulatory 

approaches that maximize net benefits 

(including potential economic, 

environmental, public health, and safety 

effects, distributive impacts, and 

equity). 58 FR 51735–36; 76 FR 3821. 

Executive Order 13563 emphasizes the 

importance of using the best available 

methods to quantify costs and benefits, 

reducing costs, harmonizing rules, and 

promoting flexibility. 76 FR 3822. 

The costs and benefits of this 

rulemaking, which implements the 

HVFRA’s requirements, are attributable 

to the HVFRA itself. The costs include 

the work required in processing 

applications, carrying out case file 

reviews, and reinvestigating cold case 

murders as warranted, in conformity 

with the HVFRA. The benefits include 

solving cold case murders where the 

HVFRA process is successful and 

providing closure for the victims’ 

families. No alternative regulatory 

approach would significantly reduce 

these costs while achieving the benefits 

constituting the legislative objective 

with similar effectiveness. 

C. Executive Order 13132—Federalism 

This regulation will not have 

substantial direct effects on the States, 

on the relationship between the national 

Government and the States, or on the 

distribution of power and 

responsibilities among the various 

levels of government, as outlined by 

Executive Order 13132, 64 FR 43255 

(Aug. 10, 1999). The regulation only 

concerns the review and reinvestigation 

of cold case murders by Federal 

investigative agencies. 

D. Executive Order 13175—Consultation 

and Coordination With Indian Tribal 

Governments 

The Department of Justice and the 

Department of the Interior, in 

accordance with section 5(b) of 

Executive Order 13175, 65 FR 67249 

(Nov. 9, 2000), will consult with Tribal 

officials regarding this proposed 

regulation. 

E. Executive Order 12988—Civil Justice 

Reform 

This proposed rule meets the 

applicable standards set forth in 

sections 3(a) and 3(b)(2) of Executive 

Order 12988, 61 FR 4729, 4731 (Feb. 7, 

1996), to specify provisions in clear 

language. Pursuant to section 3(b)(1)(I) 

of the Executive Order, nothing in this 

proposed rule is intended to create any 

legal or procedural rights enforceable 

against the United States. 

F. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 

1995 

This rule when finalized will not 

result in the expenditure by State, local 

and Tribal governments, in the 

aggregate, or by the private sector, of 

$100 million or more (as adjusted for 

inflation) in any one year and it will not 

significantly or uniquely affect small 

governments. Therefore, no actions were 

deemed necessary under the provisions 

of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act 

of 1995. The rule only concerns the 

review and reinvestigation of cold case 

murders by Federal investigative 

agencies. 

G. Congressional Review Act 

This rule is not a ‘‘major rule’’ as 

defined by the Congressional Review 

Act, 5 U.S.C. 804(2). 

List of Subjects in 28 CFR Part 95 

Crime, Law enforcement. 

Authority and Issuance 

Accordingly, for the reasons stated in 

the preamble, the Department of Justice 

proposes to add 28 CFR part 95 to read 

as follows: 

PART 95—HOMICIDE VICTIMS’ 

FAMILIES’ RIGHTS 

Sec. 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
Federal Register / Vol. 90, No. 12 / Tuesday, January 21, 2025 / Proposed Rules 6891 

95.1 Purpose. 

95.2 Definitions. 

95.3 Case file review. 

95.4 Review procedures. 

95.5 Full reinvestigation. 

95.6 Multiple agencies. 

95.7 Consultation, updates, and 

explanation. 

95.8 Subsequent reviews. 

95.9 Procedures to promote compliance. 

95.10 Data collection. 

95.11 Annual report. 

95.12 Withholding information. 

Authority: Pub. L. 117–164, 136 Stat. 

1358. 

§ 95.1 Purpose. 

The purpose of this part is to 

implement the Homicide Victims’ 

Families’ Rights Act of 2021 (the ‘‘Act’’). 

The Act provides for a system to review 

the case files of cold case murders at the 

instance of certain persons and 

potentially carry out further 

investigation. 

§ 95.2 Definitions. 

In this part: 

(a) The term ‘‘designated person’’ 

means a parent, step-parent, parent-inlaw, grandparent, grandparent-in-law, 

sibling, spouse, child, or step-child of a 

murder victim. 

(b) The term ‘‘victim’’ means a natural 

person who died as a result of a cold 

case murder. 

(c)(1) The term ‘‘murder’’ means an 

offense under 18 U.S.C. 1111, or another 

Federal offense that incorporates by 

reference the elements of 18 U.S.C. 

1111. The offenses that incorporate by 

reference the elements of 18 U.S.C. 1111 

are— 

(i) A murder committed in Indian 

country, investigated as a crime 

potentially prosecutable under 18 U.S.C. 

1152 or 1153; 

(ii) A murder in which the victim was 

a Federal officer or employee, or another 

person whose status or activities would 

make the person’s murder a Federal 

crime, investigated as a crime 

potentially prosecutable under 18 U.S.C. 

115, 351, 1114, 1116, 1121, 1503, 1512, 

1513, 1751, or 1841; 7 U.S.C. 2146; 15 

U.S.C. 1825; or 21 U.S.C. 461, 675, or 

1041; 

(iii) A murder in which the victim 

was a United States national killed 

outside of the United States, 

investigated as a crime potentially 

prosecutable under 18 U.S.C. 1119 or 

2332; and 

(iv) A murder in which the status or 

activities of the perpetrator, or the 

means or circumstances of the murder’s 

commission, would make the murder a 

Federal crime, investigated as a crime 

potentially prosecutable under 18 U.S.C. 

36, 924(j), 930, 1118, 1120, 1652, 1958, 

1959, 2245, 3261, or 3273; or 49 U.S.C. 

46506. 

(2) The term ‘‘murder’’ does not 

include— 

(i) A murder in which the victim died 

before January 1, 1970; 

(ii) A murder that is not an offense 

under the laws of the United States, 

even if it is an offense under the laws 

of a State, the District of Columbia, or 

a territory or possession of the United 

States; or 

(iii) Any offense, conduct, or 

occurrence that did not involve the 

commission of a murder as defined in 

paragraph (c)(1) of this section. 

(d) The term ‘‘agency’’ means a 

Federal law enforcement entity with 

jurisdiction to engage in the detection, 

investigation, or prosecution of a cold 

case murder. The term ‘‘agency’’ does 

not include a State or local law 

enforcement entity or a law enforcement 

entity of the District of Columbia or a 

territory or possession of the United 

States. 

(e) The term ‘‘principal investigative 

agency’’ means the Federal investigative 

agency that had the primary 

responsibility for the initial 

investigation of a murder. In a case in 

which a murder was investigated by 

State or other non-Federal authorities 

and the role of Federal agencies was the 

provision of investigative assistance, 

and in a case in which a murder was 

investigated by a Federal agency but 

thereafter State or other non-Federal 

authorities assumed the primary 

responsibility for the investigation, no 

Federal agency was the principal 

investigative agency and the case is not 

within the scope of this part. A 

prosecutorial agency of the Department 

of Justice, though involved in the 

investigation of a murder, is not the 

principal investigative agency in any 

case. 

(f) The term ‘‘initial investigation’’ 

means the investigation of a murder 

before it became a cold case murder. 

(g) The term ‘‘cold case murder’’ 

means a murder— 

(1) In which the victim died more 

than three years prior to the date of an 

application by a designated person 

under § 95.3; 

(2) Previously investigated by a 

Federal law enforcement entity; 

(3) For which all probative leads have 

been exhausted; and 

(4) For which no likely perpetrator 

has been identified. 

(h) The term ‘‘probative leads’’ means 

information that identifies the 

perpetrator or that provides a sufficient 

likelihood of enabling the identification 

of the perpetrator to warrant further 

investigation, in the agency’s judgment 

and consistent with the agency’s 

policies and practices regarding the use 

of investigative methods. Variant 

terminology used in some provisions of 

the Act, ‘‘probative investigative leads,’’ 

has the same meaning. 

§ 95.3 Case file review. 

(a) In general. Upon written 

application by one designated person, 

the principal investigative agency shall 

review the case file regarding a cold 

case murder to determine if a full 

reinvestigation would result in 

probative leads. 

(b) Review. A review under paragraph 

(a) of this section shall include the 

following elements: 

(1) An analysis of what investigative 

steps or follow-up steps may have been 

missed in the initial investigation. This 

element requires the reviewer to 

consider whether, in the reviewer’s 

judgment, there were steps or follow-up 

steps that should have been taken in the 

original investigation but were not 

taken. 

(2) An assessment of whether 

witnesses should be interviewed or 

reinterviewed. This element requires the 

reviewer to consider whether, in the 

reviewer’s judgment, there were 

witnesses in the original investigation 

who should have been interviewed but 

were not interviewed, or who should 

have been asked additional questions or 

interviewed in a different manner than 

in the original investigation. 

(3) An examination of physical 

evidence to see if all appropriate 

forensic testing and analysis was 

performed in the first instance or if 

additional testing might produce 

information relevant to the 

investigation. This element has two 

aspects. It requires the reviewer to 

consider whether, in the reviewer’s 

judgment, there was forensic testing 

available at the time, such as checking 

for latent fingerprints, which should 

have been carried out in the initial 

investigation but was not carried out. It 

also requires the reviewer to consider 

whether there have been advances in 

forensic technology or methods, such as 

more sensitive DNA testing, which were 

unavailable at the time of the initial 

investigation, but which would now be 

utilized in a like investigation under 

current policies and practices regarding 

the use of investigative methods. 

(4) An update of the case file using 

the most current investigative standards 

as of the date of the review to the extent 

it would help develop probative leads. 

This element requires the reviewer to 

consider whether additional or 

potentially more effective investigative 

measures would have been taken in the 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
6892 Federal Register / Vol. 90, No. 12 / Tuesday, January 21, 2025 / Proposed Rules 

initial investigation had current 

investigative standards been in effect. 

For example, two Executive Orders, E.O. 

14053 and E.O. 13898, have been 

issued, in 2021 and 2019 respectively, 

to enhance and prioritize the 

investigation of cases involving missing 

or murdered indigenous persons. This 

element requires the reviewer to 

consider in such cases whether 

application of the current investigative 

standards would help develop probative 

leads. 

(5) If the reviewer is aware of another 

agency that investigated or participated 

in the investigation of the murder, 

notification of the other agency that the 

case is under review and consideration 

of any information provided by the 

other agency. 

(c) Reviewer. A review under 

paragraph (a) of this section shall not be 

conducted by a person who previously 

investigated the murder at issue. This 

does not limit the reviewer in seeking 

information from or consulting with a 

person who conducted or was involved 

in the initial investigation. 

(d) Acknowledgment. The agency 

shall provide in writing to the applicant, 

as soon as reasonably possible, 

confirmation of the agency’s receipt of 

the application and notice of the 

applicant’s rights under the Act. 

(e) Certification in lieu of review. The 

application for a case file review may be 

denied if the case does not satisfy the 

criteria for a cold case murder as 

defined in § 95.2(g). If a case file review 

is denied on this ground, the agency 

shall issue a written certification that 

the case does not satisfy the criteria for 

a cold case murder and shall inform the 

applicant of the reason for the denial. 

§ 95.4 Review procedures. 

(a) Application form. Each agency that 

may be the principal investigative 

agency in a cold case murder 

investigation shall develop a written 

application form to be used for 

designated persons to request a case file 

review. An agency may adopt for this 

purpose a standard form developed by 

the government, or by another 

organizational unit of the government, 

and need not separately develop an 

agency-specific form. 

(b) Responsible agency. An 

application for a case file review may be 

denied if it is submitted to an agency 

that did not previously investigate the 

murder or was not the principal 

investigative agency in the initial 

investigation of the murder. If a case file 

review is denied on this ground, the 

agency shall inform the applicant of the 

reason for the denial. If the agency is 

aware of another Federal agency that 

was the principal investigative agency 

in the initial investigation, the agency 

shall so advise the applicant and shall, 

if the applicant wishes, transfer the 

application to the principal 

investigative agency. If no Federal 

agency was the principal investigative 

agency in the initial investigation, but 

the agency knows the identity of a nonFederal entity that investigated the 

murder, the agency shall so advise the 

applicant. 

(c) Multiple agencies or applications. 

(1) If more than one agency participated 

in the investigation of a murder, the 

agencies shall coordinate any case file 

review or full reinvestigation so that 

there is only one joint case file review 

or full reinvestigation at any one time. 

An application for review shall not be 

denied based on disagreement among 

agencies as to which agency was the 

principal investigative agency in the 

initial investigation. In such a case, the 

relevant agencies shall jointly consider 

the application and collaborate in 

carrying out any resulting case file 

review or reinvestigation, or 

responsibility for those functions may 

be assumed by or assigned to one of the 

agencies involved. 

(2) An agency need not take any 

action based on an application by a 

designated person during the pendency 

of an application by another designated 

person with respect to the same victim, 

or during the pendency of a resulting 

case file review or reinvestigation, but 

the agency shall advise the applicant 

that there was an earlier application and 

may consider any information provided 

by the later applicant. 

(3) Only one case file review shall be 

undertaken at any one time with respect 

to the same cold case murder victim. If 

an agency receives multiple 

applications with respect to different 

victims, it may consolidate any resulting 

case file reviews. 

(d) Time limit. An agency shall 

complete a case file review and decide 

whether a full reinvestigation is 

warranted not later than six months 

after the receipt by the agency of the 

application resulting in the review. The 

agency may extend this time limit once 

for a period not exceeding six months if 

the agency finds that the number of case 

files to be reviewed makes it 

impracticable to comply with the time 

limit without unreasonably taking 

resources from other law enforcement 

activities. If the time limit is extended, 

the agency shall notify and explain its 

reasoning to the applicant. 

§ 95.5 Full reinvestigation. 

(a) In general. An agency shall 

conduct a full reinvestigation of a cold 

case murder if review of the case file 

concludes that a full reinvestigation 

would result in probative leads. As 

provided in the definition of ‘‘probative 

leads’’ in § 95.2(h), this means that a full 

reinvestigation is required if the case 

file review produces information that 

identifies the perpetrator or that 

provides a sufficient likelihood of 

enabling the identification of the 

perpetrator to warrant further 

investigation, in the agency’s judgment 

and consistent with the agency’s 

policies and practices regarding the use 

of investigative methods. 

(b) Full reinvestigation. A full 

reinvestigation for purposes of the Act 

means an investigation in which all new 

probative leads are exhausted. A full 

reinvestigation— 

(1) Shall include analyzing all 

evidence regarding the murder for the 

purpose of developing probative leads; 

but 

(2) Need not involve pursuing leads 

that do not, in the agency’s judgment, 

provide a sufficient likelihood of 

enabling the identification of the 

perpetrator to warrant further 

investigation, or whose pursuit is not 

consistent with the agency’s policies 

and practices regarding the use of 

investigative methods. 

(c) Person conducting reinvestigation. 

A reinvestigation shall not be conducted 

by a person who previously investigated 

the murder. This prohibition does not 

limit consulting with or obtaining 

information from a person involved in 

the previous investigation, or using such 

a person in a subordinate role in the 

reinvestigation. 

(d) Unified reinvestigation. Only one 

full reinvestigation shall be undertaken 

at any one time with respect to the same 

cold case murder victim. If 

reinvestigation is found to be warranted 

with respect to multiple victims, the 

resulting reinvestigations may be 

consolidated. 

§ 95.6 Multiple agencies. 

If more than one agency conducted 

the initial investigation of a cold case 

murder, each agency shall coordinate 

with the other agency or agencies any 

case file review or full reinvestigation so 

that there is only one case file review or 

full reinvestigation occurring at a time, 

as provided in §§ 95.4(c) and 95.5(d). 

§ 95.7 Consultation, updates, and 

explanation. 

(a) Consultation. The agency shall 

consult with the designated person who 

filed an application for case file review. 

This means discussing the application 

with the applicant on at least one 

occasion. 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
Federal Register / Vol. 90, No. 12 / Tuesday, January 21, 2025 / Proposed Rules 6893 

(b) Updates. The agency shall provide 

the applicant with periodic updates 

during any case file review or full 

reinvestigation. The required update 

shall include informing the applicant 

whether the review or reinvestigation is 

in progress or has been completed. 

(c) Explanation of decision. At the 

conclusion of a case file review, the 

agency shall meet with the applicant 

and discuss the evidence to explain the 

decision whether or not to engage in a 

full reinvestigation. Discussion of the 

evidence and explanation of the 

decision do not require disclosure of 

information described in § 95.12 or 

other information that would not 

generally be shared with a victim’s 

family members in the investigation of 

a murder. 

(d) Means of communication. 

Meetings required under this section 

may be carried out in person or through 

remote video communication. 

Consultations and updates may be 

carried out in person or through any 

other means of communication. 

§ 95.8 Subsequent reviews. 

(a) In general. If an agency concludes 

following a case file review that a full 

reinvestigation is not warranted, or if a 

full reinvestigation is undertaken and 

completed without identifying a likely 

perpetrator, no additional case file 

review or reinvestigation is required to 

be undertaken with respect to a cold 

case murder for a period of five years, 

unless there is newly discovered, 

materially significant evidence. 

(b) New material evidence. For 

purposes of the Act, newly discovered, 

materially significant evidence means 

evidence discovered subsequent to the 

previous case file review or 

reinvestigation that identifies the 

perpetrator or that provides a sufficient 

likelihood of enabling the identification 

of the perpetrator to warrant further 

investigation, in the agency’s judgment 

and consistent with the agency’s 

policies and practices regarding the use 

of investigative methods. 

(c) Discretionary authority. An agency 

may, in its discretion, review case files, 

continue investigation, or reinvestigate 

notwithstanding the absence of an 

application by a designated person or 

the time when previous review, 

investigation, or reinvestigation 

occurred. 

§ 95.9 Procedures to promote compliance. 

(a) In general—(1) Regulations. The 

Act provides that, not later than August 

3, 2023, each agency shall promulgate 

regulations to enforce the right of a 

designated person to request a review 

under the Act and to ensure compliance 

by the agency with the obligations 

described in the Act. This requirement 

applies to any agency that may be the 

principal investigative agency in a 

murder investigation. An agency is not 

required to separately promulgate 

regulations to the extent it adopts, or is 

subject to, regulations issued by another 

organizational unit of the government 

regarding the matters described in this 

section. 

(2) Content of regulations. The Act 

provides that the regulations 

promulgated under paragraph (a)(1) of 

this section shall— 

(i) Designate an administrative 

authority within the agency to receive 

and investigate complaints relating to 

case file reviews and reinvestigations 

and provide a procedure for the 

resolution of such complaints; 

(ii) Require a course of training for 

appropriate employees and officers 

within the agency regarding the 

procedures, responsibilities, and 

obligations under the Act; 

(iii) Contain disciplinary sanctions, 

which may include suspension or 

termination from employment, for 

employees of the agency who have 

willfully or wantonly failed to comply 

with the Act; and 

(iv) Provide that the head of the 

agency, or a designee, shall be the final 

arbiter of the complaint, and that there 

shall be no judicial review of the final 

decision of the head of the agency or 

designee by a complainant. 

(3) Agency. For purposes of 

paragraphs (a)(1) and (2) of this section, 

the ‘‘agency’’ may be a broader 

organizational unit of the government in 

which the principal investigative agency 

is situated. 

(b) Department of Justice. The 

following shall apply to each agency of 

the Department of Justice that may be 

the principal investigative agency in a 

cold case murder investigation: 

(1) The agency shall require a course 

of training regarding the procedures, 

responsibilities, and obligations 

required under the Act for agency 

officers and employees whose 

involvement in carrying out the Act 

warrants such training. 

(2) The agency shall designate an 

official within the agency to receive and 

investigate complaints alleging that the 

agency engaged in a violation of the Act 

relating to case file review or 

reinvestigation of a cold case murder. If 

investigation of a complaint by the 

official could create a conflict of 

interest, the official shall notify the 

appropriate individual or office within 

the agency and investigation of the 

complaint may be assigned to a different 

official. 

(3) A complaint under this subsection 

must be submitted in writing by a 

person who applied for case file review 

under § 95.3(a). The complaint must be 

submitted within one year of the 

complainant’s knowledge of a violation 

or receipt of information from the 

agency indicating completion of a case 

file review or reinvestigation, but if no 

such information has been received 

from the agency, then within five years 

of the submission of the application for 

case file review. A complaint submitted 

outside these time frames must include 

an explanation for why it was not timely 

submitted, which will be considered in 

deciding whether to accept the 

application. The complaint shall 

contain, to the extent known to, or 

reasonably available to, that person, the 

following information: 

(i) The name and contact information 

of the complainant. 

(ii) The investigative case number or 

name of the murder victim. 

(iii) Any tracking number or other 

identifier of the complainant’s 

application for case file review under 

§ 95.3(a). 

(iv) If the complaint pertains to a 

specific officer or employee of the 

agency, that person’s name and contact 

information, or other identifying 

information if the complainant is not 

able to provide name and contact 

information. 

(v) Information about the alleged 

violation of the Act sufficient to enable 

the agency official to conduct an 

investigation including: the nature of 

the violation; when and how it 

occurred; whether, when, and how the 

complainant notified an agency officer 

or employee of the alleged violation; 

and any actions taken by an agency 

officer or employee in response to such 

notification. 

(4) The agency official shall 

investigate a complaint that satisfies the 

conditions set forth in paragraph (b)(3) 

of this section, determine whether 

further action is warranted, document 

and close the investigation of the 

complaint in conformity with agency 

procedures, and inform the complainant 

about the disposition of the complaint. 

However, the complaint procedure 

under this subsection is not available to 

present complaints about the conduct of 

the initial investigation, to present 

complaints about the conduct of an 

officer or employee of another agency, 

or to secure a reexamination or 

redetermination of the agency’s decision 

whether a reinvestigation is warranted 

under the Act. 

(5) The head of the agency or a 

designee shall be the final arbiter of the 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
6894 Federal Register / Vol. 90, No. 12 / Tuesday, January 21, 2025 / Proposed Rules 

complaint and there shall be no judicial 

review of that person’s final decision. 

(6) An officer or employee of the 

agency who has failed to comply with 

the Act may be required to undergo 

retraining or additional training. All 

disciplinary actions authorized by the 

agency or the Department of Justice may 

be taken, as appropriate, including 

suspension or termination from 

employment, for officers or employees 

of the agency who are determined to 

have willfully or wantonly failed to 

comply with the Act. 

(7) The provisions of paragraph (b) of 

this section do not authorize the agency 

to exercise authority over, take 

disciplinary action against, or involve in 

its complaint or disciplinary processes, 

an officer or employee of another 

agency. 

§ 95.10 Data collection. 

(a) Publication of statistics. Not later 

than August 3, 2025, and annually 

thereafter, the National Institute of 

Justice shall publish statistics on the 

number of cold case murders. The 

Attorney General may delegate this 

function to the Bureau of Justice 

Statistics or another component of the 

Department of Justice. 

(b) Content of published statistics. 

The statistics published pursuant to 

paragraph (a) of this section shall, at a 

minimum, be disaggregated by the 

circumstances of the cold case murder, 

including the classification of the 

offense, and by agency. 

(c) Annual publications. The statistics 

published in each year shall provide the 

required information for— 

(i) Cold case murders in which the 

murder occurred after the enactment of 

the Act and no likely perpetrator was 

identified by the end of the preceding 

year; and 

(ii) Cold case murders in which an 

application for review under § 95.3(a) 

was filed before the end of the 

preceding year and no likely perpetrator 

was identified by the end of that year. 

§ 95.11 Annual report. 

(a) In general. The Act provides that 

each agency shall submit an annual 

report to the Committees on the 

Judiciary of the House of 

Representatives and of the Senate 

describing actions taken and results 

achieved under this Act during the 

previous year. This requirement applies 

to any agency that may be the principal 

investigative agency in a murder 

investigation. An individual agency 

need not submit a separate report if the 

required information with respect to the 

agency is included in a report submitted 

to the Committees by another 

organizational unit of the government. 

(b) Contents of report. The Act 

provides that the report described in 

paragraph (a) of this section shall 

include— 

(1) The number of written 

applications filed with the agency 

pursuant to section 2(a) of the Act and 

§ 95.3(a); 

(2) The number of extensions granted, 

and an explanation of reasons provided 

under section 2(h) of the Act and 

§ 95.4(d); 

(3) The number of full 

reinvestigations initiated and closed 

pursuant to section 4 of the Act and 

§ 95.5; and 

(4) Statistics and individualized 

information on topics that include 

identified suspects, arrests, charges, and 

convictions for reviews under section 2 

of the Act and § 95.3 and 

reinvestigations under section 4 of the 

Act and § 95.5. 

§ 95.12 Withholding information. 

Nothing in the Act or this part 

requires an agency to provide 

information that would endanger the 

safety of any person, unreasonably 

impede an ongoing investigation, violate 

a court order, or violate legal obligations 

regarding privacy. 

Dated: January 13, 2025. 

Merrick B. Garland, 

Attorney General. 

[FR Doc. 2025–01159 Filed 1–16–25; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4410–18–P 

PENSION BENEFIT GUARANTY 

CORPORATION 

29 CFR Parts 4000, 4006, 4007, 4010, 

4041, 4041A, 4043, 4065, 4203, 4204, 

4207, 4211, 4219, 4220, 4233, 4262, 

4281, and 4909 

RIN 1212–AB51 

Miscellaneous Corrections, 

Clarifications, and Improvements 

AGENCY: Pension Benefit Guaranty 

Corporation. 

ACTION: Proposed rule. 

SUMMARY: The Pension Benefit Guaranty 

Corporation (PBGC) proposes 

miscellaneous technical corrections, 

clarifications, and improvements to its 

regulations, including its regulations on 

premium rates, premium due dates, and 

termination of single-employer plans. 

These changes are a result of PBGC’s 

ongoing retrospective review of the 

effectiveness and clarity of its rules and 

of statutory changes. 

DATES: Comments must be submitted on 

or before March 24, 2025 to be assured 

of consideration. 

ADDRESSES: Comments may be 

submitted by any of the following 

methods: 

• Federal eRulemaking Portal: 

https://www.regulations.gov. Follow the 

online instructions for submitting 

comments. 

• Email: reg.comments@pbgc.gov. 

Refer to 1212–AB51 in the subject line. 

• Mail or Hand Delivery: Regulatory 

Affairs Division, Office of the General 

Counsel, Pension Benefit Guaranty 

Corporation, 445 12th Street SW, 

Washington, DC 20024–2101. 

Commenters are strongly encouraged 

to submit comments electronically. 

Commenters who submit comments on 

paper by mail should allow sufficient 

time for mailed comments to be 

received before the close of the 

comment period. All submissions must 

include the agency’s name (Pension 

Benefit Guaranty Corporation, or PBGC) 

and the Regulation Identifier Number 

(RIN) for this rulemaking (RIN 1212– 

AB51). Comments received will be 

posted without change to PBGC’s 

website, www.pbgc.gov, including any 

personal information provided. Do not 

submit comments that include any 

personally identifiable information or 

confidential business information. 

Copies of comments may also be 

obtained by writing to Disclosure 

Division (disclosure@pbgc.gov), Office 

of the General Counsel, Pension Benefit 

Guaranty Corporation, 445 12th Street 

SW, Washington, DC 20024–2101, or 

calling 202–326–4040 during normal 

business hours. If you are deaf or hard 

of hearing, or have a speech disability, 

please dial 7–1–1 to access 

telecommunications relay services. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Monica O’Donnell (odonnell.monica@

pbgc.gov), Attorney, Regulatory Affairs 

Division, Office of the General Counsel, 

Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation, 

445 12th Street SW, Washington, DC 

20024–2101; 202–229–8706. If you are 

deaf or hard of hearing, or have a speech 

disability, please dial 7–1–1 to access 

telecommunications relay services. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Executive Summary 

Purpose and Authority 

The purpose of this regulatory action 

is to make miscellaneous technical 

corrections, clarifications, updates, and 

improvements to several of the Pension 

Benefit Guaranty Corporation’s (PBGC’s) 

regulations. These changes are based on 

PBGC’s ongoing retrospective review of 

the effectiveness and clarity of its rules 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS1