69650 Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 221 / Thursday, November 17, 2005 / Rules and Regulations 

under the criteria of the Regulatory 

Flexibility Act. 

The FAA’s authority to issue rules 

regarding aviation safety is found in 

Title 49 of the United States Code. 

Subtitle 1, section 106 describes the 

authority of the FAA Administrator. 

Subtitle VII, Aviation Programs, 

describes in more detail the scope of the 

agency’s authority. 

This rulemaking is promulgated 

under the authority described in subtitle 

VII, part A, subpart 1, section 40103, 

Sovereignty and use of airspace. Under 

that section, the FAA is charged with 

prescribing regulations to ensure the 

safe and efficient use of the navigable 

airspace. This regulation is within the 

scope of that authority because it creates 

Class E airspace sufficient in size to 

contain aircraft executing instrument 

procedures for the Egegik Airport and 

represents the FAA’s continuing effort 

to safely and efficiently use the 

navigable airspace. 

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 71 

Airspace, Incorporation by reference, 

Navigation (air). 

Adoption of the Amendment 

■ In consideration of the foregoing, the 

Federal Aviation Administration 

amends 14 CFR part 71 as follows: 

PART 71—DESIGNATION OF CLASS A, 

CLASS B, CLASS C, CLASS D, AND 

CLASS E AIRSPACE AREAS; 

AIRWAYS; ROUTES; AND REPORTING 

POINTS 

■ 1. The authority citation for 14 CFR 

part 71 continues to read as follows: 

Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40103, 40113, 

40120; E.O. 10854, 24 FR 9565, 3 CFR, 1959–

1963 Comp., p. 389. 

§ 71.1 [Amended] 

■ 2. The incorporation by reference in 

14 CFR 71.1 of Federal Aviation 

Administration Order 7400.9N, 

Airspace Designations and Reporting 

Points, dated September 1, 2005, and 

effective September 15, 2005, is 

amended as follows: 

* * * * * 

Paragraph 6005 Class E airspace extending 

upward from 700 feet or more above the 

surface of the earth. 

* * * * * 

AAL AK E5 Egegik, AK [Revised] 

Egegik Airport, AK 

(Lat. 58°11′08′′ N., long. 157°22′32′′ W.) 

That airspace extending upward from 700 

feet above the surface within a 6.5-mile 

radius of the Egegik Airport. 

* * * * * 

Issued in Anchorage, AK, on November 8, 

2005. 

Michael A. Tarr, 

Manager, Operations Support. 

[FR Doc. 05–22766 Filed 11–16–05; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4910–13–P 

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE 

28 CFR Part 45 

[OAG Docket No. 112; AG Order No. 2789–

2005] 

RIN 1105–AB11 

Procedures To Promote Compliance 

With Crime Victims’ Rights Obligations 

AGENCY: Department of Justice. 

ACTION: Final rule. 

SUMMARY: This final rule implements 

section 102(f) of the Justice for All Act, 

establishing procedures to promote 

compliance with crime victims’ rights 

statutes by Department of Justice 

employees. 

DATES: This final rule becomes effective 

December 19, 2005. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Michael Battle, Director, Executive 

Office for United States Attorneys, 

United States Department of Justice, 

Washington, DC 20530, (202) 514–2121. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Justice for All Act 

Congress enacted, and the President 

signed, the Justice for All Act (‘‘Act’’), 

which became effective October 30, 

2004. Section 102 of the Act, 18 U.S.C. 

3771 (‘‘section 3771’’), codifies crime 

victims’’ rights, requires officers and 

employees of the Department of Justice 

(‘‘Department’’) and other government 

departments and agencies to exercise 

best efforts to accord victims those 

rights, establishes enforcement 

measures for those rights, and requires 

the Attorney General to promulgate 

regulations to promote compliance by 

responsible Department of Justice 

officials with their obligations regarding 

victims’ rights. Section 3771(f) states 

that the regulations must: (a) Designate 

an administrative authority within the 

Department to receive and investigate 

complaints relating to the provision or 

violation of the rights of a crime victim 

by Department employees; (b) require a 

course of training for Department 

employees and offices that fail to 

comply with their obligations regarding 

victims’ rights; (c) contain disciplinary 

sanctions for willful and wanton failure 

to comply with obligations regarding 

victims’ rights; and (d) provide that the 

Attorney General or his designee shall 

be the final arbiter of a complaint. See 

18 U.S.C. 3771(f). 

Proposed Rule 

In order to implement section 102 of 

the Act, the Department published a 

proposed rule on July 7, 2005, that 

proposed to create a new section in part 

45, Employee Responsibilities, of title 

28, Judicial Administration, of the Code 

of Federal Regulations. 70 FR 39206–01. 

The proposed rule provided for the 

creation of the office of the Victims’

Rights Ombudsman (VRO) within the 

Executive Office for United States 

Attorneys (EOUSA) as the designated 

administrative authority within the 

Department to receive and investigate 

complaints relating to the provision or 

violation of the rights of a crime victim. 

The proposed rule delineated the 

powers and duties of the VRO as well 

as the basic procedures of its operations. 

The proposed rule authorized the 

VRO to designate points of contact 

(POCs) in each office of the Department 

to perform initial investigations and 

review of complaints, in order to allow 

for complaints to be addressed at the 

most local level. 

The proposed rule then established a 

procedure for filing complaints, 

investigations of those complaints, and 

imposition of disciplinary sanctions 

against employees where warranted. 

The proposed rule required that a 

complaint be in writing and contain 

sufficient information to enable an 

investigation of the complaint by the 

POC. Complaints were to be filed within 

30 days of the alleged violation of a 

victim’s rights, unless the victim 

demonstrated good cause for the delay. 

The precise requirements for the 

investigation were to be established by 

internal Department policy guidance. At 

the end of the investigation, the POC 

was to prepare a written report of the 

results of the investigation, including a 

signed statement by the victim as to 

whether or not he was satisfied that his 

complaint had been resolved. In either 

case, however, the report was to be 

forwarded to the VRO for review. The 

VRO would then decide whether (a) no 

further action was necessary; (b) further 

investigation, to be conducted by the 

VRO, was necessary; or (c) the employee 

would be required to undergo training 

or be subject to disciplinary sanctions. 

The VRO’s determination was not to be 

dependent on the victim’s satisfaction, 

although it could be taken into account. 

The VRO would be the final arbiter of 

whether the complaint had been 

adequately addressed. 

Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 221 / Thursday, November 17, 2005 / Rules and Regulations 69651 

If the VRO determined that no further 

action was necessary, the matter was to 

be closed. 

The VRO, upon either review of the 

POC’s investigation or his own further 

investigation, could require an 

employee to undergo training on the 

obligations of Department employees 

regarding victims’ rights. If, upon either 

review of the POC’s investigation or his 

own further investigation, the VRO 

determined that the employee had 

willfully or wantonly violated a crime 

victim’s rights, the VRO was authorized 

to recommend, in conformity with laws 

and regulations regarding employee 

discipline, a range of disciplinary 

sanctions to the head of the office in 

which the employee was located, or to 

the official who had been designated by 

Department of Justice regulations and 

procedures to take action on 

disciplinary matters for that office. The 

head of that office of the Department of 

Justice, or the other official designated 

by Department of Justice regulations and 

procedures to take action on 

disciplinary matters for that office, was 

to be the final decision-maker regarding 

the disciplinary sanction to be imposed. 

Because of restrictions on the release 

of information regarding the status of 

Department employees and the need to 

balance the rights of the victim with the 

rights of the employee, the proposed 

rule provided that the victim would be 

notified of the results of the 

investigation only at the discretion of 

the VRO and in accordance with 

relevant statutes and regulations 

regarding privacy of Federal employees. 

Both the POC and the VRO were 

required to refer to the Office of the 

Inspector General (OIG) or the Office of 

Professional Responsibility (OPR) any 

matters that fell under those offices’

jurisdictions that may have come to 

light in the POC’s or the VRO’s 

investigation. 

For purposes of the new section, 

victims of crime were defined 

identically to the definition in the 

Justice for All Act, and victims’ rights 

were defined as those established in the 

Act. 

Response to Public Comments 

Three public comments were received 

in response to the proposed rule from 

victim rights’ advocates and advocacy 

organizations. This section explains the 

Department’s response to those 

comments and notes changes to the 

proposed rule taken in response to 

several of them. The comments are 

divided into three categories structure 

of the office, powers of the office, and 

the complaint process. 

Structure of the Office 

One commenter commented that the 

proposed rule improperly placed the 

VRO in EOUSA. According to this 

commenter, EOUSA is viewed within 

the Department only as a resource, 

rather than an authority. Further, 

claimed this commenter, although all 

Department offices are subject to the 

statute, including investigative and 

corrections agencies, EOUSA deals only 

with U.S. Attorneys’ Offices (USAOs). 

Rather than EOUSA, this commenter 

suggested that the VRO should be 

located in the office of the Deputy 

Attorney General or, alternatively, 

within OPR. 

The Department has declined to adopt 

changes to the proposed rule in 

response to this comment. Although it 

is true that all Department employees 

are subject to the regulation, the 

Department expects that the large 

majority of complaints will relate to 

Assistant United States Attorneys 

(AUSAs), since the rights in the Act 

primarily apply to the prosecution stage. 

Furthermore, the Department does not 

agree that EOUSA is only a resource and 

not an authority. EOUSA is a central 

policy coordination office that routinely 

disseminates binding guidance for the 

operation of U.S. Attorneys’ Offices. 

OPR is not a proper location for the 

VRO because it is anticipated that most 

of the complaints raised by victims will 

not implicate the investigative, 

litigative, or advice-giving conduct of 

Department attorneys normally handled 

by OPR. In the unusual case in which 

such conduct is implicated, the 

regulations provide that the complaint 

be referred to OPR by the VRO or by the 

POC. The Department therefore 

determined that EOUSA was the most 

appropriate office in which to locate the 

VRO and declines to revise that 

determination. 

One commenter commented that the 

decisions of the VRO should be 

appealable by the victim in case he is 

unsatisfied with the outcome of his 

complaint. According to the commenter, 

this is another reason to locate the VRO 

in the office of the Deputy Attorney 

General, so that the Deputy Attorney 

General can serve as the reviewing 

official. 

The Department declines to adopt 

changes to the proposed rule in 

response to this comment. The only two 

outcomes provided for in the statute for 

violations of the Act are the requirement 

of training and the possible imposition 

of disciplinary sanctions. In the first 

case, the VRO has no discretion under 

the statute, once he has made a finding 

of a violation, not to require training. If 

the VRO declined to require training, 

the only reason would be a lack of 

factual basis for doing so. A reviewing 

official, such as the Deputy Attorney 

General, would not be in a better 

position than the VRO to make findings 

of fact. In the second case, the decision 

to impose disciplinary sanctions on an 

employee is a confidential matter under 

other provisions of federal law. A 

complaining member of the public 

would not be permitted to know the 

results of the VRO’s investigation if it 

resulted in a recommendation for the 

imposition of disciplinary sanctions or 

whether those sanctions were in the end 

imposed. 

Powers of the Office 

One commenter commented that the 

rule should direct that the VRO require 

training for Department employees or 

offices when the VRO finds a violation 

of victims’ rights that are not willful or 

wanton, rather than authorizing the 

VRO to require training if the VRO 

deems it necessary. 

Upon review of the statutory 

language, the Department accepts this 

comment and has made changes in the 

final rule directing the VRO to require 

training in response to violations of 

victims’ rights. The statute makes clear 

that such training shall be required, 

with no room for discretion on the part 

of the VRO. 

One commenter commented that the 

VRO should, in consultation with the 

Department’s Office for Victims of 

Crime (OVC), identify and promote best 

practices in victims’ rights training. 

The Department declines to adopt this 

comment. The Act neither requires nor 

authorizes the VRO to perform this 

function, and the victim-witness staff at 

the components already do so. Indeed, 

it is expected that the required training 

will be conducted by the relevant 

component. 

Complaint Procedures 

One commenter commented that a 

victim should not be required to submit 

complaints to a POC in each different 

office of the Department. Rather, the 

commenter suggested, complaints 

should go directly to the VRO. 

According to the commenter, a victim 

might not even be aware of which office 

had violated his rights. 

The Department declines to adopt 

changes to the proposed rule in 

response to this comment. The 

Department proposed the POC system 

for both the benefit of victims and for 

administrative practicability. The 

Department believes that complaints by 

victims are most likely to be resolved at 

the local level. A local POC can more 

69652 Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 221 / Thursday, November 17, 2005 / Rules and Regulations 

easily and effectively investigate and 

resolve the complaint. The Department 

acknowledges that a victim might not 

necessarily know which office failed to 

provide him his rights, but a guide to 

the system and instructions on how to 

contact the appropriate POC will be 

made available to victims. Further, the 

Department is unable to determine how 

many complaints may be filed. It is 

impracticable to have one central office 

receive and investigate all complaints 

from across the nation without some 

form of initial review as to the 

sufficiency of the complaint and the 

possibility for local resolution. 

One commenter commented that a 

victim may have a complaint against the 

POC himself and that, therefore, the 

final rule should provide for an 

alternative complaint procedure in such 

circumstances, such as having an 

alternative POC available to the crime 

victim. 

The Department declines to accept his 

comment. Such a provision would be 

highly burdensome to enact. The 

burdens of doubling the number of 

individuals trained in VRO procedures 

do not seem worthwhile for the likely 

very small number of complaints 

actually brought against the POC. 

Further, some United States Attorneys’

Offices may not be able to designate two 

POCs. Nevertheless, the Department has 

made a small change to the final rule to 

require all complaints alleging a 

violation that would create a conflict of 

interest for the POC to investigate to be 

forwarded immediately to the VRO. 

One commenter commented that the 

requirements for the information to be 

provided in the written complaint were 

too burdensome on the victim. For 

example, the required information could 

be beyond the knowledge of the victim. 

The commenter suggested that the 

requirements instead be recommended 

items. This commenter also commented 

that the requirement that the complaint 

include information regarding whether 

the complainant had contacted the 

employee who is the subject of the 

complaint indicated an exhaustion-ofremedies requirement. 

The Department accepts this comment 

in part and has written the final rule to 

require only as much information as is 

known to, or reasonably available to, the 

victim. However, the Department 

declines to make the information only 

recommended rather than required. The 

information is intended to provide as 

much background to the POC and the 

VRO as possible in order to expedite the 

investigation. Further, to be clear, there 

is no exhaustion-of-remedies 

requirement. 

Two commenters commented that the 

information required in the complaint 

included the district court case number 

and the name of the defendant in the 

case, although a victim could file a 

complaint prior to an indictment. The 

commenters recommended that the final 

rule clarify that such information is 

required only when such information 

exists. 

The Department accepts this 

comment, but believes that the change 

in the final rule noted in the paragraph 

above adequately resolves the issue 

raised by the commenter. 

Two commenters commented that the 

Department should draft standard 

complaint forms for victims to fill out 

and should provide assistance to 

victims in completing and submitting 

the forms. 

The Department declines to adopt 

changes to the proposed rule in 

response to this comment. The 

Department does not rule out the 

possibility of providing written 

complaint forms, but does not believe 

that it is necessary to do so in this final 

rule. Likewise, the Department does not 

believe it is necessary to state in this 

final rule that the POC or VRO will 

provide assistance to victims in 

submitting complaints. 

Two commenters commented that the 

proposed rule’s requirement that a 

complaint make a prima facie case of a 

violation was unfair to complainants. 

According to the commenters, the rule 

did not define the standards for making 

a determination as to whether a prima 

facie case had been made, such that the 

complainant would be unaware of the 

quantum of evidence required for the 

complaint. 

The Department partially adopts this 

comment. The Department has replaced 

the term ‘‘prima facie’’ with language 

similar to that found in the regulations 

governing the operations of the Alaska 

Office of Victims’ Rights (OVR). Under 

those regulations, the Alaska OVR 

conducts a preliminary examination of 

a complaint to assess whether ‘‘there is 

specific and credible information to 

indicate that one or more crime victim 

rights guaranteed by the laws and 

constitution of this state may have been 

violated by a justice agency or person.’’

23 AAC 10.030(2). The final rule states 

that a complaint must provide ‘‘specific 

and credible information that 

demonstrates that one or more crime 

victims’ rights listed in 18 U.S.C. 3771 

may have been violated by a Department 

of Justice employee or office.’’

Three commenters commented that 

the time limit of 30 days for filing of a 

complaint was unfair and burdensome 

to victims. According to the 

commenters, many victims are unaware 

of their rights or are unaware when 

those rights have been violated. The 

commenters recommended eliminating 

the time frame for complaints, 

considerably extending the time frame, 

or making the time frame begin when 

the victim became aware of the violation 

of his rights. 

The Department partially adopts this 

comment. The Department does not 

wish victims to have their ability to file 

a complaint of violation of their rights 

arbitrarily limited; at the same time, 

however, the Department must design 

the complaint process so that 

complaints can be investigated and 

resolved expeditiously and effectively 

and in such a way that Department 

employees’ due process rights are 

protected. A reasonable limitation 

period can be fair to both parties. The 

Department has therefore changed the 

final rule to provide that complaints 

must be filed within 60 days of 

knowledge of the violation, but not 

more than one year after the actual 

violation. Because of the significant 

extension of time to file a complaint, the 

exemption for good cause for a delay 

has been removed. 

Three commenters commented that, 

while the proposed rule placed time 

limits on the ability of the victim to file 

a complaint, the rule did not require the 

POC and VRO to reply to the complaint 

within a specific time frame. 

The Department partially adopts this 

comment. The final rule requires that 

the POC or the VRO shall investigate the 

complaint ‘‘within a reasonable time 

period.’’ The Department is unable to 

require a specific time frame for 

response in this final rule because of the 

uncertainty regarding the number and 

complexity of complaints that may be 

filed. The definition of ‘‘reasonable time 

period’’ will be addressed in internal 

guidance and may be adjusted as 

experience with the complaint process 

refines the Department’s procedures. 

Two commenters commented that the 

proposed rule’s limitations on 

information as to the resolution of the 

complaint being made available to the 

victim, including prohibition of 

disclosure of the proposed POC written 

report, are unfair to the victim. 

According to the commenters, open 

government requires that information 

should be presumptively available and 

that, without disclosure to the fullest 

extent possible, victims will not be 

confident that their complaints have 

been addressed. 

The Department declines to adopt this 

comment. The Department recognizes 

that victims desire to know that their 

complaints have been taken seriously 

Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 221 / Thursday, November 17, 2005 / Rules and Regulations 69653 

and have been addressed. However, as 

a matter of law, the Department is 

severely restricted regarding what 

information about individuals in its 

possession it may release. See 5 U.S.C. 

552a(b). The Department regrets that 

victims might therefore not receive 

information regarding the ultimate 

disposition of their complaints, but 

believes that providing a discretionary 

disclosure by the POC or the VRO 

within the bounds of the law and 

Department policy is the best 

compromise between the right of the 

victim to an open process and the right 

of an accused employee to confidential 

adjudication of a potential disciplinary 

action. 

Three commenters commented that 

the proposed rule’s requirement that the 

victim sign a statement indicating his or 

her satisfaction (or lack thereof) in 

response to the initial investigation of 

the complaint was unfair and 

unworkable, particularly in combination 

with the prohibition on the disclosure of 

the report to the victim. 

The Department accepts this comment 

and has eliminated the requirement of 

the victim statement. 

One commenter made several 

suggestions for additional provisions in 

the regulations. The commenter stated 

that the final rule, similar to those 

governing the operations of the Alaska 

OVR, should list reasons for which the 

POC or VRO may decline to investigate 

a complaint and should provide 

standards for prioritizing the processing 

of complaints. The Department agrees 

that such guidance would be helpful to 

the POC and VRO, but it is unnecessary 

to include in this final rule. 

The same commenter suggests that the 

final rule include procedures for 

maintaining confidentiality of 

information provided by a victim to the 

VRO, including creation of a testimonial 

privilege on the part of the VRO for 

information provided to the VRO by the 

victim, such as inconsistent or 

contradictory statements about the 

crime at issue. The Department declines 

to adopt these suggestions. First, a 

victim’s privacy will be protected under 

the Privacy Act and other relevant 

statutes and Department policy. Second, 

the VRO, unlike, for example, the 

Alaska OVR, will be part of a law 

enforcement agency. Therefore, under 

certain circumstances the VRO may be 

legally required to disclose information 

received from a victim. For example, 

any information that would tend to 

exculpate a defendant must be disclosed 

to the defense, see Brady v. Maryland, 

373 U.S. 83 (1963). 

Regulatory Procedures 

Regulatory Flexibility Act 

Because this final rule affects only 

internal Department procedures, the 

Department states that this final rule 

will not have any effect on small 

businesses of the type described in 5 

U.S.C. 605. Accordingly, the 

Department has not prepared an initial 

Regulatory Flexibility Act analysis in 

accordance with 5 U.S.C. 603. 

Executive Order 12866 

The Department of Justice has 

reviewed this final rule in light of 

Executive Order 12866, section 1(b), 

Principles of Regulation. The 

Department of Justice has determined 

that this final rule is a ‘‘significant 

regulatory action’’ under Executive 

Order 12866, section 3(f)(4), Regulatory 

Planning and Review. Accordingly, this 

final rule has been reviewed by the 

Office of Management and Budget. 

In particular, the Department has 

assessed both the costs and benefits of 

this final rule as required by Executive 

Order 12866 section 1(b)(6), and has 

made a reasoned determination that the 

benefits of this regulation justify its 

costs. The costs that the Department 

considered included the costs to victims 

of submitting complaints to the POC 

and VRO, the costs to the employees of 

participating in the complaint and 

disciplinary process, and the costs to 

the Federal Government of creating and 

maintaining the VRO office. The 

benefits considered by the Department 

are that the purpose of the Act and of 

these regulations is to protect victims’

rights. The Department believes that the 

costs imposed by these regulations are 

justified by the benefits. 

Executive Order 13132 

This regulation will not have 

substantial direct effects on the States, 

on the relationship between the Federal 

government and the States, or on the 

distribution of power and 

responsibilities among the various 

levels of government. Therefore, in 

accordance with Executive Order 13132, 

it is determined that this final rule does 

not have sufficient federalism 

implications to warrant the preparation 

of a Federalism Assessment. 

Executive Order 12988 

This final rule meets the applicable 

standards set forth in sections 3(a) and 

3(b)(2) of Executive Order 12988, Civil 

Justice Reform. 

Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 

1995 

This final rule will not result in the 

expenditure by State, local and tribal 

governments, in the aggregate, or by the 

private sector, of $100,000,000 or more 

in any one year, and it will not 

significantly or uniquely affect small 

governments. Therefore, no actions were 

deemed necessary under the provisions 

of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act 

of 1995. 

Small Business Regulatory Enforcement 

Fairness Act of 1996 

This final rule is not a major rule as 

defined by section 251 of the Small 

Business Regulatory Enforcement 

Fairness Act of 1996. 5 U.S.C. 804. This 

final rule will not result in an annual 

effect on the economy of $100,000,000 

or more; a major increase in costs or 

prices; or significant adverse effects on 

competition, employment, investment, 

productivity, innovation, or on the 

ability of United States-based 

companies to compete with foreignbased companies in domestic and 

export markets. 

Paperwork Reduction Act 

This final rule is exempt from the 

requirements of the Paperwork 

Reduction Act under 5 CFR 1320.4(1) 

because it relates to the conduct of a 

Federal criminal investigation or 

prosecution. 

All comments and suggestions 

relating to the Paperwork Reduction 

Act, or questions regarding additional 

information, should be directed to 

Brenda Dyer, Clearance Officer, Policy 

and Planning Staff, Justice Management 

Division, Department of Justice, 601 D 

Street, NW., Washington, DC 20530. 

List of Subjects in 28 CFR Part 45 

Employee responsibilities; Victims’

rights. 

■ Accordingly, for the reasons stated in 

the preamble, the Department of Justice 

amends 28 CFR chapter I part 45 as 

follows: 

PART 45—EMPLOYEE 

RESPONSIBILITIES 

■ 1. The authority citation for part 45 is 

revised to read as follows: 

Authority: 5 U.S.C. 301, 7301; 18 U.S.C. 

207, 3771; 28 U.S.C. 503, 528; DOJ Order 

1735.1. 

■ 2. In part 45, a new § 45.10 is added 

to read as follows: 

§ 45.10 Procedures to promote compliance 

with crime victims’ rights obligations. 

(a) Definitions. The following 

definitions shall apply with respect to 

69654 Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 221 / Thursday, November 17, 2005 / Rules and Regulations 

this section, which implements the 

provisions of the Justice for All Act that 

relate to protection of the rights of crime 

victims. See 18 U.S.C. 3771. 

Crime victim means a person directly 

and proximately harmed as a result of 

the commission of a Federal offense or 

an offense in the District of Columbia. 

In the case of a crime victim who is 

under 18 years of age, incompetent, 

incapacitated, or deceased, the legal 

guardians of the crime victim or the 

representatives of the crime victim’s 

estate, family members, or any other 

persons appointed as suitable by the 

court, may assume the crime victim’s 

rights, but in no event shall the 

defendant be named as such guardian or 

representative. 

Crime victims’ rights means those 

rights provided in 18 U.S.C. 3771. 

Employee of the Department of Justice 

means an attorney, investigator, law 

enforcement officer, or other personnel 

employed by any division or office of 

the Department of Justice whose regular 

course of duties includes direct 

interaction with crime victims, not 

including a contractor. 

Office of the Department of Justice 

means a component of the Department 

of Justice whose employees directly 

interact with crime victims in the 

regular course of their duties. 

(b) The Attorney General shall 

designate an official within the 

Executive Office for United States 

Attorneys (EOUSA) to receive and 

investigate complaints alleging the 

failure of Department of Justice 

employees to provide rights to crime 

victims under 18 U.S.C. 3771. The 

official shall be called the Department of 

Justice Victims’ Rights Ombudsman 

(VRO). The VRO shall then designate, in 

consultation with each office of the 

Department of Justice, an official in each 

office to serve as the initial point of 

contact (POC) for complainants. 

(c) Complaint process. (1) Complaints 

must be submitted in writing to the POC 

of the relevant office or offices of the 

Department of Justice. If a complaint 

alleges a violation that would create a 

conflict of interest for the POC to 

investigate, the complaint shall be 

forwarded by the POC immediately to 

the VRO. 

(2) Complaints shall contain, to the 

extent known to, or reasonably available 

to, the victim, the following 

information: 

(i) The name and personal contact 

information of the crime victim who 

allegedly was denied one or more crime 

victims’ rights; 

(ii) The name and contact information 

of the Department of Justice employee 

who is the subject of the complaint, or 

other identifying information if the 

complainant is not able to provide the 

name and contact information; 

(iii) The district court case number; 

(iv) The name of the defendant in the 

case; 

(v) The right or rights listed in 18 

U.S.C. 3771 that the Department of 

Justice employee is alleged to have 

violated; and 

(vi) Specific information regarding the 

circumstances of the alleged violation 

sufficient to enable the POC to conduct 

an investigation, including, but not 

limited to: The date of the alleged 

violation; an explanation of how the 

alleged violation occurred; whether the 

complainant notified the Department of 

Justice employee of the alleged 

violation; how and when such 

notification was provided to the 

Department of Justice employee; and 

actions taken by the Department of 

Justice employee in response to the 

notification. 

(3) Complaints must be submitted 

within 60 days of the victim’s 

knowledge of a violation, but not more 

than one year after the actual violation. 

(4)(i) In response to a complaint that 

provides the information required under 

paragraph (c)(2) of this section and that 

contains specific and credible 

information that demonstrates that one 

or more crime victims’ rights listed in 

18 U.S.C. 3771 may have been violated 

by a Department of Justice employee or 

office, the POC shall investigate the 

allegation(s) in the complaint within a 

reasonable period of time. 

(ii) The POC shall report the results of 

the investigation to the VRO. 

(5) Upon receipt of the POC’s report 

of the investigation, the VRO shall 

determine whether to close the 

complaint without further action, 

whether further investigation is 

warranted, or whether action in 

accordance with paragraphs (d) or (e) of 

this section is necessary. 

(6) Where the VRO concludes that 

further investigation is warranted, he 

may conduct such further investigation. 

Upon conclusion of the investigation, 

the VRO may close the complaint if he 

determines that no further action is 

warranted or may take action under 

paragraph (d) or (e) of this section. 

(7) The VRO shall be the final arbiter 

of the complaint. 

(8) A complainant may not seek 

judicial review of the VRO’s 

determination regarding the complaint. 

(9) To the extent permissible in 

accordance with the Privacy Act and 

other relevant statutes and regulations 

regarding release of information by the 

Federal government, the VRO, in his 

discretion, may notify the complainant 

of the result of the investigation. 

(10) The POC and the VRO shall refer 

to the Office of the Inspector General 

and to the Office of Professional 

Responsibility any matters that fall 

under those offices’ respective 

jurisdictions that come to light in an 

investigation. 

(d) If the VRO finds that an employee 

or office of the Department of Justice has 

failed to provide a victim with a right 

to which the victim is entitled under 18 

U.S.C. 3771, but not in a willful or 

wanton manner, he shall require such 

employee or office of the Department of 

Justice to undergo training on victims’

rights. 

(e) Disciplinary procedures. (1) If, 

based on the investigation, the VRO 

determines that a Department of Justice 

employee has wantonly or willfully 

failed to provide the complainant with 

a right listed in 18 U.S.C. 3771, the VRO 

shall recommend, in conformity with 

laws and regulations regarding 

employee discipline, a range of 

disciplinary sanctions to the head of the 

office of the Department of Justice in 

which the employee is located, or to the 

official who has been designated by 

Department of Justice regulations and 

procedures to take action on 

disciplinary matters for that office. The 

head of that office of the Department of 

Justice, or the other official designated 

by Department of Justice regulations and 

procedures to take action on 

disciplinary matters for that office, shall 

be the final decision-maker regarding 

the disciplinary sanction to be imposed, 

in accordance with applicable laws and 

regulations. 

(2) Disciplinary sanctions available 

under paragraph (e)(1) of this section 

include all sanctions provided under 

the Department of Justice Human 

Resources Order, 1200.1. 

Dated: November 10, 2005. 

Alberto R. Gonzales, 

Attorney General. 

[FR Doc. 05–22801 Filed 11–16–05; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4410–19–P