# 90 FR 6879: Homicide Victims' Families' Rights Act > Federal · Regulations · In force URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/statutes/FR_PRORULE_2025-01159 ## Section - **Citation:** 90 FR 6879 - **Heading:** Homicide Victims' Families' Rights Act - **Jurisdiction:** Federal - **Kind:** Regulations - **Status:** In force - **Text as of:** August 14, 2026 - **Source:** Compiled text - **Location:** Federal Register / Vol. 90 / 90 FR 6879 ## Text 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 ticipation 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 ion 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 t'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 lly, 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 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 2 (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 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.”) t 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 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) ion 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 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 non-federal 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 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 ed 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 s 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 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 ber 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) w 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 up-to-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 cipal 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 vestigation 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 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 known 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 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 ) 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 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) , 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 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 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) , 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 ations 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 r 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 s 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 re-examination 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 ng 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 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 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 h, 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 rior, 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. 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”) .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-in-law, 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 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. s. This element requires the reviewer to consider whether additional or potentially more effective investigative measures would have been taken in the (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. 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 se 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. al 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. 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 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 d 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 ## Nearby sections - [90 FR 59 Access to Video Conferencing](https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/statutes/FR_PRORULE_2024-30501.md) - [90 FR 271 Securing the Information and Communications Technology and Services Supply Chain: Unmanned Aircraft Systems](https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/statutes/FR_PRORULE_2024-30209.md) - [90 FR 283 Air Plan Approval; Ohio; Moderate Attainment Plan Elements for the Cleveland Area for the 2015 Ozone Standard](https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/statutes/FR_PRORULE_2024-30717.md) - [90 FR 578 Airworthiness Directives; Bombardier, Inc., Airplanes](https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/statutes/FR_PRORULE_2024-31624.md) - [90 FR 581 Section 30C Alternative Fuel Vehicle Refueling Property Credit; Hearing](https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/statutes/FR_PRORULE_2024-31233.md) - [90 FR 1050 Modification of Class E Airspace; Battle Mountain Airport, Battle Mountain, NV](https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/statutes/FR_PRORULE_2024-31694.md) - [90 FR 1054 Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Removal of Ute Ladies'-Tresses From the List of Endangered and Threatened Plants](https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/statutes/FR_PRORULE_2024-30380.md) - [90 FR 1419 Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; 90-Day Finding on Two Petitions for Gray Wolf](https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/statutes/FR_PRORULE_2024-31754.md) - [90 FR 1421 Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Endangered Species Status for the Bleached Sandhill Skipper](https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/statutes/FR_PRORULE_2024-31761.md) - [90 FR 1909 Federal Baseline Water Quality Standards for Indian Reservations; Withdrawal of Proposed Rule](https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/statutes/FR_PRORULE_2024-31219.md) - [90 FR 2550 Amendments to Definitions and Related Provisions Under the Randolph-Sheppard Vending Facility Program](https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/statutes/FR_PRORULE_2025-00124.md) - [90 FR 3046 Airworthiness Directives; Siam Hiller Holdings, Inc, Helicopters](https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/statutes/FR_PRORULE_2025-00588.md) - [90 FR 3107 C.I. Pigment Violet 29 (PV29); Regulation Under the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA)](https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/statutes/FR_PRORULE_2024-30931.md) - [90 FR 3720 Oranges and Grapefruit Grown in Lower Rio Grande Valley in Texas; Increased Assessment Rate](https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/statutes/FR_PRORULE_2025-00193.md) --- Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/statutes/FR_PRORULE_2025-01159. Check the current official text before relying on it. Not legal advice.