[Federal Register Volume 70, Number 221 (Thursday, November 17, 2005)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 69650-69654]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 05-22801]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

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.

[[Page 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

[[Page 69652]]

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-of-remedies 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

[[Page 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 foreign-based 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.


0
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

0
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.


0
2. In part 45, a new Sec.  45.10 is added to read as follows:


Sec.  45.10  Procedures to promote compliance with crime victims' 
rights obligations.

    (a) Definitions. The following definitions shall apply with respect 
to

[[Page 69654]]

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