Center for Federal Accountability

Justice Department proposes Privacy Act exemptions for its new firearms rights restoration database

The Office of the Pardon Attorney would exempt its new Firearms Rights Restoration Electronic Records Database, which will hold applicants' personal, financial, health and criminal history information on an FBI system, from the Privacy Act's access, amendment and accuracy requirements. Comments close November 6, 2026.

2026-10-08 · Office of the Pardon Attorney, Justice Department · Information · Docket CPCLO Order No. 009-2026

On October 7, 2026, the Justice Department's Office of the Pardon Attorney proposed exempting a new system of records, the Firearms Rights Restoration Electronic Records Database (JUSTICE/OPA-002), from several provisions of the Privacy Act (91 FR 64125, FR Doc. 2026-20532, CPCLO Order No. 009-2026). The database holds records on people who apply under 18 U.S.C. 925(c) to have their federal firearms rights restored. Comments are due November 6, 2026. The proposal has no RIN, and regulations.gov lists it in the Department's temporary holding docket (DOJ_FRDOC_0001-0334), where no comments had been posted as of October 7, 2026. The notice creating the system of records was published in the same day's Federal Register.

## What would change

Federal law bars several categories of people from possessing firearms (18 U.S.C. 922(g)), and section 925(c) lets them apply to the Attorney General for relief. According to the proposal, the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives ran this process until March 2025, but Congress has barred it from spending appropriated funds on section 925(c) investigations since 1992. The proposal traces the new process through Executive Order 14206 (February 2025), an interim final rule withdrawing the delegation to ATF (90 FR 13080, March 20, 2025), a proposed rule (90 FR 34394, July 22, 2025) and a final rule issued in August 2026 (91 FR 54054). The Office of the Pardon Attorney now receives, tracks and investigates applications and prepares recommendations for the Attorney General (91 FR 64126).

The proposed rule would add the new system to 28 CFR 16.79 and exempt it from these parts of the Privacy Act, 5 U.S.C. 552a: (c)(3), giving a person the accounting of who received their records; (c)(4), telling recipients about corrections; (d)(1) to (4), a person's right to see and seek amendment of their records; (e)(1), keeping only relevant and necessary information; (e)(2), collecting information directly from the person; and (e)(5), keeping records accurate, relevant, timely and complete (91 FR 64128). The Department claims the exemptions under both 5 U.S.C. 552a(j)(2), which covers agencies whose principal function is criminal law enforcement and names "pardon or parole authorities," and 552a(k)(2), which covers investigatory material compiled for law enforcement purposes (91 FR 64126).

## How the system would work

The database will not be a separate system. It will use the FBI's Electronic Departmental Order service inside the Next Generation Identification system, which is covered by its own notice, JUSTICE/FBI-009 (84 FR 54182, October 9, 2019), and those FBI systems "will also host" the records (91 FR 64126). The application collects "personal, financial, health, and criminal history information about the applicant" (91 FR 64127).

The Department's reasons for the exemptions are that releasing the records would reveal "the nature and scope of the firearms restoration adjudicatory process," undermine candid communications among officials advising the Attorney General, and expose confidential sources. On amendment, it says "Administrative due process could not be achieved by the ex parte 'correction' of law enforcement and other evidentiary materials by the individual who is the subject thereof." On accuracy, it says many records come from other agencies, "including non-federal government agencies not subject to the requirements of the Privacy Act," and that the exemption would "reduce the administrative burden" of vouching for every source (91 FR 64128). The proposal reports two listening sessions with tribal authorities about tribal conviction and status records that will be kept in the system (91 FR 64127).

The exemptions apply "only to the extent" a record qualifies under subsection (j) or (k), and the Department "in its sole discretion" may waive one where compliance would not interfere with the system's purpose (91 FR 64128).

## The numbers

The Paperwork Reduction Act section describes the application, "Application for Restoration of Federal Firearms Rights" (OMB control number 1123-0017): an estimated 330,000 respondents a year, 65 minutes per response, a $30 fee, and a response "once every five years until relief is granted" (91 FR 64127-64128). The section says it gives "an estimate of the total annual burden" but does not state a total. CFA's calculation from those figures is 357,500 hours a year, and $9.9 million a year in fees if every respondent pays. The Department found the rule not significant under Executive Order 12866, so the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs did not review it.

## CFA's observations

These are CFA's observations from the text, not findings about how the system will be run.

The record subjects are the applicants themselves, and the application asks them for health and financial information. The proposal does not say which records it regards as law enforcement material and which, such as an applicant's own submissions, would stay open to access and amendment. It leaves that to case-by-case determination and the Department's discretionary waiver.

The proposal does not say how an applicant who is denied relief could find and correct an inaccurate record behind the decision, for example a wrong criminal history or tribal record. It exempts the system from both the amendment right and the accuracy requirement, and gives the burden of verifying outside sources as one reason.

The proposal claims (j)(2) and (k)(2) together and does not say which of them supports each exemption.

The proposal does not mention a privacy impact assessment for the new system or for its use of the FBI's Next Generation Identification system. It also does not say whether other users of that system can see the restoration records; the companion notice may address this, and CFA had not read it when this was written.

The amending instruction says section 16.79 "is amended by adding revising paragraphs (c) and (d)," which leaves unclear whether the paragraphs are new or replace existing text (91 FR 64128).

## CFA's records on the Justice Department

CFA does not yet grade the Justice Department on its agency scoreboard. The government-wide grade is "Minor," with a composite score of 83.38 across 8 areas. CFA's system of records analysis counts 478 Justice Department notices in the Federal Register export, up from 474 in the previous refresh, ranking it 14th among agencies with 2.2 percent of all notices. CFA's privacy notice and assessment linkage report has crawled 261 Justice Department privacy impact assessment pages. CFA has not checked whether any of them covers the new database.

## What to watch

Whether the final rule says which records, such as an applicant's own submissions, stay open to access and amendment.

Whether the Department publishes a privacy impact assessment for the database and its hosting in the FBI's Next Generation Identification system.

Whether the final rule matches each exemption to (j)(2) or (k)(2), and corrects the amending instruction for section 16.79.

How the burden and fee figures appear when the information collection under OMB control number 1123-0017 goes to the Office of Management and Budget.

## How to comment

Comments are due November 6, 2026, and must cite CPCLO Order No. 009-2026. They can be filed at regulations.gov (document DOJ_FRDOC_0001-0334) before midnight Eastern time that day; sent by email to the address given in the notice; faxed to 202-307-0693; or mailed to the Office of Privacy and Civil Liberties, ATTN: Privacy Analyst, Two Constitution Square (2CON), 145 N Street NE, Suite 8W.300, Washington, DC 20530. Mailed comments are on time if postmarked by the closing date. Comments are posted publicly unless marked as the notice describes.

Authorities