all Call Himston и The proposel, chelle begured for some hat not the actinitis envisioned سمر the propisal. The lack of specificity, and stapply residing stify deployment, and not affiliated with corte, to une then. Layest and a developmented effort, operational conte consume the share of funding at devilly affect na persone question of wh reasonableness There whether the stafy proposed are realister in light by theirs in responsibilites facilitating гду Tinitiative most ather appear to be an effort to mahilige, coordinate, facilitate, expedite, ete existing Agences, Governmented Score 5 Coner, organgation and indemeding an cntigual tembull Coordinaty Connees, Algany groups, the, and therefore do not require Perhaps денел a direct service. percons Consideration phoned to deployment of notify, a manner а unrenconable. defferent Othe carte do not seem un Hummery Statement Continue to be very favorably im The Nationa The pressed with the vision of Partnersking, and strongly recomment factiating be pursued. I wish the and, homever, that the application - received while commendable in some respecte; senous deficiencies which should be considered for and for and improved upon. APPENDIX A REGULATION ON COMPETITION AND PEER REVIEW POLICY Federal Register / Vol. 50. No. 149 / Friday, August 2: 1985 / Rules and Regulations (j) The following system of records is exempt from 5 U.S.C. 552a (c)(3), (d). (e)(1). (e)(4) (G) and (H), (f) and (g): (1) National Center for the Analysis of Violent Crime (NCAVC}}{JUSTICE/FBI015). These exemptions apply only to the extent that information in this system is subject to exemption pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 552a (i)(2) and (4)(2). ́ (k) Exemptions from the particular subsections are justified for the following reasons: (1) From subsection (c)(3) because providing the accounting of disclosures to the subject could prematurely reveal investigative interest by the FBI and other law enforcement agencies, thereby providing the individual an opportunity to impede an active investigation. destroy or alter evidence, and possibly render harm to violent crime victims and/or witnesses. (2) From subsections (d), (e)(4) (G) and (H), and (f) because disclosure to the subject could interfere with enforcement proceedings of a criminal justice agency. reveal the identity of a confidential source. result in an unwarranted invasion of another's privacy, reveal the details of a sensitive investigative technique, or endanger the life and safety of law enforcement personnel. potential violent crime victims, and witnesses. Disclosure also could prevent the future apprehension of a violent or . exceptionally dangerous criminal fugitive should he or she modify his or her method of operation in order to evade law enforcement. Also.. specifically from subsection (d)(2). which permits an individual to request amendment of a record, because the nature of the information in the system is such that an individual criminal offender would frequently demand amendment of derogatory information.. forcing the FBI to continuously retrograde its criminal investigations in an attempt to resolve questions of accuracy, etc. (3) From subsection (g) because the system is exempt from the access and amendment provisions of subsection (d). (4) From subsection (e)(1) because it is not always possible to establish relevance and necessity of the information at the time it is obtained or developed. Information, the relevance and necessity of which may not be readily apparent, frequently can prover to be of investigative value at a later date and time. [FR Doc. 85-18232 Filed 8-1-35; 8:45 am) BILLING CODE 4419-03-18 Office of Juvenile Justica and Delinquency Prevention 28 CFR Part 34 Competition and Peer Review Policy AGENCY: Office of Juvenile Justice and SUMMARY: The Office of Juvenile Justice Act. EFFECTIVE DATE: This regulation is effective August 2, 1985. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Dr. James C. Howell, Office of the Deputy Administrator. OJJDP, 633 Indiana Avenue, NW., Room 748, Washington, D.C. 20531; telephone 202/ 724-5911. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Background Information This regulation pertains to a new requirement in the Act. The statute previously contained no requirement for use of competition or peer review in the award of funds to programs and projects under either Parf B, Subpart IL or Part C of the Act. Exclusions -The rationale for excluding specific types of funding from the scope of the competition and peer review regulation warrants further explanation. (1) Exclusion of projects selected for funding prior to October 12, 1984. The regulation excludes projects for which initial applications were received prior to or on October 12 1984, and which receive(d) an initial award after such date (§ 34.2(b)): The primary basis for this exclusion is that Section 225(d)(2) of the Act specifies that "new programs 31361 selected after the effective date of the Act shall be reviewed before selection and thereafter as appropriate through a formal peer review process.... Further, our review of the legislative history of the 1984 Amendments to the Act indicates that Congress intended that the provision apply only to "new" programs, not those already selected and being processed for funding. The exclusion applies to projects under the "Private Sector Corrections" Program. (See discussion under Comment 1.) (2) Exclusion of procurement contracts. The regulation does not cover procurement contracts (§ 34.2(h)). This is because OJDP's procurement contracts are already subject to other Federal laws (the Federal Property and Administrative Services Act) and regulations (the Federal Acquisition Regulation), which severely limit sole source contract awards, and because both the statute and its legislative history make specific reference to "assistance" awards and not to the procurement of goods and services for the benefit and use of the government. (3) Exciusion of competitively awarded Part C programs and projects from peer review. These are excluded by statute. The peer review requirement applies only to assistance awards under Part B. Subpart II of the Act and noncompetitive Part C awards. (See discussion under Comment 8.) (4) Exclusion of continuation projects. Section 34.2(c) provides that the funding of "continuation" awards is excepted from the regulation. This exception applies to awards for the continuation of project activities which were initially funded under projects selected for award prior to or on October 12, 1984. When continuation awards are made that extend the projected or anticipated project completion date. OJJDP intends. by use of this limiting language, to fund only those specific follow-on activities which were within the scope of and consistent with the original purposes and objectives of the project. (5) Exclusion of other types of projects. Other specific types of projects are excluded from the regulation. For example. Federal inter-agency fund transfers are excluded because it would serve no purpose to include them. Reservation of Subpart C, Emergency Expedited Review Section 225(d)(3) of the Act provides that "the Administrator ・・・ shall provide for emergency expedited consideration of program.proposais when necessary to avoid any delay which would preclude carrying out the program." 31382 Federal Register / Vol. 50, No. 149 / Friday, August 2, 1985 / Rules and Regulations Although it is not possible to specify in advance if or when emergency expedited consideration may be necessary, several circumstances have called for expedited application processing by O]DP in the past. These include the following circumstances: (1) A local tragedy, disaster, or crisis. such as that which occurred a few years ago in Atlanta (because of the child murders) to which OJJDP responded quickly with funds for prevention programming and (2) An opportimity to support an outstanding program which is about to cease operations because of the unanticipated loss of existing financial support Under these and other emergency circumstances, OJJDP believes that, by administratively expediting the procedures set forth for competition and peer review under Subpart A and Subpart B of this regulation, no delay will occur which would preclude carrying out the program. Consequently, ODP is reserving rulemaking under Subpart C. If experience in implementing the competition and peer review process subsequently indicates the need for special emergency expedited review procedures, a rule would be proposed for public comment as Subpart C of this regulation. Commitation OJDP has initiated consultation with the National Science Foundation (NSF) and the National Institute of Mental Health (NIMH) as required by section 225(d)(2) of the Act. The detailed peer review process to be used in carrying out the broad policy specified in Subpart B is under continuing review by these agencies. OfDP anticipates that the consultation process will be an ongoing one which will permit the OJDP Peer. Review Manual to be a fluid document that can be continuously reviewed and modified based on OJJDF's experience in implementing the peer review process. OJJDP has carefully considered their input, as well as comments received from the public, in the The following is a summary of the 1. Comment: The exceptions to Response: Section 225(d) of the Act These "exceptions" are not, in fact, formulation of the peer review portion of applicants after the October 12, 1984 the regulation. Discussion of Comments A proposed regulation was published in the Federal Register on April 29, 1985 for public comment. Seven written: comments were received: Ons from two Members of Congress, three from national organizations, one from a University, one from a local government unit, and one from an individual. All comments have been considered by OJDP in the issuance of this regulation. date is not viewed as a circumvention of 2 Comment OJDP's statement of the Response: If an applicant is "uniquely qualified" there can be no other "qualified sources." especially one which is, though qualified. "not capable" of carrying out a proposed project. Consequently, OJJDP views a finding that an applicant is "uniquely qualified" as necessarily incorporating these other statutory requirements. 3. Comment: Two commentors raised issues with respect to the fund transfer exceptions specified in § 34.2 (f) and (g). With respect to funds transferred to OJDP by other Federal agencies, it was suggested that OfJDP should seek programmatic advice from outside experts when appropriate and award such funds competitively. With respect to funds transferred to other Federal agencies by OJJDP, it was suggested that OJDP be actively involved in program development and administration in order to ensure that experts are consulted and competition is required for grants and other assistance awarded. Response: The statutory authority under which OJJDP expends funds transferred to it by another Federal agency is that of the transferring agency. Consequently, Section 225(d) would not be applicable. However, in the expenditure or award of such funds. OJJDP will consider the use, as appropriate, of competition and peer review procedures. The ability of OJDP to transfer Part B. Subpart II, and Part C funds to other Federal agencies is limited. The Economy Act. 31 US.C 1535, authorizes OJDP to order and pay for goods and services provided by another Federal agency. OJJDP has used this authority, for example, as the basis to transfer funds to the Federal Law Enforcement Training Center to provide statutarily authorized training services to juvenile justice and law enforcement system personnel. In addition, section 241(e)(2) of Part C of the Act authorities NIJJDP to "(2) arrange with and reimburse the heads of Federal agencies for the use of personnel or facilities or equipment of such agencies". This authority has been used, for example, to transfer funds to the Census Bureau for the Children in Custody Survey. Finally, OJDP has authority to enter into joint funding arrangements with other Federal agencies under section 205 of the Act. These limited sources of fund transfer authority do not constitute "assistance" awards under section 225(d). However, OJJDP intends, if it is appropriate to do so in a particular fund transier situation, to maximize the use of both competition procedures and outside experts. Federal Register / Vol. 50. No. 149 / Friday, August 2. 1985 / Rules and Regulations 4. Comment: In enumerating the criteria to be used in the competitive selection of applications (§ 34.2), the proposed regulation fails to list the statutory requirements for Part B. Subpart L applications found in section 225 (b) and (c) of the Act. Response: The minimum administrative and program requirements for Special Emphasis discretionary program applications set forth in section 225(b) and the considerations specified in section 225(c) to be taken into account by the Administrator in selecting applications for award are not germane to the broad competition and peer review policy set forth in the regulation. Individual program announcements, OJJDP policy.. and the OJJDP Peer Review Manual will, however, incorporate these statutory requirements. OJJDP will ensure that the section 225(b) requirements are met and the Administrator will consider, in making final decisions on applications, the six selection criteria specified in section 225(c). 5. Comment The regulation provision for notification of disposition to applicants (§ 34.4(f)) should provide for feedback of written review comments and summaries to all applicants. Response: It has been OJJDP's longstanding practice to provide unsuccessful applicants with either a summary of reviewer comments which specifies application deficiencies or copies of reviewer rating and comment sheets (with reviewer identification. removed). Where summaries are provided initially, copies of reviewer rating and comment sheets will be provided if an applicant specifically requests these documents. This practice will be continued for all applications subject to the peer review procedure and will be incorporated in the OJJDP Peer Review Manual. 6. Comment: The exclusion of competitive Part C (NIJJDP) programs. particularly research, development and demonstration programs, from peer review is not warranted, especially when a large number of applications is received in response to a Federal Register program announcement. Response: Section 225(d)(2) of the Act does not require peer review for competitively funded Part C programs. Although section 241(h) of Part Č of the Act states that "The authority of the Institute under this part shall be subject to the terms and conditions of section 225(d)", the OJP Office of General Counsel has advised OJJDP that this language does no more than incorporate the language of section 225(d) into Part C to the extent that it applies by its terms. Congress could easily have Nevertheless. OJDP concurs with the 7. Comment: Is investigator-initiated Response: No. Unsolicited research 8. Comment: The peer review Response: Section 225(d)(2) does not require that OJJDP's peer review policy. much less the specific procedures adopted to implement that policy, be published in the Federal Register for review and comment. However, OJJDP views peer review, where mandated or otherwise appropriate, as an integral part of the overall competitive process. Consequently, the specific principles 31363 under which peer review will be 9. Comment Applications recommended by the peer review process should be binding rather than advisory. Response: The Administrator, OJJDP. is the Federal official charged with the responsibility to administer OJJDP's programs, including the award and denial of assistance applications (see section 201(b) of the Act). Further. section's 225(d) specifies that assistance programs and projects are to be "reviewed before selection" through a formal peer review process, indicating a clear Congressional intent that the decisionmaking authority remain in the Administrator. It must also be noted that the role of a peer reviewer (evaluator of technical and programmatic merit) is a limited one. It necessarily excludes consideration of administrative and procedural requirements, judgments on compliance with minimum program requirements (such as civil rights requirements), statutory funding criteria. and other criteria such as geographic balance, fiscal responsibility determinations, and the like: which necessarily influence the decisionmaking process. Consequently.. Congress has centered the.. "decisionmaking authority in one individual whom it has made * responsible for taking all elements of |