24256 Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 94 / Tuesday, May 14, 1996 / Proposed Rules

1Liebman, D.A., and Schwartz, J.A., Police

Programs in Crisis Intervention: A Review, (J.R.

Snibbe and H.M. Snibbe eds. 1973). See also

Charles C. Thomas, The Urban Policeman in

Transition: A Psychological and Sociological

Review (1973).

2 Garner, J., Fagan, J., and Maxwell, C., Published

Findings from the Spouse Assault Replication

Program: A Critical Review, Journal of Quantitative

Criminology, 11[1], 3–28, 1995.

Fagan, J., The Criminalization of Domestic

Violence: Promises and Limits, Presentation at the

1995 National Institute of Justice Conference on

Criminal Justice Research and Evaluation, January,

1996, available through the National Criminal

Justice Reference Service, 1–800–851–3420.

3Hart, B.J., Coordinated Community Approaches

to Domestic Violence, presented at the Strategic

Planning Workshop on Violence Against Women

sponsored by the National Institute of Justice in

Washington, D.C., March 31, 1995, available

through the National Criminal Justice Reference

Service, 1–800–851–3420.

4Layden, J., Domestic Violence, Headliners, 1994.

VI. References

The following references have been

placed on display in the Dockets

Management Branch (address above)

and may be seen by interested persons

between 9 a.m. and 4 p.m., Monday

through Friday.

1. Prusiner, S. B. , ‘‘Novel Proteinaceous

Infectious Particles Cause Scrapie,’’ Science,

216:136–144, 1982.

2. Stahl, N. and S. B. Prusiner, ‘‘Prions and

Prion Proteins,’’ FASEB Journal, 5:2799–

2807, 1991.

3. Will, R. G. et al., ‘‘A New Variant of

Creutzfeldt-Jakob Disease in the UK,’’ Lancet,

347, 921–925, 1996.

4. WHO press release, April 3, 1996,

‘‘International Experts Propose Measures to

Limit Spread of BSE and Reduce Possible

Human Risk from Disease.’’

Dated: May 8, 1996.

David A. Kessler,

Commissioner of Food and Drugs.

Donna E. Shalala,

Secretary of Health and Human Services.

[FR Doc. 96–12081 Filed 5–9–96; 2:16 pm]

BILLING CODE 4160–01–F

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE

Office of Justice Programs

28 CFR Part 90

[OJP No. 1019]

RIN 1121–AA35

Grants To Encourage Arrest Policies

AGENCY: U.S. Department of Justice,

Office of Justice Programs.

ACTION: Proposed rule.

SUMMARY: This notice announces a

proposed rule for the Grants to

Encourage Arrest Policies authorized by

the Violence Against Women Act, Title

IV of the Violent Crime Control and Law

Enforcement Act of 1994. For Fiscal

Year 1996, Congress has appropriated

$28 million to the United States

Department of Justice, Office of Justice

Programs, for Grants to Encourage

Arrest Policies. This regulation is being

published under the general statutory

grant of authority to issue rules and

regulations pursuant to the Omnibus

Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of

1968. The purpose of this regulation is

to provide a general outline of the

program and its purposes as set forth in

the statute.

DATES: All comments must be received

by June 13, 1996. The length of the

comment period has been limited to

thirty days in order to provide States

timely access to the available program

funds. It would be contrary to the public

interest to delay implementation of the

program.

ADDRESSES: All comments should be

addressed to Kathy Schwartz, Violence

Against Women Grants Office, Office of

Justice Programs, Room 446, 633

Indiana Avenue, N.W., Washington,

D.C. 20531.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: The

Department of Justice Response Center

at 1–800–421–6770 or (202) 307–1480,

or Catherine Pierce, Violence Against

Women Grants Office, Office of Justice

Programs at (202) 307–6026.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Title IV Grants To Encourage Arrest

Policies

For Fiscal Year (FY) 1996, Congress

authorized a federal discretionary grant

program under Title IV of the Violent

Crime Control and Law Enforcement

Act of 1994, Pub. L. No. 103–22, 108

Stat. 1796, 1902–55, codified as

amended at 42 U.S.C. § 3796hh et seq

(1994) [hereinafter the ‘‘Act’’], for States,

units of local government, and Indian

tribal governments to encourage the

treatment of domestic violence as a

serious violation of criminal law. The

Act gives the Attorney General and an

authorized designee, in this case the

Assistant Attorney General for the

Office of Justice Programs, the authority

to make grants to the above mentioned

entities. Omnibus Crime Control and

Safe Streets Act of 1968 § 805, codified

as amended at 42 U.S.C. § 3768 (1994)

[hereinafter the ‘‘Omnibus Act’’].

Section 2104 of Title IV of the Act,

codified as amended at 42 U.S.C.

§ 3796hh-3, requires that regulations be

issued specifically to implement these

policies and programs.

Statement of the Problem

In the past, police departments, and

the criminal justice system as a whole,

generally treated domestic violence as a

private, family matter unlike any other

violent crime. Many police departments

maintained informal non-arrest policies

for domestic violence, focusing instead

on alternative responses such as family

crisis intervention and counseling for

domestic abusers.1 In recent years, many

departments have implemented new

policies and practices that encourage or

mandate arrest of a perpetrator of

domestic violence for probable cause or

for violating a protection order.2 To

ensure the effectiveness of these new

policies, some departments have created

special domestic violence units that

train personnel; develop guidelines and

protocols for enforcing laws related to

domestic violence; create sophisticated

tracking and communication systems;

investigate both misdemeanor and

felony domestic assaults; develop

accountability measures which ensure

enforcement of the law by all officers in

the department; and coordinate with

other criminal justice agencies and

victim service providers. Despite these

very significant accomplishments, many

more police departments require the

tools and resources necessary to

implement similar innovations in their

own communities.

For arrest to be an effective domestic

violence intervention, it must be part of

a coordinated and integrated response to

the problem on the part of the entire

criminal justice system.3 That is,

mandatory or proarrest policies will be

effective only if police departments

implement clear guidelines and

protocols for the arrest of domestic

violence perpetrators; if police and

prosecutors alike conduct thorough and

careful investigations of domestic

violence cases; if judges impose

appropriate sentences; if batterers

remain in custody after they are

arrested; if probation and parole

departments devise ways to effectively

supervise batterers; and if victims feel

confident that all professionals in the

system are committed to their safety and

the safety of their children.

Policies that Mandate or Encourage

Arrest

Laws and policies that encourage or

mandate the arrest of a domestic

violence perpetrator based on probable

cause are not new. Currently, at least 27

States and the District of Columbia have

adopted laws that mandate or encourage

arrest of a person who assaults a family

member, or of a person who violates a

domestic violence protection order.4

Federal law also requires all states

honor certain protection orders issued

by other jurisdictions. Act § 4022(a), 18
Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 94 / Tuesday, May 14, 1996 / Proposed Rules 24257

5Men can be the victims of abuse, and women

can be perpetrators. However, the vast majority of

victims of domestic violence are women. In

addition, it is much less common for men to receive

injuries as a result of their abuse and less likely for

men to become entrapped in relationships where

they cannot leave for fear of extreme bodily harm

to themselves or their children. For these reasons,

victims are referred to as women and perpetrators

as men throughout these proposed regulations. See

Stets, J.E. and Straus, M.A., Gender Differences in

Reporting Marital Violence and its Medical and

Psychological Consequences (Physical Violence in

American Families: Risk Factors and Adaptations to

Violence in 8,145 Families, Straus, M.A. and Gelles,

R.J. eds. 1990).

U.S.C. § 2265(a). Domestic violence

incidents are among the most difficult

and most sensitive calls requesting

police assistance. For this reason, many

police departments with mandatory or

proarrest policies inform their officers

that, when responding to a domestic

violence call, they must anticipate the

unexpected, be carefully impartial and

be primarily concerned for the needs

and safety of the victim or victims.

Some mandatory or proarrest policies go

a step further by directing responding

officers to arrest the primary aggressor

in a domestic violence incident. These

policies warn that dual arrests may

trivialize the seriousness of domestic

violence and potentially increase danger

to its victims. Most importantly, arrest

of the batterer conveys a message to the

victim, the family and the community

that domestic violence is a serious crime

that will not be tolerated. Mandatory or

proarrest policies also offer the potential

benefit of deterring future abuse if the

offender is separated from the victim

and held publicly accountable for his 5

actions. Arrest demonstrates to the

offender that he has committed a serious

crime and communicates to the victim

that she does not have to endure the

offender’s abuse. Moreover, arrest of the

offender sends a broader public

message—that violent behavior, even

between intimates, is criminal.

Orders of Protection

An order of protection is the legal

instrument many victims of domestic

violence initially seek to protect

themselves from further abuse. For

protection orders to be effective, the

terms of the order must be strictly and

consistently enforced, and abusers

violating the terms of the order must be

punished. To ensure a consistent

response, departmental policies

specifying the violations for which an

abuser is subject to arrest must be

communicated clearly to police officers

who respond to domestic violence calls.

Furthermore, there must be consistent

enforcement between same-State

jurisdictions (e.g., county to county or

city to city) or between communities

under the jurisdiction of the same tribal

government. In addition to intrastate

enforcement, States and tribal

governments must also take steps to

ensure the interstate (i.e., State to State)

enforcement of protection orders as

required by Section 40221(a) of the Act.

Prior to the enactment of the Violence

Against Women Act, a woman who

obtained a protection order in her home

state often could not use that order as

the basis for protection if she worked,

traveled, or moved to most other states.

Under the Violence Against Women

Act, a victim does not have to wait for

abuse to occur in the new state, nor does

she have to meet the new jurisdictional

requirements. A woman may now seek

enforcement of the out-of-state order in

the new state.

Although there is no universal

approach to effective implementation of

the full faith and credit provisions of the

Act, State and tribal law enforcement

agencies, courts, prosecutors, non-profit,

non-governmental victim services

agencies and private attorneys are

encouraged to collaborate on efforts and

strategies for bolstering and

implementing enforcement of out-ofstate protective orders. The state

administrative office of the court and

state law enforcement agencies, in

consultation with victim advocates,

should devise and publicize widely a

state plan for according full faith and

credit to protection orders.

Centralized Communication,

Information and Tracking Systems

Regardless of whether there is a

particular jurisdictional domestic

violence arrest policy in place, police

must have probable cause to make an

arrest. Police often are dispatched,

however, without any information

regarding the domestic violence or

criminal history of the people involved

in an altercation. The officers frequently

do not know if there is an outstanding

order of protection against the offender,

whether the offender has previously

been arrested for assaulting the victim,

or if charges are pending against the

perpetrator for prior alleged domestic

violence. Knowledge of this information

clearly would help guide the discretion

of an officer who is trying to determine

whether to make an arrest, and help him

or her ensure the safety of the victim

and other family members.

Beyond providing information about

the criminal history of the perpetrator,

responding officers also would benefit

greatly from communication and

tracking systems that could inform them

about the frequency of past calls to the

same location, prior weapons use, the

presence of children at the residence

and past need for medical emergency

services. These advanced information

systems also could provide a

description of the alleged perpetrator

and places he historically has

frequented if the offender is not found

at the scene.

Just as police officers need more

information to respond effectively, so do

prosecutors, judges and other criminal

justice professionals. Access to

centralized information on prior

incidents or convictions, prior issuance

of protection orders, other matters

involving the same family pending

before the court, and the availability of

community resources and services for

the victim would be extremely

beneficial to prosecutors seeking

convictions, to judges who must impose

a sentence and to probation and parole

officials responsible for providing

community supervision. Interstate and

intrastate communication and tracking

systems for use by police officers and

criminal justice professionals

throughout a state or region of the

country also would contribute to

enhancing the safety of victims.

The Role of Prosecutors, Judges, Victim

Advocates and Other Criminal Justice

Professionals

If arrest policies are to be effective,

pre-trial service agents, prosecutors,

judges, probation officers, and parole

officers need to respond with effective

supervision and prosecution strategies,

safety plans for victims, and appropriate

sentences for offenders. In addition,

prosecutors, judges and other criminal

justice professionals need tools and

resources to respond to domestic

violence as a serious crime. For

example, in those jurisdictions where

mandatory or proarrest policies have

been instituted, individual prosecutors

may be overwhelmed with domestic

violence cases, resulting in a severe lack

of resources and time needed to

prosecute each case effectively. To help

alleviate the backlog of domestic

violence cases, many prosecutors have

begun to work with victim advocates

during both the pending prosecution

and the sentencing phase of a case. In

many jurisdictions, victim advocates are

critical to domestic violence

prosecution. In addition to being

effective legal advocates, victim

advocates assist in safety planning with

the victim, providing the court with

information needed to determine risk

assessment and proposed conditions of

probation or parole for the offender.

Prosecutors, judges, victim advocates

and other criminal justice professionals

need specialized education and training

on the phenomenon of domestic
24258 Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 94 / Tuesday, May 14, 1996 / Proposed Rules

violence and information on community

resources available to assist the victim

and respond appropriately to the

batterer. Prosecutors need to understand

the psychology of domestic violence

victims (e.g., why they may be reluctant

to prosecute and the risks to their safety

if they decide to prosecute). Judges need

to craft effective protection orders and

they need the information and skills

necessary to tailor the sentence to the

individual perpetrator (e.g., ordering

protective conditions for victim safety,

incarceration, community service,

restitution, intensive probation or

parole, batterer intervention services,

drug and alcohol treatment, or all of the

above, as appropriate). Victim advocates

and all criminal justice professionals

need to work together to explore and

develop coordinated approaches to

reduce and prevent domestic violence.

Conclusion

While strong, clear arrest policies are

needed to guide the actions of police

officers, the rest of the criminal justice

system also must be directed to respond

similarly in ways that will break the

cycle of violence. Without aggressive,

system-wide coordination, arrest alone

will not stop domestic violence. Most

importantly, as a jurisdiction assesses

its response to domestic violence,

prioritizing victim safety within the

policies and practices of the entire

criminal justice system is essential. In

conclusion:

• Police departments need to develop

clear policies and procedures mandating

or encouraging arrest for perpetrators of

domestic violence and for the violation

of protection orders.

• Police officers need specialized

training on domestic violence, on

implementing departmental arrest

policies and related federal, state and

local law.

• Police departments need resources

to develop guidelines for arrest and

investigation of domestic violence,

specialized training programs, special

investigation or detective units, and

procedures to ensure coordination with

other parts of the criminal justice

system.

• Police departments need the

resources to develop advanced

communication, information and

tracking systems to enable them to

respond more effectively to domestic

violence incidents and prevent future

incidents that could result in aggravated

assault and homicide.

• Jurisdictions need to develop

methods and technologies that will

promote improved communication and

coordination between law enforcement,

prosecution, the judiciary and other

parts of the criminal justice and social

service systems to improve the entire

system’s response to domestic violence.

In addition, jurisdictions need to

develop centralized, automated

information systems that will track the

domestic violence history of involved

parties, including outstanding orders of

protection, previous arrests and pending

charges against perpetrators.

• Police and prosecutors need the

tools and resources to investigate

domestic violence cases aggressively

and thoroughly.

• Specialized education and training

programs for prosecutors, judges, victim

advocates and other criminal justice

professionals need to be developed or

replicated and adapted from existing

curricula.

• Procedures to expedite requests for

protection orders need to be developed

by police departments, prosecution

units, and the courts.

• Judges need to convey clearly to

batterers the gravity of their offenses by

imposing appropriate sentences.

• Probation and parole departments

need to establish protocols and

procedures for the intensive supervision

of batterers.

• Victims and their children need

access to a full range of services

including legal advocacy and assistance

in planning for their long and short-term

safety.

• Research needs to be conducted to

assess the effectiveness of arrest and

other legal sanctions for domestic

violence in communities that have

adopted a system-wide, coordinated

response to domestic violence.

The Violence Against Women Act of

1994

The Violence Against Women Act

reflects a firm commitment towards

working to change the criminal justice

system’s response to violence that

occurs when any woman is threatened

or assaulted by someone with whom she

has or has had an intimate relationship,

with whom she was previously

acquainted, or who is a stranger. By

committing significant Federal

resources and attention to restructuring

and strengthening the criminal justice

response to women who have been, or

potentially could be, victimized by

violence, the safety of all women can be

more effectively ensured.

Fiscal Year 1996 Grants To Encourage

Arrest Policies

For FY 1996, Congress has

appropriated $28 million to the United

States Department of Justice Office of

Justice Programs for Grants to Encourage

Arrest Policies. Additionally, Part U of

the Violence Against Women Act of

1994 authorizes $33 million for FY 1997

and $59 million for FY 1998. States,

Indian tribal governments, and units of

local government are eligible to receive

grants subject to the requirements of the

statute and these regulations, as well as

assurances and certifications specified

in the final program guidelines and

application materials that will be

available in early FY 1996.

Section 2101 of the Violence Against

Women Act, codified as amended at 42

U.S.C. § 3796hh (1994), enumerates the

following six purposes for which Grants

to Encourage Arrest Policies may be

used:

(1) To implement mandatory arrest or

proarrest programs and policies in

police departments, including

mandatory arrest programs and policies

for protection order violations;

(2) To develop policies and training

programs in police departments to

improve tracking of cases involving

domestic violence;

(3) To centralize and coordinate

police enforcement, prosecution, or

judicial responsibility for domestic

violence cases in groups or units of

police officers, prosecutors, or judges;

(4) To coordinate computer tracking

systems to ensure communication

between police, prosecutors, and both

criminal and family courts;

(5) To strengthen legal advocacy

service programs for victims of domestic

violence; and

(6) To educate judges in criminal and

other courts about domestic violence

and improve judicial handling of such

cases.

A Coordinated and Integrated Approach

to the Problem

By definition, a coordinated and

integrated approach suggests a

partnership among law enforcement,

prosecution, the courts, victim

advocates and service providers. The

goal of this Program is to treat domestic

violence as a serious violation of the

criminal law. A consistent criminal

justice system response to domestic

violence requires that professionals in

the various components of the system

have a shared vision that prioritizes the

safety and well-being of the victim. The

creation and implementation of that

vision necessitates collaboration among

police, prosecutors, the courts, and

victim service providers. Thus, the

Program requires that jurisdictions

incorporate the experience of nonprofit,

nongovernmental domestic violence

service providers into the project

planning and implementation process as

well as police, prosecutors, and the
Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 94 / Tuesday, May 14, 1996 / Proposed Rules 24259

courts. Examples of innovative

approaches include:

• Creating centralized units of police

officers, prosecutors, judges and

probation and parole officers to

investigate and handle domestic

violence cases.

• Implementing and testing the

effectiveness of domestic violence arrest

policies for violations of protection

orders in the context of a coordinated

criminal justice and community

response to domestic violence that

assigns priority to the safety of the

victim and holds the offender

accountable for his violent actions.

• Delivering comprehensive training

programs for the police, prosecutors,

probation and parole officers and the

judiciary that address the technical

issues associated with policies that

encourage or mandate arrest for

domestic violence; address the

phenomenon of domestic violence;

stress collaboration and shared

responsibility for ensuring the safety of

the victim; seek to change attitudes that

have traditionally prevented

professionals in the criminal justice

system from responding to domestic

violence as a serious violation of

criminal law; and provide information

on improved methods for tracking

domestic violence cases.

• Developing information systems,

automated registries, education and

training programs and technical

assistance efforts that facilitate

enforcement of protection orders within

a single jurisdiction; within a single

State; and from State to State.

• Linking automated information and

tracking systems to enhance

communication among police,

prosecutors, and criminal and family

courts to ensure that all of the system

components have access to consistent

and complete information about an

individual’s domestic violence history.

• Establishing and expanding

advocacy services for domestic violence

victims from the time an abuse report is

filed through the post-sentencing of the

offender, including any time during

which the offender is subject to

probation or parole supervision.

Eligibility Requirements

To be eligible to receive grants under

this Program, States, Indian tribal

governments, and units of local

government must certify that their laws

or official policies (1) Encourage or

mandate arrest of domestic violence

offenders based on probable cause that

an offense has been committed and (2)

encourage or mandate arrest of domestic

violence offenders who violate the terms

of a valid outstanding protection order.

Omnibus Act § 2101(c)(2), 42 U.S.C.

§ 3796hh(c)(2) (1994). Eligible

applicants also must demonstrate that

their laws, policies, or practices and

their training programs discourage dual

arrests of an offender and victim.

Omnibus Act § 2101(c)(2), 42 U.S.C.

§ 3796hh(c)(2) (1994).

In addition, States, Indian tribal

governments, and units of local

governments seeking grant funds

through this Program must certify that

their laws, policies, or practices prohibit

the issuance of mutual restraining

orders of protection, except in cases in

which both spouses file a claim and the

court makes detailed findings of fact

indicating that both spouses acted

primarily as aggressors and that neither

spouse acted primarily in self-defense.

Omnibus Act § 2101(c)(3), 42 U.S.C.

§ 3796hh(c)(3) (1994).

Eligible applicants also must certify

that their laws, policies, or practices do

not require, in connection with the

prosecution of any misdemeanor or

felony domestic violence offense, that

the victim bear the costs associated with

the filing of criminal charges or the

service of such charges on an abuser, or

costs associated with the issuance or

service of a warrant, protection order, or

witness subpoena. Omnibus Act

§ 2101(c)(4), 42 U.S.C. § 3796hh(c)(4)

(1994).

If the laws, policies, or practices

required by Section 2101(c) of the

Violence Against Women Act are not

currently in place, States, Indian tribal

governments, and local units of

government must provide assurances

that they will be in compliance with

these requirements by the date on which

the next session of the State or Indian

Tribal legislature ends, or September 13,

1996, whichever is later. Omnibus Act

§ 2102(a)(1) (A)–(B), 42 U.S.C.

§ 3796hh–1(a)(1) (A)–(B) (1994).

For the purposes of this Program, a

jurisdiction need not have pre-existing

policies encouraging or mandating

arrest to meet the eligibility

requirements listed above. However, a

State, Indian tribal government, or unit

of local government must specify the

policy that it intends to enact by the

statutory deadline in its application for

funding through this Program.

Award Priority

The Office of Justice Programs is

required by the Violence Against

Women Act to give priority to

applicants that (1) Do not currently

provide for centralized handling of

cases involving domestic violence by

police, prosecutors, and courts; and (2)

demonstrate a commitment to strong

enforcement of laws, and prosecution of

cases, involving domestic violence.

Omnibus Act § 2102(b) (1)–(2), 42 U.S.C.

§ 3796hh–1(b) (1)–(2) (1994).

Commitment may be demonstrated in a

number of ways including: clear

communication from top departmental

management that domestic violence

prevention is a priority; strict

enforcement of arrest policies;

innovative approaches to officer

supervision in domestic violence

matters; acknowledgment of officers

who consistently enforce domestic

violence arrest policies and sanctions

for those who do not; education and

training for all officers and supervisors

on enforcement of domestic violence

arrest policies and the phenomenon of

domestic violence; and creation of

special units to investigate and monitor

spousal and partner abuse cases.

Technical Assistance and Training/

Evaluation

The Office of Justice Programs intends

to assist States, Indian tribal

governments, and units of local

government in meeting the Program goal

of treating domestic violence as a

serious violation of criminal law. The

Office of Justice Programs therefore

hopes to set aside a small portion of the

funds provided through this Program to

provide specialized training and

technical assistance to help grant

recipients develop and implement

effective arrest policies in the context of

an integrated and coordinated criminal

justice and community response to

domestic violence.

In addition, the National Institute of

Justice will conduct evaluations and

studies of projects funded through this

Program. Past research on the

effectiveness of arrest policies for

domestic violence has focused primarily

on the police response and has not

measured the response of victim service

agencies and other parts of the criminal

justice system, including pretrial

services agencies, prosecution units, the

courts, probation and parole. Additional

research is needed to assess the

effectiveness of arrest and other legal

sanctions for domestic violence in

communities that have adopted a

system-wide, coordinated response to

domestic violence. The Office of Justice

Programs hopes to set aside a small

portion of the overall funds authorized

for the Program for this purpose.

Recipients of funds for this Program

must agree to cooperate with such

federally-sponsored research and

evaluation studies of their projects. In

addition, grant recipients are required to

report to the Attorney General on the

effectiveness of their project(s).

Omnibus Act § 2103, 42 U.S.C.
24260 Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 94 / Tuesday, May 14, 1996 / Proposed Rules

§ 3796hh–2 (1994). Recipients therefore

are strongly encouraged to develop a

local evaluation strategy to assess the

impact and effectiveness of their

programs. Applicants should consider

entering into partnerships with research

organizations that are submitting

simultaneous grant applications to the

National Institute of Justice for this

purpose.

Request for Comments

The Office of Justice Programs seeks

to fulfill Congressional intent by

soliciting, encouraging and

incorporating comments on all aspects

of this program while ensuring that the

statutory limitations are applied

appropriately to all recipients.

Comments are welcome on a broad

range of issues, including but not

limited to:

(1) Other priority areas that should be

considered for funding in addition to

the statutory award priorities identified

in Section 90.66 of Subpart D;

(2) The special needs of Indian tribal

governments, underserved populations

and rural communities in implementing

this Program;

(3) Effective strategies to ensure that

local jurisdictions, States and tribal

governments will accord full faith and

credit to all valid protection orders

pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 2265; and

(4) Methods and approaches for

conducting research on the effectiveness

of arrest and other legal sanctions for

domestic violence in communities that

have adopted a system-wide

coordinated response to the problem.

Administrative Requirements

This regulation has been drafted and

reviewed in accordance with Executive

Order 12866, § 1(b), Principles of

Regulation. This rule is not a

‘‘significant regulatory action’’ under

Executive Order 12866, § 3(f),

Regulatory Planning and Review, and,

accordingly, this rule has not been

reviewed by the Office of Management

and Budget.

The Assistant Attorney General for

the Office of Justice Programs, in

accordance with the Regulatory

Flexibility Act, codified at 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.

List of Subjects in 28 CFR Part 90

Grant Programs, Judicial

Administration.

For the reasons set out in the

preamble, Title 28, Chapter 1, Part 90 of

the Code of Federal Regulations is

proposed to be amended as follows:

PART 90—VIOLENCE AGAINST

WOMEN

1. The authority citation for part 90

continues to read as follows:

Authority: 42 U.S.C. § 3711 et seq (1994).

2. A new Subpart D, consisting of

§§ 90.60–90.67 is proposed to be added

to read as follows:

Subpart D—Arrest Policies in Domestic

Violence Cases

Sec.

90.60 Scope

90.61 Definitions

90.62 Purposes

90.63 Eligibility

90.64 Application Content

90.65 Evaluation

90.66 Review of Applications

90.67 Grantee Reporting

§ 90.60 Scope.

This subpart sets forth the statutory

framework of the Violence Against

Women Act’s sections seeking to

encourage States, Indian tribal

governments, and units of local

government to treat domestic violence

as a serious violation of criminal law.

§ 90.61 Definitions.

For purposes of this subpart, the

following definitions apply.

(a) Domestic violence includes felony

or misdemeanor crimes of violence

committed by a current or former

spouse of the victim, a person with

whom the victim shares a child in

common, a person who is cohabiting

with or has cohabited with the victim as

a spouse, a person similarly situated to

a spouse of the victim under the

domestic or family violence laws of the

jurisdiction receiving grant monies, or

any other adult person against a victim

who is protected from that person’s acts

under the domestic or family violence

laws of the eligible State, Indian tribal

government, or unit of local government

that receives a grant under this

subchapter.

(b) Protection order includes any

injunction issued for the purpose of

preventing violent or threatening acts of

domestic violence, including temporary

and final orders issued by civil or

criminal courts (other than support or

child custody orders or provisions)

whether obtained by filing an

independent action or as a pendente lite

order in another proceeding.

§ 90.62 Purposes.

The purposes of this program are:

(a) To implement mandatory arrest or

proarrest programs and policies in

police departments, including

mandatory arrest programs and policies

for protection order violations;

(b) To develop policies and training

programs in police departments to

improve tracking of cases involving

domestic violence;

(c) To centralize and coordinate

police enforcement, prosecution, or

judicial responsibility for domestic

violence cases in groups or units of

police officers, prosecutors, or judges;

(d) To coordinate computer tracking

systems to ensure communication

between police, prosecutors, and both

criminal and family courts;

(e) To strengthen legal advocacy

service programs for victims of domestic

violence; and

(f) To educate judges in criminal and

other courts about domestic violence

and improve judicial handling of such

cases.

§ 90.63 Eligibility.

(a) Eligible grantees are States, Indian

tribal governments, or units of local

government that:

(1) Certify that their laws or official

policies—

(i) Encourage or mandate the arrest of

domestic violence offenders based on

probable cause that an offense has been

committed; and

(ii) Encourage or mandate the arrest of

domestic violence offenders who violate

the terms of a valid and outstanding

protection order;

(2) Demonstrate that their laws,

policies, or practices and their training

programs discourage dual arrests of

offender and victim;

(3) Certify that their laws, policies, or

practices prohibit issuance of mutual

restraining orders of protection except

in cases where both spouses file a claim

and the court makes detailed findings of

fact indicating that both spouses acted

primarily as aggressors and that neither

spouse acted primarily in self-defense;

and

(4) Certify that their laws, policies, or

practices do not require, in connection

with the prosecution of any

misdemeanor or felony domestic

violence offense, that the abused bear

the costs associated with filing criminal

charges or the service of such charges on

an abuser, or that the abused bear the

costs associated with the issuance or

service of a warrant, protection order, or

witness subpoena.

(b) If these laws, policies, or practices

are not currently in place, States, Indian

tribal governments, and local units of

government must provide assurances

that they will be in compliance with

these requirements by the date on which

the next session of the State or Indian
Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 94 / Tuesday, May 14, 1996 / Proposed Rules 24261

Tribal legislature ends, or September 13,

1996, whichever is later. Omnibus Act

§ 2102(a)(1), 42 U.S.C. 3796hh–-1(a)(1).

(c) For the purposes of this Program,

a jurisdiction need not have pre-existing

policies encouraging or mandating

arrest to meet the eligibility

requirements listed in this section.

However, a State, Indian tribal

government, or unit of local government

must specify the policy that it intends

to enact by the statutory deadline in its

application for funding through this

Program.

§ 90.64 Application content.

(a) Format. Applications from States,

Indian tribal governments and units of

local government must be submitted on

Standard Form 424, Application for

Federal Assistance, at a time designated

by the Office of Justice Programs. The

Violence Against Women Grants Office

of the Office of Justice Programs will

develop and disseminate to States,

Indian tribal governments, local

governments and other interested

parties a complete Application Kit

which will include a Standard Form

424, a list of assurances to which

applicants must agree, and additional

guidance on how to prepare and submit

an application for grants under this

Subpart. To receive a complete

Application Kit, please contact: The

Violence Against Women Grants Office,

Office of Justice Programs, Room 444,

633 Indiana Avenue, N.W., Washington,

D.C. 20531. Telephone: (202) 307–6026.

(b) Programs. Applications must set

forth programs and projects that meet

the purposes and criteria of the Grants

to Encourage Arrest program set out in

§ § 90.62 and 90.63 of this part.

(c) Requirements. Applicants in their

applications shall, at a minimum:

(1) Describe plans to further the

purposes stated in § 90.62 of this part;

(2) Identify the agency or office or

groups of agencies or offices responsible

for carrying out the program; and

(3) Include documentation from

nonprofit, private sexual assault and

domestic violence programs

demonstrating their participation in

developing the application, and explain

how these groups will be involved in

the development and implementation of

the project.

(d) Certifications. (1) As required by

Section 2101(c) of the Omnibus Act,

codified as amended at 42 U.S.C.

3796hh–1(a), each State, Indian tribal

government or unit of local government

must certify in its application that it has

met the eligibility requirements set out

in § 90.63 of this subpart.

(2) Each State, Indian tribal

government or unit of local government

must certify that all the information

contained in the application is correct.

All submissions will be treated as a

material representation of fact upon

which reliance will be placed, and any

false or incomplete representation may

result in suspension or termination of

funding, recovery of funds provided,

and civil and/or criminal sanctions.

§ 90.65 Evaluation.

The National Institute of Justice will

conduct evaluations and studies of

programs funded through this Program.

The Office of Justice Programs hopes to

set aside a small portion of the overall

funds authorized for the Program for

this purpose. Recipients of funds must

agree to cooperate with such federallysponsored research and evaluation

studies of their projects. In addition,

grant recipients are required to report to

the Attorney General on the

effectiveness of their project(s).

Omnibus Act § 2103, 42 U.S.C. 3796hh–

2. Recipients of program funds are

strongly encouraged to develop a local

evaluation strategy to assess the impact

and effectiveness of their programs.

Applicants should consider entering

into partnerships with research

organizations that are submitting

simultaneous grant applications to the

National Institute of Justice for this

purpose.

§ 90.66 Review of Applications.

(a) Review criteria. (1) The provisions

of Part U of the Omnibus Act and of the

regulations in this subpart provide the

basis for review and approval or

disapproval of applications and

amendments in whole or in part.

Priority will be given to applicants that

(i) Do not currently provide for

centralized handling of cases involving

domestic violence by police,

prosecutors, and courts; and

(ii) Demonstrate a commitment to

strong enforcement of laws, and

prosecution of cases, involving domestic

violence. Omnibus Act § 2102(b)(1)–(2),

42 U.S.C. 3796hh–1(b)(1)–(2) (1994).

(2) Commitment may be demonstrated

in a number of ways including: clear

communication from top departmental

management that domestic violence

prevention is a priority; strict

enforcement of arrest policies;

innovative approaches to officer

supervision in domestic violence

matters; acknowledgment of officers

who consistently enforce domestic

violence arrest policies and sanctions

for those who do not; education and

training for all officers and supervisors

on enforcement of domestic violence

arrest policies and the phenomenon of

domestic violence; and creation of

special units to investigate and monitor

spousal and partner abuse cases.

(b) Intergovernmental review. This

program is covered by Executive Order

12372 (Intergovernmental Review of

Federal Programs) and implementing

regulations at 28 CFR part 30. A copy

of the application submitted to the

Office of Justice Programs should also

be submitted at the same time to the

State’s Single Point of Contact, if there

is a Single Point of Contact.

§ 90.67 Grantee reporting.

Each grantee receiving funds under

this subpart shall submit a report to the

Attorney General evaluating the

effectiveness of projects developed with

funds provided under this subpart and

containing such additional material as

the Assistant Attorney General of the

Office of Justice Programs may

prescribe.

Laurie Robinson,

Assistant Attorney General, Office of Justice

Programs.

[FR Doc. 96–11852 Filed 5–13–96; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4410–18–P

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION

AGENCY

40 CFR Part 300

[FRL–5504–7]

National Oil and Hazardous

Substances Pollution Contingency

Plan; National Priorities List:

Extension of Public Comment Period

AGENCY: Environmental Protection

Agency.

ACTION: Notice of intent for partial

deletion of the RSR Corporation

Superfund Site from the National

Priorities List; notice of extension of the

public comment period.

SUMMARY: As requested by some

members of the public, the United

States Environmental Protection Agency

(EPA) Region 6 is extending the public

comment period on the intent to delete

the residential portions of the RSR

Corporation Superfund Site (RSR Site)

known as Operable Unit (OU) Nos. 1

and 2 from the National Priorities List

(NPL). The NPL constitutes Appendix B

to the National Oil and Hazardous

Substances Pollution Contingency Plan

(NCP), 40 CFR Part 300, which EPA

promulgated pursuant to Section 105 of

the Comprehensive Environmental

Response, Compensation, and Liability

Act (CERCLA).

EPA bases its proposal to delete OU

Nos. 1 and 2 on the determination by

EPA and the State of Texas, through the