Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 102 / Friday, May 24, 1996 / Notices 26211

probation, the case will be dismissed.

However, the Deputy Administrator

agrees with Judge Bittner, who wrote,

‘‘that provision of State law does not

determine what is a ‘‘conviction’’ within

the meaning of the Controlled

Substances Act. This agency has

previously held that a guilty plea is a

conviction for purpose of these

proceedings. Eric A. Baum, M.D., 53

Fed. Reg. 47272 (DEA 1988). I therefore

find that (the) Respondent’s conviction

constitutes grounds for revoking his

DEA registration pursuant to 21 U.S.C.

824(a)(2).’’

Judge Bittner also found that the

Respondent’s continued registration was

contrary to the public interest. In

determining the public interest, Section

823(f) provides that the following

factors be considered:

(1) The recommendation of the

appropriate State licensing board or

professional disciplinary authority.

(2) The applicant’s experience in

dispensing, or conducting research with

respect to controlled substances.

(3) The applicant’s conviction record

under Federal or State laws relating to

the manufacture, distribution, or

dispensing of controlled substances.

(4) Compliance with applicable State,

Federal, or local laws relating to

controlled substances.

(5) Such other conduct which may

threaten the public health or safety.

These factors are to be considered in the

disjunctive; the Deputy Administrator

may rely on any one or a combination

of factors and may give each factor the

weight he deems appropriate in

determining whether a registration

should be revoked or an application for

registration denied. See Henry J.

Schwarz, Jr., M.D., 54 FR 16422 (1989).

In this case, the Deputy Administrator

finds relevant factors one, four, and five

in determining whether continuing the

Respondent’s registration would be

inconsistent with the public interest. As

to factor one, ‘‘recommendation of the

appropriate State licensing board,’’ the

record contains no direct

recommendation from the Board to the

DEA on this matter. However, it is

significant that, after notification of the

Respondent’s entry of a guilty plea to

possession of LSD in Minnesota, the

Board suspended the Respondent’s

medical license for three months and

placed it on probation for an additional

four years.

As the factor four, the Respondent’s

‘‘(c)ompliance with applicable State,

Federal, or local laws relating to

controlled substances,’’ and factor five,

‘‘(s)uch other conduct which may

threaten the public health or safety,’’ the

Deputy Administrator agrees with Judge

Bittner’s finding, given her credibility

assessment of the Respondent and the

Officer, that the Government has shown,

by a preponderance of the evidence, that

the Respondent consumed cocaine and

searched for LSD in the presence of the

officer on April 21, 1993. Although the

Respondent argued that he would not

engage in such conduct, given that he

was providing random urine samples for

drug screening, the Deputy

Administrator finds his argument

unpersuasive. The record shows that the

first negative drug screening result was

reported on November 6, 1993, and that

the Board did not even issue its decision

ordering random screening until July 11,

1994. Thus, there was no evidence of

record showing that the Respondent was

required to participate, or was

voluntarily participating in, random

drug testing on April 21, 1993.

Next, the Respondent testified that he

was an unwilling participant in the CI’s

plan to distribute cocaine. However, the

Deputy Administrator finds that the

record supports an opposite conclusion.

The transcripts of the Respondent’s

conversation with the CI and the

Informant indicate the Respondent’s

actual desire to participate in the plan.

The Respondent’s reply to the CI’s

information concerning the 17 kilogram

of cocaine transaction was ‘‘I wish!

* * * I need some money * * *’’ Such

a response showed his willingness to

participate, if he had had the resources

for the downpayment needed to obtain

the controlled substance. Further, the

Respondent’s conversation with the

Informant indicated that he did not

participate in this proposed transaction

because of a lack of means to distribute

the controlled substance. The Deputy

Administrator agrees with Judge

Bittner’s conclusion, that ‘‘(t)hese

statements are not those of someone

who is uncertain as to why he is a party

to a drug-related conversation.’’

As to rehabilitation, the Deputy

Administrator acknowledges the

Respondent’s evidence of his

professional competency as an

emergency room physician. Also, the

Deputy Administrator notes that the

Respondent argued that rehabilitative

evidence exists, such as (1) a lack of

positive urinalysis results, (2) the fact

that he had never been in trouble before

his illegal conduct in Minnesota, (3) the

lack of substantiation of the allegations

of drug or alcohol abuse, and (4) the

Respondent’s report of the CI’s conduct

to the local police. However, the Deputy

Administrator also notes Judge Bittner’s

credibility finding, after observing the

Respondent testify before her. Also,

although the more recent drug testing

evidence may show that the

Respondent, while on probation and

subject to random drug screening tests,

has abstained from personal

consumption of illegally obtained

controlled substances, the Deputy

Administrator is still concerned about

the Respondent’s willingness to

participate in conversations concerning

illegal drug transactions to others.

Further, the Respondent showed no

remorse concerning his prior

documented misconduct. Rather, in his

testimony before Judge Bittner, the

Respondent continued to deny any

intentional wrongdoing. In previous

cases, when a Respondent failed to

admit to the full extent of his

involvement in documented misconduct

involving controlled substances, the

Deputy Administrator has then doubted

such a Respondent’s commitment to

compliance with the Controlled

Substances Act in future practice. See,

e.g., Prince George Daniels, D.D.S., 60

FR 62,884 (1995). Given the totality of

the circumstances in this case, the

Deputy Administrator agrees with Judge

Bittner’s conclusion that he

‘‘Respondent is not in a position to

accept the responsibilities inherent in a

DEA registration, and that his continued

registration would be inconsistent with

the public interest.’’

The Respondent filed exceptions to

Judge Bittner’s opinion, taking

exception with her finding concerning a

felony ‘‘conviction’’ in Minnesota. The

Deputy Administrator notes the

Respondent’s concern and made

findings accordingly in this order. The

remaining exceptions are of record and

require no further comment.

Accordingly, the Deputy

Administrator of the Drug Enforcement

Administration, pursuant to the

authority vested in him by 21 U.S.C.

823, and 28 C.F.R. 0.100(b) and 0.104,

hereby orders that DEA Certificate of

Registration BG1368516, previously

issued to the Respondent, be, and it

hereby is, revoked, and that any

pending applications to renew the same

are hereby denied. This order is

effective June 24, 1996.

Dated: May 17, 1996.

Stephen H. Greene,

Deputy Administrator.

[FR Doc. 96–13051 Filed 5–23–96; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4410–09–M
26212 Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 102 / Friday, May 24, 1996 / Notices

Bureau of Justice Statistics

[OJP No. 1080]

RIN 1121–ZA34

National Criminal History Improvement

Program (‘‘NCHIP’’)

AGENCY: Department of Justice, Office of

Justice Programs, Bureau of Justice

Statistics.

ACTION: Notice of program plan.

SUMMARY: The Bureau of Justice

Statistics (BJS) is publishing this notice

to announce the continuation of the

National Criminal History Improvement

Program (NCHIP) in Fiscal Year 1996.

The program implements the grant

provisions of the Brady Handgun

Violence Prevention Act (Brady Act),

Pub. L. No. 103–159, 107 Stat. 1536

(1993), codified as amended at 18 U.S.C.

921 et seq., the National Child

Protection Act of 1993 (Child Protection

Act), Pub. L. No. 103–209, 107 Stat.

2490 (1993), codified as amended at 42

U.S.C. 3759, 5101 note, 5119, 5119a,

5119b, 5119c, those provisions of the

Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets

Act of 1968 (Omnibus Act), Pub. L. No.

90–351, 82 Stat. 197 (1968), codified as

amended at 42 U.S.C. 3711 et seq., as

amended, and the Violent Crime Control

and Law Enforcement Act of 1994

(Violent Crime Control Act), Pub. L. No.

103–322, 108 Stat. 1796 (1994), codified

as amended at 42 U.S.C. 13701 et seq.

which pertain to the establishment,

maintenance, or use of criminal history

records and criminal record systems.

Under NCHIP, States were asked to

submit three year plans in FY 1995.

Every State received an award in 1995.

Most States received partial funding last

year. This program will provide

additional funds in FY 1996 to assist

States in continuing implementation of

their multi-year programs and to

address the Child Protection and

National Stalker and Domestic Violence

Reduction initiatives authorized under

the new appropriation. Since the NCHIP

program was designed as a multi-year

effort, 1996 applications will be less

comprehensive than applications in

1995. Applicants are encouraged to use

portions of last year’s application when

appropriate, or to reference the

application by topic and page number.

This program announcement

describes procedures for awards which

will be made under the NCHIP program

with FY 1996 funds. Awards may be for

up to 12 months. States will have the

flexibility to begin activities under the

award as early as September 1, 1996 and

as late as the summer of 1997. Activities

must be completed by June 1, 1998.

Updated guidelines governing use of

Byrne Formula funds pursuant to the

5% set-aside established under section

509 of the Omnibus Crime Control and

Safe Streets Act of 1968, as amended,

were issued on February 23, 1995 by the

Bureau of Justice Assistance (BJA), in

consultation with BJS. The Byrne

Guidelines should be considered

together with this program

announcement in developing a State’s

program to meet the goals of the Brady

Act and the Child Protection Act.

DATES: Eligible states must submit

applications on or before July 29, 1996.

ADDRESSES: Applications should be sent

to Application Coordinator, the Bureau

of Justice Statistics, 633 Indiana

Avenue, N.W., 11th Floor, Washington,

D.C. 20531.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Carol G. Kaplan, Chief, Criminal History

Improvement Programs, (202) 307–0759.

The BJS fax number is (202) 307–5846.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

The National Criminal History

Improvement Program

Program Goals

The goal of the NCHIP grant program

is to improve the nation’s public safety

by:

• Facilitating the accurate and timely

identification of persons who are

ineligible to purchase a firearm;

• Ensuring that persons with

responsibility for child care, elder care,

or care of the disabled do not have

disqualifying criminal records;

• Improving access to protection

orders and records of people wanted for

stalking and domestic violence; and

• Enhancing the quality,

completeness and accessibility of the

nation’s criminal history record

systems.

More specifically, NCHIP is designed

to assist States:

• To meet timetables for criminal

history record completeness and

participation in the Federal Bureau of

Investigations (FBI) Interstate

Identification Index (III) established for

each State by the Attorney General;

• To improve the level of criminal

history record automation, accuracy,

completeness, and flagging;

• To expand and enhance

participation in the FBI’s III and the

National Instant Criminal Background

Check System (NICS);

• To develop and implement

procedures for accessing records of

persons other than felons who are

ineligible to purchase firearms;

• To identify (through interface with

the National Incident-Based Reporting

System [NIBRS] where necessary)

records of crimes involving use of a

handgun and/or abuse of children,

elderly, or disabled persons;

• To identify, classify, collect, and

maintain (through interface with the

National Crime Information Center

(NCIC) and the III where necessary)

protection orders, warrants, arrests, and

convictions of persons violating

protection orders intended to protect

victims of stalking and domestic

violence; and

• To ensure that States develop the

capability to monitor and assess State

progress in meeting legislative and

programmatic goals.

To ensure that all NCHIP-funded

efforts support the development of the

national criminal record system, the

program will be closely coordinated

with the FBI, BJA, and the Bureau of

Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms (BATF).

Funding under the NCHIP program is

available to both those States which are

subject to the 5-day waiting period

(Brady States) and those States which

are operating under an alternative

system pursuant to approval of BATF

(Brady Alternative States).

Legislative Background

Section 106(b) of the Brady Act,

provides that:

The Attorney General, through the Bureau

of Justice Statistics, shall, subject to

appropriations and with preference to States

that as of the date of enactment of this Act

have the lowest percent currency of case

dispositions in computerized criminal

history files, make a grant to each State to be

used (A) for the creation of a computerized

criminal history record system or

improvement of an existing system; (B) to

improve accessibility to the national instant

criminal background system; and (C) upon

establishment of the national system, to assist

the State in the transmittal of criminal

records to the national system.

The provisions of 18 U.S.C. 922 (g)

and (n), as amended by the Violent

Crime Control Act, prohibit the sale of

firearms to an individual who—

(1) Is under indictment for, or has

been convicted in any court, of a crime

punishable by imprisonment for a term

exceeding one year;

(2) Is a fugitive from justice;

(3) Is an unlawful user of, or addicted

to, any controlled substance;

(4) Has been adjudicated as a mental

defective or been committed to a mental

institution;

(5) Is an alien who is illegally or

unlawfully in the United States;

(6) Was discharged from the Armed

Forces under dishonorable conditions;

(7) Has renounced his United States

citizenship; or
Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 102 / Friday, May 24, 1996 / Notices 26213

(8) Is subject to a court order

restraining them from harassing,

stalking, or threatening an intimate

partner or child.

The latter category was added as part

of the Violent Crime Control Act.

The Brady Act, enacted in November

1993 and effective in February 1994,

requires that licensed firearm dealers

request a presale check on all potential

handgun purchasers by the chief law

enforcement officer in the purchaser’s

residence community to determine,

based on available records, if the

individual is legally prohibited from

purchase of the firearm under the

provisions of 18 U.S.C. 922 or State law.

The sale may not be completed for 5

days unless the dealer receives an

approval before that time. The 5 day

waiting period requirement terminates

by 1998, at which time presale inquiries

for all firearms will be made only to the

National Instant Criminal Background

Check System (NICS). Section 103 of the

Brady Act provides that NICS will

supply information on ‘‘whether receipt

of a firearm * * * would violate (18

U.S.C. 922) or State law.’’ As noted

above, section 106 (b) of the Brady Act

establishes a grant program to assist

States in upgrading criminal record

systems and in improving access to,

and, interface with, the NICS system.

In addition, section 106 (a) of the

Brady Act amended section 509 (d) of

the Omnibus Act to specifically provide

that funds from the 5% set-aside under

the Byrne Formula grant program may

be spent for ‘‘the improvement of State

record systems and the sharing * * * of

records * * * for the purposes of

implementing * * * (the Brady Act).’’

The Child Protection Act, as amended

by the Violent Crime Control Act,

requires that records of abuse against

children be transmitted to the FBI’s

national record system. The Child

Protection Act also encourages States to

adopt legislation requiring background

checks on individuals prior to assuming

responsibility for care of children, the

elderly, or the disabled. Section 4 of the

Act establishes a grant program to assist

States in upgrading records to meet the

requirements of the Act. Under the

definition set forth in section 5 (3) of the

Act, ‘‘child abuse crimes’’ include

crimes under any law of the State and

are not limited to felonies.

Both the Brady and Child Protection

Acts required the Attorney General to

survey the status of State criminal

history records and develop timetables

for States to achieve complete and

automated records. The survey was

conducted during March 1994, and

Governors were advised of timetables by

the Attorney General in letters of May

and June 1994. The letters indicated that

compliance with timetable goals

assumed availability of grant funds

under each Act.

The National Stalker and Domestic

Violence Reduction program (Stalker

Reduction), section 40602 of the

Violence Against Women Act (VAWA)

Pub. L. No. 103–322, 108 Stat. 1902–

1955 (1994), codified as amended at 42

U.S.C. 14031 which was included in the

Violent Crime Control Act, authorized a

program to assist States in entering data

on stalking and domestic violence into

local, State, and national data-bases.

The Act emphasizes the importance of

ensuring that data on convictions for

these crimes are included in databases

being developed with Federal funds.

Section 40606 of VAWA authorized

technical assistance and training in

furtherance of the purposes of the

Stalker Reduction program. This section

also allows for the evaluation of

programs that receive funds under this

provision.

The NCHIP program implements the

requirements of the programs

established in the Brady Act, Child

Protection Act, and the Stalker

Reduction provision of VAWA.

Appropriation

Section 106 (b) of the Brady Act

authorized $200 million for the grant

program; the Child Protection Act

authorized $20 million; Section 40603

of the Violent Crime Control Act

authorized a total of $6 million over

three years for the Stalker Reduction

program included in VAWA.

An appropriation of $100 million was

made to implement section 106(b) of the

Brady Act for FY 1995, to be available

until expended. No appropriation was

made for Child Protection or Stalker

Reduction activities in FY 1995.

An appropriation of $25 million was

made in FY 1996 to continue

implementation of section 106(b) of the

Brady Act and to implement section 4

(b) of the Child Protection Act. In

addition, an appropriation of $1.5

million was made in FY 1996 for Stalker

Reduction. In light of the overlap

between Brady, Child Protection, and

Stalker Reduction goals, these

appropriations are combined under

NCHIP.

Program Strategy

The 1995 NCHIP program covered

criminal history records improvements.

The 1996 program includes criminal

history records improvements and

expands to incorporate serious

misdemeanors against children, the

elderly, and the disabled, and

improving access to domestic violence

protection orders.

The 1996 NCHIP program also

permits funds to be used to assist States

in providing rapid, inexpensive, reliable

background checks on individuals who

wish to work with sensitive

populations. This will include assisting

States in identifying people who

commit felony and serious

misdemeanor offenses against children,

the elderly, and/or the disabled. It also

includes supporting background checks,

and improving access to domestic

violence protection orders.

Consistent with section 40602, the

Stalker Reduction program, BJS is

allowing funds to be used to help State

and local governments improve the

process for classifying and entering data

regarding stalking and domestic

violence into local, State, and national

crime information databases.

Application and Award Process

Eligibility Requirements

Only one application will be accepted

from each State. The application must

be submitted by the agency previously

designated by the Governor or by a

successor agency designated by the

Governor in writing to BJS. A State may,

however, choose to submit its

application as part of a multi-state

consortium or other entity. In such case,

the application should include a

statement of commitment from each

State and be signed by an individual

designated by the Governor of each

participating State. The application

should also indicate specific

responsibilities, and include a separate

budget, for each State. States may

receive successive awards over time,

assuming availability of funds.

A grant will be made to each State

with funds from the 1996 appropriation.

States other than ‘‘priority States’’ are

eligible to receive funds for criminal

records improvement, Child Protection,

and Stalker Reduction activities.

Priority States, which received threeyear awards in FY 1995 for criminal

records improvements, should apply for

Child Protection and Stalker Reduction

activities only.

States may submit an application

even though funds remain unexpended

under the 1995 award. Applications

must contain a start date and end date

which fall between September 1, 1996

and June 1, 1998. FY 1996 projects may

overlap with FY 1995 projects or the

projects may run consecutively.

Program Narrative

In addition to the requirements set

forth in Appendix A, the NCHIP
26214 Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 102 / Friday, May 24, 1996 / Notices

application should include the

following four parts:

Part I. Background

This section should include a short

update of current efforts relating to

criminal history record improvement

funded under the BJS NCHIP, Advanced

State Award Program (ASAP), and

Criminal History Record Improvements

(CHRI) programs, and the BJA Byrne 5%

set-aside or with State funds over the

past year. The discussion should specify

the amount of funds received under the

BJS and Byrne programs and the funds

remaining at the time of application.

The section should also briefly describe

accomplishments with these funds and

the relationship to proposed FY 1996

NCHIP activities.

Part II. Identification of Needs

This part should discuss any recent

evaluative efforts undertaken to identify

the key areas of weakness in the State’s

criminal record system. Applications

should include a short discussion of the

State’s ability to identify ineligible

firearm purchasers, persons ineligible to

hold positions involving children, the

elderly, or the disabled, and data on

protection orders and people wanted,

arrested, or convicted of stalking and/or

domestic violence. Among other things,

this section may include areas that were

either eligible for funds last year, but

did not receive funding, or that were not

eligible for funds because of the

wording of the FY 1995 appropriation.

Proposals described in your 1995

NCHIP application may be used or

cited.

Part III. NCHIP Effort

This section should describe the

activities to be undertaken with NCHIP

funds over the 12 month period.

Specifically, each application should

indicate the activities proceeding, how

these activities relate to efforts funded

under the 1995 award, and the results

that will be achieved from 1996

funding.

Part III of the application should also

describe any efforts to be supported to

monitor State compliance with

legislative or programmatic goals

through ongoing audits or other means

such as statistical analysis, comparison

between Computerized Criminal History

(CCH) records and NIBRS or Uniform

Crime Reporting (UCR) data. Studies

relating to handgun use or sales

approval, if proposed, should be

described in this section.

In furtherance of the Child Protection

Act and the Stalker Reduction program,

up to $6.5 million of the funds

appropriated in FY 1996 for Brady,

Child Protection, and Stalker Reduction

may go towards the following Child

Protection and Stalker Reduction

activities:

• Capturing domestic violence and/or

stalking protection orders;

• Flagging of child abuse records and

crimes against children, the elderly and

the disabled, convictions for domestic

violence and/or stalking, and domestic

violence protection orders;

• Incorporating serious misdemeanor

offenses against children, the elderly

and the disabled into existing criminal

history records;

• Offsetting the cost to volunteers for

background checks, including

development and implementation of

technological and procedural advances;

• Improving processes for entering

data regarding stalking and domestic

violence into local, State, and national

crime information data bases.

Section 4(b) of the Child Protection

Act requires preference to be given to

States that have in computerized

criminal history files the lowest

percentages of charges and dispositions

of identifiable child abuse cases as of

December 20, 1993. In accordance with

this section of the Child Protection Act,

the five ‘‘priority States’’ with the

lowest percentages of charges and

dispositions in their computerized

criminal history files will be awarded a

total of $1 million to be used for the

Child Protection and Stalker Reduction

activities listed above.

Section 40602(b) of the Violent Crime

Control Act states that in order to be

eligible to receive a grant under the

Stalker Reduction program, a State shall

certify that it has or intends to establish

a program that enters into the National

Crime Information Center the following

records:

• Warrants for the arrest of persons

violating protection orders intended to

protect victims from stalking or

domestic violence;

• Arrests or convictions of persons

violating protection or domestic

violence orders; and

• Protection orders for the protection

of persons from stalking or domestic

violence.

The Bureau of Justice Statistics will

coordinate the Stalker Reduction

portion of NCHIP with the Violence

Against Women Office (VAWO) at the

Department of Justice.

Because funds are limited for FY

1996, not every State which requests

funds for Child Protection and/or

Stalker Reduction activities may receive

funds for these purposes.

In light of the importance of complete

and nationally accessible criminal

records for the NICS instant check,

Child Protection background checks,

and to protect society against stalkers

and domestic violence offenders, BJS, in

reviewing applications requesting funds

for Child Protection and Stalker

Reduction tasks, will consider the

extent to which the State has progressed

in developing its State criminal records

system and taken steps to achieve

participation in the national system.

In order to permit assessment of State

progress in meeting grant goals, Part III

of all applications should set forth

measurable benchmarks or goals for

each proposed activity.

Part IV. Coordination Between NCHIP

and the Byrne 5% Set-Aside Program

Funds under the Byrne Formula 5%

set-aside program are available to

support the improvement of record

systems and to meet the goals of the

Brady and Child Protection Acts.

The Bureau of Justice Statistics and

the Bureau of Justice Assistance have

jointly agreed that close and continuing

coordination between the NCHIP and

Byrne 5% set-aside program is critical to

meeting the goals of the Brady Act, and

the National Child Protection Act. Such

coordinated efforts are also necessary to

ensure the development of an effective

interstate criminal history record system

to meet the needs of law enforcement,

the criminal justice community and the

increasing number of non-criminal

justice users of criminal history record

information. To achieve this goal, BJS

and BJA prepared Guidelines governing

use of the Byrne 5% set-aside funds.

The Guidelines were issued February

23, 1995, to State Administrative

Agencies that receive and distribute

Byrne formula grant funds.

BJS expects that program plans for

projects to be funded under NCHIP and

the Byrne 5% set-aside will be

coordinated by the State agencies

responsible for these programs in order

to avoid overlap and maximize funding

effectiveness. Where costs of a proposed

activity exceed NCHIP available funds

or are unallowable under NCHIP, the

State might, for example, use Byrne

funds to fill remaining needs. This joint

effort, we believe, will maximize the

effectiveness of both of these programs.

Award Period

The application may be for up to 12

months. States will have the flexibility

to begin activities under the award as

early as September 1, 1996 and as late

as the summer of 1997. Activities must

be completed by June 1, 1998. The

budget should provide details for

expenses in required categories and by

individual task (see Appendix A,

Application content). The application
Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 102 / Friday, May 24, 1996 / Notices 26215

should identify those agencies to receive

direct funding and indicate the fiscal

arrangements to accomplish fund

transfer.

Application Submission and Due Dates

Applications may be submitted at any

time after publication of this

announcement. Applications must be

received by July 29, 1996, to be eligible

for FY 1996 funding.

States that submitted applications

with multiple year budgets for FY 1995

NCHIP funds and received funding for

the first year (extended to two years on

February 8, 1996), may re-submit the

parts of their proposals which did not

receive funds in 1995.

Allocation of Funds

All fifty States, including the District

of Columbia, Puerto Rico, American

Samoa, and Guam, received NCHIP FY

1995 awards. Certain III States received

ASAP FY 1995 awards to assist in the

identification of persons other than

felons who are prohibited from

purchasing firearms. Funds may be

available in future years to implement

those activities.

Awards under this program

announcement may be made from the

Brady, Child Protection, and Stalker

Reduction appropriations, and from

residual FY 1995 funds. The 1996

appropriation is 26.5 percent of the FY

1995 amount. Up to $6.5 million will go

for Child Protection and Stalker

Reduction activities.

Review Criteria

States should understand that full

funding may not be possible for all

proposed activities. Allocation of funds

will be based on the amount requested

and the following factors:

(1) The extent to which the proposed

activities will enable the State to meet

the timetables established for the State

by the Attorney General;

(2) The extent to which improvements

in the State system, by virtue of record

numbers, levels of technical

development, or operating procedures,

will have a major impact on availability

of records throughout the national

system;

(3) The proposed use or enhancement

of innovative procedures which may be

of value to other jurisdictions;

(4) The technical feasibility of the

proposal and the extent to which the

proposal appears reasonable in light of

the State’s current level of system

development and statutory framework;

(5) Amount awarded under FY 1995

NCHIP program, including whether the

State received funds as a priority State;

(6) Prior activity of the State with

funds under the NCHIP, ASAP, Byrne,

and CHRI programs;

(7) State commitment to the national

record system as evidenced by

membership in III, and participation in

the FBI’s National Fingerprint File

(NFF), Felon Identification in Firearms

Sales (FIFS) programs, etc., and the

current status of development of its

CCH;

(8) Reasonableness of the budget;

(9) Evidence of State progress in

meeting record improvement and

background check goals as measured in

terms of audits, and data collection

relating to presale firearm checks and

background checks on persons seeking

positions involving children, the aged

and the disabled;

(10) Appropriate focus on criminal

history data improvement regarding

protection orders and crimes against

children, the elderly, and the disabled;

(11) Documentation of a program or

intention to establish a system to enter

protection orders, and warrants, arrests,

and convictions of people violating

protection orders intended to protect

victims from stalking or domestic

violence (for States applying for Stalker

Reduction activities);

(12) Nature of the proposed

expenditures;

(13) The extent to which the plan

reflects constructive interface between

relevant components of the State

organization and/or multi-state systems;

and

(14) The reasonableness of the

relationship between the proposed

activities and the current status of the

State system, in terms of technical

development, legislation, current fiscal

demands, and future operating costs.

The program does not require either

‘‘hard’’ (cash) or ‘‘soft’’ (in-kind) match.

Indications of State support, however,

may be interpreted as expressions of

commitment by the State to the

program.

All applicants must agree to

participate in evaluations sponsored by

the federal government. Applicants

must also agree to provide data relating

to Brady Act activity to the Firearm

Inquiry STatistics (FIST) program in the

format designated by the FIST program.

Allowable Costs

Allowable expenses are detailed

below. All expenses are allowable only

to the extent that they directly relate to

programs described in the application’s

program narrative.

(1) Participation in III: This is a key

goal, and costs should be related to

achieving full participation. Covered

costs include, but are not limited to,

costs associated with automation of the

database (see limitations in (4) below),

synchronization of records between

State and FBI, and development of

necessary software and hardware

enabling electronic access on an

intrastate or interstate basis.

(2) Database enhancement: Improving

the quality, completeness and accuracy

of criminal history records is a key goal

of the NCHIP effort. Allowable costs

include the costs associated with

implementing improved record capture

procedures, establishing more effective

accuracy controls, and ensuring that

records of all criminal events that start

with an arrest or indictment are

included in the database. In addition to

felony records, limited funds may be

used to capture data on serious

misdemeanors, and to ensure that data

on persons wanted, arrested, and

convicted of stalking and/or domestic

abuse are included in the database. Use

of funds for capture of data on

misdemeanors and persons convicted of

stalking will only be approved where

the state has, or is actively undertaking

efforts to upgrade, the basic elements of

the criminal history record system.

(3) Improved disposition capture:

Automated interface between the

criminal history repository and the

courts, prosecutors, and/or corrections

agencies is encouraged. Funds provided

to courts or prosecutors for these

purposes are allowable only to the

extent that the function to be supported

is related to the capture of disposition

or other data relating to the offender

record (for example, full costs

associated with establishment of court

MIS systems are not allowable under the

NCHIP program).

(4) Record automation: These are

allowable costs only with respect to

records where the subject has been

arrested, indicted, convicted, or released

from confinement within 5 years of the

date of automation. As appropriate,

allowable costs also include costs

associated with system design in States

with non-automated systems or in States

proposing to enhance system operation

to include access to non-CCH databases.

(5) Flagging of records: Upgrading the

accessibility of records, through

flagging, for presale and preemployment

checks is an important activity.

Allowable costs include costs of

flagging, or algorithms used for flagging,

felony records and records of persons

with convictions for crimes involving

children, the elderly, and/or the

disabled, and persons convicted of

crimes involving domestic violence

and/or stalking. Costs may include the

cost of technical record flagging as well

as the costs associated with
26216 Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 102 / Friday, May 24, 1996 / Notices

identification of records to be flagged

(see (7) below regarding interface with

NIBRS).

(6) AFIS/livescan: Automated

Fingerprint Identification System

(AFIS)/livescan equipment for local law

enforcement agencies is allowable to

improve the level of arrest and

disposition reporting, but only where—

(1) The State repository system is

automated, participating or looking

toward participation in III, and has in

place the technical capability to accept

AFIS transmissions, and

(2) Sufficient traffic can be

demonstrated to justify the cost,

possibly through the use of regional

systems.

AFIS/livescan in squad cars is not

allowable since field inquiries are not a

factor in checks under either the Brady

Act or the Child Protection Act.

Additionally, since data are not

generally input to the system by the

field unit, AFIS in the squad car would

not support record improvement or

completeness. AFIS/livescan for use in

courts is allowable to support record

completeness. The same conditions

regarding repository capability and

levels of traffic are also applicable to

costs in this category.

Costs associated with AFIS/livescan

communication from the repository to

the FBI national system (IAFIS) are

allowable but only where the State can

demonstrate adequate levels of record

completeness (both arrest and

disposition) and current membership in

III.

States should understand that Byrne

5% set-aside funds are available for

AFIS/livescan, and that, accordingly,

use of NCHIP funds for AFIS or livescan

will only be allowable when justified as

appropriate given the overall status of

the State system, its participation in the

national system and its planned use of

Byrne 5% set-aside funds. This is

particularly relevant with respect to

State proposals to use NCHIP funds to

cover costs of local livescan equipment.

(7) Interface with NIBRS: Funds may

be used to interface with any State data

system which is compatible with NIBRS

for purposes of identifying persons

convicted of crimes against children, the

elderly, or the disabled, involving

domestic violence and/or stalking,

and/or identification of records

involving firearm crimes for operational

or research purposes. NCHIP funds are

not available, however, to develop the

NIBRS database.

(8) Research, evaluation, monitoring,

and audits: Costs associated with

research or evaluation efforts are

allowable to the extent that they are

directly associated with a project

approved in the application. Costs

associated with monitoring State

compliance with legislative or

programmatic goals, through ongoing or

periodic audits or other procedures, are

allowable and encouraged. The

purchase of equipment such as modems

and the necessary communications and

data software for storing and

transmitting evaluative data between

States and to BJS or other designated

federal agencies is an allowable

expense.

(9) Conversion of juvenile records to

the adult system: The Attorney General

has recently amended Federal

Regulations to allow the FBI to accept

juvenile records if submitted by the

State or local arresting agency.

Expenditures to interface juvenile and

adult records are allowable if consistent

with relevant State law and undertaken

to further the goals of the NCHIP

program.

(10) Missing dispositions backlog

reduction: These costs are allowable to

improve the level of disposition

reporting but only where limited to

records with arrests within the past 5

years. States must also propose a

strategy to prevent future backlogs from

developing.

(11) Equipment upgrades: Upgrade

costs are allowable where related to

improving availability of data and

where appropriate given the level of

data completeness, participation in III,

etc. Replacement costs will be

considered but States are encouraged to

contribute some portion of the total

costs.

(12) Training, participation in

seminars and meetings: Limited funds

may be used to cover costs of training

and participation in State, regional, or

national seminars or conferences

(including travel, where necessary).

(13) Expenditures related to presale

handgun background checks: Funds are

allowable to cover costs incurred by a

governmental agency for equipment or

development of capability required to

conduct presale background checks.

This ‘‘governmental agency’’ limitation

may be waived in a very limited number

of cases where the State has

implemented a functioning background

check system and can demonstrate that

the vast preponderance of inquiries are

made by a limited number of dealers,

that technical and procedural safeguards

have been established to protect the

privacy of potential purchasers, and that

the equipment to be provided to dealers

would be of use for operation under the

permanent system. Waivers will only be

considered in States which are

participants in III and which have

achieved high levels of automation and

record completeness. NCHIP funds may

not be used to cover costs of conducting

presale background checks.

(14) Reducing cost of background

checks: States may use funds to develop

and implement technologies that lower

costs of conducting background checks.

These funds may also be used to pay all

or part of the cost to the State of

conducting background checks on

persons who are employed by or

volunteer with a public, not-for-profit,

or other voluntary organization to

reduce the amount of fees charged for

such background checks.

The Bureau of Justice Statistics is

conducting parallel efforts to develop

standard definitions of domestic

violence and child abuse. States

proposing to use funds for flagging or to

interface with NIBRS to identify

convictions for domestic violence and/

or stalking, domestic violence

protection orders, or crimes against

children must coordinate their efforts

with BJS.

Appendix A—Application and

Administrative Requirements

Application Content

All applicants must submit:

* Standard Form 424, Application for

Federal Assistance

* Standard Form 424A, Budget

Information

* OJP Form 4000/3 (Rev. 1–93),

Program Narrative and Assurances

* OJP Form 4061/6 Certifications

* OJP Form 7120/1 (Rev. 1–93),

Accounting System and Financial

Capability Questionnaire (to be

submitted by applicants who have not

previously received Federal funds).

Applicants are requested to submit an

original and two copies of the

application and certifications to the

following address: Application

Coordinator, Bureau of Justice Statistics,

633 Indiana Avenue, NW, Washington,

DC 20531, Phone: (202) 616–3500.

Standard Form 424 (SF–424). The SF–

424, a one page sheet with 18 items,

serves as a cover sheet for the entire

application. This form is required for

every application for Federal assistance.

No application can be accepted without

a completed, signed original SF–424.

Directions to complete each item are

included on the back of the form.

Standard Form 424A (SF–424A). All

applications must include SF–424A,

Budget Information for all years of

project activity. Applicants should

ensure that all appropriate columns and

rows balance. Directions to complete

this form are found on page 3 of SF–

424A.

Detailed budget. Applicants must

provide a detailed justification for all
Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 102 / Friday, May 24, 1996 / Notices 26217

costs including the basis for

computation of these costs. For

example, the detailed budget would

include the salaries of staff involved in

the project and the portion of those

salaries to be paid from the award;

fringe benefits paid to each staff person;

travel costs related to the project;

equipment to be purchased with the

award funds; and supplies required to

complete the project.

Budget narrative. The budget

narrative closely follows the content of

the detailed budget. The narrative

should relate the items budgeted to

specific tasks and allowable cost

categories and should provide a

justification and explanation for the

budgeted items including the criteria

and data used to arrive at the estimates

for each budget category. Please note

applications that include

noncompetitive contracts for the

provision of specific services must

contain a sole source justification for

any procurement in excess of $100,000.

The budget narrative should indicate

amounts to be made available to

agencies other than the grant recipient

(for example, the agency with

responsibility for CCH, the courts, local

agencies.)

Applicants for grants must submit a

budget narrative on separate sheets. The

budget narrative should detail by budget

category for Federal and non-Federal

(in-kind and cash) share. The purpose of

the budget narrative is to relate items

budgeted to project activities and to

provide justification and explanation for

budget items, including criteria and data

used to arrive at the estimates for each

budget category. The following

information is provided to assist the

applicant in developing the budget

narrative.

a. Personnel Category. List each

position by title (and name of employee

if available), show annual salary rate

and percentage of time to be devoted to

the project by the employee.

Compensation paid for employees

engaged in Federally-assisted activities

must be consistent with that paid for

similar work in other activities of the

applicant.

b. Fringe Benefits Category. Indicate

each type of benefit included and

explain how the total cost allowable for

employees assigned to the project is

computed.

c. Travel Category. Itemize travel

expenses of project personnel by

purpose (e.g., faculty to training site,

field interviews, advisory group

meetings, etc.) and show basis or

computation (e.g., ‘‘Five trips for ‘x’

purpose at $80 average cost—$50

transportation and two days per diem at

$15’’ or ‘‘Six people to 30 day meeting

at $70 transportation and $45

subsistence.’’). In training projects

where travel and subsistence for

trainees is included, this should be

separately listed indicating the number

of trainees and the unit costs involved.

(1) Identify the tentative location of

all training sessions, meetings, and

other travel.

(2) Applicants should consult such

references as the Official Airline Guide

and the Hotel and Motel Redbook in

projecting travel costs to obtain

competitive rates.

d. Equipment. List each type of

equipment to be purchased or rented

with unit or monthly costs.

e. Supplies. List items within this

category by major type (office supplies,

training materials, research forms,

postage) and show basis for

computation. Provide unit or monthly

estimates.

f. Contractual Category. State the

selection basis for any contract or

subcontract or prospective contract or

subcontract (including construction

services and equipment).

For individuals to be reimbursed for

personal services on a fee basis, list by

name or type of consultant or service

the proposed fee (by day, week, or hour)

and the amounts of time to be devoted

to such services.

For construction contracts and

organization (including professional

associations and education institutions

performing professional services),

indicate the type of service to be

performed and the estimated contract

cost data.

g. Construction Category. Describe

construction or renovation which will

be accomplished using grant funds and

the method used to calculate cost.

h. Other Category. Include under

‘‘other’’ such items as rent,

reproduction, telephone, and janitorial

or security services. List items by major

type with basis of computation shown.

(Provide square footage and cost per

square foot for rent—provide local and

long distance telephone charges

separately.)

i. Indirect Charges Category. The

Agency may accept an indirect cost rate

previously approved for an applicant by

a Federal agency. Applicants must

enclose a copy of the approved rate

agreement with the grant application.

j. Program Income. If applicable,

provide a detailed estimate of the

amount of program income to be

generated during the grant period and

its proposed application (to reduce the

cost of the project or to increase the

scope of the project). Also, describe the

source of program income, listing the

rental rates to be obtained, sale prices of

publications supported by grant funds,

and registration fees charged for

particular sessions. If scholarships

(covering, for example, registration fees)

are awarded by the organization to

certain conference attendees, the

application should identify the

percentage of all attendees that are

projected as ‘‘scholarship’’ cases and the

precise criteria for their selection.

Program narrative. All applications

must include a program narrative which

fully describes the expected design and

implementation of the proposed

program. OJP Form 4000/3 (Rev. 1–93)

provides additional detailed

instructions for preparing the program

narrative.

The narrative should include a time

line of activities indicating, for each

proposed activity, the projected

duration of the activity, expected

completion date, and any products

expected.

The application should include a

description of the roles and

responsibilities of key organizational

and/or functional components involved

in project activities; and a list of key

personnel responsible for managing and

implementing the major elements of the

program.

Assurances. OJP Form 4000/3 (Rev 1–

93) must be included in the application

submission. If submitting this form

separate from the SF–424, the applicant

must sign and date the form to certify

compliance with the Federal statutes,

regulations, and requirements as cited.

Certification Regarding Lobbying;

Debarment, Suspension, and Other

Responsibility Matters; and Drug-Free

Workplace. Applicants should refer to

the regulations cited in OJP Form, 4061/

6 to determine the certification to which

they are required to attest. A copy of

OJP Form 4061/6 can be obtained from

the BJS Application Coordinator.

Applicants should also review the

instructions for certification included in

the regulations before completing this

form. Signature of this form provides for

compliance with certification

requirements under 28 C.F.R. part 69,

‘‘New Restrictions on Lobbying,’’ and 28

CFR part 67, ‘‘Government-wide

Debarment and Suspension

(Nonprocurement) and Governmentwide Requirements for Drug-Free

Workplace (Grants).’’ The certifications

shall be treated as a material

representation of fact upon which

reliance will be placed when the U.S.

Department of Justice determines to

award the covered transaction, grant, or

cooperative agreement.
26218 Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 102 / Friday, May 24, 1996 / Notices

Financial and Administrative

Requirements

Discretionary grants are governed by

the provisions of OMB Circulars

applicable to financial assistance. The

circulars, with additional information

and guidance, are contained in the

‘‘Financial and Administrative Guide

for Grants,’’ Office of Justice Programs,

Guideline Manual, M7100, available

from the Office of Justice Programs. This

guideline manual, provided upon

request, is intended to assist grantees in

the administration of funds and

includes information on allowable costs,

methods of payment, Federal rights of

access to records, audit requirements,

accounting systems, and financial

records.

Complete and accurate information is

required relative to the application,

expenditure of funds, and program

performance. The consequences of

failure to comply with program

guidelines and requirements will be

determined at the discretion of the

Department.

Civil Rights Obligations

All applicants for Federal financial

assistance must sign Certified

Assurances that they are in compliance

with the Federal laws and regulations

which prohibit discrimination in any

program or activity that receives such

Federal funds. Section 809(c), Omnibus

Crime Control & Safe Streets Act of

1968, provides that:

No person in any State shall on the

ground of race, color, religion, national

origin, or sex be excluded from

participation in, be denied the benefits

of, or be subjected to discrimination

under, or denied employment in

connection with any program or activity

funded in whole or in part with funds

made available under this title.

Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act

of 1973, and Title II of the Americans

With Disabilities Act prohibit

discrimination on the basis of disability.

The applicant agency must discuss how

it will ensure nondiscriminatory

practices as they relate to:

(1) Delivery of services or benefits—

to ensure that individuals will not be

denied access to services or benefits

under the program or activity on the

basis of race, color, religion, national

origin, gender, age, or disability;

(2) Employment practices—to ensure

that its personnel in the program or

activity are selected for employment

without regard to race, color, religion,

national origin, gender, age, or

disability; and

(3) Program participation—to ensure

members of any planning, steering or

advisory board, which is an integral part

of the program or activity, are not

excluded from participation on the basis

of race, color, religion, national origin,

gender, age or disability; and to

encourage the selection of such

members who are reflective of the

diversity in the community to be served.

Audit Requirement

In October 1984, Congress passed the

Single Audit Act of 1984. On April 12,

1985, the Office of Management and

Budget issued Circular A–128, ‘‘Audits

of State and Local Governments’’ which

establishes regulations to implement the

Act. OMB Circular A–128, ‘‘Audits of

State and Local Governments,’’ outlines

the requirements for organizational

audits which apply to BJS grantees.

Disclosure of Federal Participation

Section 8136 of the Department of

Defense Appropriations Act (Stevens

Amendment), enacted in October 1988,

requires that, ‘‘when issuing statements,

press releases for proposals, bid

solicitations, and other documents

describing projects or programs funded

in whole or in part with Federal money,

all grantees receiving Federal funds,

including but not limited to State and

local governments, shall clearly state (1)

the percentage of the total cost of the

program or project which will be

financed with Federal money, and (2)

the dollar amount of Federal funds for

the project or program.’’

Intergovernmental Review of Federal

Programs

Federal Executive Order 12372,

‘‘Intergovernmental Review of Federal

Programs,’’ allows States to establish a

process for reviewing Federal programs

in the State, to choose which programs

they wish to review, to conduct such

reviews, and to make their views known

to the funding Federal agency through a

State ‘‘single point of contact.’’

If the State has established a ‘‘single

point of contact,’’ and if the State has

selected this program to be included in

its review process, the applicant must

send a copy of its letter or application

to the State ‘‘single point of contact’’ at

the same time that it is submitted to BJS.

The letter or application submitted to

BJS must indicate that this has been

done. The State must complete its

review within 60 days. The review

period will begin on the date that the

letter or application is officially

received by BJS. If BJS does not receive

comments from the State’s ‘‘single point

of contact’’ by the end of the review

period, this will be interpreted as a ‘‘no

comment’’ response.

If the State has not established a

‘‘single point of contact,’’ or if it has not

selected the BJS statistics development

or criminal history improvement

programs in its review process, this

must be stated in the letter or

application.

Jan M. Chaiken,

Director, Bureau of Justice Statistics.

[FR Doc. 96–13091 Filed 5–23–96; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4410–18–P

DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

Employment and Training

Administration

Notice of Determinations Regarding

Eligibility To Apply for Worker

Adjustment Assistance and NAFTA

Transitional Adjustment Assistance

In accordance with Section 223 of the

Trade Act of 1974, as amended, the

Department of Labor herein presents

summaries of determinations regarding

eligibility to apply for trade adjustment

assistance for workers (TA–W) issued

during the period of May, 1996.

In order for an affirmative

determination to be made and a

certification of eligibility to apply for

worker adjustment assistance to be

issued, each of the group eligibility

requirements of Section 222 of the Act

must be met.

(1) that a significant number or

proportion of the workers in the

workers’ firm, or an appropriate

subdivision thereof, have become totally

or partially separated,

(2) that sales or production, or both,

of the firm or subdivision have

decreased absolutely, and

(3) that increases of imports of articles

like or directly competitive with articles

produced by the firm or appropriate

subdivision have contributed

importantly to the separations, or threat

thereof, and to the absolute decline in

sales or production.

Negative Determinations for Worker

Adjustment Assistance

In each of the following cases the

investigation revealed that criterion (3)

has not been met. A survey of customers

indicated that increased imports did not

contribute importantly to worker

separations at the firm.

TA–W–31, 984; U.S. Can Co.,

Saddlebrook, NJ

TA–W–32, 026; Cassemco, Inc.

Cookeville, TN

TA–W–32, 022; Campbell & Dann Mfg

Co., Inc., Tullahoma, TM

TA–W–32, 125; AT&T Corp., NCR Corp.,

Viroqua, WI