Possible Models for the Administration and Support of Discipline-Specific Guidance Groups for Forensic Science, 59654-59656 [2013-23617]

Agencies

• DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
• National Institute of Standards and Technology

[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 188 (Friday, September 27, 2013)]
[Notices]
[Pages 59654-59656]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2013-23617]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

National Institute of Standards and Technology

[Docket No. 130508459-3459-01]


Possible Models for the Administration and Support of Discipline-
Specific Guidance Groups for Forensic Science

AGENCY: National Institute of Standards and Technology, Department of 
Commerce.

ACTION: Notice of inquiry.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: The National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) 
invites interested parties to provide their perspectives on the 
appropriate model for NIST administration and support of discipline-
specific Guidance Groups (``Guidance Groups'') to be established 
pursuant to the Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) between the 
Department of Justice (DOJ) and the National Institute of Standards and 
Technology. NIST seeks to identify and understand approaches for the 
structure of effective and sustainable Guidance Groups. This Notice 
does not solicit comments or advice on the policies that should be 
addressed by the Guidance Groups. Responses to this Notice will serve 
only as input for NIST's consideration of a model to establish and 
administer the Guidance Groups.

DATES: Comments must be received by November 12, 2013, 11:59 p.m. 
Eastern Time.

ADDRESSES: Written comments may be submitted by mail to the National 
Institute of Standards and Technology, c/o Susan Ballou, 100 Bureau 
Drive, Mailstop 8102, Gaithersburg, MD 20899. Electronic comments may 
be sent to susan.ballou@nist.gov. Electronic submissions may be in any 
of the following formats: HTML, ASCII, Word, rtf, or PDF. All email 
messages and comments received are a part of the public record and will 
be made available to the public generally without change on the NIST 
Law Enforcement Standards Office Web site; www.nist.gov/oles/forensics/. For this reason, comments should not include

[[Page 59655]]

confidential, proprietary, or business sensitive information.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For questions about this Notice 
contact: Susan Ballou, Office of Special Programs, National Institute 
of Standards and Technology, 100 Bureau Drive, Mailstop 8102, 
Gaithersburg, MD 20899, telephone (301) 975-8750; email 
susan.ballou@nist.gov. Please direct media inquiries to the NIST's 
Office of Public Affairs, Media Liaison, Ms. Jennifer Huergo, utilizing 
the email address: Jennifer.huergo@nist.gov.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Background: Forensic science, the 
application of science within a court of law, is an essential tool in 
investigations and the administration of justice. Techniques used by 
forensic scientists often serve as the keystone for investigations into 
criminal, atrocity, intelligence and homeland security matters, as well 
as in civil litigation and mass disaster victim identification. 
Forensic scientists use cutting edge scientific technology and 
expertise to discover, expose, and explain physical evidence.
    NIST and DOJ recently signed a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) 
with the intent of supporting the strengthening of forensic science in 
the United States. The activities undertaken pursuant to the MOU are 
intended to strengthen the validity and reliability of forensic science 
by improving coordination across a broad range of forensic science 
disciplines. The new initiative provides a framework for coordination 
across forensic science disciplines under Federal leadership, with 
state and local participation. The MOU provides for the establishment 
of NIST-administered Guidance Groups intended to develop and propose 
discipline-specific practice guidance that will become publicly 
available and may be considered (along with other relevant and 
publicly-available materials) by Federal agencies and forensic science-
related groups. This coordinated effort is designed to standardize 
national guidance for forensic science practitioners at all levels of 
government. Additionally, NIST will continue to develop methods for 
forensic science measurements and will validate select existing 
forensic science standards.
    Pursuant to the MOU, NIST will administer and coordinate all 
necessary support for the established Guidance Groups. As with the 
forensic Scientific Working Groups, Guidance Groups will have no 
authority to make decisions on behalf of, or provide advice directly 
to, the Federal Government, any Federal agency or officer, or any other 
entity. Guidance Groups may collaborate with relevant voluntary 
standards development organizations or professional organizations for 
the development of consensus guidance before issuing their guidance to 
the public. Guidance Groups do not report to DOJ or NIST.
    The goal of this Notice of Inquiry is to explore the establishment 
and structure of governance models for the Guidance Groups. It is 
expected that models of interest would include the following 
attributes: Transparency/openness, balance of interest of stakeholders, 
due process for stakeholder input, consensus process for decision 
making, and an appeals process. These fundamental principles are 
critical to developing a model that ensures that stakeholder input is 
actively solicited and valued. NIST may explore additional governance 
models in the future. Comments submitted in response to this Notice 
will serve as input for NIST's consideration in developing the 
processes and structure necessary for the establishment and maintenance 
of successful Guidance Groups.
    The Guidance Groups will be voluntary collaborative organizations 
of forensic science practitioners and other stakeholders from a wide 
array of professional disciplines who represent all levels of the 
government, academia, non-profit sector and industry. The Guidance 
Groups are intended to provide structured forums for the exchange of 
ideas among operational, technical, research, and support organizations 
to improve the nation's use of forensic science and promote best 
practices and standards among local, state, Federal, and private 
forensic science service providers. The proposed mission of the 
Guidance Groups is to support the development and propagation of 
forensic science consensus documentary standards, monitor research and 
measurement standards gaps in each forensic discipline, and verify that 
a sufficient scientific basis exists for each discipline.
    Request for Comment: This Notice of Inquiry seeks comment on the 
possible models for the administration, structure and support of the 
Guidance Groups. Responses can include information detailing the 
effective and ineffective aspects of prospective models, as well as the 
current forensic Scientific Working Groups (SWGs). The questions below 
are intended to assist in framing the issues and should not be 
construed as a limitation on comments that parties may submit. NIST 
invites comment on the full range of issues that may be raised by this 
Notice. Comments that contain references to studies, research and other 
empirical data that are not widely published should be accompanied by 
copies of the referenced materials with the submitted comments, keeping 
in mind that all submissions will be part of the public record.

1. Structure of the Guidance Groups

     Given the scope and principles of the Guidance Groups 
outlined here, what are structural models that could best support the 
Guidance Groups, taking into account the technical, policy, legal, and 
operational aspects of forensic science?
     What elements or models would facilitate the sharing of 
best practices and uniform practices across the Guidance Groups?
     Are there public policies or private sector initiatives in 
other countries that have successfully strengthened the nation's use of 
forensic science by supporting the development and propagation of 
forensic science consensus documentary standards, identifying needs of 
forensic science research and measurement standards, and verifying the 
scientific basis exists for each discipline? If so, what are they?
     What are the elements which make existing forensic 
Scientific Working Groups (SWGs) successful? Are there examples of best 
practices in specific SWGs that ought to be replicated in Guidance 
Groups? If so, what are they?
     Would partnership with a standards development 
organization (SDO) in which the standard is issued by the SDO present 
any obstacle for participation by a broad range of forensics science 
stakeholders in the development of a standard? If so, why?
     Would partnership with an SDO in which the standard is 
issued by the SDO present any obstacle to broad adoption of a standard? 
If so, why?
     Would a fee-based membership model run through a not-for-
profit organization (similar to the National Conference of Weights and 
Measures) present a significant obstacle for participation?
     If the Guidance Groups followed a fee-based membership 
model, are there appropriately-tiered systems for fees that would 
prevent ``pricing out'' organizations, including individuals?
     Other than a privatized model, are there other means to 
maintain a governance or coordinating body in the long term? If 
possible, please give examples of existing structures and their 
positive and negative attributes.

[[Page 59656]]

2. Impact of Guidance Groups

    In its role in administering and supporting the Guidance Groups, 
NIST's aim is to improve discipline practices by advancing forensic 
science standards and techniques through a collaborative consensus 
building process with Federal, state and local community partners. NIST 
thus seeks comments about the ways in which the structure, function and 
operation would best support the Guidance Groups by being a catalyst 
for such improvements.
     Given that the Guidance Groups cannot mandate the adoption 
of standards, what can they do to best leverage their position and 
encourage adoption? To what extent does membership and transparency 
impact possible adoption of guidance at the state and local level?
     Are there best practices or models to consider with regard 
to a structure that would encourage effective communication with the 
scientific community to explore research gaps and aid in recognizing 
research priorities?
     How should NIST researchers engage with the Guidance 
Groups in support of the goal to strengthen the nation's use of 
forensic science by supporting the development and propagation of 
forensic science consensus documentary standards, identifying needs of 
forensic science research and measurement standards, and verifying the 
scientific basis exists for each discipline?

3. Representation in the Guidance Groups

    Given the diverse, multi-sector set of stakeholders in forensic 
science, representation in Guidance Groups must be carefully balanced 
and inclusive.
     Who are the stakeholders who should be represented on the 
Guidance Groups? What steps can NIST take to ensure appropriately broad 
representation within the Guidance Groups? What does balanced 
representation mean and how can it be achieved?
     What is the best way to engage organizations playing a 
role in forensic science, standards development and practice?
     How should interested parties who may not be direct 
participants in Guidance Groups, engage in a meaningful way to have an 
impact on issues in front of the Guidance Groups?
     To what extent and in what ways must the Federal 
government, as well as state, local, tribal and territorial governments 
be involved at the outset?

4. Scope of the Guidance Groups

     Should all of the current forensic Scientific Working 
Groups (SWGs) transition to Guidance Groups?
     Are there broader groupings of forensic science 
disciplines that could form the basis of Guidance Groups than the 
current group of twenty-one SWGs? If so, what are those groupings?
     Is there a need for a cross-disciplinary functional 
approach (i.e. statistical analysis) and how could the Guidance Groups 
be structured to best address that need?
     To what extent do Guidance Groups need to support 
different forensic science disciplines differently from one another?

    Dated: September 24, 2013.
Willie E. May,
Associate Director for Laboratory Programs.
[FR Doc. 2013-23617 Filed 9-26-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-13-P