OJJDP Formula Grants Regulation

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE

Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention

28 CFR Part 31

[OJP No. 1091]

RIN 1121-AA39

OJJDP Formula Grants Regulation

AGENCY: Office of Justice Programs, Office of Juvenile Justice and

Delinquency Prevention.

ACTION: Proposed rule and request for public comment.

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

SUMMARY: The Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention

(OJJDP) is publishing for public comment proposed amendments to its

Formula Grants Regulation, 28 CFR Part 31. The Formula Grants

Regulation implements Part B of Title II of the Juvenile Justice and

Delinquency Prevention (JJDP) Act of 1974, as amended by the Juvenile

Justice and Delinquency Prevention Amendments of 1992. The proposed

amendments to the existing Regulation provide further clarification and

guidance to States in the formulation, submission and implementation of

State Formula Grant plans and determinations of State compliance with

plan requirements. They are intended to provide additional flexibility

and greater clarity to participating States with respect to key

provisions related to the core requirements of the JJDP Act.

DATES: Interested persons are invited to submit written comments which

must be received on or before August 19, 1996.

ADDRESSES: Address all comments to Mr. Shay Bilchik, Administrator,

Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention, 633 Indiana

Avenue NW., Room 742, Washington, DC 20531.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ms. Roberta Dorn, Director, State

Relations and Assistance Division, Office of Juvenile Justice and

Delinquency Prevention, 633 Indiana Avenue NW., Room 543, Washington,

DC 20531; (202) 307-5924.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Office of Juvenile Justice and

Delinquency Prevention is proposing revisions to the existing

Regulation, codified at 28 CFR Part 31, and inviting public comment on

the proposed changes. The proposed changes in the regulatory text

accomplish the following:

(1) Revise Sec. 31.303(d)(1)(i) to clarify the level of contact

that is prohibited between juveniles in a secure custody status

within an institution and incarcerated adults;

(2) Revise Sec. 31.303(d)(1)(i) by providing an exception to the

core requirement of separation with respect to brief, and

inadvertent contact between juveniles in a secure custody status

within an institution and incarcerated adults in nonresidential

areas;

(3) Revise Sec. 31.303(d)(1)(v) to permit the placement of an

adjudicated delinquent in an institution with adults once the

adjudicated delinquent reaches the State's age of full criminal

responsibility, when authorized by State law;

(4) Revise Sec. 31.303(e)(2) to permit the placement of an

accused or adjudicated delinquent juvenile in an adult jail or

lockup for up to six hours immediately before or after a court

appearance for processing and transportation purposes;

(5) Revise Sec. 31.303(e)(3) by eliminating the requirement for

OJJDP concurrence in State approved collocated juvenile facilities,

the requirement that a needs-based analysis precede a jurisdiction's

request for State approval, and to permit time-phased use of

nonresidential areas of collocated facilities;

(6) Revise Sec. 31.303(f)(2) to expressly provide that accused

status offenders can be placed in a secure juvenile detention

facility for up to twenty-four hours, exclusive of weekends and

holidays, prior to an initial court appearance and up to twenty-four

hours, exclusive of weekends and holidays, following an initial

court appearance;

(7) Revise Sec. 31.303(f)(3)(vi) to eliminate the regulatory

recommendation that a multi disciplinary team may be used to satisfy

the ``public agency'' requirement, under the valid court order

exception even if some members represent court or law enforcement

agencies;

(8) Revise Sec. 31.303(f)(4)(vi) to eliminate the requirement

that States document and describe in their annual monitoring report

to OJJDP the specific circumstances surrounding each use of

distance/ground transportation and weather exceptions to the jail

and lockup removal requirement;

(9) Revise Sec. 31.303(f)(5)(i)(C) to define and clarify the

scope of the exception to the deinstitutionalization of status

offenders requirement for offenses under ``Sec. 922(x) of Title 18

or other similar State law'' (relating to possession of handguns by

juveniles);

[[Page 34771]]

(10) Revise Sec. 31.303(f)(6)(i) to eliminate portions of the

section related to funding eligibility for fiscal year 1993 and

prior years that are no longer applicable;

(11) Revise Sec. 31.303(f)(6)(ii) to permit States that do not

have a law, regulation, or court rule prohibiting the incarceration

of all juvenile offenders in circumstances that would be in

violation of the separation requirement to be eligible for a finding

of compliance if reported violations do not constitute a pattern or

practice and mechanisms are in place to prevent such violations from

recurring in the future; and

(12) Revise Sec. 31.303(j) to clarify the purpose of the

Disproportionate Minority Confinement core requirement.

Contact With Incarcerated Adults

OJJDP recognizes that there has been a lack of clarity surrounding

the issue of contact between juveniles and incarcerated adults in

secure facilities. OJJDP finds that the term ``sight and sound

contact'' needs to be clarified. In the 1992 amendments to the JJDP

Act, Congress amended the existing ``regular'' contact standard that

defined the level of permissible contact between juveniles and

incarcerated adults by deleting the word ``regular''. OJJDP interpreted

Congress' intent to be that ``haphazard and accidental contact''

between juveniles and incarcerated adults should be prohibited because

this was the level of contact permitted under the regulation

implementing the no ``regular contact'' prohibition in effect prior to

the 1992 amendments. After further review, OJJDP believes that the no

contact prohibition should be interpreted to preclude the systematic,

procedural, and condoned contact between juveniles and incarcerated

adults in secure areas of facilities. Consequently, OJJDP would not

consider brief and inadvertent or accidental contact between juveniles

and incarcerated adults in nonresidential areas of a secure facility to

be a violation of the separation requirement. Specifically, OJJDP

proposes to amend the regulation to provide that brief and inadvertent

contact between juveniles and incarcerated adults in secure

nonresidential areas of a facility such as dining, recreational,

educational, vocational, health care, sallyports and passageways

(hallways) should not be considered a violation of the JJDP Act

separation requirement. However, in any secure residential area of a

facility, any contact between juvenile offenders and adult inmates is

prohibited.

Further, the regulation would provide definitions for sight and

sound contact to assist in understanding what is permitted under

Sec. 223(a)(13). Sight contact is defined as clear visual contact

between incarcerated adults and juveniles in close proximity of each

other. For example, a detained juvenile who sees an adult inmate who is

several hundred feet away is not in close proximity to the incarcerated

adult. In this scenario, the juvenile is not exposed to any conceivable

harm as a consequence of seeing an adult inmate several hundred feet

away. A rule of reason should be exercised by jurisdictions in

assessing whether a juvenile who is exposed visually to an incarcerated

adult is in close proximity to that adult.

With respect to sound contact, the regulation would state that

``direct'' oral communication between incarcerated adults and juveniles

is prohibited. This addition is intended to alleviate concerns over

misinterpretation of this provision. The purpose of the provision is to

prevent incarcerated adults from having direct oral communication with

juveniles, thereby reducing the likelihood of intimidation and

harassment. A rule of reason should also be exercised with sound

contact. Direct oral communication such as conversations and yelling in

close proximity is clearly prohibited. However, an incarcerated adult

yelling at a juvenile who is several hundred feet away may not be

engaged in direct oral communication with the juvenile.

Placement of Juveniles in Adult Facilities

Under the current regulation, States are prohibited from

administratively reclassifying and transferring adjudicated delinquents

to adult (criminal) correctional institutions. OJJDP recognizes that

State laws are increasingly providing for the mandatory or permissible

transfer of adjudicated delinquents to adult facilities once the

delinquent has attained the age of full criminal responsibility under

State law. Consequently, OJJDP proposes to amend the regulation to

provide that it is not a violation of the separation requirement to

transfer an adjudicated delinquent to an adult correctional institution

once the adjudicated delinquent has reached the age of full criminal

responsibility established by State law. The proposed regulation would

permit the placement of an adjudicated delinquent who reaches the age

of full criminal responsibility in an adult correctional facility only

when such transfers are required or authorized by State law.

OJJDP also proposes to amend the regulation to permit the placement

of an alleged or adjudicated delinquent in an adult jail or lockup for

up to six hours immediately before or after a court appearance. Several

States have advised OJJDP that the detention of a juvenile prior to a

court appearance and the immediate transport of a juvenile after a

court appearance creates a difficulty if there is more than one

juvenile before the court on a given day or where separate facilities

are not available. The secure detention of an alleged or adjudicated

delinquent in a jail or lockup for up to six hours immediately before

or after a court appearance would be permissible when circumstances

warrant such a detention, and provided that such juveniles are

separated from adult offenders.

Collocated Facilities

OJJDP currently requires that a needs-based analysis precede a

jurisdiction's request for State approval and OJJDP's concurrence in

order for a juvenile detention facility that is collocated with an

adult jail or lockup to qualify as a separate juvenile detention

facility. OJJDP finds that this requirement is best left to the State

to determine whether a needs-based analysis should be required. In

addition, OJJDP's concurrence with a State agency's decision to approve

a collocated facility would no longer be required. The elimination of

the needs-based analysis and OJJDP's concurrence does not negate the

separation criteria set forth in Sec. 31.303(e)(3)(D). The regularly

scheduled review of State monitoring systems would insure that the

facility continues to meet the separate juvenile detention facility

criteria. Consequently, OJJDP proposes to modify Sec. 31.303(e)(3) to

reflect the elimination of the needs-based analysis and OJJDP's

concurrence.

Under the current regulation, collocated facilities are prohibited

from sharing common use nonresidential areas. Based on State and local

input, OJJDP finds that common use nonresidential areas should be

permissible in collocated facilities. This would require the

utilization of time-phasing in order to allow both juveniles and adults

access to available educational, vocational, and recreational areas of

collocated facilities. The allowance of time-phased use would apply

only to nonresidential areas in collocated facilities.

Deinstitutionalization of Status Offenders

OJJDP has found that confusion exists over the secure detention of

accused status offenders and non-offenders. For purposes of

clarification, OJJDP is adding a paragraph at the end of

Sec. 31.303(f)(2) to state clearly that it is permissible to hold an

accused status

[[Page 34772]]

offender or a nonoffender in a secure juvenile detention facility for

up to twenty-four hours, exclusive of weekends and holidays, prior to

an initial appearance and up to twenty-four hours, exclusive of

weekends and holidays, after an initial court appearance.

Valid Court Order

Under the current statute and regulation, an independent public

agency (other than a court or law enforcement agency) is required to

prepare and submit a written report to a court that is considering an

order that directs or authorizes the placement of a status offender in

a secure facility for the violation of a valid court order. A multi

disciplinary review team that operates independently of a court is

described in the regulation as one option for meeting the requirement,

even where some members of the team may be law enforcement or court

agency staff. Pretrial Service agencies are another option for

jurisdictions to consider to meet the criteria of ``other than a court

or law enforcement agency.'' These offices operate in various

jurisdictions to assess and evaluate individuals who are before the

court for a determination on pretrial release or custody. The intent of

this multi disciplinary provision was to provide States with an example

of a public agency that would meet the criteria where some members of a

team were employed by the courts and/or law enforcement. Because the

wording of this provision had led some States to the conclusion that

multi disciplinary teams are required, the provision would be deleted

from the regulation.

Removal Exception

States are required to document and describe, in their annual

monitoring report to OJJDP, the specific circumstances surrounding each

individual use of the distance/ground transportation and weather

exceptions to the jail and lockup removal requirement. OJJDP finds this

requirement to be overly burdensome on the States and therefore

proposes that it be deleted from the regulation.

Reporting Requirement

The JJDP Act provides that juveniles may be securely detained or

confined pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 922(x) or a similar State law. Section

922(x) was added to the Federal Criminal Code by the Youth Handgun

Safety Act that was passed as a part of the Violent Crime Control and

Law Enforcement Act of 1994, Pub. L. No. 103-322, 108 Stat. 1796

(1994), codified as amended at 42 U.S.C. 13701 et seq. Specifically,

Sec. 922(x) makes it a Federal delinquent offense for a juvenile to

possess a handgun. The possession of a handgun by a juvenile is,

however, a status offense in those States where possession of a handgun

by an adult is permitted. Consequently, the Youth Handgun Safety Act

specifically amended the JJDP Act to exclude from the

deinstitutionalization of status offenders requirement a juvenile who

has violated Sec. 922(x) or a similar State law. For the purpose of

clarification, where Sec. 922(x) initially appears in the regulation,

it is described as a federal law prohibiting the possession of a

handgun by a juvenile and specifically excluding such a violation, or

the violation of a similar State law, from the coverage of the

deinstitutionalization of status offenders requirement.

Compliance

OJJDP would delete the first two sentences of Sec. 31.303(f)(6)(i)

because it pertains to States substantially complying with the

deinstitutionalization of status offenders core requirement in fiscal

year 1993 and prior years. The substantial compliance criteria allowed

States to be eligible for formula grant funding during these years if

the State had achieve a seventy five percent reduction in the aggregate

number of status offenders and nonoffenders held in secure detention or

correctional facilities and had made an unequivocal commitment to

achieving full compliance. Because this standard does not apply to

fiscal years beyond 1994, OJJDP would remove it from the regulation.

However, the portion of the section that defines full compliance would

remain.

Under the current regulation, compliance with the separation

requirement is considered to be achieved when a State can demonstrate

that in the last monitoring report, covering a full 12 months of data,

no juveniles were incarcerated in circumstances in violation of the

separation requirement. Also, compliance can be achieved where a State

has a law, regulation, court rule, or other established executive or

judicial policy clearly prohibiting the incarceration of juvenile

offenders in circumstances that would be in violation of the separation

requirement, and violations reported do not constitute a pattern or

practice in the State. However, a State that has no law or policy that

mirrors the JJDP Act separation requirement could not be in compliance

if any juvenile was held in violation of the separation requirement.

OJJDP proposes to modify this policy in order not to unfairly penalize

States that have not enacted laws, rules, regulations or policies

prohibiting the incarceration of all juvenile offenders under

circumstances that would be in violation of the separation requirement.

OJJDP proposes a single standard applicable to all States regardless of

whether a law, regulation, rule or policy exists that prohibits the

detention of juveniles with incarcerated adults. Specifically,

compliance can be established under circumstances in which the

instances do not indicate a pattern or practice and mechanisms or plans

to address exist within the State to ensure that such instances are

unlikely to recur in the future.

Minority Detention and Confinement

Several States have expressed concern over the Disproportionate

Minority Confinement (Sec. 223(a)(23)) core requirement of the JJDP

Act. Specifically, this core requirement has been criticized as

requiring the establishment of numerical standards or quotas in order

for a State to achieve or maintain compliance. This is not the purpose

of the statute or its implementing regulation. In order to respond to

this concern, two sentences have been added to Sec. 31.303(j) of the

regulation to state specifically that the purpose of the statute and

regulation is to encourage States to address, programmatically, any

features of its justice system that may account for the

disproportionate detention or confinement of minority juveniles. The

section states clearly that the Disproportionate Minority Confinement

core requirement neither requires nor establishes numerical standards

or quotas in order for a State to achieve or maintain compliance.

Executive Order 12866

This proposed rule is not a ``significant regulatory action'' for

purposes of Executive Order 12866 because it does not result in: (1) An

annual effect on the economy of $100 million or more or adversely

affect in a material way the economy, a sector of the economy,

productivity, competition, jobs, the environment, public health or

safety, or state, local or tribal governments or communities; (2)

create a serious inconsistency or otherwise interfere with action taken

or planned by another agency; (3) materially alter the budgetary impact

of entitlement, grants, user fees, or loan programs or the rights and

obligations of recipients thereof; and (4) does not raise novel legal

or policy issues arising out of legal mandates, the President's

priorities or the principles of Executive Order No. 12866. The Office

of Management and

[[Page 34773]]

Budget has waived its review process for this rule under Executive

Order 12866.

Regulatory Flexibility Act

This proposed rule, if promulgated, will not have a ``significant''

economic impact on a substantial number of small ``entities'' as

defined by the Regulatory Flexibility Act. This action is intended to

relieve existing requirements in the Formula Grants program and to

clarify other provisions so as to promote compliance with its

provisions by States participating in the program.

Paperwork Reduction Act

No collections of information requirements are contained in or

affected by this regulation pursuant to the Paperwork Reduction Act,

codified at 44 U.S.C. 3504(H).

Intergovernmental Review of Federal Programs

In accordance with Executive Order 12372 and the Department of

Justice's implementing regulation 28 CFR Part 30, States must submit

Formula Grant Program applications to the State ``Single Point of

Contact,'' if one exists. The State may take up to 60 days from the

application date to comment on the application.

List of Subjects in 28 CFR Part 31

Grant programs--law, Juvenile delinquency, Grant programs.

For the reasons set forth in the preamble, it is proposed to amend

the OJJDP Formula Grants Regulation, 28 CFR Part 31, as follows:

PART 31--[AMENDED]

1. The authority citation for Part 31 would continue to read as

follows:

Authority: 42 U.S.C. 5601 et seq.

2. Section 31.303 is amended by revising paragraphs (d)(1)(i) and

(v) to read as follows:

Sec. 31.303 Substantive requirements.

* * * * *

(d)(1) * * *

(i) Separation. Describe its plan and procedure, covering the

three-year planning cycle, for assuring that the requirements of this

section are met. The term ``contact'' includes any physical or

sustained sight or sound contact between juveniles in a secure custody

status and incarcerated adults, including inmate trustees. A juvenile

in a secure custody status is one who is physically detained or

confined in a locked room or other area set aside or used for the

specific purpose of securely detaining persons who are in law

enforcement custody. Secure detention or confinement may result either

from being placed in such a room or area and/or from being physically

secured to a cuffing rail or other stationary object. Sight contact is

defined as clear visual contact between incarcerated adults and

juveniles within close proximity to each other. Sound contact is

defined as direct oral communication between incarcerated adults and

juveniles. Separation must be accomplished in all secure areas of the

facility which include, but are not limited to, admissions, sleeping,

toilet and shower, and other areas, as appropriate. Brief and

inadvertent or accidental contact between juveniles in a secure custody

status and incarcerated adults, in secure nonresidential areas of a

facility such as dining, recreational, educational, vocational, health

care, sally ports or other entry areas, and passageways (hallways)

would not require a State to document or report such contact as a

violation. However, any contact in a residential area of a secure

facility between juveniles and incarcerated adults would be a

reportable violation.

* * * * *

(v) Assure that adjudicated delinquents are not reclassified

administratively and transferred to an adult (criminal) correctional

authority to avoid the intent of separating juveniles from adult

criminals in jails or correctional facilities. A State is not

prohibited from placing or transferring an alleged or adjudicated

delinquent who reaches the State's age of full criminal responsibility

to an adult facility when required or authorized by State law. However,

the administrative transfer, without statutory direction or

authorization, of a juvenile offender to an adult correctional

authority, or a transfer within a mixed juvenile and adult facility for

placement with adult criminals, either before or after a juvenile

reaches the age of full criminal responsibility, is prohibited. A State

is also precluded from transferring adult offenders to a juvenile

correctional authority for placement in a juvenile facility. This

neither prohibits nor restricts the waiver or transfer of a juvenile to

criminal court for prosecution, in accordance with State law, for a

criminal felony violation, nor the detention or confinement of a waived

or transferred criminal felony violator in an adult facility.

* * * * *

3. Section 31.303(e) is amended by revising paragraphs (e)(2),

(e)(3) introductory text and (e)(3)(i) to read as follows:

Sec. 31.303 Substantive requirements.

* * * * *

(e) * * *

(2) Describe the barriers that a State faces in removing all

juveniles from adult jails and lockups. This requirement excepts only

those alleged or adjudicated juvenile delinquents placed in a jail or a

lockup for up to six hours from the time they enter a secure custody

status or immediately before or after a court appearance, those

juveniles formally waived or transferred to criminal court and against

whom criminal felony charges have been filed, or juveniles over whom a

criminal court has original or concurrent jurisdiction and such court's

jurisdiction has been invoked through the filing of criminal felony

charges.

(3) Collocated facilities. (i) Determine whether or not a facility

in which juveniles are detained or confined is an adult jail or lockup.

The JJDP Act prohibits the secure custody of juveniles in adult jails

and lockups, except as otherwise provided under the Act and

implementing OJJDP regulations. Juvenile facilities collocated with

adult facilities are considered adult jails or lockups unless

paragraphs (e)(3)(i)(C)(1) through (4) criteria established in this

section are complied with.

(A) A collocated facility is a juvenile facility located in the

same building as an adult jail or lockup, or is part of a related

complex of buildings located on the same grounds as an adult jail or

lockup. A complex of buildings is considered ``related'' when it shares

physical features such as walls and fences, or services beyond

mechanical services (heating, air conditioning, water and sewer), or

the specialized services that are allowable under paragraph

(e)(3)(i)(C)(3) of this section.

(B) The State must determine whether a collocated facility

qualifies as a separate juvenile detention facility under the four

criteria set forth in paragraphs (e)(3)(i)(C)(1) through (4) of this

section for the purpose of monitoring compliance with

Sec. 223(a)(12)(A), (13) and (14) of the JJDP Act.

(C) Each of the following four criteria must be met in order to

ensure the requisite separateness of a juvenile detention facility that

is collocated with an adult jail or lockup:

(1) Separation between juveniles and adults such that there could

be no sight or sound contact between juveniles and incarcerated adults

in the facility. Separation can be achieved architecturally or through

time-phasing of common use nonresidential areas; and

[[Page 34774]]

(2) Separate juvenile and adult programs, including recreation,

education, vocation, counseling, dining, sleeping, and general living

activities. There must be an independent and comprehensive operational

plan for the juvenile detention facility which provides for a full

range of separate program services. No program activities may be shared

by juveniles and incarcerated adults. Time-phasing of common use

nonresidential areas is permissible to conduct program activities.

Equipment and other resources may be used by both populations subject

to security concerns; and

(3) Separate staff for the juvenile and adult populations,

including management, security, and direct care staff. Staff providing

specialized services (medical care, food service, laundry, maintenance

and engineering, etc.) who are not normally in contact with detainees,

or whose infrequent contacts occur under conditions of separation of

juveniles and adults, can serve both populations (subject to State

standards or licensing requirements). The day to day management,

security and direct care functions of the juvenile detention center

must be vested in a totally separate staff, dedicated solely to the

juvenile population within the collocated facilities; and

(4) In States that have established standards or licensing

requirements for juvenile detention facilities, the juvenile facility

must meet the standards (on the same basis as a free-standing juvenile

detention center) and be licensed as appropriate. If there are no State

standards or licensing requirements, OJJDP encourages States to

establish administrative requirements that authorize the State to

review the facility's physical plant, staffing patterns, and programs

in order to approve the collocated facility based on prevailing

national juvenile detention standards.

* * * * *

4. Section 31.303 is amended by revising paragraphs (f)(2),

(3)(vi), and (4)(vi) to read as follows:

Sec. 31.303 Substantive requirements.

* * * * *

(f) * * *

(2) For the purpose of monitoring for compliance with section

223(a)(12)(A) of the Act, a secure detention or correctional facility

is any secure public or private facility used for the lawful custody of

accused or adjudicated juvenile offenders or non-offenders, or used for

the lawful custody of accused or convicted adult criminal offenders.

Accused status offenders or non offenders in lawful custody can be held

in a secure juvenile detention facility for up to twenty-four hours,

exclusive of weekends and holidays, prior to an initial court

appearance and for an additional twenty-four hours, exclusive of

weekends and holidays, following a court appearance.

(3) * * *

(vi) In entering any order that directs or authorizes the placement

of a status offender in a secure facility, the judge presiding over an

initial probable cause hearing or violation hearing must determine that

all the elements of a valid court order (paragraphs (f)(3)(i), (ii) and

(iii) of this section) and the applicable due process rights (paragraph

(f)(3)(v) of this section) were afforded the juvenile and, in the case

of a violation hearing, the judge must obtain and review a written

report that: reviews the behavior of the juvenile and the circumstances

under which the juvenile was brought before the court and made subject

to such order; determines the reasons for the juvenile's behavior; and

determines whether all dispositions other than secure confinement have

been exhausted or are clearly inappropriate. This report must be

prepared and submitted by an appropriate public agency (other than a

court or law enforcement agency).

* * * * *

(4) * * *

(vi) Pursuant to section 223(a)(14) of the JJDP Act, the non-MSA

(low population density) exception to the jail and lockup removal

requirement as described in paragraphs (f)(4)(i) through (v) of this

section will remain in effect through 1997, and will allow for secure

custody beyond the twenty-four-hour period described in paragraph

(f)(4)(i) of this section when the facility is located where conditions

of distance to be traveled or the lack of highway, road, or other

ground transportation do not allow for court appearances within twenty-

four hours, so that a brief (not to exceed an additional forty-eight

hours) delay is excusable; or the facility is located where conditions

of safety exist (such as severely adverse, life-threatening weather

conditions that do not allow for reasonably safe travel), in which case

the time for an appearance may be delayed until twenty-four hours after

the time that such conditions allow for reasonably safe travel. States

may use these additional statutory allowances only where the precedent

requirements set forth in paragraphs (f)(4)(i) through (v) of this

section have been complied with. This may necessitate statutory or

judicial (court rule or opinion) relief within the State from the

twenty-four hours initial court appearance standard required by

paragraph (f)(4)(i) of this section.

* * * * *

5. Section 31.303(f)(5)(i)(C) is revised to read as follows:

Sec. 31.303 Substantive requirements.

* * * * *

(f) * * *

(5) * * *

(i) * * *

(C) The total number of accused status offenders and nonoffenders,

including out-of-State runaways and Federal wards, held in any secure

detention or correctional facility for longer than twenty-four hours

(not including weekends or holidays), excluding those held pursuant to

the valid court order provision as set forth in paragraph (f)(3) of

this section or pursuant to section 922(x) of Title 18, United States

Code (which prohibits the possession of a handgun by a juvenile), or a

similar State law. A juvenile who violates this statute, or a similar

state law, is excepted from the deinstitutionalization of status

offenders requirement;

* * * * *

6. Section 31.303 is amended by revising paragraphs (f)(6)(i) and

(ii) to read as follows:

Sec. 31.303 Substantive requirements.

* * * * *

(f) * * *

(6) * * *

(i) Full compliance with section 223(a)(12)(A) is achieved when a

State has removed 100 percent of status offenders and nonoffenders from

secure detention and correctional facilities or can demonstrate full

compliance with de minimis exceptions pursuant to the policy criteria

contained in the Federal Register of January 9, 1981 (46 FR 2566-2569).

(ii) Compliance with section 223(a)(13) has been achieved when a

State can demonstrate that:

(A) The last submitted monitoring report, covering a full 12 months

of data, demonstrates that no juveniles were incarcerated in

circumstances that were in violation of section 223(a)(13); or

(B)(1) The instances reported under paragraph (f)(6)(ii)(A) of this

section do not indicate a pattern or practice but rather constitute

isolated instances; and

(2) Existing mechanisms or plans to address these incidences are

such that they are unlikely to recur in the future.

* * * * *

7. Section 31.303 is amended by inserting the following sentences

after the 2nd sentence of paragraph (j) introductory text:

[[Page 34775]]

Sec. 31.303 Substantive requirements.

* * * * *

(j) * * * The purpose of the statute and regulation is to encourage

States to address, programmatically, any features of its justice

system, and related laws and policies, which may account for the

disproportionate detention or confinement of minority juveniles in

secure detention facilities, secure correctional facilities, jails and

lockups. The Disproportionate Minority Confinement core requirement

neither establishes nor requires numerical standards or quotas in order

for a State to achieve or maintain compliance. * * *

* * * * *

Dated: June 26, 1996.

Shay Bilchik,

Administrator, Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention.

[FR Doc. 96-16842 Filed 7-2-96; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4410-18-P