Skip to main content
Content Starts Here GSA Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA) Database Skip to main content

Committee Detail

Hide Section - GENERAL INFORMATION

GENERAL INFORMATION

Committee NameNational Library of Medicine Special Emphasis PanelAgency NameDepartment of Health and Human Services
Fiscal Year2019Committee Number2081
Original Establishment Date9/29/1995Committee StatusChartered
Actual Termination Date Committee URL 
New Committee This FYNoPresidential Appointments*No
Terminated This FYNoMax Number of Members*Unlimited
Current Charter Date9/29/1995Designated Fed Officer Position Title*CHIEF SCIENTIFIC REVIEW OFFICER
Date Of Renewal Charter Designated Federal Officer Prefix
Projected Termination Date Designated Federal Officer First Name*ZOE
Exempt From Renewal*YesDesignated Federal Officer Middle Name
Specific Termination AuthorityDesignated Federal Officer Last Name*HUANG
Establishment Authority*Authorized by LawDesignated Federal Officer SuffixM.D.
Specific Establishment Authority*42 USC 282(b)(16)Designated Federal Officer Phone*(301) 496-4253
Effective Date Of Authority*11/20/1985Designated Federal Officer Fax*301-402-2952
Committee Type*ContinuingDesignated Federal Officer Email*huangz@mail.nlm.nih.gov
Presidential*No
Committee Function*Special Emphasis Panel
Hide Section - RECOMMENDATION/JUSTIFICATIONS

RECOMMENDATION/JUSTIFICATIONS

Agency Recommendation*Continue
Legislation to Terminate RequiredNot Applicable
Legislation StatusNot Applicable
How does cmte accomplish its purpose?*This committee is composed of recognized biomedical and/or behavioral research authorities who represent the forefront of research and technical knowledge and who provide first-level merit review of highly scientific and technical research grant applications (and/or contract proposals) in the fields of medical library services, health science publications, integrated biotechnology information, databases, resources, and educational technology.During this reporting period, 6 special emphasis panels met and reviewed a total of 109 applications recommending $63,106,575.
How is membership balanced?*This committee has a fluid membership with members designated to serve for individual meetings rather than formally appointed for fixed terms of service. The reviewers for each meeting are selected to evaluate grant applications or contract proposals for a specific, perhaps narrow, expertise area in medical library services, health science publications, integrated biotechnology information, data bases, resources and educational technology. Participants for each meeting are assembled to most efficiently and effectively cover the number and breadth of applications or contracts requiring review.
How frequent & relevant are cmte mtgs?*The National Library of Medicine Special Emphasis Panel held 6 meetings during this reporting period. The flexibility in review allowed by this committee structure has been proven both efficient and effective.
Why advice can't be obtained elsewhere?*This committee is composed of recognized biomedical and/or behavioral research authorities who represent the forefront of research and technical knowledge and who provide first level merit review of highly scientific and technical research grant applications and contract proposals. These evaluations and recommendations cannot be obtained from other sources because the specialized, complex nature of the applications and proposals requires a unique balance and breadth of expertise not available on the NIH staff or from other established sources.
Why close or partially close meetings?The meetings of the National Library of Medicine Special Emphasis Panel were closed to the public for the review of grant applications. Sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6) of the Government in the Sunshine Act permit the closing of meetings where discussion could reveal confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as patentable material and personal information, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.
Recommendation RemarksThis committee did not produce any reports during this reporting period. This committee does not have a dedicated website. Committee Decision Maker and Designated Federal Official are the same individual based on assigned duties within NLM. Dr. Keith Meador was listed on the member log report; however, he did not attend the July 12, 2019 SEP meeting, he was removed from the roster.
Hide Section - PERFORMANCE MEASURES

PERFORMANCE MEASURES

Outcome Improvement To Health Or Safety*NoAction Reorganize Priorities*No
Outcome Trust In GovernmentNoAction Reallocate ResourcesNo
Outcome Major Policy ChangesNoAction Issued New RegulationsNo
Outcome Advance In Scientific ResearchYesAction Proposed LegislationNo
Outcome Effective Grant MakingYesAction Approved Grants Or Other PaymentsYes
Outcome Improved Service DeliveryNoAction OtherNo
Outcome Increased Customer SatisfactionNoAction CommentAn action of “approved” or “recommended” for grants receiving initial peer review by this committee does not infer that the grant will be or has been funded. Research grant applications submitted to NIH must go through a two-step review process that includes the initial peer review for scientific and technical merit and a second step of review and approval by a National Advisory Council for program relevance. In addition, prior to an award or funding being made, NIH staff must conduct an administrative review for a number of other considerations. These include alignment with NIH’s funding principles, review of the project budget, assessment of the applicant’s management systems, determination of applicant eligibility, and compliance with public policy requirements. After all these steps have been completed, NIH officials make funding decisions on individual grant applications.
Outcome Implement Laws/Reg RequirementsNoGrants Review*Yes
Outcome OtherNoNumber Of Grants Reviewed114
Outcome CommentN/ANumber Of Grants Recommended114
Cost Savings*Unable to DetermineDollar Value Of Grants Recommended$66,458,605.00
Cost Savings CommentNIH supported basic and clinical research accomplishments often take many years to unfold into new diagnostic tests and new ways to treat and prevent disease.Grants Review CommentThe March 25th, 2019 SEP that was reported on the "Dollars Requested" report was an NSF meeting where NLM funded 5 of the applications. Those applications are indicated in the amounts above.
Number Of Recommendations*2,224Access Contact Designated Fed. Officer*Yes
Number Of Recommendations CommentA total of 114 grant applications were reviewed in FY 2019. 5 of these applications were from an NSF SEP held on March 25, 2019.Access Agency WebsiteYes
% of Recs Fully Implemented*20.00%Access Committee WebsiteNo
% of Recs Fully Implemented CommentNIH Peer Review Committees are involved in the initial review of research grant applications. The NIH dual peer review system is mandated by statute in accordance with section 492 of the Public Health Service Act. The charge to this committee is to determine scientific and technical merit of the individual grants or contracts. These recommendations are forwarded to Federal officials who generally accept the committee’s recommendations and favorable applications are then forwarded for the second level or review performed by the Institute and Center (IC) National Advisory Councils or Boards. Only applications that are favorably recommended by both the initial peer review committee and the Advisory Council may be recommended for funding.Access GSA FACA WebsiteYes
% of Recs Partially Implemented*0.00%Access PublicationsNo
% of Recs Partially Implemented CommentNIH Peer Review Committees are involved in the initial review of research grant applications. The NIH dual peer review system is mandated by statute in accordance with section 492 of the Public Health Service Act. The charge to this committee is to determine scientific and technical merit of the individual grants or contracts. These recommendations are forwarded to Federal officials who generally accept the committee’s recommendations and favorable applications are then forwarded for the second level or review performed by the Institute and Center (IC) National Advisory Councils or Boards. Only applications that are favorably recommended by both the initial peer review committee and the Advisory Council may be recommended for funding.Access OtherYes
Agency Feedback*NoAccess CommentContact the National Library of Medicine Committee Management Office.
Agency Feedback CommentN/ANarrative Description*The Special Emphasis Panels are established to provide grant review for a variety of grant or contract applications for which specialized reviews are required. The NLM SEP peer reviews include Publications, Research, and Training Grants.
Hide Section - COSTS

COSTS

Payments to Non-Federal Members*$15,200.00Est Payments to Non-Fed Members Next FY*$15,200.00
Payments to Federal Members* Est. Payments to Fed Members Next FY* 
Payments to Federal Staff*$105,173.00Estimated Payments to Federal Staff*$105,830.00
Payments to Consultants* Est. Payments to Consultants Next FY* 
Travel Reimb. For Non-Federal Members*$2,165.00Est Travel Reimb Non-Fed Members nextFY*$2,174.00
Travel Reimb. For Federal Members* Est Travel Reimb For Fed Members* 
Travel Reimb. For Federal Staff* Est. Travel Reimb to Fed Staff Next FY* 
Travel Reimb. For Consultants* Est Travel Reimb to Consultants Next FY* 
Other Costs Est. Other Costs Next FY* 
Total Costs$122,538.00Est. Total Next FY*$123,204.00
Federal Staff Support (FTE)*0.60Est. Fed Staff Support Next FY*0.60
Hide Section - Custom Links

Custom Links

     Committee Level Reports               
Hide Section - MEMBERS,MEETINGS AND ADVISORY REPORTS

MEMBERS,MEETINGS AND ADVISORY REPORTS

To View all the members, meetings and advisory reports for this committee please click here
Hide Section - CHARTERS AND RELATED DOCS

CHARTERS AND RELATED DOCS

No Documents Found
Hide Section - DATA FROM PREVIOUS YEARS

DATA FROM PREVIOUS YEARS

Committee

Data from Previous Years

 
ActionCommittee System IDCommittee NameFiscal Year
 COM-001913National Library of Medicine Special Emphasis Panel2017
 COM-002646National Library of Medicine Special Emphasis Panel2016
 COM-003759National Library of Medicine Special Emphasis Panel2015
 COM-004386National Library of Medicine Special Emphasis Panel2014
 COM-006129National Library of Medicine Special Emphasis Panel2013
 COM-006904National Library of Medicine Special Emphasis Panel2012
 COM-008340National Library of Medicine Special Emphasis Panel2011
 COM-009026National Library of Medicine Special Emphasis Panel2010
 COM-010064National Library of Medicine Special Emphasis Panel2009
 COM-010964National Library of Medicine Special Emphasis Panel2008
 COM-012147National Library of Medicine Special Emphasis Panel2007
 COM-012615National Library of Medicine Special Emphasis Panel2006
 COM-013770National Library of Medicine Special Emphasis Panel2005
 COM-014517National Library of Medicine Special Emphasis Panel2004
 COM-015734National Library of Medicine Special Emphasis Panel2003
 COM-016731National Library of Medicine Special Emphasis Panel2002
 COM-017847National Library of Medicine Special Emphasis Panel2001
 COM-018774National Library of Medicine Special Emphasis Panel2000
 COM-019772National Library of Medicine Special Emphasis Panel1999
 COM-020398National Library of Medicine Special Emphasis Panel1998
 COM-021579National Library of Medicine Special Emphasis Panel1997
 COM-034852National Library of Medicine Special Emphasis Panel2018