FACACLASSIC

Note: An Annual Comprehensive Review, as required by §7 of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, is conducted each year on committee data entered for the previous fiscal year (referred to as the reporting year). The data for the reporting year is not considered verified until this review is complete and the data is moved to history for an agency/department. See the Data From Previous Years section at the bottom of this page for the committee’s historical, verified data.

Details on agency responses to committee recommendations can be found under the Performance Measures section for each committee in the fields “Agency Feedback” and “Agency Feedback Comment.”

HHS - 2081 - National Library of Medicine Special Emphasis Panel - Authorized by Law

GENERAL INFORMATION

Committee Name	National Library of Medicine Special Emphasis Panel	Agency Name	Department of Health and Human Services
Fiscal Year	2025	Committee Number	2081
Original Establishment Date	9/29/1995	Committee Status	Terminated
Actual Termination Date	6/30/2025	Committee URL
Actual Merged Date		Presidential Appointments*	No
New Committee This FY	No	Max Number of Members*	Unlimited
Terminated This FY	Yes	Designated Fed Officer Position Title*	Deputy Associate Director, Extramural Programs, NLM
Merged This FY		Designated Federal Officer Prefix
Current Charter Date	9/29/1995	Designated Federal Officer First Name*	Richard
Date Of Renewal Charter		Designated Federal Officer Middle Name
Projected Termination Date		Designated Federal Officer Last Name*	Palmer
Exempt From Renewal*	Yes	Designated Federal Officer Suffix	Ph.D.
Specific Termination Authority		Designated Federal Officer Phone*	(301) 496-4254
Establishment Authority*	Authorized by Law	Designated Federal Officer Fax*	301-402-2952
Specific Establishment Authority*	42 USC 282(b)(16)	Designated Federal Officer Email*	richard.palmer@nih.gov
Effective Date Of Authority*	11/20/1985
Exempt From EO 13875 Discretionary Cmte	Not Applicable
Committee Type*	Continuing
Presidential*	No
Committee Function*	Special Emphasis Panel

RECOMMENDATION/JUSTIFICATIONS

Agency Recommendation*	Terminate
Legislation to Terminate Required	Not Applicable
Legislation Status	Not Applicable
How does cmte accomplish its purpose?*	This committee was composed of recognized biomedical and/or behavioral research authorities who represented the forefront of research and technical knowledge and who provided first-level merit review of highly scientific and technical research grant and cooperative applications and contract proposals for research and training activities in the areas relevant to informatics, library and data sciences for use in health care, public health and basic biomedical research. During this reporting period, the Special Emphasis Panels met 5 times and reviewed a total of 64 applications recommending $71,337,157.
How is membership balanced?*	This committee had 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 were 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, databases, resources and educational technology. Participants for each meeting were 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 5 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?*	Per "2025 Secretary Directive" this FACA Committee has been terminated.
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 Remarks	Per "2025 Secretary Directive" this FACA Committee has been terminated. This committee did not produce any reports during this reporting period. This committee did not have a dedicated website. Committee Decision Maker and Designated Federal Official were the same individual based on assigned duties within NLM. The members of this Special Emphasis Panel (SEP) did not have standing appointments and served on an as needed basis for meetings throughout the fiscal year. Therefore, the members list does not reflect appointment start and end dates. As often as possible, instead of appointment start and end dates, each meeting date on which the SEP member served is identified on the Members list. When necessary to protect peer review integrity, a fiscal year start and end date is used as the alternative to appointment start and end dates for some SEP members. As a result, the Members list, including the number of chairs, may not align or directly match to specific meeting dates. Meeting rosters, including members’ affiliations and zip codes are available online at https://public.era.nih.gov/pubroster/.

PERFORMANCE MEASURES

Outcome Improvement To Health Or Safety*	No	Action Reorganize Priorities*	No
Outcome Trust In Government	No	Action Reallocate Resources	No
Outcome Major Policy Changes	No	Action Issued New Regulations	No
Outcome Advance In Scientific Research	Yes	Action Proposed Legislation	No
Outcome Effective Grant Making	Yes	Action Approved Grants Or Other Payments	Yes
Outcome Improved Service Delivery	No	Action Other	No
Outcome Increased Customer Satisfaction	No	Action Comment	An 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 Requirements	No	Grants Review*	Yes
Outcome Other	No	Number Of Grants Reviewed	64
Outcome Comment	N/A	Number Of Grants Recommended	64
Cost Savings*	Unable to Determine	Dollar Value Of Grants Recommended	$71,337,157.00
Cost Savings Comment	NIH 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 Comment	N/A
Number Of Recommendations*	2,741	Access Contact Designated Fed. Officer*	Yes
Number Of Recommendations Comment	A total of 64 grant applications were reviewed in FY 2025.	Access Agency Website	Yes
% of Recs Fully Implemented*	20.00%	Access Committee Website	No
% of Recs Fully Implemented Comment	NIH 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 was to determine scientific and technical merit of the individual grants or contracts. These recommendations were forwarded to Federal officials who generally accept the committee’s recommendations and favorable applications were then forwarded for the second level or review performed by the Institute and Center (IC) National Advisory Councils or Boards. Only applications that were favorably recommended by both the initial peer review committee and the Advisory Council were recommended for funding.	Access GSA FACA Website	Yes
% of Recs Partially Implemented*	0.00%	Access Publications	No
% of Recs Partially Implemented Comment	NIH 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 was to determine scientific and technical merit of the individual grants or contracts. These recommendations were 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 were favorably recommended by both the initial peer review committee and the Advisory Council were recommended for funding.	Access Other	Yes
Agency Feedback*	Yes	Access Comment	Contact the National Library of Medicine Committee Management Office.
Agency Feedback Comment*	Information resulting from closed initial peer review meetings is subject to the Freedom of Information Act. The public can view information on research projects funded by NIH on the RePORT (Research Portfolio Online Reporting Tool) website located at http://report.nih.gov.	Narrative Description*	NIH’s mission is to seek fundamental knowledge about the nature and behavior of living systems and the application of that knowledge to enhance health, lengthen life, and reduce illness and disability. NIH worked toward that mission by supporting the research of non-Federal scientists in universities, medical schools, hospitals, and research institutions throughout the country and abroad. Section 492 of the PHS Act states that The Secretary ...shall by regulation require appropriate technical and scientific peer review of -- (A) applications...; and (B) biomedical and behavioral research and development contracts...The Special Emphasis Panels were established to provide grant review for a variety of grant or contract applications for which specialized reviews are required. The NLM SEP peer reviews included Publications, Research, and Training Grants.

COSTS

1. Payments to Non-Federal Members*		1. Est Paymnts to Non-Fed Membrs Nxt FY*
2. Payments to Federal Members*		2. Est. Payments to Fed Members Next FY*
3. Payments to Federal Staff*		3. Estimated Payments to Federal Staff*
4. Payments to Consultants*		4. Est. Payments to Consultants Next FY*
5. Travel Reimb. For Non-Federal Membrs*		5. Est Travel Reimb Non-Fed Membr nxtFY*
6. Travel Reimb. For Federal Members*		6. Est Travel Reimb For Fed Members*
7. Travel Reimb. For Federal Staff*		7. Est. Travel Reimb to Fed Staf Nxt FY*
8. Travel Reimb. For Consultants*		8. Est Travel Reimb to Consltnts Nxt FY*
10. Other Costs		10. Est. Other Costs Next FY*
11. Total Costs	$0.00	11. Est. Total Next FY*	$0.00
Date Cost Last Modified	3/14/2025 9:33 AM	Est. Fed Staff Support Next FY*
Federal Staff Support (FTE)*		Est Cost Remarks
Cost Remarks

Interest Areas

Category Area Computer Technology Information Technology Health Medical Education Medicine Health and Health Research

Custom Links

Committee Level Reports