Privacy Act; Implementation, 51933-51935 [2012-20886]
Download as PDF
51933
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 167 / Tuesday, August 28, 2012 / Rules and Regulations
Name of non-regulatory SIP revision
Applicable geographic area
*
*
1997 PM2.5 NAAQS Attainment Demonstration, 2002 Base Year Emissions Inventory, Contingency Measures and Motor Vehicle Emission
Budgets for 2009.
EPA approval date
Additional
explanation
*
4/12/10, 8/3/12
*
8/28/12 [Insert
page number
where the document begins].
*
*
*
Pennsylvania portion of the Philadelphia-Wilmington, PA-NJ-DE PM2.5
Nonattainment Area.
[FR Doc. 2012–21046 Filed 8–27–12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560–50–P
DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND
HUMAN SERVICES
45 CFR Part 5b
[Docket Number NIH–2011–0001]
Privacy Act; Implementation
Department of Health and
Human Services.
ACTION: Direct Final rule.
AGENCY:
sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with RULES
State submittal date
Register withdrawing this direct final
rule before its effective date.
ADDRESSES: You may submit comments,
identified by [Docket No(s).], by any of
the following methods:
Electronic Submissions
Submit electronic comments in the
following way:
• Federal eRulemaking Portal: https://
www.regulations.gov. Follow the
instructions for submitting comments.
Written Submissions
Submit written submissions in the
following ways:
• Fax: 301–402–0169.
SUMMARY: The Department of Health and
• Mail: Jerry Moore, NIH Regulations
Human Services (HHS or Department),
through the National Institutes of Health Officer, Office of Management
(NIH), is implementing a new system of Assessment, National Institutes of
Health, 6011 Executive Boulevard, Suite
records, 09–25–0223, ‘‘NIH Records
601, MSC 7669, Rockville, MD 20852–
Related to Research Misconduct
7669.
Proceedings, HHS/NIH.’’ HHS is
To ensure more timely processing of
exempting this system of records from
comments, HHS/NIH is no longer
certain provisions of the Privacy Act to
accepting comments submitted to the
protect the integrity of NIH research
agency by email. HHS/NIH encourages
misconduct proceedings and to protect
you to continue to submit electronic
the identity of confidential sources in
comments by using the Federal
such proceedings. HHS is issuing a
eRulemaking Portal, as described
direct final rule for this action because
previously, in the ADDRESSES portion of
the agency expects that there will be no
this document under Electronic
significant adverse comment on this
Submissions.
rule. Elsewhere in this issue of the
Instructions: All submissions received
Federal Register, HHS is publishing a
must include the agency name and
companion proposed rule under the
agency’s usual procedure for notice-and- Docket No. for this rulemaking. All
comments received may be posted
comment rulemaking to provide a
without change to https://
procedural framework to finalize the
rule in the event the agency receives any www.regulations.gov, including any
personal information provided.
significant comments and withdraws
Docket: For access to the docket to
this direct final rule. The companion
read background documents or
proposed rule and this direct final rule
comments received, go to https://
are substantively identical.
www.regulations.gov and follow the
DATES: This rule is effective January 10,
instructions provided for conducting a
2013. Submit either electronic or
search, using the docket number(s)
written comments by November 13,
found in brackets in the heading of this
2012. If HHS/NIH receives no
significant adverse comments within the document.
specified comment period, the agency
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jerry
will publish a document confirming the Moore, NIH Regulations Officer, Office
effective date of the final rule in the
of Management Assessment, National
Federal Register within 30 days after
Institutes of Health, 6011 Executive
the comment period on this direct final
Boulevard, Suite 601, MSC 7669,
rule ends. If timely significant adverse
Rockville, MD 20852–7669, telephone
comments are received, the agency will
301–496–4607, fax 301–402–0169, email
publish a document in the Federal
jm40z@nih.gov.
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:13 Aug 27, 2012
Jkt 226001
PO 00000
Frm 00067
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
NIH is
implementing a new system of records
called, ‘‘NIH Records Related to
Research Misconduct Proceedings’’ (09–
25–0223). This system of records is part
of NIH’s implementation of its
responsibilities under the Public Health
Service (PHS) Policies on Research
Misconduct, 42 CFR part 93. The system
notice applies to alleged or actual
research misconduct involving research:
(1) Carried out in NIH facilities by any
person; (2) funded by the NIH
Intramural Research Program (IRP) in
any location; or (3) undertaken by an
NIH employee or trainee as part of his
or her official NIH duties or NIH
training activities, regardless of location.
A person who, at the time of the alleged
or actual research misconduct, was
employed by, was an agent of, or was
affiliated by contract, agreement, or
other arrangement with NIH, is covered
by the system if, for example, he or she
is involved in: (1) NIH- or PHSsupported biomedical or behavioral
research; (2) NIH- or PHS-supported
biomedical or behavioral research
training programs; (3) NIH- or PHSsupported activities that are related to
biomedical or behavioral research or
research training, such as the operation
of tissue and data banks and the
dissemination of research information;
(4) plagiarism of research records
produced in the course of NIH- or PHSsupported research, research training or
activities related to that research or
research training; or (5) an application
or proposal for NIH or PHS support for
biomedical or behavioral research,
research training or activities related to
that research or research training, such
as the operation of tissue and data banks
and the dissemination of research
information (regardless of whether it is
approved or funded).
The term ‘‘research misconduct’’ is
defined at 42 CFR 93.103 to mean
‘‘fabrication, falsification, or plagiarism
in proposing, performing, or reviewing
research, or in reporting research
results.’’ The general policy of the PHS
Policies on Research Misconduct is that
‘‘Research misconduct involving PHS
support is contrary to the interests of the
PHS and the Federal government and to
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
E:\FR\FM\28AUR1.SGM
28AUR1
sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with RULES
51934
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 167 / Tuesday, August 28, 2012 / Rules and Regulations
the health and safety of the public, to
the integrity of research, and to the
conservation of public funds.’’ 42 CFR
93.100(a). The PHS Policies on Research
Misconduct provide for a number of
HHS administrative actions that can be
taken in response to a research
misconduct proceeding, such as an
adverse personnel action against a
federal employee, the suspension of a
contract, or debarment. 42 CFR 93.407.
In addition, pursuant to 42 CFR 93.318
and 93.401, NIH shall at any time
during a research misconduct
proceeding notify the HHS Office of
Research Integrity (ORI) immediately to
ensure that NIH’s Office of Management
Assessment, HHS’ Office of Inspector
General, the Department of Justice, or
other appropriate law enforcement
agencies are notified and consulted, if
there is a reasonable indication of
possible violations of civil or criminal
law that may involve such offices.
NIH’s system of records is modeled
after the system of records maintained
by ORI, entitled ‘‘HHS Records Related
to Research Misconduct Proceedings,
HHS/OS/ORI’’ System No. 09–37–0021
(59 FR 36717, July 19, 1994; revised
most recently at 74 FR 44847, Aug. 31,
2009).
NIH’s records related to research
misconduct proceedings are located in
the Office of Intramural Research in
NIH’s Office of the Director. NIH is
updating its organization and operation
of these records, to be exempt from
Privacy Act requirements, as provided
in this direct final rule and in a new
‘‘System of Records Notice’’ which NIH
is publishing in the Federal Register for
public comment contemporaneously
with or soon after publication of this
direct final rule.
Under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. 552a),
individuals have a right of access to
information pertaining to them which is
contained in a system of records. At the
same time, the Act permits certain types
of systems to be exempt from some of
the Privacy Act requirements, including
the access requirement. For example,
section 552a(k)(2) allows agency heads
to exempt from certain Privacy Act
provisions a system of records
containing investigatory material
compiled for law enforcement purposes.
This exemption’s effect on the access
requirement is qualified in that if the
maintenance of the material results in
the denial of any right, privilege, or
benefit that the individual would be
otherwise entitled to by Federal law, the
individual must be granted access to the
material unless the access would reveal
the identity of a source who furnished
information to the Government under an
express promise of confidentiality. In
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:13 Aug 27, 2012
Jkt 226001
addition, section 552a(k)(5) permits an
agency to exempt investigatory material
from certain Privacy Act provisions
where such material is compiled solely
for the purpose of determining
suitability, eligibility, or qualifications
for Federal civilian employment,
military service, Federal contracts, or
access to classified information, but
only to the extent that the disclosure of
such material would reveal the identity
of a source who furnished information
to the Government under an express
promise that the identity of the source
would be held in confidence.
As stated above, NIH may take
administrative action in response to a
research misconduct proceeding and,
where a civil or criminal fraud may
have taken place, NIH may refer the
matter to the appropriate investigative
body. As such, NIH’s records related to
research misconduct proceedings are
compiled for law enforcement purposes,
and the subsection (k)(2) exemption is
applicable to this system of record.
Moreover, where records related to
research misconduct proceedings are
compiled solely for the purpose of
making determinations as to the
suitability for appointment as special
government employees or eligibility for
Federal contracts from PHS agencies,
the subsection (k)(5) exemption is
applicable.
Exempting the system from Privacy
Act provisions pertaining to providing
an accounting of disclosures, access and
amendment, notification, and
procedures and rules is necessary to
maintain the integrity of the research
misconduct proceedings and to ensure
that the NIH’s efforts to obtain accurate
and objective information will not be
hindered.
Accordingly, HHS/NIH is exempting
this system under subsections (k)(2) and
(k)(5) of the Privacy Act from the
accounting, access, and amendment,
notification and procedures and rules
provisions of the Privacy Act
(paragraphs (c)(3), (d)(1)–(4), (e)(4)(G)
and (H), and (f)) for the reasons stated
below. However, consideration will be
given to requests for notification, access,
and amendment that are addressed to
the System Manager. The specific
rationale for exempting the system from
each of these provisions is as follows:
• Subsection (c)(3). An exemption
from the requirement to provide an
accounting of disclosures is needed
during the pendency of a research
misconduct proceeding. Release of an
accounting of disclosures to an
individual who is the subject of a
pending research misconduct
assessment, inquiry or investigation
could prematurely reveal the nature and
PO 00000
Frm 00068
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
scope of the assessment, inquiry or
investigation and could result in the
altering or destruction of evidence,
improper influencing of witnesses, and
other evasive actions that could impede
or compromise the proceeding.
• Subsection (d)(1). An exemption
from the access requirement is needed
both during and after a research
misconduct proceeding, to avoid
revealing the identity of any source who
was expressly promised confidentiality.
Only material that would reveal a
confidential source will be exempt from
access. Protecting the identity of a
source is necessary when the source is
unwilling to come forward and report
possible research misconduct because of
fear of retaliation (e.g., from an
employee or co-worker).
• Subsections (d)(2) through (d)(4).
An exemption from the amendment
provisions is necessary while one or
more related research misconduct
proceedings are pending. Allowing
amendment of investigative records in a
pending proceeding could interfere with
that proceeding; even after that
proceeding is concluded, an amendment
could interfere with other pending or
prospective research misconduct
proceedings, or could significantly
delay inquiries or investigations in an
attempt to resolve questions of accuracy,
relevance, timeliness, and
completeness.
• Subsections (e)(4)(G) and (H). An
exemption from the notification
provisions is necessary during the
pendency of a research misconduct
proceeding, because notifying an
individual who is the subject of an
assessment, inquiry, or investigation of
the fact of such proceedings could
prematurely reveal the nature and scope
of the proceedings in a manner that
could result in the altering or
destruction of evidence, improper
influencing of witnesses, and other
evasive actions that could impede or
compromise the proceeding.
• Subsection (f). An exemption from
this requirement to establish procedures
for notification, access to records,
amendment of records, or appeals of
denials of access to records, is necessary
because the procedures would serve no
purpose in light of the other
exemptions, to the extent that those
exemptions apply.
As stated above, NIH’s system of
records is modeled after the system of
records maintained by HHS’ Office of
Research Integrity (ORI). ORI has
exempted these records under
subsections (k)(2) and (k)(5) of the
Privacy Act from the notification,
accounting, access, and amendment
provisions of the Privacy Act, to ensure
E:\FR\FM\28AUR1.SGM
28AUR1
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 167 / Tuesday, August 28, 2012 / Rules and Regulations
that these investigative files will not be
disclosed inappropriately [59 FR 36717
(July 19, 1994)]. Likewise, NIH believes
that exempting the new system, ‘‘NIH
Records Related to Research Misconduct
Proceedings, HHS/NIH,’’ from the
Privacy Act provisions is essential to
ensure that material in NIH’s files
related to research misconduct
proceedings is not disclosed
inappropriately. Except for information
that would reveal the identity of a
source who was expressly promised
confidentiality, the access exemption
will not prohibit HHS/NIH from
granting respondents’ access requests
consistent with the PHS Policies on
Research Misconduct (42 CFR Part 93),
including in those cases in which a
finding of research misconduct has
become final and an administrative
action has been imposed.
sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with RULES
Analysis of Impacts
HHS/NIH has examined the impacts
of the final rule under Executive Order
12866 and the Regulatory Flexibility Act
(5 U.S.C. 601–612), and the Unfunded
Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L.
104–4). Executive Order 12866 directs
agencies to assess all costs and benefits
of available regulatory alternatives and,
when regulation is necessary, to select
regulatory approaches that maximize
net benefits (including potential
economic, environmental, public health
and safety, and other advantages;
distributive impacts; and equity). The
agency believes that this final rule is not
a significant regulatory action under the
Executive Order.
The Regulatory Flexibility Act
requires agencies to analyze regulatory
options that would minimize any
significant impact of a rule on small
entities. Because the final rule imposes
no duties or obligations on small
entities, the agency certifies that the
final rule will not have a significant
economic impact on a substantial
number of small entities.
Section 202(a) of the Unfunded
Mandates Reform Act of 1995 requires
that agencies prepare a written
statement, which includes an
assessment of anticipated costs and
benefits, before proposing ‘‘any rule that
includes any Federal mandate that may
result in the expenditure by State, local,
and tribal governments, in the aggregate,
or by the private sector, of $100,000,000
or more (adjusted annually for inflation)
in any one year.’’ The current threshold
after adjustment for inflation is $136
million, using the most current (2010)
Implicit Price Deflator for the Gross
Domestic Product. NIH does not expect
this final rule to result in any 1-year
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:13 Aug 27, 2012
Jkt 226001
expenditure that would meet or exceed
this amount.
List of Subjects in 45 CFR Part 5b
Privacy.
For the reasons set out in the
preamble, the Department’s Privacy Act
Regulations, Part 5b of 45 CFR Subtitle
A, are amended as follows:
PART 5b—PRIVACY ACT
REGULATIONS
1. The authority citation for Part 5b
continues to read as follows:
■
Authority: 5 U.S.C. 301, 5 U.S.C. 552a
2. In § 5b.11, add paragraph
(b)(2)(vii)(D) to read as follows:
■
§ 5b.11
Exempt systems.
*
*
*
*
*
(b) * * *
(2) * * *
(vii) * * *
(D) NIH Records Related to Research
Misconduct Proceedings, HHS/NIH, 09–
25–0223.
*
*
*
*
*
Dated: July 20, 2012.
Kathleen Sebelius,
Secretary, Department of Health and Human
Services.
[FR Doc. 2012–20886 Filed 8–27–12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4140–01–P
FEDERAL MARITIME COMMISSION
46 CFR Part 515
[Docket No. 11–09]
RIN 3072–AC46
Adjustment of the Amount for the
Optional Bond Rider for Proof of
NVOCC Financial Responsibility for
Trade With the People’s Republic of
China
Federal Maritime Commission.
Final rule.
AGENCY:
ACTION:
The Federal Maritime
Commission amends its rules regarding
the amount of bond coverage on the
optional China Bond Rider for NonVessel-Operating Common Carriers
(NVOCCs). The final rule is intended to
provide NVOCCs with the ability to post
a bond with the Commission that
satisfies the equivalent of 800,000
Chinese Renminbi, for which the
equivalent U.S. Dollar amount has
fluctuated since the regulation was first
adopted by the Commission.
DATES: The final rule is effective
November 23, 2012.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Karen V. Gregory, Secretary, Federal
SUMMARY:
PO 00000
Frm 00069
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
51935
Maritime Commission, 800 North
Capitol Street NW., Washington, DC
20573–0001, Phone: (202) 523–5725;
Rebecca A. Fenneman, General Counsel,
Federal Maritime Commission, 800
North Capitol Street NW., Washington,
DC 20573–0001, Phone: (202) 523–5740,
secretary@fmc.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Background
Under a Memorandum of
Consultations pursuant to the 2003
bilateral Maritime Agreement between
the United States and the People’s
Republic of China (China or the PRC),
the PRC does not require U.S. NonVessel-Operating Common Carriers
(NVOCCs) to make a cash deposit in a
Chinese bank as would otherwise be
required by Chinese regulations, so long
as the NVOCC:
(1) Is a legal person registered by U.S.
authorities;
(2) obtains an FMC license as an
NVOCC; and
(3) provides evidence of financial
responsibility in the total amount of
Chinese Renminbi (RMB) 800,000 or
U.S. $96,000.
An FMC-licensed U.S. NVOCC that
voluntarily provides an additional
surety bond in the amount of $21,000
(denominated in U.S. Dollars or Chinese
Renminbi), which by its conditions is
available for potential claims of the
Ministry of Transport (MOT) of the PRC
(as well as other Chinese agencies) for
violations of the Chinese Regulations on
International Maritime Transportation,
may register in the PRC without paying
the cash deposit otherwise required by
Chinese law and regulation.
In 2004, the Commission issued a
Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPR) to
explore mechanisms for NVOCCs to file
proof of such additional financial
responsibility. See 69 FR 4271 (January
29, 2004). On April 1, 2004, the
Commission issued a final rule that
amended its regulations governing proof
of financial responsibility for ocean
transportation intermediaries to allow
an optional bond rider to be filed with
a licensed NVOCC’s proof of financial
responsibility to provide additional
proof of financial responsibility for such
carriers serving the U.S. oceanborne
trade with the PRC. Docket No. 04–02,
Optional Rider for Proof of Additional
NVOCC Financial Responsibility, 30
S.R.R. 179 (2004).
On April 15, 2011, the Commission
received a communication from the
Maritime Administration of the U.S.
Department of Transportation,
transmitting a request from the MOT to
revise the Commission’s regulations at
Appendix E to Subpart C of Part 515—
E:\FR\FM\28AUR1.SGM
28AUR1
Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 167 (Tuesday, August 28, 2012)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 51933-51935]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2012-20886]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES
45 CFR Part 5b
[Docket Number NIH-2011-0001]
Privacy Act; Implementation
AGENCY: Department of Health and Human Services.
ACTION: Direct Final rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Department of Health and Human Services (HHS or
Department), through the National Institutes of Health (NIH), is
implementing a new system of records, 09-25-0223, ``NIH Records Related
to Research Misconduct Proceedings, HHS/NIH.'' HHS is exempting this
system of records from certain provisions of the Privacy Act to protect
the integrity of NIH research misconduct proceedings and to protect the
identity of confidential sources in such proceedings. HHS is issuing a
direct final rule for this action because the agency expects that there
will be no significant adverse comment on this rule. Elsewhere in this
issue of the Federal Register, HHS is publishing a companion proposed
rule under the agency's usual procedure for notice-and-comment
rulemaking to provide a procedural framework to finalize the rule in
the event the agency receives any significant comments and withdraws
this direct final rule. The companion proposed rule and this direct
final rule are substantively identical.
DATES: This rule is effective January 10, 2013. Submit either
electronic or written comments by November 13, 2012. If HHS/NIH
receives no significant adverse comments within the specified comment
period, the agency will publish a document confirming the effective
date of the final rule in the Federal Register within 30 days after the
comment period on this direct final rule ends. If timely significant
adverse comments are received, the agency will publish a document in
the Federal Register withdrawing this direct final rule before its
effective date.
ADDRESSES: You may submit comments, identified by [Docket No(s).], by
any of the following methods:
Electronic Submissions
Submit electronic comments in the following way:
Federal eRulemaking Portal: https://www.regulations.gov.
Follow the instructions for submitting comments.
Written Submissions
Submit written submissions in the following ways:
Fax: 301-402-0169.
Mail: Jerry Moore, NIH Regulations Officer, Office of
Management Assessment, National Institutes of Health, 6011 Executive
Boulevard, Suite 601, MSC 7669, Rockville, MD 20852-7669.
To ensure more timely processing of comments, HHS/NIH is no longer
accepting comments submitted to the agency by email. HHS/NIH encourages
you to continue to submit electronic comments by using the Federal
eRulemaking Portal, as described previously, in the ADDRESSES portion
of this document under Electronic Submissions.
Instructions: All submissions received must include the agency name
and Docket No. for this rulemaking. All comments received may be posted
without change to https://www.regulations.gov, including any personal
information provided.
Docket: For access to the docket to read background documents or
comments received, go to https://www.regulations.gov and follow the
instructions provided for conducting a search, using the docket
number(s) found in brackets in the heading of this document.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jerry Moore, NIH Regulations Officer,
Office of Management Assessment, National Institutes of Health, 6011
Executive Boulevard, Suite 601, MSC 7669, Rockville, MD 20852-7669,
telephone 301-496-4607, fax 301-402-0169, email jm40z@nih.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: NIH is implementing a new system of records
called, ``NIH Records Related to Research Misconduct Proceedings'' (09-
25-0223). This system of records is part of NIH's implementation of its
responsibilities under the Public Health Service (PHS) Policies on
Research Misconduct, 42 CFR part 93. The system notice applies to
alleged or actual research misconduct involving research: (1) Carried
out in NIH facilities by any person; (2) funded by the NIH Intramural
Research Program (IRP) in any location; or (3) undertaken by an NIH
employee or trainee as part of his or her official NIH duties or NIH
training activities, regardless of location. A person who, at the time
of the alleged or actual research misconduct, was employed by, was an
agent of, or was affiliated by contract, agreement, or other
arrangement with NIH, is covered by the system if, for example, he or
she is involved in: (1) NIH- or PHS-supported biomedical or behavioral
research; (2) NIH- or PHS-supported biomedical or behavioral research
training programs; (3) NIH- or PHS-supported activities that are
related to biomedical or behavioral research or research training, such
as the operation of tissue and data banks and the dissemination of
research information; (4) plagiarism of research records produced in
the course of NIH- or PHS-supported research, research training or
activities related to that research or research training; or (5) an
application or proposal for NIH or PHS support for biomedical or
behavioral research, research training or activities related to that
research or research training, such as the operation of tissue and data
banks and the dissemination of research information (regardless of
whether it is approved or funded).
The term ``research misconduct'' is defined at 42 CFR 93.103 to
mean ``fabrication, falsification, or plagiarism in proposing,
performing, or reviewing research, or in reporting research results.''
The general policy of the PHS Policies on Research Misconduct is that
``Research misconduct involving PHS support is contrary to the
interests of the PHS and the Federal government and to
[[Page 51934]]
the health and safety of the public, to the integrity of research, and
to the conservation of public funds.'' 42 CFR 93.100(a). The PHS
Policies on Research Misconduct provide for a number of HHS
administrative actions that can be taken in response to a research
misconduct proceeding, such as an adverse personnel action against a
federal employee, the suspension of a contract, or debarment. 42 CFR
93.407. In addition, pursuant to 42 CFR 93.318 and 93.401, NIH shall at
any time during a research misconduct proceeding notify the HHS Office
of Research Integrity (ORI) immediately to ensure that NIH's Office of
Management Assessment, HHS' Office of Inspector General, the Department
of Justice, or other appropriate law enforcement agencies are notified
and consulted, if there is a reasonable indication of possible
violations of civil or criminal law that may involve such offices.
NIH's system of records is modeled after the system of records
maintained by ORI, entitled ``HHS Records Related to Research
Misconduct Proceedings, HHS/OS/ORI'' System No. 09-37-0021 (59 FR
36717, July 19, 1994; revised most recently at 74 FR 44847, Aug. 31,
2009).
NIH's records related to research misconduct proceedings are
located in the Office of Intramural Research in NIH's Office of the
Director. NIH is updating its organization and operation of these
records, to be exempt from Privacy Act requirements, as provided in
this direct final rule and in a new ``System of Records Notice'' which
NIH is publishing in the Federal Register for public comment
contemporaneously with or soon after publication of this direct final
rule.
Under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. 552a), individuals have a right of
access to information pertaining to them which is contained in a system
of records. At the same time, the Act permits certain types of systems
to be exempt from some of the Privacy Act requirements, including the
access requirement. For example, section 552a(k)(2) allows agency heads
to exempt from certain Privacy Act provisions a system of records
containing investigatory material compiled for law enforcement
purposes. This exemption's effect on the access requirement is
qualified in that if the maintenance of the material results in the
denial of any right, privilege, or benefit that the individual would be
otherwise entitled to by Federal law, the individual must be granted
access to the material unless the access would reveal the identity of a
source who furnished information to the Government under an express
promise of confidentiality. In addition, section 552a(k)(5) permits an
agency to exempt investigatory material from certain Privacy Act
provisions where such material is compiled solely for the purpose of
determining suitability, eligibility, or qualifications for Federal
civilian employment, military service, Federal contracts, or access to
classified information, but only to the extent that the disclosure of
such material would reveal the identity of a source who furnished
information to the Government under an express promise that the
identity of the source would be held in confidence.
As stated above, NIH may take administrative action in response to
a research misconduct proceeding and, where a civil or criminal fraud
may have taken place, NIH may refer the matter to the appropriate
investigative body. As such, NIH's records related to research
misconduct proceedings are compiled for law enforcement purposes, and
the subsection (k)(2) exemption is applicable to this system of record.
Moreover, where records related to research misconduct proceedings are
compiled solely for the purpose of making determinations as to the
suitability for appointment as special government employees or
eligibility for Federal contracts from PHS agencies, the subsection
(k)(5) exemption is applicable.
Exempting the system from Privacy Act provisions pertaining to
providing an accounting of disclosures, access and amendment,
notification, and procedures and rules is necessary to maintain the
integrity of the research misconduct proceedings and to ensure that the
NIH's efforts to obtain accurate and objective information will not be
hindered.
Accordingly, HHS/NIH is exempting this system under subsections
(k)(2) and (k)(5) of the Privacy Act from the accounting, access, and
amendment, notification and procedures and rules provisions of the
Privacy Act (paragraphs (c)(3), (d)(1)-(4), (e)(4)(G) and (H), and (f))
for the reasons stated below. However, consideration will be given to
requests for notification, access, and amendment that are addressed to
the System Manager. The specific rationale for exempting the system
from each of these provisions is as follows:
Subsection (c)(3). An exemption from the requirement to
provide an accounting of disclosures is needed during the pendency of a
research misconduct proceeding. Release of an accounting of disclosures
to an individual who is the subject of a pending research misconduct
assessment, inquiry or investigation could prematurely reveal the
nature and scope of the assessment, inquiry or investigation and could
result in the altering or destruction of evidence, improper influencing
of witnesses, and other evasive actions that could impede or compromise
the proceeding.
Subsection (d)(1). An exemption from the access
requirement is needed both during and after a research misconduct
proceeding, to avoid revealing the identity of any source who was
expressly promised confidentiality. Only material that would reveal a
confidential source will be exempt from access. Protecting the identity
of a source is necessary when the source is unwilling to come forward
and report possible research misconduct because of fear of retaliation
(e.g., from an employee or co-worker).
Subsections (d)(2) through (d)(4). An exemption from the
amendment provisions is necessary while one or more related research
misconduct proceedings are pending. Allowing amendment of investigative
records in a pending proceeding could interfere with that proceeding;
even after that proceeding is concluded, an amendment could interfere
with other pending or prospective research misconduct proceedings, or
could significantly delay inquiries or investigations in an attempt to
resolve questions of accuracy, relevance, timeliness, and completeness.
Subsections (e)(4)(G) and (H). An exemption from the
notification provisions is necessary during the pendency of a research
misconduct proceeding, because notifying an individual who is the
subject of an assessment, inquiry, or investigation of the fact of such
proceedings could prematurely reveal the nature and scope of the
proceedings in a manner that could result in the altering or
destruction of evidence, improper influencing of witnesses, and other
evasive actions that could impede or compromise the proceeding.
Subsection (f). An exemption from this requirement to
establish procedures for notification, access to records, amendment of
records, or appeals of denials of access to records, is necessary
because the procedures would serve no purpose in light of the other
exemptions, to the extent that those exemptions apply.
As stated above, NIH's system of records is modeled after the
system of records maintained by HHS' Office of Research Integrity
(ORI). ORI has exempted these records under subsections (k)(2) and
(k)(5) of the Privacy Act from the notification, accounting, access,
and amendment provisions of the Privacy Act, to ensure
[[Page 51935]]
that these investigative files will not be disclosed inappropriately
[59 FR 36717 (July 19, 1994)]. Likewise, NIH believes that exempting
the new system, ``NIH Records Related to Research Misconduct
Proceedings, HHS/NIH,'' from the Privacy Act provisions is essential to
ensure that material in NIH's files related to research misconduct
proceedings is not disclosed inappropriately. Except for information
that would reveal the identity of a source who was expressly promised
confidentiality, the access exemption will not prohibit HHS/NIH from
granting respondents' access requests consistent with the PHS Policies
on Research Misconduct (42 CFR Part 93), including in those cases in
which a finding of research misconduct has become final and an
administrative action has been imposed.
Analysis of Impacts
HHS/NIH has examined the impacts of the final rule under Executive
Order 12866 and the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601-612), and
the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4). Executive
Order 12866 directs agencies to assess all costs and benefits of
available regulatory alternatives and, when regulation is necessary, to
select regulatory approaches that maximize net benefits (including
potential economic, environmental, public health and safety, and other
advantages; distributive impacts; and equity). The agency believes that
this final rule is not a significant regulatory action under the
Executive Order.
The Regulatory Flexibility Act requires agencies to analyze
regulatory options that would minimize any significant impact of a rule
on small entities. Because the final rule imposes no duties or
obligations on small entities, the agency certifies that the final rule
will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of
small entities.
Section 202(a) of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 requires
that agencies prepare a written statement, which includes an assessment
of anticipated costs and benefits, before proposing ``any rule that
includes any Federal mandate that may result in the expenditure by
State, local, and tribal governments, in the aggregate, or by the
private sector, of $100,000,000 or more (adjusted annually for
inflation) in any one year.'' The current threshold after adjustment
for inflation is $136 million, using the most current (2010) Implicit
Price Deflator for the Gross Domestic Product. NIH does not expect this
final rule to result in any 1-year expenditure that would meet or
exceed this amount.
List of Subjects in 45 CFR Part 5b
Privacy.
For the reasons set out in the preamble, the Department's Privacy
Act Regulations, Part 5b of 45 CFR Subtitle A, are amended as follows:
PART 5b--PRIVACY ACT REGULATIONS
0
1. The authority citation for Part 5b continues to read as follows:
Authority: 5 U.S.C. 301, 5 U.S.C. 552a
0
2. In Sec. 5b.11, add paragraph (b)(2)(vii)(D) to read as follows:
Sec. 5b.11 Exempt systems.
* * * * *
(b) * * *
(2) * * *
(vii) * * *
(D) NIH Records Related to Research Misconduct Proceedings, HHS/
NIH, 09-25-0223.
* * * * *
Dated: July 20, 2012.
Kathleen Sebelius,
Secretary, Department of Health and Human Services.
[FR Doc. 2012-20886 Filed 8-27-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4140-01-P