Office of the Secretary January 2009 – Federal Register Recent Federal Regulation Documents

Notice is hereby given that the Office of Research Integrity (ORI) and the Assistant Secretary for Health have taken final action in the following case: M. Nguyen, M.D., University of California, Los Angeles: Based on a University of California, Los Angeles (UCLA) report and Respondent's own admission, the U.S. Public Health Service (PHS) found that Dr. M. Nguyen, former Associate Professor at UCLA, engaged in scientific misconduct in research supported by National Cancer Institute (NCI), National Institutes of Health (NIH), grant 1 R01 CA69433, National Center for Complementary and Alternative Medicine (NCCAM), NIH, grant 1 P50 AT00I51-01, and National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases (NIDDK), NIH, grant T32 DK03688. Specifically, PHS found that Respondent engaged in scientific misconduct by: 1. Dr. Nguyen's laboratory conducted a single experiment on the effect of Livistona extract on the growth of 10\6\ mouse fibrosarcoma (FSA) cells injected into C3H mice. The drug was administered in the drinking water of the treated mice and tumor sizes were measured twice weekly with calipers. Dr. Nguyen falsified and fabricated the results of this experiment in Figure 3 of Oncology Reports 8:1355-1357, 2001: A. The data reported for the control group were from an experiment in nude mice implanted with human breast tumor implants, rather than with mouse fibrosarcoma cell implants, as Dr. Nguyen reported in the paper. The control data for FSA implanted C3H mice could not be located in the laboratory records. 2. Dr. Nguyen's laboratory conducted a single experiment on the effect of Livistona extract on the growth of 10\8\ MDA-MD-231 cells injected into nude mice. The drug was administered in the drinking water of the treated mice and tumor sizes measured twice weekly with calipers. Dr. Nguyen falsified and fabricated the results of this experiment in Figure 9 of NIH grant application P50 AT00151-01, dated May 19, 1999, by: A. Falsely stating in the associated text that there were ten mice per group and that the experiments were repeated once, while in fact, there were only five mice per group with no repetition of this experiment B. Omitting data on the control curve for two of the measurement times (at 2 and 3.5 weeks) and falsely reporting the times at which three other measurements were taken. 3. Dr. Nguyen's laboratory conducted a single experiment (1998-99) testing the anti-angiogenic effects of Livistona chinensis extract on human umbilical vein endothelial cells (HUVEC). HUVEC cells were counted from duplicate wells when exposed to extract and controls were counted from single wells: A. Figure 8 of NIH grant application P50 AT00I51-01, dated 5/19/99, plots the data as a bar graph. However, the same data were reported in Figure 1 of Oncology Reports 8:1355-1357, 2001, by falsely expressing them as the rate of growth obtained by measuring the uptake of radioactive thymidine into cellular DNA and plotting the data as normalized to control values. UCLA concluded that Figure 1 was falsified by claiming the data were obtained by a state-of-the-art technique not actually employed by the Respondent to obtain the data for that figure (Admission). This falsification did not bear upon the findings of the paper. 4. Dr. Nguyen's laboratory tested whether the levels of bFGF (basic fibroblast growth factor) and VEGF (vascular endothelial growth factor) in nipple fluid aspirates were significantly elevated in breast cancer patients in comparison to values from normal lactating and non- lactating breasts. Dr. Nguyen falsified the number of subjects who were lactating in The Lancet 356:567-569, 2000, by claiming that bFGF data were obtained from four separate subjects while in fact the data were from both breasts of two subjects. Dr. Nyugen has entered into a Voluntary Settlement Agreement with ORI. As part of that Agreement, Dr. Nyugen admits to UCLA's findings of fact but denies ORI's findings that the actions rise to the level of scientific misconduct. The settlement is not an admission of liability on the part of the Respondent. Dr. Nyugen voluntarily agreed, for a period of three (3) years, beginning on December 29, 2008: (1) Not to serve in any advisory capacity to PHS, including but not limited to service on any PHS advisory committee, board, and/or peer review committee, or as a consultant; and (2) That although Respondent is not currently engaged in PHS- supported research, any institution that submits an application for PHS support for a research project on which the Respondent's participation is proposed or that uses the Respondent in any capacity on PHS supported research, or that submits a report of PHS-funded research in which the Respondent is involved, must concurrently submit a plan for supervision of the Respondent(s duties to the funding agency for approval. The supervisory plan must be designed to ensure the scientific integrity of the Respondent(s research contribution. Respondent agreed to ensure that a copy of the supervisory plan also is submitted to ORI by the institution for ORI approval. Respondent agreed to not participate in any PHS-supported research until such a supervisory plan is submitted to ORI.

Pursuant to the Federal Advisory Committee Act of 1972 (5 U.S.C., Appendix, as amended), the Sunshine in Government Act of 1976 (5 U.S.C. 522b, as amended), 41 CFR 102-3.140, 41 CFR 102-3.150, and 41 CFR 102-3.160 announcement is made of the following committee meeting of the Defense Task Force on Sexual Assault in the Military Services (hereafter referred to as the Task Force).

Notice is hereby given that the Office of Research Integrity (ORI) and the Assistant Secretary for Health have taken final action in the following case: Nima Afshar, PhD., University of California, San Francisco: Based on a University of California, San Francisco (UCSF) report and Respondent's own admission, the U.S. Public Health Service (PHS) found that Dr. Nima Afshar, former postdoctoral fellow at UCSF engaged in research misconduct in research supported by National Cancer Institute (NCI), National Institutes of Health (NIH), grant T32 CA108462 and National Institute of General Medical Sciences (NIGMS), NIH, grant R01 GM59704. PHS found that Respondent engaged in research misconduct in the performance of research on yeast to test whether disruption of the tight controls, to prevent re-replication, on the initiation of DNA replication could produce gene amplifications with a copy number greater than two (2). Specifically, Respondent falsified files containing raw scanned microarray images from another researcher's experiments to demonstrate that in experiments that she claimed to have conducted, she successfully observed gene amplifications with a copy number greater than two (2); there were 36 such instances of falsifying data files. Dr. Afshar has entered into a Voluntary Settlement Agreement in which she has voluntarily agreed, for a period of three (3) years, beginning on December 22, 2008: (1) To exclude herself from serving in any advisory capacity to PHS, including but not limited to service on any PHS advisory committee, board, and/or peer review committee, or as a consultant; and (2) that any institution that submits an application for PHS support for a research project on which the Respondent's participation is proposed or that uses the Respondent in any capacity on PHS supported research, or that submits a report of PHS-funded research in which the Respondent is involved, must concurrently submit a plan for supervision of the Respondent's duties to the funding agency for approval. The supervisory plan must be designed to ensure the scientific integrity of the Respondent's research contribution. Respondent agrees to ensure that a copy of the supervisory plan also is submitted to ORI by the institution for ORI approval. Respondent agrees that she will not participate in any PHS-supported research until such a supervisory plan is submitted to ORI.

In accordance with the Privacy Act of 1974 and as part of the Department of Homeland Security's ongoing effort to review and update legacy system of records notices, the Department of Homeland Security is giving notice that it proposes to update and reissue the following legacy record system, Justice/INS-012 Deportable Alien Control System (July 31, 2000), as a Department of Homeland Security/Immigration and Customs Enforcement system of records notice titled, DHS/ICE011 Removable Alien Records System. Categories of individuals and categories of records have been reviewed, and the routine uses of this legacy system of records notice have been updated to better reflect the current status of these records. Additionally, DHS is issuing a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) concurrent with this system of records notice elsewhere in the Federal Register. The exemptions for the legacy system of records notices will continue to be applicable until the final rule for this SORN has been completed. This new system will be included in the Department of Homeland Security's inventory of record systems.

The Per Diem, Travel and Transportation Allowance Committee is publishing Civilian Personnel Per Diem Bulletin Number 262. This bulletin lists revisions in the per diem rates prescribed for U.S. Government employees for official travel in Alaska, Hawaii, Puerto Rico, the Northern Mariana Islands and Possessions of the United States. AEA changes announced in Bulletin Number 194 remain in effect. Bulletin Number 262 is being published in the Federal Register to assure that travelers are paid per diem at the most current rates.

Under the provisions of section 596 of Public Law 110-417, the Federal Advisory Committee Act of 1972 (5 U.S.C. Appendix, as amended), the Government in the Sunshine Act of 1976 (5 U.S.C. 552b, as amended), and 41 CFR 102-3.65, the Department of Defense gives notice that it is establishing the Military Leadership Diversity Commission (hereafter referred to as the Commission). The Commission is a non-discretionary federal advisory commission established under the authority of section 596 of Public Law 110-417 and 41 CFR 102-3.50(a) to conduct a comprehensive evaluation and assessment of policies that provide opportunities for the promotion and advancement of minority members of the Armed Forces, including minority members who are senior officers. In carrying out the study, the commission shall examine the following: 1. The efforts to develop and maintain diverse leadership at all levels of the Armed Forces. 2. The successes and failures of developing and maintaining a diverse leadership, particularly at the general and flag officer positions. 3. The effect of expanding Department of Defense secondary educational programs to diverse civilian populations, to include military service academy preparatory schools. 4. The ability of current recruitment and retention practices to attract and maintain a diverse pool of qualified individuals in sufficient numbers in officer pre-commissioning programs. 5. The ability of current activities to increase continuation rates for ethnic- and gender-specific members of the Armed Forces. 6. The benefits of conducting an annual conference attended by civilian military, active-duty and retired military, and corporate leaders on diversity, to include a review of current policy and the annual demographic data from the Defense Manpower Data Center. 7. The status of prior recommendations made to the Department of Defense and to Congress concerning diversity initiatives within the Armed Forces. 8. The incorporation of private sector practices that have been successful in cultivating diverse leadership. 9. The establishment and maintenance of fair promotion and command opportunities for ethnic- and gender-specific members of the Armed Forces at the 0-5 grade level and above. 10. An assessment of pre-command billet assignments of ethnic- specific members of the Armed Forces. 11. The development of a uniform definition, to be used throughout the Department of Defense, of diversity that is congruent with the core values and vision of the Department of Defense for the future workforce. 12. The existing metrics and milestones for evaluating the diversity plans of the Department of Defense (including the plans of the Military Departments) and for facilitating future evaluation and oversight. 13. The existence and maintenance of fair promotion, assignment, and command opportunities for ethnic- and gender-specific members of the Armed Forces at the levels of warrant officer, chief warrant officer, company and junior grade, field and mid-grade, and general and flag officer. 14. The current institution structure of the Office of Diversity Management and Equal Opportunity of the Department of Defense, and of similar officers of the Military Departments, and their ability to ensure effective and accountable diversity management across the Department of Defense. 15. The option available for improving the substance or implementation of current plans and policies of the Department of Defense and the Military Departments. No later than 12 months after the date on which the commission first meets, the commission shall submit to the President and Congress a report on the commission's study. The report shall include, as a minimum, the following: 1. The findings and conclusions of the commission; 2. The recommendations of the commission for improving diversity within the Armed Forces; and 3. Such other information and recommendations as the commission considers appropriate. In addition, the commission may submit interim reports to the President and Congress as the commission considers appropriate. The commission, pursuant to section 596(d)(3) of Public Law 110- 417, may consult with appropriate private, for profit, and non-profit organizations and advocacy groups to learn methods for developing, implementing, and sustaining senior diverse leadership within the Department of Defense. In addition, the commission, pursuant to section 596(f)(1) of Public Law 110-416, may hold such hearings, sit and act at such times and places, take such testimony, and receive such evidence as the commission considers appropriate. Members shall be appointed for the life of the commission. Any vacancy in the commission shall be filled in the same manner as the original appointment. The commission, pursuant to section 596(b) of Public Law 110-416, shall be composed of the following members: 1. The Director of the Defense Manpower Data Center; 2. The Commandant of the Director of the Defense Equal Opportunity Management Institute; 3. A commissioned officer from each of the Army, Navy, Air Force, and Marine Corps who serves or has served in a leadership position with either a Military Department command or combatant command; 4. A commissioned officer or noncommissioned officer of the Coast Guard on active duty; 5. A retired general or flag officer from each of the Army, Navy, Air Force and Marine Corps; 6. A retired flag officer of the Coast Guard; 7. A retired noncommissioned officer from each of the Army, Navy, Air Force and Marine Corps; 8. Five retired commissioned officers who served in leadership positions with either a Military Department command or combatant command, of who no less than three shall represent the views of minority veterans; 9. Four individuals with expertise in cultivating diverse leaders in private or non-profit organizations; and 10. An attorney with appropriate experience and expertise in constitutional and legal matters related to the duties and responsibilities of the committee. The appointment of the Director of the Defense Manpower Data Center and the Commandant of the Defense Equal Opportunity Management Institute shall be based upon their ex-officio position within the Department of Defense. Representatives for the incumbents may attend committee meetings; however, they shall not exercise any authority unless they have been appointed in writing, pursuant to DoD policies and procedures, as the Acting Director. With the exception of the representatives of the U.S. Coast Guard, the Secretary of Defense shall appoint the commission members. Commission members appointed by the Secretary of Defense, who are not full-time or permanent part-time employees of the federal government, shall be appointed as experts and consultants under the authority of 5 U.S.C. 3109, and these individuals shall serve as special government employees. Pursuant to section 596(g)(1) of Public Law 110-416, the Secretary of Homeland Security, in consultation with the Commandant of the Coast Guard, shall appoint two individuals to represent the interests of the U.S. Coast Guard. Commission members, who are not full-time or permanent part-time federal employees, shall serve without compensation. All commission members shall be provided travel and per diem for official commission travel. These experts and consultants shall be considered Special Government Employees, and their appointments, regardless of their term of office, shall be renewed by the Secretary of Defense on an annual basis. The Secretary of Defense, pursuant to section 596(b)(3) of Public Law 110-416, shall designate one member as the chairman of the commission. The commission, pursuant to section 596(c)(2) of Public Law 110- 416, shall meet at the call of the chairman. Pursuant to section 596(b)(6) of Public Law 110-416, fifteen committee members shall constitute a quorum, but a lesser number may hold hearings. The Department of Defense, pursuant to 41 CFR 102-3.105(i) and DoD policies and procedures, shall appoint a full-time or permanent part- time DoD employee to serve as commission's Designated Federal Officer. The Designated Federal Officer shall comply with existing federal statutes and regulations governing federal advisory committees, and shall attend all commission and subcommittee meetings. The commission shall be authorized to establish subcommittees, as necessary and consistent with its mission, and these subcommittees or working groups shall operate under the provisions of the Federal Advisory Committee Act of 1972, the Government in the Sunshine Act of 1976 (5 U.S.C. 552b, as amended), and other appropriate federal regulations. Such subcommittees or workgroups shall not work independently of the chartered commission, and shall report all their recommendations and advice to the commission for full deliberation and discussion. Subcommittees or workgroups have no authority to make decisions on behalf of the chartered commission nor can they report directly to the Department of Defense or any federal officers or employees who are not commission members.

Notice is hereby given that the Office of Research Integrity (ORI) and the Assistant Secretary for Health have taken final action in the following case: Luk Van Parijs, PhD, Harvard Medical School, Brigham and Women's Hospital, California Institute of Technology, and Massachusetts Institute of Technology: Based on the reports of separate investigations conducted by Harvard Medical School (HMS)/Brigham and Women's Hospital (BWH), California Institute of Technology (CalTech), and Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT) and additional analysis conducted by the Office of Research Integrity (ORI) in its oversight review, the U.S. Public Health Service (PHS) found that Dr. Luk Van Parijs, former Graduate Student, Department of Pathology, HMS, former Research Fellow and Instructor of Pathology, BWH, former Postdoctoral Fellow, Department of Biology, CalTech, and former Associate Professor, Department of Biology, Center for Cancer Research, MIT, engaged in scientific misconduct in research supported by National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (NIAID), National Institutes of Health (NIH), grants U19 AI56900, R21 AI49897, R01 AI42100, P01 AI35297, R37 AI25022, R01 AI32531, National Cancer Institute, NIH, grant R01 CA51462, and National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences (NIEHS), NIH, grant P30 ES02109, and National Institute of General Medical Sciences (NIGMS), NIH, grant R01 GM57931. PHS found that Respondent engaged in scientific misconduct by including false data in NIAID, NIH, grant applications R01 AI54519- 01A1, R01 AI54973-01, and R01 AI54973-01A1, NCI, NIH, grant application 2P30 CA14051-34, and National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases (NIDDK), NIH, grant application R21 DK69277-01. Specifically, PHS found that Respondent engaged in scientific misconduct by including false data in seven published papers, three submitted papers (with two earlier versions submitted for one of these), one submitted book chapter, and multiple presentations as follows: 1. While at HMS/BWH, Dr. Luk Van Parijs falsified the expression of IFN-[gamma] and KJ-126 in flow cytometry dot plots for the immunized, naive, tolerized and tolerized + IL-12 experimental groups in Figure 4, JEM 186:1119-1128, 1997, by using the same non-stained cell population in the lower left quadrant to falsely represent CD4+ T cells negative for IFN-[gamma] and KJ-126 in each experimental group. 2. That Dr. Luk Van Parijs falsified the expression of different proteins in flow cytometry dot plots in Figure 1, Immunity, 8:265-274, 1998, in Figure 1C, Immunity, 11:281-288, September 1999, and in Figure 5, Immunity 11:763-770, December 1999, by using portions of the same dot plot to represent different cell populations expressing different proteins. Specifically: a. While at HMS/BWH, Dr. Van Parijs used portions of the same dot plot to represent T cell populations expressing the 3A9 T cell receptor and CD4+ (top panel) or CD8+ (bottom panel) in 3A9+ (wild type), in 3A9/lpr (Fas-), or in 3A9/gld (FasL-) transgenic mice in Figure 1, Immunity 1998, where: i. The CD4/3A9 dot plots for the 3A9+ and 3A9/gld transgenic mice were the same, and the 3A9+ dot plot was a subset of the 3A9/lpr dot plot; ii. The CD8/3A9 dot plots for the 3A9+ and 3A9/lpr transgenic mice were the same in the lower left and lower right quadrants, and the 3A9/ gld dot plot was a subset of the wild type dot plot b. While at CalTech, Dr. Van Parijs used portions of the same dot plot to represent the expression of hIL-2R[beta] and GFP in T cells infected with WT or [Delta]355+8F IL-2R mutant in Figure 1C, Immunity, September 1999, where the [Delta]355+8F dot plot was a subset of the WT dot plot c. While at CalTech, Dr. Van Parijs used portions of the same dot plot to represent the expression of B220 and IgM in infected (GFP+) and not infected (GFP-) spleen cells isolated from reconstituted mice in Figure 5, Immunity, December 1999, where the Infected (GFP+) dot plot for control mice was a subset of the Not Infected (GFP-) dot plot for FLIP mice. 3. While at MIT, Dr. Luk Van Parijs falsely claimed in the text of RNA Interference Technology (Cambridge University Press, July 2004) and in Figure 2 of Nature Genetics 33:401-406 (2003) that experiments depicting the functional silencing of genes in hematopoietic stem cells (HSCs) and in non-cycling dendritic cells by lentiviral-mediated RNAi were performed, when they were not. Specifically, in Nature Genetics: a. Figure 2b falsely showed the transduction of bone marrow-derived dendritic cells infected with pLL3.7 Bim by flow cytometry, and knockdown of Bim expression by Western blot b. Figure 2d falsely showed the efficiency of pLL3.7 CD8 lentiviral infection in HSCs by flow cytometry for GFP expression (left panel), and falsely showed stable gene expression in progeny by flow cytometry for GFP expression in spleen cells from chimeras derived from infected HSCs (right panel) c. Figure 2e falsely showed the reduction of CD8+ T cells in spleen cells from chimeras derived from pLL3.7 CD8 infected HSCs (right panel) and controls (left panel). 4. While at MIT, Dr. Luk Van Parijs falsified figures in grant applications submitted to the National Institutes of Health (NIH), a presentation in 2003, and Figure 6A, Immunity 19:243-255 (2003), by falsely claiming that the image in the figure represented an immunoprecipitation assay for Ras-GTP and a Western blot for total Ras protein, when it actually represented a Western blot for Bcl-2 and [beta]-actin in T cells, previously published as Figure 5C, J. Immunol., 168:597-603 (2002). Dr. Van Parijs also admitted to falsification or fabrication of data in multiple submitted manuscripts, grant applications submitted to NIH, and presentations as follows. 5. While at MIT, Dr. Luk Van Parijs admitted that in multiple presentations and submitted manuscripts in 2004, he falsely claimed that the bifunctional lentiviral vectors, U6-shRNA-rat insulin promoter (RIP)-Myc had been made, when they had not, and that transgenic mice carrying these lentiviral vectors with shRNA silencing Bim or Pten proteins in pancreatic cells showed accelerated tumorigenesis and death. 6. While at MIT, Dr. Luk Van Parijs admitted that in multiple presentations in 2003 and 2004 and in grant application R21 DK69277-01 submitted to NIH in 2003, he falsely claimed that the number of CD8+ T cells and the incidence of diabetes was reduced by silencing CD8 expression with the pLL3.7 CD8 lentivirus in non-obese diabetic (NOD) transgenic mice, when the NOD transgenic mice data did not exist. 7. While at MIT, Dr. Luk Van Parijs admitted that in multiple presentations, submitted manuscripts, and grant applications submitted to NIH in 2004, he falsely claimed that transgenic mice had been generated with the mono-functional lentiviral vectors with c-Myc, Ras or Akt under the control of the CD4 promoter, when they had not, and that transgenic mice had been generated with the bi-functional lentiviral vectors with CD4-c-Myc, Ras or Akt- and U6-shRNAs targeting luciferase, Bcl-2, or Bim proteins, when they had not. The effect of these misrepresentations was the reported false conclusion that a cytokine-stimulated proto- oncogene network regulated CD4+ T-cell survival and responses to foreign and self antigens. 8. While at MIT, Dr. Luk Van Parijs admitted that in presentations and submitted manuscripts in 2004, he falsely claimed that mice injected with plasmids carrying shRNAs for Bcl-2, Akt1 and Akt2, complexed to polyethylene imine (PEI) showed a significant reduction in c-myc-induced tumor growth, when the experiments had not been done. 9. While at MIT, Dr. Luk Van Parijs admitted that in presentations in 2004, he falsely claimed that shRNAs designed using algorithms developed in 2004 were more effective to silence target genes than the shRNAs designed with algorithms in 2002. 10. While at MIT, Dr. Luk Van Parijs admitted that in multiple presentations, submitted manuscripts, a grant application submitted to NIH, and in the text of Current Opinions in Molec. Therapeutics, 6:136, 2004, he falsely claimed that an in vivo RNAi screen was developed to identify genes in cytokine and apoptosis pathways that accelerated or suppressed Myc-induced tumorigenesis in lethally irradiated mice, by using bi-functional lentiviral vectors that expressed c-Myc under control of the CMV enhancer-[beta]-actin promoter (CAG) and U6-driven shRNAs designed to silence 168 selected genes, when the experiments had not been done. 11. While at MIT, Dr. Luk Van Parijs admitted that in a submitted manuscript in 2004 and a grant application submitted to NIH in 2003, he falsely claimed that with the use of retroviral vectors with Bim and activated Ras, Akt or Myc, he showed that the IL-2-stimulated activation of proto-oncogene pathways functioned to promote the survival of T cells following antigen encounter by regulating Bim and Bcl-2 pathways, when the experiments that were performed were inconclusive. Dr. Van Parijs has entered into a Voluntary Exclusion Agreement in which he has voluntarily agreed, for a period of five (5) years, beginning on December 22, 2008: (1) to exclude himself from any contracting or subcontracting with any agency of the United States Government and from eligibility or involvement in nonprocurement programs of the United States Government referred to as ``covered transactions'' pursuant to HHS' Implementation (2 CFR Part 376 et seq.) of OMB Guidelines to Agencies on Government wide Debarment and Suspension (2 CFR, Part 180); and (2) To exclude himself from serving in any advisory capacity to PHS, including but not limited to service on any PHS advisory committee, board, and/or peer review committee, or as a consultant.

The Defense Science Board Task Force on the Fulfillment of Urgent Operational Needs will meet in closed session on May 27 and 28, 2009, in Arlington, VA. The exact meeting location is still to be determined. The mission of the Defense Science Board is to advise the Secretary of Defense and the Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition, Technology & Logistics on scientific and technical matters as they affect the perceived needs of the Department of Defense. These meetings will assess the effectiveness of the processes used by the Department of Defense for the generation of urgent operational need requirements and the acquisition processes used to fulfill such requirements. Consequently, this Task Force will have access to all levels of classified information needed to develop its assessment and recommendations.

Under the provisions of the Federal Advisory Committee Act of 1972 (5 U.S.C., Appendix, as amended), the Government in the Sunshine Act of 1976 (5 U.S.C. paragraph 552b, as amended), and 41 CFR paragraph 102-3.150, the Department of Defense announces the following Federal Advisory Committee meeting of the U.S. Nuclear Command and Control System Comprehensive Review Advisory Committee will take place.

The Defense Science Board Task Force on the Fulfillment of Urgent Operational Needs will meet in closed session on March 5 and 6, 2009, in Arlington, VA. The exact meeting location is still to be determined. The mission of the Defense Science Board is to advise the Secretary of Defense and the Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition, Technology & Logistics on scientific and technical matters as they affect the perceived needs of the Department of Defense. These meetings will assess the effectiveness of the processes used by the Department of Defense for the generation of urgent operational need requirements and the acquisition processes used to fulfill such requirements. Consequently, this Task Force will have access to all levels of classified information needed to develop its assessment and recommendations.

The Defense Science Board Task Force on the Fulfillment of Urgent Operational Needs will meet in closed session on February 12 and 13, 2009, in Arlington, VA. The exact meeting location is still to be determined. The mission of the Defense Science Board is to advise the Secretary of Defense and the Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition, Technology & Logistics on scientific and technical matters as they affect the perceived needs of the Department of Defense. These meetings will assess the effectiveness of the processes used by the Department of Defense for the generation of urgent operational need requirements and the acquisition processes used to fulfill such requirements. Consequently, this Task Force will have access to all levels of classified information needed to develop its assessment and recommendations.

The Defense Logistics Agency proposes to alter a system of records notice in its existing inventory of records systems subject to the Privacy Act of 1974 (5 U.S.C. 552a), as amended.

The Office of the Secretary of Defense is altering system of records notice in its existing inventory of record systems subject to the Privacy Act of 1974, (5 U.S.C. 552a), as amended.

The Defense Finance and Accounting Service proposes to alter a system of records notice in its inventory of record systems subject to the Privacy Act of 1974 (5 U.S.C. 552(a)), as amended. The alterations add new locations, new category of individuals, new category of records and other administrative changes to the system notice.

Recent changes to the Transportation Infrastructure Finance and Innovation Act (TIFIA) statute require changes in the TIFIA rule. In addition, the DOT has gained substantial administrative experience since the TIFIA rule was last amended in 2000. The DOT proposes to amend the TIFIA rule to implement the recent statutory changes and to incorporate certain other changes to the rule that it considers will improve the efficiency of the program and its usefulness to borrowers. In addition, the DOT seeks comment on policy issues with potentially significant impact on the TIFIA project selection process.

In accordance with the Privacy Act of 1974, the Department of Homeland Security is giving notice that it will remove one system of records notice from its inventory of record systems because Citizenship and Immigration Services, Customs and Border Protection, and Immigration and Customs Enforcement no longer requires the system. The obsolete system is Justice/INS-001 the Immigration and Naturalization Service Index System.

In accordance with the Privacy Act of 1974 and as part of the Department of Homeland Security's ongoing effort to review and update legacy system of record notices, the Department of Homeland Security proposes to consolidate into a new Department of Homeland Security system of records notice titled, DHS/All024 Facility and Perimeter Access Control and Visitor Management System of Records: Treasury/ CS.081 Dock Passes, October 18, 2001, Justice/INS-014 Security Access Control System, January 22, 2001, and to partially consolidate DHS/OS- 001 Office of Security File System, September 12, 2006, and FEMA/SEC-1 Security Support System, September 7, 1990. Categories of individuals, categories of records, and the routine uses of this legacy system have been reviewed and updated to better reflect the Department's facility and perimeter access control and visitor management record system. Additionally, the Department of Homeland Security is issuing a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking concurrent with this system of records elsewhere in the Federal Register. The activities performed by the Department's Facility and Perimeter Access Control and Visitor Management systems often overlap with other security-related activities. Accordingly, data within each of the categories of individuals, categories of records, and routine uses may have similarities with other security-related systems of records, but each system is distinct based on its purpose. Further, this system of records is separate from DHS-OS-2006-047 Personal Identify Verification Management System which supports the administration of the HSPD-12 program that directs the use of a common identification credential for both logical and physical access to federally controlled facilities and information systems while enhancing security, increasing efficiency, identifying and reducing fraud, and protecting personally identifiable information. Records within this system apply only to perimeters and facilities where access is controlled by the Department of Homeland Security. This system of records does not apply to (1) facilities where the Department's components or offices have a presence but where the General Services Administration has an established contract for security services or (2) facilities where Immigration and Custom Enforcement's Federal Protective Service provides oversight on the contract. Exclusion is made to perimeters and facilities secured by the United States Secret Service pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 3056 and 3056A and are not included under this system of records. This consolidated system will be included in the DHS inventory of record systems.

The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) is giving concurrent notice of a revised and updated system of records pursuant to the Privacy Act of 1974 for the Department of Homeland Security023 Personnel Security Management system of records and this proposed rulemaking. In this proposed rulemaking, the Department proposes to exempt portions of the system of records from one or more provisions of the Privacy Act because of criminal, civil, and administrative enforcement requirements.

In accordance with the Privacy Act of 1974, the Department of Homeland Security proposes to partially consolidate DHS-OS-001 Office of Security File System, (September 12, 2006), into a new Department- wide record system titled, Law Enforcement Authority in Support of the Protection of Property Owned or Occupied by the Department of Homeland Security System of Records. Categories of individuals, categories of records, and the routine uses of this legacy system have been reviewed and updated to better reflect the Department's law enforcement records associated with the protection of property owned or occupied by the Department of Homeland Security. Additionally, the Department of Homeland Security is issuing a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking concurrent with this system of records elsewhere in the Federal Register. The activities performed by the Department in the protection of property owned or occupied by Department of Homeland Security often overlaps with other security-related activities. Accordingly, data within the categories of individuals, categories of records, and routine uses may have similarities with other security-related systems of records, but each system is distinct based on its purpose. Exclusion is made to perimeters and facilities secured by the United States Secret Service pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 3056 and 3056A and are not included under this system of records. This consolidated system will be included in the Department of Homeland Security's inventory of record systems.