Office of the Secretary September 2012 – Federal Register Recent Federal Regulation Documents

Under the provisions of the Federal Advisory Committee Act of 1972 (5 U.S.C. Appendix 2 (2001)), the Government in the Sunshine Act of 1976 (5 U.S C. 552b), and 41 CFR 102-3.10, DoD hereby announces that the DIA Advisory Board will meet on September 26, 2012. The meeting is closed to the public. The meeting necessarily includes discussions of classified information relating to DIA's intelligence operations including its support to current operations.

The Department of Labor (DOL) is submitting the Mine Safety and Health Administration (MSHA) sponsored information collection request (ICR) revision titled, ``Roof Control Plans for Underground Coal Mines,'' to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and approval for use in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.).

Notice is hereby given that the Office of Research Integrity (ORI) has taken final action in the following case: Marc Hauser, Ph.D., Harvard University: Based on the report of an investigation conducted by Harvard University (Harvard) and additional analysis conducted by ORI in its oversight review, ORI found that Dr. Marc Hauser, former Professor, Department of Psychology, Harvard, engaged in research misconduct in research supported by National Center for Research Resources (NCRR), National Institutes of Health (NIH), grants P51 RR00168-37 and CM-5-P40 RR003640-13, National Institute on Deafness and Other Communication Disorders (NIDCD), NIH, grant 5 R01 DC005863, and National Institute of Mental Health (NIMH), NIH, grant 5 F31 MH075298. ORI found that Respondent engaged in research misconduct as follows: Respondent published fabricated data in Figure 2 of the paper Hauser, M.D., Weiss, D., & Marcus, G. ``Rule learning by cotton- top tamarins.'' Cognition 86:B15-B22, 2002, which reported data on experiments designed to determine whether tamarin monkeys habituated to a sound pattern consisting of three sequential syllables (for example AAB) would then distinguish a different sound pattern (i.e., ABB). Figure 2 is a bar graph showing results obtained with 14 monkeys exposed either to the same or different sound patterns than they were habituated to. Because the tamarins were never exposed to the same sound pattern after habituation, half of the data in the graph was fabricated. Figure 2 is also false because the actual height of the bars for the monkeys purportedly receiving the same test pattern that they had been habituated to totaled 16 animals (7.14 subjects as responding and 8.87 subjects as non-responding). Respondent retracted the paper in 2010 (Cognition 117:106). In two unpublished experiments designed to test whether or not tamarin monkeys showed a greater response to certain combinations of unsegmented strings of consonants and vowels than others, Respondent falsified the coding of some of the monkeys' responses, making the results statistically significant when the results coded by others showed them to be non-significant. Respondent acknowledged to his collaborators that he miscoded some of the trials and that the study failed to provide support for the initial hypothesis. This research was never written up for publication. In versions of a manuscript entitled ``Grammatical Pattern Learning by Human Infants and Monkeys'' submitted to Cognition, Science, and Nature, Respondent falsely described the methodology used to code the results for experiments 1 and 3 on ``grammar expectancy violations'' in tamarin monkeys either by claiming coding was done blindly or by fabricating values for inter-observer reliabilities when coding was done by only one observer, in both cases leading to a false proportion or number of animals showing a favorable response. Specifically, in three different experiments in which tamarin monkeys were exposed first to human voice recordings of artificial sounds that followed grammatical structure and then exposed to stimuli that conformed to or violated that structure, Respondent (1) provided an incorrect description of the coding methodology by claiming in the early versions of the manuscripts that ``two blind observers'' coded trials and a third coded trials to resolve differences, while all of the coding for one experiment was done just by the Respondent, and (2) in a revised manuscript, while Respondent no longer mentioned ``two blind observers, he claimed that ``Inter-observer reliabilities ranged from 0.85 to 0.90,'' a statement that is false because there was only one observer for one of the experiments. Furthermore, in an earlier version of the manuscript, Respondent falsely reported that ``16 out of 16 subjects'' responded more to the ungrammatical rather than the grammatical stimuli for the predictive language condition, while records showed that one of the sixteen responded more to grammatical than ungrammatical stimuli, and one responded equally to grammatical and ungrammatical. Respondent and his collaborators corrected all of these issues, including recoding of the data for some of the experiments prior to the final submission and publication in Cognition 2007. In the paper Hauser, M.D., Glynn, D., Wood, J. ``Rhesus monkeys correctly read the goal-relevant gestures of a human agent.'' Proceedings of the Royal Society B 274:1913-1918, 2007, Respondent falsely reported the results and methodology for one of seven experiments designed to determine whether rhesus monkeys were able to understand communicative gestures performed by a human. Specifically, (1) in the ``Pointing without food'' trial, Respondent reported that 31/40 monkeys approached the target box while the records showed only 27 approached the target (both results are statistically significant), and (2) there were only 30 videotapes of the ``Pointing without food'' trials, while Respondent falsely claimed in the paper's Materials and Methods that ``each trial was videotaped.'' Respondent was not responsible for the coding, analyses, or archiving but takes full responsibility for the falsifications reported in the published paper. Respondent and one of his coauthors replicated these findings with complete data sets and video records and published them in Proceedings Royal Society B 278(1702):58-159, 2011. Respondent accepts responsibility for a false statement in the Methodology section for one experiment reported in the paper Wood, J.N., Glynn, D.D., Phillips, B.C., & Hauser, M.D. ``The perception of rational, goal-directed action in nonhuman primates.'' Science 317:1402-1405, 2007. The statement in the paper's supporting online material reads that ``All individuals are * * * readily identifiable by natural markings along with chest and leg tattoos and ear notches.'' In fact, only 50% of the subjects could be identified by this method, thus leading to the possibility of repeated testing of the same animal. Respondent and one of his coauthers replicated these findings with complete data sets and video records and published them in Science 332:537, 2011 (www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/317/5843/1402/DC2 published online 25 April 2011). Respondent engaged in research misconduct by providing inconsistent coding of data in his unpublished playback experiment with rhesus monkeys exploring an abstract pattern in the form of AXA by falsely changing the coding results where the prediction was that habituated animals were more likely to respond to an ungrammatical stimulus than a grammatical one. After an initial coding of the data by his research assistant, in which both Respondent and assistant agreed that an incorrect procedure was used, the Respondent recoded the 201 trials and his assistant coded a subset for a reliability check. The Respondent's codes differed from the original in 36 cases, 29 of them in the theoretically predicted direction, thereby producing a statistically significant probability of p =

This notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) proposes three categories of changes to improve implementation of the Department of Transportation's disadvantaged business enterprise (DBE) rule. First, the NPRM proposes revisions to personal net worth, application, and reporting forms. Second, the NPRM proposes modifications to certification-related provisions of the rule. Third, the NPRM would modify several other provisions of the rule, concerning such subjects as good faith efforts, transit vehicle manufacturers and counting of trucking companies.

Under the provisions of the Federal Advisory Committee Act of 1972 (5 U.S.C. Appendix), the Government in the Sunshine Act of 1976 (5 U.S.C. 552b), and 41 CFR 102-3.50(d), the Department of Defense gives notice that it is renewing the charter for the U.S. Naval Academy Board of Visitors (hereafter referred to as ``the Board''). The Board is a non-discretionary federal advisory committee that shall provide independent advice and recommendations to the President of the United States on matters relating to but not limited to morale and discipline, curriculum, instruction, physical equipment, fiscal affairs, academic methods and other matters relating to the United States Naval Academy that the Board decides to consider. The Board shall visit the Naval Academy annually, and any other official visits by the Board or its members to the Academy, other than the annual visit, shall be made in compliance with the requirements set forth in 10 U.S.C. 6968(d). The Board shall submit a written report to the President of the United States within 60 days after its annual visit to the Naval Academy, to include the Board's views and recommendations pertaining to the Academy, including its advice and recommendations on matters set forth in the paragraph above. Any report of a visit, other than an annual visit, must be made pursuant to 10 U.S.C. 6968(f). The Board, pursuant to 10 U.S.C. 6968(a), shall be constituted annually and shall be composed of no more than 15 members. The Board membership shall include: a. The Chairman of the Committee on Armed Services of the Senate, or his designee; b. Three other members of the Senate designated by the Vice President or the President pro tempore of the Senate, two of whom are members of the Committee on Appropriations of the Senate; c. The Chairman of the Committee on Armed Services of the House of Representatives, or his designee; d. Four other members of the House of Representatives designated by the Speaker of the House of Representatives, two of whom are members of the Committee on Appropriations of the House of Representatives; and e. Six persons designated by the President. Board members designated by the President shall serve for three years each, except that any member whose term of office has expired shall continue to serve until his successor is appointed. In addition, the President shall designate two persons each year to succeed the members whose terms expire that year. If a Board member dies or resigns, a successor shall be designated for the unexpired portion of the term by the official who designated the member. The Board members shall select the Board's Chairperson from the total membership. With the exception of travel and per diem for official travel, Board members shall serve without compensation. The Board, pursuant to 10 U.S.C. Sec. 6968(g) and (h), may upon approval by the Secretary of the Navy, call in advisers for consultation, and these advisers shall, with the exception of travel and per diem for official travel, serve without compensation. With DoD approval, the Board is authorized to establish subcommittees, as necessary and consistent with its mission. Establishment of subcommittees will be based upon written determination, to include terms of reference, by the Secretary of Defense, the Deputy Secretary of Defense, or the Board's sponsor. Such subcommittees or workgroups shall not work independently of the chartered Board, and shall report all their recommendations and advice to the Board for full deliberation and discussion. Subcommittees or workgroups have no authority to make decisions on behalf of the chartered Board; nor can they report directly to the Department of Defense or any Federal officers or employees who are not Board members. Subcommittee members shall be appointed by the Secretary of Defense even if the member in question is already a Board member. Subcommittee members, with the approval of the Secretary of Defense, may serve a term of service on the subcommittee of one-to-four years; however, no member shall serve more than two consecutive terms of service on the subcommittee. Subcommittee members, if not full-time or part-time government employees, shall be appointed by the Secretary of Defense according to governing DoD policy and procedures. Such individuals shall be appointed to serve as experts and consultants under the authority of 5 U.S.C. 3109, and shall serve as special government employees, whose appointments must be renewed by the Secretary of Defense on an annual basis. All subcommittees or working groups shall operate under the provisions of FACA, the Government in the Sunshine Act, governing Federal statutes and regulations, and governing DoD policies/ procedures.

The Department of Defense has published draft Direct Procurement Method (DPM) business rules for the Defense Personal Property Program (DP3) in the Defense Transportation Regulation (DTR) Part IV (DTR 4500.9R). These business rules will encompass Transportation Service Providers (TSP) participation and procedures for Personal Property Shipping Offices (PPSO) as we transition to Phase III of the Defense Personal Property Program (DP3). The DPM business rules will replace the currently approved Domestic Small Shipment (dS2) business rules and will appear under DTR Part IV, Appendix V, to include operational business rules maintained on the Surface Deployment and Distribution Command (SCCD) Web site. The below listed draft business rules are available for review on the USTRANSCOM Web site at https://www.transcom.mil/dtr/coord/coordpartiv.cfm.

This notice announces the third meeting of the Advisory Committee for Aviation Consumer Protection.

With this final rule, the Secretary of Health and Human Services adopts certification criteria that establish the technical capabilities and specify the related standards and implementation specifications that Certified Electronic Health Record (EHR) Technology will need to include to, at a minimum, support the achievement of meaningful use by eligible professionals, eligible hospitals, and critical access hospitals under the Medicare and Medicaid EHR Incentive Programs beginning with the EHR reporting periods in fiscal year and calendar year 2014. This final rule also makes changes to the permanent certification program for health information technology, including changing the program's name to the ONC HIT Certification Program.