[Federal Register Volume 68, Number 143 (Friday, July 25, 2003)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 43982-43987]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 03-18982]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

NATIONAL AERONAUTICS AND SPACE ADMINISTRATION

14 CFR Part 1275

[Notice 03-083]
RIN 2700-AC50


Investigation of Research Misconduct

AGENCY: National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA).

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: The National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) 
proposes this rule to implement the ``Federal Policy on Research 
Misconduct'' (the Federal Policy). This proposed rule sets out the 
definition of research misconduct, procedure for investigating 
allegations of research misconduct and recommending findings, and 
procedure for adjudicating and appealing such findings. Findings of 
research misconduct must be accompanied by recommendations for 
administrative action by NASA to discourage such behavior and ensure 
the integrity of research funded or supported by NASA.

DATES: Comments must be received on or before September 23, 2003.

ADDRESSES: Send comments to: NASA Policy on Research Misconduct (NPRM) 
Comments, Office of the Chief Scientist, Code AS, National Aeronautics 
and Space Administration, 300 E Street SW., Washington, DC 20546-0001. 
NASA will consider late comments to the extent practicable.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mayra N. Montrose, (202) 358-1492 
(voice), (202) 358-3931 (fax).

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The objective of the Federal Policy is to 
create a uniform policy framework for Federal agencies for the handling 
of allegations of misconduct in Federally funded or supported research. 
Within this framework, each Federal agency funding or supporting 
research is expected to fashion its own regulations to accommodate the 
various types of research transactions in which it is engaged.
    In keeping with these objectives, the proposed NASA rule 
incorporates key aspects of the Federal policy, including the 
definition of research misconduct as fabrication, falsification or 
plagiarism, and the definitions of each of these sub-components; the 
requirements for a finding of research misconduct; and the four-stage 
process for determining research misconduct; i.e., inquiry, 
investigation, adjudication, and appeal.
    NASA's research mission involves the advancement of research in the 
fields of aeronautics, space science, earth science, biomedicine, 
biology, engineering, and physical sciences (physics and chemistry). 
NASA fulfills this objective through intramural research performed by 
NASA researchers and through extramural contracts, cooperative 
agreements, grants, and Space Act agreements with the private sector, 
and with other governmental entities. Because of this multiplicity of 
research arrangements, allegations of research misconduct could arise 
in any number of ways.
    In addition, the core principle of the Federal Policy is that while 
research institutions have the primary responsibility for the inquiry, 
investigation, and adjudication of allegations of research misconduct, 
Federal agencies have ultimate oversight authority for the research it 
funds or supports. While there is some overlap in the actions that may 
be pursued by Federal agencies and research institutions, the proposed 
rule is designed to provide procedures and criteria for the interaction 
of NASA with its research partners in dealing with the various 
contingencies that could arise in the processing of research misconduct 
allegations.
    For example, an allegation of research misconduct might first be 
submitted to NASA through the NASA Office of Inspector General (OIG). 
If the research in question is conducted by NASA researchers, NASA 
shall conduct the inquiry, investigation, adjudication, and appeal 
stages. If the research is conducted by a research institution, the OIG 
shall ordinarily forward the allegation to that institution for inquiry 
and investigation and decide whether NASA shall conduct a parallel 
inquiry or investigation or defer its procedures pending completion of 
the investigative proceedings of the institution. The criteria for 
these decisions are set forth in the proposed rule.
    On the other hand, if the allegation is received by the 
institution, the institution must inform the OIG if its inquiry 
determines that an investigation is warranted at which time, the OIG 
determines whether the OIG should conduct a parallel investigation.
    In all cases, the investigation report and supporting evidence must 
be forwarded to NASA for adjudication and possible remedial 
administrative action. If the OIG deferred NASA's procedures pending 
review of the results of the research institution's investigative 
process, the OIG shall decide whether to recommend to the NASA 
Adjudication Official acceptance of the research institution's 
investigation report and final determination, in whole or in part. If 
the OIG makes such a recommendation, the OIG shall provide copies of 
the investigation report, evidentiary record, and final determination 
to the NASA Adjudication Official. If not, the OIG can initiate its own 
investigation or remand to the institution for further investigation.
    With regard to any investigation conducted by the OIG, the OIG 
shall forward the copies of the investigation report and evidentiary 
record to the NASA Adjudication Official. All cases involving NASA-
funded or -supported research that have gone through the investigation 
stage must receive an independent decision by the NASA Adjudication 
Official, which may be appealed.
    The possible administrative actions that may be taken by NASA after 
research misconduct is determined to have occurred are set out in the 
proposed rule. The rule cannot prescribe the manner in which such 
action will be taken, however, as that will depend on whether the 
research is intramural or extramural, and if the latter, on the type of 
transaction being used to fund or support the research.
    For example, Federal law prescribes different procedural frameworks 
for adverse contract actions, adverse grant actions, suspensions, or 
debarments from competing for Federal procurement or grant awards, and 
for adverse personnel actions against Federal civil service employees. 
In the latter instance, the OIG may proceed under its previously 
existing administrative investigation process when misconduct is 
alleged against Federal civil service employees. The proposed rule 
provides that the recommendations for administrative action, which must 
be included with a determination of research misconduct, shall be 
forwarded to the relevant NASA officials for their consideration. 
Nevertheless, a final determination of research misconduct can serve as 
the basis for correcting the research record and for notifying the 
relevant scientific review groups.
    NASA shall amend 14 CFR part 1260 (Grants Handbook), 14 CFR 1274 
(Commercial agreements with cost sharing), and 48 CFR Chapter 18 (NASA

[[Page 43983]]

FAR Supplement), to reflect the implementation of this policy.

Regulatory Evaluation

    This proposed rule is not a ``significant regulatory action'' under 
section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866, Regulatory Planning and Review, 
and does not require an assessment of potential costs and benefits 
under section 6(a)(3) of that Order.

Small Entities

    As required by the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601-612), 
NASA has considered whether this proposed rule would have a significant 
economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. The term 
``small entities'' comprises small businesses, not-for-profit 
organizations that are independently owned and operated and are not 
dominant in their fields, and governmental jurisdictions with 
populations of less than 50,000. NASA certifies under 5 U.S.C. 605(b) 
that this proposed rule will not have a significant economic impact on 
small business entities.

Collection of Information

    This proposed rule does not contain any information collection 
requirements subject to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 
3501-3520).

Federalism

    A rule has implications for federalism under Executive Order 13132, 
Federalism, if it has a substantial direct effect on State or local 
governments and would either preempt State law or impose a substantial 
direct cost of compliance on them. NASA has analyzed this proposed rule 
under that Order and has determined that it does not have implications 
for federalism.

Indian Tribal Governments

    This rule does not have tribal implications under Executive Order 
13175, Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments, 
because it does not have a substantial direct effect on one or more 
Indian tribes, on the relationship between the Federal Government and 
Indian tribes, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities 
between the Federal Government and Indian tribes.

Taking of Private Property

    This proposed rule would not effect a taking of private property or 
otherwise have taking implications under Executive Order 12630, 
Governmental Action and Interference with Constitutionally Protected 
Property Rights.

Civil Justice Reform

    This proposed rule meets applicable standards in section 3(a) and 
3(b)(2) of Executive Order 12988, Civil Justice Reform, to minimize 
litigation, eliminate ambiguity, and reduce burden.

Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

    The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (2 U.S.C. 1531-1538) 
requires Federal agencies to assess the effects of their discretionary 
regulatory actions. In particular, the Act addresses actions that may 
result in the expenditure in any 1 year of $100 million or more by a 
State, local, and tribal government in the aggregate, or by the private 
sector.
    NASA certifies that this regulation will not compel the expenditure 
in any 1 year of $100 million or more by State, local, and tribal 
governments in the aggregate, or by the private sector. Therefore, the 
detailed statement under section 202 of the Unfunded Mandates Reform 
Act is not required.

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 1275

    Administrative practice and procedure, Grant programs, Human 
research subjects, Research, Science and technology, Scientists.
    For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the National Aeronautics 
and Space Administration proposes to amend 14 CFR Chapter V by adding 
part 1275 to read as follows:

PART 1275--RESEARCH MISCONDUCT

Sec.
1275.100 Purpose and scope.
1275.101 Definitions.
1275.102 OIG handling of research misconduct matters.
1275.103 Role of awardee institutions.
1275.104 Conduct of the OIG inquiry.
1275.105 Conduct of the OIG research misconduct investigation.
1275.106 Administrative actions.
1275.107 Adjudication.
1275.108 Appeals.

Appendix to Part 1275--NASA Research Disciplines and its Associated 
Enterprises

    Authority: The National Aeronautics and Space Act of 1958, as 
amended (42 U.S.C. 2473).


Sec. 1275.100  Purpose and scope.

    (a) The purpose of this part is to establish procedures to be used 
by the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) for the 
handling of allegations of research misconduct. Specifically, the 
procedures contained in this part are designed to result in:
    (1) Findings as to whether research misconduct by a person or 
institution has occurred in proposing, performing, reviewing, or 
reporting results from research activities funded or supported by NASA; 
and
    (2) Recommendations on appropriate administrative actions that may 
be undertaken by NASA in response to research misconduct determined to 
have occurred.
    (b) This part applies to all research wholly or partially funded or 
supported by NASA. This includes any research conducted by a NASA 
installation and any research conducted by a public or private entity 
receiving NASA funds or using NASA facilities, equipment or personnel, 
under a contract, grant, cooperative agreement, Space Act agreement, or 
other transaction with NASA.
    (c) NASA shall make a determination of research misconduct only 
after careful inquiry and investigation by an awardee institution, 
another Federal agency, or NASA, and an adjudication conducted by NASA. 
NASA shall afford the accused individual or institution a chance to 
comment on the investigation report and a chance to appeal the decision 
resulting from the adjudication. In structuring procedures in 
individual cases, NASA may take into account procedures already 
followed by other entities investigating the same allegation of 
research misconduct. Investigation of allegations which, if true, would 
constitute criminal offenses, are not covered by this part.
    (d) A determination that research misconduct has occurred must be 
accompanied by recommendations on appropriate administrative actions. 
However, the administrative actions themselves may be imposed only 
after further procedures described in applicable NASA regulations 
concerning contracts, cooperative agreements, grants, Space Act 
agreements, or other transactions, depending on the type of agreement 
used to fund or support the research in question. Administrative 
actions involving NASA civil service employees may be imposed only in 
compliance with all relevant Federal laws and policies.
    (e) Allegations of research misconduct concerning NASA research may 
be transmitted to NASA in one of the following ways: by mail addressed 
to Office of Inspector General (OIG), Code W, National Aeronautics and 
Space Administration, 300 E Street, SW, Washington, DC 20546-0001; via 
the NASA OIG Hotline at 1-800-424-9183, or the NASA OIG cyber hotline 
at www.hq.nasa.gov/office/oig/hq/hotline.html.

[[Page 43984]]

    (f) To the extent permitted by law, the identity of the 
Complainant, witnesses, or other sources of information who wish to 
remain anonymous shall be kept confidential. To the extent permitted by 
law, NASA shall protect the research misconduct inquiry, investigation, 
adjudication, and appeal records maintained by NASA as exempt from 
mandatory disclosure under 5 U.S.C. 552, the Freedom of Information 
Act, as amended, and 5 U.S.C. 552a, the Privacy Act, as amended.


Sec.  1275.101  Definitions.

    (a) Research misconduct means fabrication, falsification, or 
plagiarism in proposing, performing, or reviewing research, or in 
reporting research results. Research misconduct does not include honest 
error or differences of opinion. Research as used in this part includes 
all basic, applied, and demonstration research in all fields of 
science, engineering, and mathematics, such as research in economics, 
education, linguistics, medicine, psychology, social sciences, 
statistics, and research involving human subjects or animals.
    (b) Fabrication means making up data or results and recording or 
reporting them.
    (c) Falsification means manipulating research materials, equipment, 
or processes, or changing or omitting data or results such that the 
research is not accurately represented in the research record.
    (d) Plagiarism means the appropriation of another person's ideas, 
processes, results, or words without giving appropriate credit.
    (e) Awardee institution means any public or private entity or 
organization (including a Federal, State, or local agency) that is a 
party to a NASA contract, grant, cooperative agreement, Space Act 
agreement, or to any other transaction with NASA, whose purpose 
includes the conduct of research.
    (f) NASA research means research wholly or partially funded or 
supported by NASA involving an awardee institution or a NASA 
installation. This definition includes research wholly or partially 
funded by NASA appropriated funds, or research involving the use of 
NASA facilities, equipment, or personnel.
    (g) NASA research discipline means one of the following areas of 
research that together comprise NASA's research mission for 
aeronautics, space science, earth science, biomedicine, biology, 
engineering and physical sciences (physics and chemistry).
    (h) Inquiry means the assessment of whether an allegation of 
research misconduct has substance and warrants an investigation.
    (i) Investigation means the formal development of a factual record 
and the examination of that record leading to recommended findings on 
whether research misconduct has occurred, and if the recommended 
findings are that such conduct has occurred, to include recommendations 
on appropriate administrative actions.
    (j) Complainant is the individual bringing an allegation of 
research misconduct related to NASA research.
    (k) Respondent is the individual or institution who is the subject 
of an allegation of research misconduct related to NASA research.
    (l) Adjudication means the formal procedure for reviewing and 
evaluating the investigation report and the accompanying evidentiary 
record and for determining whether to accept the recommended findings 
and any recommendations for administrative actions resulting from the 
investigation.
    (m) NASA Adjudication Official is the NASA Associate Administrator 
for the Enterprise with the greatest expertise in the NASA research 
discipline involved in the research misconduct allegation. The appendix 
to this part contains the list of NASA research disciplines and their 
associated Enterprises.
    (n) Appeal means the formal procedure initiated at the request of 
the Respondent for review of a determination resulting from the 
adjudication and for affirming, overturning, or modifying it.
    (o) NASA Appeals Official is the NASA Deputy Administrator or other 
official designated by the NASA Administrator.


Sec.  1275.102  OIG handling of research misconduct matters.

    (a) When an allegation is made to the OIG, rather than to the 
awardee institution, the OIG shall determine whether the allegation 
concerns NASA research and whether the allegation, if true, falls 
within the definition of research misconduct in Sec.  1275.101(a). 
Investigation of allegations which, if true, would constitute criminal 
offenses, are not covered by this part. If these criteria are met and 
the research in question is being conducted by NASA researchers, the 
OIG shall proceed in accordance with Sec.  1275.104. If the research in 
question is being conducted at an awardee institution, another Federal 
agency, or is a collaboration between NASA researchers and 
coinvestigators at either academia or industry, the OIG must refer the 
allegation that meets the definition of research misconduct to the 
entities involved and determine whether to--
    (1) Defer its inquiry or investigation pending review of the 
results of an inquiry or investigation conducted at the awardee 
institution or at the Federal agency (referred to for purposes of this 
part as external investigations); or
    (2) Commence its own inquiry or investigation.
    (b) The OIG must inform the NASA Office of the Chief Scientist of 
all allegations that meet the definition of research misconduct 
received by the OIG and of the determinations of the OIG required by 
Sec.  1275.101. The NASA Office of the Chief Scientist shall notify the 
NASA Office of the Chief Engineer or the NASA Office of the Chief 
Technologist when the research is either engineering or technology 
research.
    (c) The OIG should defer its inquiry or investigation pending 
review of the results of an external investigation whenever possible. 
Nevertheless, the OIG retains the right to proceed at any time with a 
NASA inquiry or investigation. Circumstances in which the OIG may elect 
not to defer its inquiry or investigation include, but are not limited 
to, the following:
    (1) When the OIG determines that the awardee institution is not 
prepared to handle the allegation in a manner consistent with this 
part;
    (2) When the OIG determines that NASA involvement is needed to 
protect the public interest, including public health and safety;
    (3) When the OIG determines that the allegation involves an awardee 
institution of sufficiently small size that it cannot reasonably 
conduct the investigation itself;
    (4) When the OIG determines that a NASA program or project could be 
jeopardized by the occurrence of research misconduct; or
    (5) When the OIG determines that any of the notifications or 
information required to be given to the OIG by the awardee institution 
pursuant to Sec.  1275.103(b) requires NASA to cease its deferral to 
the awardee institution's procedures and to conduct its own inquiry or 
investigation.
    (d) A copy of the investigation report, evidentiary record, and 
final determination resulting from an external investigation must be 
transmitted to the OIG. The OIG shall determine whether to recommend to 
the NASA Adjudication Official acceptance of the investigation report 
and final determination in whole or in part. The OIG's decision must be 
made within 45 days of receipt of the investigation report and 
evidentiary record. This period of time may be extended by the

[[Page 43985]]

OIG for good cause. The OIG shall make this decision based on the OIG's 
assessment of the completeness of the investigation report, and the 
OIG's assessment of whether the investigating entity followed 
reasonable procedures, including whether the Respondent had an adequate 
opportunity to comment on the investigation report and whether these 
comments were given due consideration. If the OIG decides to recommend 
acceptance of the results of the external investigation, in whole or in 
part, the OIG shall transmit a copy of the final determination, the 
investigation report, and the evidentiary record to the NASA 
Adjudication Official, and to the NASA Office of the Chief Scientist. 
When the OIG decides not to recommend acceptance, the OIG must initiate 
its own investigation.
    (e) In the case of an investigation conducted by the OIG, the OIG 
shall transmit copies of the investigation report, including the 
Respondent's written comments (if any), the evidentiary record and its 
recommendations, to the NASA Adjudication Official and to the NASA 
Office of the Chief Scientist.
    (f) Upon learning of alleged research misconduct, the OIG shall 
identify potentially implicated awards or proposals and, when 
appropriate, shall ensure that program, grant, or contracting officers 
handling them are informed. Neither a suspicion nor allegation of 
research misconduct, nor a pending inquiry or investigation, shall 
normally delay review of proposals. Subject to paragraph (g) of this 
section, reviewers or panelists shall not be informed of allegations or 
of ongoing inquiries or investigations in order to avoid influencing 
reviews.
    (g) If, during the course of an OIG conducted inquiry or 
investigation, it appears that immediate administrative action, as 
described in Sec.  1275.106, is necessary to protect public health or 
safety, Federal resources or interests, or the interests of those 
involved in the inquiry or investigation, the OIG shall inform the 
appropriate NASA officials.


Sec.  1275.103  Role of awardee institutions.

    (a) The awardee institutions have the primary responsibility for 
prevention and detection of research misconduct and for the inquiry, 
investigation, and adjudication of research misconduct alleged to have 
occurred in association with their own institutions, although NASA has 
ultimate oversight authority for NASA research.
    (b) When an allegation of research misconduct related to NASA 
research is made directly to the OIG and the OIG defers to the awardee 
institution's inquiry or investigation, or when an allegation of 
research misconduct related to NASA research is made directly to the 
awardee institution which commences an inquiry or investigation, the 
awardee institution is required to:
    (1) Notify the OIG immediately of the allegation and inform if an 
initial inquiry supports a formal investigation as soon as this is 
determined.
    (2) Keep the OIG informed during such an investigation.
    (3) Notify the OIG immediately at any time during an inquiry or 
investigation--
    (i) If the seriousness of the apparent research misconduct warrants 
an investigation;
    (ii) If public health or safety is at risk;
    (iii) If Federal resources, reputation, or other interests need 
protecting;
    (iv) If research activities should be suspended;
    (v) If there is reasonable indication of possible violations of 
civil or criminal law;
    (vi) If Federal action is needed to protect the interests of those 
involved in the investigation; or
    (vii) If the research community or the public should be informed.
    (4) Provide the OIG with a copy of the investigation report, 
including the recommendations made to the awardee institution's 
adjudication official and the Respondent's written comments (if any), 
along with a copy of the evidentiary record.
    (5) Provide the OIG with the awardee institution's final 
determination, including any corrective actions taken or planned.
    (c) If an awardee institution wishes the OIG to defer its own 
inquiry or investigation, the awardee institution shall complete any 
inquiry and decide whether an investigation is warranted within 60 
days. It should similarly complete any investigation, adjudication, or 
other procedure necessary to produce a final determination, within an 
additional 180 days. If completion of the process is delayed, but the 
awardee institution wishes NASA's deferral of its own procedures to 
continue, NASA may require submission of periodic status reports.
    (d) Each awardee institution must maintain and effectively 
communicate to its staff, appropriate policies and procedures relating 
to research misconduct, including the requirements on when and how to 
notify NASA.


Sec.  1275.104  Conduct of the OIG inquiry.

    (a) When an awardee institution or another Federal agency has 
promptly initiated its own investigation, the OIG may defer its inquiry 
or investigation until it receives the results of that external 
investigation. When the OIG does not receive the results within a 
reasonable time, the OIG shall ordinarily proceed with its own 
investigation.
    (b) When the OIG decides to initiate a NASA investigation, the OIG 
must give prompt written notice to the individual or institution to be 
investigated, unless notice would prejudice the investigation or unless 
a criminal investigation is underway or under active consideration. If 
notice is delayed, it must be given as soon as it will no longer 
prejudice the investigation or contravene requirements of law or 
Federal law-enforcement policies.
    (c) When alleged misconduct may involve a crime, the OIG shall 
determine whether any criminal investigation is already pending or 
projected. If not, the OIG shall determine whether the matter should be 
referred to the Department of Justice.
    (d) When a criminal investigation by the Department of Justice or 
another Federal agency is underway or under active consideration, the 
OIG shall determine what information, if any, may be disclosed to the 
Respondent or to NASA employees.
    (e) To the extent possible, the identity of sources who wish to 
remain anonymous shall be kept confidential. To the extent allowed by 
law, documents and files maintained by the OIG during the course of an 
inquiry or investigation of misconduct shall be treated as 
investigative files exempt from mandatory public disclosure upon 
request under the Freedom of Information Act.
    (f) When the OIG proceeds with its own inquiry, it is responsible 
for ensuring that the inquiry is completed within 60 days after it is 
commenced. The OIG may extend this period of time for good cause.
    (g) On the basis of what the OIG learns from an inquiry, and in 
consultation as appropriate with other NASA offices, the OIG shall 
decide whether a formal investigation is warranted.


Sec.  1275.105  Conduct of the OIG research misconduct investigation.

    (a) The OIG shall make every reasonable effort to complete a NASA 
research misconduct investigation and issue a report within 120 days 
after initiating the investigation. The OIG may extend this period of 
time for good cause.

[[Page 43986]]

    (b) A NASA investigation may include:
    (1) Review of award files, reports, and other documents readily 
available at NASA or in the public domain;
    (2) Review of procedures or methods and inspection of laboratory 
materials, specimens, and records at awardee institutions;
    (3) Interviews with parties or witnesses;
    (4) Review of any documents or other evidence provided by or 
properly obtainable from parties, witnesses, or other sources;
    (5) Cooperation with other Federal agencies; and
    (6) Opportunity for the Respondent to be heard.
    (c) The OIG may invite outside consultants or experts to 
participate in a NASA investigation.
    (d) During the course of the investigation, the OIG shall provide a 
draft of the investigation report to the Respondent, who shall be 
invited to submit comments. The Respondent must submit any comments 
within 20 days of receipt of the draft investigation report. This 
period of time may be extended by the OIG for good cause. Any comments 
submitted by the Respondent shall receive full consideration before the 
investigation report is made final.
    (e) At the end of the investigation proceedings, an investigation 
report must be prepared, that shall include recommended findings as to 
whether research misconduct has occurred. A recommended finding of 
research misconduct requires that:
    (1) There be a significant departure from accepted practices of the 
relevant research community for maintaining the integrity of the 
research record;
    (2) The research misconduct be committed intentionally, knowingly, 
or in reckless disregard of accepted practices; and
    (3) The allegation be proven by a preponderance of evidence.
    (f) The investigation report must also be transmitted with the 
recommendations for administrative action, when recommended findings of 
research misconduct are made. Section 1275.106 lists possible 
recommended administrative actions and considerations for use in 
determining appropriate recommendations.
    (g) NASA OIG may elect to proceed with its administrative 
investigation processes in lieu of a research misconduct investigation 
under this part when the allegation is against a civil service 
employee.


Sec.  1275.106  Administrative actions.

    (a) Listed in paragraphs (a)(1) through (a)(3) of this section are 
possible administrative actions that may be recommended by the 
investigation report and adopted by the adjudication process. They are 
not exhaustive and are in addition to any administrative actions 
necessary to correct the research record. The administrative actions 
range from minimal restrictions (Group I Actions) to severe 
restrictions (Group III Actions), and do not include possible criminal 
sanctions.
    (1) Group I Actions. (i) Send a letter of reprimand to the 
individual or institution.
    (ii) Require as a condition of an award that for a specified period 
of time an individual, department, or institution obtain special prior 
approval of particular activities from NASA.
    (iii) Require for a specified period of time that an institutional 
official other than those guilty of research misconduct certify the 
accuracy of reports generated under an award or provide assurance of 
compliance with particular policies, regulations, guidelines, or 
special terms and conditions.
    (2) Group II Actions. (i) Restrict for a specified period of time 
designated activities or expenditures under an active award.
    (ii) Require for a specified period of time special reviews of all 
requests for funding from an affected individual, department, or 
institution to ensure that steps have been taken to prevent repetition 
of the research misconduct.
    (3) Group III Actions. (i) Immediately suspend or terminate an 
active award.
    (ii) Debar or suspend an individual, department, or institution 
from participation in NASA programs for a specified period of time.
    (iii) Prohibit participation of an individual as a NASA reviewer, 
advisor, or consultant for a specified period of time.
    (b) In deciding what actions are appropriate when research 
misconduct is found, NASA officials should consider the seriousness of 
the misconduct, including, but not limited to:
    (1) The degree to which the misconduct was knowing, intentional, or 
reckless;
    (2) Whether the misconduct was an isolated event or part of a 
pattern;
    (3) Whether the misconduct had a significant impact on the research 
record, research subjects, or other researchers, institutions, or the 
public welfare.


Sec. 1275.107  Adjudication.

    (a) The NASA Adjudication Official must review and evaluate the 
investigation report and the evidentiary record required to be 
transmitted pursuant to Sec. 1275.102(d) and (e). The NASA Adjudication 
Official may initiate further investigations, which may include 
affording the Respondent another opportunity for comment, before 
issuing a decision regarding the case. The NASA Adjudication Official 
may also return the investigation report to the OIG with a request for 
further fact-finding or analysis.
    (b) Based on a preponderance of the evidence, the NASA Adjudication 
Official shall issue a decision setting forth the Agency's findings as 
to whether research misconduct has occurred and recommending 
appropriate administrative actions that may be undertaken by NASA in 
response to research misconduct determined to have occurred. The NASA 
Adjudication Official shall render a decision within 30 (thirty) days 
after receiving the investigation report and evidentiary record, or 
after completion of any further proceedings. The NASA Adjudication 
Official may extend this period of time for good cause.
    (c) The decision shall be sent to the Respondent and, if 
appropriate, to the Complainant. If the decision confirms the alleged 
research misconduct, it must include instructions on how to pursue an 
appeal to the NASA Appeals Official. The decision shall also be 
transmitted to the NASA Office of the Chief Scientist and the OIG.


Sec. 1275.108  Appeals.

    (a) The Respondent may appeal the decision of the NASA Adjudication 
Official by notifying the NASA Appeals Official in writing of the 
appeal within 30 days after Respondent's receipt of the decision. If 
the decision is not appealed within the 30-day period, the decision 
becomes the final Agency action insofar as the findings are concerned.
    (b) The NASA Appeals Official shall inform the Respondent of a 
final determination within 30 days after receiving the appeal. The NASA 
Appeals Official may extend this period of time for good cause. The 
final determination may affirm, overturn, or modify the decision of the 
NASA Adjudication Official and shall constitute the final Agency action 
insofar as the findings are concerned. The final determination shall 
also be transmitted to the NASA Office of the Chief Scientist and the 
OIG.
    (c) Once final Agency action has been taken pursuant to paragraphs 
(a) or (b)

[[Page 43987]]

of this section, the recommendations for administrative action shall be 
sent to the relevant NASA components for further proceedings in 
accordance with applicable laws and regulations.

Appendix to Part 1275--NASA Research Disciplines and Respective 
Associated Enterprises

    1. Aeronautics Research--Aerospace Technology Enterprise
    2. Space Science Research--Space Science Enterprise
    3. Earth Science Research and Applications--Earth Science 
Enterprise
    4. Biomedical Research--Biological and Physical Research 
Enterprise
    5. Fundamental Biology--Biological and Physical Research 
Enterprise
    6. Fundamental Physics--Biological and Physical Research 
Enterprise
    7. Other engineering research not covered by disciplines above--
NASA Chief Engineer
    8. Other technology research not covered by disciplines above--
NASA Chief Technologist

    Dated: July 10, 2003.
Sean O'Keefe,
Administrator.

[FR Doc. 03-18982 Filed 7-24-03; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7510-01-P