51930 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 167 / Tuesday, August 28, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 

than the 30th day following the end of 

each six month period. 

(5) Owner/operator shall submit an 

annual emissions limitation calculation 

report no later than the 30th day 

following the end of the calendar year 

or quarter if a rolling average is required 

in paragraph (c). 

(j) Notifications. (1) Owner/operator 

shall submit notification of 

commencement of construction of any 

equipment which is being constructed 

to comply with the emission limits in 

paragraph (c) of this section. 

(2) Owner/operator shall submit semiannual progress reports on construction 

of any such equipment. 

(3) Owner/operator shall submit 

notification of initial startup of any such 

equipment. 

(k) Equipment operation. At all times, 

owner/operator shall maintain each 

unit, including associated air pollution 

control equipment, in a manner 

consistent with good air pollution 

control practices for minimizing 

emissions. 

(l) Credible Evidence. Nothing in this 

section shall preclude the use, including 

the exclusive use, of any credible 

evidence or information, relevant to 

whether a source would have been in 

compliance with requirements of this 

section if the appropriate performance 

or compliance test procedures or 

method had been performed. 

[FR Doc. 2012–21056 Filed 8–27–12; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 52 

[EPA–R03–OAR–2010–0391; FRL–9719–4] 

Approval and Promulgation of Air 

Quality Implementation Plans; 

Pennsylvania; Attainment Plan for the 

Philadelphia-Wilmington, 

Pennsylvania-New Jersey-Delaware 

1997 Fine Particulate Matter 

Nonattainment Area 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Final rule. 

SUMMARY: EPA is approving a State 

Implementation Plan (SIP) revision 

submitted by the Commonwealth of 

Pennsylvania on April 12, 2010, as 

amended on August 3, 2012. The SIP 

revision demonstrates attainment of the 

1997 annual fine particulate matter 

(PM2.5) national ambient air quality 

standard (NAAQS) for the PhiladelphiaWilmington, Pennsylvania-New JerseyDelaware (PA-NJ-DE) nonattainment 

area (Philadelphia Area). This 

Pennsylvania SIP revision (herein called 

the ‘‘attainment plan’’) includes the 

Philadelphia Area’s attainment 

demonstration and the motor vehicle 

emission budgets (MVEBs) used for 

transportation conformity purposes in 

Bucks, Chester, Delaware, Montgomery 

and Philadelphia Counties in 

Pennsylvania. The attainment plan also 

includes a base year emissions 

inventory and contingency measures. 

On August 3, 2012, Pennsylvania 

withdrew the analysis of reasonably 

available control measures and 

reasonably available control technology 

(RACM/RACT) from the attainment plan 

because the requirement was suspended 

by a clean data determination for the 

Philadelphia Area. Furthermore, EPA 

has determined that a reasonable further 

progress (RFP) plan is not required 

because Pennsylvania projected that 

attainment of the 1997 PM2.5 NAAQS 

occurred in the Philadelphia Area by 

the attainment date of April 2010. This 

action is being taken in accordance with 

the Clean Air Act (CAA) and the Clean 

Air Fine Particulate Implementation 

Rule (PM2.5 Implementation Rule) 

published on April 25, 2007. 

DATES: This final rule is effective on 

September 27, 2012. 

ADDRESSES: EPA has established a 

docket for this action under Docket ID 

Number EPA–R03–OAR–2010–0391. All 

documents in the docket are listed in 

the www.regulations.gov Web site. 

Although listed in the electronic docket, 

some information is not publicly 

available, i.e., confidential business 

information (CBI) or other information 

whose disclosure is restricted by statute. 

Certain other material, such as 

copyrighted material, is not placed on 

the Internet and will be publicly 

available only in hard copy form. 

Publicly available docket materials are 

available either electronically through 

www.regulations.gov or in hard copy for 

public inspection during normal 

business hours at the Air Protection 

Division, U.S. Environmental Protection 

Agency, Region III, 1650 Arch Street, 

Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19103. 

Copies of the State submittal are 

available at the Pennsylvania 

Department of Environmental 

Protection, Bureau of Air Quality 

Control, P.O. Box 8468, 400 Market 

Street, Harrisburg, Pennsylvania 17105. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Rose 

Quinto, (215) 814–2182, or by email at 

quinto.rose@epa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

I. Background 

On November 2, 2011 (76 FR 67640), 

EPA published a notice of proposed 

rulemaking (NPR) for the 

Commonwealth of Pennsylvania. The 

NPR proposed approval of the 

Pennsylvania 1997 annual PM2.5

NAAQS attainment plan for the 

Philadelphia Area. 

On November 27, 2009 (74 FR 62251), 

EPA published findings of failure to 

submit a SIP revision that demonstrates 

attainment of the 1997 PM2.5 NAAQS for 

the Philadelphia Area. On April 12, 

2010, the Commonwealth of 

Pennsylvania through the Department of 

Environmental Protection (PADEP) 

submitted a formal SIP revision and on 

June 19, 2010, EPA determined that this 

SIP revision met the requirements for 

completeness found in section 110(k)(1) 

of the CAA. On May 16, 2012 (77 FR 

28782), EPA published a clean data 

determination and determination of 

attainment of the 1997 annual PM2.5

NAAQS by the attainment date of April 

5, 2010. 

On May 12, 2005 (76 FR 70093), EPA 

published the Clean Air Interstate Rule 

(CAIR) that addresses the interstate 

transport requirements of the CAA with 

respect to the 1997 ozone and 1997 

PM2.5 NAAQS. As originally 

promulgated, CAIR required significant 

reductions in emissions of sulfur 

dioxide (SO2) and nitrogen oxides (NOX) 

to limit the interstate transport of these 

pollutants. In 2008, however, the DC 

Circuit Court of Appeals (‘‘the Court’’) 

remanded CAIR back to EPA. See North 

Carolina v. EPA, 550 F.3d 1176. The 

Court found CAIR to be inconsistent 

with the requirements of the CAA, 

North Carolina v. EPA, 531 F.3d 896 

(D.C. Cir. 2008), but ultimately 

remanded the rule to EPA without 

vacatur because it found that ‘‘allowing 

CAIR to remain in effect until it is 

replaced by a rule consistent with [the 

Court’s] opinion would at least 

temporarily preserve the environmental 

values covered by CAIR.’’ See North 

Carolina v. EPA, 550 F.3d at 1178. CAIR 

thus remained in place following the 

remand, and was in place and 

enforceable through the April 5, 2010 

attainment date. In response to the 

Court’s decision, EPA has issued a new 

rule to address interstate transport of 

NOX and SO2 in the Eastern United 

States (i.e., the Transport Rule, also 

known as the Cross-State Air Pollution 

Rule). See 76 FR 48208, August 8, 2011. 

In the Transport Rule, EPA finalized 

regulatory changes to sunset (i.e., 

discontinue) CAIR and the CAIR Federal 

Implementation Plans (FIPs) for control 


sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 167 / Tuesday, August 28, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 51931 

periods in 2012 and beyond. See 76 FR 

48322. 

On December 30, 2011, the Court 

issued an order addressing the status of 

the Transport Rule and CAIR in 

response to motions filed by numerous 

parties seeking a stay of the Transport 

Rule pending judicial review. In that 

order, the Court stayed the Transport 

Rule pending the Court’s resolution of 

the petitions for review of that rule in 

EME Homer City Generation, L.P. v. EPA 

(No. 11–1302 and consolidated cases). 

The Court also indicated that EPA is 

expected to continue to administer the 

CAIR in the interim until the Court rules 

on the petitions for review of the 

Transport Rule. 

EPA does not believe that the 

circumstances set forth above preclude 

EPA from approving the April 12, 2012 

Pennsylvania attainment plan as 

amended on August 3, 2012 for the 

Philadelphia Area. While the 

monitoring data that show the 

Philadelphia Area attained the 1997 

annual PM2.5 NAAQS by the April 2010 

attainment deadline was impacted by 

CAIR, CAIR was in place and 

enforceable through the 2010 attainment 

date that is relevant to acting on this 

attainment plan. Moreover, EPA’s 

analysis conducted for the Transport 

Rule demonstrates that the Philadelphia 

Area would be able to attain the 1997 

annual PM2.5 NAAQS even in the 

absence of either CAIR or the Transport 

Rule. See Appendix B to the Air Quality 

Modeling Final Rule Technical Support 

Document for the Transport Rule. 

Most importantly, EPA notes that this 

action is approving an attainment plan 

that demonstrated that the Philadelphia 

Area would attain the 1997 annual 

PM2.5 NAAQS by 2010, which it did. As 

of 2010, CAIR was an enforceable 

control measure applicable to affected 

sources in the area, as well as sources 

throughout the Eastern United States. 

As such, the fact that CAIR is now in 

place only temporarily as a result of the 

judicial remand of CAIR does not 

detract from our conclusion that the 

attainment plan should be approved. 

Further, the fact that the Court has 

stayed the implementation of the 

Transport Rule at this time is not 

relevant because, as noted above, EPA’s 

modeling for the Transport Rule 

demonstrates the Philadelphia Area 

would be able to attain the 1997 annual 

PM2.5 even in the absence of CAIR and 

the Transport Rule. Finally, the 

Transport Rule, as promulgated, only 

addresses emissions in 2012 and 

beyond. As such, neither the Transport 

Rule itself, nor the judicial stay of the 

Transport Rule, is relevant to the 

question addressed in this proposal 

notice. The purpose of this action is to 

determine whether the attainment plan 

submitted by Pennsylvania is sufficient 

to bring the Philadelphia Area into 

attainment by the April 2010 attainment 

date, a date before the Transport Rule 

was even promulgated. For these 

reasons, neither the current status of 

CAIR nor the current status of the 

Transport Rule affects any of the criteria 

for proposed approval of this SIP 

revision. 

II. Summary of SIP Revision 

Pennsylvania’s SIP revision 

demonstrates attainment of the 1997 

annual PM2.5 NAAQS for the 

Philadelphia Area. This April 12, 2010 

attainment plan as amended on August 

3, 2012, includes Pennsylvania’s 

attainment demonstration, MVEBs used 

for transportation conformity purposes 

for the five counties in the Philadelphia 

Area, a base year emissions inventory, 

and contingency measures. A RFP plan 

is not required under the applicable 

implementation rule because the 

Philadelphia Area demonstrated that 

attainment of the 1997 annual PM2.5

NAAQS occurred by the attainment date 

of April 2010. See 40 CFR 51.1009(b) 

and 72 FR 20633 (April 25, 2007). In 

addition, because EPA determined on 

May 16, 2012 (77 FR 28782) that the 

Philadelphia Area attained by its 

required attainment date in accordance 

with section 179(c)(9) of the CAA, no 

contingency measures for failure to 

attain by this date need to be 

implemented, and further EPA action 

respecting nonattainment contingency 

measures is unnecessary. Furthermore, 

as set forth in the PM2.5 Implementation 

Rule, areas that attained the NAAQS by 

the attainment date are considered to 

have satisfied the requirement to show 

RFP, and as such do not need to 

implement contingency measures to 

make further progress to attainment. 

EPA has determined that the 

Philadelphia Area attained by the 

attainment date, therefore the 

contingency measures submitted by 

Pennsylvania are no longer necessary 

for the Philadelphia Area to meet RFP 

requirements or to attain the 1997 

annual PM2.5 NAAQS by the attainment 

date. 

On August 3, 2012, Michael L. 

Krancer, Secretary of PADEP sent a 

letter to Shawn M. Garvin, Regional 

Administrator of EPA Region III 

withdrawing the analysis of RACM/ 

RACT which had been included in the 

April 12, 2010 attainment plan since the 

requirement for the RACM/RACT 

analysis was suspended by the May 16, 

2012 (77 FR 28782) clean data 

determination pursuant to 40 CFR 

51.1004(c). Specifically, PADEP 

withdrew section IV.B. in its entirety, 

pages 29–31 in part, and Appendix G in 

its entirety. 

Other specific requirements of the 

1997 annual PM2.5 NAAQS attainment 

plan for the Philadelphia Area and the 

rationale for EPA’s proposed action are 

explained in the NPR and will not be 

restated here. On December 2, 2011, 

EPA received comments on the 

November 2, 2011 NPR. A summary of 

those comments and EPA’s responses 

are provided in section III of this 

document. 

III. Summary of Public Comments and 

EPA Responses 

Comment: A commenter requests 

clarification with regard to the 

procedures for collecting emissions 

inventory data from the Port of 

Philadelphia and the accuracy of the 

data applied in this attainment plan. 

Response: Emissions from the Port of 

Philadelphia are not considered 

‘‘facility or point’’ emissions but rather 

treated as part of the nonroad data 

category. Nonroad data category consists 

of off-highway categories—such as 

cranes, yard trucks, locomotives and 

marine vessels. Therefore, emissions in 

the inventory are aggregated to the 

county level, separated by source 

category. Specifically, port emissions 

are comprised of marine vessels and 

land-based sources (such as cargo 

handling equipment) at ports. Activity 

data for land-based sources collected 

from various sources are used as inputs 

to EPA’s NONROAD model. Marine 

vessels’ emissions are calculated outside 

of the NONROAD model because the 

NONROAD model does not include 

marine vessel emissions. 

EPA reviewed the methodology that 

PADEP used to estimate marine vessel 

emissions and found that proper 

guidance was followed pertaining to 

gathering characteristics of the port that 

included the types of vessels, the 

shipping traffic, arrival information, and 

any limitations on the data gathered. 

EPA verified that the marine vessels’ 

emissions were accounted for in the 

supporting spreadsheets provided for 

nonroad emission estimates. EPA also 

verified that land-based sources for 

cargo handling equipment, such as 

terminal tractors, cranes, container 

handlers and forklifts, were accounted 

for in the nonroad spreadsheets by 

county provided by PADEP. 

Comment: A commenter requests 

clarification and additional information 

with regard to Pennsylvania’s 

enforcement of the Diesel-Powered 

Commercial Motor Vehicle Idling Act 

(Act 124—anti-idling requirements) and 


sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with RULES
51932 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 167 / Tuesday, August 28, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 

suggests that the attainment plan should 

offer more detailed ‘‘estimations of 

emission reductions resulting from Act 

124.’’ 

Response: Additional information is 

publicly available and may be found at 

http://www.dep.state.pa.us/dep/

deputate/airwaste/aq/cars/idling.htm. 

This Internet site directs viewers to 

contact the PADEP’s Bureau of Air 

Quality for additional information 

pertaining to Act 124. Additionally, 

while the commenter suggests that the 

attainment plan should offer more 

detailed ‘‘estimations of emission 

reductions resulting from Act 124,’’ 

Pennsylvania does not rely on any 

emission reductions resulting from the 

enforcement of Act 124 in order to 

demonstrate attainment of the 1997 

annual PM2.5 NAAQS. However, 

Pennsylvania does include Act 124 as a 

contingency measure. Since EPA has 

determined that the Philadelphia Area 

attained by its required attainment date, 

in accordance with section 172(c)(9) of 

the CAA, no contingency measures for 

failure to attain by this date or make 

reasonable further progress need to be 

implemented at this time. Therefore, the 

attainment plan provides sufficient 

estimations of emission reductions 

resulting from Act 124. 

IV. Final Action 

EPA is approving Pennsylvania’s 

April 12, 2010 attainment plan as 

amended on August 3, 2012 for the 1997 

annual PM2.5 NAAQS for the 

Philadelphia Area as a revision to the 

Pennsylvania SIP. EPA has determined 

that the SIP revision meets the 

applicable requirements of the CAA, as 

described in the PM2.5 Implementation 

Rule. Specifically, EPA is approving 

only Pennsylvania’s attainment 

demonstration, associated MVEBs used 

for transportation conformity purposes, 

the base year emissions inventory, and 

contingency measures. PADEP 

withdrew the RACM/RACT analysis 

section of the attainment plan as 

amended on August 3, 2012 because the 

requirement for RACM/RACT was 

suspended by the May 16, 2012 clean 

data determination pursuant to 40 CFR 

51.1004(c). Furthermore, EPA has 

determined that the requirement for RFP 

plan is satisfied because Pennsylvania 

demonstrated attainment of the 1997 

annual PM2.5 NAAQS in the 

Philadelphia Area by April 5, 2010. 

V. Statutory and Executive Order 

Reviews 

A. General Requirements 

Under the CAA, the Administrator is 

required to approve a SIP submission 

that complies with the provisions of the 

CAA and applicable Federal regulations. 

42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a). 

Thus, in reviewing SIP submissions, 

EPA’s role is to approve state choices, 

provided that they meet the criteria of 

the CAA. Accordingly, this action 

merely approves state law as meeting 

Federal requirements and does not 

impose additional requirements beyond 

those imposed by state law. For that 

reason, this action: 

• Is not a ‘‘significant regulatory 

action’’ subject to review by the Office 

of Management and Budget under 

Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, 

October 4, 1993); 

• Does not impose an information 

collection burden under the provisions 

of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 

U.S.C. 3501 et seq.); 

• Is certified as not having a 

significant economic impact on a 

substantial number of small entities 

under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 

U.S.C. 601 et seq.); 

• Does not contain any unfunded 

mandate or significantly or uniquely 

affect small governments, as described 

in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act 

of 1995 (Pub. L. 104–4); 

• Does not have Federalism 

implications as specified in Executive 

Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 

1999); 

• Is not an economically significant 

regulatory action based on health or 

safety risks subject to Executive Order 

13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997); 

• Is not a significant regulatory action 

subject to Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 

28355, May 22, 2001); 

• Is not subject to requirements of 

Section 12(d) of the National 

Technology Transfer and Advancement 

Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) because 

application of those requirements would 

be inconsistent with the CAA; and 

• Does not provide EPA with the 

discretionary authority to address, as 

appropriate, disproportionate human 

health or environmental effects, using 

practicable and legally permissible 

methods, under Executive Order 12898 

(59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994). 

In addition, this rule does not have 

tribal implications as specified by 

Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, 

November 9, 2000), because the SIP is 

not approved to apply in Indian country 

located in the state, and EPA notes that 

it will not impose substantial direct 

costs on tribal governments or preempt 

tribal law. 

B. Submission to Congress and the 

Comptroller General 

The Congressional Review Act, 5 

U.S.C. 801 et seq., as added by the Small 

Business Regulatory Enforcement 

Fairness Act of 1996, generally provides 

that before a rule may take effect, the 

agency promulgating the rule must 

submit a rule report, which includes a 

copy of the rule, to each House of the 

Congress and to the Comptroller General 

of the United States. EPA will submit a 

report containing this action and other 

required information to the U.S. Senate, 

the U.S. House of Representatives, and 

the Comptroller General of the United 

States prior to publication of the rule in 

the Federal Register. A major rule 

cannot take effect until 60 days after it 

is published in the Federal Register. 

This action is not a ‘‘major rule’’ as 

defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2). 

C. Petitions for Judicial Review 

Under section 307(b)(1) of the CAA, 

petitions for judicial review of this 

action must be filed in the United States 

Court of Appeals for the appropriate 

circuit by October 29, 2012. Filing a 

petition for reconsideration by the 

Administrator of this final rule does not 

affect the finality of this action for the 

purposes of judicial review nor does it 

extend the time within which a petition 

for judicial review may be filed, and 

shall not postpone the effectiveness of 

such rule or action. This action 

pertaining to the Pennsylvania 1997 

annual PM2.5 NAAQS attainment plan 

for the Philadelphia Area, may not be 

challenged later in proceedings to 

enforce its requirements. (See section 

307(b)(2) of the CAA.) 

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52 

Environmental protection, Air 

pollution control, Incorporation by 

reference, Nitrogen dioxide, Particulate 

matter, Reporting and recordkeeping 

requirements, Sulfur oxides, Volatile 

organic compounds. 

Dated: August 9, 2012. 

W.C. Early, 

Acting Regional Administrator, Region III. 

40 CFR part 52 is amended as follows: 

PART 52—[AMENDED] 

■ 1. The authority citation for part 52 

continues to read as follows: 

Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq. 

Subpart NN—Pennsylvania 

■ 2. In § 52.2020, the table in paragraph 

(e)(1) is amended by adding an entry for 

the 1997 PM2.5 NAAQS attainment plan 

at the end of the table to read as follows: 

§ 52.2020 Identification of plan. 

* * * * * 

(e) * * * 

(1) * * * 


sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 167 / Tuesday, August 28, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 51933 

Name of non-regulatory SIP revision Applicable geographic area State submittal date EPA approval date Additional 

explanation 

*******

1997 PM2.5 NAAQS Attainment Demonstration, 2002 Base Year Emissions Inventory, Contingency Measures and Motor Vehicle Emission 

Budgets for 2009.

Pennsylvania portion of the Philadelphia-Wilmington, PA-NJ-DE PM2.5

Nonattainment Area.

4/12/10, 8/3/12 8/28/12 [Insert 

page number 

where the document begins].

[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 

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-andcomment 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: http:// 

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 http:// 

www.regulations.gov, including any 

personal information provided. 

Docket: For access to the docket to 

read background documents or 

comments received, go to http:// 

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 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 


sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with RULES