- Press Release
- Nov 26, 2022
Final Rule: NASA Investigation of Research Misconduct 14 CFR Part 1275
[Federal Register: July 14, 2004 (Volume 69, Number 134)]
[Rules and Regulations]
From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]
NATIONAL AERONAUTICS AND SPACE ADMINISTRATION
14 CFR Part 1275
Investigation of Research Misconduct
AGENCY: National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA).
ACTION: Final rule.
SUMMARY: The National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) is
issuing a final rule to implement the “Federal Policy on Research
Misconduct” (the Federal Policy) issued by the Executive Office of the
President’s Office of Science and Technology Policy on December 6,
2000. This rule will assist NASA in addressing allegations of research
DATES: This rule is effective July 14, 2004.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mayra N. Montrose, Office of the NASA
Chief Scientist, at (202) 358-1492 (voice), (202) 358-3931 (fax).
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, on July 25, 2003, we published in
the Federal Register Vol. 18, No. 143, pg. 43982, a proposed rule
creating a new research misconduct policy and a request for public
comment regarding the proposed action. The 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 and resolving allegations of 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 they fund or support. While there
is some overlap in the actions that may be pursued by Federal agencies
and research institutions, the 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.
NASA shall amend 14 CFR part 1260 (Grants Handbook), 14 CFR part
1274 (Commercial agreements with cost sharing), and 48 CFR chapter 18
(NASA FAR Supplement), to reflect the implementation of this policy.
Discussion of Comments
During the public comment period on the proposed rule (14 CFR part
1275) that ended on September 23, 2003, NASA received four comments on
the proposed rule from interested parties. All four comments expressed
concern regarding notification to NASA of the receipt of allegations by
an institution. NASA agrees with this concern and is therefore
requiring notification only when an allegation leads to an
investigation (Sec. 1275.103(b)). Three of the comments concerned the
lack of clarity in cases where multiple institutions are involved. NASA
reworded the policy to clarify that in cases of multiple institutions,
a designated lead organization will be primarily responsible for the
investigation. Two of the comments requested clarification on NASA’s
review of a completed investigation prior to undertaking its own
investigation (when deemed necessary). NASA accepts the comments and
has added language to Sec. 1275.102(d) for clarity.
Two of the comments requested a description of the criteria used by
NASA to initiate an investigation and accept or reject an institution’s
report. NASA modified Sec. 1275.103(b) to clarify when NASA needs to be
notified of an investigation. NASA did not include the criteria that
will be used to accept or reject an institution’s report because such a
list may limit the Agency’s option to initiate such an investigation.
One comment suggested additional language in Sec. 1275.102(f)
regarding the selection and funding of institutions under
investigation. NASA accepted the language. Two comments requested that
institutions be informed when NASA is conducting an investigation that
affects them. NASA agreed and modified Sec. Sec. 1275.102(e) and
1275.107(c). Three of the comments concerned the lack of distinction
between policies and procedures governing extramural versus intramural
researchers. NASA reviewed the rule and decided that the distinction is
stated in Sec. 1275.102(a) and detailed in Sec. Sec. 1275.104 and 105.
Finally, one comment requested that the degree of confidentiality
specified in the document is extreme. NASA thinks the language is
appropriate and in accord with existing law. Other minor edits were
This rule is 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.
As required by the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601-612),
NASA has considered whether this 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 rule will not
have a significant economic impact on small business entities.
Collection of Information
This rule does not contain any information collection requirements
subject to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520).
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 rule under
that Order and has determined that it does not have implications for
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 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
Civil Justice Reform
This 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
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,
Investigations, Research, Science and technology, Scientists.
For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the National Aeronautics and
Space Administration is amending 14 CFR chapter V by adding part 1275
to read as follows:
PART 1275–RESEARCH MISCONDUCT
1275.100 Purpose and scope.
1275.102 OIG handling of research misconduct matters.
1275.103 Role of awardee institutions.
1275.104 Conduct of Inquiry by the OIG.
1275.105 Conduct of the OIG investigation of research misconduct.
1275.106 Administrative actions.
Appendix: NASA Research disciplines and respective associated Enterprises
Authority: Pub. L. 85-568, 72 Stat. 426, 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;
(2) Recommendations on appropriate administrative actions that may
be undertaken by NASA in response to research misconduct determined to
(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
(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, including, but not limited to,
research in economics, education, linguistics, medicine, psychology,
social sciences, statistics, and research involving human subjects or
(b) Fabrication means making up data or results and recording or
(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
(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
(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 co-
investigators 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) determined to be the lead
investigative organization for the case; 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
(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
(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
(d) A copy of the investigation report, evidentiary record, and
final determination resulting from an external investigation must be
transmitted to the OIG for review. The OIG shall determine whether to
recommend to the NASA Adjudication Official, or to the lead
investigative organization in cases that involve multiple institutions,
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 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 institution, 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. In the event that an application receives a fundable rating or
ranking by a review panel, funding can be deferred by the program until
the completion of the inquiry or investigation.
(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 NASA
sponsor for the research and the NASA Office of the Chief Scientist.
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 if an 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–
(i) If public health or safety is at risk;
(ii) If Federal resources, reputation, or other interests need
(iii) If research activities should be suspended;
(iv) If there is reasonable indication of possible violations of
civil or criminal law;
(v) If Federal action is needed to protect the interests of those
involved in the investigation; or
(vi) 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
Sec. 1275.104 Conduct of Inquiry by the OIG.
(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
(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 investigation of research
(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.
(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
(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
(an intramural researcher).
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
(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:
(i) The degree to which the misconduct was knowing, intentional, or
(ii) Whether the misconduct was an isolated event or part of a
(iii) 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 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, to the
Respondent’s institution, 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
grounds for 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
(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
(c) Once final Agency action has been taken pursuant to paragraphs
(a) or (b) 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–Aeronautics 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. Research for Exploration Systems not covered by the disciplines above–Exploration Systems Enterprise
8. Other engineering research not covered by disciplines above–NASA Chief Engineer
9. Other technology research not covered by disciplines above–NASA Chief Technologist
Dated: June 8, 2004.
[FR Doc. 04-15432 Filed 7-13-04; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7510-01-P