[Federal Register Volume 65, Number 229 (Tuesday, November 28, 2000)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 70830-70841]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 00-29988]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES
42 CFR Part 94
RIN 0905-AE71
Public Health Service Standards for the Protection of Research
Misconduct Whistleblowers
AGENCY: Department of Health and Human Services (HHS).
ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Department proposes to add a new Subchapter I, Part 94, to
Title 42 of the Code of Federal Regulations to implement section 493(e)
of the Public Health Service Act. Under this proposed regulation,
covered institutions must follow certain requirements for preventing or
otherwise responding to occurrences of retaliation against
whistleblowers. The purpose of this part is to protect persons who make
a good faith allegation that a covered institution or one of its
members engaged in or failed to respond adequately to an allegation of
research misconduct and persons who cooperate in good faith with an
investigation of research misconduct.
DATES: Submit comments on or before January 29, 2001.
ADDRESSES: Address all comments concerning this proposed rule to Chris
B. Pascal, J.D., Acting Director, Office of Research Integrity, 5515
Security Lane, Suite 700, Rockville, MD, 20852.
You may submit comments and data by sending electronic mail (E-
mail) to [email protected].
Submit comments as either a WordPerfect file, version 5.1 or
higher, or a Microsoft Word 97 or 2000 file format. Comments can also
be submitted as an ASCII file avoiding the use of special characters
and any form of encryption.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION, CONTACT:
Legal Information: Gail L. Gibbons, 301-443-3466 (This is not a
toll-free number).
Technical Information: Barbara Bullman, 301-443-5300 (This is not a
toll-free number).
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Section 493(e) of the PHS Act requires the
Secretary to establish regulatory standards for preventing and
responding to occurrences of retaliation taken against whistleblowers
by entities which have a research misconduct assurance under Sec. 493
and by those entities' officials and agents. These entities and their
officials and agents are prohibited from retaliating against an
employee with respect to the terms and conditions of employment when
the employee has in good faith (1) made an allegation that the entity
or its officials or agents, has engaged in, or failed to respond
adequately to an allegation of, research misconduct, or (2) cooperated
with an investigation of such an allegation.
The Commission on Research Integrity (established by section 162 of
the NIH Revitalization Act of 1993) recommended that the standards
stated in its document, ``Responsible Whistleblowing: A Whistleblower's
Bill of Rights'' (Commission Report, Department, 1995), be adopted by
regulation. Two of the seven principles in the Whistleblower's Bill of
Rights relate directly to the prevention of and response to
whistleblower retaliation. These two are: protection from retaliation
(``Institutions have a duty not to tolerate or engage in retaliation
against good faith whistleblowers.''), and fundamentally fair
procedures (``In cases of alleged retaliation * * * whistleblowers
should have an opportunity to defend themselves in a proceeding where
they can present witnesses and confront those they charge with
retaliation against them. * * *''). The substance of those two
provisions has been incorporated in this proposed regulation. You may
obtain the full text of the Commission's proposed Whistleblower's Bill
of Rights upon request at the Office of Research Integrity address
above, or on the ORI web page at http://ori.dhhs.gov/whistle.htm.
The proposed regulation represents a considered effort by the
Department to implement the statutory directive on whistleblower
protections in accordance with equitable principles, reason, and sound
policy. The Department strongly supports good faith whistleblowers who
place themselves at potential risk in disclosing apparent or actual
research misconduct involving projects supported by PHS funds. The
Department also recognizes that institutions bear a substantial burden
in ensuring the fair resolution of good faith allegations that may
ultimately prove to be unwarranted. The proposed regulation tries to
strike a fair balance among those persons and entities with an interest
in the regulation.
This proposed regulation does not apply to Federal agencies.
Federal employees are offered separate whistleblower protections under
the Federal Whistleblower Protection Act of 1989, 5 U.S.C. 1201, et
seq.
When an institution receives a retaliation complaint, the proposed
regulation allows the whistleblower and the institution up to 30 days
to negotiate a settlement. The whistleblower and the institution may
agree to extend this period for up to an additional 60 days. During the
negotiation period, the parties may agree to use any means of
settlement that is legal and consistent with this regulation, including
alternative dispute resolution mechanisms such as mediation. However,
no settlement under the proposed regulation may prohibit the
whistleblower from making allegations of research misconduct or
cooperating with an investigation.
If the dispute is not resolved by the end of the negotiation
period, the institution must make an administrative proceeding
available to the whistleblower to address the retaliation complaint.
The proceeding offered by the institution must meet all of the
standards in the proposed regulation. A whistleblower may agree to have
a retaliation complaint resolved through this proceeding or may elect
to pursue any other available remedy provided by law.
Although certain settlement mechanisms such as mediation may be
used during the negotiation period, they might not qualify as an
acceptable administrative proceeding after the negotiation period has
terminated because they do not meet the regulation's requirements. For
example, mediation does not constitute an acceptable administrative
proceeding because it does not use an ``objective
[[Page 70831]]
decisionmaker'' who will make a final determination on whether
retaliation occurred, as required by the regulation.
The proposed regulation gives institutions wide latitude in the
types of administrative proceedings they may choose to offer. However,
the proceeding must meet certain minimum standards such as allowing the
whistleblower an opportunity to be represented by counsel and having a
qualified, objective decisionmaker. Although the terms ``qualified''
and ``objective'' are not defined in the proposed regulation, the
decisionmaker should have significant training, experience, or
expertise in adjudicating disputes. Moreover, the decisionmaker must
not have any real or apparent conflict of interest in hearing or
deciding the case.
One type of administrative proceeding that institutions may make
available is binding arbitration. Arbitration is specifically
encouraged in the Conference Report recommendations accompanying the
NIH Revitalization Act. The Conferees suggested that the regulation
should, ``where the whistleblower consents, allow for the possible
adjudication of disputes through an arbitration proceeding conducted
under the auspices of the American Arbitration Association.'' H.R.
Conf. Rep. No. 100, 103d Cong., 1st Sess. 19, 107 (1993).
Another type of administrative proceeding that may be used for
resolving retaliation disputes is an institutional fact-finding
procedure similar to an option allowed under the ORI ``Guidelines for
Institutions and Whistleblowers: Responding to Possible Retaliation
Against Whistleblowers in Extramural Research'' (November 20, 1995)
(Whistleblower Guidelines) which will be superseded when this part is
issued as a final rule. You may obtain a copy of these interim
Whistleblower Guidelines by contacting ORI at the above address, or on
the ORI web page at http://ori.dhhs.gov/whistle.htm. Unlike the
administrative proceedings in the interim Whistleblower Guidelines, an
institutional fact-finding procedure under the proposed regulation must
satisfy the minimum standards specifically in this part.
Other possible administrative proceedings that an institution may
use for resolving a retaliation complaint under this part include an
academic or institutional employment hearing, a state statutory
whistleblower proceeding, or any other administrative proceeding that
resolves the complaint. A proceeding satisfies the requirements of this
part only if it meets the minimum standards outlined in the proposed
regulation. Some states may have whistleblower statutes that provide
recourse for a whistleblower but that may not include every requirement
of this part. Therefore, the Department requests comments on whether an
institution should be permitted to offer a proceeding, whether
administrative or judicial, under a state whistleblower law if the law
generally parallels the minimum standards of this part but differs in
some details.
Regardless of the type of administrative proceeding used, the
decisionmaker's final decision must be based on the standards of proof
set forth in the regulation. The decisionmaker must order an
institutional remedy if the whistleblower proves by a preponderance of
the evidence that the act of good faith whistleblowing was a
contributing factor in the alleged adverse action taken by the
institution or one of its members against the whistleblower. However,
even if the whistleblower meets this burden, the decisionmaker may not
order an institutional remedy if the institution then proves by clear
and convincing evidence that it would have taken the action at issue
even in the absence of the whistleblower's allegation or cooperation
with an investigation. The legislative history of the PHS Act
Sec. 493(e) shows that the Conferees encouraged adoption of this
specific standard. Also, the proposed regulatory standard is the same
as that used in the Federal Whistleblower Protection Act of 1989, 5
U.S.C. 1201, et seq.
If the decisionmaker determines that the institution or one of its
members has retaliated against the whistleblower, the proposed
regulation allows the decisionmaker to authorize appropriate remedies.
For example, the decisionmaker could order reinstatement, back pay,
rehabilitation of reputation, or compensation to the whistleblower for
expenses, including attorneys' fees, incurred in the administrative
proceeding.
The proposed regulation allows both the institution and
whistleblower to appeal an adverse finding or remedy by the
decisionmaker only if the administrative proceeding used allows for an
appeal or an appeal is otherwise provided by state law. The Department
has chosen this approach consistent with the current misconduct
regulation, 42 CFR part 50, subpart A, and the Office of Science and
Technology Policy's (OSTP) proposed government-wide Federal policy for
research misconduct, 64 FR 55722, 55724, Oct. 14, 1999, which do not
require offering an opportunity to appeal at the institution to a
respondent found to have committed misconduct. This is also consistent
with the general approach of this regulation to allow flexibility and
to mandate only limited requirements for the institutional
administrative proceeding. The Department requests comments on whether
the availability of an appeal should be required.
Covered institutions would also be required to establish procedures
for preventing retaliation against good faith whistleblowers. For
example, under the proposed regulation, an institution's preventive
activities must include informing all institutional members of the
institution's whistleblower procedures and the importance of
compliance. These whistleblower procedures must describe the measures
that the institution intends to use to prevent retaliation against good
faith whistleblowers. Although not specified in the proposed
regulation, these measures may include, for example, cautioning
respondents or other institutional members against retaliation,
relocating the whistleblower when appropriate, and providing
educational materials or group instruction on the topic of
whistleblower retaliation. We invite suggestions for other steps
institutions may take to prevent retaliation against good faith
whistleblowers.
Section 493(e)(2) of the PHS Act requires the Director of ORI to
monitor covered institutions' implementation of the proposed regulatory
standards. Moreover, Sec. 493(e)(3) requires ORI to establish remedies
for noncompliance with this whistleblower retaliation regulation.
Therefore, the proposed regulation authorizes ORI to review any covered
institution's compliance with the regulation and to impose appropriate
administrative actions for retaliation or other regulatory
noncompliance. Administrative actions against noncompliant institutions
may include, but are not limited to, termination or recovery of PHS
funds.
Several of the definitions require brief explanations. The proposed
regulation adopts the term ``research misconduct'' instead of
``misconduct in science'' as currently used in PHS' scientific
misconduct regulation at 42 CFR 50.102 (1989). Section 493(a)(3)(A) of
the PHS Act instructs the Secretary to establish a definition for the
new term ``research misconduct.'' As discussed earlier, the OSTP has
published a proposed government-wide Federal policy for research
misconduct for adoption and implementation by agencies that conduct and
support research. This policy includes a new proposed definition of
research misconduct. 64
[[Page 70832]]
FR 55722, Oct.14, 1999. When the OSTP policy is adopted in final form,
the Department will implement the policy, including the new definition
of ``research misconduct,'' through rulemaking. In the meantime, the
term ``research misconduct'' in this proposed regulation will be
defined in the same manner as ``misconduct in science,'' as used in the
existing PHS misconduct regulation.
The proposed regulation uses the term ``whistleblower'' despite
negative connotations that might be associated with it. The common
understanding of the term's meaning strongly supports its continued
usage, in keeping with the authorizing statute, PHS Act Sec. 493(e),
and consistent with other statutes such as the Whistleblower Protection
Act of 1989, 5 U.S.C. 1201, et seq. The Department strongly disavows
any negative inference that might be drawn from the term
``whistleblower.''
The proposed regulation does not confine the use of the term
``whistleblower'' to those who raise an initial allegation of research
misconduct. Rather, it defines a whistleblower as any institutional
member, including a non-employee, who makes an allegation that a
covered institution or one of its members has engaged in, or failed to
respond adequately to an allegation of, research misconduct, or who
cooperates with an investigation of the allegation. Although the PHS
Act Sec. 493(e) specifically protects an ``employee'' with respect to
the terms and conditions of employment, the Department is proposing
that the regulation cover all institutional members, i.e., all persons
who are employed by, affiliated with under a contract or agreement, or
under the control of, a covered institution, including students,
fellows, and contractors.
The Department may extend its jurisdiction to protect non-employee
whistleblowers based upon its general rulemaking authority as well as
its authority to establish the terms and conditions of PHS support.
Potential whistleblowers include more than just employees of the
covered institution. Students and research fellows at an academic
institution, for example, may be in a position to allege research
misconduct or cooperate with a misconduct investigation. The proposed
regulation's more inclusive definition of whistleblower is consistent
with the Department's interpretation of the current scientific
misconduct regulation which is not limited to employees of the
institution but requires protecting ``those persons who, in good faith,
make allegations,'' 42 CFR 50.103(d)(13).
Consistent with the proposed definition of whistleblower, the
proposed regulation's definition of ``retaliation'' focuses on adverse
actions that negatively affect the terms or conditions of the
whistleblower's status at the institution, including employment,
academic matriculation, and institutional relationship under a grant,
contract, or cooperative agreement.
An ``adverse action'' by an institution or one of its members may
also include the threat of an adverse action if the threat in and of
itself negatively affects the conditions of the whistleblower's
institutional status. Whether a threat constitutes an ``adverse
action'' under the proposed rule must be determined on a case-by-case
basis. However, the Department believes that only objectively credible
and imminent threats that substantially and negatively inhibit the
whistleblower's normal institutional activities would constitute
adverse actions.
The proposed regulation requires each covered institution to submit
an assurance that the institution is in compliance with this
regulation. This requirement will be incorporated in PHS grant
application (PHS Form 398) or any other application for PHS contracts
or cooperative agreements. PHS Form 398 and all other pertinent
application forms already include a certification of compliance with
this part which will be changed to an assurance at the next revision.
The proposed regulation applies only to whistleblower retaliation
complaints that are made within 180 days of the alleged adverse action,
or its discovery. This time limitation for filing retaliation
complaints is consistent with other statutory and regulatory programs
that establish a date certain after which complaints may not be filed,
and encourages whistleblowers to come forward with a complaint
promptly. This improves the opportunity for a rapid resolution of the
dispute. See, e.g., 29 U.S.C. 1855(b) (Migrant and Seasonal
Agricultural Worker Protection; Discrimination prohibited); 10 CFR
50.7(b) (Nuclear Regulatory Commission; Employee Protection). The 180-
day limitation period is also consistent with ORI's interim
Whistleblower Guidelines, Sec. IV.C.1.
In addition to cases of whistleblower retaliation that occur after
this regulation's promulgation, the Department also proposes that the
regulation cover pending cases of retaliation, if the retaliation
complaint and the underlying whistleblower activity took place within
one year before the effective date of the regulation. The Department
has required covered institutions to protect whistleblowers since at
least 1989 pursuant to 42 CFR 50.103(d)(13). The proposed regulation
merely prescribes new procedural, as opposed to substantive,
requirements for implementing an already established duty. Thus,
extending the applicability of the proposed regulation to previously
filed, pending whistleblower complaints does not violate the principle
of impermissible retroactivity. See Landgraf v. USI Film Products, 511
U.S. 244 (1994); U.S. v. Riddick, 104 F.3d 1239 (10th Cir. 1997).
Analyses of Impacts
A. Review under Executive Order 12866, sections 202 and 205 of the
Unfunded Mandate Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. No. 104-4), and the
Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 603-605).
The Department has examined the potential impact of this proposed
rule as directed by Executive Order 12866, sections 202 and 205 of the
Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. No. 104-4), and the
Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 603-605).
Executive Order 12866 directs agencies to assess the costs and
benefits of available regulatory alternatives, and when regulation is
necessary, to select regulatory approaches that maximize net benefits.
This proposed rule is designed to establish regulatory standards for
institutions that apply for or receive grants, contracts, or
cooperative agreements under the PHS Act. (The proposal has been
reviewed by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) under the terms
of the Executive Order.)
The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of l995, in sections 202 and 205,
requires that agencies prepare several analytic statements before
proposing a rule that may result in annual expenditures of State,
local, and tribal governments, or by the private sector, of $100
million. As any final rule resulting from this proposal would not
result in expenditures of this magnitude, such statements are not
necessary.
The Regulatory Flexibility Act requires agencies to prepare a
regulatory flexibility analysis describing the impact of the proposed
rule on small entities, but also permits agency heads to certify that a
proposed rule will not, if promulgated, have a significant economic
impact on a substantial number of small entities. The primary effect of
this rule would be to require covered institutions to implement
policies and procedures for preventing and responding to whistleblower
retaliation in research misconduct cases.
[[Page 70833]]
Currently, ORI receives about 125 allegations of research misconduct a
year from the 3700 entities which file assurances with ORI. Of these,
only five of the allegations were received from the approximately 1000
entities which are considered small. Therefore, the Secretary certifies
that this proposed rule would not have a significant impact on a
substantial number of small entities as defined by the Regulatory
Flexibility Act.
B. Impact of Proposed Actions on Family Well-Being
The Department has examined the potential impact of this proposed
rule as directed by section 654 of the Treasury and General Government
Appropriations Act of 1999 and determined that this proposed rule would
not have an impact on Family Well-Being.
C. Estimated Annual Reporting and Record Keeping Burden
Subchapter I, sections 94.215, 94.310, 94.315, 94.320, 94.340,
94.345(b), 94.380, and 94.425 of the proposed rule contain information
collection requirements that are subject to review by the OMB under the
Paperwork Reduction Act of l995. The title, description, and respondent
description of the information collection requirements are shown below
with an estimate of the annual reporting burdens. Included in the
estimates is the time for reviewing instructions, gathering and
maintaining the data needed, and completing and reviewing the
collection of information. With respect to the following information
collection description, PHS invites comments on (1) whether the
proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper
performance of PHS functions, including whether the information will
have practical utility, (2) the accuracy of the PHS estimate of the
burden of the proposed collection of information including the validity
of the methodology and assumptions used, (3) ways to enhance the
quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected, and
(4) ways to minimize the burden of collection of information on
respondents, including the use of automatic collection techniques or
other forms of information technology.
Title: Public Health Service Standards for the Protection of
Research Misconduct Whistleblowers.
Description: This proposed rule implements section 493(e) of the
PHS Act (added by section 163 of the NIH Revitalization Act of 1993,
Pub. L. No. 103-43). Section 493(e)(1) requires the Secretary to
establish standards for preventing and responding to occurrences of
whistleblower retaliation by entities, their officials or agents,
against an employee in the terms and conditions of employment in
response to the employee having made a good faith allegation or
cooperated with an investigation of such an allegation. In addition,
sections 493(e) (2) and (3) of the PHS Act require that remedies be
established for regulatory noncompliance by entities, their officials
or agents, and that procedures be established for monitoring
implementation of the standards established by the entities.
Description of Respondents: The ``respondents'' for the collection
of information described in this regulation are (1) institutions that
apply for or receive grants, contracts, or cooperative agreements under
the PHS Act for any project or program that involves the conduct of
biomedical or behavioral research, and (2) whistleblowers who seek
protection from or restitution for retaliation in accordance with the
regulation.
Section 94.200
See Section 94.215 for burden statement.
Section 94.205
See Section 94.215 for burden statement.
Section 94.210
See Section 94.215 for burden statement.
Section 94.215(a), (b), and (c)
Number of Respondents--20.
Number of Responses per Respondent--1.
To institute an action for whistleblower protection, a
whistleblower must file a retaliation complaint with the responsible
official of the covered institution. The retaliation complaint must
include (1) a statement containing the required elements listed in this
section, and (2) any supporting dates and facts. We estimate that there
will be approximately 20 complaints filed by whistleblowers annually.
This estimate is based on data that we have compiled from the Annual
Report on Possible Research Misconduct (PHS-6349) form submitted by the
covered institutions and from the number of actual cases received by
ORI.
Annual Average Burden per Response--8 hours
Total Annual Burden--160 hours
Section 305(a) and (b)
See Section 94.320 for statement of burden.
Section 94.310
Number of Respondents--244.
Number of Responses per Respondent--1
Each covered institution that uses subawardees or subcontractors to
carry out its PHS funded research must ensure that the subawardees and
subcontractors comply with the institution's policies and procedures
under this part or obtain assurances from them that will enable the
institution to comply with this part.
There are 3700 entities that are currently applying for or
receiving PHS research funds, and each of these entities could
potentially use a subawardee or subcontractor. We estimate from
reviewing the available information that 25% of the covered
institutions use a subawardee or subcontractor. In turn, we estimate
that only 25% of the subawardees and subcontractors will establish
their own policies and procedures for addressing whistleblower
retaliation allegations. The other 75% will use the covered
institution's compliance procedures.
Annual Average Burden per Response--8 hours.
Total Annual Burden--1848 hours.
Section 94.315
See Section 94.320 for statement of burden.
Section 94.320
Number of Respondents--3700.
Number of Responses per Respondent--1.
Each covered institution that applies for or receives a grant,
contract, or cooperative agreement under the PHS Act for any project or
program that involves the conduct of biomedical or behavioral research
is required to establish written procedures that include (1) specific
strategies to prevent whistleblower retaliation by the institution or
one of its members, and (2) appropriate administrative actions for
verified cases of retaliation.
There are 3700 entities that currently receive or are eligible to
receive grants, contracts, or cooperative agreements that would be
required to meet this single-time requirement to establish and maintain
current policies and procedures designed to prevent whistleblower
retaliation and provide a mechanism to respond to a retaliation
complaint involving PHS funding or applications therefor.
Annual Average Burden per Response--40 hours.
Total Annual Burden--148,000 hours.
We estimate that it will take between 10-80 hours to establish
these
[[Page 70834]]
procedures with an average of 40 hours per covered institution. This
burden estimate applies only to the first year when all the covered
institutions will be required to establish procedures. In subsequent
years, the burden will only be for new recipients or applicants of PHS
funding or to update a covered entity's procedures.
Section 94.325(a) and (b)
See Section 94.320 for statement of burden.
Section 94.340
Number of Respondents--20.
Number of Responses per Respondent--1.
After receipt of a retaliation complaint, a covered institution is
required by this part to provide the whistleblower with a copy of this
regulation, 42 CFR Part 94, and the institution's policies and
procedures for responding to retaliation complaints. The institution
must also provide the whistleblower with written notification of (1)
the date the complaint was received by the institution, (2) the date
the negotiation period will expire, and (3) the institution's
determination regarding the issue of jurisdiction as discussed in
Sec. 94.215(b). The institution is also required to process the
complaint in accordance with this part.
Annual Average Burden per response--2 hours
Total Burden--40 hours.
Section 94.345(b)
Number of Respondents--1.
Number of Responses per Respondent--1.
The responsible official of the covered institution is required to
notify the whistleblower in writing of any decision to provide
temporary protection before the final resolution of a retaliation
complaint.
This estimate is based on the number of retaliation cases that have
been reported to ORI.
Annual Average Burden per response--2 hours.
Total Annual Burden--2 hours.
Section 94.380
Number of Respondents--20.
Number of Responses per Respondent--1.
Covered institutions are required by this part to report to ORI any
of the following (1) the receipt of any whistleblower retaliation
complaint, (2) the date received, (3) the date the negotiation period
under Section 94.365 expires, (4) any temporary protections requested
or provided to the whistleblower, (5) the administrative proceedings
used or made available to the whistleblower, and how the institution
met the standards of Section 94.420, and (6) the final disposition of
the complaint, including any settlement.
This reporting estimate is an approximation of the average time
expected to be necessary for collection of this information by the
covered institution. The estimate is based on past experiences of
respondents reporting similar information to ORI.
Annual Average Burden Per Response--2 hours.
Total Annual Burden--40 hours.
Section 94.425
Number of Respondents--20.
Number of Responses per Respondent--1.
At the time a covered institution proposes an administrative
proceeding, it must inform the whistleblower of the requirements,
rights, procedures, and possible consequences associated with the
proceeding.
Annual Average Burden Per Response--1 hour.
Total Annual Burden--20 hours.
The Department will submit a copy of this proposed rule to OMB for
its review and approval of this information under the Paperwork
Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520). Send comments regarding
this burden estimate or any other aspect of this collection of
information, including suggestions for reducing this burden, to the
agency official designated for this purpose whose name appears in this
preamble, and to the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, OMB,
New Executive Office Bldg., 725 17th Street, N.W., Rm 10235,
Washington, D.C. 20503, Attn: Allison Eydt. Submit written comments by
January 29, 2001.
List of Subjects in 42 CFR Part 94
Administrative practice and procedure, Grant programs-science and
technology, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Research, Science
and technology, Whistleblowing.
Dated: July 17, 2000.
David Satcher,
Assistant Secretary for Health and Surgeon General.
Approved: July 25, 2000.
Donna E. Shalala,
Secretary.
For reasons set out in the preamble, the Public Health Service
proposes to add a new subchapter I, part 94, to title 42 of the Code of
Federal Regulations as follows:
Subchapter I--Policies Relating to Research Misconduct
PART 94--PUBLIC HEALTH SERVICE STANDARDS FOR THE PROTECTION OF
RESEARCH MISCONDUCT WHISTLEBLOWERS
Subpart A--General
Sec.
94.100 What is the purpose of this part?
94.105 What is covered in this part?
94.110 Does this part apply to me?
94.115 What provisions of confidentiality apply to this part?
Subpart B--Whistleblower Retaliation Complaints
94.200 When must you file your retaliation complaint?
94.205 Where do you file a retaliation complaint?
94.210 Must your retaliation complaint be in writing?
94.215 What information must you provide in your retaliation
complaint?
94.220 May you revise your retaliation complaint?
94.225 May you ask the covered institution to take actions to
protect you?
94.230 May you negotiate or settle your retaliation complaint?
Subpart C--Responsibilities of Covered Institutions
Responsibilities and Procedures
94.300 What institutions are covered by this part?
94.305 What responsibilities does a covered institution have?
94.310 Are subawardees and subcontractors of a covered institution
included in this part?
94.315 Must a covered institution establish procedures for
whistleblowers?
94.320 What procedures must a covered institution establish?
94.325 Who must a covered institution inform of these procedures?
94.330 What is an assurance of compliance?
94.335 Who designates the responsible official, and what are the
responsible official's duties?
94.340 How does a covered institution process whistleblower
complaints?
94.345 Must a covered institution provide temporary protections to
whistleblowers?
94.350 What temporary protections may a covered institution offer?
94.355 How long do temporary protections last?
Negotiations and Settlements
94.360 How may a covered institution negotiate and settle a
retaliation complaint?
94.365 How long may a covered institution conduct negotiations on
a retaliation complaint?
94.370 What must a covered institution do if it questions
jurisdiction during negotiations?
94.375 What happens if negotiations do not resolve a retaliation
complaint?
[[Page 70835]]
Compliance
94.380 What information must a covered institution report to ORI
regarding retaliation complaints?
94.385 Must a covered institution cooperate with ORI compliance
reviews?
94.390 What happens if a covered institution retaliates or fails
to comply with this part?
Subpart D--Administrative Procedures
Election of Remedies
94.400 May a whistleblower elect remedies other than an
administrative proceeding?
94.405 What actions may a covered institution take if a
whistleblower elects a remedy other than an administrative
proceeding?
Administrative Proceedings
94.410 Must a covered institution offer a whistleblower an
administrative proceeding?
94.415 What types of administrative proceedings may a covered
institution offer?
94.420 What elements must a covered institution include in its
administrative proceeding?
94.425 What information must a covered institution provide to a
whistleblower?
94.430 What happens if a whistleblower fails to timely file
supporting documentation for the administrative proceeding?
94.435 May a covered institution or whistleblower challenge the
decisionmaker's qualifications?
94.440 May the decisionmaker be replaced?
Remedies
94.445 What remedies may a decisionmaker impose?
Appeals
94.450 May a covered institution or whistleblower appeal an
adverse decision or remedy?
Subpart E--Responsibilities of the Office of Research Integrity
General Provisions
94.500 What are ORI's responsibilities?
94.505 What does ORI do when it receives a whistleblower
retaliation complaint?
Compliance Reviews
94.510 When does ORI do an institutional compliance review?
94.515 What factors does ORI consider in a compliance review?
94.520 What administrative actions may ORI take pursuant to a
compliance review?
94.525 May a covered institution appeal administrative actions
imposed by ORI or the Department?
Subpart F--Definitions
94.600 Administrative proceeding
94.605 Adverse action
94.610 Allegation
94.615 Contributing factor
94.620 Covered institution
94.625 Decisionmaker
94.630 Good faith
94.635 Institutional member or member
94.640 Investigation
94.645 Office of Research Integrity or ORI
94.650 Public Health Service or PHS
94.655 PHS funds or PHS funding
94.660 Research misconduct
94.665 Responsible official
94.670 Retaliation
94.675 Secretary
94.680 Whistleblower
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 216, 241, and 289b.
Subpart A--General
Sec. 94.100 What is the purpose of this part?
(a) This part describes the standards used by the Office of
Research Integrity (ORI) and covered institutions for preventing and
responding to retaliation against whistleblowers who in good faith--
(1) Allege that a covered institution or institutional member has
engaged in, or failed to respond adequately to, an allegation of
research misconduct.
(2) Cooperate with an investigation of the allegation in paragraph
(a)(1) of this section.
(b) These standards apply where the allegation or cooperation
regarding an investigation concerns research involving Public Health
Service (PHS) grants, contracts, or cooperative agreements, or
applications therefor.
Sec. 94.105 What is covered in this part?
This part explains--
(a) The rights and responsibilities of whistleblowers who seek
protection from or remedies for retaliation under this regulation and
who comply with the requirements of this part.
(b) Standards for covered institutions and their members for
preventing or otherwise responding to retaliation against
whistleblowers.
(c) Procedures for ORI to determine whether covered institutions
have established the required standards and that those standards are
being followed.
(d) Remedial actions that ORI may administer when a covered
institution engages in an act of retaliation or otherwise does not
comply with this regulation.
Sec. 94.110 Does this part apply to me?
(a) Portions of this part may apply to you if you are a--
(1) Covered institution;
(2) Decisionmaker of a covered institution;
(3) Institutional member of a covered institution;
(4) ORI;
(5) Responsible official of a covered institution;
(6) Subawardee or subcontractor of a covered institution; or
(7) Whistleblower.
(b) The following table shows the portions of this part that may
apply to you:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
then the portions that may
If you are a-- apply to you are--
------------------------------------------------------------------------
(1) Covered institution or subawardee or Subparts A, C, D, E, and F.
subcontractor of a covered institution.
(2) Decisionmaker......................... Subparts A, D, and F and
Secs. 94.420 and 94.435-
94.450.
(3) Institutional member.................. Subparts A, C, and F and
Secs. 94.410 and 94.445.
(4) ORI................................... Subparts A, E, and F.
(5) Responsible official.................. Subparts A, C, and F and
Secs. 94.205, 94.210,
94.225, 94.430, 94.505, and
94.520.
(6) Whistleblower......................... Subparts A, B, D, and F, and
Secs. 94.360-94.375, and
94.505.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sec. 94.115 What provisions of confidentiality apply to this part?
(a) The provisions in this part for filing whistleblower
retaliation complaints must not be construed to encourage or allow
whistleblowers or covered institutions and their members to disclose
publicly information regarding research misconduct cases other than to
the person(s) designated in this part, or as otherwise provided by law.
(b) A covered institution may take appropriate administrative
actions that are consistent with this part in response to breaches of
confidentiality.
Subpart B--Whistleblower Retaliation Complaints
Sec. 94.200 When must you file your retaliation complaint?
(a) You, as a whistleblower, must file your retaliation complaint
within 180 calendar days of the alleged adverse action or your
discovery of the alleged adverse action.
(b) The alleged adverse action must have occurred within one
calendar year after you made your allegation or cooperated with an
investigation of the allegation.
(c) However, if your retaliation complaint was pending on the
effective date of this part, ORI will consider your complaint to have
been timely filed if--
(1) You have filed it within one calendar year before the effective
date of this part;
(2) Your allegation or cooperation with an investigation of the
allegation also occurred within that year; and
[[Page 70836]]
(3) You refile your pending complaint, using the procedures in this
subpart for filing complaints, within 120 calendar days of the date on
which the covered institution provides the Sec. 94.325 written
information to its members about its whistleblower policies and
procedures.
Sec. 94.205 Where do you file a retaliation complaint?
(a) You must file your whistleblower retaliation complaint with the
responsible official at the covered institution where the alleged
adverse action occurred.
(b) If the responsible official does not acknowledge receipt of
your complaint within 10 business days of receiving it, you may file
the complaint with ORI. ORI will review the complaint and decide
whether to refer it to the covered institution.
Sec. 94.210 Must your retaliation complaint be in writing?
Yes, your whistleblower retaliation complaint must be made in
writing to the responsible official at the covered institution or to
ORI.
Sec. 94.215 What information must you provide in your retaliation
complaint?
To establish jurisdiction under this part, you must include in your
whistleblower retaliation complaint a statement containing all the
following information, including supporting dates and facts:
(a) That you made an allegation that the covered institution or one
of its members committed research misconduct or failed to respond
adequately to an allegation of research misconduct, or that you
cooperated with an investigation of such an allegation that concerns
research involving PHS grants, contracts, cooperative agreements, or
applications therefor.
(b) That the covered institution or one of its members committed an
adverse action against you within one year after you made your
allegation or cooperated with an investigation.
(c) That the adverse action resulted from your allegation or
cooperation.
(d) That you are making the complaint within 180 calendar days of
the alleged adverse action or your discovery of the adverse action.
Sec. 94.220 May you revise your retaliation complaint?
Yes, if your whistleblower retaliation complaint does not contain
all the information required by Sec. 94.215, you may revise it to
supply that information at any time before the complaint is fully
resolved, dismissed, or otherwise closed under this part.
Sec. 94.225 May you ask the covered institution to take temporary
actions to protect you?
Yes, you may ask the responsible official to take temporary actions
under Secs. 94.345 through 94.355 to protect you against an existing or
threatened adverse action by the covered institution or one of its
members at any time before your whistleblower retaliation complaint is
fully resolved, dismissed, or otherwise closed under this part.
Sec. 94.230 May you negotiate or settle your retaliation complaint?
Yes, you may negotiate or settle your whistleblower retaliation
complaint with the covered institution by using the procedures
described in Secs. 94.360 through 94.375.
Subpart C--Responsibilities of Covered Institutions
Responsibilities and Procedures
Sec. 94.300 What institutions are covered by this part?
This part applies to any institution that applies for or receives
grants, contracts, or cooperative agreements under PHS Act, as amended
(42 U.S.C. 201, et seq.) for any project or program that involves
biomedical or behavioral research, research training, or research
related activities.
Sec. 94.305 What responsibilities does a covered institution have?
(a) Covered institutions have primary responsibility for preventing
and otherwise responding to occurrences of whistleblower retaliation.
(b) A covered institution and its members must--
(1) Comply with the standards in this part for preventing or
otherwise responding to retaliation against whistleblowers if the
underlying research misconduct allegation or act of cooperation with an
investigation concerns research involving PHS grants, contracts,
cooperative agreements, or applications therefor;
(2) Not retaliate against good faith whistleblowers as defined by
this part; and
(3) Take all reasonable and necessary steps to prevent or otherwise
respond to instances of whistleblower retaliation within the
institution.
Sec. 94.310 Are subawardees and subcontractors of a covered
institution included in this part?
(a) Yes, if a covered institution carries out PHS funded research
through subawardees or subcontractors, the institution must take
reasonable steps to ensure that subawardees and subcontractors and
their members comply with this part.
(b) An institution may either require its subawardees and
subcontractors to comply with its whistleblower policies and procedures
or obtain assurances from them sufficient to allow compliance.
Sec. 94.315 Must a covered institution establish procedures for
whistleblowers?
Yes, a covered institution must establish whistleblower protection
procedures and remedies consistent with this part.
Sec. 94.320 What procedures must a covered institution establish?
A covered institution must establish written procedures for
whistleblowers that--
(a) Include specific strategies aimed at preventing whistleblower
retaliation by the covered institution or its members;
(b) Provide a mechanism for processing whistleblower complaints;
(c) Authorize appropriate administrative actions for verified cases
of retaliation; and
(d) Ensure to a reasonable extent that its institutional members do
not retaliate against whistleblowers, including whistleblowers who are
not institutional members, such as persons who are located at other
institutions or who are members of the general public.
Sec. 94.325 Who must a covered institution inform of these procedures?
(a) Each covered institution must provide written information
informing all of its members about the content of this part and the
institution's procedures to implement its requirements and must
emphasize the importance of compliance with those procedures.
(b) A covered institution must provide its procedures to ORI and
other authorized representatives of the Secretary upon request.
Sec. 94.330 What is an assurance of compliance?
(a) Effective on [INSERT DATE 180 DAYS AFTER DATE OF PUBLICATION OF
THE FINAL RULE IN THE FEDERAL REGISTER] each institution, as a
condition for receiving PHS funding, is required to provide in its
application for that funding an assurance of compliance with this part
which is satisfactory to the Secretary.
(b) The institution must assure that it--
(1) Has established written whistleblower protection procedures
consistent with this part;
(2) Will comply with and enforce these procedures; and
[[Page 70837]]
(3) Will comply with all other requirements of this part.
Sec. 94.335 Who designates the responsible official, and what are the
responsible official's duties?
(a) Each covered institution must--
(1) Appoint one person as the official responsible for overseeing
the institution's whistleblower protection procedures;
(2) Authorize and direct the responsible official to execute or
coordinate the implementation of the institution's policies and
procedures in compliance with this part; and
(3) Authorize the responsible official to oversee each
whistleblower retaliation case that arises at the institution, to
oversee the negotiation and settlement process described in
Secs. 94.360 through 94.375, including implementing and enforcing
appropriate institutional remedies as part of any agreement with the
whistleblower, and to serve as a liaison between the covered
institution and ORI.
(b) If involvement of the responsible official in a particular case
creates a real or apparent conflict of interest with the covered
institution's obligation to protect good faith whistleblowers, or with
a fair process for adjudicating the retaliation proceeding, the
institution must appoint a substitute official to oversee the case. If
the institution is unable to appoint a suitable substitute from within
the institution, it must designate a person outside the institution who
has no real or apparent conflict of interest.
Sec. 94.340 How does a covered institution process whistleblower
complaints?
(a) A covered institution must process all whistleblower
retaliation complaints that are made to the responsible official
pursuant to this part.
(b) Within 20 calendar days of receiving a whistleblower
retaliation complaint, the institution must provide the whistleblower
with copies of this part, the institution's policies and procedures
implementing this part, including its administrative procedures under
Sec. 94.415, and a written notification, which includes--
(1) The dates the institution received the retaliation complaint
and on which it believes the 30 day negotiation period of
Sec. 94.365(a) expires; and
(2) The institution's determination of whether the retaliation
complaint satisfies the jurisdictional elements required by Sec. 94.215
and, if the jurisdictional elements are not satisfied, the specific
basis for that determination.
Sec. 94.345 Must a covered institution provide temporary protections
to whistleblowers?
(a) Consistent with Sec. 94.350, a covered institution must provide
reasonable and necessary temporary protections to whistleblowers before
the final resolution of a retaliation complaint under this part if,
based on the evidence, the responsible official reasonably determines
that protection is warranted.
(b) The responsible official must notify the whistleblower in
writing of the decision on whether to provide temporary protections.
Sec. 94.350 What temporary protections may a covered institution
offer?
A covered institution must authorize the responsible official to
provide any reasonable and necessary temporary protection(s), including
but not limited to--
(a) Ensuring the confidentiality of an ongoing research misconduct
investigation or retaliation proceeding;
(b) Protecting the whistleblower's institutional status; and
(c) Taking disciplinary actions against institutional members who
fail to comply with the responsible official's orders.
Sec. 94.355 How long do temporary protections last?
When a covered institution and a whistleblower have fully resolved
the retaliation complaint, any temporary protection(s) taken to protect
the whistleblower may be discontinued or replaced with permanent
remedies.
Negotiations and Settlements
Sec. 94.360 How may a covered institution negotiate and settle a
retaliation complaint?
(a) A covered institution and a whistleblower may negotiate and
settle a retaliation complaint through any legal means not inconsistent
with this part at any time after the institution receives the
complaint.
(b) If an institution and a whistleblower agree, any alternative
dispute resolution mechanism, such as mediation, may be used to
facilitate a resolution during the negotiation period.
(c) Consistent with Sec. 94.335(a)(3), a covered institution must
authorize its responsible official to implement any remedies as part of
any agreement with a whistleblower.
(d) However, any agreement to settle the complaint must not
restrict a whistleblower's right or opportunity to make disclosures or
to otherwise cooperate with institutional officials, ORI, or other
Federal agencies with respect to the underlying research misconduct
allegation(s).
Sec. 94.365 How long may a covered institution conduct negotiations on
a retaliation complaint?
(a) Except as modified by paragraph (b) of this section, a covered
institution has 30 calendar days after the responsible official
receives a written whistleblower retaliation complaint in which to
negotiate a settlement with a whistleblower.
(b) If an institution and a whistleblower have not fully resolved
the retaliation complaint within the 30 day period of paragraph (a) of
this section, they may mutually agree in writing to extend that period
for up to an additional 60 calendar days.
(c) If an institution and a whistleblower fully resolve the
complaint during the negotiation period, ORI considers the complaint
closed for purposes of this part. The head of the institution, or
designee, and the whistleblower must sign an agreement that the
complaint has been resolved, and the institution must notify ORI of the
agreement within 30 calendar days of its execution, as required by
Sec. 94.380(d)(5).
Sec. 94.370 What must a covered institution do if it questions
jurisdiction during negotiations?
If a covered institution provided the Sec. 94.340(b)(2) notice to a
whistleblower that the retaliation complaint does not contain the
jurisdictional information required by Sec. 94.215, the whistleblower
has not adequately revised the complaint, and the institution and the
whistleblower continue to dispute whether the complaint falls within
the jurisdiction of this part, the institution may, at its discretion,
either--
(a) Continue settlement discussions during the 30 to 90 day
negotiation period allowed under Sec. 94.365 and move to dismiss the
complaint for lack of jurisdiction during any administrative proceeding
under subpart D of this part; or
(b) Immediately end the negotiation period, offer the whistleblower
an administrative proceeding under subpart D of this part, and in that
proceeding, make a preliminary motion to dismiss the complaint for lack
of jurisdiction.
Sec. 94.375 What happens if negotiations do not resolve a retaliation
complaint?
(a) If a covered institution and a whistleblower have not fully
resolved the retaliation complaint by the end of the 30 to 90 day
negotiation period, or if they mutually agree to end negotiations
without a settlement, the
[[Page 70838]]
institution must immediately offer the whistleblower an administrative
proceeding under subpart D of this part.
(b) The administrative proceeding must begin no later than 90
calendar days after the negotiations have ended unless the parties
mutually agree otherwise.
Compliance
Sec. 94.380 What information must a covered institution report to ORI
regarding retaliation complaints?
A covered institution must report and submit the following
information and items to ORI no later than 30 calendar days after each
of the following events occur:
(a) Complaint filed. A copy of the whistleblower retaliation
complaint, the date the institution received it, and the expected
expiration date of the negotiation period under Sec. 94.365.
(b) Temporary protection requested. A description of any temporary
protection either provided to or requested by the whistleblower and the
responsible official's written decision regarding the request.
(c) Proceeding held or offered. A description of the administrative
proceeding used or made available to resolve the complaint under
subpart D of this part, including an explanation of how the institution
met the procedural standards of Sec. 94.420.
(d) Final disposition of complaint. A copy or description of the
final disposition of the retaliation complaint including, where
applicable--
(1) The dismissal of the complaint for jurisdictional inadequacy;
(2) The whistleblower's failure to timely file any supporting
documentation required by the proposed administrative proceeding;
(3) The whistleblower's election of a remedy other than that made
available by the institution;
(4) The outcome of the administrative proceeding under subpart D of
this part, including any remedies imposed; and
(5) Any mutual settlement agreement of the complaint including a
statement to that effect signed by the head of the institution or
designee and the whistleblower. The terms of the settlement agreement
need not be disclosed, but the agreement must comply with Sec. 94.360.
Sec. 94.385 Must a covered institution cooperate with ORI compliance
reviews?
Yes, a covered institution and its members must cooperate with any
ORI compliance review conducted under Sec. 94.510, including requests
for information, on-site visits, inspection of relevant records, and
interview of institutional members.
Sec. 94.390 What happens if a covered institution retaliates or fails
to comply with this part?
A covered institution that engages in whistleblower retaliation or
otherwise fails to comply with any provision of this part may be
subject to any of the PHS administrative actions provided under
Sec. 94.520.
Subpart D--Administrative Proceedings
Election of Remedies
Sec. 94.400 May a whistleblower elect remedies other than an
administrative proceeding?
(a) Yes, a whistleblower may choose to resolve a retaliation
complaint either through the administrative proceeding made available
by the covered institution under this subpart or through any other
available remedy provided by law, including remedies under any
applicable Federal or State law or other institutional policy or
employment agreement.
(b) If the whistleblower elects a remedy other than settlement or
the administrative proceeding made available by the covered
institution, the whistleblower must provide the institution with
written notice of that election.
(c) If the whistleblower does not make an election of remedies
under paragraph (b) of this section before the final disposition of the
retaliation complaint, whether by settlement, dismissal, or final
decision, ORI will consider that the institution has fully satisfied
the requirements of this part.
Sec. 94.405 What actions may a covered institution take if a
whistleblower elects a remedy other than an administrative proceeding?
ORI will not require a covered institution to complete any
administrative proceeding or otherwise pursue a final resolution of the
complaint if a whistleblower elects a remedy for the retaliation
complaint other than the administrative proceeding made available under
this part.
Administrative Proceedings
Sec. 94.410 Must a covered institution offer a whistleblower an
administrative proceeding?
Yes, for each case of possible whistleblower retaliation to which
this part applies and which is not settled, a covered institution must
make available and comply with an administrative proceeding that meets
the standards in this part for resolving retaliation complaints.
Sec. 94.415 What types of administrative proceedings may a covered
institution offer?
A covered institution may resolve a whistleblower retaliation
complaint by any of the following types of administrative proceedings,
if the proceeding satisfies all of the elements of Sec. 94.420:
(a) An independent and binding arbitration.
(b) An institutional fact-finding.
(c) An academic or institutional employment hearing.
(d) A state statutory whistleblower proceeding.
(e) Any other administrative proceeding that addresses and resolves
the retaliation complaint.
Sec. 94.420 What elements must a covered institution include in its
administrative proceeding?
A covered institution must have written procedures for
administrative proceedings to resolve whistleblower retaliation
complaints. These procedures must include all of the following
elements:
(a) A procedure for appointing a qualified and objective
decisionmaker.
(b) The opportunity for the whistleblower and the institution to be
represented by counsel. The institution may, but is not required by
this part to, provide counsel for the whistleblower.
(c) An equal opportunity for the institution and the whistleblower
to present evidence in support of their respective positions or in
response to contrary evidence, including having an attorney present and
cross-examining witnesses.
(d) A presumption that the whistleblower's research misconduct
allegation or cooperation with an investigation of the allegation was
made in good faith. If the institution rebuts that presumption in a
timely manner by submitting prima facie evidence of a lack of good
faith, the whistleblower then has the burden to prove good faith by a
preponderance of the evidence.
(e) A final written decision made according to the following
standards of proof:
(1) Subject to paragraph (e)(2) of this section, the decisionmaker
must order a binding institutional remedy according to Sec. 94.445 if
the whistleblower proves by a preponderance of the evidence that the
whistleblower's research misconduct allegation or cooperation with an
investigation of the allegation was a contributing factor in an adverse
[[Page 70839]]
action taken by the institution or one of its members.
(2) Even if the whistleblower meets the burden of proof required by
paragraph (e)(1) of this section, the decisionmaker must not order an
institutional remedy if the institution proves by clear and convincing
evidence that the institution or one of its members would have taken
the action at issue in the absence of the whistleblower's research
misconduct allegation or cooperation with an investigation of the
allegation.
Sec. 94.425 What information must a covered institution provide to a
whistleblower?
At the time a covered institution proposes an administrative
proceeding, it must provide the whistleblower with a copy of the
procedures for the proceeding, and it must fully inform the
whistleblower of the requirements, rights, procedures, and possible
consequences associated with that proceeding.
Sec. 94.430 What happens if a whistleblower fails to timely file
supporting documentation for the administrative proceeding?
(a) A whistleblower must timely file any supporting documentation
required by the proposed administrative proceeding, or the
decisionmaker may dismiss the retaliation complaint for purposes of
this part. The applicable filing period will be 60 calendar days from
the day the covered institution proposed the proceeding if the
institution has not specified a filing date or if the specified date is
less than 10 calendar days.
(b) However, the whistleblower's failure to timely file will not be
grounds for dismissal of the retaliation complaint if either--
(1) The institution failed to inform the whistleblower of the
proposed administrative proceeding and its procedures, requirements,
rights, and possible consequences in a full and timely manner; or
(2) If the decisionmaker determines there is good cause for the
whistleblower's failure to timely file.
Sec. 94.435 May a covered institution or whistleblower challenge the
decisionmaker's qualifications?
(a) Either the whistleblower or the covered institution may
challenge the qualifications or objectivity of the administrative
proceeding's decisionmaker.
(b) Any challenge must be made within 30 calendar days of the
notice of the appointment of the decisionmaker.
(c) If either party challenges the decisionmaker's qualifications
or objectivity, the challenge must be made part of the record, and may
be subject to any ORI compliance review under Sec. 94.510.
Sec. 94.440 May the decisionmaker be replaced?
The covered institution may replace the decisionmaker for good
cause before final resolution of the retaliation complaint. Good cause
includes--
(a) The decisionmaker dies or becomes incapacitated;
(b) The decisionmaker is determined to have a conflict of interest
under Sec. 94.435;
(c) The parties mutually agree to a replacement; or
(d) The administrative proceedings' procedures otherwise allow
replacement.
Remedies
Sec. 94.445 What remedies may a decisionmaker impose?
(a) If the decisionmaker in an administrative proceeding determines
that the covered institution or one of its members retaliated against
the whistleblower, the decisionmaker must order one or more remedies
based on the findings. The decisionmaker has broad discretion in
determining whether all or any of the following remedies are
appropriate and warranted:
(1) Reinstate the terms and conditions of the whistleblower's
status at the institution that existed before the retaliatory action,
including but not limited to employment (including tenure eligibility
and promotion potential), academic matriculation, awarding of degree,
or relationship established by grant, contract, or cooperative
agreement.
(2) Offer a position within the institution that is comparable
financially, vocationally, and otherwise to the position the
whistleblower held before the retaliatory action.
(3) Compensate the whistleblower for any financial or other loss
incurred between the retaliatory action and the provision of a remedy
or remedies under this part.
(4) Restore the whistleblower's reputation, to the greatest extent
feasible, within the institution and the broader scientific community.
If the whistleblower agrees, this may include an official retraction of
negative references or the publication of an exoneration.
(5) Protect the whistleblower against further potential
retaliation. This may include monitoring the retaliator for a period of
time.
(6) Compensate the whistleblower for part or all expenses, if any,
incurred pursuant to the administrative proceeding.
(7) Take any other action allowed under law that reasonably
restores the whistleblower's status and reputation.
(b) The institution must implement in a timely manner the remedy(s)
ordered by the decisionmaker unless the order is revoked or otherwise
modified by an appeal under Sec. 94.450.
Appeals
Sec. 94.450 May a covered institution or whistleblower appeal an
adverse decision or remedy?
Either the covered institution or the whistleblower may appeal an
adverse finding or remedy by the decisionmaker only if the
administrative proceeding allows an appeal or an appeal is provided by
state or other applicable law.
Subpart E--Responsibilities of the Office of Research Integrity
General Provisions
Sec. 94.500 What are ORI's responsibilities?
(a) ORI is responsible for monitoring covered institutions to
determine whether they have established administrative procedures and
are following them in accordance with this part and the institution's
certification of compliance under Sec. 94.330.
(b) ORI may take the remedial administrative actions, specified in
Sec. 94.520, against covered institutions that retaliate against good
faith whistleblowers or that otherwise do not comply with the standards
and procedures of this part.
Sec. 94.505 What does ORI do when it receives a whistleblower
retaliation complaint?
Consistent with Sec. 94.205, if a whistleblower brings a
retaliation complaint directly to ORI, ORI reviews the complaint to
determine if, on its face, it meets the requirements of this part. If
so, ORI will instruct the whistleblower to send the complaint to the
covered institution's responsible official or notify the responsible
official directly.
Compliance Reviews
Sec. 94.510 When does ORI do an institutional compliance review?
(a) ORI may review a covered institution's compliance with the
provisions of this part at any time. ORI's decision to begin a
compliance review may be based on the institution's written
whistleblower procedures, its certification of compliance, its
submissions to ORI regarding whistleblower retaliation complaints, or
[[Page 70840]]
any other information ORI considers relevant to the institution's
compliance with this part.
(b) ORI's review may include, but is not limited to, requests for
information, on-site visits, inspection of relevant records, and
interviews with institutional members.
Sec. 94.515 What factors does ORI consider in a compliance review?
(a) If a covered institution complies with each provision of this
part, ORI will consider the institution to be in compliance with the
institution's certification of compliance and this part.
(b) ORI may consider a covered institution's failure to comply with
the provisions of this part to be a material failure to comply with the
institution's certification of compliance and with the terms and
conditions of any PHS funding provided under an application in which
that certification is made.
Sec. 94.520 What administrative actions may ORI take pursuant to a
compliance review?
If ORI determines that a covered institution has engaged in
whistleblower retaliation or has failed to comply with any provision of
this part, ORI may impose, or recommend to the appropriate authorized
Department official, imposition of one or more of the following
administrative actions:
(a) A corrective action plan including, where applicable, oversight
of the institution's responsible official and its whistleblower
protection procedures.
(b) Probationary status under which the noncompliant institution
could be subject to cumulative administrative actions if future
incidents of institutional noncompliance occur including loss of PHS
funding.
(c) Special conditions imposed upon any future PHS awards of
grants, contracts, or cooperative agreements to the institution.
(d) Recovery of PHS funds misspent in connection with a retaliatory
action or other institutional noncompliance with this part.
(e) Termination of PHS current or future funding to the institution
or any part thereof.
(f) Public notice of the determination.
(g) Any other action that ORI finds reasonable and appropriate to
correct the noncompliance.
Sec. 94.525 May a covered institution appeal administrative actions
imposed by ORI or the Department?
A covered institution may appeal any administrative actions imposed
by ORI or the Department under Sec. 94.520 only if an appeal is
specifically allowed by an existing Departmental regulation. The
institution must appeal under the terms of the applicable regulation.
Subpart F--Definitions
Sec. 94.600 Administrative proceeding.
Administrative proceeding means the procedure that a covered
institution employs or offers to employ to resolve a whistleblower
retaliation complaint in compliance with the provisions of this part.
Sec. 94.605 Adverse action.
Adverse action means any action taken or threatened by a covered
institution or its member(s) that negatively affects the terms or
conditions of the whistleblower's status at the institution, including
but not limited to employment, promotion, academic matriculation,
awarding of a degree, financial aid, or relationship established by
grant, contract, or cooperative agreement.
Sec. 94.610 Allegation.
Allegation means any disclosure, whether by written or oral
statement, or other communication, to an institutional or Departmental
official, that a covered institution or one of its members has engaged
in, or failed to respond adequately to an allegation of, research
misconduct as defined by this part and that involves the use of PHS
funds or the application for PHS funds.
Sec. 94.615 Contributing factor.
Contributing factor means any whistleblower activity protected
under this part that alone or in combination with other factors results
in an adverse action against the whistleblower.
Sec. 94.620 Covered institution.
Covered institution means any entity, whether individual or
corporate, that applies for or receives grants, contracts, or
cooperative agreements under the PHS Act, as amended (42 U.S.C. 201, et
seq.), for any program that involves the conduct of biomedical or
behavioral research, research training or research related activity.
Covered institutions do not include Federal agencies.
Sec. 94.625 Decisionmaker.
Decisionmaker means the person(s) designated by the covered
institution, according to the rules of the administrative proceeding
made available under this part, to preside over the proceeding, to make
preliminary decisions of jurisdictional adequacy, to make a final
determination of whether retaliation against the whistleblower occurred
based on the evidence presented, and to order appropriate remedies
consistent with this part.
Sec. 94.630 Good faith.
(a) Good faith means having a belief in the truth of one's
allegation or testimony that a reasonable person in the whistleblower's
position could have based upon the information known to the
whistleblower at the time the allegation was made.
(b) An allegation or cooperation with an investigation is not in
good faith if made with knowing or reckless disregard of information
that would negate the allegation or testimony.
Sec. 94.635 Institutional member or member.
(a) Institutional member or member means a person who is employed
by, is affiliated with under a contract or agreement, or is under the
control of a covered institution.
(b) Institutional members include, but are not limited to, teaching
and support staff, researchers, clinicians, technicians, fellows,
students, volunteers, and contractors, subcontractors, and subawardees
and their employees.
Sec. 94.640 Investigation.
Investigation, solely for the purpose of this part, means--
(a) An initial assessment by ORI, the Department, or a covered
institution.
(b) An inquiry or investigation by the Department or a covered
institution.
(c) Any institutional appeal of an allegation of research
misconduct involving PHS funds or applications therefor, including
preparation for and conduct of any research misconduct hearing.
(d) A review, recommendation, or decision regarding an assessment,
inquiry, or investigation by ORI or the Department.
(e) An appeal to the Departmental Appeals Board.
(f) An investigation of an alleged inadequate response to an
allegation of research misconduct.
Sec. 94.645 Office of Research Integrity or ORI.
Office of Research Integrity or ORI means the office to which the
Secretary has delegated responsibility for addressing research
misconduct issues related to PHS activities, including the protection
of whistleblowers.
Sec. 94.650 Public Health Service or PHS.
Public Health Service or PHS means the unit within the Department
of Health and Human Services that includes the Office of Public Health
and Science and the following Operating Divisions: Agency for
Healthcare Research and Quality, Agency for Toxic Substances and
Disease Registry,
[[Page 70841]]
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Food and Drug
Administration, Health Resources and Services Administration, Indian
Health Service, National Institutes of Health, the Substance Abuse and
Mental Health Services Administration, and the offices of the Regional
Health Administrator.
Sec. 94.655 PHS funds or PHS funding.
PHS funds or PHS funding means Public Health Service grants,
contracts, or cooperative agreements.
Sec. 94.660 Research misconduct.
Research misconduct means fabrication, falsification, plagiarism,
or other practices that seriously deviate from those that are commonly
accepted within the scientific community for proposing, conducting, or
reporting research. It does not include honest error or honest
differences in interpretations or judgments of data.
Sec. 94.665 Responsible official.
Responsible official means the official designated by a covered
institution to establish and implement the institution's whistleblower
protection procedures as required by this part.
Sec. 94.670 Retaliation.
Retaliation for the purpose of this part means an adverse action
taken against a whistleblower by a covered institution or one of its
members in response to--
(a) A good faith allegation that the covered institution or one of
its members has engaged in, or failed to respond adequately to an
allegation of, research misconduct; or
(b) A good faith cooperation with an investigation of an allegation
in paragraph (a) of this section.
Sec. 94.675 Secretary.
Secretary means the Secretary of the Department of Health and Human
Services or any other officer or employee of the Department of Health
and Human Services to whom the Secretary has delegated authority.
Sec. 94.680 Whistleblower.
Whistleblower means an institutional member who in good faith--
(a) Makes an allegation that the covered institution or one of its
members has engaged in, or failed to respond adequately to an
allegation of, research misconduct; or
(b) Cooperates with an investigation of an allegation in paragraph
(a) of this section.
[FR Doc. 00-29988 Filed 11-27-00; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4160-17-U