Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 235 / Wednesday, December 6, 2000 / Notices 76259

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION

AGENCY

[OPP–50877; FRL–6758–8]

Issuance of Experimental Use Permits

AGENCY: Environmental Protection

Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Notice.

SUMMARY: EPA has granted an

experimental use permit (EUP) to the

following pesticide applicant. An EUP

permits use of a pesticide for

experimental or research purposes only

in accordance with the limitations in

the permit.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: By

mail: Biopesticides and Pollution

Prevention Division (7511C), Office of

Pesticide Programs, Environmental

Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania

Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460.

In person or by telephone: Contact the

designated person at the following

address at the office location, telephone

number, or e-mail address cited in the

experimental use permit: 1921 Jefferson

Davis Hwy., Arlington, VA.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. General Information

A. Does this Action Apply to Me?

This action is directed to the public

in general. Although this action may be

of particular interest to those persons

who conduct or sponsor research on

pesticides, the Agency has not

attempted to describe all the specific

entities that may be affected by this

action. If you have any questions

regarding the information in this action,

consult the designated contact person

listed for the EUP.

B. How Can I Get Additional

Information, Including Copies of this

Document and Other Related

Documents?

You may obtain electronic copies of

this document from the EPA Internet

Home Page at http://www.epa.gov/. On

the Home Page select ‘‘Laws and

Regulations,’’ ‘‘Regulations and

Proposed Rules,’’ and then look up the

entry for this document under the

‘‘Federal Register—Environmental

Documents.’’ You can also go directly to

the Federal Register listings at http://

www.epa.gov/fedrgstr/.

II. EUPs

EPA has issued the following EUP:

064500–EUP–1. Issuance. U.S.

Department of Agriculture, Agricultural

Research Service, Pacific West Area

(PWA), Department of Plant Pathology,

University of California, One Shield

Ave., Davis, CA 95616. This

experimental use permit allows the use

of 25 gallons of the biochemical

pesticide sucrose octanoate esters on 50

acres of grapevines to evaluate the

control of glassy-winged sharpshooter

during post harvest. The program is

authorized only in the State of

California. The experimental use permit

is effective from September 15, 2000 to

December 15, 2000. This is a non-crop

destruct EUP. (S. Diana Hudson; Rm.

910, Crystal Mall #2; telephone number:

(703) 308–8713; e-mail address:

hudson.diana@epa.gov).

Persons wishing to review the EUP

are referred to the designated contact

person. Inquiries concerning the permit

should be directed to the person cited

above. It is suggested that interested

persons call before visiting the EPA

office, so that the appropriate file may

be made available for inspection

purposes from 8 a.m. to 4 p.m., Monday

through Friday, excluding legal

holidays.

Authority: 7 U.S.C. 136.

List of Subjects

Environmental protection,

Experimental use permits.

Dated: November 29, 2000.

Janet L. Andersen,

Director, Biopesticides and Pollution

Prevention Division, Office of Pesticide

Programs.

[FR Doc. 00–31059 Filed 12–5–00; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560–50–S

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION

AGENCY

[FRL–6912–3]

ILCO Superfund Site; Notice of

Proposed Settlement

AGENCY: Environmental Protection

Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Notice of proposed settlement.

SUMMARY: The United States

Environmental Protection Agency is

proposing to enter into two settlement

agreements with a total of 45 deminimis parties for response costs

pursuant to section 122(g) of the

Comprehensive Environmental

Response, Compensation, and Liability

Act (CERCLA) regarding the Interstate

Lead Company (ILCO) Superfund Site

located in Leeds, Alabama. EPA will

consider public comments on the

proposed settlements for thirty (30)

days. EPA may withdraw from or

modify the proposed settlements should

such comments disclose facts or

considerations which indicate the

proposed settlement is inappropriate,

improper or inadequate. Copies of the

proposed settlements are available from:

Ms. Paula V. Batchelor, U.S. EPA,

Region 4 (WMD–PSB), Sam Nunn

Atlanta Federal Center, 61 Forsyth

Street SW., Atlanta, Georgia 30303,

(404) 562–8887.

Written comments may be submitted

to Ms. Batchelor on or before January 5,

2001.

Dated: November 20, 2000.

Anita Davis,

Acting Chief, CERCLA Program Services

Branch, Waste Management Division.

[FR Doc. 00–31052 Filed 12–5–00; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560–50–U

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION

AGENCY

[FRL–6912–1]

Proposed Settlement Under Section

122(h) of the Comprehensive

Environmental Response,

Compensation and Liability Act, as

Amended, 42 U.S.C. 9622(h), Tokeland

Cow Dip Pit CERCLA Site, Pacific

County, Washington

AGENCY: Environmental Protection

Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Notice of proposed settlement

and request for public comment.

SUMMARY: In accordance with section

122(i) of the Comprehensive

Environmental Response, Compensation

and Liability Act, as amended by the

Superfund Amendment and

Reauthorization Act (‘‘CERCLA’’), notice

is hereby given of a proposed settlement

to resolve a claim against Estate of

Virginia M. Nelson. The proposed

settlement concerns the federal

government’s past response costs at the

Tokeland Cow Dip Pit CERCLA Site,

Pacific County, Washington. The

settlement requires the settling party,

the Estate of Virginia M. Nelson, to pay

$57,111.55 to the Hazardous Substance

Superfund. For thirty (30) days

following the date of publication of this

notice, the Agency will receive written

comments relating to the settlement.

The Agency’s response to any comments

received will be available for public

inspection at the U.S. Environmental

Protection Agency, Region 10, office at

1200 Sixth Avenue, Seattle, Washington

98101. A copy of the proposed

settlement may be obtained from Mary

Shillcutt, Regional Hearing Clerk, EPA,

Region 10, 1200 Sixth Avenue, Seattle,

Washington 98101, telephone number

(206) 553–2429. Comments should

76260 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 235 / Wednesday, December 6, 2000 / Notices

reference the ‘‘Tokeland Cow Dip Pit

CERCLA Site’’ and EPA Docket No.

CERCLA–10–97–0043 and should be

addressed to Ms. Shillcutt at the above

address.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Jennifer Byrne, Assistant Regional

Counsel, EPA Region 10, Office of

Regional Counsel, 1200 Sixth Avenue,

Seattle, Washington 98101, telephone

number (206) 553–0050.

Dated: November 21, 2000.

Charles E. Findley,

Acting Regional Administrator, Region 10.

[FR Doc. 00–30909 Filed 12–5–00; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560–50–U

OFFICE OF SCIENCE AND

TECHNOLOGY POLICY

Executive Office of the President;

Federal Policy on Research

Misconduct; Preamble for Research

Misconduct Policy

AGENCY: Office of Science and

Technology Policy.

ACTION: Notification of Final Policy.

SUMMARY: The Office of Science and

Technology Policy (OSTP) published a

request for public comment on a

proposed Federal research misconduct

policy in the October 14, 1999 Federal

Register (pp. 55722–55725). OSTP

received 237 sets of comments before

the public comment period closed on

December 13, 1999. After consideration

of the public comments, the policy was

revised and has now been finalized.

This notice provides background

information about the development of

the policy, explains how the policy has

been modified, and discusses plans for

its implementation.

EFFECTIVE DATE: December 6, 2000.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Holly Gwin, Office of Science and

Technology Policy, Executive Office of

the President, Washington, DC 20502.

Tel: 202–456–6140; Fax: 202–456–6021;

e-mail: hgwin@ostp.eop.gov.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Advances

in science, engineering, and all fields of

research depend on the reliability of the

research record, as do the benefits

associated with them in areas such as

health and national security. Sustained

public trust in the research enterprise

also requires confidence in the research

record and in the processes involved in

its ongoing development. For these

reasons, and in the interest of achieving

greater uniformity in Federal policies in

this area, the National Science and

Technology Council (NSTC) initiated

discussions in April 1996 on the

development of a research misconduct

policy. The Office of Science and

Technology Policy (OSTP) provided

leadership and coordination. The NSTC

approved the proposed draft policy in

May 1999, clearing the way for the

October 14, 1999 Federal Register

notice. Public comments in response to

that notice have been reviewed. The

purpose of this notice is to provide

information about the policy as it has

now been finalized.

This policy applies to federallyfunded research and proposals

submitted to Federal agencies for

research funding. It thus applies to

research conducted by the Federal

agencies, conducted or managed for the

Federal government by contractors, or

supported by the Federal government

and performed at research institutions,

including universities and industry.

The policy establishes the scope of

the Federal government’s interest in the

accuracy and reliability of the research

record and the processes involved in its

development. It consists of a definition

of research misconduct and basic

guidelines for the response of Federal

agencies and research institutions to

allegations of research misconduct.

The Federal agencies that conduct or

support research will implement this

policy within one year of the date of

publication of this notice. An NSTC

interagency research misconduct policy

implementation group has been

established to help achieve uniformity

across the Federal agencies in

implementation of the research

misconduct policy. In some cases, this

may require agencies to amend or

replace extant regulations addressing

research misconduct. In other cases,

agencies may need to put new

regulations in place or implement the

policy through administrative

mechanisms.

The policy addresses research

misconduct. It does not supersede

government or institutional policies or

procedures for addressing other forms of

misconduct, such as the unethical

treatment of human research subjects or

mistreatment of laboratory animals used

in research, nor does it supersede

criminal or other civil law. Agencies

and institutions may address these other

issues as authorized by law and as

appropriate to their missions and

objectives.

Summary of Comments

The Office of Science and Technology

Policy received 237 comments on the

proposed Federal Research Misconduct

Policy. Letters were signed by

individuals, and by representatives of

universities, university associations,

Federal agencies, and private entities.

Comments are available for review.

Comments that resulted in a

modification of the policy are

summarized below. A section that

addresses other questions raised by the

comments follows the summary of

modifications.

Uniform Federal Policy

Issue: Many comments recommended

various mechanisms to ensure uniform

implementation of this policy.

Response: An NSTC research

misconduct policy implementation

group has been formed to foster

uniformity among the agencies in their

implementation of the policy.

Section I: Research Misconduct Defined

Issue: A number of comments

suggested that the definition of

fabrication be modified to read as

follows: ‘‘Fabrication is making up data

or results and recording or reporting

them.’’ (Italicized words are suggested

addition.) This change is to clarify that

the raw data collected or generated in

the research process can be fabricated

just as can the results of the research.

Response: This change was accepted.

Issue: A number of commenters

interpreted the definition of plagiarism

to imply that using material gathered

during the peer review process was

acceptable as long as it is cited.

Response: The policy is intended to

address the problem of reviewers who

take material from the peer review

process and use it without attribution.

This constitutes plagiarism. We have

deleted the phrase ‘‘including those

obtained through confidential review of

others’ research proposals and

manuscripts’’ to avoid any appearance

of condoning a breach of confidentiality

in the peer review process.

Issue: Despite general support for the

rationale for the phrase ‘‘does not

include honest error or honest

differences of opinion,’’ several

comments requested various

clarifications.

Response: This phrase is intended to

clarify that simple errors or mere

differences of judgment or opinion do

not constitute research misconduct. The

phrase does not create a separate

element of proof. Institutions and

agencies are not required to disprove

possible ‘‘honest error or differences of

opinion.’’ The phrase has been retained,

with the deletion of the second

‘‘honest’’ of the phrase as redundant.

Issue: A number of comments raised

questions about what fields of research

are included in the definition of

research. For example, some readers

were unsure about the applicability of