Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 42 / Tuesday, March 4, 1997 / Notices 9767

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Released:

February 27, 1997. The FCC, in a Public

Notice released February 21, 1997, and

published in the Federal Register on

February 26, 1997 (See 62 FR 8741),

announced the March 11, 1997 meeting

of the North American Numbering

Council (NANC) and the agenda for this

meeting. The Public Notice stated that

the NANC meeting would commence at

9:30 A.M EST. The NANC has changed

the meeting time to 8:30 A.M. EST. The

meeting place, the Federal

Communications Commission, 1919 M

Street, NW, Room 856, Washington, DC,

remains the same.

Federal Communications Commission.

Geraldine A. Matise,

Chief, Network Services Division, Common

Carrier Bureau.

[FR Doc. 97–5348 Filed 3–3–97; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6712–01–P

FEDERAL FINANCIAL INSTITUTIONS

EXAMINATION COUNCIL

Interagency Policy Statement

Regarding Uniform Guideline on

Internal Control for Foreign Exchange

in Commercial Banks

AGENCIES: Office of the Comptroller of

the Currency (OCC), Department of the

Treasury; Board of Governors of the

Federal Reserve System (FRB); and

Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation

(FDIC).

ACTION: Withdrawal of guideline.

SUMMARY: The OCC, FRB, and FDIC

(‘‘the Agencies’’) are withdrawing their

joint guideline entitled: ‘‘Interagency

Policy Statement Regarding Uniform

Guideline on Internal Control for

Foreign Exchange in Commercial

Banks,’’ dated May 22, 1980 (45 FR

42370, June 24, 1980) (‘‘the Guideline’’)

because it is considered outdated and

has been superseded by other

pronouncements from each of the

agencies.

EFFECTIVE DATE: The removal of the

Guideline is effective March 4, 1997.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

FRB: Michael Martinson, Assistant

Director, (202)/452–3640), or Joe

Sciortino, Supervisory Financial

Analyst, (202/452–2294), Board of

Governors of the Federal Reserve

System, 20th and C Streets, N.W.,

Washington, D.C. 20551. FDIC: Christie Sciacca, Assistant

Director, (202/898–3638), Federal

Deposit Insurance Corporation, 550

17th St., N.W., Washington, D.C.

20429.

OCC: Leon Tarrant, Manager, (202/874–

4730), Office of the Comptroller of the

Currency, 250 E Street, S.W.,

Washington D.C. 20219.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The policy

set forth in the Guideline was developed

to provide uniformity among the

Agencies in establishing minimum

standards for documentation,

accounting, and auditing for foreign

exchange operations in U.S. commercial

banks. The Guideline was not intended

to be all encompassing as to policies

and procedures expected to be found in

the most active market participants.

Rather, it called for each bank to

develop a system of internal control

commensurate with the risks to which

it is exposed.

The Guideline has become outdated

in view of numerous changes that have

subsequently taken place, including: the

scope and depth of foreign exchange

trading activities in banks, new product

developments, significant

improvements in automated trading

systems, and the management of the

business along product lines. These

conditions prompted each agency to

issue subsequent pronouncements and

updated examination and/or policy

procedures for U.S. banks as well as for

foreign banks doing business in the

United States.

The Agencies’ Action

The Agencies hereby withdraw the

Guideline.

Dated: February 27, 1997.

Joe M. Cleaver,

Executive Secretary, Federal Financial

Institutions Examination Council.

[FR Doc. 97–5286 Filed 3–3–97; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6210–01–P

FEDERAL HOUSING FINANCE BOARD

[97–N–1]

Monthly Survey of Rates and Terms on

Conventional 1-Family Nonfarm

Mortgage Loans

AGENCY: Federal Housing Finance

Board.

ACTION: Request for comments.

SUMMARY: The Federal Housing Finance

Board (Finance Board) is seeking

comments on several aspects of its

Monthly Survey of Rates and Terms on

Conventional 1-Family Nonfarm

Mortgage Loans. The Finance Board

seeks comments on whether it should

continue to publish mortgage

information by lender type. If not, then

the Finance Board seeks comments on

whether the sampling and weighting

design for this survey should draw

lenders without regard to lender type. If

so, the Finance Board seeks suggestions

for alternative sampling and weighting

methodologies. The Finance Board also

seeks comments on the designation of

successor adjustable-rate mortgage

indexes if it decides to stop publishing

data by lender type.

DATES: Comments must be received by

April 18, 1997.

ADDRESSES: Mail comments to Elaine L.

Baker, Executive Secretary, Federal

Housing Finance Board, 1777 F Street,

N.W., Washington, D.C. 20006.

Comments will be available for

inspection at this address.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Joseph A. McKenzie (202) 408–2845,

Associate Director, Office of Policy,

Federal Housing Finance Board, 1777 F

Street, N.W., Washington, D.C. 20006.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

A. Background

The Finance Board is responsible for

conducting the Monthly Survey of Rates

and Terms on Conventional 1-Family

Nonfarm Mortgage Loans. This survey,

usually called the ‘‘Monthly Interest

Rate Survey’’ or ‘‘MIRS,’’ asks a sample

of approximately 350 mortgage lenders

to report the terms and conditions on all

conventional mortgage loans for the

purchase of single-family, nonfarm

homes that they close during the last

five working days of the month. The

sample of lenders includes savings

associations, mortgage companies,

commercial banks, and savings banks

that have volunteered to participate in

the survey. MIRS provides national and

regional data on mortgage interest rates,

mortgage terms, and house prices. The

Finance Board’s regulations describe

MIRS more thoroughly. See 12 CFR

902.3.

From 1963 to September 1989, the

former Federal Home Loan Bank Board

conducted MIRS. Law requires the

Finance Board to conduct this survey.

The statutory mandate to conduct MIRS

appears in identical provisions in the

Federal National Mortgage Association

(Fannie Mae) Charter Act, 12 U.S.C.

1717(b)(2), and the Federal Home Loan

Mortgage Corporation (Freddie Mac)

Act, 12 U.S.C. 1454(a)(2). These

provisions allow the two agencies

annually to adjust the maximum size of

mortgage loans that they can purchase

or guarantee by the October-overOctober percentage price change in

house prices as reported in MIRS.

More recently, the 1994 Department

of Housing and Urban Development

(HUD) appropriation act tied the highcost area limits for Federal Housing

Administration (FHA)-insured

mortgages to the purchase-price

limitations of Fannie Mae and Freddie
9768 Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 42 / Tuesday, March 4, 1997 / Notices

Mac, thus linking the FHA limits

indirectly to MIRS. See Department of

Veterans Affairs and Housing and Urban

Development, and Independent

Agencies Appropriations Act, Pub. L.

No. 103–327, 108 Stat. 2298 (1994). In

addition, the Internal Revenue Service

uses the data from MIRS to set the safeharbor purchase-price limits for

mortgages purchased with the proceeds

of mortgage revenue bond issues. See 26

CFR 6a.103A–2(f)(5).

Beyond its use for indexing the

conforming loan limit, MIRS provides

information for general statistical

purposes and program evaluation.

Economic policy makers use the data to

determine interest rates, down

payments, terms to maturity, terms on

adjustable-rate mortgages (ARMs),

initial fees and charges on mortgage

loans, and other trends in mortgage

markets. Information from MIRS

regularly appears in the popular and

trade press.

On or about the 26th of each month

the Finance Board publishes a MIRS

press release with mortgage rate and

term information by property type (all,

newly built, and previously occupied;

Table I), by loan type (adjustable-rate

and fixed-rate; Table II), and by lender

type (savings association, mortgage

company, commercial bank, savings

bank; Table III), and a table providing

data on 15- and 30-year conforming

fixed-rate loans (Table V). In addition, it

publishes quarterly tables with rate and

term information for metropolitan areas

(Table IV) and for Federal Home Loan

Bank districts (Table VI).

An ARM index derived from MIRS—

the National Average Contract Mortgage

Rate for the Purchase of Previously

Occupied Homes—was the only ARM

index that Federally chartered savings

institutions could use for a period in the

early 1980’s. A very small proportion of

existing ARMs may use another interestrate series from MIRS as an index.

B. Sampling and Weighting the Data

The Finance Board samples all

savings associations, mortgage

companies, commercial bank, and

savings banks for MIRS because it

publishes monthly aggregate data by

lender type. In addition, the Finance

Board samples lenders representing all

regions because it publishes quarterly

data for 32 selected large metropolitan

areas, quarterly data for the 12 Federal

Home Loan Bank districts, and annual

data for all 50 states and for 60

metropolitan statistical areas (MSAs).

MIRS presents a ‘‘clustered sampling’’

problem. The item of interest is

individual loans, but the Finance Board

must sample lenders to get the

individual loan data. The loans must

come from all regions and must

represent all lender types. Several

recent developments have improved the

geographical dispersion of MIRS loans.

First, some large national mortgage

companies participate in MIRS. This

means that one lender may report loans

from 20 or more states. Second, the

continuing trend toward the

consolidation of depository institutions

has resulted in large institutions that

originate loans in many states.

As with most survey data, the

tabulated MIRS data reflects the

weighting of the individual responses.

The current weighting draws depository

institutions with equal probabilities of

selection from ‘‘lender-type geo strata’’

(for example, commercial banks in

Nebraska, savings associations from the

Cincinnati MSA, or savings banks from

the Boston CMSA.) Since the sample of

loans reported in a given month may

differ from true lending experience (for

example, over -or under-represent

certain regions), the MIRS data is

weighted to comport with information

on lending patterns derived from

independent sources:

(1) The data is adjusted so that the

distribution of loans by lender type

matches the lender-type distribution in

the latest release of HUD’s Survey of

Mortgage Lending Activity, and

(2) The data is adjusted so that the

distribution of loans by Federal Home

Loan Bank district matches the state

pattern of mortgage originations

annually reported by HUD.

The weighting process builds up the

national data from four separate

subsamples based on lender type, where

the shares of loans by lender type come

from the HUD data. On balance, this

weighting process significantly

increases the importance of loans

reported by commercial banks and

reduces the importance of loans

reported by savings associations because

commercial bank loans are underrepresented in the sample. Regional

adjustment of the data does not have a

significant effect on the results because

the geographic pattern of responses

approximates aggregate lending

patterns.

C. Sampling by Lender Type

The Finance Board publishes data by

lender type principally because the

former Federal Home Loan Bank Board

published the data that way when it

conducted MIRS. Accordingly, the

Finance Board draws four separate

subsamples corresponding to savings

associations, mortgage companies,

commercial banks and, savings banks.

As the financial services sector evolves,

the distinctions between commercial

banks and thrifts continue to erode. If

the institutional distinctions between

commercial bank and thrift are blurred,

then published data by lender type may

no longer be useful or meaningful.

While the overall samples of savings

associations, savings banks, and

mortgage companies are adequate, the

Finance Board has had persistent

trouble in recruiting commercial banks

for the sample. Over the past several

years, the Finance Board has contacted

more than 2,000 commercial banks, all

with at least 10 percent of their assets

in residential mortgage loans, and asked

them to participate in MIRS. Most of the

banks contacted never responded to the

solicitation. Many banks that did

respond said that either they make no

mortgages or that a subsidiary mortgage

company originates all the loans that

they hold. Many banks that responded

positively never submitted any loan

data.

Despite the Finance Board’s

recruitment efforts, only 118

commercial banks reported a total of

5,437 loans in 1996. This represents

only 4 percent of the total number of

loans reported in 1996. However, HUD’s

Survey of Mortgage Lending Activity

reports that commercial banks originate

about one-quarter of all single-family

mortgage loans. As a result, the MIRS

weighting process weighs up each

commercial bank loan by a factor of

about six.

While the MIRS sample has few large

commercial banks, the overall sample

contains many loans originated by the

mortgage banking subsidiaries of large

commercial banks that have large

mortgage investments.

The Finance Board specifically

requests comments on the following:

—Should it continue to report MIRS

data by lender type?

—Should it continue to sample MIRS

lenders by lender type?

—Do institutional changes render the

data by lender type meaningless?

—Are there alternative ways to increase

commercial bank participation in the

sample?

D. Home Mortgage Disclosure Act Data

The HUD data on mortgage

originations by lender type is crucial to

the MIRS weighting process. However,

some observers believe the HUD data

may overstate the commercial bank

share of mortgage originations. Very few

large commercial banks originate

mortgage loans. Most of the large

commercial banks with significant

portfolio concentrations of residential

mortgages have purchased these loans

from subsidiary mortgage companies
Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 42 / Tuesday, March 4, 1997 / Notices 9769

that have significant origination

volumes.

Home Mortgage Disclosure Act

(HMDA) data may provide an

alternative data source for the lender

type shares for MIRS. HMDA requires

lenders to submit information on singlefamily mortgage applications. The data

includes a disposition code, so it is

possible to use HMDA information on

loans closed. The scope of the HMDA

data includes information on all

nonmetropolitan mortgage originations

but from the smallest lenders. The more

important of these omissions is loans in

nonmetropolitan areas. Approximately

one-fifth of the nation’s population lives

outside metropolitan areas. Secondly,

very small lenders are not subject to

HMDA reporting. The Finance Board

specifically requests comments on

whether it could or should use the

HMDA data as the basis for developing

the lender-type adjustment in the MIRS

weighting process. The Finance Board

also requests comments on whether

another data source is available that it

could use in developing shares of

aggregate lending by lender type.

Beyond the use of the HMDA data to

develop the lender-type adjustment, the

Finance Board requests comments on

whether it could develop a sizestratified weighting scheme based on

individual lender origination volumes

reported in the HMDA data. A HMDAbased weighting scheme would group

lenders by origination volume and

sample lenders, without regard to

charter type, with decreasing frequency

(and increasing weight) as origination

volume declines. The implicit

assumption is that loans originated by

one type of lender (for example,

commercial banks) are no different from

loans originated by another type of

lender.

The Finance Board requests

comments on whether it should change

its MIRS weighting methodology.

Should it adopt a size-stratified

weighting methodology using HMDA

data? If so, how should it surmount the

omission in the HMDA data of

nonmetropolitan lending data and loans

from small lenders? (The MIRS data

now contains loans from

nonmetropolitan lenders as well as

loans made by metropolitan lenders in

nonmetropolitan areas.) Is there another

weighting methodology that is more

appropriate than either the current

methodology or the one suggested that

uses the HMDA data?

E. Data Edit Limits

Most statistical surveys incorporate

certain validity checks that the data

must pass. MIRS contains validity

checks or edits on allowable interestrate ranges, loan sizes, purchase prices,

loan fee amounts, and consistency of

ZIP code with state of the property. The

Finance Board established the current

maximum allowable value of $500,000

for loan size and $750,000 for property

price in November 1991. These edits

would reject loans where the

responding lender omitted a decimal

point from dollar values, which would

have the effect of reporting a loan

amount or purchase price 100 times

larger than the actual amount. The edits

also exclude certain typographical

errors, especially when the purchase

price contains an extra zero. For

example, a reported $50,000 loan on a

$900,000 property is more likely to be

a $50,000 loan on a $90,000 property.

The current edits would reject this

transaction.

While the edits screen out incorrect

transactions, they also may exclude

some valid transactions. Since the

Finance Board established the current

price and loan-size limits in November

1991, housing prices have increased

modestly. The Finance Board seeks

comments on an appropriate

methodology to adjust the house size

and loan amount edit limits to allow for

housing price appreciation. The Finance

Board does not plan to change the lower

loan size and property price limit of

$10,000.

While it is not possible precisely to

quantify the effect that the changes in

the edit limits will have on the reported

average house prices, the Finance Board

believes the effect will be small because

the proportion of loans between the old

and any higher new edit limits is likely

to be small. MIRS now has few

transactions in bands just below the

current edit limits. In 1996, only 0.7

percent of MIRS loans had balances

between $400,000 and $500,000, and

only 1.2 percent of MIRS loans financed

homes with prices between $500,000

and $750,000. Transactions in these

bands are skewed toward the lower end

of the bands. Therefore, the Finance

Board expects that only a small fraction

of 1 percent of the survey’s loans will

fall between the old and any higher new

edit limits.

F. Adjustable-Rate Mortgage Index

A very small number of ARMs may

use as an index a MIRS interest rate

series by lender type. This information

appears on Table III of the regular

monthly MIRS release. If the Finance

Board were to adopt a changed MIRS

sampling methodology that no longer

separately sampled lenders by lender

type, then it probably would stop the

publication of Table III in the monthly

MIRS release.

Section 402(e)(4) of the Financial

Institutions Reform, Recovery and

Enforcement Act of 1989 ‘‘FIRREA,’’

Public Law No. 101–73, 103 Stat. 183

(August 9, 1989), requires the

Chairperson of the Finance Board to

designate a ‘‘substantially similar’’

successor index if the Finance Board no

longer makes available any index from

MIRS. If the Finance Board were to stop

Table III, then it proposes to designate

that the National Average Contract

Mortgage Rate for the Purchase of All

Homes by Combined Lenders be the

successor index for any ARM index that

uses a contract rate from Table III. It also

proposes to designate the National

Average Effective Mortgage Rate for the

Purchase of All Homes by Combined

Lenders be the successor index for any

ARM index that uses an effective rate

from Table III. The Finance Board

publishes both of the proposed

successor index rates in the top panel of

Table I in the monthly MIRS release,

and the current value of both interest

rates is available on a recording

maintained by the Finance Board.

The Finance Board is proposing these

successor index rates because the loans

reported in Table III by lender type

include loans on both newly built and

previously occupied homes. The

proposed successor index rates also

include loans on both newly built and

previously occupied homes. The only

difference is that the data in Table I

combines loans from all types of lenders

whereas Table III reports mortgage data

by type of lender.

The Finance Board seeks comments

on these proposed successor index rates.

G. Effective Date and Transition

Provisions

The Finance Board would adopt any

changes to the MIRS sampling and

weighting methodology effective at the

beginning of 1998. Before implementing

any changes, the Finance Board would

consult with the technical staff of other

Federal agencies and instrumentalities

to obtain their views and suggestions

about the MIRS sampling and weighting

methodology.

The Finance Board also would make

available special tabulations so that

Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac would

have data calculated on the same basis

for their determination of the

conforming loan limit for 1999. This

calculation would occur in November

1998.

By the Federal Housing Finance Board.
9770 Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 42 / Tuesday, March 4, 1997 / Notices

Dated: February 26, 1997.

Rita I. Fair,

Managing Director.

[FR Doc. 97–5266 Filed 3–3–97; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6725–01–P

FEDERAL RESERVE SYSTEM

Change in Bank Control Notices;

Acquisitions of Shares of Banks or

Bank Holding Companies

The notificants listed below have

applied under the Change in Bank

Control Act (12 U.S.C. 1817(j)) and §

225.41 of the Board’s Regulation Y (12

CFR 225.41) to acquire a bank or bank

holding company. The factors that are

considered in acting on the notices are

set forth in paragraph 7 of the Act (12

U.S.C. 1817(j)(7)).

The notices are available for

immediate inspection at the Federal

Reserve Bank indicated. Once the

notices have been accepted for

processing, they will also be available

for inspection at the offices of the Board

of Governors. Interested persons may

express their views in writing to the

Reserve Bank indicated for that notice

or to the offices of the Board of

Governors. Comments must be received

not later than March 18, 1997.

A. Federal Reserve Bank of

Richmond (Lloyd W. Bostian, Jr., Senior

Vice President) 701 East Byrd Street,

Richmond, Virginia 23261-4528:

1. Louis Ray Jones, Virginia Beach,

Virginia; to acquire an additional 14.94

percent, for a total of 24.90 percent, of

the voting shares of Resource Bank,

Virginia Beach, Virginia.

B. Federal Reserve Bank of

Minneapolis (Karen L. Grandstrand,

Vice President) 250 Marquette Avenue,

Minneapolis, Minnesota 55480-2171:

1. Carl W. Jones, Minnetonka,

Minnesota, Christopher W. Jones, Long

Lake, Minnesota, Janet N. Jones,

Excelsior, Minnesota; each to acquire

33.33 percent of the voting shares of

Harbourside, LP, Wayzata, Minnesota,

and thereby indirectly acquire Anchor

Bancorp, Inc., Wayzata, Minnesota;

Anchor Bank, N.A., Wayzata,

Minnesota; Anchor Bank, West St. Paul,

N.A., West St. Paul, Minnesota; The

Bank of Saint Paul, St. Paul, Minnesota;

Heritage National Bank, North St. Paul,

Minnesota; and The First National Bank

of Farmington, Farmington, Minnesota.

Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve

System, February 26, 1997.

Jennifer J. Johnson,

Deputy Secretary of the Board.

[FR Doc. 97–5232 Filed 3–3–97; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6210-01-F

Formations of, Acquisitions by, and

Mergers of Bank Holding Companies

The companies listed in this notice

have applied to the Board for approval,

pursuant to the Bank Holding Company

Act of 1956 (12 U.S.C. 1841 et seq.)

(BHC Act), Regulation Y (12 CFR Part

225), and all other applicable statutes

and regulations to become a bank

holding company and/or to acquire the

assets or the ownership of, control of, or

the power to vote shares of a bank or

bank holding company and all of the

banks and nonbanking companies

owned by the bank holding company,

including the companies listed below.

The applications listed below, as well

as other related filings required by the

Board, are available for immediate

inspection at the Federal Reserve Bank

indicated. Once the application has

been accepted for processing, it will also

be available for inspection at the offices

of the Board of Governors. Interested

persons may express their views in

writing on the standards enumerated in

the BHC Act (12 U.S.C. 1842(c)). If the

proposal also involves the acquisition of

a nonbanking company, the review also

includes whether the acquisition of the

nonbanking company complies with the

standards in section 4 of the BHC Act.

Unless otherwise noted, nonbanking

activities will be conducted throughout

the United States.

Unless otherwise noted, comments

regarding each of these applications

must be received at the Reserve Bank

indicated or the offices of the Board of

Governors not later than March 28,

1997.

A. Federal Reserve Bank of Kansas

City (John E. Yorke, Senior Vice

President) 925 Grand Avenue, Kansas

City, Missouri 64198-0001:

1. Armstrong Financial Co., Minden,

Nebraska; to become a bank holding

company by acquiring 80.99 percent of

the voting shares of Minden Exchange

Co., Minden, Nebraska, and thereby

indirectly acquire Minden Exchange

Bank & Trust Co., Minden, Nebraska.

2. Commerce Bancshares, Inc., Kansas

City, Missouri, and CBI Kansas, Inc.,

Kansas City, Missouri; to acquire 100

percent of the voting shares of, and

thereby merge with Shawnee Bank

Shares, Inc., Shawnee, Kansas, and

thereby indirectly acquire Shawnee

State Bank, Shawnee, Kansas.

Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve

System, February 26, 1997.

Jennifer J. Johnson,

Deputy Secretary of the Board.

[FR Doc. 97–5231 Filed 3-3-97; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6210-01-F

Sunshine Act Meeting

AGENCY HOLDING THE MEETING: Board of

Governors of the Federal Reserve

System

TIME AND DATE: 11:00 a.m., Monday,

March 10, 1997.

PLACE: Marriner S. Eccles Federal

Reserve Board Building, C Street

entrance between 20th and 21st Streets,

N.W., Washington, D.C. 20551.

STATUS: Closed.

MATTERS TO BE CONSIDERED:

1. Personnel actions (appointments,

promotions, assignments,

reassignments, and salary actions)

involving individual Federal Reserve

System employees.

2. Any items carried forward from a

previously announced meeting.

CONTACT PERSON FOR MORE INFORMATION:

Mr. Joseph R. Coyne, Assistant to the

Board; (202) 452–3204. You may call

(202) 452–3207, beginning at

approximately 5 p.m. two business days

before this meeting, for a recorded

announcement of bank and bank

holding company applications

scheduled for the meeting.

Dated: February 28, 1997.

Jennifer J. Johnson,

Deputy Secretary of the Board.

[FR Doc. 97–5464 Filed 2–28–97; 3:50 pm]

BILLING CODE 6210–01–P

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND

HUMAN SERVICES

Notice of a Meeting of the National

Bioethics Advisory Commission

(NBAC)

SUMMARY: Pursuant to Section 10(d) of

the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as

amended (5 U.S.C. Appendix 2), notice

is given of a meeting of the National

Bioethics Advisory Commission. The

Commission members will address the

bioethical issues arising from the

research on human biology and

behavior, and in the applications of that

research including clinical. They will

also begin a review of the legal and

ethical issues associated with the recent

report of a technique of cloning sheep.

The public is invited to speak on any of

these issues and opportunities for

statements will be provided.

DATES: Thursday, March 13, 1997, 8:00

a.m. to 4:30 p.m., and Friday, March 14,

1997, 8:00 a.m. to 4:30 p.m.

LOCATION: The Commission will meet at

the Watergate Hotel, Continental

Chesapeake Extender Room, 2650

Virginia Avenue, NW., Washington, DC.