Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 61 / Thursday, March 30, 1995 / Notices 16477

bank holding company by acquiring at

least 80 percent of the voting shares of

Bank of Mountain View, Mountain

View, Arkansas.

Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve

System, March 24, 1995.

Jennifer J. Johnson,

Deputy Secretary of the Board.

[FR Doc. 95–7797 Filed 3–29–95; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6210–01–F

Helena Bancshares, Inc.; Notice of

Application to Engage de novo in

Permissible Nonbanking Activities

The company listed in this notice has

filed an application under § 225.23(a)(1)

of the Board’s Regulation Y (12 CFR

225.23(a)(1)) for the Board’s approval

under section 4(c)(8) of the Bank

Holding Company Act (12 U.S.C.

1843(c)(8)) and § 225.21(a) of Regulation

Y (12 CFR 225.21(a)) to commence or to

engage de novo, either directly or

through a subsidiary, in a nonbanking

activity that is listed in § 225.25 of

Regulation Y as closely related to

banking and permissible for bank

holding companies. Unless otherwise

noted, such activities will be conducted

throughout the United States.

The application is 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

question whether consummation of the

proposal can ‘‘reasonably be expected to

produce benefits to the public, such as

greater convenience, increased

competition, or gains in efficiency, that

outweigh possible adverse effects, such

as undue concentration of resources,

decreased or unfair competition,

conflicts of interests, or unsound

banking practices.’’ Any request for a

hearing on this question must be

accompanied by a statement of the

reasons a written presentation would

not suffice in lieu of a hearing,

identifying specifically any questions of

fact that are in dispute, summarizing the

evidence that would be presented at a

hearing, and indicating how the party

commenting would be aggrieved by

approval of the proposal.

Comments regarding the application

must be received at the Reserve Bank

indicated or the offices of the Board of

Governors not later than April 13, 1995.

A. Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis

(Randall C. Sumner, Vice President) 411

Locust Street, St. Louis, Missouri 63166:

1. Helena Bancshares, Inc., Helena,

Arkansas; to engage de novo through its

subsidiary Helena National Leasing

Company, Inc., Memphis, Tennessee, in

leasing tangible personal property,

consisting primarily of business

machines, pursuant to § 225.25(b)(15) of

the Board’s Regulation Y.

Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve

System, March 24, 1995.

Jennifer J. Johnson,

Deputy Secretary of the Board.

[FR Doc. 95–7798 Filed 3–29–95; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6210–01–F

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND

HUMAN SERVICES

Office of the Secretary

Notice of a Regional Public Hearings of

the Commission on Research Integrity

Pursuant to Pub. L. 92–463, notice is

hereby given of two regional public

hearings and meetings of the

Commission on Research Integrity. All

proceedings are open to the public.

The first meeting will be on Monday

and Tuesday, April 10 and 11, 1995, at

the Countway Library Auditorium,

Harvard Medical Center, 25 Shattuck

Street, Boston, MA. The Commission

will meet from 8:30 a.m. until 5:00 p.m.

on the first day to listen to testimony,

and from 9:00 a.m. until 5:00 p.m. on

the second day to deliberate

Commission issues.

The second meeting will be on

Thursday and Friday, May 4 and 5,

1995, at the University of Alabama, the

Great Hall and Alumni Auditorium

respectively, Hill University Center,

1400 University Boulevard,

Birmingham, AL. The Commission will

meet from 8:30 a.m. until 5:00 p.m. on

the first day to deliberate Commission

issues, and from 9:00 a.m. until 4:45

p.m. on the second day to listen to

testimony.

Interested parties are advised to call

the Executive Secretary shortly before

the meeting to verify the date, place,

and agenda.

The mandate of the Commission is to

develop recommendations for the

Secretary of Health and Human Services

(DHHS) and the Congress on the

administration of Section 493 of the

Public Health Service Act, as amended

by and added to by Section 161 of the

NIH Revitalization Act of 1993.

In its deliberations, the Commission

has confirmed that there are no quick

and easy answers for fair, effective, and

realistic administrative solutions to a

number of issues in research integrity

and scientific misconduct. An essential

component of the Commission’s

information-gathering is to interact

extensively with relevant constituencies

of the scientific community—including

junior and senior scientists, witnesses,

respondents, academic administrators,

as well as students—to understand their

particular experiences and views and to

explore possible improvements.

Four major areas are currently of great

interest to the Commission:

1. A New Definition of Research

Misconduct. The Commission believes

that any definition needs to address the

full extent of serious research

misconduct, but must avoid a definition

that is too broad, vague, and potentially

unfair. In addition, a two-tiered

approach for research integrity, or

failures thereof, would be useful; it

would emphasize institutional

responsibility, and reserve an oversight

role for the Federal Government.

2. Assurance for Institutions and

Accountability for Federally Funded

Research. The Commission is

considering that each institution

receiving Federal funds develop and

submit for Federal review and approval

assurances concerning the

establishment and implementation of:

(a) Good research practices and

professional norms; (b) procedures for

disseminating that information

throughout its community; and (c)

educational activities designed to foster

practice of the highest ethical standards

in the conduct of research for all

researchers. Topics affecting good

research practices that might be

addressed in institutional assurances

include: data recording and retention;

supervisory responsibility; authorship

practices; protection of witnesses; and

other professional conduct bearing

directly on the integrity of Federally

supported research.

3. Bill of Rights for Witnesses.

Testimony from witnesses (also called

‘‘whistleblowers’’) who have challenged

perceived research misconduct reaffirms

the Commission’s mandate to propose

effective whistleblower protection.

Witnesses have stated that retaliation

occurs with sufficient frequency and

impact to have a chilling effect on

potential witnesses throughout the

research community. The Commission

is considering a Witness Bill of Rights.

4. Codes of Ethics. Professional

organizations have a unique role in the

preservation of scientific integrity. The

Commission endorses their existence,

their continual use in teaching and

standard checking, and their ongoing

development to keep pace with the

ethical issues of the times. The

Commission is considering that, to

reinforce and augment the influence of

normative professional standards,

professional organizations should
16478 Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 61 / Thursday, March 30, 1995 / Notices

become more active in defining,

promulgating, and promoting

compliance with these standards.

The Commission will also continue

discussion of other issues on which the

Commission may make

recommendations in its final report.

The Commission invites oral or

written statements from interested

parties. Lengthy statements exceeding

10 or 15 minutes of oral presentation

should be submitted in writing or via

internet to the Executive Secretary

before the meeting. Written statements

will be reviewed by Commission

Members.

Henrietta D. Hyatt-Knorr, Executive

Secretary, Commission on Research

Integrity, at Rockwall II, Suite 700, 5515

Security Lane, Rockville MD 20852;

(301) 443–5300 (phone); (301) 443–5351

(fax); and hhyatt@oasch.ssw.dhhs.gov

(internet) will furnish a preliminary

report of the Commission including the

Committee charter and roster of the

Committee members, and/or a meeting

agenda upon request. Individuals

wishing to make presentations should

contact the Executive Secretary.

Depending on the number of

presentations and other considerations,

the Executive Secretary will allocate a

reasonable timeframe for each speaker.

Henrietta D. Hyatt-Knorr,

Executive Secretary, Commission on Research

Integrity.

[FR Doc. 95–7782 Filed 3–29–95; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4160–17–P

Agency for Toxic Substances and

Disease Registry

[ATSDR–91]

Notice of Proposed Revised

Publication Schedule for the Priority

List of Hazardous Substances that will

be the Subject of Toxicological Profiles

AGENCY: Agency for Toxic Substances

and Disease Registry (ATSDR), Public

Health Service (PHS), Department of

Health and Human Services (HHS).

ACTION: Notice.

SUMMARY: This notice announces a

proposed change in the publication

schedule for the ‘‘Priority List of

Hazardous Substances that will be the

Subject of Toxicological Profiles.’’

According to the proposal, the list

would be shifted to a 2-year publication

schedule with a yearly informal review

and revision. Therefore, the next

scheduled publication would be in late

1995 when the 1995 Priority List of

Hazardous Substances is made publicly

available from ATSDR. At that time, a

Federal Register notice would be

published announcing the availability of

the list.

DATES: Comments concerning this

notice must be received by May 1, 1995.

ADDRESSES: Comments on this notice

should bear the docket control number

ATSDR–91 and should be sent to the

attention of Dr. Jim Holler, Emergency

Response and Scientific Assessment

Branch, Division of Toxicology, Agency

for Toxic Substances and Disease

Registry, 1600 Clifton Road, NE.,

Mailstop E–29, Atlanta, Georgia 30333.

Comments on this notice will be

available for public inspection at the

Agency for Toxic Substances and

Disease Registry, Building 4, Executive

Park Drive, Atlanta, Georgia (not a

mailing address), from 8 a.m. until 4:30

p.m., Monday through Friday, except for

legal holidays. Because all public

comments are available for public

inspection, no confidential business

information should be submitted in

response to this notice.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: The

Emergency Response and Scientific

Assessment Branch, Division of

Toxicology, Agency for Toxic

Substances and Disease Registry, 1600

Clifton Road, NE., Mailstop E–29,

Atlanta, Georgia 30333, telephone (404)

639–6308.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The

Comprehensive Environmental

Response, Compensation, and Liability

Act of 1980 (CERCLA or Superfund), as

amended by the Superfund

Amendments and Reauthorization Act

of 1986 (SARA), establishes certain

requirements for ATSDR and the

Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)

with regard to hazardous substances

most commonly found at facilities on

the CERCLA National Priorities List

(NPL). Specifically, section 104(i)(2) of

CERCLA, as amended by SARA (42

U.S.C. 9604(i)(2)), requires that the

agencies maintain a list, in order of

priority, of the hazardous substances

found at NPL sites posing the most

significant potential threat to human

health. This listing is called the

‘‘Priority List of Hazardous Substances

that will be the Subject of Toxicological

Profiles.’’ Each substance on the Priority

List is a candidate to become the subject

of a toxicological profile prepared by

ATSDR and the subsequent

identification of priority data needs for

that substance.

The history of the Priority List is as

follows: The first 100 substances were

published in 1987 (52 FR 12866); an

additional 100 in 1988 (53 FR 41280);

25 more in 1989 (54 FR 43619); 25 more

in 1990 (55 FR 42067); and a revision

of the priority-list algorithm, including

publication of the final target of 275

substances, was published in 1991 (56

FR 52166). The list of 275 has been

reviewed annually, in 1992 (57 FR

48801) and 1993 (59 FR 9486), as called

for by the legislation.

The 1991 revision of the algorithm

represented a significant advance in the

prioritization methodology. This listing

now uses information from ATSDR’s

Hazardous Substance Release/Health

Effects Database (HazDat), an active

database of contaminants at NPL sites,

as found in ATSDR’s public health

assessments. While the algorithm’s use

of current data keeps its conclusions

contemporary, experience has shown

that with this new approach, the

Priority List has not changed

substantially from year to year,

particularly for high-priority substances.

ATSDR believes that this stability

reflects that the listing activity has fully

developed. However, the amount of staff

time needed to generate and publish the

Priority List each year is not

insignificant; substantial resources are

still required for quality assurance and

preparation and dissemination of

results. ATSDR would like to shift some

of these resources to implement

promising new ideas to enhance the

algorithm and data.

For these reasons, ATSDR and EPA

would like to shift the Priority List

activity to a 2-year publication schedule

with a yearly informal review and

revision. The informal review and

revision would result in an interim list

that would not be published or

announced in the Federal Register, but

would be made available on request.

The agencies believe that the Priority

List activity is mature enough that little

is lost by reducing the frequency of

publication and much is gained for

other activities. This schedule will

allow staffers to concentrate on

enhancing the quality of the algorithm

and its underlying data. It should also

allow enough time for (1) the underlying

data to change sufficiently so results

will be more notably affected, and (2)

adequate analysis, feedback, and insight

to have occurred in order to enact more

valuable revisions with each release.

The publicly announced list would be

used to develop toxicological profiles.

Placement on the priority list is one

factor used to determine if a substance

is to be considered for profile

development in a given year. However,

the interim list may also be reviewed to

identify candidate substances that could

be targeted for profile development.

ATSDR and EPA would retain the

option to re-publish the Priority List in

less than 2 years, if important new