25670 Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 100 / Wednesday, May 22, 1996 / Notices

513–569–7566. Copies of the Integrated

Report will be available on or about May

30, 1996. Please provide your name and

mailing address, and request the

document by the title and EPA number

(EPA/600/P–93/001aF). Also, a limited

number of the 1993 individual reports

on the separate city studies are still

available. The EPA document numbers

for the separate three city reports are:

Boston (EPA/600/AP–93/001b)

Baltimore (EPA/600/AP–93/001c) and

Cincinnati (EPA/600/AP–93/001d).

There will be a limited number of paper

copies of the Integrated Report available

from the above source. Requests will be

filed on a first-come-first-served basis.

After the supply is exhausted, copies of

the Integrated Report and any of the

individual final reports on the separate

city studies can be purchased separately

or as a set, from the National Technical

Information Service (NTIS) by calling

(703) 487–4650 or sending a facsimile to

(703) 321–8547. The NTIS order

numbers are: Urban Soil Lead

Abatement Demonstration Project.

Volume 1: Integrated Report (PB96–

168356), Urban Soil Lead Abatement

Demonstration Project. Volume 2:

Boston Report (PB96–168364), Urban

Soil Lead Abatement Demonstration

Project. Volume 3: Baltimore Report

(PB96–168372), and Urban Soil Lead

Abatement Demonstration Project.

Volume 4: Cincinnati Report (PB96–

168380). The NTIS ordered number for

the four volume set is PB96–168349.

An official copy, on diskette only, of

the underlying data sets used in the EPA

Integrated Report and a copy of the

accompanying documentation, can be

obtained by contacting: Dr. Robert W.

Elias, National Center for Environmental

Assessment (MD–52), U.S.

Environmental Protection Agency,

Research Triangle Park, NC 27711;

telephone: (929) 541–4167; facsimile:

(919) 541–5078. e-mail:

elias.robert@epamail.epa.gov

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Dr. Robert W. Elias, National Center for

Environmental Assessment (MD–52),

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,

Research Triangle Park, NC 27711;

telephone: (919) 541–4167; facsimile:

(919) 541–5078. e-mail:

elias.robert.@epamail.epa.gov: or Larry

J. Zaragoza, Office of Solid Waste and

Emergency Response (5204G), U.S.

Environmental Protection Agency, 401

M Street, SW., Washington, DC 20460;

telephone; (703) 603–8867, facsimile:

(703) 603–9100, e-mail:

zaragoza.larry@epamail.epa.gov

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Urban

Soil Lead Abatement Demonstration

Project, generally known as the ThreeCity Lead Study, was authorized in 1986

under Section 111(b)(6) of the

Superfund Amendments and

Reauthorization Act [42 U.S.C.

§ 9611(a)(6)] and was initiated in

December 1986 in cooperation with

states, state health departments, and

local scientists. The purpose was to

determine whether abatement of lead in

soil could reduce the lead in blood of

inner city children. The three selected

cities, chosen in late 1987, were Boston,

Baltimore, and Cincinnati. The

individual results for each of the three

cities were initially presented at an

EPA-sponsored symposium in August

1992 and published as final reports in

August 1993.

While not part of the original project

plan, EPA believed that all interested

parties would benefit from an integrated

assessment of data from the three

coordinated studies. Thus, as an adjunct

to the original project, this Integrated

Report was developed. It includes

further statistical analysis and integrates

and standardizes, as appropriate, the

results of the individual three cities

studies into a single report.

The final EPA Integrated Report on

the Three-City Lead Study basically

confirms the findings of the individual

city reports. The Integrated Report

concludes that:

(1) When soil is a significant source

of lead in the child’s environment, the

abatement of that soil will result in a

reduction in exposure that will, under

certain conditions, cause a reduction in

childhood blood lead concentrations.

(2) Although these conditions for a

reduction in blood are not fully

understood, it is likely that four factors

are important: (1) The past history of

exposure of the child to lead, as

reflected in the preabatement blood

lead; (2) the magnitude of the reduction

in soil lead concentrations; (3) the

magnitude of the other sources of lead

exposure, relative to soil; and (4) a

direct exposure pathway between soil

and the child.

Dated: May 16, 1996.

Joseph K. Alexander,

Deputy Assistant Administrator for Research

and Development.

[FR Doc. 96–12865 Filed 5–21–96; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560–50–M

EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY

COMMISSION

Agency Information Collection

Activities: Submission for OMB

Review; Comment Request

AGENCY: Equal Employment

Opportunity Commission.

ACTION: Notice.

SUMMARY: In accordance with the

Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, the

Commission announces that on May 15,

1996 it submitted the existing collection

of information listed below to the Office

of Management and Budget for

approval. No public comments were

received in response to the

Commission’s March 15, 1996 initial

notice of the proposed collection.

DATES: Written comments on this notice

must be submitted on or before June 21,

1996.

ADDRESSES: Comments should be

submitted to Desk Officer for Equal

Employment Opportunity Commission,

Office of Management and Budget, New

Executive Office Building, 725

Seventeenth Street, N.W., Room 10235,

Washington, D.C. 20503, (202) 395–

7316, Facsimile (202) 395–6974.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Margaret, Ulmer Holmes, Office of

Management, Room 2204, 1801 L Street

N.W., Washington, D.C. 20507, (202)

663–4279 (voice) or (202) 663–7114

(TDD).

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Collection Title: Recordkeeping

Requirements of Uniform Guidelines on

Employee Selection Procedures, 29

C.F.R. Part 1607.

Form Number: None.

Frequency of Report: None required.

Type of Respondent: Business, nonfor-profit institutions, federal, state, or

local governments, and farms.

Standard Industrial Classification

(SIC) Code: Multiple.

Description of Affected Public: Any

employer, labor, organization, or

employment agency covered by the

federal equal employment opportunity

laws.

Responses: 666,000.

Reporting Hours: 1,450,000.

Number of Forms: None.

Abstract: The records required to be

maintained by 29 C.F.R. 1607.4 and

1607.15 are used by respondents to

assure that they are complying with

Title VII; by the Commission in

investigating, conciliating, the litigating

charges of employment discrimination;

and by complainants in establishing

violations of federal equal employment

opportunity laws.

Burden Statement: There are no

reporting requirements associated with

UGESP. Thus the only paperwork

burden derives from the required

recordkeeping. There are a total of

666.000 employers who have 15 or more

employees and that are, therefore,

subject to the recordkeeping

requirement. Prior to the imposition of
Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 100 / Wednesday, May 22, 1996 / Notices 25671

the UGESP recordkeeping requirement,

the Commission proposed to conduct a

practical utility survey to obtain

estimates of burden hours. The intended

survey was not approved by OMB,

however, and the Commission relied

instead on data obtained from the

Business Roundtable study on ‘‘Cost of

Government Regulation’’ conducted by

the Arthur Anderson Company.

In its initial estimate of recordkeeping

burden the Commission relied on data

from that study to derive the estimate of

1.91 million hours. In a subsequent

submission to OMB for clearance of the

UGESP collection, the Commission

made an adjustment to reflect the

increase in the incidence of

computerized recordkeeping that had

resulted in a reduction of total burden

hours of approximately 300,000, and

had brought the total burden down to

1.6 million hours.

In the calculation of the initial burden

of UGESP compliance, the estimated

number of employees covered by the

guidelines was 71.1 million. Average

cost per employee was taken to be

$1.79. Since most of this cost, however,

was for employers’ administrative

functions and represented the time

spent in reviewing their selection

processes for ‘adverse impact’ and in

reviewing and validating their testing

procedures, the actual recordkeeping

function was estimated to be in the

range of 10 to 15 percent of the total peremployee costs, or between $.179 and

$.2685 per employee. The Commission

used these per-employee costs, even

though it believed that they were an

over-estimate. In the initial estimate the

Commission used the higher end of the

range.

The Commission now believes that a

better estimate is the midpoint of the

range or $.22 per employee. The number

of employees also has grown by 15

million since the initial estimate, so that

there now are 86 million subject to

UGESP. In addition, from the private

employer survey the Commission has

been conducting for the past 30 years

(the EEO–1), it is aware that 29.7

percent of the private employers file

their employment reports on magnetic

tapes, on diskettes, or on computer

printouts. Thus, at a minimum, that

proportion of employers has

computerized recordkeeping. From the

same survey the Commission also has

learned that when records are

computerized, the burden hours for

reporting, and thus for recordkeeping,

are about one-fifth of the burden hours

associated with non-computerized

records. Therefore, the Commission’s

current estimate of recordkeeping

burden hours is as follows:

Computerized recordkeepers—(.29) × 86

mil × ($.044)=$1,097,360

All other recordkeepers—(.71) × 86

mil × ($.22)=$13,433,200

Total recordkeeping cost = $14,530,560

Total Burden Hours are then computed

by dividing the total cost of

recordkeeping by $10, the hourly rate of

staff recordkeepers. The total new

estimate of burden hours associated

with the UGESP recordkeeping then is

1.45 million hours. Assumptions made

in deriving the estimate are as follows:

Cost per employee for manual records is

$.22*

Cost per employee for computerized

records is $.044*

Hourly rate of pay for recordkeeping

staff is $10,00**

* Both of these are derived from a

private employer study.

** To the extent that this is an underestimate, the reporting burden is overestimated.

Dated: May 16, 1996.

For the Commission.

Maria Borrero,

Executive Director.

[FR Doc. 96–12767 Filed 5–21–96; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6750–01–M

FEDERAL RESERVE SYSTEM

Change in Bank Control Notices;

Formations of, Acquisitions by, and

Mergers of Bank Holding Companies;

Correction

This notice corrects a notice (FR Doc.

96-9394) published on pages 16791 and

16792 of the issue for Wednesday, April

17, 1996.

Under the Federal Reserve Bank of

New York heading, the entry for HSBC

Holdings plc, London, England, and

HSBC Holdngs BV, Amsterdam, The

Netherlands, is revised to read as

follows:

1. HSBC Holdings plc, London,

England; and HSBC Holdings BV,

Amsterdam, The Netherlands; to engage

de novo through its subsidiary, HSBC

Futures, Inc., New York, New York, in

executing and clearing, executing

without clearing, clearing without

executing, and providing other related

services, including incidental advisory

services, with respect to futures and

options on futures on certain nonfinancial commodities. Also, to execute

without clearing, and clear without

executing, futures on certain financial

products. The proposed activities would

be provided to institutional investors

and employees trading for their own

accounts throughout the world. (See,

J.P. Morgan & Co. Incorporated, 80 Fed.

Res. Bull. 151 (1994); and Northern

Trust Corporation, 79 Fed. Res. Bull.

723 (1993)).

Comments on this application must

be received by May 31, 1996.

Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve

System, May 16, 1996.

Jennifer J. Johnson,

Deputy Secretary of the Board.

[FR Doc. 96-12794 Filed 5-21-96; 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,

including whether the acquisition of the

nonbanking company 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’’

(12 U.S.C. 1843). Any request for

a hearing 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.

Unless otherwise noted, nonbanking