Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 106 / Friday, May 31, 1996 / Notices 27351

(5) Non-residential land uses need to

be considered. EPA received from many

stakeholders that SSLs should be

developed for other land uses such as

industrial or recreational. EPA agrees in

principle that other land uses need to be

considered. However, as a first step in

the development of screening levels

EPA chose to focus on residential use

because there is more agreement in the

risk assessment community about the

types of relevant pathways and

assumptions appropriate for modeling

residential exposures. Several of the

Superfund reforms announced in

October 1995 address non-residential

land uses and should provide

information which could be used to

expand the soil screening guidance to

other land uses.

Goals

EPA’s goal in developing this

guidance is to provide a tool which can

be used to expedite the evaluation of

contaminated soils at sites addressed

under CERCLA. The guidance is

intended to be used to screen out areas

of sites, exposure pathways, or

chemicals of concern from further

consideration or to determine that

further study is warranted at a site. It

may be used where assumptions made

in developing the tool (e.g., residential

land use, no ecological concerns) are

consistent with conditions found at

specific sites.

This guidance is not intended to be,

and should not be construed as a rule.

Use of the guidance is not legally

binding either on EPA staff or on other

parties; rather it is intended to be a tool

available for use under appropriate sitespecific conditions. NPL sites do not all

meet the conditions necessary for its

use, consequently, EPA does not expect

this tool to be useful at all NPL sites.

EPA staff applying the guidance have

discretion to follow it or diverge from it

as site-specific conditions may warrant,

and each site-specific action will be

explained on its own record.

Please contact individuals and offices

listed in the sections of this notice

entitled ‘‘Addresses’’ and ‘‘For Further

Information Contact’’ to learn more

about the Soil Screening Guidance.

Source Documents

1. U.S. EPA. 1989. Risk Assessment

Guidance for Superfund: Volume 1: Human

Health Evaluation Manual, Part A, Interim

Final. EPA/540/1–89/002. Office of

Emergency and Remedial Response,

Washington D.C. NTIS PB90–155581/CCE.

2. U.S. EPA. 1991. Risk Assessment

Guidance for Superfund, Volume 1: Human

Health Evaluation Manual (Part B,

Development of Risk-Based Preliminary

Remediation Goals). Publication 9285.7–01B.

Office of Emergency and Remedial Response,

Washington, D.C. NTIS PB92–963333.

Dated: May 17, 1996.

Elliott P. Laws,

Assistant Administrator.

[FR Doc. 96–13431 Filed 5–30–96; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P

FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS

COMMISSION

Notice of Public Information

Collections Submitted to OMB for

Review and Approval

May 23, 1996.

SUMMARY: The Federal Communications,

as part of its continuing effort to reduce

paperwork burden invites the general

public and other Federal agencies to

take this opportunity to comment on the

following proposed and/or continuing

information collections, as required by

the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995,

Public Law 104–13. An agency may not

conduct or sponsor a collection of

information unless it displays a

currently valid control number. No

person shall be subject to any penalty

for failing to comply with a collection

of information subject to the Paperwork

Reduction Act (PRA) that does not

display a valid control number.

Comments are requested concerning (a)

whether the proposed collection of

information is necessary for the proper

performance of the functions of the

Commission, including whether the

information shall have practical utility;

(b) the accuracy of the Commissions

burden estimates; (c) ways to enhance

the quality, utility, and clarity of the

information collected and (d) ways to

minimize the burden of the collection of

information on the respondents,

including the use of automated

collection techniques or other forms of

information technology.

DATES: Written comments should be

submitted on or before July 1, 1996. If

you anticipate that you will be

submitting comments, but find it

difficult to do so within the period of

time allowed by this notice, you should

advise the contact listed below as soon

as possible.

ADDRESS: Direct all comments to

Dorothy Conway, Federal

Communications, Room 234, 1919 M

St., NW., Washington, DC 20554 or via

internet to dconway@fcc.gov and

Timothy Fain, OMB Desk Officer, 10236

NEOB 725 17th Street, NW.,

Washington, DC 20503 or

fain_t@a1.eop.gov.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For

additional information or copies of the

information collections contact Dorothy

Conway at 202–418–0217 or via internet

at dconway@fcc.gov.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

OMB Approval No.: 3060-0099.

Title: Form M - Annual Report Form

M.

Form No.: FCC Form M.

Type of Review: Extension.

Respondents: Businesses or other forprofit.

Number of Respondents: 3.

Estimated Time Per Response: 1120

hours.

Total Annual Burden: 3360.

Needs and Uses: FCC Form M is the

Annual Report of financial and

operating information from all subject

telephone companies having annual

operating revenues in excess of $100

million. It is needed to provide the

Commission with the data required to

fulfill its regulatory responsibilities.

OMB Approval No.: 3060-0550.

Title: Certification of Franchising

Authority to Regulate Basic Cable

Service Rates and Initial Finding of Lack

of Effective Competion.

Form No.: FCC Form 328.

Type of Review: Extension of

currently approved collection.

Respondents: State, Local or Tribal

Government.

Number of Respondents: 800.

Estimated Time Per Response: 30

minutes.

Total Annual Burden: 400 hours.

Needs and Uses: On 4/1/93, the

Commission adopted a Report and

Order, FCC 93-177, MM Docket No. 92-

266. Among other things, this Report

and Order implements Section 623(a)(3)

of the Communications Act of 1934, as

amended, wherein a local franchise

authority is required to file with the

Commission a written certification

when it requests to regulate basic

service rates. Subsequently, the

Commission developed the FCC Form

328 to provide a standardized, simple

form for meeting this requirement. To

fulfill the obligations set forth under

Section 623(a)(3) a franchise authority

must: (1) adopt regulations consistent

with the Commission’s regulations for

basic cable service; (2) have legal

authority to regulate basic service which

comes from state law; (3) the personnel

to administer such regulations; and (4)

have procedural regulations allowing for

public participation in rate regulation

proceedings. The FCC Form 328 is

reviewed by FCC staff to ensure that a

franchising authority has met the

criteria specified in Section 623(a)(3) of

the Communications Act of 1934 as

amended.
27352 Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 106 / Friday, May 31, 1996 / Notices

Federal Communications Commission.

William F. Caton,

Acting Secretary.

[FR Doc. 96–13668 Filed 5–30–96; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6712–01–F

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 June 13, 1996.

A. Federal Reserve Bank of Kansas

City (John E. Yorke, Senior Vice

President) 925 Grand Avenue, Kansas

City, Missouri 64198:

1. Randy W. and Karla L. Britt, both

of Clifton Hill, Missouri; to acquire an

additional .65 percent, for a total of

19.64 percent, and D. Wayne and Mary

E. Britt, both of Callao, Missouri, to

acquire an additional .19 percent, for a

total of 5.98 percent, of the voting shares

of RMB Bancshares, Inc., Marceline,

Missouri, and thereby indirectly acquire

Regional Missouri Bank, Marceline,

Missouri.

Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve

System, May 24, 1996.

Jennifer J. Johnson,

Deputy Secretary of the Board.

[FR Doc. 96–13652 Filed 5–30–96; 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

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 June 24, 1996.

A. Federal Reserve Bank of

Richmond (Lloyd W. Bostian, Jr., Senior

Vice President) 701 East Byrd Street,

Richmond, Virginia 23261:

1. MainStreet BankGroup

Incorporated, Martinsville, Virginia; to

acquire 100 percent of the voting shares

of The First National Bank of Clifton

Forge, Clifton Forge, Virginia.

B. Federal Reserve Bank of

Minneapolis (James M. Lyon, Vice

President) 250 Marquette Avenue,

Minneapolis, Minnesota 55480:

1. Peterka Family Partnership, Miller,

South Dakota; to become a bank holding

company by acquiring 24.5 percent of

the voting shares of M&H Financial

Services, Inc., Miller, South Dakota, and

thereby indirectly acquire First State

Bank of Miller, Miller, South Dakota.

Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve

System, May 24, 1996.

Jennifer J. Johnson,

Deputy Secretary of the Board.

[FR Doc. 96–13653 Filed 5–30–96; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6210–01–F

Notice of Proposal to Engage in

Nonbanking Activities.

Banc One Corporation, Columbus,

Ohio, CoreStates Financial Corp,

Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, PNC Bank

Corp., Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania,

National City Corporation, Cleveland,

Ohio, and KeyCorp, Cleveland, Ohio,

have given notice pursuant to section

4(c)(8) of the Bank Holding Company

Act (12 U.S.C. 1843(c)(8)) (BHC Act) and

section 225.23 of the Board’s Regulation

Y (12 CFR 225.23), to engage de novo

through their joint venture subsidiary,

Electronic Payment Services, Inc.,

Wilmington, Delaware (Company), in

providing data processing services in

connection with enhanced automated

teller machine functions, enabling

financial institutions to dispense: (1)

public transportation tickets; (2) event

and attraction tickets; (3) gift

certificates; (4) prepaid phone cards; (5)

other forms of alternate media that

evidence a cardholder’s prepayment for

goods or services; and (6) other forms of

alternate media, the dispensing of

which is the automated equivalent of a

customary banking activity. Company

proposes to conduct these activities

throughout the United States.

Section 4(c)(8) of the BHC Act

provides that a bank holding company

may, with Board approval, engage in

any activity ‘‘which the Board after due

notice and opportunity for hearing has

determined (by order or regulation) to

be so closely related to banking or

managing or controlling banks as to be

a proper incident thereto....’’ 12 U.S.C.

1843(c)(8). In publishing the proposal

for comment, the Board does not take a

position on issues raised by the

proposal. Notice of the proposal is

published solely in order to seek the

views of interested persons on the

issues presented by the notice, and does

not represent a determination by the

Board that the proposal meets or is

likely to meet the standards of the BHC

Act.

Any comments or requests for hearing

should be submitted in writing and

received by William W. Wiles,

Secretary, Board of Governors of the

Federal Reserve System, Washington,

D.C. 20551, not later than June 17, 1996.

Any request for a hearing on this

proposal must, as required by section

262.3(e) of the Board’s Rules of