57872 Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 191 / Tuesday, October 4, 2005 / Notices 

expanded the program to include 

information on other waste management 

activities such as recycling of chemicals. 

In addition, EPA has several times 

expanded the scope of the program by 

rulemaking by doubling the number of 

covered chemicals, adding seven 

industrial sectors, and significantly 

lowering reporting thresholds for 

chemicals identified as persistent, 

bioaccumlative and toxic (PBT). EPA 

believes that each of these expansions 

has increased the usefulness of the TRI 

data to the public and furthered the 

statutory goals of the program. 

Over the years, EPA has been mindful 

of the reporting burden this program 

imposes on covered facilities. In 1994, 

EPA introduced ‘‘Form A’’ to streamline 

reporting for small dischargers. In July 

of this year, we finalized a rule that 

would revise the TRI reporting forms to 

eliminate information not used, simplify 

reporting codes and improve the 

accuracy of facility identification and 

location data by using the data already 

available in EPA’s information systems. 

In addition, EPA will soon publish a 

proposed rule to expand the use of Form 

A to allow more facilities to use the 

short form while retaining the full Form 

R reporting on over 99% of releases and 

other waste management activities. Both 

of these efforts involved extensive 

consultations with all program 

stakeholders and help address the 

concerns expressed about the reporting 

burden under TRI. 

The purpose of this letter is to inform 

you of the third and final phase of our 

current efforts to reduce burden and 

streamline program operations. 

Specifically, we believe a rulemaking to 

modify the reporting frequency from 

annual to biennial deserves further 

consideration. Not only would alternate 

year reporting result in significant 

burden reduction for covered facilities, 

citizens would benefit from the 

redirection of federal and state taxpayer 

dollars to improve the quality, clarity, 

usefulness and accessibility of TRI 

information products and services. 

EPCRA Sec 313(i) authorizes EPA to 

make such a modification, but only after 

providing at least one-year’s advance 

notification to Congress before initiating 

a rulemaking and only after making 

several specific findings, which we 

address below. Accordingly, we are 

notifying you that we plan to initiate a 

rulemaking to consider modifications to 

the reporting frequency for the TRI 

program within 12 to 24 months after 

the date of this letter. Over the next 12 

months, EPA plans to continue its 

consultations with stakeholders in order 

to gather the data necessary to support 

the statutory determinations required 

under the law and to ensure the 

rulemaking appropriately balances the 

needs of data users with the concerns of 

data reporters and states. 

We are taking this step because we 

believe that alternate year reporting not 

only offers burden reduction, but also 

offers other potential advantages that 

merit consideration. First, EPA and 

states would be able to use the saved 

resources from the non-reporting years 

to improve the TRI database and 

conduct additional analyses that would 

enhance the value of the data to the 

public. For example, EPA could 

enhance its TRI reporting software, TRIMade Easy, thereby improving data 

quality and consistency; conduct 

analyses of data trends, sector or 

chemical specific patterns of waste 

management, innovations in pollution 

prevention, and risk implications of 

toxic chemical releases thereby making 

the TRI data more useful to citizens, 

communities, researchers and 

government agencies; and improve its 

web-based software to make the data 

more accessible and user friendly and to 

improve opportunities for Internetbased reporting. Internet reporting 

provides savings not only to reporters, 

but also to taxpayers as it reduces EPA 

and State processing costs and allows us 

to meet Paperwork Reduction and 

Electronic Government requirements. It 

also provides greater confidence to both 

reporters and data users in the integrity 

of the data by increasing the use of 

electronic data quality checks. 

Alternate year reporting would 

provide more simplified burden 

reduction to TRI reporters than many 

options previously considered. For 

instance, a common complaint about 

Form A is that it requires a significant 

amount of time to track and calculate 

data to determine eligibility. Alternate 

year reporting, in contrast, would 

eliminate in non-reporting years all 

burden for eligible reporters. Although 

EPA believes that a carefully structured 

alternate year reporting provision could 

provide substantial benefits to both data 

users and data reporters, EPA also 

recognizes that there will be legitimate 

concerns about data loss during the nonreporting years and will carefully 

consider those concerns as we develop 

any proposals for public comment and 

consideration. 

EPA will be examining the impact on 

data users carefully as it addresses the 

statutory requirements for modifying 

reporting frequency. Specifically, 

EPCRA requires one finding and three 

determinations before changing the 

reporting frequency. The required 

finding is that any modification is 

consistent with the intended uses of the 

TRI data as described in Sec 313(h), 

while the determinations are designed 

to ensure that EPA give full 

consideration to: (1) The impact of the 

modifications on data users, including 

State and local governments, health 

professionals, the general public, other 

federal agencies and EPA itself; (2) the 

availability of the data from other 

sources; and (3) the impact of the 

modifications on data reporters. EPA 

intends to gather data related to these 

issues during the next 12 months, prior 

to initiating a rulemaking. 

EPA believes that this action will 

enhance data quality and user 

friendliness by supplementing existing 

data with additional analysis. EPA looks 

forward to working with all 

stakeholders in the coming year to 

gather the necessary information to 

ensure that any modification of TRI 

reporting frequency considers the needs 

of TRI data users and will consider a 

range of options to minimize impacts. 

Enclosed for your benefit is a fact 

sheet with more details about the TRI 

program. Should you have any 

questions or would like to provide your 

views, please contact me at 202–564–

6665 or your staff may contact James 

Blizzard in EPA’s Office of 

Congressional and Intergovernmental 

Relations. 

Dated: September 21, 2005. 

Kimberly T. Nelson, 

Assistant Administrator for Office of 

Environmental Information and, Chief 

Information Officer. 

[FR Doc. 05–19709 Filed 10–3–05; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

[OPPT–2004–0096; FRL–7731–3] 

Asbestos-Containing Materials in 

Schools; State Request for Waiver 

from Requirements; Notice of Final 

Decision 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Notice. 

SUMMARY: EPA is issuing a final decision 

which approves the request from Illinois 

for a waiver from the Agency’s asbestosin-schools program. A waiver of these 

requirements is granted since EPA has 

determined, after notice and comment 

and opportunity for a public hearing, 

that Illinois is implementing or intends 

to implement a program of asbestos 

inspection and management for schools 

that is at least as stringent as EPA’s 

program. This notice announces the 

official grant of the waiver. 

Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 191 / Tuesday, October 4, 2005 / Notices 57873 

ADDRESSES: A copy of the complete 

waiver application submitted by the 

State, identified by docket identification 

(ID) number OPPT–2004–0096, is on file 

and available for review at the EPA 

Region V office in Chicago, IL. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Philip King, Asbestos Coordinator, 

Waste, Pesticides and Toxics Division 

(DT-8J), Region V, Environmental 

Protection Agency, 77 W. Jackson 

Boulevard, Chicago, IL 60604; 

telephone: (312) 353–9062; email:king.phillip@epa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

I. General Information 

A. Does this Action Apply to Me? 

This action is directed to the public 

in general. It may, however, be of 

special interest to teachers and other 

school personnel, their representatives, 

and parents in Illinois, and asbestos 

professionals working in Illinois. Since 

other entities may also be interested, the 

Agency has not attempted to describe all 

entities that may be affected by this 

action. If you have any questions 

regarding the applicability of this action 

to any particular entity, contact the 

person listed under FOR FURTHER

INFORMATION CONTACT. 

B. How Can I Get Copies of this 

Document and Other Related 

Information? 

EPA has established an official record 

for this action under docket ID number 

OPPT–2004–0096. The official record 

consists of the various documents 

referenced in this action, and is 

available by contacting the person 

identified under FOR FURTHER

INFORMATION CONTACT. 

II. Background 

A. What Action is the Agency Taking 

and Under What Authority? 

In the Federal Register of June 14, 

2005 (70 FR 34474)(FRL–7718–1), EPA 

published a notice on the proposed 

grant of a waiver of its asbestos-inschools program to Illinois, soliciting 

written comments and providing an 

opportunity for a public hearing. No 

comments and no requests for a public 

hearing were received during the 

comment period, which ended on 

August 15, 2005. Consequently, no 

public hearing was held. 

EPA is hereby granting, with 

conditions, a waiver of the asbestos-inschools program to Illinois. The waiver 

is issued under section 203(m) of the 

Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) 

and 40 CFR 763.98. Section 203 is found 

within Title II of TSCA, the Asbestos 

Hazard Emergency Response Act 

(AHERA). 

In 1987, under TSCA section 203, the 

Agency promulgated regulations that 

require the identification and 

management of asbestos-containing 

material by local education agencies 

(LEAs) in the nation’s elementary and 

secondary school buildings: the 

‘‘AHERA Schools Rule’’ (40 CFR part 

763, subpart E). Under section 203(m) of 

TSCA and 40 CFR 763.98, upon request 

by a State Governor and after notice and 

comment and opportunity for a public 

hearing in the State, EPA may waive, in 

whole or in part, the requirements of the 

asbestos-in-schools program (TSCA 

section 203(m) and the AHERA Schools 

Rule) if EPA determines that the State 

has established and is implementing or 

intends to implement a program of 

asbestos inspection and management 

that contains requirements that are at 

least as stringent as those in the 

Agency’s asbestos-in-schools program. 

A State seeking a waiver must submit its 

request to the EPA Region in which the 

applicant State is located. 

The Agency recognizes that a waiver 

granted to any State does not encompass 

schools operated under the defense 

dependent’s education system (the third 

type of LEA defined at TSCA section 

202(7) and 40 CFR 763.83), which 

serves dependents in overseas areas, 

and other elementary and secondary 

schools outside of a State’s jurisdiction, 

which generally includes schools 

situated in Indian country. Such schools 

remain subject to EPA’s asbestos-inschools program. 

B. When Did Illinois Submit its Request 

for a Waiver and How is EPA 

Responding? 

On December 20, 2004, Illinois 

Governor Rod Blagojevich, submitted to 

Bharat Mathur, Acting Regional 

Administrator, EPA Region V, a letter 

requesting a full waiver of the 

requirements of EPA’s asbestos-inschools program, to which was 

appended supporting documentation. 

EPA is hereby announcing its final 

decision to grant a waiver of the 

asbestos-in-schools program to Illinois. 

The Agency is also describing the 

information submitted by Illinois and 

the Agency’s determinations as to how 

the waiver request meets the criteria for 

the grant of a waiver. 

C. What was EPA’s Determination With 

Regard to the Completeness of Illinois’

Waiver Request? 

The Illinois waiver request has been 

deemed complete by EPA and contains 

the following: 

1. A copy of the Illinois provisions 

that include its program of asbestos 

inspection and management for schools. 

These consist of: the Illinois Asbestos 

Abatement Act (105 ILCS 105), the 

Illinois Commercial and Public Building 

Asbestos Abatement Act (225 ILCS 207), 

the Department of Public Health Act (20 

ILCS 2305), and the State’s asbestos 

regulations (77 IAC 855), all of which 

are administered by the Illinois 

Department of Public Health (IDPH). 

2. The names of the Illinois agencies 

responsible for administering and 

enforcing the requirements of the waiver 

(including the IDPH, the Illinois 

Attorney General’s Office and the 

Illinois State’s Attorneys Offices), the 

names and job titles of responsible 

officials in those agencies, and 

telephone numbers where these officials 

can be reached. The responsible officials 

from the IDPH include Gary Flentge, 

Chief of the Division of Environmental 

Health and Kent Cook, Manager of the 

Asbestos Program (telephone: (217) 

785–5830). The responsible official from 

the Illinois Attorney General’s Office is 

Matthew J. Dunn, Chief, Environmental 

Enforcement/Asbestos Litigation 

Division (telephone: (312) 814–2521). 

The responsible officials from the 

State’s Attorneys Offices include the 

current State’s Attorneys from each of 

Illinois’ Counties. 

3. Detailed reasons, supporting 

papers, and the rationale for concluding 

that Illinois’ asbestos inspection and 

management program provisions are at 

least as stringent as the requirements of 

the AHERA Schools Rule (40 CFR part 

763, subpart E). This information can be 

found in the December 17, 2004 

assurance letter from Anne Murphy, 

Chief Counsel to IDPH, which forms an 

integral part of Illinois’ waiver 

application. This letter states that 

‘‘Illinois’ law is at least as stringent as 

the federal AHERA regulations in their 

entirety,’’ because ‘‘the AHERA 

regulations are adopted directly by the 

Illinois Asbestos Abatement Act (105 

ILCS 105),’’ and have been incorporated 

by reference into the IDPH asbestos 

regulations found at 77 IAC 855. 

4. A discussion of any special 

situations, problems, and needs 

pertaining to the waiver request 

accompanied by an explanation of how 

Illinois intends to handle them. This 

information can be found in the 

supplemental information submitted by 

Illinois in response to the request from 

EPA Region V. In it’s reply, IDPH has 

explained and clarified that if any of its 

regulatory language were ever to be 

found in conflict with the language of 

the federal AHERA regulations, that ‘‘. 

. . IDPH would ensure that the 

57874 Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 191 / Tuesday, October 4, 2005 / Notices 

minimum federal regulations found in 

AHERA were enforced and at the same 

time ensure that the health of the public 

is protected.’’ This approach ensures 

that the Illinois Program will remain ‘‘at 

least as stringent as’’ the Federal 

Program as required by 40 CFR 

763.98(a). 

5. A statement of the resources that 

Illinois intends to devote to the 

administration and enforcement of the 

provisions relating to the waiver 

request. This statement is found in the 

supplemental submission made by 

Illinois which addresses the resources 

currently available to support an ongoing program. These resources include 

both monies appropriated by the 

Legislature and monies deposited in the 

Illinois School Asbestos Abatement 

Fund. 

6. Copies of Illinois laws and 

regulations relating to the request, 

including provisions for assessing 

criminal and/or civil penalties. Copies 

of Illinois’ asbestos statutes and 

regulations can be found in Attachment 

A of the State’s original application 

submittal, and also in a subsequent email from Gary Flentge to Philip King, 

dated April 8, 2005, which forwarded a 

copy of Illinois’ Department of Public 

Health Act (20 ILCS 2305/8.1). 

7. Assurance from the Governor, the 

Attorney General, or the legal counsel of 

the lead agency that the lead agency has 

the legal authority necessary to carry out 

the requirements relating to the request. 

This assurance is found in the letter 

from Anne Murphy, Chief Counsel for 

the IDPH, to the Acting EPA Regional 

Administrator, Bharat Mathur, dated 

December 17, 2004, which accompanies 

and forms a part of the original 

application submission. 

D. What are the Criteria for EPA’s Grant 

of the Waiver and What are EPA’s 

Determinations Relating to These 

Criteria? 

EPA has waived the requirements of 

the Agency’s asbestos-in-schools 

program for Illinois since the Agency 

has determined that Illinois has met the 

criteria set forth at 40 CFR 763.98. The 

criteria and EPA’s determinations 

relating to the grant of the waiver to 

Illinois are set forth below: 

1. Criterion: Illinois’ lead agency and 

other cooperating agencies have the 

legal authority necessary to carry out the 

provisions of asbestos inspection and 

management in schools relating to the 

waiver request. 

EPA’s Determination: EPA has 

determined that the statutory and 

regulatory provisions of the Illinois 

Asbestos Abatement Act (105 ILCS 105), 

the Illinois Commercial and Public 

Building Asbestos Abatement Act (225 

ILCS 207), the Department of Public 

Health Act (20 ILCS 2305), and the 

State’s asbestos regulations (77 IAC 

855), give the IDPH such authority. 

2. Criterion: Illinois’ program of 

asbestos inspection and management in 

schools and its implementation of the 

program are or will be at least as 

stringent as the requirements of the 

AHERA Schools Rule. 

EPA’s Determination: EPA has 

determined that Illinois’ program 

codified at 77 IAC 855 is at least as 

stringent as EPA’s program. 

3. Criterion: Illinois has an 

enforcement mechanism to allow it to 

implement the program described in the 

waiver request. 

EPA’s Determination: EPA has 

determined that the compliance and 

enforcement provisions of Illinois’

asbestos-in-schools program are 

adequate to run the program. The 

Director of IDPH is empowered under 

the Commercial and Public Building 

Asbestos Abatement Act (225 ILCS 207) 

to ‘‘. . . maintain an action for 

prosecution, injunction, or other relief 

or process against any Building/Facility 

Owner or any other person or unit of 

local government to enforce and compel 

compliance with the provisions of this 

Act, the rules promulgated under it and 

any order entered for any action under 

this Act and its rules. A person who 

violates this Act is guilty of a Class A 

misdemeanor punishable by a fine of 

$1,000 for each day the violation exists 

in addition to other civil penalties or up 

to 6 months imprisonment or both a fine 

and imprisonment.’’ The Director also 

has authority to inspect all activities 

regulated by the Act, and can issue stop 

work orders. In addition, under section 

8.1 of the Department of Public Health 

Act (20 ILCS 2305), the Director may 

also deem ‘‘whoever violates or refuses 

to obey any rule or regulation of the 

Department of Public Health to be guilty 

of a Class A misdemeanor.’’

4. Criterion: The lead agency and any 

cooperating agencies have or will have 

qualified personnel to carry out the 

provisions relating to the waiver 

request. 

EPA’s Determination: EPA has 

determined that the IDPH has qualified 

personnel to carry out the provisions of 

the waiver. The existing program staff 

includes four environmental engineers, 

one project designer, three full-time 

support staff, two temporary support 

staff, and an architect. Oversight is 

provided by a licensed professional 

engineer. 

5. Criterion: Illinois will devote 

adequate resources to the administration 

and enforcement of the asbestos 

inspection and management provisions 

relating to the waiver request. 

EPA’s Determination: EPA has 

determined that Illinois has adequate 

resources to administer and enforce the 

provisions of the program. Appropriated 

funding for the Asbestos Program was 

$933,045 for State fiscal year 2005. The 

State also had a balance of $612,000 in 

its Illinois School Asbestos Abatement 

Fund, and had collected $15,229 in 

fines during the preceding fiscal year 

(2004). 

6. Criterion: Illinois gives satisfactory 

assurances that the necessary steps, 

including specific actions it proposes to 

take and a time schedule for their 

accomplishment, will be taken within a 

reasonable time to conform with criteria 

numbers 2-4 above. 

EPA’s Determination: As a condition 

of EPA’s grant of the waiver, Illinois has 

given a written assurance satisfactory to 

EPA (letter from Gary Flentge, Chief, 

Division of Environmental Health, 

IDPH, to Philip King, Asbestos 

Coordinator, EPA Region V, dated June 

30, 2005), that, if following the grant of 

the waiver, any provision of either 

TSCA section 203 or the AHERA 

schools rule is changed, the State 

would, ‘‘. . . within a reasonable amount 

of time, take the steps necessary to 

ensure that Illinois’ statutory and 

regulatory provisions remain at least as 

stringent as the U.S. EPA asbestos-inschools program.’’ Such an action, to 

remain consistent with federal law and 

regulation, is mandated under Illinois 

State law (105 ILCS 105/7). 

A second condition placed upon 

EPA’s grant of the waiver was that so 

long as the waiver remained in effect, 

Illinois, utilizing adequate resources, 

would need to continue its asbestos-inschools implementation and 

enforcement strategy. In the same letter 

of June 30, 2005, and in response to this 

condition, the State declared that: 

‘‘Further, it is the intent of the IDPH to 

maintain the AHERA program within 

the State.’’ Although fully satisfied by 

this response, EPA does nevertheless 

retain the right to periodically reevaluate the adequacy of the Illinois 

program under 40 CFR 763.98, and, 

under circumstances set forth in the 

regulation, might, in whole or in part, 

rescind the waiver if the Agency 

determined the program to be 

inadequate at any time in the future. 

E. What Recordkeeping and Reporting 

Burden Approvals Apply to the Illinois 

Waiver Request? 

The recordkeeping and reporting 

burden associated with waiver requests 

was approved by the Office of 

Management and Budget (OMB) under 

Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 191 / Tuesday, October 4, 2005 / Notices 57875 

OMB control number 2070–0091. This 

document announces the Agency’s grant 

of the Illinois waiver request and 

imposes no additional burden beyond 

that covered under existing OMB 

control number 2070–0091. 

III. Materials in the Official Record 

The official record, under docket ID 

number OPPT–2004–0096, contains the 

Illinois waiver request, supporting 

documentation, and other relevant 

documents. 

List of Subjects 

Environmental protection, Asbestos, 

Hazardous substances, Occupational 

safety and health, Schools. 

Dated: September 22, 2005. 

Norman Niedergang, 

Acting Regional Administrator, Region V. 

[FR Doc. 05–19865 Filed 10–3–05; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–S 

FEDERAL DEPOSIT INSURANCE 

CORPORATION 

Notice of Agency Meeting 

Pursuant to the provisions of the 

‘‘Government in the Sunshine Act’’ (5 

U.S.C. 552b), notice is hereby given that 

the Federal Deposit Insurance 

Corporation’s Board of Directors will 

meet in open session at 10:15 a.m. on 

Thursday, October 6, 2005, to consider 

the following matters: 

Summary Agenda 

No substantive discussion of the 

following items is anticipated. These 

matters will be resolved with a single 

vote unless a member of the Board of 

Directors requests that an item be 

moved to the discussion agenda. 

Disposition of minutes of previous 

Board of Directors’ meetings. 

Summary reports, status reports, and 

reports of actions taken pursuant to 

authority delegated by the Board of 

Directors. 

Memorandum and resolution re: 

Proposed Statement of Policy Regarding 

the National Historic Preservation Act of 

1966. 

Memorandum and resolution re: Final 

Rule on Deposit Insurance Coverage of 

Accounts of Qualified Tuition Programs 

Under Section 529 of the Tax Code. 

Memorandum and resolution re: 

Interpretive Rule Amending Part 333 to 

Incorporate New Accounts. 

Memorandum and resolution re: 

Notice of Proposed Rulemaking on 

Standards of Ethical Conduct for FDIC 

Employees Regarding Extensions of 

Credit, Securities Ownership, and 

Definitions. 

Memorandum and resolution re: 

Notice of Proposed Rulemaking: Part 

307 Notification of Changes of Insured 

Status. 

Discussion Agenda 

Memorandum and resolution re: 

Advance Notice of Proposed 

Rulemaking Regarding Risk-Based 

Capital Guidelines; Capital 

Maintenance: Domestic Capital 

Modifications. 

Memorandum and resolution re: 

Notice of Proposed Rulemaking on 

Petition to Preempt Certain State Laws. 

The meeting will be held in the Board 

Room on the sixth floor of the FDIC 

Building located at 550 17th Street, 

NW., Washington, DC. 

The FDIC will provide attendees with 

auxiliary aids (e.g., sign language 

interpretation) required for this meeting. 

Those attendees needing such assistance 

should call (202) 416–2089 (Voice); or 

(202) 416–2007 (TTY), to make 

necessary arrangements. 

Requests for further information 

concerning the meeting may be directed 

to Mr. Robert E. Feldman, Executive 

Secretary of the Corporation, at (202) 

898–7043. 

Dated: September 29, 2005. 

Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation. 

Robert E. Feldman, 

Executive Secretary. 

[FR Doc. E5–5438 Filed 10–3–05; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6714–01–P 

FEDERAL RESERVE SYSTEM 

Change in Bank Control Notices; 

Acquisition of Shares of Bank 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. The notices 

also will be available for inspection at 

the office 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 October 

18, 2005. 

A. Federal Reserve Bank of Kansas 

City (Donna J. Ward, Assistant Vice 

President) 925 Grand Avenue, Kansas 

City, Missouri 64198-0001: 

1. Aaron G. Buerge, Springfield, 

Missouri and Justin B. Buerge, Joplin, 

Missouri, individually and as cotrustees of the Buerge Family Trust, to 

retain control of Financial Enterprises, 

Inc., and thereby control shares of First 

National Bank of Clinton, both of 

Clinton, Missouri. 

2. Marvin J. Carter and Donald C. 

Stamps, both of Lawton, Oklahoma, 

trustees of the 2000 Green Family Trust, 

to acquire B.O.E. Bancshares, Inc., and 

thereby control shares of Liberty 

National Bank, both of Lawton, 

Oklahoma. 

Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve 

System, September 28, 2005. 

Robert deV. Frierson, 

Deputy Secretary of the Board. 

[FR Doc. 05–19783 Filed 10–3–05; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6210–01–S 

FEDERAL RESERVE SYSTEM 

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. The application also will 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 

(12 U.S.C. 1843). Unless otherwise 

noted, nonbanking activities will be 

conducted throughout the United States. 

Additional information on all bank 

holding companies may be obtained 

from the National Information Center 

website at www.ffiec.gov/nic/. 

Unless otherwise noted, comments 

regarding each of these applications 

must be received at the Reserve Bank 

indicated or the offices of the Board of