Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 239 / Wednesday, December 13, 1995 / Notices 64063

Products, Henkel Corporation, and

Peerless-Premier Appliance Company

for the response costs incurred and to be

incurred at the Peerless Industrial Paint

Coatings Site, City of St. Louis, St. Louis

County, Missouri.

DATES: Written comments must be

provided on or before January 12, 1996.

ADDRESSES: Comments should be

addressed to the Regional

Administrator, United States

Environmental Protection Agency,

Region VII, 726 Minnesota Avenue,

Kansas City, Kansas 66101 and should

refer to: In the Matter of the Peerless

Industrial Paint Coatings Superfund

Site, City of St. Louis, St. Louis County,

Missouri, EPA Docket Nos. VII–94–F–

0022, VII–94–F–0021, VII–94–F–0027,

and VII–94–F–0023.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Denise L. Roberts, Assistant Regional

Counsel, United States Environmental

Protection Agency, Region VII, 726

Minnesota Avenue, Kansas City, Kansas

66101, (913) 551–7559.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The

settling parties are Canam Steel

Company, Henkel Corporation, PeerlessPremier Appliance Company, and St.

Louis Steel Products. They are de

minimis generators of hazardous

substances found at the Peerless

Industrial Paint Coatings Site, which is

the subject Superfund Site. In July and

August 1995, Region VII entered into

four separate de minimis administrative

settlements to resolve claims under

Section 122(g) of CERCLA, 42 U.S.C.

9622(g).

The Peerless Industrial Paint Coatings

Site (the Site) is located in St. Louis at

1265 Lewis Street, St. Louis, Missouri,

approximately 1⁄4 mile north of

downtown St. Louis in an industrial

section of the city. The de minimis

parties were corporations that

manufactured paints. The de minimis

parties sold paint sludges, paint solids,

and paint liquids or semi-liquids to

Peerless Industrial Paint Coatings

(‘‘Peerless’’), a St. Louis corporation, at

very low prices. The de minimis parties

either admitted that they were disposing

of hazardous substances through this

arrangement, admitted that there was no

other customer besides Peerless for such

materials, and/or that the sales price

was lower than the costs of disposal for

hazardous wastes at an authorized

permitted facility. Peerless was a

manufacturer of paints and magazine

coatings that purchased large quantities

of paint materials at low prices and

accumulated more materials on-site

than could be used. In June 1993, the

EPA began a removal action at the site.

Approximately 3500 drums of

hazardous substances that demonstrated

the characteristics of ignitability were

removed from the facility at the cost of

$1,089,062.71.

The settlements have been approved

by the U.S. Department of Justice

because the response costs in this matter

exceed $500,000.00. The EPA estimates

the total past and future costs will be

approximately $1,206,089.71. Pursuant

to the Administrative Orders on

Consent, the de minimis parties are

responsible for the following costs:

Peerless-Premier Appliance Company

has an attributable share of 1.20% and

is responsible for $13,236.45 in past

costs and $1,193.24 in future costs;

Canam Steel Corporation has an

attributable share of 1.29% and is

responsible for $14,238.45 in past costs

and $1,283.55 in future costs; St. Louis

Steel Products has an attributable share

of 1.665% and is responsible for

$18,412.20 in past costs and $1,659.80

in future costs; and Henkel Corporation

has an attributable share of .30% and is

responsible for $3,453.48 in past costs

and $311.32 in future costs. The EPA

determined these amounts to be the de

minimis parties; fair shares of liability

based on the amount of hazardous

substances found at the Site and

contributed by each of the settling

parties. These settlements include

contribution protection from lawsuits by

other potentially responsible parties as

provided for under Section 122(g)(5) of

CERCLA, 42 U.S.C. 9622(g)(5).

The de minimis settlements provide

that the EPA covenants not to sue the de

minimis parties for response costs at the

Site or for injunctive relief pursuant to

Sections 106 and 107 of CERCLA and

Section 7003 of the Resource

Conservation and Recovery Act of 1980,

as amended (RCRA), 42 U.S.C. 6973.

The settlements contain a reopener

clause which nullifies the covenant not

to sue if any information becomes

known to the EPA that indicates that the

parties no longer meet the criteria for a

de minimis settlement set forth in

Section 122(g)(1)(A) of CERCLA, 42

U.S.C. 9622(g)(1)(A). The covenant not

to sue does not apply to the following

matters:

(a) Claims based on a failure to

exercise due care with respect to

hazardous substances at the Site;

(b) Claims based on a failure to make

the payments required by Section IV,

Paragraph 1 of this Consent Order;

(c) Claims based on the exacerbation

by Respondent of the release or threat of

release of hazardous substances from

the Site;

(d) Claims based on the introduction

of any hazardous substance, pollutant,

or contaminant by any person at the Site

after the effective date of this Consent

Order;

(e) Criminal liability; or

(f) Liability for damages or injury to,

destruction of, or loss of the natural

resources.

The de minimis settlements will

become effective upon the date which

the EPA issues a written notice to the

parties that the statutory public

comment period has closed and that

comments received, if any, do not

require modification of or EPA

withdrawal from the settlements.

Dennis Grams,

Regional Administrator.

[FR Doc. 95–30102 Filed 12–12–95; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560–50–M

FEDERAL RESERVE SYSTEM

Community Bankshares, Inc., et al.;

Formations of; Acquisitions by; and

Mergers of Bank Holding Companies

The companies listed in this notice

have applied for the Board’s approval

under section 3 of the Bank Holding

Company Act (12 U.S.C. 1842) and §

225.14 of the Board’s Regulation Y (12

CFR 225.14) to become a bank holding

company or to acquire a bank or bank

holding company. The factors that are

considered in acting on the applications

are set forth in section 3(c) of the Act

(12 U.S.C. 1842(c)).

Each 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 to the

Reserve Bank or to the offices of the

Board of Governors. Any comment on

an application that requests a hearing

must include a statement of why a

written presentation would not suffice

in lieu of a hearing, identifying

specifically any questions of fact that

are in dispute and summarizing the

evidence that would be presented at a

hearing.

Unless otherwise noted, comments

regarding each of these applications

must be received not later than January

8, 1996.

A. Federal Reserve Bank of Boston

(Robert M. Brady, Vice President) 600

Atlantic Avenue, Boston, Massachusetts

02106:

1. Community Bankshares, Inc.,

Concord, New Hampshire to acquire 100

percent of the voting shares of

Centerpoint Bank, Bedford, New

Hampshire.
64064 Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 239 / Wednesday, December 13, 1995 / Notices

B. Federal Reserve Bank of

Richmond (Lloyd W. Bostian, Jr., Senior

Vice President) 701 East Byrd Street,

Richmond, Virginia 23261:

1. Stone Street Bancorp, Inc.,

Mocksville, North Carolina; to become a

bank holding company by acquiring 100

percent of the voting shares of

Mocksville Savings Bank, Inc., SSB,

Mocksville, North Carolina.

C. Federal Reserve Bank of Atlanta

(Zane R. Kelley, Vice President) 104

Marietta Street, N.W., Atlanta, Georgia

30303:

1. Central and Southern Holding

Company, Milledgeville, Georgia; to

acquire Interim Central and Southern

Bank of Greensboro, Greensboro,

Georgia.

Applicant proposes for its existing

bank subsidiary, Central and Southern

Bank of Greensboro, to merge with and

into an interim thrift subsidiary, Interim

Central and Southern Bank of

Greensboro, pursuant to § 3(a)(4) of the

Bank Holding Company Act. Interim

Central and Southern Bank of

Greensboro will survive the merger and

operate under the name Central and

Southern Bank of North Georgia.

D. Federal Reserve Bank of Chicago

(James A. Bluemle, Vice President) 230

South LaSalle Street, Chicago, Illinois

60690:

1. Associated Banc-Corp, Green Bay,

Wisconsin, and its subsidiary,

Associated Banc-Shares, Inc., Madison,

Wisconsin; to acquire 100 percent of the

voting shares of SBL Capital Bank

Shares, Inc., Lodi, Wisconsin, and

thereby indirectly acquire State Bank of

Lodi, Lodi, Wisconsin.

In connection with this application,

Associated Banc-Shares, Inc., Madison,

Wisconsin, also has applied to become

a bank holding company.

E. Federal Reserve Bank of Dallas

(Genie D. Short, Vice President) 2200

North Pearl Street, Dallas, Texas 75201-

2272:

1. ABNA Holdings, Inc., Dallas, Texas;

to become a bank holding company by

acquiring 97.6 percent of the voting

shares of American Bank, N.A., Dallas,

Texas.

Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve

System, December 7, 1995.

Jennifer J. Johnson,

Deputy Secretary of the Board.

[FR Doc. 95–30341 Filed 12–12–95; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6210–01–F

First Community Bancshares, Inc., et

al.; Notice of Applications to Engage

de novo in Permissible Nonbanking

Activities

The companies listed in this notice

have 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.

Each 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.

Unless otherwise noted, comments

regarding the applications must be

received at the Reserve Bank indicated

or the offices of the Board of Governors

not later than December 29, 1995.

A. Federal Reserve Bank of Kansas

City (John E. Yorke, Senior Vice

President) 925 Grand Avenue, Kansas

City, Missouri 64198:

1. First Community Bancshares, Inc.,

Knob Noster, Missouri; to engage de

novo through its subsidiary, First

Mortgage Co., Knob Noster, Missouri, in

the sale of credit-related life and

accident and health insurance, pursuant

to § 225.25(b)(8)(i) of the Board’s

Regulation Y.

Comments on this application must

be received at the Reserve Bank

indicated or the offices of the Board of

Governors not later than December 26,

1995.

B. Federal Reserve Bank of Dallas

(Genie D. Short, Vice President) 2200

North Pearl Street, Dallas, Texas 75201-

2272:

1. Adam Financial Corporation,

Bryan, Texas; to engage de novo in

making and servicing loans, pursuant to

§ 225.25(b)(1), of the Board’s Regulation

Y. These activities will be conducted

throughout the state of Texas.

Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve

System, December 7, 1995.

Jennifer J. Johnson,

Deputy Secretary of the Board.

[FR Doc. 95–30342 Filed 12–12–95; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6210–01–F

GENERAL SERVICES

ADMINISTRATION

Change in Solicitation Procedures

Under the Small Business

Competitiveness Demonstration

Program

AGENCY: Office of Acquisition Policy,

GSA.

ACTION: Notice.

SUMMARY: Title VII of the ‘‘Business

Opportunity Development Reform Act

of 1988’’ (Public Law 100–656)

established the Small Business

Competitiveness Demonstration

Program and designated nine (9)

agencies, including GSA, to conduct the

program over a four (4) year period from

January 1, 1989 to December 31, 1992.

The Small Business Opportunity

Enhancement Act of 1992 (Public Law

102–366) extended the demonstration

program until September 1996 and

made certain changes in the procedures

for operation of the demonstration

program. The law designated four (4)

industry groups for testing whether the

competitive capabilities of the specified

industry groups will enable them to

successfully compete on an unrestricted

basis. The four (4) industry groups are:

construction (except dredging);

architectural and engineering (A&E)

services (including surveying and

mapping); refuse systems and related

services (limited to trash/garbage

collection); and non-nuclear ship repair.

Under the program, when a

participating agency misses its small

business participation goal, restricted

competition is reinstituted only for

those contracting activities that failed to

attain the goal. The small business goal

is 40 percent of the total contract dollars

awarded for construction, trash/garbage

collection services, and non-nuclear

ship repair and 35 percent of the total