57794 Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 218 / Friday, November 8, 1996 / Proposed Rules

the minor color differences of neck bone

meat from AMR systems and handdeboned neck meat. However, because

the connective tissue structure of the

internal portion of bone maintains the

integrity of most of the bone's semisolid and solid content, and this

remains intact in AMR systems, most of

the bone's content is not expressed

when AMR systems are utilized. In

contrast to this, a more physically

rigorous process, e.g., the mechanical

separation process yielding MS(S) that

crushes, grinds, and pulverizes bones

would, of course, destroy the internal

bone structure and evenly distribute all

the contents of the bone in an

amorphous tissue mass.

Although FSIS does not currently

know of any standardized methods to

determine the presence of bone marrow

in meat products, FSIS would like data

that can help establish what

constituents are unique to marrow that

can be relied upon to indicate the

presence of bone marrow in meat

products. If such a standardized method

could be established, FSIS would like

comments on whether a compliance

criterion regarding marrow should be

established in regard to product derived

from AMR systems. In this regard FSIS

would like comments on the following

questions. (1) Should an acceptable

level of marrow be established for meat

and product derived from AMR

systems? If such a level was established,

should the presizing operations of AMR

systems be examined to determine if

they contribute to the marrow content of

product derived from AMR systems? (2)

If the product derived from the AMR

systems is determined to have an

amount of marrow higher than that

found in hand deboned meat, should

such products be designated as MS(S)

rather than meat? (3) Is it possible to

establish criteria on the amount of

marrow in product from AMR systems

based on the degree to which bones

emerging from the AMR systems are

hollow?

FSIS Studies

In addition to requesting comments

and data from the public, FSIS itself

will also collect information on how

AMR systems are currently performing.

The Agency is interested in collecting

information regarding the recovery of

tissue from bones by use of AMR

systems, especially the recovery of

tissue from split neck bones of beef.

Compliance procedures for the AMR

systems were designed to assure that

bone, as measured by calcium content,

was not intentionally incorporated into

product. FSIS was aware that

desinewing equipment was being used

in conjunction with the AMR systems to

remove hard particle tissues (e.g., bone

fragments, ligaments, tendons, cartilage)

inherent to boning operations. FSIS

believed that AMR systems which were

not being operated in compliance (i.e.,

which crushed, ground or pulverized

bones) would be identified through the

calcium check of the finished product.

This conclusion was based on the view

that desinewing equipment would not

remove a significant amount of the

powdered bone which would result

from crushing, grinding, or pulverizing,

and consequently the finished product

would exceed the calcium limit. In an

effort to assure that the desinewing

equipment is not being used to remove

excess powdered bone resulting from

bone breakage, FSIS is taking steps to

better identify what the desinewing

equipment is removing. A sampling

plan is being devised which will

statistically establish the expected

calcium content of a product derived

from a properly operating AMR system,

prior to and after desinewing.

In another study, FSIS will be

identifying the expected range of

calcium, cholesterol and iron contents,

the pH level, and the texture and

appearance of various products which

qualify as meat." The Agency intends

to involve the Agricultural Research

Service (ARS) in this activity.

Representatives from ARS were

involved in the initial steps leading up

to the development of the regulation.

This study will assist FSIS in learning

more about the issues concerning

marrow in AMR products that have

been raised.

Done at Washington, DC, on November 4,

1996.

Thomas J. Billy,

Administrator.

[FR Doc. 96-28768 Filed 11-5-96; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 341 O-DM-P

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Office of Energy Efficiency and

Renewable Energy

10 CFR Part 430

(Docket No. EE-RM-94-230A]

Energy Conservation Program for

Consumer Products: Test Procedure

for Clothes Washers and Reporting

Requirements for Clothes Washers,

Clothes Dryers, and Dishwashers

AGENCY: Office of Energy Efficiency and

Renewable Energy, DOE,

ACTION: Proposed rule; limited

reopening of the comment period.

SUMMARY: Appendix J to subpart B of 10

CFR part 430 sets forth the test

procedures required for testing whether

clothes washers comply with the

existing energy conservation standards,

The Department of Energy (DOE or

Department) has proposed to amend

these test procedures. The purpose of

this notice is to solicit comments on

possible additional amendments which

would require certain specific

procedures for testing clothes washers

with adaptive (machine controlled)

water fill control capability, and clothes

washers with non-traditional

temperature selections.

DATES: Written comments in response to

this notice must be received by

November 25, 1996.

ADDRESSES: Written comments, 10

copies, are to be submitted to: U.S.

Department of Energy, Office of Energy

Efficiency and Renewable Energy, FE43, Room 1J-018, "Test Procedure for

Clothes Washers and Reporting

Requirements for Clothes Washers,

Clothes Dryers, and Dishwashers,"

Docket No. EE-RM-94-230A, Forrestal

Building, 1000 Independence Avenue,

SW, Washington, DC 20585, (202)-586-

7574.

Copies of the transcript of the public

hearing and the public comments

received on the proposed rule, may be

read or photocopied at the Department

of Energy Freedom of Information

Reading Room, U.S. Department of

Energy, Forrestal Building, Room iF190, 1000 Independence Avenue, SW,

Washington, DC 20585, (202) 586-6020

between the hours of 9:00 a.m. and 4:00

p.m., Monday through Friday, except

Federal holidays.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

P. Marc LaFrance, U.S. Department of

Energy, Energy Efficiency and

Renewable Energy, Mail Station EE43, Forrestal Building, 1000

Independence Avenue, SW.,

Washington, DC 20585-0121, (202)

586-8423

Edward Levy, Esq., U.S. Department of

Energy, Office of General Counsel,

Mail Station GC-72, Forrestal

Building, 1000 Independence Avenue,

SW., Washington, DC 20585, (202)

586-9507

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Introduction

II. Discussion

A. Adaptive Water Fill Control

Manual and Adaptive Water Fill Control

Multiple Adaptive Water Fill Control

Settings

B. Temperature Selections

Multiple Warm Wash Temperature

Combination Selections

Multiple Temperature Settings within a

Temperature Combination Selection

EE-RM-94-230A COMMENT 20
Federal Register I Vol. 61, No. 218 I Friday, November 8, 1996 / Proposed Rules 57795

One and Two Temperature Combination

Selections

I. Introduction

On March 23, 1995, the Department

published a notice of proposed

rulemaking to make several

amendments to the clothes washer test

procedure. 60 FR 15330 (hereafter

referred to as the Notice of Proposed

Rulemaking or NOPR). On July 12, 1995,

a hearing on the proposed rule was held

in Washington, DC.

The proposed amendments to the test

procedure were based on the same

factual foundation as the existing test

procedure and energy conservation

standards for clothes washers, so that

the existing energy conservation

standard would not have to be adjusted.

The Department believes, however, that

the existing test procedure currently

overstates the average annual energy

consumption for clothes washers

because of changes in consumer habits

since the current test procedure was

adopted.1 The Department had planned

on initiating an additional clothes

washer test procedure rulemaking, at a

later date, which would take into

account current consumer habits, and

would be used as the basis for

considering revision of the clothes

washer energy conservation standards.2

In response to the NOPR, the

Association of Home Appliance

Manufacturers (AHAM) submitted

comments asking DOE to adopt an

additional new test procedure, based on

current consumer habits, which would

be used in considering revision of the

clothes washer energy conservation

standards, and would take effect when

new standards take effect. On April 22,

1996, the Department proposed such a

new clothes washer test procedure,

Appendix Ji, as well as certain

additional revisions to the currently

applicable test procedure in Appendix J

to Subpart B of 10 CFR part 430. 61 FR

17589 (hereafter referred to as the

Supplemental Notice of Proposed

Rulemaking or Supplemental NOPR).

The Department proposed to issue a

final rule with two test procedures, to be

codified in Appendices "J" and "ii" to

subpart B of 10 CFR part 430. Appendix

"3" would be a revision of the current

test procedure, would be consistent

with the existing standards, and would

become effective 30 days after issuance

of the final rule. Appendix "31

1 Proctor & Gamble data indicates a decrease in

the use of hot water and the number of cycles per

year over time.

2 second round of clothes washer standards

rulemaking was initialed by the publication of an

Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (ANOPR).

(59 FR 56423, November 14. 1994.)

generally based on AHAM's suggested

test procedures, would be used in the

analysis and review of possible revised

efficiency standards, and would apply

to any revised standards. Upon adoption

of any revised standards, the

Department would amend its

regulations to replace Appendix "3"

with Appendix "31."

However, since the publication of the

NOPR and the Supplemental NOPR,

additional issues have arisen regarding

the Appendix J test procedure. The

purpose of today's notice is to obtain

public comment on options the

Department is considering for resolving

these issues. These issues arose in the

context of interim waivers from the DOE

clothes washer test procedure granted

by DOE with respect to clothes washer

features that are not covered by the

current test procedure. On April 6,

1996, the Department granted General

Electric Appliances (GEA) an Interim

Waiver (CW-004) for its3 clothes

washer that has multiple warm wash

temperature selections, various

temperature settings within each

temperature selection, multiple adaptive

water fill control settings, and a manual

water fill control option. 61 FR 18129.

On September 6, 1996, the Department

granted GEA an Interim Waiver (CW005) for its clothes washer that has only

two wash/rinse temperature selections.

61 FR 47115. The Department is

considering inclusion in the Appendix

J test procedure of test provisions that

address these features, and solicits

comments only on the issues of whether

and how such features should be

addressed in Appendix 3.

II. Discussion

A. Adaptive Water Fill Control

The amount of energy that a clothes

washer consumes is almost entirely a

function of whether it uses heated or

unheated water, and of the temperature

and amount of any heated water it uses.

Adaptive water fill control in a clothes

washer is a control scheme which

automatically determines, without

operator intervention, the amount of

water used to wash a particular load of

clothing, based on the size of that

clothing load. In the NOPR, the

Department proposed to amend

Appendix 3 to include test provisions

for adaptive water fill control4 schemes,

but proposed no alteration of the

3GEA's clothes washer is actually manufactured

by Fisher & Paykel Limited from New Zealand.

41n the NOPR, the terminology used was

"machine-controlled water fill," although the

Department plans to adopt language used in the

Supplemental NOPR "adaptive water fill control."

existing test procedures for manual

water fill control.5

Manual and Adaptive Water Fill Control

The GEA clothes washer that is the

subject of Interim Waiver CW-004, cited

above, has both manual and adaptive

water fill control capability. However,

neither the current Appendix 3 test

procedure, nor the proposed

amendments to Appendix J, sets forth a

procedure that applies to a clothes

washer that has both of these features.

In the Supplemental NOPR, the

Department proposed that Appendix 31

provide that such machines be tested in

both the manual and adaptive water fill

modes, and that test results be prorated

based on the assumption that each mode

is used 50 percent of the time. This

methodology is used in Interim Waiver

CW-004 granted to GEA. The

Department has not received any

negative comment regarding this

methodology, and is considering

adoption of this approach for the

Appendix J test procedure. The

Department welcomes comments on this

issue.

Multiple Adaptive Water Fill Control

Settings

The GEA clothes washer covered by

Interim Waiver CW-004, also permits

adjustment of the "sensitivity," or

relative water fill amounts, for the

adaptive water fill control feature. This

feature allows a consumer to fine tune

the adaptive water fill control system,

and permits use of different amounts of

water for a given amount of clothing

being washed. The test method

provided to GEA in Interim Waiver CW004, requires the two extreme

"sensitivities," which provide the most

and least energy intensive results, to be

tested. Then these two results, or

associated energy consumption values,

are averaged to determine the adaptive

water fill control energy consumption

value. As mentioned above, the adaptive

water fill control result is then prorated

with the manual water fill control

result. The Department has not received

any negative comment regarding this

methodology and is considering

adoption of this approach for the

Appendix 3 test procedure. The

Department welcomes comments on this

issue.

B. Temperature Selections

Currently, and as proposed, Appendix

3 allows for the testing of three basic

wash temperatures, cold, warm, and

hot, in several combinations with two

5 Appendix J, two types of manual fill control

are defined, "sensor filled" and "timed filled."

EE-RM-94-230A COMMENT 20
57796 Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 218 / Friday, November 8, 1996 / Proposed Rules

....................................................

.......................................

...........................................

rinse temperatures, cold and warm. The

test procedures set forth percentages,

called temperature use factors (TUFs),

that represent the proportion of the time

that each combination of wash and rinse

temperatures is used. The test

procedures have a set of TUFs that

applies to each clothes washer that is

equipped with either three, four, five or

six discrete temperature combination

selections (TCSs) (wash/rinse offering to

a consumer). Clothes washers with these

TCSs represent the majority of the

market. However, new clothes washers,

such as the GEA clothes washers, have

new temperature combinations which

are not explicitly covered by the

Appendix J test procedure.

Multiple Warm Wash Temperature

Combination Selections

The GEA clothes washer covered by

Interim Waiver CW-004 has three

different warm wash selections, each of

which has a cold rinse. The warm wash

temperatures of these three TCSs are

equally spaced by temperature, so that

the temperature of the median warm

wash is at the mid-point between the

temperatures of the warmest warm wash

and the coolest warm wash. The test

methodology provided to GEA in the

Interim Waiver required that only the

median warm wash TCS be tested. The

above and below median warm wash

TCSs were not to be tested. The

Department did not receive any negative

comment regarding this methodology.

The Department is considering

adoption of a similar approach in

Appendix J. In addition, the Department

is also considering adoption of

additional provisions to address two

other situations where clothes washers

have multiple warm wash TCSs. First,

similar to the clothes washer covered by

Interim Waiver CW-004, a clothes

washer could have a median warm wash

selection and two or more pairs (one

selection above and the other below the

median) of additional warm selections,

with the two selections in each pair

being an equal distance (by temperature)

from the median. The Department

contemplates that in such a situation, as

under Interim Waiver CW-004, a

manufacturer should have to test only

the median warm wash TCS. Second,

unlike the clothes washer covered by

Interim Waiver CW-004, a clothes

washer could have multiple warm wash

TCSs that are not equidistant from a

median warm wash TCS. The

Department is considering incorporation

into Appendix I of a requirement that,

in such a situation, a manufacturer

would test the TCS with the warm wash

temperature that is the next higher

selection above the actual mean

selection, or above a theoretical mean

warm wash TCS if an actual mean

selection does not exist. The

Department seeks comments regarding

these issues.

Multiple Temperature Settings Within a

Temperature Combination Selection

The GEA clothes washer covered by

Interim Waiver CW-004 also has

multiple temperature settings, i.e., a

range of temperatures from which a

consumer can make a setting within a

specific TCS. Section 3.2.2.2 of the

current test procedure requires that the

"hottest setting available" be used for

testing the hot wash TCS. In Interim

Waiver CW-004, the Department

provided a test methodology to GEA for

its clothes washer which requires that

the hottest temperature setting within a

hot, warm or cold TCS be tested.

This approach is similar to the

Department's proposal in the NOPR for

addressing similar TCSs that are labeled

so as to appear to the consumer to be

virtually identical. In essence, the

similarly labeled TCSs are two

temperature settings for one basic TCS.

For example on a single clothes washer,

one cold wash/cold rinse TCS may be

labeled 'cold/cold," with a wash

temperature that is never heated, and

another can be labeled "auto cold/cold"

with a wash temperature that uses some

hot water. The Department's NOPR

proposes that the hottest of these two

selections be used for test results. The

Department believes this proposal is

consistent with the industry's basic

interpretation of the test procedure. The

Department believes this issue is

essentially the same as the multiple

temperature setting issue regarding the

GEA clothes washer. The Department

did not receive any negative comment

regarding the NOPR's provision for

similarly labeled TCSs.

However, the Department did receive

negative comment from Fisher & Paykel

Limited (Fisher and Paykel) 6 in

response to the Interim Waiver CW-004

granted to GEA. Fisher & Paykel is

concerned that the test methodology

that requires testing at the hottest

temperature setting available within a

TCS is inconsistent with the test

methodology regarding multiple warm

wash TCSs, discussed above. The two

approaches may appear to be

inconsistent, but the Department

believes they would establish the best

solution given the treatment of multiple

warm TCSs in Interim Waiver CW-004

and the proposal in the NOPR for

6Fisher & Paykel Limited is the manufacturer of

the clothes washer that GEA is petitioning for a

waiver.

similarly labeled TCSs. One of the

Department's goals in proposing to

amend the Appendix J test procedure is

to see that the test procedure does not

affect the energy rating of any model

that must meet the current minimum

efficiency standard. In addition, to the

extent possible, the Department wants

to ensure that all models are tested and

rated on a comparable basis. Therefore,

the Department is considering adoption

of provisions for Appendix J that would

require, for each TCS tested, that the test

be conducted at the hottest setting

available for that TCS. The Department

welcomes comments on this issue.

One and Two Temperature Combination

Selections

The GEA clothes washers that are the

subject of Interim Waiver CW-005, cited

above, have only two wash/rinse TCSs.

One selection has a cold wash and a

cold rinse, while the other has a heated

wash and a cold rinse. In the Interim

Waiver granted to GEA, the Department

provided a TUF of 15 percent for the

cold/cold selection in these clothes

washers, which is the same TUF value

as is contained in the current test

procedure for the cold/cold selection for

three, four, five, and six TCS clothes

washers. The heated TCS addressed in

Interim Waiver CW-005 had the

remaining percentage, or a TUF of 85

percent. The Department did not receive

any negative comments regarding these

proration factors. The Department is

considering adoption of the same TUF

values for Appendix J.

In addition, the Department proposes

to specify that a clothes washer with

only one TCS would be tested at that

TCS 100 percent of the time. The

Department plans to adopt the following

tables for Appendix J:

TemperaWash/rinse temperature setting ture use

factor

(TUF)

One Temperature Selection (n=1)

Any 1.0

Two Temperature Selection (n=2)

Heated/cold 0.85

Cold/cold 0.15

The Department welcomes comments

regarding these issues.

List of Subjects in 10 CFR Part 430

Administrative practice and

procedure, Energy conservation,

Household appliances.

EE-RM-94-230A COMMENT 20
Federal Register I Vol. 61, No. 218 / Friday, November 8, 1996 / Proposed Rules 57797

Issued in Washington, DC, November 4,

1996.

Christine A. Ervin,

Assistant Secretary, Energy Efficiency and

Renewable Energy.

[FR Doc. 96-28746 Filed 11-7-96; 8:45 amj

BILLING CODE 6450-01-P

FEDERAL RESERVE SYSTEM

12 CFR Part 215

[Regulation 0; Docket No. R-0940]

Loans to Executive Officers, Directors,

and Principal Shareholders of Member

Banks; Loans to Holding Companies

and Affiliates

AGENCY: Board of Governors of the

Federal Reserve System.

ACTION: Supplemental notice of

proposed rulemaking.

SUMMARY: The supplemental notice of

proposed rulemaking (supplemental

proposal) would amend the Board's

Regulation 0, which limits how much

and on what terms a bank may lend to

its own insiders and insiders of its

affiliates. Under the supplemental

proposal, the restrictions of Regulation

o would not apply to extensions of

credit by a bank to an executive officer

or director of the bank's affiliate,

provided that the executive officer or

director was not engaged in major

policymaking functions of the bank and

the affiliate did not account for more

than 10 percent of the consolidated

assets of the bank's holding company.

The supplemental proposal

supersedes a similar proposal included

in a proposed rule published by the

Board on May 3, 1996. The

supplemental proposal results from a

recent change in the exemptive

authority of the Board under the

Economic Growth and Regulatory

Paperwork Reduction Act of 1996. Other

provisions of the earlier proposal have

been adopted by the Board as a final

rule.

DATES: Comments must be received on

or before December 9, 1996.

ADDRESSES: Comments should refer to

Docket No. R-0940 and be mailed to

William W. Wiles, Secretary, Board of

Governors of the Federal Reserve

System, Washington, DC 20551, They

may also be delivered to the guard

station in the Eccles Building Courtyard

on 20th Street, NW. (between

Constitution Avenue and C Street),

between 8:45 am. and 5:15 p.m.,

weekdays. Except as provided in the

Board's rules regarding the availability

of information (12 CFR 261.8),

comments will be available for

inspection and copying by members of

the public in the Freedom of

exempt certain insiders of affiliates from

Regulation 0.

Information Office, Room MP-500 of the Background

Martin Building, between 9:00 a.m. and

5:00 p.m. on weekdays.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Gregory Baer, Managing Senior Counsel

(202/452-3236), or Gordon Miller,

Attorney (202/452-2534), Legal

Division, Board of Governors of the

Federal Reserve System. For the hearing

impaired only, Telecommunications

Device for the Deaf (TDD), Dorothea

Thompson (202/452-3544).

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION

Introduction

Section 22(h) of the Federal Reserve

Act restricts insider lending by banks,

and Regulation 0 implements section

22(h). 12 U.S.C. 375b; 12 CFR Part 215.

Regulation 0 limits total loans to any

one insider and aggregate loans to all

insiders to a percentage of the bank's

capital and requires that such loans be

on non-preferential terms-that is, on

the same terms a person not affiliated

with the bank would receive.1 12 CFR

215.4 (a), (c), and (d). For this purpose,

an "insider" means an executive officer,

director, or principal shareholder, and

loans to an insider include loans to any

"related interest" of the insider,

including any company controlled by

the insider. 12 CFR 215.2(h). Regulation

O requires that banks maintain records

to document compliance with all these

restrictions. 12 CFR 215.8.

On May 3, 1996, the Board proposed

amendments to Regulation 0 to conform

its exceptions for executive officers and

directors of affiliates of banks to the

requirements of section 22(h), as

amended by the Riegle Community

Development and Regulatory

Improvement Act of 1994 (Riegle Act).2

61 FR 19,683. On September 30, 1996,

in the Economic Growth and Regulatory

Paperwork Reduction Act of 1996

(EGRPRA) , Congress further amended

section 22(h) (8) (B) by expanding the

number of restrictions from which the

Board could exempt insiders of

affiliates, but narrowing the number of

insiders of affiliates eligible for such

exemptions. In view of the changes in

the Board's authority and the comments

received from the public concerning the

Board's original proposal, the Board is

seeking comment on a new proposal to

'Regulation 0 also requires prior approval of the

bank's board of directors for certain loans to

insiders and prohibits overdrafts by executive

officers and directors.

2Pub. L. 103-325, section 334 (1994).

3Pub. L. 104-208, section 2211 (1996).

Section 22(h) restricts lending not

only to insiders of the bank that is

making the loan but also to insiders of

the bank's parent bank holding

company and any other subsidiary of

that bank holding company.4 Prior to

FDICIA, the Board's rules exempted

from all the provisions of Regulation 0

an executive officer of the bank's

affiliates (other than the parent bank

holding company) who did not

participate in major policymaking

functions at the bank.5 12 CFR 2 15,2(d)

(1992). The Board considered this

treatment appropriate for two reasons.

First, such persons generally were not

considered to be in a position to exert

sufficient leverage on the lending bank

to obtain a loan on anything but arm's

length terms, in contrast to executive

officers of the lending bank itself or its

parent. Thus, the Board considered the

benefits, in terms of protecting the

safety and soundness of bank, of

restricting loans to these insiders of

affiliates to be small. Second, applying

these restrictions to executive officers of

affiliates would have required each bank

to maintain an updated list of all its

affiliates' executive officers and all

related interests of these executive

officers, and to check all loans against

this list. Particularly for a bank in a

large bank holding company structure,

this effort would have constituted a

significant burden not outweighed by

any substantial benefit.

However, after the FDICIA

amendment, the language of the statute

no longer appeared to allow such an

4As amended by the Federal Deposit Insurance

Corporation Improvement Act of 1991 (FDICIA),

section 22(h) (8) provides that 'any executive

officer, director, or principal shareholder (as the

case may be) of any company of which the member

bank is a subsidiary, or of any other subsidiary of

that company, shall be deemed to be an executive

officer, director, or principal shareholder (as the

case may be) of the member bank." 12 U.S.C.

375b(8) (A).

5Subsection (h) of section 22 was added in 1978.

Financial Institutions Regulatory and Interest Rate

Control Act of 1978, Pub, L. 95-630, § 104. At that

time, subsection (h) was ambiguous about whether

an executive officer of a bank's affiliate was

required to be treated like an executive officer of

the bank itself. The statute provided that an

"officer" of a bank included officers of affiliates, but

did not similarly address "executive officers." The

statute's restrictions on lending by a bank to

"executive officers" of the bank therefore did not

clearly apply to "executive officers" of affiliates. No

such ambiguity existed with respect to directors

and principal shareholders of affiliates, who were

explicitly treated like their counterparts at the

lending bank. In 1980, the Board amended

Regulation 0 to cover insiders of affiliates, but

included a regulatory exception for executive

officers of affiliates who did not participate in major

policymaking functions at the bank.

EE-RM-94-230A COMMENT 20