This section of the FEDERAL REGISTER

contains notices to the public of the proposed

issuance of rules and regulations. The

purpose of these notices is to give interested

persons an opportunity to participate in the

rule making prior to the adoption of the final

rules.

Proposed Rules Federal Register

15878

Vol. 60, No. 59

Tuesday, March 28, 1995

NUCLEAR REGULATORY

COMMISSION

10 CFR Part 2

RIN 3150–AF23

Petition for Rulemaking; Procedure for

Submission

AGENCY: Nuclear Regulatory

Commission.

ACTION: Proposed rule.

SUMMARY: The Nuclear Regulatory

Commission (NRC) is proposing to

amend its regulations pertaining to

petitions for rulemaking. The proposed

changes would provide incentive to

submit sufficient supporting

information in petitions to facilitate

more expeditious disposition by the

NRC, and would also improve openness

of the petition for rulemaking process by

delineating priorities for review of the

petitions.

DATES: Comment period expires June 12,

1995. Comments received after this date

will be considered if it is practical to do

so, but the Commission is able to assure

consideration only for comments

received on or before this date.

ADDRESSES: Mail written comments to:

Secretary, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory

Commission, Washington, DC 20555,

Attention: Docketing and Services

Branch.

Deliver comments to: 11555 Rockville

Pike, Rockville, Maryland, between 7:45

a.m. and 4:15 p.m. Federal workdays.

Copies of comments received may be

examined at: the NRC Public Document

Room, 2120 L Street NW. (Lower Level),

Washington, DC.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: T.Y.

Chang, telephone (301) 415–6450, or

Chris Rourk, telephone (301) 415–5865,

Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research,

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission,

Washington, DC 20555.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

NRC and industry resources are

limited and becoming more so.

Inefficient regulations, i.e., regulations

that are burdensome and have a

minimal safety benefit, could divert

NRC and industry resources from issues

important to safety, thereby adversely

affecting safety. While maintaining its

emphasis on safety, the NRC over the

past 10 years has initiated several

programs designed to improve the

efficiency of its regulatory program.

These efforts include notably the

Marginal To Safety (MTS) program, the

Regulatory Review Group (RRG) and

Cost Beneficial Licensing Actions

(CBLA) Task Force studies, and the

Technical Specification Amendments

Screening Panel.

These programs have identified a

number of inefficient regulatory

requirements. They also enabled the

NRC to conclude, among other matters,

that (1) an expanded role for the public,

including the industry, to participate in

the process of improving regulations

through petitions for rulemaking is

highly desirable and should be

encouraged, and (2) the petition for

rulemaking process could be improved

to make it more responsive to

petitioners.

Description

The NRC has prepared a proposed

rule that would modify 10 CFR 2.802,

Petition for Rulemaking, to expand the

use and improve the responsiveness of

the petition for rulemaking process. The

proposed rule would also delineate

factors that affect priorities for review of

petitions. This would improve the

openness of the rulemaking process.

The NRC staff currently expends

resources in developing responses to

petitions for rulemaking that may or

may not result in changes to NRC

regulations. The reasons for the granting

or denial of petitions sometimes only

become evident after completion of

considerable NRC staff effort that may

include the development of a regulatory

analysis and a backfit analysis. As a

consequence, processing and

disposition of petitions sometimes is

unduly prolonged. On the other hand,

the NRC recognizes that licensees are in

the best position to provide information

to assist the NRC to assess the effect of

regulatory actions and are also the

primary beneficiaries of efforts to reduce

regulatory requirements that are unduly

burdensome but have no

commensurable safety benefits.

In order to allow petitions to be

treated more expeditiously, to facilitate

the submission of petitions with strong

technical merit, and to improve the

likelihood of acceptance of petitions,

the NRC proposes to modify § 2.802 to

encourage industry and the public to

submit more detailed supporting

information in the petition for

rulemaking than currently required. The

NRC concluded that this modification

would be an effective means to help

processing the petitions in a more

expeditious manner, because this

information would enable the NRC staff

to conclude, with a minimal

expenditure of staff resources, whether

to grant or deny the petition. The

incentive for any petitioner to take this

action would be that more expeditious

review and processing of the petition

will result. It is expected that this

alternative process will be more

efficient in the use of NRC staff and

industry resources and be more

responsive to petitioners. This proposed

rule would not change any existing

provision regarding petitions for

rulemaking, rather it offers an

alternative within the petition process

which would be available to all

petitioners regardless of the nature of

the petitions.

The industry is therefore encouraged

to identify and propose improvements

to regulations that seek to reduce the

regulatory burden while providing

sufficient supporting information in the

petition to demonstrate that the

proposed changes will result in

significant reduced burden and minimal

impact to overall safety (safety

neutrality). Similarly, members of the

public who seek safety enhancement

through the rulemaking process are

encouraged to make use of the sizable

publicly available safety information to

support and expedite their petitions.

It is to be noted that the prioritization

and scheduling for review and

disposition by NRC are based on

consideration of the merit of each

petition. The merit of a petition is

judged on its safety significance and the

level of detail of supporting

information. Petitions containing

supporting information additional to

those currently required would improve

their priority for review and receive

more expeditious disposition.

Consideration of safety significance is

the first criterion for prioritizing the
Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 59 / Tuesday, March 28, 1995 / Proposed Rules 15879

review and disposition of petitions. It is

the primary concern of the NRC to

ensure that design and operation of NRC

licensed facilities are carried out in a

manner which assures adequate

protection of public health and safety, of

the environment, and of national

security. Therefore, petitions found by

the NRC to raise a concern in this regard

would receive immediate NRC

attention. In assessing the safety

significance of petitions consideration

would be given to the technical

information submitted and other

information available to the NRC, and to

whether the proposal is likely to meet

the criteria of the backfit rule. Petitions

that are safety neutral, i.e.,

implementation of which would result

in an insignificant change to the level of

protection to public health and safety,

would be resolved in such a way as to

minimize the cost to the NRC and

maximize the benefit to the petitioner.

The more detailed supporting

information in addition to that required

in the current § 2.802(c) should include

the suggested regulatory text, regulatory

analysis, backfit analysis (if required),

information required by the National

Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), and

a guidance document similar in nature

to a Regulatory Guide, if needed, in

support of a proposed rule, as described

in paragraph (d)(2) of the proposed rule.

The regulatory analysis is important for

petitions seeking either to enhance

safety or to reduce regulatory burden,

because it would provide information

on the changes to risk levels as well as

costs associated with proposed

alternatives.

The proposed changes would afford

any petitioner two options: submit the

minimal threshold information in the

petition that is required by the current

rule and be subject to the regular

processing procedures, or submit more

detailed supporting information and

analyses in the petition in return for a

more expeditious processing procedure

by the NRC. The proposed revisions

would not change any existing

provision regarding petitions for

rulemaking if they meet the minimum

threshold requirement of the current

§ 2.802(c).

Subsequent to the establishment of

review priority the NRC would develop

a schedule for all petitions that are

docketed. This schedule would reflect

the priority of each petition based on

consideration of the combination of

safety significance and level of detail of

supporting information. A summary of

petitions for rulemaking, including the

status of each petition, would be

prepared semiannually by the NRC staff,

as described in paragraph (h) of the

proposed rule. A copy of this report

would be available for public review in

the NRC Public Document Room.

Further, the NRC has decided to

provide administrative procedures to

make it easier for concerned parties to

submit petitions for changes to

regulatory guidance documents, such as

regulatory guides, bulletins, generic

letters and sections of the Standard

Review Plan (SRP). These documents do

not have the force and effect of a

regulation, but they are used by the NRC

staff to identify methods that would

comply with the regulation. A formal

procedure which enables interested

parties to propose changes to such

regulatory guidance documents does not

now exist. The guidance for preparation

of more detailed petitions for

rulemaking as well as petitions

requesting the revision of regulatory

guidance documents will be provided in

proposed Regulatory Guides 10.XX and

10.XY to be developed in the near

future.

Specific Considerations

Advice and recommendations on the

proposed revision to 10 CFR 2.802 and

on any other points considered

pertinent are invited from all interested

persons. Comments and supporting

reasons are particularly requested on the

following questions:

1. Is the concept of the proposal

sound, namely that all petitioners have

the option to submit more detailed

supporting information which, if found

adequate, would lead to faster NRC

disposition?

2. Is the description of information

required for detailed supporting

information in paragraph (d)(2)

sufficiently complete to avoid

unnecessary correspondence after the

petition has been docketed?

3. Under what circumstances should

a guidance document in the form of a

Regulatory Guide be required to support

a petition? What criteria are appropriate

for not requiring it?

4. Should there be an NRC electronic

bulletin board dealing exclusively with

petitions?

5. As the NRC attempts to shift

rulemaking approaches to be more

performance-based and risk-based, what

changes would be appropriate for the

information requirements under the

proposed revision of 10 CFR 2.802?

6. Should administrative procedures

be established to allow petitions for

changes to regulatory guidance

documents, such as regulatory guides,

bulletins, generic letters, and sections of

the Standard Review Plan? Should these

procedures be incorporated in a rule?

Environmental Impact: Categorical

Exclusion

The proposed regulations involve an

amendment to 10 CFR 2.802, and

qualify as actions eligible for the

categorical exclusion from

environmental review in 10 CFR

51.22(c)(1). Therefore, neither an

environmental impact statement nor an

environmental assessment has been

prepared for these proposed regulations.

Paperwork Reduction Act Statement

The proposed rule amends

information collection requirements that

are subject to the Paperwork Reduction

Act of 1980 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq). This

rule has been submitted to the Office of

Management and Budget for review and

approval of the information collection

requirements.

The public reporting burden for this

collection of information is estimated to

average an additional 500 hours for each

PRM that contains additional

supporting information and analyses.

Send comments regarding this burden

estimate or any other aspect of this

collection of information, including

suggestions for reducing this burden, to

the Information and Records

Management Branch (T–6 F33), U.S.

Nuclear Regulatory Commission,

Washington, DC 20555–0001; and to the

Desk Officer, Office of Information and

Regulatory Affairs, NEOB–10202,

(3150–0136), Office of Management and

Budget, Washington, DC 20503.

Regulatory Analysis

The Administrative Procedure Act

requires each Federal agency to give

interested persons the right to petition

for the issuance, amendment, or repeal

of a rule. The proposed changes would

facilitate more expeditious disposition

by the NRC of petitions with sufficient

supporting information, and would also

improve the openness of the rulemaking

process by delineating petition review

priorities. This expended right,

however, is available to any interested

petitioner. The proposed rule does not

affect any existing rights and gives

expanded rights to licensees and

interested persons. This proposed rule

constitutes the preferred course of

action and the cost involved in its

promulgation and action is necessary

and appropriate. The foregoing

discussion constitutes the regulatory

analysis for the proposed rule.

Regulatory Flexibility Certification

In accordance with the Regulatory

Flexibility Act of 1980 (5 U.S.C. 605(b)),

the Commission certifies that this rule

will not, if promulgated, have a

significant economic impact on a
15880 Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 59 / Tuesday, March 28, 1995 / Proposed Rules

substantial number of small entities.

Any interested person has the right to

submit a petition for rulemaking under

the existing guidelines. If an interested

person voluntarily chooses to develop

additional information and perform

additional analysis to support a

proposed petition, the proposed rule

would further encourage petitioners to

do so. If the interested person is unable

or unwilling to incur the costs

associated with developing additional

information and performing these

analyses, a petition may be submitted

under the existing rule. The NRC staff

will continue to perform the analyses

that may be required to resolve the

petition. The proposed rule does not

impose any obligations on regulated

entities that may fall within the

definition of ‘‘small entities’’ as set forth

in section 601(3) of the Regulatory

Flexibility Act, or within the definition

of ‘‘small business’’ as found in section

3 of the Small Business Act (15 U.S.C.

632), or within the small business

standards contained in 13 CFR Part 121.

Backfit Analysis

This proposed rule does not involve

any new provisions which would

impose backfits as defined in 10 CFR

50.109(a)(1). Accordingly, no backfit

analysis pursuant to 10 CFR 50.109(c) is

required for this proposed rule.

List of Subjects in 10 CFR Part 2

Administrative practice and

procedure, Antitrust, Byproduct

material, Classified information,

Environmental protection, Nuclear

materials, Nuclear power plants and

reactors, Penalties, Sex discrimination,

Source material, Special nuclear

material, Waste treatment and disposal.

For the reasons set out in the

preamble and under the authority of the

Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended,

the Energy Reorganization Act of 1974,

as amended, and 5 U.S.C. 553, the NRC

is proposing to adopt the following

amendments to 10 CFR part 2.

PART 2—RULES OF PRACTICE FOR

DOMESTIC LICENSING PROCEEDINGS

1. The authority citation for part 2

continues to read as follows:

Authority: Secs. 161, 181, 68 Stat. 948,

953, as amended (42 U.S.C. 2201, 2231); sec.

191, as amended, Pub. L. 87–615, 76 Stat. 409

(42 U.S.C. 2241); sec. 201, 88 Stat. 1242, as

amended (42 U.S.C. 5841); 5 U.S.C. 552.

Section 2.101 also issued under secs. 53,

62, 63, 81, 103, 104, 105, 68 Stat. 930, 932,

933, 935, 936, 937, 938, as amended (42

U.S.C. 2073, 2092, 2093, 2111, 2133, 2134,

2135); sec. 114(f), Pub. L. 97–425, 96 Stat.

2213, as amended (42 U.S.C. 10134(f)); sec.

102, Pub. L. 91–190, 83 Stat. 853, as amended

(42 U.S.C. 4332); sec. 301, 88 Stat. 1248 (42

U.S.C. 5871). Sections 2.102, 2.103, 2.104,

2.105, 2.721, also issued under secs. 102,

103, 104, 105, 183, 189, 68 Stat. 936, 937,

938, 954, 955 as amended (42 U.S.C. 2132,

2133, 2134, 2135, 2233, 2239). Section 2.105

also issued under Pub. L. 97–415, 96 Stat.

2073 (42 U.S.C. 2239). Sections 2.200–2.206

also issued under secs. 161b,i, o, 182, 186,

234, 68 Stat. 948–951, 955, 83 Stat. 444, as

amended (42 U.S.C. 2236, 2282); sec. 206, 88

Stat. 1246 (42 U.S.C. 5846). Sections 2.600–

2.606 also issued under sec. 102, Pub. L. 91–

190, 83 Stat. 853, as amended (42 U.S.C.

4332). Sections 2.700a, 2.719 also issued

under 5 U.S.C. 554. Sections 2.754, 2.760,

2.770, 2.780 also issued under 5 U.S.C. 557.

Section 2.764 and Table 1A of Appendix C

also issued under secs. 135, 141, Pub. L. 97–

425, 96 Stat. 2232, 2241 (42 U.S.C. 10155,

10161). Section 2.790 also issued under sec.

103, 68 Stat. 936, as amended (42 U.S.C.

2133) and 5 U.S.C. 552. Sections 2.800 and

2.808 also issued under 5 U.S.C. 553. Section

2.809 also issued under 5 U.S.C. 553 and sec.

29, Pub. L. 85–256, 71 Stat. 579, as amended

(42 U.S.C. 2039). Subpart K also issued under

sec. 189, 68 Stat. 955 (42 U.S.C. 2239); sec.

134, Pub. L. 97–425, 96 Stat. 2230 (42 U.S.C.

10154). Subpart L also issued under sec. 189,

68 Stat. 955 (42 U.S.C. 2239). Appendix A

also issued under sec. 6, Pub. L. 91–560, 84

Stat. 1473 (42 U.S.C. 2135). Appendix B also

issued under sec. 10, Pub. L. 99–240, 99 Stat.

1842 (42 U.S.C. 2021b et seq.).

§ 2.8 [Amended]

2. Section 2.8 paragraph (b) is revised

to read as follows:

* * * * *

(b) The approved information

collection requirements contained in

this part appear in § 2.802 and appendix

C.

3. Section 2.802 is revised to read as

follows:

§ 2.802 Petition for rulemaking.

(a) Any interested person may

petition the Commission to issue,

amend, or rescind any regulation. The

petition should be addressed to the

Secretary, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory

Commission, Washington, DC 20555–

0001, Attention: Chief, Docketing and

Service Branch.

(b) A prospective petitioner may

consult with the NRC before filing a

petition for rulemaking by writing the

Director, Freedom of Information and

Publications Services, Office of

Administration, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory

Commission, Washington, DC 20555–

0001, Attention: Chief, Rules Review

and Directives Branch. A prospective

petitioner may also telephone the Rules

Review and Directives Branch on (301)

415–7158 or toll free on (800) 368–5642.

(1) In any consultation before the

filing of a petition for rulemaking, the

assistance that may be provided by the

NRC staff is limited to:

(i) Describing the procedure and

process for filing and responding to a

petition for rulemaking;

(ii) Clarifying an existing NRC

regulation and the basis for regulation;

and

(iii) Assisting the prospective

petitioner to clarify a potential petition

so that the Commission is able to

understand the nature of the issues of

concern to the petitioner.

(2) In providing the assistance

permitted in paragraph (b)(1) of this

section, the NRC staff will not draft or

develop text or alternative approaches

to address matters in the prospective

petition for rulemaking.

(c) Each petition filed under this

section shall:

(1) Set forth a general solution to the

problem or the substance or text of any

proposed regulation or amendment, or

specify the regulation which is to be

revoked or amended;

(2) State clearly and concisely the

petitioner’s grounds for and interest in

the action requested;

(3) Include a statement in support of

the petition which shall set forth the

specific issues involved, the petitioner’s

views or arguments with respect to

those issues, relevant technical,

scientific or other data involved which

is reasonably available to the petitioner,

and such other pertinent information as

the petitioner deems necessary to

support the action sought. In support of

its petition, petitioner should note any

specific cases of which petitioner is

aware where the current rule is unduly

burdensome, deficient, or needs to be

strengthened.

(d) Petitions for rulemaking will be

prioritized and scheduled for review

and disposition by NRC on the basis of

the following considerations:

(1) Safety significance of the issues

identified or alternatives proposed in

petitions will be the dominant

consideration for the prioritization of

petitions.

(2) Petitions containing supporting

information additional to that described

in paragraph (c) of this section, will

improve the priority for review and

more expeditious disposition. Sufficient

supporting information for higher

priority should include:

(i) The text of a proposed, revised, or

amended regulation (‘‘the proposed

rule’’);

(ii) Supplementary information

constituting the proposed statement of

considerations for the regulation;

(iii) Supporting material to show

conformance with legal requirements

such as the National Environmental

Policy Act, the Paperwork Reduction
Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 59 / Tuesday, March 28, 1995 / Proposed Rules 15881

1NUREG/BR–0058, ‘‘Regulatory Analysis

Guidelines of the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory

Commission,’’ Rev. 1, May 1984. A draft Rev. 2 of

this report was issued for comment in August 1993,

and should be published as final report in the near

future.

2NUREG/CR–3568, ‘‘A Handbook for ValueImpact Assessment,’’ December 1983. The

document is currently undergoing revision and will

tentatively be titled the ‘‘Regulatory Analysis

Technical Evaluation Handbook.’’

Note: Copies of NUREG/BR–0058 and NUREG/

CR–3568 may be purchased from the

Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government

Printing Office, Mail Stop SSOP, Washington, DC

20402–9328. Copies are also available from the

National Technical Information Service, 5285 Port

Royal Road, Springfield, VA 22161. A copy is also

available for inspection and copying for a fee in the

NRC Public Document Room, 2120 L Street NW.

(Lower Level), Washington, DC 20555–0001.

Act, and the Regulatory Flexibility Act,

as appropriate;

(iv) A regulatory analysis. For

information on the form and content of

a regulatory analysis see NUREG/BR–

00581 and NUREG/CR–3568;2

(v) Supporting information that

responds to 10 CFR 50.109(c), the

Backfit rule where applicable; and

(vi) A guidance document in the form

of a Regulatory Guide when necessary

(Note that a Regulatory Guide is usually

provided for a performance based

regulation).

(e) The petitioner may request the

Commission to suspend all or part of

any licensing proceeding to which the

petitioner is a party pending disposition

of the petition for rulemaking.

(f) If it is determined that the petition

includes the information required by

paragraphs (c) and, if petitioner elects,

(d)(2) of this section and is complete,

the Director, Division of Freedom of

Information and Publications Services,

or designee, will assign a docket number

to the petition, will cause the petition to

be formally docketed, and will deposit

a copy of the docketed petition in the

Commission’s Public Document Room.

Public comment may be requested by

publication of a notice of the docketing

of the petition in the Federal Register,

or, in appropriate cases, may be invited

for the first time upon publication in the

Federal Register of a proposed rule

developed in response to the petition.

Publication will be limited by the

requirements of section 181 of the

Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended,

and may be limited by order of the

Commission.

(g) If it is determined by the Executive

Director for Operations that the petition

does not include the information

required by paragraphs (c) and, if

applicable, (d)(2) of this section and is

incomplete, the petitioner will be

notified of that determination and the

respects in which the petition is

deficient and will be accorded an

opportunity to submit additional data.

Ordinarily this determination will be

made within 30 days from the date of

receipt of the petition by the Office of

the Secretary of the Commission. If the

petitioner does not submit additional

data to correct the deficiency within 90

days from the date of notification to the

petitioner that the petition is

incomplete, the petition may be

returned to the petitioner without

prejudice to the right of the petitioner to

file a new petition.

(h) The Director, Division of Freedom

of Information and Publications

Services, Office of Administration, will

prepare on a semiannual basis a

summary of petitions for rulemaking

before the Commission, including the

status of each petition. A copy of the

report will be available for public

inspection and copying for a fee in the

Commission’s Public Document Room,

2120 L Street NW. (Lower Level),

Washington, DC.

Dated at Rockville, MD, this 22nd day of

March 1995.

For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

Andrew L. Bates,

Acting Secretary of the Commission.

[FR Doc. 95–7563 Filed 3–27–95; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 7590–01–P

FEDERAL RESERVE SYSTEM

12 CFR Part 225

[Regulation Y; Docket No. R–0872]

Bank Holding Companies and Change

in Bank Control

AGENCY: Board of Governors of the

Federal Reserve System.

ACTION: Proposed rule.

SUMMARY: The Board is proposing to

amend its Regulation Y to eliminate the

need for a bank holding company to file

a request with the Board for a

determination under section 2(g)(3) of

the Bank Holding Company Act that it

no longer controls shares or assets that

it has sold to a third party with

financing if: The purchaser is not an

affiliate or principal shareholder of the

divesting holding company, or a

company controlled by the principal

shareholder; and there are no officers,

directors, trustees or beneficiaries of the

acquiror in common with or subject to

control by the divesting company. The

Board believes that the elimination of

the requirement for a determination of

control for these types of divestitures

will reduce the regulatory burden on

bank holding companies without

undermining the purposes of the Bank

Holding Company Act. This proposal

has been identified in connection with

the Board’s continuing effort to

eliminate obsolete or unnecessary

regulations or applications.

DATES: Comments must be submitted on

or before April 28, 1995.

ADDRESSES: Comments should refer to

Docket No. R–0872 and may be mailed

to William W. Wiles, Secretary, Board of

Governors of the Federal Reserve

System, 20th Street and Constitution

Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20551.

Comments also may be delivered to

Room B–2222 of the Eccles Building

between 8:45 a.m. and 5:15 p.m.

weekdays, or to the guard station in the

Eccles Building courtyard on 20th Street

NW. (between Constitution Avenue and

C Street NW.) at any time. Comments

may be inspected in Room MP–500 of

the Martin Building between 9:00 a.m.

and 5:00 p.m. weekdays, except as

provided in 12 CFR 261.8 of the Board’s

rules regarding availability of

information.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Pamela G. Nardolilli, Senior Attorney

(202/452–3289), Legal Division, Board

of Governors of the Federal Reserve

System. For the hearing impaired only,

Telecommunication Device for the Deaf

(TDD), Dorothea Thompson (202/452–

3544), Board of Governors of the Federal

Reserve System, 20th and C Streets

NW., Washington, D.C. 20551.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Under

section 2(g)(3) of the Bank Holding

Company Act (12 U.S.C. 1841(g)), shares

transferred by a bank holding company

to any transferee where the transferee is

indebted to the transferor or has one or

more officers, directors, trustees, or

beneficiaries in common with the

transferor, are deemed to be controlled

by the transferor unless the Board, after

an opportunity for a hearing, determines

that the transferor is not capable of

controlling the transferee. The Board

proposes to amend § 225.32 of the

Board’s Regulation Y (12 CFR 225.32) to

exempt from the presumption of control

those divestitures where a bank holding

company is financing the sale of assets

or shares that it acquired so long as (i)

the property is not sold to an affiliate or

principal shareholder of the divesting

holding company, or a company

controlled by such a principal

shareholder; and (ii) there are no

officers, directors, trustees, or

beneficiaries of the acquiror in common

with or subject to control by the

divesting company.

A review of the 2(g)(3) determinations

over the past ten years indicates that

almost all control determinations under