Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 66 / Friday, April 6, 2007 / Rules and Regulations 16987 

Subpart H—Outside Activities 

§ 2635.804 [Amended] 

■ 5. Section 2635.804 is amended by 

removing the citation ‘‘§ 2636.303(b)(8)’’

in paragraph (c)(1) and adding in its 

place the citation ‘‘§ 2636.303(b)(7)’’. 

PART 2636—LIMITATIONS ON 

OUTSIDE EARNED INCOME, 

EMPLOYMENT AND AFFILIATIONS 

FOR CERTAIN NONCAREER 

EMPLOYEES 

■ 6. The authority citation for part 2636 

continues to read as follows: 

Authority: 5 U.S.C. App. (Ethics in 

Government Act of 1978); Pub. L. 101–410, 

104 Stat. 890, 28 U.S.C. 2461 note (Federal 

Civil Penalties Inflation Adjustment Act of 

1990), as amended by Sec. 31001, Pub. L. 

104–134, 110 Stat. 1321 (Debt Collection 

Improvement Act of 1996); E.O. 12674, 54 FR 

15159, 3 CFR, 1989 Comp., p. 215, as 

modified by E.O. 12731, 55 FR 42547, 3 CFR, 

1990 Comp., p. 306. 

Subpart A—General Provisions 

■ 7. Section 2636.103 is amended by 

revising paragraph (a)(2) to read as 

follows: 

§ 2636.103 Advisory opinions. 

(a) * * * 

(2) An advisory opinion may not be 

obtained for the purpose of establishing 

whether a noncareer employee who is 

subject to the restrictions in subpart C 

of this part may receive compensation 

for teaching. An advisory opinion 

issued under this section may not be 

substituted for the advance written 

approval required by § 2636.307 of this 

part. 

* * * * * 

Subpart C—Outside Earned Income 

Limitation and Employment and 

Affiliations Restrictions Applicable to 

Certain Noncareer Employees 

■ 8. Section 2636.303 is amended by: 

■ A. Adding the word ‘‘or’’ following 

the semicolon at the end of paragraph 

(b)(6); 

■ B. Removing paragraph (b)(7); 

■ C. Redesignating paragraph (b)(8) as 

new paragraph (b)(7); and 

■ D. Removing the second sentence of 

the undesignated text at the end of 

paragraph (c) and revising the last 

sentence thereof. 

The revision reads as follows: 

§ 2636.303 Definitions. 

* * * * * 

(c) * * * 

* * * * * 

* * * Also, compensation or outside 

earned income donated to a charitable 

organization is received by the 

employee. 

[FR Doc. E7–6228 Filed 4–5–07; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6345–02–P 

FEDERAL RESERVE SYSTEM 

12 CFR Part 204 

[Regulation D; Docket No. R–1262] 

Reserve Requirements of Depository 

Institutions 

AGENCY: Board of Governors of the 

Federal Reserve System. 

ACTION: Final rule. 

SUMMARY: The Board of Governors is 

revising its 1980 interpretation of 

Regulation D (Reserve Requirements of 

Depository Institutions) setting forth 

criteria for the ‘‘bankers’ bank’’

exemption from reserve requirements. 

The interpretation sets forth the 

standards that the Board uses in 

applying the statutory and regulatory 

requirements for the bankers’ banks 

exemption to specific institutions. The 

revised interpretation specifies that the 

Board may determine, on a case-by-case 

basis, whether certain entities not 

already expressly listed in the 

interpretation may become customers to 

a limited extent of bankers’ banks that 

remain exempt from reserve 

requirements. 

DATES: Effective Date: May 7, 2007. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Heatherun Allison, Senior Counsel, 

(202) 452–3565; or Kara Handzlik, 

Attorney, (202) 452–3852, Legal 

Division, Board of Governors of the 

Federal Reserve System, Washington, 

DC 20551. For users of 

Telecommunications Device for the Deaf 

(TDD) only, contact (202) 263–4869. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

I. Statutory Background 

Section 19(b) of the Federal Reserve 

Act (Act) imposes reserve requirements 

on certain deposits and other liabilities 

of depository institutions for monetary 

policy purposes. 12 U.S.C. 461(b). The 

Board’s Regulation D, ‘‘Reserve 

Requirements of Depository 

Institutions’’ (12 CFR part 204), 

implements Section 19(b). Section 

19(b)(9) of the Act, commonly referred 

to as the ‘‘bankers’ bank exemption,’’

exempts from reserve requirements 

certain institutions that would 

otherwise be subject to them. 

Specifically, Section 19(b)(9) provides 

that reserve requirements ‘‘shall not 

apply with respect to any financial 

institution which—(A) is organized 

solely to do business with other 

financial institutions; (B) is owned 

primarily by the financial institutions 

with which it does business; and (C) 

does not do business with the general 

public.’’ 12 U.S.C. 461(b)(9). ‘‘Bankers’

banks’’ for purposes of Section 19(b)(9) 

of the Act and Regulation D include 

bankers’ banks for commercial banks 

and thrifts chartered under state or 

federal law authorities as well as 

corporate credit unions. 

II. Issuance of Original Interpretation 

In November 1980, the Board issued 

an interpretation of Regulation D 

specifying certain standards to be used 

in determining whether institutions 

qualify for the bankers’ bank exemption 

from reserve requirements. 12 CFR 

204.121 (Interpretation). Under the 

Interpretation, an institution may be 

regarded as ‘‘organized solely to do 

business with other depository 

institutions even if, as an incidental part 

to [sic] its activities, it does business to 

a limited extent with entities other than 

depository institutions.’’ Id. In addition, 

a depository institution will be regarded 

as ‘‘being owned primarily by the 

institutions with which it does 

business’’ if ‘‘75 per cent or more of its 

capital is owned by other depository 

institutions * * * regardless of the type 

of depository institution.’’ Id. 

Finally, the Interpretation states that a 

depository institution will be regarded 

as ‘‘not do[ing] business with the 

general public’’ if the depository 

institution has satisfied two 

requirements. First, the depository 

institution must limit the range of 

customers with which it does business 

to: depository institutions; subsidiaries 

or organizations owned by depository 

institutions; directors, officers or 

employees of the same or other 

depository institutions; individuals 

whose accounts are required at the 

request of the institution’s supervisory 

authority due to the actual or impending 

failure of another depository institution; 

share insurance funds; and depository 

institution trade associations. Second, 

the depository institution’s loans to or 

investment in that range of customers 

(other than depository institutions) 

cannot exceed 10 percent of total assets, 

and the extent to which it receives 

shares or deposits from or issues other 

liabilities to those same entities (other 

than depository institutions) cannot 

exceed 10 percent of total liabilities or 

net worth. Id. 

III. Proposed Revisions 

On August 14, 2006, the Board 

published for comment a proposal to 

revise the Interpretation to specify that 


cprice-sewell on PROD1PC66 with RULES
16988 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 66 / Friday, April 6, 2007 / Rules and Regulations 

1This commenter was concerned with 

§ 204.2(d)(2) of Regulation D (12 CFR 204.2(d)(2)) 

and ‘‘how consumer banking institutions are 

interpreting the Regulation to allow them to collect 

‘excess transaction fees’ from banking patrons.’’

2For a bankers’ bank that is a state member bank, 

the Board would have to approve any change in the 

general character of its business or in the scope of 

the corporate powers it exercises in accordance 

with Section 208.3(d)(2) of Regulation H 

(Membership of State Banking Institutions in the 

Federal Reserve System, 12 CFR part 208). 

the Board may determine, on a case-bycase basis, whether certain entities not 

already expressly listed in the 

Interpretation may become customers to 

a limited extent of bankers’ banks. (71 

FR 46411.) This proposal was issued 

pursuant to Section 19(a) of the Act, 

which authorizes the Board to define 

the terms used in that section and to 

prescribe such regulations as it may 

deem necessary to effectuate the 

purposes of the section and to prevent 

evasions thereof. 

The Board proposed to amend the 

Interpretation by adding to the list of 

non-depository institution customers 

with which bankers’ banks may do 

business and remain exempt from 

reserve requirements the language ‘‘and 

such others as the Board may determine 

on a case-by-case basis consistent with 

the purposes of the Act and the bankers’

bank exemption.’’ The proposal would 

require that such customers still be 

subject to the percentage limitations 

specified in the Interpretation relating to 

ownership and doing business (i.e., not 

more than 25 percent of bankers’ bank 

capital may be owned by nondepository institution customers and 

bankers’ bank business with nondepository institution customers may 

not exceed 10 percent of total assets/ 

liabilities). The Board did not propose 

to specify any standards under which it 

would make such case-by-case 

determinations. The proposal stated, 

however, that the Board would not 

expect to exercise the authority under 

the proposal to expand the range of 

permissible bankers’ bank customers to 

include the general public. The proposal 

also stated that the Board expects to 

obtain more experience over time with 

requests for determinations under the 

proposal and, based on that experience, 

may find that proposing further 

amendments to the Interpretation (such 

as specifications or standards by which 

the Board would make such 

determinations) are warranted. 

Comment was solicited on all aspects of 

the proposal. 

IV. Analysis of Comments 

Overview of Comments Received 

The Board received seventeen 

comments on the proposal. Commenters 

included five bankers’ banks (including 

corporate credit unions); five 

associations or councils representing 

bankers’ banks, corporate credit unions, 

or community banks; two individuals 

not associated with any institution, one 

professor, one bank, one credit union, 

one financial holding company, and one 

bank holding company. Two 

commenters fully supported the 

proposal, while eleven commenters 

supported the proposal but raised 

concerns and/or offered suggestions 

about various aspects of the proposal. 

Three commenters opposed the 

proposal. One commenter did not 

address the issue set forth by proposal 

but instead commented on a separate 

aspect of Regulation D.1

A. Structure of Bankers’ Banks; 

Competitive Concerns 

A few commenters favored the 

flexibility that would be given to the 

Board so that the Board could allow 

banks to structure their operations 

optimally and increase services to the 

financial community. Many 

commenters, however, were concerned 

that the proposal would erode or 

eliminate the unique characteristics of a 

bankers’ bank. Some of these 

commenters stated that adopting the 

proposal would increase competition 

between bankers’ banks and their bank 

customers. These commenters 

emphasized that bankers’ banks are not 

established to compete with community 

banks, but instead established to do 

business with community banks. 

One commenter stated that the 

bankers’ banks should not be permitted 

to increase their activities to the point 

where the bank clients and shareholders 

of bankers’ banks perceive these 

activities as directly competing with 

their own interest. This commenter 

stressed that the term bankers’ bank 

should be ‘‘restricted to banks [that] 

have chosen to be owned by banks, to 

offer services only to other banks and to 

embrace the concept of serving only 

community banks so that they in turn 

can compete effectively with the largest 

financial institutions.’’ On the other 

hand, two commenters suggested 

increasing the extent to which bankers’

banks could do business with nondepository institution customers while 

remaining exempt from reserve 

requirements. These commenters urged 

the Board to increase the percentage 

limitations specified in the 

Interpretation relating to ownership and 

doing business. 

The Board believes that adopting the 

proposal is not likely to erode the 

unique characteristics of bankers’ banks. 

The Board cannot under Regulation D 

authorize activities that are not 

authorized by a bankers’ bank’s 

chartering authority; rather, the Board 

can determine only whether a bankers’

bank may be exempt from reserve 

requirements.2 Any given bankers’ bank 

activity or customer must be authorized 

by the bankers’ bank chartering 

authority before the Board can consider 

whether a bankers’ bank may remain 

exempt from reserve requirements while 

undertaking such an activity or serving 

such a customer. In addition, as stated 

in the proposal, the Board does not 

anticipate permitting the reserve 

exemption to apply to a bankers’ bank 

that does business with the general 

public. 

The Board is not revising the 

percentage limitations on the extent to 

which bankers’ banks may serve nondepository institution customers while 

remaining exempt from reserve 

requirements. The Board does not 

believe that it is appropriate to increase 

those percentage limitations because to 

do so would reduce the extent to which 

bankers’ banks serve primarily 

depository institution customers. Any 

new non-depository institution 

customers that would be permitted 

under the revised Interpretation will 

still be subject to the existing percentage 

limitations specified in the 

Interpretation relating to ownership and 

doing business. 

Finally, the purpose of reserve 

requirements under Section 19 is to 

facilitate the conduct of monetary 

policy. Accordingly, the Board believes 

that exemptions from reserve 

requirements are to be narrowly 

construed so as not to impede the 

effective conduct of monetary policy. 

The more a bankers’ bank’s activities 

resemble those of a commercial bank or 

other depository institution, the less 

appropriate the reserve requirement 

exemption would be for that bankers’

bank. The Board believes that these 

considerations will keep the bankers’

bank exemption from reserve 

requirements from undue expansion 

under the revised Interpretation. 

B. Determination Process 

Some commenters raised concerns 

about the process by which the Board 

would make determinations under the 

proposal. Many of these commenters 

suggested that the Board publish 

requests for determinations and permit 

public comment on them. Among the 

commenters’ reasons for this request 

was so that bankers’ banks chartered by 

other authorities could concomitantly 

seek authorization of the same activities. 


cprice-sewell on PROD1PC66 with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 66 / Friday, April 6, 2007 / Rules and Regulations 16989 

Other commenters urged the Board to 

disclose the business reasons giving rise 

to requests for determinations as well as 

the Board’s reasoning in granting any 

such requests. A few commenters asked 

that the Board issue its determinations 

in the form of an order. These 

commenters argued that this would 

afford the bankers’ bank industry the 

opportunity to learn the ‘‘business 

rationale and the business opportunity’’

contained in such requests and orders 

until formal guidelines have been 

established by the Board. 

One commenter asked that the Board 

clearly set forth in the revised 

Interpretation the standards which will 

be used in making its future case-bycase determinations to preclude 

arbitrary or capricious determinations. 

On the other hand, another commenter 

urged the Board to relax standards for 

granting such requests and to clarify 

whether all entities with which the 

bankers’ bank is permitted to do 

business under the Interpretation will 

qualify as ‘‘financial institutions.’’

One commenter urged the Board to 

specify the length of time for making 

determinations under the revised 

Interpretation, claiming that the 

flexibility granted by the proposal could 

be offset by overly lengthy 

determination time periods. This 

commenter also urged the Board to 

address the extent to which individual 

Federal Reserve Banks will be involved 

with the decision making process, 

asserting that the individual Reserve 

Banks are in the best position to develop 

understanding of a company’s risk 

profile and management team which is 

necessary for making such 

determinations. 

The Board anticipates that 

determinations under the revised 

Interpretation will generally be made 

public and will include a description of 

the determination, the business and 

other reasons behind the request, and 

the Board’s reasoning in granting (or 

denying) the request. Although the 

Board does not anticipate publishing 

requests for such determinations prior 

to the time that the determination is 

made, the Board anticipates that all 

requests will be handled in a timely 

manner and that the input of the 

appropriate Federal Reserve Bank or 

Banks, if any, will be solicited as part 

of that process. 

Finally, the Board continues to 

believe that publishing more detailed 

criteria by which the Board would 

review requests under the revised 

Interpretation would be premature at 

this time. As noted above, the Board 

cannot under Regulation D authorize 

activities that are not authorized by a 

bankers’ bank’s chartering authority. 

The Board cannot predict the kinds of 

changes that may or may not occur in 

activities or customers that chartering 

authorities may permit. Accordingly, 

the Board cannot predict the details of 

the criteria under which it would 

evaluate such activities or customers for 

consistency with the Act and the 

purposes of the bankers’ bank 

exemption. Over time, however, the 

Board expects that it may be possible 

after further experience with requests 

under the Interpretation to articulate 

standards or guidelines for the further 

exercise of that authority by the Board. 

C. Miscellaneous 

One commenter supported the 

proposal, but asked for clarification of 

the ‘‘consistent with the purposes of the 

Act and the bankers’ bank exemption’’

language. Another commenter asked the 

Board to clarify the phrase ‘‘do business 

with’’ as that phrase appears in the Act 

and the Interpretation. As noted above, 

the Board believes that it cannot predict 

the manner in which chartering 

authorities may change the permissible 

activities and customers of bankers’

banks. Therefore, the Board believes 

that it cannot at this time provide 

greater specificity in these areas. As also 

noted above, however, the Board 

expects that it may be able to provide 

greater specificity in the future as an 

increasing amount of experience with 

requests and determinations under the 

proposal is obtained. 

One commenter supported the 

proposal but believed that the Board 

inadvertently removed language from 

the original Interpretation when issuing 

the proposal for comment. The Board 

has corrected this inadvertent omission 

in the final Interpretation. 

Another commenter suggested that 

adopting the proposal would make the 

regulation less specific and that this 

could impair any relief granted to 

bankers’ banks by adopting the 

proposal. This commenter also stated 

that the proposal violates ‘‘Plain 

Language’’ provisions of the GrammLeach-Bliley Act (Section 722 of Pub. L. 

106–102, 113 Stat. 1338, 1471 (Nov. 12, 

1999)). Finally, this commenter argued 

that the proposal provides such 

expansive authority to the Board that 

there can be little Congressional 

oversight of the Board’s activities in this 

area. As noted above, the Board cannot 

itself expand bankers’ bank authority to 

serve new kinds of customers and 

undertake new lines of activities. As 

also noted above, the Board believes 

that it can only issue determinations 

under the revised Interpretation that are 

consistent with the purposes of Section 

19 of the Act and of the bankers’ bank 

exemption, and that the revised 

Interpretation clearly states the Board’s 

authority and objectives. As also noted 

above, the Board does not anticipate 

exercising its authority under the 

revised Interpretation to expand the 

reserves exemption to bankers’ banks 

that do business with the general public. 

As further noted above, the Board 

anticipates that determinations made 

under the revised Interpretation will be 

publicly available. For these reasons, 

the Board does not believe that the 

Interpretation poses the risks or 

violations suggested by the commenter. 

V. Regulatory Analysis 

A. Regulatory Flexibility Act 

In accordance with Section 604 of the 

Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) (5 

U.S.C. 601 et seq.), the Board has 

reviewed the proposed amendments to 

the Interpretation of Regulation D. For 

the reasons set out below, the Board 

certifies that the amendments to the 

Interpretation will not have a significant 

economic impact on a substantial 

number of small entities. 

1. Statement of the objectives of the 

proposal. The Board is revising its 

Interpretation of Regulation D in order 

to authorize the Board to determine, on 

a case-by-case basis, whether nondepository institutions that are not 

already listed in the Interpretation may 

be bankers’ bank customers without the 

bankers’ bank losing its exemption from 

reserve requirements. Section 19 of the 

Act was enacted to impose reserve 

requirements on certain deposits and 

other liabilities of depository 

institutions for monetary policy 

purposes. Section 19 exempts certain 

institutions from reserve requirements 

as ‘‘bankers’ banks’’ provided the 

institutions meet the characteristics 

specified in the statute. Section 19 also 

authorizes the Board to promulgate such 

regulations as it may deem necessary to 

effectuate the purposes of the section. 

The Board believes the revisions to the 

Interpretation are within Congress’

broad grant of authority to the Board to 

adopt provisions that carry out the 

purposes of section 19 of the Act. 

2. Public comments in response to 

initial regulatory flexibility analysis. 

There were no public comments in 

response to the initial regulatory 

flexibility analysis. 

3. Description and estimate of number 

of small entities to which revised 

Interpretation will apply. The Board 

estimates that there are eleven bankers’

banks qualifying as ‘‘small entities’’ to 

which the revised Interpretation could 

apply. 


cprice-sewell on PROD1PC66 with RULES
16990 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 66 / Friday, April 6, 2007 / Rules and Regulations 

4. Projected reporting, recordkeeping, 

and other compliance requirements. 

There are no reporting, recordkeeping, 

or other compliance requirements 

associated with the revised 

Interpretation. 

5. Minimizing significant economic 

impact of the revised Interpretation on 

small entities. There were no public 

comments that suggested a significant 

alternative that would minimize the 

impact of the proposal on small entities. 

There are eleven bankers’ banks 

qualifying as ‘‘small entities’’ under 

RFA. The revised Interpretation 

provides all bankers’ banks with the 

ability to maintain their exemption from 

reserve requirements, if any, while 

undertaking certain additional bankers’

bank activities or customers as 

authorized by their chartering 

authorities. No bankers’ bank is required 

to seek a determination under the 

revised Interpretation. The revised 

Interpretation imposes no economic 

burdens on bankers’ banks, and instead 

only offers the opportunity to bankers’

banks that are exempt from reserve 

requirements to maintain the economic 

benefits of that exemption under the 

specified circumstances. Accordingly, 

the Board believes that the revised 

Interpretation will not have a significant 

impact on a substantial number of small 

entities. 

B. Paperwork Reduction Act 

In accordance with the Paperwork 

Reduction Act (PRA) of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 

3506; 5 CFR part 1320 Appendix A.10), 

the Board reviewed the proposal under 

the authority delegated to the Board by 

the Office of Management and Budget 

(OMB). The proposal contains no 

requirements subject to the PRA. 

VI. Plain Language 

The Board received one comment on 

whether the proposal was in plain 

language. This commenter stated that 

the Board’s failure to propose standards 

for its exercise of authority under the 

proposal amounted to a failure to 

comply with the ‘‘Plain Language’’

provisions of the Gramm-Leach-Bliley 

act. This commenter stated that the 

Board should instead say that it 

proposes to do whatever it wants given 

its view of the purposes of the Act. For 

the reasons stated above, the Board 

believes that the revised Interpretation 

is stated in plain language to the greatest 

extent possible at this point in time. As 

also stated above, the Board expects to 

publish further guidance and standards 

as it obtains additional experience in 

the future with requests for 

determinations under the revised 

Interpretation. Accordingly, the Board 

believes that the revised Interpretation 

complies with applicable plain language 

requirements. 

List of Subjects in 12 CFR Part 204 

Banks, banking, Reporting and 

recordkeeping requirements. 

■ For the reasons set forth in the 

preamble, the Board is amending 12 

CFR part 204 as follows: 

PART 204—RESERVE 

REQUIREMENTS OF DEPOSITORY 

INSTITUTIONS (REGULATION D) 

■ 1. The authority citation for part 204 

continues to read as follows: 

Authority: 12 U.S.C. 248(a), 248(c), 371a, 

461, 601, 611, and 3105. 

■ 2. The second sentence of paragraph 

(a)(2)(iii) of § 204.121 is revised to read 

as follows: 

§ 204.121 Bankers’ banks. 

(a) * * * 

(2) * * * 

(iii) * * * First, the range of 

customers with which the institution 

does business must be limited to 

depository institutions, including 

subsidiaries or organizations owned by 

depository institutions; directors, 

officers or employees of the same or 

other depository institutions; 

individuals whose accounts are 

acquired at the request of the 

institution’s supervisory authority due 

to the actual or impending failure of 

another depository institution; share 

insurance funds; depository institution 

trade associations; and such others as 

the Board may determine on a case-bycase basis consistent with the purposes 

of the Act and the bankers’ bank 

exemption. * * * 

* * * * * 

By order of the Board of Governors of the 

Federal Reserve System, April 3, 2007. 

Jennifer J. Johnson, 

Secretary of the Board. 

[FR Doc. E7–6473 Filed 4–5–07; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6210–02–P 

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

Federal Aviation Administration 

14 CFR Part 39 

[Docket No. FAA–2006–25105; Directorate 

Identifier 2006–CE–33–AD; Amendment 39–

15016; AD 2007–06–01 R1] 

RIN 2120–AA64 

Airworthiness Directives; Raytheon 

Aircraft Company Beech Models 45 

(YT–34), A45 (T–34A, B–45), and D45 

(T–34B) Airplanes 

AGENCY: Federal Aviation 

Administration (FAA), DOT. 

ACTION: Final rule; correction. 

SUMMARY: We are clarifying information 

contained in Airworthiness Directive 

(AD) 2007–06–01, which supersedes AD 

62–24–01 and applies to all Raytheon 

Aircraft Company (RAC) Beech Models 

45 (YT–34), A45 (T–34A, B45), and D45 

(T–34B) airplanes. AD 2007–06–01 

currently requires you to repetitively 

inspect, using the eddy current method, 

the front and rear horizontal stabilizer 

spars for cracks and replace any cracked 

stabilizer. We inadvertently left out the 

language in this AD that required 

replacement of any horizontal stabilizer 

spar found cracked prior to further flight 

although the procedures in the 

appendix made reference to corrective 

action. The replacement information 

was contained in the notice of proposed 

rulemaking (NPRM). This document 

adds this information already proposed 

back into the AD. We are issuing this 

AD to prevent failure of the front and/ 

or rear horizontal stabilizer spars caused 

by fatigue cracks. This failure could 

result in stabilizer separation and loss of 

control of the airplane. 

DATES: This AD becomes effective on 

April 16, 2007. 

ADDRESSES: To view the AD docket, go 

to the Docket Management Facility, U.S. 

Department of Transportation, 400 

Seventh Street, SW., Nassif Building, 

Room PL–401, Washington, DC 20590–

001 or on the Internet at http:// 

dms.dot.gov. The docket number is 

FAA–2006–25105; Directorate Identifier 

2006–CE–33–AD. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: T.N. 

Baktha, Aerospace Engineer, FAA, 

Wichita Aircraft Certification Office, 

1801 Airport Road, Mid-Continent 

Airport, Wichita, Kansas 67209; 

telephone: (316) 946–4155; fax: (316) 

946–4107. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 


cprice-sewell on PROD1PC66 with RULES