19862 Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 87 / Friday, May 3, 1996 / Proposed Rules

PARTS 1005, 1007, 1011, 1046—

[AMENDED]

Authority: 7 U.S.C. 601–674.

The proposed amendments, as set

forth below, have not received the

approval of the Secretary of Agriculture.

Proposed by Mid-America Dairymen,

Inc.

Proposal No. 1: Amend 7 CFR Parts

1005, 1007, 1011, and 1046 as follows:

a. Amend § 10XX.61 of each order by

redesignating paragraph (a)(4) as

paragraph (a)(5), paragraph (a)(5) as

paragraph (a)(6), paragraph (b)(5) as

paragraph (b)(6), paragraph (b)(6) as

paragraph (b)(7), and adding new

paragraphs (a)(4) and (b)(5) to read as

follows:

* * * * *

(a) * * *

(4) Deduct the amount by which the

amount due to be paid from the Hauling

Credit Balancing Fund pursuant to

§ 10XX.82 exceeds the available balance

in the Hauling Credit Balancing Fund

pursuant to § 10XX.80.

* * * * *

(b) * * *

(5) Deduct the amount by which the

amount due to be paid from the Hauling

Credit Balancing Fund pursuant to

§ 10XX.82 exceeds the available balance

in the Hauling Credit Balancing Fund

pursuant to § 10XX.80.

* * * * *

b. Add new §§ 10XX.80, 10XX.81, and

10XX.82 to each order to read as

follows:

§ 10XX.80 Hauling credit balancing fund.

The market administrator shall

maintain a separate fund known as the

Hauling Credit Balancing Fund into

which he shall deposit the payments

made pursuant to the hauling credit

balancing adjustment specified in

§ 10XX.82; Provided, That the market

administrator shall offset the payment

due to a handler against payments due

from such handler.

§ 10XX.81 Payments to the hauling credit

balancing fund.

(a) On or before the 12th day after the

end of the month, each handler shall

pay to the market administrator the

value, if any, of the hauling credit

balancing adjustment determined by

multiplying the pounds of Class I milk

assigned pursuant to § 10XX.44 by $0.03

per hundredweight hauling credit

balancing adjustment; Provided, That

for any of the months of July through

December in which the balance in the

Hauling Credit Balancing Fund for the

second preceding month is less than the

total value of the hauling credit

balancing adjustments applicable for the

previous six months, then the hauling

credit balancing adjustment shall be

$0.06 per hundredweight; Provided

Further, That for any of the months of

January through June the hauling credit

balancing adjustment shall be zero for

any month in which the balance in the

Hauling Credit Balancing Fund for the

second preceding month is greater than

the total value of the hauling credit

balancing adjustments applicable during

the previous six months.

(b) On or before the 13th day after the

end of the month, the market

administrator shall credit the Hauling

Credit Balancing Fund, from the

Producer Settlement Fund, any amount

deducted pursuant to § 10XX.61 (a)(4) or

(b)(5).

§ 10XX.82 Payments from the hauling

credit balancing fund.

On or before the 13th day after the

end of each of the months of July

through December, and any other month

in which the classification of producer

milk allocated to Class I pursuant to

§ 10XX.44 exceeds 80 percent, subtract

the amount obtained by multiplying the

pounds of bulk fluid milk products that

were transferred to the handler’s pool

plant from an other order plant and

allocated to Class I milk, by a rate equal

to 3.9 cents per hundredweight for each

10 miles or fraction thereof less any

difference (positive only) between the

Class I differential applicable at the

receiving plant less the Class I

differential applicable at the shipping

plant. Provided, That payments may be

assigned to any cooperative association

which provides written notice to the

market administrator prior to the date

payment is due.

Proposed by Milkco, Inc., and Hunter

Farms, Inc.

Proposal No. 2: Amend § 10XX.73 of

7 CFR Parts 1005, 1007, 1011, and 1046

by adding a new paragraph (e) to read

as follows:

§ 10XX.73 Payments to producers and to

cooperative associations.

* * * * *

(e) A handler may not reduce its

obligations hereunder to producers or

cooperatives by permitting producers or

cooperatives to provide ‘‘services which

are the responsibility of the handler.

The services which are the

responsibilities of the handler are:

(1) Preparation of producer payroll;

(2) Conduct of screening tests of

tanker loads of milk required by duly

constituted regulatory authorities before

milk may be transferred to the plant’s

holding tanks and any other tanker load

tests required to establish the quantity

and quality of milk received; and

(3) Any services for processing of raw

milk or marketing of packaged milk by

the handler.

Proposed by the Dairy Division,

Agricultural Marketing Service

Proposal No. 3: Make such changes as

may be necessary to make the entire

marketing agreements and the orders

conform with any amendments thereto

that may result from this hearing.

Copies of this notice of hearing and

the orders regulating the aforesaid

marketing areas may be inspected at or

procured from the Hearing Clerk, Room

1083, South Building, United States

Department of Agriculture, Washington,

DC 20250, or from the following market

administrators: Sue L. Mosley, Market

Administrator, P.O. Box 1208, Norcross,

GA 30091–1208 (Tel: 770/448–1194); or

Arnold M. Stallings, Market

Administrator, P.O. Box 18030,

Louisville, KY 40261–0030 (Tel: 502–

499–0040).

Copies of the transcript of testimony

taken at the hearing will not be available

for distribution through the Hearing

Clerk’s Office. If you wish to purchase

a copy, arrangements may be made with

the reporter at the hearing.

From the time that a hearing notice is

issued and until the issuance of a final

decision in a proceeding, Department

employees involved in the decisionmaking process are prohibited from

discussing the merits of the hearing

issues on an ex parte basis with any

person having an interest in the

proceeding. For this particular

proceeding, the prohibition applies to

employees in the following

organizational units:

Office of the Secretary of Agriculture;

Office of the Administrator, Agricultural

Marketing Service;

Office of the General Counsel;

Dairy Division, Agricultural Marketing

Service (Washington office); and

Offices of the Market Administrators of

the orders involved in this

proceeding.

Procedural matters are not subject to

the above prohibition and may be

discussed at any time.

Dated: May 1, 1996.

Lon Hatamiya,

Administrator.

[FR Doc. 96–11170 Filed 5–2–96; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3410–02–P
Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 87 / Friday, May 3, 1996 / Proposed Rules 19863

1Regulation O also requires prior approval of the

bank’s board of directors for certain loans to

insiders and prohibits overdrafts by executive

officers and directors.

2 Pub. L. 102–242, section 306 (1991).

3Subsection (h) of section 22 was added in 1978.

Financial Institutions Regulatory and Interest Rate

Control Act of 1978, Pub. L. 95–630, section 104.

However, the statute 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 imposed restrictions on

lending by banks to ‘‘executive officers’’ of the

bank. The statute provided that an ‘‘officer’’ of a

bank included officers of affiliates—but did not so

provide with respect to ‘‘executive officers.’’) No

such ambiguity arose with respect to directors and

principal shareholders of affiliates, who were

explicitly treated like their banking counterparts. In

1980, the Board amended Regulation O to cover

insiders of affiliates, but included a regulatory

exception for executive officers of affiliates not

involved in major policymaking functions at the

bank.

FEDERAL RESERVE SYSTEM

12 CFR Part 215

[Regulation O; Docket No. R–0924]

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: Proposed rule.

SUMMARY: The proposed rule would

amend the Board’s Regulation O, which

limits how much and on what terms a

bank may lend to its own insiders and

insiders of its affiliates. Under the

proposed rule, four of the five

restrictions of Regulation O would not

apply to extensions of credit by a bank

to executive officers and directors of the

bank’s affiliates, provided that those

executive officers and directors were not

engaged in major policymaking

functions of the lending bank. Of the

restrictions in Regulation O, only the

prohibition on preferential lending

would apply to extensions of credit to

such persons.

The Board was granted authority to

create such an exception for directors of

affiliates for the first time by the Riegle

Community Development and

Regulatory Improvement Act of 1994;

Regulation O already contains a blanket

regulatory exception for executive

officers of affiliates not involved in

policymaking at the lending bank,

which as a result of the statute must be

scaled back to no longer include the

prohibition on preferential lending.

DATES: Comments must be received on

or before June 17, 1996.

ADDRESSES: Comments should refer to

Docket No. R–0924 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 a.m. 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

Information Office, Room MP–500 of the

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

5:00 p.m. 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:

Background

Section 22(h) of the Federal Reserve

Act, 12 U.S.C. 375b, restricts insider

lending by banks, and Regulation O

implements section 22(h). Regulation O

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 nonpreferential 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.

Section 22(h) restricts lending not

only to insiders of the bank making the

loan but also to insiders of the bank’s

parent bank holding company and any

other subsidiary of that bank holding

company. As amended by the Federal

Deposit Insurance Corporation

Improvement Act of 1991 (FDICIA),2

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).

At the time that the FDICIA

amendment became effective, the

Board’s rules did not place any

restrictions on loans to an executive

officer of a bank’s affiliates (other than

the parent bank holding company)

unless the executive officer was

involved in major policymaking

functions at the bank.3 12 CFR 215.2(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 bank to obtain

a loan on anything but arm’s lengths

terms, in contrast to executive officers of

the bank or its parent. Thus, in terms of

protecting the safety and soundness of

banks, the Board considered the benefits

of restricting loans to these affiliate

insiders to be small. Second, applying

these restrictions to affiliate insiders

would have required each bank to

maintain an updated list of all its

affiliates’ executive officers and all

related interests of those 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—and one not

outweighed by any substantial benefit.

However, after the FDICIA

amendment to section 22(h)(8), the

language of the statute no longer

appeared to allow such an exception for

executive officers of affiliates, who are

explicitly treated like executive officers

of the bank itself. Still, nothing in the

legislative history of FDICIA indicated

that Congress intended to invalidate the

Board’s regulatory exception and extend

coverage to all executive officers of

affiliates.

In the Riegle Community

Development and Regulatory

Improvement Act of 1994, Congress

addressed this issue by amending

section 22(h)(8) yet again. Congress

allowed the Board to make exceptions to

the statutory restrictions on lending to

affiliate insiders embodied in paragraph

(8). The extension of the statute to

affiliate insiders was moved to a new

paragraph (8)(A), and authority for the

Board to make exceptions was placed in

a new paragraph (8)(B), which reads as

follows:

The Board may, by regulation, make

exceptions to subparagraph (A), except as

that subparagraph makes applicable

paragraph (2), for an executive officer or

director of a subsidiary of a company that

controls the member bank, if that executive

officer or director does not have authority to

participate, and does not participate, in major

policymaking functions of the member bank.

Section 22(h)(2)—the ‘‘paragraph (2)’’ to

which the Board may not make
19864 Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 87 / Friday, May 3, 1996 / Proposed Rules

4House Report 103–652, 103d Cong., 2d Sess. 180

(1994).

exceptions—is the prohibition against

lending on preferential terms.

The 1994 amendment to section 22(h)

allows the Board to exempt executive

officers and directors of affiliates (other

than the bank holding company) from

insider lending restrictions, provided

they are not involved in major

policymaking functions at the lending

bank. The legislative history of the

provision indicates that it was intended

to allow the Board to extend its existing

exception for executive officers to

directors as well.4 However, the 1994

amendment clearly does not allow the

Board to exempt either executive

officers or directors from the restriction

on preferential lending in section

22(h)(2).

Thus, the apparent effect of the 1994

amendments regulation is (1) to reaffirm

the Board’s regulation insofar as it

exempts executive officers of affiliates

who are not involved in policymaking

functions at the bank from the aggregate

and individual lending limits, overdraft

restriction, and prior approval

requirements of Regulation O; (2) to

invalidate the Board’s regulation insofar

as it exempts such executive officers

from the prohibition on preferential

lending; and (3) to grant the Board

authority to extend the remaining parts

of its executive officer exemption to

directors as well.

Exception for Certain Executive Officers

and Directors of Affiliates

Accordingly, the Board is proposing

amendments to Regulation O that would

eliminate its restrictions—other than the

restriction on preferential lending—on a

bank’s lending to executive officers and

directors of affiliates who are not

involved in major policymaking

functions of the lending bank. The

Board believes that extending the

exemption to directors would relieve

regulatory burden on bank holding

companies without increasing the risk

of insider lending or resultant safety and

soundness problems. Reimposing the

preferential lending restriction on

executive officers (and maintaining the

restriction on directors) might negate

some of this relief; although banks

would no longer be required to

document that loans to executive

officers and directors of affiliates fall

within the lending limits of Regulation

O, they might be required to maintain

similar documentation to demonstrate

that the loans were not on preferential

terms. However, the Board believes that

the plain language of the statute requires

coverage of preferential lending.

There is some reason to believe that

this effect on the Board’s regulation was

unintended, and that Congress intended

for the Board’s across-the-board

exemption for executive officers of

affiliates to continue. The Riegle-Neal

conference report stated, ‘‘It is not the

intent of the Conferees to affect the

exemptions that the Federal Reserve

Board has already extended to executive

officers, but rather to allow the Board

the authority to provide appropriate

treatment for directors.’’ House Report

103–652 at 180 (1994). However, where,

as here, the provisions of a statute are

unambiguous, legislative history may

not be used to alter that plain meaning.

The Board has, however, suggested and

supported an amendment to section

22(h) to make its language consistent

with its apparent intent.

Elimination of Unnecessary Board of

Directors Approval

In order to qualify for the regulatory

exception for executive officers of

affiliates, an executive officer currently

must be excluded from major

policymaking functions of the lending

bank by resolutions of the board of

directors of both the lending bank and

the affiliate for which the executive

officer works. Because a bank has full

control over who participates in its

policymaking, the Board believes that

requiring a board resolution of the

affiliate in addition to the resolution of

the bank is superfluous and unduly

burdensome. Accordingly, the Board is

proposing to delete this requirement

from the existing exception for

executive officers and not to include it

in the new exception for directors.

Regulatory Flexibility Act

The Board has concluded after

reviewing the proposed regulation that,

if adopted, it would not impose a

significant economic hardship on small

institutions. The proposal does not

necessitate the development of

sophisticated recordkeeping or reporting

systems by small institutions; nor will

small institutions need to seek out the

expertise of specialized accountants,

lawyers, or managers in order to comply

with the regulation. The proposal is

designed to reduce the burden of

Regulation O consistent with the

requirements of the underlying statute.

The Board therefore certifies pursuant to

section 605b of the Regulatory

Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 605b) that the

proposal, if adopted, will not have a

significantly adverse economic impact

on a substantial number of small entities

within the meaning of the Regulatory

Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.).

Paperwork Reduction Act

In accordance with section 3506 of

the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995

(44 U.S.C. Ch. 35; 5 CFR part 1320,

Appendix A.1), the Board reviewed the

proposed rule under the authority

delegated to the Board by the Office of

Management and Budget. Comments on

the collections of information should be

sent to the Office of Management and

Budget, Paperwork Reduction Project

(7100–0036), Washington, DC 20503,

with copies of such comments to be sent

to Mary M. McLaughlin, Federal

Reserve Board Clearance Officer,

Division of Research and Statistics, Mail

Stop 97, Board of Governors of the

Federal Reserve System, Washington,

DC 20551.

The collection of information

requirements in this proposed

regulation are found in 12 CFR part 215.

This information is required to evidence

compliance with the requirements of

Section 22(h) of the Federal Reserve

Act. The respondents and recordkeepers

are for-profit financial institutions,

including small businesses. Records

must be retained for two years.

The Federal Reserve may not conduct

or sponsor, and an organization is not

required to respond to, this information

collection unless it displays a currently

valid OMB control number. The OMB

control number is 7100–0036.

The proposed amendments are

expected to provide for some reduction

in the recordkeeping and disclosure

practices of state member banks, and

would not affect the banks’ reporting

requirements to the Federal Reserve.

The recordkeeping and disclosure

requirements on extensions of credit by

the reporting bank to insiders of the

bank and its affiliates are contained in

the information collection for the

Consolidated Reports of Condition and

Income (FFIEC 031–034; OMB No.

7100–0036).

Because the records would be

maintained at state member banks and

the notices are not provided to the

Federal Reserve, no issue of

confidentiality under the Freedom of

Information Act arises.

Comments are invited on: (a) whether

the proposed revision to the collection

of information is necessary for the

proper performance of the Federal

Reserve’s functions; including whether

the information has practical utility; (b)

ways to enhance the quality, utility, and

clarity of the information to be

collected; and (c) ways to minimize the

burden of information collection on

respondents, including through the use

of automated collection techniques or

other forms of information technology.
Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 87 / Friday, May 3, 1996 / Proposed Rules 19865

List of Subjects in 12 CFR Part 215

Credit, Federal Reserve System,

Penalties, Reporting and recordkeeping

requirements.

For the reasons set forth in the

preamble, and pursuant to the Board’s

authority under section 22(h) of the

Federal Reserve Act (12 U.S.C. 375b),

the Board is proposing to amend 12 CFR

Part 215, subpart A, as follows:

PART 215—LOANS TO EXECUTIVE

OFFICERS, DIRECTORS, AND

PRINCIPAL SHAREHOLDERS OF

MEMBER BANKS (REGULATION O)

1. The authority citation for part 215

continues to read as follows:

Authority: 12 U.S.C. 248(i), 375a(10), 375b

(9) and (10), 1817(k)(3) and 1972(2)(G)(ii);

Pub. L. 102–242, 105 Stat. 2236.

2. Section 215.2 is amended as

follows:

a. Paragraph (d) introductory text and

paragraphs (d)(1) through (d)(3) are

redesignated as paragraph (d)(1)

introductory text and paragraphs

(d)(1)(i) through (d)(1)(iii), respectively;

b. A new paragraph (d)(2) is added;

and

c. Paragraph (e)(2) is revised.

The addition and revision read as

follows:

§ 215.2.2 Definitions.

* * * * *

(d)(1) Director of a company or bank

* * *

* * * * *

(2) Exception. Extensions of credit to

a director of an affiliate of a member

bank (other than a company that

controls the bank) shall not be subject

to §§ 215.4 (b) through (d) and 215.6,

provided that—

(i) The director of the affiliate is

excluded (by name or by title) from

participation in major policymaking

functions of the member bank by

resolution of the bank’s boards of

directors, and does not actually

participate in such major policymaking

functions; and

(ii) The director is not otherwise

subject to §§ 215.4 (b) through (d) and

215.6.

(e) * * *

(2) Extensions of credit to an

executive officer of an affiliate of a

member bank (other than a company

that controls the bank) shall not be

subject to §§ 215.4 (b) through (d) and

215.6, provided that—

(i) The executive officer of the affiliate

is excluded (by name or by title) from

participation in major policymaking

functions of the member bank by

resolution of the bank’s boards of

directors, and does not actually

participate in such major policymaking

functions; and

(ii) The executive officer is not

otherwise subject to §§ 215.4 (b) through

(d) and 215.6.

* * * * *

By order of the Board of Governors of the

Federal Reserve System, April 25, 1996.

Jennifer J. Johnson,

Deputy Secretary of the Board.

[FR Doc. 96–10733 Filed 5–2–96; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6210–01–P

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. 95–CE–45–AD]

RIN 2120—AA64

Airworthiness Directives; The New

Piper Aircraft, Inc. (formerly Piper

Aircraft Corporation) PA31, PA31P,

and PA31T Series Airplanes

AGENCY: Federal Aviation

Administration, DOT.

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking

(NPRM).

SUMMARY: This document proposes to

supersede AD 93–25-08, which

currently requires replacing the main

landing gear (MLG) actuator

reinforcement bracket with a part of

improved design on certain The New

Piper Aircraft, Inc. (Piper) PA31, PA31P,

and PA31T series airplanes. The

proposed action would require the same

action as AD 93–25–08. An incorrect

designation of Piper Model PA31–310

airplanes made in AD 93–25–08

prompted the proposed AD action. The

actions specified by the proposed AD

are intended to prevent the MLG from

extending, when not selected and while

the airplane is in flight, caused by

actuator reinforcement bracket failure,

which could result in substantial

airplane damage or loss of control of the

airplane.

DATES: Comments must be received on

or before July 8, 1996.

ADDRESSES: Submit comments in

triplicate to the Federal Aviation

Administration (FAA), Central Region,

Office of the Assistant Chief Counsel,

Attention: Rules Docket No. 95–CE–45–

AD, Room 1558, 601 E. 12th Street,

Kansas City, Missouri 64106. Comments

may be inspected at this location

between 8 a.m. and 4 p.m., Monday

through Friday, holidays excepted.

Service information that applies to the

proposed AD may be obtained from The

New Piper Aircraft, Inc., Attn: Customer

Service, 2926 Piper Dr., Vero Beach,

Florida, 32960. This information also

may be examined at the Rules Docket at

the address above.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Christina Marsh, Aerospace Engineer,

FAA, Atlanta Aircraft Certification

Office, Campus Building, 1701

Columbia Avenue, suite 2–160, College

Park, Georgia 30337–2748; telephone

(404) 305–7362; facsimile (404) 305–

7348.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Comments Invited

Interested persons are invited to

participate in the making of the

proposed rule by submitting such

written data, views, or arguments as

they may desire. Communications

should identify the Rules Docket

number and be submitted in triplicate to

the address specified above. All

communications received on or before

the closing date for comments, specified

above, will be considered before taking

action on the proposed rule. The

proposals contained in this notice may

be changed in light of the comments

received.

Comments are specifically invited on

the overall regulatory, economic,

environmental, and energy aspects of

the proposed rule. All comments

submitted will be available, both before

and after the closing date for comments,

in the Rules Docket for examination by

interested persons. A report that

summarizes each FAA-public contact

concerned with the substance of this

proposal will be filed in the Rules

Docket.

Commenters wishing the FAA to

acknowledge receipt of their comments

submitted in response to this notice

must submit a self-addressed, stamped

postcard on which the following

statement is made: ‘‘Comments to

Docket No. 95–CE–45–AD.’’ The

postcard will be date stamped and

returned to the commenter.

Availability of NPRMs

Any person may obtain a copy of this

NPRM by submitting a request to the

FAA, Central Region, Office of the

Assistant Chief Counsel, Attention:

Rules Docket No. 95–CE–45–AD, Room

1558, 601 E. 12th Street, Kansas City,

Missouri 64106.

Discussion

It has been brought to the attention of

the FAA that AD 93–25–08, which is

applicable to Piper PA31, PA31P, and

PA31T series airplanes, should not have

listed a Piper Model PA31–310 airplane.