Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 109 / Wednesday, June 6, 2001 / Rules and Regulations 30311

Recent Concerns

Since the time petitioners first

requested that other aircraft be excepted

from the applicable FDR regulations, the

FAA has learned of at least two

circumstances that will affect the way

exception requests are analyzed. First,

after the initial exemptions were

granted, the FAA was informed that

operators of exempted aircraft actively

sought out more aircraft of these models

from overseas and brought them into the

United States. Those operators already

held exemptions from the FDR

regulations for those models, and

therefore, believed that those models

should be included in their original

exemptions. This situation weakens the

argument for exception status in at least

two ways. First, the greater number of

aircraft allows the cost of retrofit to be

spread across additional aircraft,

reducing the per-aircraft retrofit cost.

Second, it lessens any public interest

argument an operator may have by

increasing the number of aircraft

allowed to operate without FDRs. The

presence of FDRs has been well

established as being in the public

interest and an important source of

information on accidents and incidents.

The FAA always intended exception

status to be very limited. The agency

was and remains concerned that older

aircraft of which few are left operating

under limited circumstances not be

denied what use might be left in them.

Large numbers of aircraft with

considerable economic viability were

never meant to be the subject of

exception status. For this reason, the

FAA will take into account all aircraft

worldwide for any model submitted for

exception status.

The second circumstance concerns

the practice of routinely adding and

removing the same aircraft from the

registries of the United States and other

countries for benefit. The language

added to § 135.152 in 1988 was specific

in its intent of capturing all aircraft that

were brought onto the U.S. register after

October 11, 1991, primarily to stop the

continued importation of older aircraft

that would not need FDRs if the rule

had instead used a date of manufacture.

In 1997, that provision was expanded to

include aircraft that were added to U.S.

operations specifications (under foreign

registry) after that date. Some of these

aircraft were affected by the information

bulletin that the agency withdrew in

1997; it was only after withdrawal that

the FAA learned that several operators

were using the information bulletin,

combined with the practice of swapping

airplanes between registries, to gain a

benefit. The information bulletin

presumed to grandfather any aircraft

that had once been registered in the

United States from the ‘‘brought on the

U.S. register’’ language of § 135.152.

Once that information bulletin was

withdrawn as being in distinct conflict

with the clear language and intent of the

rule, the FAA indicated that all persons

operating under it had 4 years to bring

their aircraft into compliance. It was

then that the FAA began to receive

numerous requests for exception status.

Operators are cautioned that all

circumstances will be examined closely.

Exception status will most likely not be

proposed by the FAA when a significant

number of any model is still operating.

Nor does the fact that an aircraft model

is no longer being manufactured

automatically mean that exception

status will be proposed.

The FAA has been sensitized to the

situation that has resulted in distinct

benefits being gained by some operators

in manipulating the status of their

aircraft while the FDR regulations were

in flux. The loss of this benefit will not

be considered in deciding whether an

aircraft model is appropriate for relief

from the FDR requirements. This is

especially true for aircraft models that

have never been brought into

compliance with the regulations

promulgated in 1988.

Conclusion

All operators are reminded that the

compliance date for the 1997

regulations to upgrade FDRs is August

20, 2001. Similarly, aircraft that were

affected by the withdrawal of the Flight

Standards Information Bulletin in 1997

had the same 4 years to upgrade their

aircraft to meet § 135.152. Given the

considerable notice of these

requirements provided by the final rule,

the FAA does not intend to issue

exemptions from that date except in the

most limited, temporary circumstances,

where fully justified. Request for

exemption based on lack of installation

data (i.e., no STC for their aircraft), parts

availability, or generalized plans to

retire aircraft will not be granted.

Issued in Washington, DC on May 31,

2001.

Nicholas Sabatini,

Director, Flight Standards Service.

[FR Doc. 01–14176 Filed 6–1–01; 3:30 pm]

BILLING CODE 4910–13–M

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE

COMMISSION

17 CFR Parts 270 and 275

[Release Nos. IC–24991 and IA–1945; File

No. S7–06–01]

RIN 3235–AI05

Electronic Recordkeeping by

Investment Companies and Investment

Advisers; Correction

AGENCY: Securities and Exchange

Commission.

ACTION: Correction to final rule.

SUMMARY: This document contains a

correction to the final rule, which was

published on Wednesday, May 30, 2001

(66 FR 29224). This rule relates to

electronic recordkeeping by investment

companies and investment advisers. In

FR Document No. 01–13526 beginning

on page 29224 for Wednesday, May 30,

2001, the docket line contains an error.

The docket line is correct as set forth

above.

EFFECTIVE DATE: May 31, 2001.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Frances Sienkiewicz at (202) 942–7072.

Dated: May 31, 2001.

Margaret H. McFarland,

Deputy Secretary.

[FR Doc. 01–14218 Filed 6–5–01; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 8010–01–M

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND

HUMAN SERVICES

Food and Drug Administration

21 CFR Part 101

[Docket Nos. 00P–1275 and 00P–1276]

Food Labeling: Health Claims; Plant

Sterol/Stanol Esters and Coronary

Heart Disease

AGENCY: Food and Drug Administration,

HHS.

ACTION: Interim final rule; notice of

extension of period for issuance of final

rule.

SUMMARY: The Food and Drug

Administration (FDA) is extending to

July 25, 2001, the period for issuance of

a final rule in response to its interim

final rule of September 8, 2000, entitled

‘‘Food Labeling: Health Claims; Plant

Sterol/Stanol Esters and Coronary Heart

Disease.’’ FDA’s regulations require the

agency to issue a notice of such

extension if it finds, for cause, that it is

unable to issue a final rule within 270

days from the date of publication of the