30310 Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 109 / Wednesday, June 6, 2001 / Rules and Regulations

Issued in Kansas City, Missouri, on May

30, 2001.

Michael Gallagher,

Manager, Small Airplane Directorate, Aircraft

Certification Service.

[FR Doc. 01–14143 Filed 6–5–01; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910–13–U

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Parts 91, 121, 125 and 135

Exemptions and Exceptions for Flight

Data Recorder Requirements

AGENCY: Federal Aviation

Administration, DOT.

ACTION: Statement of policy.

SUMMARY: This document identifies the

current FAA policies regarding requests

for exemption or exception from the

operating rules governing the use of

flight data recorders in either fixed-wing

aircraft or rotorcraft. The final

compliance date for the 1997 rule

changes and policy changes adopted in

1997 is August 20, 2001. The Federal

Aviation Administration (FAA) is

publishing this document to provide

guidance to operators that have applied

or expect to apply for an exemption or

exception from the flight data recorder

requirements of any operating part.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr.

Howard Swancy, Special Assistant to

the Director (AFS–3), Flight Standards

Service, FAA, 800 Independence

Avenue, SW., Washington, DC 20591;

telephone (202) 267–8237.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

In 1997, the Federal Aviation

Administration promulgated new

operational regulations for flight data

recorders (FDRs) (62 FR 38362, July 17,

1997). At that time, the agency also

withdrew a previous information

bulletin that stated policy regarding

earlier FDR regulations.

Following the publication of the rule

and policy statement, the FAA began to

receive requests for exemption from the

regulations. The FAA uses the term

exemption to refer to temporary relief

from a regulation as granted to a specific

petitioner. The FAA is currently

reviewing all requests and exemptions

in effect regarding FDRs to determine

whether they will be made permanent,

rescinded, or allowed to expire in the

final compliance date, August 20 of this

year.

When the 1997 rule was promulgated,

the FAA included in § 121.344(l)(2),

§ 121.344a(f), § 125.226(l)(2), and

§ 135.152(k) those aircraft models that

the FAA found were too old, too few,

and too expensive to upgrade and still

be economically viable to operate. These

aircraft were excepted from the FDR

requirements and have permanent relief

from compliance with the FDR

regulations of the applicable section.

The FAA indicated that if operators

found that additional aircraft models

should be considered for permanent

exception, a petition for rulemaking that

included full support for the exception

request should be submitted. Since that

time, there have been a considerable

number of requests filed.

Following this paragraph is a list of

the minimum information necessary to

be submitted for each aircraft model

requesting an exception. Petitioners that

already have submitted petitions should

review this list and consider

supplementing their petitions if they

have not previously provided the

necessary information. The FAA will

consider any information submitted and

determine whether more information is

necessary for the agency to make a

decision whether it is appropriate to

propose exception status for a particular

aircraft model. Petitioners are cautioned

that exception status should not be

considered automatic when information

is submitted, nor should any grant of a

temporary exemption from the FDR

requirements while an exception

request is pending be used to presume

that permanent exception status will be

granted. This applies to exemptions

already issued that expire after August

20, 2001, as well. The FAA anticipates

that some aircraft models that have been

granted exemptions may not qualify for

exception status, and will have to be

modified to fully comply with the

applicable regulations.

• Is this model currently in

production?

• What other models are currently in

production (or not in production) that

are similar to this model?

• If this model is not currently in

production, is there another model that

is similar in a way that would facilitate

this model’s adaptability for FDR

retrofit?

• How many aircraft of this model

were produced by the manufacturer?

How many of similar models?

• How many are still in operation in

the United States? How many

worldwide?

• Does a supplemental type certificate

(STC) exist to retrofit this model (or a

similar model) with the required flight

data recorder equipment?

• If no STC exists, what is the

expected detailed cost to develop a

digital flight data recorder (DFDR) STC

for this model? Provide the source of

your estimates, including a person who

the FAA may contact for verification.

Estimates that do not include support

from a person or organization qualified

to make the estimate will not be

accepted.

• What is the expected cost of STC

installation per aircraft? Provide a

source of information as discussed

above.

• What is the estimated downtime per

aircraft to install the required

equipment? Provide a source for your

information as discussed above.

• Operator estimate of cost of aircraft

downtime per week for retrofit.

• Costs may be estimated as a range

but must be noted as to how the range

was established.

• Other information specific to an

individual petition for rulemaking may

be requested by the agency based on the

circumstances presented.

Although only one complete petition for

exception need be submitted for each

model aircraft, operators are advised not

to rely on the submissions of other

operators that are seeking relief for the

same or similar model aircraft. The FAA

will accept materials from petitioners

jointly, but will not assemble material

from separate petitions to make a

complete case for a particular aircraft

model.

Petitioners should also be precise as

to what requirements they are seeking

relief from. No petitioner may expect

that exemption or exception status will

allow them to remove operational FDR

equipment. For example, if an airplane

meets the current FDR regulations but

petitions for relief from the upgrades

required by the 1997 rules, only upgrade

relief will be considered. The current

regulations must continue to be met,

and all installed equipment must

continue to be used and maintained

according to the regulations. Further,

these aircraft should not be presumed to

be expected from future changes to the

regulations.

Those submitting petitions for

rulemaking to seek exception to the FDR

requirements should submit the

required information to the following:

(1) For paper submissions, send the

original signed copy of your petition for

rulemaking to U.S. Department of

Transportation, Docket Management

System, 400 7th Street, SW., Room PL

401, Washington, DC 20591–0001; or (2)

For electronic submissions, submit your

petition to FAA through the Internet

using the Docket Management System

web site at this Internet address: http:/

/dms.dot.gov/.

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