Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 106 / Thursday, June 3, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 31283 

(ii) For lavatories D and E: Airbus 

Service Bulletin A320–25–1365, dated 

February 18, 2005, references Airbus 

CMM Lavatory D 25–43–51; and Airbus 

CMM Lavatory E 25–43–52, as 

applicable, as an additional source of 

guidance for doing the replacement. 

* * * * * 

Issued in Renton, Washington, on May 25, 

2010. 

Ali Bahrami, 

Manager, Transport Airplane Directorate, 

Aircraft Certification Service. 

[FR Doc. 2010–13231 Filed 6–2–10; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4910–13–P 

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

Federal Aviation Administration 

14 CFR Part 65 

[Docket No. FAA–2007–28518, Amendment 

No. 65–54] 

RIN 2120–AJ08 

Clarification of Parachute Packing 

Authorization 

AGENCY: Federal Aviation 

Administration (FAA), DOT. 

ACTION: Final rule (immediately 

adopted). 

SUMMARY: This action amends the 

requirements for individuals who pack, 

maintain, or alter main parachutes of a 

dual-parachute system—those with 

main and ‘‘back up’’ parachutes—to be 

used for parachute jumping in 

connection with civil aircraft of the 

United States. It expressly limits the 

authority of a non-certificated person 

who is not under the supervision of an 

appropriate current certificated 

parachute rigger to only pack the main 

parachute of a dual-parachute system 

when that person will be the next 

jumper to use the parachute. This action 

is intended to correct a potentially 

unsafe condition of parachute 

operations created by changes to the 

2001 revision of the current rule. 

DATES: This action is effective June 3, 

2010. For more information on the 

rulemaking process, see the 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section of 

this document. 

Privacy: We will post all comments 

we receive, without change, to http:// 

www.regulations.gov, including any 

personal information you provide. 

Using the search function of our docket 

Web site, anyone can find and read the 

comments received into any of our 

dockets, including the name of the 

individual sending the comment (or 

signing the comment for an association, 

business, labor union, etc.). You may 

review DOT’s complete Privacy Act 

Statement in the Federal Register (see 

65 FR 19477–78, April 11, 2000), or you 

may visit http://DocketsInfo.dot.gov. 

Docket: To read background 

documents or comments received, go to 

http://www.regulations.gov at any time 

or to Docket Operations in Room W12– 

140 of the West Building Ground Floor 

at 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., 

Washington, DC, between 9 a.m. and 5 

p.m., Monday through Friday, except 

Federal holidays. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Kim 

Barnette, Aircraft Maintenance Division, 

AFS–300, Federal Aviation 

Administration, 950 L’Enfant Plaza 

North, SW., Washington, DC 20024; 

telephone (202) 385–6403; facsimile 

(202) 385–6474, e-mail 

kim.a.barnette@faa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Authority for This Rulemaking 

The FAA’s authority to issue rules 

regarding aviation safety is found in 

Title 49 of the United States Code. 

Subtitle I, Section 106 describes the 

authority of the FAA Administrator. 

Subtitle VII, Aviation Programs, 

describes in more detail the scope of the 

agency’s authority. 

The FAA is issuing this rulemaking 

under the authority set forth in 49 

U.S.C. 44701(a)(2)(A). This regulation is 

within the scope of that authority 

because the Administrator is charged 

with promoting safe flight of civil 

aircraft by, among other things, 

prescribing regulations that the 

Administrator finds necessary for 

inspecting, servicing, and overhauling 

aircraft, aircraft engines, propellers and 

appliances. 

Background 

In 2001, the FAA amended Title 14, 

Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR) 

§ 65.111, Certificate required (see 66 FR 

23543, May 9, 2001). The 2001 

amendment was intended to: (1) 

Incorporate tandem parachute 

operations into the rule; (2) specify that 

a non-certificated person could pack, 

maintain, or alter a main parachute only 

if the individual was under the 

supervision of an appropriate current 

certificated parachute rigger; and (3) 

clarify that a non-certificated person, 

not under the supervision noted above, 

could pack a main parachute of a dualparachute system, intended for tandem 

operation, only if that person was to be 

the next jumper to use that parachute. 

No other substantive changes to § 65.111 

were discussed in that rulemaking, nor 

were any other changes intended. 

In the 2001 amendment, however, the 

revised text of § 65.111(b) did not 

preserve the clarity of authority that 

existed in the prior rule regarding a noncertificated person. Before the 2001 

amendment, the authority of a noncertificated person (who was not under 

the supervision of an appropriate 

current certificated parachute rigger) 

was expressly limited to packing a main 

parachute of a dual-parachute system 

for personal use; maintenance or 

alteration was not authorized. The 

parachute industry raised concerns that 

the resulting authority language in the 

2001 amendment could be viewed as 

authorizing maintenance or alteration 

by non-certificated persons not under 

the supervision of an appropriate 

current certificated rigger. Those 

concerns pose significant safety 

concerns for the FAA and those 

regulated by § 65.111. Improperly 

performed maintenance or alteration 

could lead to parachute failure, which 

would have catastrophic results. 

Only certificated riggers, or persons 

under their supervision, have the 

requisite knowledge and skill to safely 

perform maintenance and alteration. 

The FAA does not intend that the 

regulation be interpreted to authorize 

maintenance and alteration by those not 

qualified, nor otherwise appropriately 

supervised. The FAA’s intention is 

clearly supported in other parachuterelated regulations (see 14 CFR 91.307, 

105.43(a), and 105.45(b)(1)). All of those 

regulations support the FAA’s position 

that in all but ‘‘next jumper’’ situations, 

parachute packing must be 

accomplished by or overseen by an 

appropriate current certificated 

parachute rigger. Further, none of those 

sections authorize maintenance or 

alteration of parachutes by noncertificated persons. 

The FAA is not aware of any 

unauthorized parachute maintenance or 

alteration performed as a result of any 

operators’ misunderstanding of the 

current rule. Nevertheless, we want to 

prevent any adverse consequences by 

ensuring that parachute operations are 

performed or overseen only by persons 

who know and understand the requisite 

techniques and practices. This rule 

clarifies that the FAA requires that a 

person must hold an appropriate current 

parachute rigger certificate or be under 

the supervision of an appropriate 

current certificated rigger to maintain or 

alter main parachutes. 

Availability of Rulemaking Documents 

You can get an electronic copy using 

the Internet by: 


emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with RULES
31284 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 106 / Thursday, June 3, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 

(1) Searching the Federal 

eRulemaking Portal at http:// 

www.regulations.gov; 

(2) Visiting the FAA’s Regulations and 

Policies Web page at http:// 

www.faa.gov/regulations_policies/; or 

(3) Accessing the Government 

Printing Office’s Web page at http:// 

www.gpoaccess.gov/fr/index.html. 

You can also get a copy by sending a 

request to the Federal Aviation 

Administration, Office of Rulemaking, 

ARM–1, 800 Independence Avenue, 

SW., Washington, DC 20591, or by 

calling (202) 267–9680. Make sure to 

identify the amendment number or 

docket number of this rulemaking. 

Good Cause for Immediate Adoption of 

This Final Rule on Parachute Repack 

Authorization 

On the basis of the above information, 

I have determined that immediate action 

by the FAA is in the public interest 

because the rule only clarifies existing 

requirements and public comment is 

unnecessary. Further, I find that good 

cause exists for making this rule 

effective immediately upon issuance. 

Small Business Regulatory Enforcement 

Fairness Act 

The Small Business Regulatory 

Enforcement Fairness Act (SBREFA) of 

1996 requires FAA to comply with 

small entity requests for information or 

advice about compliance with statutes 

and regulations within its jurisdiction. 

Therefore, any small entity that has a 

question regarding this document may 

contact their local FAA official, or the 

person listed under FOR FURTHER

INFORMATION CONTACT. You can find out 

more about SBREFA on the Internet at 

our site, http://www.faa.gov/ 

regulations_policies/rulemaking/ 

sbre_act/. 

Paperwork Reduction Act 

The Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 

(44 U.S.C. 3507(d)) requires the FAA to 

consider the impact of paperwork and 

other information collection burdens 

imposed on the public. We have 

determined that there are no new 

information collection requirements 

associated with these amendments. 

International Compatibility 

In keeping with U.S. obligations 

under the Convention on International 

Civil Aviation, it is FAA policy to 

conform to International Civil Aviation 

Organization (ICAO) Standards and 

Recommended Practices to the 

maximum extent practicable. The FAA 

has reviewed the corresponding ICAO 

Standards and Recommended Practices 

and has identified no differences with 

these proposed regulations. 

Economic Evaluation, Regulatory 

Flexibility Act, Trade Impact 

Assessment, and Unfunded Mandates 

Assessment 

Changes to Federal regulations must 

undergo several economic analyses. 

First, Executive Order 12866 directs 

each Federal agency to propose or adopt 

a regulation only upon a reasoned 

determination that the benefits of the 

intended regulation justify its costs. 

Second, the Regulatory Flexibility Act 

of 1980 (Pub. L. 96–354) requires 

agencies to analyze the economic 

impact of regulatory changes on small 

entities. Third, the Trade Agreements 

Act (Pub. L. 96–39) prohibits agencies 

from setting standards that create 

unnecessary obstacles to the foreign 

commerce of the United States. In 

developing U.S. standards, the Trade 

Act requires agencies to consider 

international standards and, where 

appropriate, that they be the basis of 

U.S. standards. Fourth, the Unfunded 

Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 

104–4) requires agencies to prepare a 

written assessment of the costs, benefits, 

and other effects of proposed or final 

rules that include a Federal mandate 

likely to result in the expenditure by 

State, local or tribal governments, in the 

aggregate, or by the private sector, of 

$100 million or more annually (adjusted 

for inflation with base year of 1995). 

This portion of the preamble 

summarizes the FAA’s analysis of the 

economic impacts of this final rule. 

Department of Transportation Order 

DOT 2100.5 prescribes policies and 

procedures for simplification, analysis, 

and review of regulations. If the 

expected cost impact is so minimal that 

a proposed or final rule does not 

warrant a full evaluation, this order 

permits that a statement to that effect 

and the basis for it be included in the 

preamble if a full regulatory evaluation 

of the cost and benefits is not prepared. 

Such a determination has been made for 

this rule. The reasoning for this 

determination follows: 

This rule clarifies that the FAA 

requires that a person must hold an 

appropriate current parachute rigger 

certificate or be under the supervision of 

an appropriate current certificated rigger 

to maintain or alteration of parachutes. 

This clarification is consistent with 

industry practice, as the revised 

§ 65.111(b) in the 2001 amendment did 

not preserve the clarity of authority that 

existed in the prior rule regarding a noncertificated person. As the rule is 

consistent with industry practices, the 

rule is expected to impose minimal cost 

and provide for a future higher level of 

safety. 

Regulatory Flexibility Act 

The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 

(Pub. L. 96–354) (RFA) establishes ‘‘as a 

principle of regulatory issuance that 

agencies shall endeavor, consistent with 

the objective so the rule and of 

applicable statutes, to fit regulatory and 

informational requirements to the scale 

of the businesses, organizations, and 

governmental jurisdictions subject to 

regulation. To achieve this principle, 

agencies are required to solicit and 

consider flexible regulatory proposals 

and to explain the rationale for their 

actions to assure that such proposals are 

given serious consideration.’’ The RFA 

covers a wide range of small entities, 

including small businesses, not-forprofit organizations, and small 

governmental jurisdictions. 

Agencies must perform a review to 

determine whether a rule will have a 

significant economic impact on a 

substantial number of small entities. If 

the agency determines that it will, the 

agency must prepare a regulatory 

flexibility analysis as described in the 

RFA. 

However, if an agency determines that 

a rule is not expected to have a 

significant economic impact on a 

substantial number of small entities, 

section 605(b) of the RFA provides that 

the head of the agency may so certify 

and a regulatory flexibility analysis is 

not required. The certification must 

include a statement providing the 

factual basis for this determination, and 

the reasoning should be clear. 

While there are a substantial number 

of small parachute packing firms, the 

expected cost is minimal. This rule is 

consistent with industry practice and 

simply clarifies that separate from the 

requirement to pack parachutes, the 

FAA requires a person to be an 

appropriate current certificated 

parachute rigger, or to be under the 

supervision of an appropriate current 

certificated parachute rigger, to 

maintain or alter parachutes. Thus, the 

expected economic impact will be 

minimal with positive net benefits. 

Therefore, I certify this rule will not 

have a significant economic impact on 

a substantial number of small entities. 

International Trade Impact Assessment 

The Trade Agreements Act of 1979 

(Pub. L. 96–39), as amended by the 

Uruguay Round Agreements Act (Pub. 

L. 103–465), prohibits Federal agencies 

from establishing standards or engaging 

in related activities that create 

unnecessary obstacles to the foreign 

commerce of the United States. 


emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 106 / Thursday, June 3, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 31285 

Pursuant to these Acts, the 

establishment of standards is not 

considered an unnecessary obstacle to 

the foreign commerce of the United 

States, so long as the standard has a 

legitimate domestic objective, such the 

protection of safety, and does not 

operate in a manner that excludes 

imports that meet this objective. The 

statute also requires consideration of 

international standards and, where 

appropriate, that they be the basis for 

U.S. standards. The FAA has assessed 

the potential effect of this proposed rule 

and determined that it has only a 

domestic impact and is not subject to 

the Trade Agreements Act requirements. 

Unfunded Mandates Assessment 

Title II of the Unfunded Mandates 

Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104–4) 

requires each Federal agency to prepare 

a written statement assessing the effects 

of any Federal mandate in a proposed or 

final agency rule that may result in an 

expenditure of $100 million or more 

(adjusted annually for inflation with the 

base year 1995) in any one year by State, 

local, and tribal governments, in the 

aggregate, or by the private sector; such 

a mandate is deemed to be a ‘‘significant 

regulatory action.’’ The FAA currently 

uses an inflation-adjusted value of 

$141.3 million. 

This rulemaking action does not 

contain such a mandate. Therefore, the 

requirements of Title II of the Unfunded 

Mandates Reform Act of 1995 do not 

apply to this regulation. 

Executive Order 13132, Federalism 

The FAA has analyzed this final rule 

under the principles and criteria of 

Executive Order 13132, Federalism. We 

determined that this action will not 

have a substantial direct effect on the 

States, or the relationship between the 

national Government and the States, or 

on the distribution of power and 

responsibilities among the various 

levels of government. Therefore, we 

have determined that this final rule does 

not have federalism implications. 

Environmental Analysis 

FAA Order 1050.1E identifies FAA 

actions that are categorically excluded 

from preparation of an environmental 

assessment or environmental impact 

statement under the National 

Environmental Policy Act in the 

absence of extraordinary circumstances. 

The FAA has determined this 

rulemaking action qualifies for the 

categorical exclusion identified in 

paragraph 312 and involves no 

extraordinary circumstances. 

Regulations That Significantly Affect 

Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use 

The FAA has analyzed this final rule 

under Executive Order 13211, Actions 

Concerning Regulations that 

Significantly Affect Energy Supply, 

Distribution, or Use (66 FR 28355, May 

18, 2001). We have determined that it is 

not a ‘‘significant regulatory action’’ 

under the Order because it is not a 

‘‘significant regulatory action’’ under 

Executive Order 12866, and it is not 

likely to have a significant adverse effect 

on the supply, distribution, or use of 

energy. 

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 65 

Air traffic controllers, Aircraft, 

Airmen, Airports, Alcohol abuse, 

Aviation safety Drug abuse, Reporting 

and recordkeeping requirements, 

Security measures. 

The Amendment 

■ Accordingly, the Federal Aviation 

Administration amends part 65 of the 

Federal Aviation Regulations (14 CFR 

Part 65) as follows: 

PART 65—CERTIFICATION: AIRMEN 

OTHER THAN FLIGHT 

CREWMEMBERS 

■ 1. The authority citation for part 65 

continues to read as follows: 

Authority: 5 U.S.C. 8335(a); 49 U.S.C. 

106(g); 49 U.S.C. 40113; 49 U.S.C. 44701– 

44703; 49 U.S.C. 44707; 49 U.S.C. 44709– 

44711; 49 U.S.C. 45102–45103; 49 U.S.C. 

45301–45302. 

■ 2. Amend § 65.111 by revising the 

introductory text of paragraph (b); 

redesignating existing paragraphs (c), (d) 

and (e) as paragraphs (d), (e) and (f), 

respectively; and adding a new 

paragraph (c) to read as follows: 

§ 65.111 Certificate required. 

* * * * * 

(b) No person may pack any main 

parachute of a dual-parachute system to 

be used for intentional parachute 

jumping in connection with civil 

aircraft of the United States unless that 

person— 

* * * * * 

(c) No person may maintain or alter 

any main parachute of a dual-parachute 

system to be used for intentional 

parachute jumping in connection with 

civil aircraft of the United States unless 

that person— 

(1) Has an appropriate current 

certificate issued under this subpart; or 

(2) Is under the supervision of a 

current certificated parachute rigger; 

* * * * * 

Issued in Washington, DC, on May 25, 

2010. 

J. Randolph Babbitt, 

Administrator. 

[FR Doc. 2010–13388 Filed 6–2–10; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4910–13–P 

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE 

Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, 

and Explosives 

27 CFR Part 478 

[Docket No. ATF 17F; AG Order No. 3160– 

2010 (2008R–10P)] 

Decision-Making Authority Regarding 

the Denial, Suspension, or Revocation 

of a Federal Firearms License, or 

Imposition of a Civil Fine 

AGENCY: Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, 

Firearms, and Explosives (ATF), 

Department of Justice. 

ACTION: Final rule. 

SUMMARY: The Department of Justice has 

adopted as final, without change, an 

interim rule that amended the 

regulations of the Bureau of Alcohol, 

Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives 

(‘‘ATF’’) to delegate to the Director of 

ATF the authority to serve as the 

deciding official regarding the denial, 

suspension, or revocation of federal 

firearms licenses, or the imposition of a 

civil fine. Under the interim rule, the 

Director has the flexibility to delegate to 

another ATF official the authority to 

decide a revocation or denial matter, or 

may exercise that authority himself. 

Because the Director can redelegate 

authority to take action as the final 

agency decision-maker to Headquarters 

officials, field officials, or some 

combination thereof, such flexibility 

allows ATF to more efficiently conduct 

denial, suspension, and revocation 

hearings, and make the determination 

whether to impose a civil fine. This 

gives the agency the ability to ensure 

consistency in decision-making and to 

address any case backlogs that may 

occur. 

DATES: This rule is effective August 2, 

2010. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

James P. Ficaretta, Enforcement 

Programs and Services; Bureau of 

Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and 

Explosives; U.S. Department of Justice; 

99 New York Avenue, NE., Washington, 

DC 20226; telephone: 202–648–7094. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 


emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with RULES