```

[Federal Register: June 3, 2010 (Volume 75, Number 106)]
[Rules and Regulations]               
[Page 31283-31285]
From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]
[DOCID:fr03jn10-5]                         

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

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) Sec.  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 
dual-parachute system, intended for tandem operation, only if that 
person was to be the next jumper to use that parachute. No other 
substantive changes to Sec.  65.111 were discussed in that rulemaking, 
nor were any other changes intended.
    In the 2001 amendment, however, the revised text of Sec.  65.111(b) 
did not preserve the clarity of authority that existed in the prior 
rule regarding a non-certificated person. Before the 2001 amendment, 
the authority of a non-certificated 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 Sec.  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 parachute-related 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 non-certificated 
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:

[[Page 31284]]

    (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 Sec.  65.111(b) in the 2001 amendment 
did not preserve the clarity of authority that existed in the prior 
rule regarding a non-certificated 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-for-profit 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.

[[Page 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

0
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

0
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.

0
2. Amend Sec.  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:

Sec.  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[horbar]
* * * * *
    (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
```