Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 90 / Wednesday, May 9, 2001 / Rules and Regulations 23543

3,000 hours time-in-service after the first

inspection where the wire braid is found to

be pierced.

(3) Visually inspect and, if necessary,

correct the bracket and clamp locations for

the CJ10L harness in accordance with

paragraphs 3.C. through 3.C.(5) of the

Accomplishment Instructions of CFMI ASB

CFM56–5C S/B 73–A0106, dated April 19,

2001.

Repetitive Inspections

(b) Thereafter, repeat the actions required

by paragraph (a) of this AD at intervals not

to exceed 500 hours time-since-lastinspection.

Terminating Actions

(c) Replacement of existing clamps (red

and brown silicon) at details R, and S of CJ9L

and detail S, R, and Q of CJ10L with new

clamp (metallic) part number 649–412–351–

0 and at detail Q of CJ9L with new clamp

649–412–354–0 constitutes terminating

action for the repetitive inspection

requirements of paragraph (b) of this AD.

Alternative Methods of Compliance

(d) An alternative method of compliance or

adjustment of the compliance time that

provides an acceptable level of safety may be

used if approved by the Manager, Engine

Certification Office (ECO). Operators shall

submit their requests through an appropriate

FAA Maintenance Inspector, who may add

comments and then send it to the Manager,

ECO.

Note 2: Information concerning the

existence of approved alternative methods of

compliance with this airworthiness directive,

if any, may be obtained from the ECO.

Special Flight Permits

(e) Special flight permits may be issued in

accordance with §§ 21.197 and 21.199 of the

Federal Aviation Regulations (14 CFR 21.197

and 21.199) to operate the aircraft to a

location where the requirements of this AD

can be accomplished.

Documents That Have Been Incorporated By

Reference

(f) The inspections shall be done in

accordance with CFM International Alert

Service Bulletin CFM56–5C S/B 73–A0106,

Revision 1, dated April 19, 2001. This

incorporation by reference was approved by

the Director of the Federal Register in

accordance with 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR

part 51. Copies may be obtained from CFM

International, Technical Publications

Department, 1 Neumann Way, Cincinnati,

OH 45215; telephone (513) 552–2981, fax

(513) 552–2816. Copies may be inspected at

the FAA, New England Region, Office of the

Regional Counsel, 12 New England Executive

Park, Burlington, MA; or at the Office of the

Federal Register, 800 North Capitol Street,

NW., suite 700, Washington, DC.

Note 3: The subject of this AD is addressed

in DGAC airworthiness directive N T2001–

145 (B) Revision 1.

(g) This amendment becomes effective on

May 14, 2001.

Issued in Burlington, Massachusetts, on

May 3, 2001.

Francis A. Favara,

Acting Manager, Engine and Propeller

Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service.

[FR Doc. 01–11615 Filed 5–4–01; 4:46 pm]

BILLING CODE 4910–13–P

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Parts 65, 91, 105, 119

[Docket No. FAA–1999–5483; Amendment

No. 65–42, 91–268, 105–12 and 119–4]

RIN 2120–AG52

Parachute Operations

AGENCY: Federal Aviation

Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Final rule.

SUMMARY: This rule amends regulations

that govern parachute operations.

Amendments to these regulations reflect

changes in the requirements applicable

to radio communications, airspace

classification, parachute packing,

tandem parachute operations, and

foreign parachutists. Through this rule,

the FAA intends to enhance the safety

of parachute operation in the National

Airspace System (NAS).

EFFECTIVE DATE: July 9, 2001.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Ellen Crum, Airspace and Rules

Division, ATA–400, Air Traffic Airspace

Management Program, Federal Aviation

Administration, 800 Independence

Avenue, SW., Washington, DC 20591,

telephone (202) 267–8783; or Randy

Montgomery, Flight Standards Service

Division, AFS–340, General Aviation

and Commercial Branch, Federal

Aviation Administration, 800

Independence Avenue, SW.,

Washington, DC 20591, telephone (202)

267–3155.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Availability of Final Rules

You can get an electronic copy using

the Internet by taking the following

steps:

(1) Go to the search function of the

Department of Transportation’s

electronic Docket Management System

(DMS) Web Page (http://dms.dot.gov/

search).

(2) On the search page type in the last

four digits of the Docket number shown

at the beginning of this final rule. Click

on ‘‘search.’’

(3) On the next page, which contains

the Docket summary information for the

Docket you selected, click on the final

rule.

You can also get an electronic copy

using the Internet through FAA’s web

page at http://www.faa.gov/avr/

armhome.htm or the Federal Register’s

web page at http://www.access.gpo.gov/

su_docs/aces/aces140.html.

You can also get a copy by submitting

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 final rule.

Small Business Regulatory Enforcement

Fairness Act

The Small Business Regulatory

Enforcement Fairness Act (SBREFA) of

1996, requires the 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.gov/avr/arm/

sbrefa.htm. For more information on

SBREFA, e-mail us 9-AWASBREFA@faa.gov.

Background

In 1991, the FAA initiated a review of

part 105, which was originally

published in 1962 to determine if the

regulation continued to reflect current

practices and equipment used in the

industry. Among other information, the

FAA studied reports received from the

Aviation Safety Reporting System

(ASRS), the National Transportation

Safety Board (NTSB), Air Traffic

Unsatisfactory Condition Reports (UCR),

and recommendations from the Air

Traffic Procedures Advisory Committee

and the National Air Traffic Controllers

Association (NATCA). Upon completion

of the review, the FAA determined that

the regulation required revision to be

consistent with the parachute

equipment used today and current

industry practices.

An example of changes that have

taken place in the parachute industry

since the time part 105 was published

is the development of dual-harness,

dual parachute systems designed to

carry more than one person at a time. In

1983 the FAA began receiving petitions

for rulemaking and exemption,

requesting changes to the rule allowing

use of this equipment. During the

1990’s, the FAA received petitions for

rulemaking to allow foreign parachutists

to jump in the United States without an

exemption. Additionally, petitioners

23544 Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 90 / Wednesday, May 9, 2001 / Rules and Regulations

requested removal of the requirement

for static line assist devices when ram

air parachutes were used.

The following is a detailed discussion

of these petitions and the FAA’s

rationale for making the regulatory

changes in this final rule.

Petitions for Exemption and Rulemaking

Tandem Parachute Operations

When part 105 was published in

1962, civilian parachute operations

were limited to the use of a singleharness, dual-parachute pack. Since

then, the parachute industry has

developed dual harness systems that

support two people under a single

parachute. Because part 105 currently

allows parachute operations with singleharness parachutes only, the use of

parachute equipment capable of

supporting two people has only been

authorized by exemption. For purposes

of the exemptions, the FAA and the

parachuting industry have adopted the

term ‘‘tandem’’ to describe those

parachute operations that use a dualharness, dual-parachute system.

The first exemption authorizing

tandem parachute operations in the

United States was granted to Strong

Enterprises and Relative Workshop by

the FAA in 1984. Since then more than

2.5 million experimental tandem

parachute jumps have been conducted

under exemption authority in the

United States and abroad. Under the

exemptions, various companies

conducting tandem parachute

operations were required to furnish the

FAA with accident statistics on tandem

operations, which provided the FAA

with the means to evaluate the safety of

tandem equipment compared to the

safety of equipment and operations

currently permitted under part 105.

In July 1997, the United States

Parachute Association (USPA)

submitted a petition for rulemaking

requesting that the FAA permit tandem

parachute operations. While considering

the USPA petition, the FAA reviewed

accident statistics from 1991 through

1996. Based on the information

collected during the review, the FAA

has determined that experimental

tandem parachute operations conducted

under an exemption from part 105 have

demonstrated that tandem operations

can be conducted safely.

Many of the new regulations

applicable to tandem parachute

operations are based on terms and

conditions previously contained in

exemptions. Although an exemption

will no longer be required to conduct a

tandem parachute operation, the FAA

has written the regulations to include

terms similar to those previously

contained in the exemptions. The FAA

believes that the continued use of the

practices and procedures proven to be

safe under exemption will ensure

continued safety in these operations.

The specific terms and conditions

adopted will be discussed under the

comment section.

Static-Line Assist Devices

The USPA submitted a petition in

July 1997 requesting that the FAA omit

the requirement for using a static-line

when using direct-deployed, ram-air

parachutes. As a basis for its request, the

USPA cited a series of tests it performed

to determine if assist devices improved

the reliability of the static line direct

deployment of a ram-air canopy. The

tests showed that an assist device does

not improve the deployment reliability

when used with a static line. Moreover,

there was no evidence of adverse effects

when the device is removed. As a result

of these tests, the FAA has concluded

that safety would not be compromised

by removing the static-line assist device

requirements for ram-air parachutes.

Equipment and Packing Requirements

for Foreign Parachutists

The USPA submitted a third petition

for rulemaking in July 1997 requesting

that the FAA allow foreign parachutists

to make parachute jumps in the United

States using their own equipment.

The current regulations require that

parachute equipment used in operations

conducted within the United States

meet the standards set forth under part

105. The practical impact of this

requirement is that foreign parachutists

could not use their own equipment,

usually manufactured in another

country, when participating in

parachute operations in the United

States. The FAA has issued exemptions

to organizations sponsoring parachuting

events attended by foreign parachutists.

This long time practice has

demonstrated that operations conducted

under these exemptions have been

conducted safely. Additionally, the FAA

recognizes that foreign manufacturers of

parachute equipment often meet U.S.

standards.

Notice of Proposed Rulemaking

Based on the review, petitions

received, and the collection of data

regarding parachute operations, the

FAA published a notice of proposed

rulemaking (NPRM) (64 FR 18302), on

April 13, 1999. The FAA proposed

numerous changes, including: (1)

Changes in response to the airspace

reclassification rule, (2) changes to air

traffic control communication

requirements, (3) changes to reflect

improved parachute design, and (4)

changes in industry practices. The

notice provided for a 90-day comment

period that closed on July 12, 1999.

In response to the NPRM, the FAA

received 71 comments. Among the

comments received were several

comments that are outside the scope of

the rule; therefore, those comments will

not be addressed in this rulemaking.

While the majority of comments

submitted to the public docket were

from parachutists, comments were also

received from drop zone operators;

pilots; the Illinois Department of

Transportation; the U.S. Department of

the Army; the United States Parachute

Association (USPA); the U.S.

Department of Agriculture, Forest

Service; Southwest Airlines Pilots’

Association the Aircraft Owners and

Pilots Association (AOPA); and the Air

Line Pilots Association (ALPA).

The following is a discussion of the

substantive comments received in

response to the NPRM. Sections that

received no comments are not included

in this discussion, and are incorporated

in the final rule as proposed in the

Notice.

Discussion of the Comments

Section 65.111 Certificate Required

Proposal: The FAA proposed to revise

paragraph (b) of current § 65.111,

Certificate required, which in part,

requires that anyone who packs,

maintains, or alters a main parachute of

a dual parachute pack to have an

appropriate current certificate issued

under subpart F of part 65. This

paragraph also allows non-certificated

persons to pack a main parachute of a

dual parachute pack that is to be used

by that person for intentional jumping.

In the NPRM, the FAA proposed to

allow persons to pack a main parachute

under the supervision of a certificated

parachute rigger or to allow a

parachutist in command to pack a main

parachute for tandem parachute

operations. The FAA also proposed to

add the word ‘‘next’’ to the provision

that a person may pack a main

parachute if that person intends to make

the ‘‘next’’ parachute jump using that

parachute.

Comments: One commenter supports

the proposed rule language. Several

commenters, including Skydive

Delmarva, Inc. do not agree with

proposed § 65.111. Skydive Delmarva,

Inc. suggests adding a new paragraph

which would allow persons authorized

in writing by a certificated rigger to pack

main parachutes without supervision.

Further, Skydive Delmarva, Inc.

Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 90 / Wednesday, May 9, 2001 / Rules and Regulations 23545

requests that the FAA authorize

organizations, other than the FAA, to

issue parachute rigger certificates.

FAA response: Skydive Delmarva

Inc.’s comment to allow a noncertificated person to receive permission

in writing from a certificated rigger to

pack a main parachute was not

addressed in the NPRM. As a

consequence, the comment goes beyond

the scope of this rulemaking. This

comment will not, therefore, be

addressed in the final rule.

The FAA disagrees, for safety reasons,

with Skydive Delmarva’s request to

allow persons authorized in writing by

a certificated rigger to pack main

parachutes without supervision.

Further, in response to Skydive

Delmarva’s request to authorize

organizations, other than the FAA, to

issue parachute rigger certificates, the

FAA recognizes and currently allows

designated parachute rigger examiners

(DPRE’s), who are not FAA employees,

to issue parachute rigger certificates.

Therefore, § 65.111 is adopted in the

final rule as proposed.

Section 105.3 Definitions

The FAA proposed to define the terms

‘‘approved parachute,’’ ‘‘automatic

activation device,’’ ‘‘drop zone,’’ ‘‘fatal

injury,’’ ‘‘foreign parachutist,’’

‘‘freefall,’’ ‘‘main parachute,’’ ‘‘object,’’

‘‘parachute drop,’’ ‘‘parachute jump,’’

‘‘parachute operation,’’ ‘‘parachutist,’’

‘‘parachutist in command,’’ ‘‘passenger

parachutist,’’ ‘‘pilot chute,’’ ‘‘ram-air

parachute,’’ ‘‘reserve parachute,’’

‘‘serious injury,’’ ‘‘single-harness, dualparachute system,’’ ‘‘supervision,’’

‘‘tandem parachute operation,’’ and

‘‘tandem parachute system.’’

The following is a list of proposed

definitions, on which the FAA received

comments, and the FAA response to

those comments. Definitions that were

included in the proposal, but not

commented on are included in the final

rule as proposed. However, definitions

for ‘‘foreign parachutist,’’ ‘‘parachute

drop,’’ ‘‘parachute operation,’’ and

‘‘parachutist,’’ have been changed for

further clarification. The definitions for

‘‘fatal injury’’ and ‘‘serious injury’’ are

deleted from the final rule.

Automatic Activation Device (AAD)

Proposal: The FAA proposed to

define an ‘‘automatic activation device’’

as a self-contained mechanical device

attached to a parachute, other than a

static line, which automatically initiates

parachute deployment at a preset

altitude, time, percentage of terminal

velocity, or combination thereof if that

parachute has not been manually

activated.

Comments: Several commenters

object to the proposed definition for the

AAD. One of these commenters states

that the definition should be deleted

because AAD’s ‘‘are not approved,

reviewed, or certificated,’’ therefore,

they should not be addressed in this

rulemaking. Another commenter states

that ‘‘AAD’’ should be defined as ‘‘a

self-contained mechanical or electromechanical device,’’ because this

definition accurately describes the type

of equipment currently used in the

parachute industry.

FAA response: The FAA disagrees

that the definition for AAD should be

deleted, but it agrees that the term

‘‘electro-mechanical device’’ should be

added to the definition.

The FAA concluded that a definition

for AAD should be included in this final

rule because parachutists frequently use

this equipment today. The fact that

parachutists voluntarily rely on the

AAD for their safety is a testimony to its

value. The FAA’s required use of an

AAD on tandem parachute system

reserve parachutes further attests to the

added protection afforded by the use of

this device.

The FAA agrees with the commenter

who recommended that the term

‘‘electro-mechanical device’’ should be

added to the definition of AAD. Upon

receipt of this comment, the FAA

reviewed the design and construction of

AAD’s. Three types of AADs exist; the

first type is purely mechanical, or

battery activated; the second type is a

microprocessor, which has a mini

computer; the third type of AAD, which

is most frequently used today, combines

the battery and computer processor to

create an electro-mechanical AAD.

Given that this AAD is the most

frequently used, adding the phrase

‘‘electro-mechanical’’ to the definition

provides the most accurate description

of AAD’s used today. Therefore, the

FAA has added this phrase to the

definition.

The FAA also amends the proposed

definition for the term ‘‘AAD’’ in two

other respects. First, the definition

states that the AAD is attached to the

interior of the reserve parachute

container, instead of the parachute

itself. Second, the definition is corrected

to state that the AAD initiates

deployment of the reserve parachute,

which is a more accurate description of

the AAD’s operation that what was

originally proposed.

Direct Supervision

Proposal: The FAA proposed to

define the term ‘‘supervision’’ as the act

of a certificated rigger personally

observing the packing of a parachute by

a noncertificated person to the extent

necessary to ensure that it is being done

properly.

Comments: Several commenters

recommend revising the proposed

definition of the term ‘‘supervision’’ to

include that the certificated rigger is

readily available in person for

consultation. One commenter

recommends that the definition be

amended to state that a certificated

rigger also ‘‘. . . takes responsibility for

that packing.’’

FAA response: The FAA agrees with

the comment that a certificated rigger

needs to be available during the packing

process. The FAA has adopted a revised

definition in the final rule to address

this concern by changing ‘‘supervision’’

to ‘‘direct supervision.’’ Although the

term ‘‘direct supervision’’ was not used

in the NPRM, the FAA believes that

adding the word ‘‘direct’’ clarifies the

FAA’s intent that a certificated rigger

must be on the premises during the

parachute packing process. The

certificated rigger’s presence ensures

that he/she is readily available in person

for consultation.

In addition, the FAA agrees with the

commenters that direct supervision

includes taking responsibility for the

packing. Therefore, the phrase ‘‘and

takes responsibility for that packing’’

has been added to the term ‘‘direct

supervision’’ in the final rule.

Fatal Injury

Proposal: The FAA proposed to

define the term ‘‘fatal injury’’ as any

parachuting injury that results in death

within 30 days from the date of injury.

FAA Response: Many comments were

received on this proposed term because

it is in conjunction with the proposed

addition of § 105.27, Accident reporting

requirements. Since the FAA has

eliminated proposed § 105.27 in the

final rule, this definition has been

deleted.

Foreign Parachutist

Proposal: The FAA proposed to

define this term as a parachutist who is

neither a U.S. citizen nor a resident

alien.

FAA Response: While no comments

were received on this definition, the

FAA has amended the proposed

definition to clarify that a foreign

parachutist is a parachutist who is

neither a U.S. citizen nor a resident

alien and is participating in parachute

operations within the United States

using parachute equipment not

manufactured in the United States.

23546 Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 90 / Wednesday, May 9, 2001 / Rules and Regulations

Parachute Drop

Proposal: The FAA proposed to

define this term as a parachute

operation that involves the descent of an

object to the surface from an aircraft in

flight when a parachute is used or

intended to be used during all or part of

that descent.

FAA Response: While no comments

were received on this definition, the

FAA amended the proposed definition

to clarify that a parachute drop means

the descent of an object from an aircraft

in flight when a parachute is used or

intended to be used during all or part of

that descent.

Parachute Operation

Proposal: The FAA proposed to

define this term as any activity that

includes a parachute jump or a

parachute drop. This activity involves,

but is not limited to the following

persons: Parachutist, tandem parachute

operation, drop zone owner or operator,

certificated parachute rigger, pilot, or

appropriate FAA personnel.

FAA Response: While no comments

were received on the proposed

definition for parachute operation, the

FAA determined that it should be

further clarified. Therefore, the FAA has

amended the proposed definition to

define a parachute operation as any

activity associated with, or performed in

support of a parachute jump or a

parachute drop. A parachute operation

can involve, but is not limited to, the

following persons: Parachutist, a

parachutist in command and passenger

in tandem parachute operations, jump

master, certificated parachute rigger, or

pilot.

Parachutist

Proposal: The FAA proposed to

define this term as a person who boards

an aircraft with the intent to exit the

aircraft while in flight using a singleharness, dual parachute system to

descend to the surface.

FAA Response: While no comments

were received on this definition, the

FAA has amended the proposed

definition to clarify that a parachutist is

a person who intends to exit an aircraft

while in flight using a single-harness,

dual parachute system to descend to the

surface.

Parachutist in Command

Proposal: The FAA proposed to add

the term ‘‘parachutist in command’’ to

address the instructor of a tandem

parachute operation, which the FAA

defined as the person responsible for the

operation and safety of a tandem

parachute operation before, during, and

after a tandem parachute operation.

Comments: Several commenters state

that the term ‘‘parachutist in command’’

should be changed to ‘‘tandem

instructor,’’ which would more

accurately reflect that person’s function

as a teacher, not simply the person in

charge of the tandem parachute

operation.

The USPA contents that the

parachutist in the forward harness is

more than a passenger because he or she

could sabotage the safety of the

operation by failing to follow proper

procedures between exit and touch

down.

FAA response: The FAA has given the

commenters’ recommendations serious

consideration but cannot agree that

‘‘tandem instructor’’ would accurately

reflect the role and responsibility that

this person holds. Although it is true

that the parachutist in command

provides instruction, the amount of time

spent instructing is greatly outweighed

by the responsibilities held by the

person in this role. The bulk of the

parachutist-in-command’s duties are

centered on the safety of the tandem

parachute operation. Safety, in this case,

only begins with the passenger’s

instruction in proper procedures. In

fact, the parachutist-in-command

controls the safety of the operation from

the moment the pair exit the aircraft to

the time that touch down is safety

accomplished.

The FAA has also given further

consideration to the USPA’s concern

that the passenger can sabotage the

tandem parachute operation. The FAA

agrees with the USPA regarding the

potential for a passenger to

inadvertently act in a manner that

would sabotage the safety of the

operation, but such an event is highly

unlikely. However, if such event

occurred, the parachutist-in-command

would be required to bring the operation

back under control. The FAA believes

that the term ‘‘parachutist-in-command’’

provides the broadest range of

applicability and most accurately

describes the responsibilities of the

person who occupies the rear harness in

a tandem parachute operation.

Therefore, the term ‘‘parachutist-incommand’’ is adopted in the final rule.

Passenger Parachutist

Proposal: The FAA proposed to add

the term ‘‘passenger parachutist’’ and

define it as a person who boards an

aircraft, acting as other than the

parachutist in command of a tandem

parachute operation, with the intent of

exiting the aircraft while in flight using

the forward harness of a dual harness

tandem parachute system.

Comments: Several commenters

suggest changing this term to ‘‘student

tandem parachutist.’’ One commenter

suggests changing the term to ‘‘tandem

student.’’ Another commenter suggests

that the term should be changed because

the term ‘‘passenger’’ is used when

referring to aircraft operations and is not

appropriate when referring to tandem

parachute operations since the person is

a ‘‘student,’’ not a ‘‘passenger.’’

FAA response: The FAA believes that

the term ‘‘passenger parachutist’’ best

describes the role of the person

occupying the forward harness of a

tandem parachute system. The term

‘‘passenger parachutist’’ is more

inclusive than the terms ‘‘student

tandem parachutist’’ or ‘‘tandem

student.’’ Therefore, this term broadens

the classification of persons

participating in tandem parachute

operations. In addition, this term

clarifies that the parachutist-incommand would be solely responsible

for regaining control of the parachute

and the safety of the parachute

operation, in the event of an emergency.

It is highly unlikely that the parachutist

in the forward would have the

knowledge and experience to handle an

emergency situation properly. For these

reasons, the term ‘‘passenger

parachutist’’ is most appropriate to

describe the parachutist using the

forward harness of a tandem parachute.

Serious Injury

Proposal: The FAA proposed to

define the term ‘‘serious injury’’ as any

injury that requires hospitalization for

more than 48 hours, commencing

within 7 days from the date the injury

was received; results in a fracture of any

bone (except simple fractures of fingers,

toes, or the nose); causes severe

hemorrhages, or nerve, muscle, or

tendon damage; or involves any internal

organ.

FAA response: Many comments were

received in response to this proposed

term because of its relation to the

proposed addition of § 105.27, Accident

reporting requirements. Since the FAA

has eliminated proposed § 105.27 in the

final rule, this definition has been

deleted.

Tandem Parachute Operation

Proposal: The FAA proposed to

define the term ‘‘tandem parachute

operation’’ as a parachute operation in

which more than one person

simultaneously uses the same tandem

parachute system while descending

from an aircraft in flight.

Comments: Several commenters

suggest that this term be change to

‘‘tandem parachute jump,’’ or that

Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 90 / Wednesday, May 9, 2001 / Rules and Regulations 23547

‘‘tandem parachute jump’’ be used in

addition to ‘‘tandem parachute

operation’’ to more accurately describe

the action taking place, and to be

consistent with current terminology.

FAA response: The FAA does not

agree with these commenters. The

proposed definition is intended to

include more than just the actual jump,

it also includes all aspects of the jump,

from the time the jump aircraft departs

until the last parachutist(s) descend to

the surface. Therefore, the FAA adopts

the definition as proposed.

Section 105. General

Proposal: In the NPRM, the FAA

proposed to make the following

editorial changes to current § 105.13: (1)

Replace the word ‘‘make’’ with the

phrase ‘‘to conduct,’’ (2) replace the

term ‘‘parachute jump’’ with the term

‘‘parachute operation,’’ (3) replace the

word ‘‘made’’ with the word

‘‘conducted,’’ and (4) replace the word

‘‘jump’’ with the word ‘‘operation.’’

Comments: Several comments were

received on this proposal from the

USPA, AOPA and others, requesting

that the FAA incorporate language into

the proposed § 105.5, which would hold

the parachutists, not pilots, responsible

for creating hazards to air traffic. These

comments state that pilots of jump

aircraft should be relieved from full

responsibility for a parachutist exiting

their aircraft. The comments’

justification for their position is that

parachutes used in these types of

operations can be steered, therefore, the

parachutist can maneuver out of the

designated drop zone, possibly creating

a hazard to air traffic.

FAA response: The proposed changes

to this section were editorial in nature,

not substantive. Comments that concern

the responsibility of the pilot-incommand are beyond the scope of this

rulemaking and therefore, are not

addressed. This section is adopted as

proposed.

Subpart B—Operating Rules

Section 105.13 Radio Equipment and

Use Requirements

Proposal: Currently, part 105 requires

that the pilot of an aircraft used for

conducting parachute operations

establish radio communications with

the nearest FAA air traffic control

facility or FAA Flight Service Station at

least 5 minutes before the jumping

activity is to begin.

The FAA proposed to amend this

section to require that the jump aircraft

establish radio communications with

the air traffic control facility having

jurisdiction over the affected airspace. A

pilot of a jump aircraft will no longer be

required to establish radio

communications with Flight Service

Stations for the purpose of receiving

traffic information.

The FAA also proposed amending

this section to require pilots to notify

ATC when the last parachutist or object

leaves the aircraft. The current rule

requires the pilot of the jump aircraft to

notify ATC when the last parachutist

reaches the ground.

In addition, the notice proposed to

amend the lost communication

procedures applicable to parachute

operations. Currently, if

communications systems become

inoperative in flight after receipt of a

required ATC authorization, the

jumping activity from that flight may be

continued. The notice proposed that if

the required radio communications

system is or becomes inoperative during

any parachute operation in or into

controlled airspace, the parachute

operation msut be aborted.

Comments: Several commenters,

including USPA, AOPA, and the

Southwest Airlines Pilot’s Association

recommended changes to this section.

The USPA suggests adding the phrase,

‘‘airspace of intended exit altitude(s)’’ to

paragraph (a)(1)(ii). The USPA requests

this change because parachute

operations can pass through the airspace

of several ATC facilities and sectors,

depending on the altitude of the aircraft.

According to the USPA, the proposal

did not clarify which ATC facility

would be the appropriate facility to

contact. The change requested by the

USPA would clarify that the appropriate

facility to contact would be the one that

has jurisdiction over the airspace and

the altitude where the aircraft is located

when the parachutist exists the aircraft.

Another commenter believes that the

requirement to contact the ATC facility

having jurisdiction over the airspace

could be interpreted to require the pilot

to maintain communications with two

or more facilities during the jump

operation. The commenter contends that

if communications must be maintained

with more than one ATC facility, a

second radio would be required,

imposing a financial burden of at least

$1200 to $1500. This commenter

believes that the current requirement is

sufficient and should not be changed.

The USPA objects to the FAA

proposal to require the parachutists on

the flight to share responsibility to

establish radio communications and to

receive information about air traffic

activity. The commenter recommends

that the pilot in command have sole

responsibility for radio

communications.

Several commenters object to the

proposed removal of the requirement to

contact FAA Flight Service Stations

(FSS). These commenters are concerned

that Notices to Airman (NOTAM)

regarding parachute operations,

normally submitted to FSS’s, will not be

received or disseminated. The

commenters believe that this creates a

safety problem for non-radio equipped

aircraft operating in airspace where

parachute operations are being

conducted.

Several commenters object to the

proposal that requires that parachute

operations must be aborted if radio

communications equipment becomes

inoperative. Currently, parachute

operations may continue if the radio

failure occurs after receipt of the ATC

authorization. The USPA contends that

the parachute operation should

continue after receipt of an ATC

authorization, regardless of the

operational status of the radio

communications system. According to

the USPA, safety would not be

compromised because the ATC has

identified the aircraft on radio and has

been advised of the jump operation.

FAA response: The FAA agrees with

some of the comments received in

response to the proposed changes.

The FAA agrees with the USPA’s

comment to include the phrase

‘‘airspace of the first intended exit

altitude’’ in § 105.13(a)(1)(ii). Since

parachute operations can require the use

of more than one altitude, the FAA

agrees with USPA’s comment. The FAA

believes that further clarification is

necessary by adding that radio

communications should be established

over the affected airspace of ‘‘the first’’

intended exit altitude. Therefore, this

clarifying language has been added to

the phrase proposed by the USPA and

is incorporated in the final rule. The

adoption of this phrase clarifies which

ATC facility to contact when parachute

operations are being conducted.

The FAA also agrees that the rule as

proposed could be interpreted to mean

that the aircraft must have more than

one radio to meet the communications

requirement. The FAA’s intent was not

to require the pilot to contact more than

one ATC facility, nor is it the intent of

the FAA to increase the pilot’s workload

during a jump activity. It is common

practice for ATC facilities to coordinate

information regarding parachute jump

operations. Pilots, therefore, typically

are not required to contact more than

one facility. By inserting the phrase,

‘‘airspace of first intended exit altitude,’’

in the rule language, the FAA believes

that this confusion will be eliminated.

23548 Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 90 / Wednesday, May 9, 2001 / Rules and Regulations

The FAA concurs with the USPA that

the pilot in command should be solely

responsible for establishing and

maintaining radio communications and

information about air traffic activity.

The proposal was intended to ensure

that known air traffic information is

communicated to both the pilot and the

parachutist. However, the configuration

of most aircraft avionics, make it

impractical for both pilot and

parachutist to share the responsibility

for establishing radio communications.

Traffic information can be relayed

within the aircraft from the pilot to the

parachutists. Therefore, the FAA has

deleted the requirement, that the

parachutists also be responsible for

establishing radio communications,

from the final rule.

The FAA believes that commenters

concerned about the FAA’s failure to

disseminate NOTAMs on parachute

operations misunderstand the

communications requirements. The

current rule requires that pilots

conducting parachute operations

contact FSS’s to receive information

about know air traffic in the vicinity.

This is solely a communication

requirement; it does not address filing

or disseminating NOTAM’s. In addition,

§ 91.103 requires all pilots to become

familiar with all available information

concerning the flight that includes

NOTAM’s. Since pilots who operate

non-radio equipped aircraft are required

to check NOTAM’s prior to a flight, this

change will not impact safety. This rule

does not change the current industry

practice that pilots contact FSS’s to file

NOTAM information.

The FAA does not agree with the

USPA recommendation to retain the

current rule language that permits jump

activities to continue if the aircraft loss

its radio communications capability.

The purpose of this proposal is to

increase the safety of all aircraft in the

vicinity of the parachute operation by

ensuring that two-way radio

communications have been established

and maintained between the jump

aircraft and the ATC facility that has

jurisdction over the airspace. If, prior to

receipt of an ATC authorization or

during the parachute operation, the

radio communications system becomes

inoperative, traffic information or the

status of the parachute operation cannot

be exchanged, therefore, the parachute

operation must be aborted. The

proposed language is adopted in the

final rule.

Section 105.15 Information Required

and Notice of Cancellation or

Postponement of a Parachute Operation

Proposal: The current rule lists

information that must be submitted to

the FAA when an individual or an

organization requests an authorization

for a parachute jump. This information

includes the radio frequencies, if any,

available in the aircraft. The FAA

proposed that when required to submit

information regarding parachute

operations, the radio frequencies

appropriate to the facilities used during

the parachute operation would be

specified, rather than the radio

frequencies avialable in the aircraft.

Comments: Several commenters,

including USPA recommend that the

requirement to submit the radio

frequencies appropriate to the ATC

facility be replaced with the name of the

ATC facility that has jurisdiction over

the airspace where the jump will take

place. The USPA contends that the pilot

or fjum proponent may not know the

radio frequencies that are used by ATC

for the jump operation until

coordination is completed with the

proper ATC facility.

One commenter disagrees with the

proposed requirement that a request for

authorization should include the

registration number for the jump

aircraft. The commenter adds that this

requirement is acceptable when filing a

NOTAM. However, when a request is

submitted to conduct a demonstration

several days in advance of the jump

operation, the person(s) participating in

the demonstration may not know which

aircraft is going to be used.

FAA response: The FAA agrees with

the USPA’s recommendation that the

proponent of the parachute operation

must submit the name of the ATC

facility that has jurisdicaiton over the

airspace where the jump will take place.

In many cases, the pilot or jump

proponent does not know which ATC

radio frequencies are designated for the

sector where the parachute operation

will take place. By incorporating this

change into the final rule, the pilot will

know which ATC facility is the

appropriate one to contact, and that

facility may issue the appropriate

frequency to the pilot.

In addition, the FAA understands that

there may be some circumstances where

the registration number of the jump

aircraft is not known until the day of the

hump. If this is the case, multiple

registration numbers may be submitted

along with an explanation to the ATC

facility. Knowing the registration

number of the aircraft identifies to the

controllers the aircraft that will be

involved in the jump operation. Having

the aircraft identification number makes

the intentions of the pilot contained in

the authorization available to the

controller, and therefore, reduces radio

frequency congestion. The rule language

remains as proposed.

The FAA has also added clarifying

language to paragraph (a)(8), requiring

persons requesting an authorization to

conduct a parachute operation to

provide the name of that air traffic

control facility having jurisdiction of the

airspace at the ‘‘first intended’’ exist

altitude to be used in that parachute

operation. The FAA believes this

clarifying language is necessary to

ensure that radio communication are

established between the pilot of the

hump aircraft and the appropriate air

traffic control facility. Therefore, this

phrase has been added to § 105.15(a)(8)

in the final rule.

Section 105.19 Parachute Operations

Between Sunset and Sunrise

Proposal: Proposed § 105.19 would

have added a requirement for

parachutist(s) and objects descending

from an aircraft to display a light which

is visible for 3 statute miles in all

directions.

Comments: Several commenters,

including the USPA and the Southwest

Airlines Pilot’s Association, object to

the requirement to display a light that

is visible ‘‘in all directions.’’ The

commenters believe it would require

that a parachutist or an object be

equipped with more than one light.

FAA response: The FAA has revisited

this proposal and agrees with the

commenters. Therefore, the FAA is

rescinding the proposal and has deleted

the phrase ‘‘in all directions’’ in the

final rule. The common practice of

mounting a light on the parachutist’s

helmet should make him or her visible

to aircraft operating on the same

horizontal plane. A helmet-mounted

light may not be visible to aircraft flying

at higher or lower altitudes than the

parachutist, but the parachutist should

not present a hazard to those aircraft. In

addition, the requirement to have a light

that is visible ‘‘in all directions’’ would

require that a parachutist be equipped

with two lights which would exceed the

requirements for aircraft lights in part

91. Therefore, the phrase ‘‘in all

directions’’ is not included in the final

rule.

Section 105.21 Parachute Operations

Over or Into a Congested Area or an

Open Air Assembly of Persons

Proposal: In the NPRM, the FAA

proposed to remove the 4-day

requirement to apply for a certificate of

Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 90 / Wednesday, May 9, 2001 / Rules and Regulations 23549

authorization to make a parachute jump

over or into congested areas or open air

assemblies since that amount of time for

processing certificates of authorization

is no longer necessary.

Comments: Several commenters,

including USPA, oppose deleting the 4-

day reporting requirement, because in

the commenters’ opinion, it may take

the FAA longer than 4 days to process

a certificate of authorization. All of the

commenters request that the regulation

be amended to require processing of

applications for certificates of

authorization within 5 business days

after submission, instead of leaving the

processing time unspecified.

FAA response: The FAA does not

agree with the commenters that

removing the 4-day reporting

requirement will increase the time it

takes the FAA to process a certificate of

authorization. The FAA and the

parachute industry may use current

technology (i.e., computers and fax

capability) which makes it possible to

process certificates of authorization in

less than 4 days. Currently, the FAA

uses this technology to issue certificates

of authorization for other aviation

events (i.e., air shows). Therefore, the

FAA has determined that removing the

4-day reporting requirement will not

cause additional processing delays and

will actually expedite the process. The

requirement is adopted in the final rule,

as proposed.

Section 105.23 Parachute Operations

Over or Onto Airports

Proposal: Currently, unless prior

approval has been given by aircraft

management, part 105 prohibits

parachute operations over or onto any

airport that does not have a functioning

control tower operated by the United

States. In the NPRM, the FAA proposed

amending the regulation to require

pilots of aircraft conducting parachute

operations to contact the air traffic

control tower having jurisdiction over

the area where parachute operations are

taking place, regardless of who is

responsible for tower operations.

Comments: The commenters did not

offer specific comments on the proposed

change to this section. However, many

commenters disagree with the current

rule language which grants airport

managers the authority to approve

parachute operations over or onto the

airports.

FAA response: The FAA did not

propose an amendment to change the

longstanding policy authorizing airport

managers to grant approval for

parachute operations over or onto their

airport. The comments are therefore,

outside the scope of the NPRM, and

have not been considered.

Section 105.25 Parachute Operations

in Designated Airspace

Proposal: The FAA proposed to

prohibit parachute operations in

restricted or prohibited areas unless

authorized by the controlling agency of

the area concerned. The FAA also

proposed to prohibit parachute

operations in Class A, B, C, or D

airspace without an air traffic control

authorization. Further, the FAA

proposed to prohibit parachute

operations within Class E or G airspace

unless the air traffic control facility

having jurisdiction over the affected

airspace is notified of the parachute

operation no earlier than 24 hours

before or not later than 1 hour before the

parachute operation begins.

Comments: There were no substantive

comments received on this section.

FAA response: Although there were

no comments received on this section,

the FAA determined that in paragraph

(c) of this section, ‘‘air traffic control’’

should be replaced with ‘‘the FAA’’ to

indicate that other FAA organizations,

besides air traffic, may revoke the

acceptance of the notification for any

failure of the organization conducting

the parachute operations to comply with

FAA requirements. With the exception

of this change, this section remains as

proposed.

Section 105.27 Accident Reporting

Requirements

Proposal: Currently, there are no FAA

requirements to report accidents

involving parachutist. In the NPRM the

FAA proposed a new section which

would require the parachutist(s), the

pilot of the aircraft, or the drop zone

owner or operator to notify the FAA

within 48 hours of any parachute

operation resulting in a serious or fatal

injury to the parachutist.

Comments: Numerous commenters,

including USPA, AOPA, and Southwest

Airlines Pilot’s Association strongly

oppose this proposed requirement,

while one commenter supports it. Most

of the commenter state that the pilot

should not be responsible for reporting

an accident because it would be very

difficult for the pilot to know if a

parachutist who jumped from his or her

aircraft was injured from the fall.

Several commenters state that only

‘‘serious’’ injuries, requiring a

physician’s attention, should be

reported. In addition, several

commenters also dispute the number of

estimated parachute jumping accidents

per year that was used as a basis for cost

analysis and determining paperwork

burden, versus the number of accidents

that actually occur.

FAA response: Based on the

comments received, the FAA has

revisited its original proposal to

determine whether or not current FAA

policy, as well as industry practices,

provide adequate information pertaining

to parachute operation incidents.

The FAA believed that collection and

review of information pertaining to

parachute operation accidents could be

used to assess the safety of parachute

operations and assist in preventing

future parachute accidents.

However, to be effective, this data

collection requires a system, or

infrastructure, to collect, store and

evaluate the information, which the

FAA does not have the resources to

support at this time. In addition, this

requirement imposes a significant

paperwork burden on individuals

conducting or participating in parachute

operations. After considering the lack of

available FAA resources and the

paperwork burden that would be

necessary to meet this requirement, the

FAA has concluded that the

infrastructure for this type of data

collection is currently unavailable, and

that the paperwork burden would be

excessive.

Additionally, the FAA and the USPA

have a close working relationship with

regard to the safe conduct of parachute

operations within the National Airspace

System. When safety issues surface

within either organization, an exchange

of information is commonplace. We

expect this relationship to continue, and

believe that cooperation between the

two organizations will provide the

same, if not a better alternative than

regulations at this time.

Therefore, § 105.27 and the

definitions in § 105.3 associated with

this section (i.e., ‘‘fatal injury’’ and

‘‘serious injury’’) are not included in the

final rule. Although this section is not

adopted in the final rule, the FAA will

continue to monitor the safety of

parachute operations and the possible

need for accident reporting

requirements for possible consideration

in a future rulemaking action.

Subpart C—Parachute Equipment and

Packing

Section 105.43 Use of Single-Harness,

Dual-Parachute Systems

Proposal: Currently, the rule provides

that only a certificated parachute rigger,

or the person making the parachute

jump with that parachute, may pack a

main parachute. The FAA proposed that

a non-certificated person also may pack

a main parachute under the direct

23550 Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 90 / Wednesday, May 9, 2001 / Rules and Regulations

supervision of a certificated parachute

rigger. The FAA also proposed that if

installed, the automatic activation

device (AAD) must be maintained in

accordance with manufacturer

instructions for that AAD.

Comments: Several commenters,

including USPA, believe that the

responsibility for the safety of parachute

equipment should rest with the

certificated rigger and the parachute

jumper, not the pilot of the aircraft used

for the jump, as current stated in

§ 105.43(a).

In addition, the USPA states that the

certificated rigger should be on the

premises during parachute packing, and

thus available for personal consultation.

Several commenters support the

current 120-day repack cycle

requirement, which was also included

in the proposal. Numerous commenters

oppose the current 120-day repack

cycle, and favor either a 180-day or a 6-

month repack cycle.

Several commenters, including USPA,

request the deletion of § 105.43(b)(3),

which requires that if AAD’s are

installed, they must be maintained in

accordance with the manufacturer’s

instructions. The USPA states that if

this paragraph is retained in the final

rule, there is no method of

documentation available for a pilot to

verify that the AAD is in compliance

with the manufacturer’s guidelines/

instructions, and thus, in compliance

with the rule. In addition, other

commenters note that this piece of

equipment is supplemental and does

not require FAA certification, therefore,

it should not be included in the

regulation.

FAA response: The FAA agrees with

the commenters who request that the

certificated rigger should be held

responsible for packing the parachute

properly. However, this requirement is

not new to the regulations. Certificated

riggers have always been responsible for

the proper rigging of a parachute, which

is evident from the fact that the rigger

is required to obtain a certificate.

Section 65.129 of the regulations further

requires that the certificated rigger

ensure that parachutes are packed in

accordance with the Administrator’s

and manufacturer’s requirements. The

FAA has adopted the revision of

‘‘supervision’’ to ‘‘direct supervision,’’

and has included the phrase ‘‘takes

responsibility for that packing’’ in

definition.

The FAA cannot agree entirely with

those commenters who believe that the

pilot should not be held responsible for

the safety of the parachute equipment.

The FAA wants to retain this

longstanding requirement in the final

rule for more than one reason. First and

foremost, the pilot is the final

checkpoint for equipment that a

parachutist encounters before jumping

from the aircraft. The pilot merely

verifies that the jumper’s equipment is

properly inspected, which is not a

burdensome task. The FAA believes that

the pilot should bear this burden

because the pilot has responsibility for

the safety of the parachutist(s) while

they are aboard the aircraft and the FAA

believes that this responsibility should

include ensuring that the parachutist(s)

are using proper equipment.

The FAA agrees with the USPA’s

recommendation that a certificated

rigger should be on the premises during

parachute packing and available for

personal consultation. The FAA also

believes a certificated rigger should

directly supervise the packing of the

parachute. It is not sufficient, from a

safety standpoint, to have a noncertificated person pack a parachute

without a certificated rigger directly

supervising the packing, and ensuring

that it is done properly. Accordingly,

§ 105.43(a) is adopted as proposed.

With regard to the repack cycle, the

180-day and 6 month repack cycles

were not part of the original proposal;

therefore, they are outside the scope of

this rulemaking. The requirement for a

120-day repack cycle is retained in the

final rule.

The FAA disagrees with the

commenters’ request to delete

§ 105.43(b)(3), which requires that if

AAD’s are installed, they must be

maintained in accordance with the

manufacturer’s instructions. Although

AAD’s are not subject to approval under

a TSO or airworthiness certification, the

FAA believes this requirement is

necessary for safety considerations, even

though AAD’s are an optional piece of

equipment, except in tandem

operations. Therefore, this requirement

is retained in the final rule.

The FAA also made a correction to

the paragraph designation of this

section. In the proposal, paragraph (b)(3)

was incorrectly labeled; it has been

correctly designated as paragraph (c) in

the final rule.

Section 105.45 Use of Tandem

Parachute Systems

Proposal: This proposed section

provided for tandem parachute

operations, and incorporated the

conditions and limitations, with some

modification, set forth in the grants of

exemption issued to experimental

tandem parachute operators. These

conditions and limitations include

instructor experience requirements,

briefings for passenger parachutists,

equipment inspections, and packing

requirements.

In addition, the FAA proposed that a

certificated parachute rigger supervise

persons packing parachutes who are not

certificated by the FAA, unless the

person packing the parachute is a

parachutist in command.

Comments: Several commenters,

including USPA, recommend that

manufacturer’s directives for tandem

parachute systems be made mandatory.

The commenters also request that the

number of freefall jumps to qualify as a

tandem jump instructor be changed

from 300 of 500 freefall jumps with a

ram air parachute to 500 freefall jumps,

because currently, only ram air

parachutes are used. According to the

commenters, this change would reflect

the recommendation by USPA and the

manufacturers for tandem jump

instructor qualifications.

FAA response: The USPA’s

recommendation that the

manufacturer’s directives for tandem

parachute systems should be mandatory

is outside the scope of this rulemaking,

and therefore, cannot be addressed at

this time.

The FAA has decided to eliminate the

requirement that 300 of the 500 freefall

jumps must be made using a ram air

parachute. The commenters correctly

point out that round have long become

obsolete. Today, almost all jumps are

made with ram air parachutes. The FAA

has changed this requirement to 500

jumps using a ram-air parachute in the

final rule.

Section 105.47 Use of Static Lines

Proposal: The current rule requires

that no person may make a parachute

jump using a static line unless an assist

device is used to aid the pilot chute in

performing its function, or if no pilot

chute is used, to aid in the direct

deployment of the main parachute

canopy. The Notice proposed to remove

the requirement that assist devices must

be used with ram-air parachutes.

Comments: Several commenters,

including USPA, submitted comments

on this proposed section. The

commenters ask that the term ‘‘directdeployed’’ be changed to ‘‘direct-bag

deployed’’ and that the term ‘‘ram-air

parachutes’’ be replaced with the term

‘‘ram-air canopies,’’ because according

to the commenters, these terms are used

currently in the parachute industry.

FAA response: The FAA does not

agree with these commenters. The use of

the terms ‘‘ram-air canopies’’ and ‘‘ramair parachutes’’ are nearly synonymous

in the parachute industry, as are the

terms ‘‘direct-bag deployed’’ and ‘‘direct

Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 90 / Wednesday, May 9, 2001 / Rules and Regulations 23551

deployed.’’ Therefore, these terms are

adopted as proposed.

Section 105.49 Foreign Parachutists

and Equipment

Proposal: This new section will be

added to address equipment and

packing requirements for foreign

parachutists. Only single-harness, dualparachute systems which contain a nontechnical standard order (TSO) reserve

parachute or non-TSO’d harness and

container would be allowed to be used

in the United States by the owner or

agent of that equipment. The parachute

system used by the foreign parachutist

must also meet the civil aviation

authority requirements of the foreign

parachutist’s country, and must be

packed by the foreign parachutist

making the next parachute jump with

that parachute, or a U.S. certificate

parachute rigger.

Comments: Several commenters,

including the USPA, believe that this

section needs clarification. For example,

the commenters suggest that the FAA

should clarify that when a foreign

jumper brings a parachute system into

the United States, the foreign parachute

system should be subject to the U.S.

repack cycle (120 days).

FAA response: The FAA does not

agree with the commenter’s

recommendations that the foreign

parachute system should be subject to

the U.S. repack cycle (120 days). The

FAA has already determined that

foreign parachute systems must meet

the requirements of their country or its

civil aviation authority. This section is

incorporated into the final rule as

proposed, with one exception. In the

proposal, the two subparagraphs in

paragraph (a)(4) were incorrectly labeled

(a) and (b); they have been correctly

designated as (i) and (ii), respectively, in

the final rule.

Section 119.1 Applicability

Proposal: Currently, § 119.1(e)(6)

provides an exception for nonstop

flights conducted within a 25 statute

mile radius of the airport of takeoff

carrying persons for the purpose of

intentional parachute jumps. The FAA

proposed to amend this section to add

the word ‘‘objects’’ in addition to

‘‘persons’’ when a flight is conducted

for intentional parachute operations.

Comments: Several commenters,

including USPA, submitted comments

on this proposed section. Some

commenters ask for the elimination of

this section, as they claim it is

unnecessary, given the nature of

parachute operations today. Several

other commenters, including USPA,

suggest that the 25-statue mile limit be

increased to a 100-statute mile limit of

the departure airport.

FAA response: The FAA does not

agree with the commenters’ requested

changes. Since the request to increase

the statute mile limit from 25 to 100

statute miles from the airport of

departure, is outside the scope of the

Notice, it will not be considered in this

action. Therefore, the language

originally proposed in the Notice is

retained in the final rule.

Paperwork Reduction Act

At the NPRM stage of this final rule,

the FAA proposed a requirement for

accident reporting. Because this

requirement involved the voluntary

submission of information from the

public on accidents involving parachute

operations, the FAA prepared an

estimate of the paperwork burden that

would be required of the public and

submitted it to OMB for approval.

However, after reviewing the comments

received from the public on the accident

reporting proposal in the NPRM, the

FAA has decided not to include this

requirement in the final rule. Therefore,

in accordance with the Paperwork

Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C.

3507(d)), the agency has determined

that there are no longer information

requirements associated with this final

rule.

International Compatibility

The FAA has reviewed corresponding

International Civil Aviation

Organization international standards

and recommended practices and Joint

Aviation Authorities requirements and

has identified no differences in these

proposed amendments and the foreign

regulations.

Economic Evaluation, Regulatory

Flexibility Determination, International

Trade Impact Assessment, and

Unfunded Mandates Assessment

Proposed changes to Federal

regulations must undergo several

economic analyses. First, Executive

Order 12866 directs each Federal

Agency to propose or adopt a regulation

only if the agency makes a reasoned

determination that the benefits of the

intended regulation justify its costs.

Second, the Regulatory Flexibility Act

of 1980 requires agencies to analyze the

economic impact of regulatory changes

on small entities. Third, the Trade

Agreements Act (19 U.S.C. 2531–2533)

prohibits agencies from setting

standards that create unnecessary

obstacles to the foreign commerce of the

United States. In developing U.S.

standards, this Trade Act requires

agencies to consider international

standards. Where appropriate, agencies

are directed to use those international

standards as the basis of U.S. standards.

And fourth, the Unfunded Mandates

Reform Act of 1995 requires agencies to

prepare a written assessment of the

costs, benefits and other effects of

proposed or final rules. This

requirement applies only to rules that

include a Federal mandate on State,

local, or tribal governments, or the

private sector, likely to result in a total

expenditure of $100 million or more in

any one year (adjusted for inflation).

In conducting these analyses, the FAA

has determined this rule: (1) Has

benefits which do justify its costs, is not

a ‘‘significant regulatory action’’ as

defined in the Executive Order, and is

not ‘‘significant’’ as defined in DOT’s

Regulatory Policies and Procedures; (2)

will not have a significant impact on a

substantial number of small entities; (3)

will not impose restraints on

international trade; and (4) does not

impose an unfunded mandate on State,

local, or tribal governments, or on the

private sector. The FAA has placed

these analyses in the docket and

summarized them below.

This final rule will amend the

regulations that govern parachute

operations. Amendments to the

regulations reflect changes in the

requirements applicable to radio

communications, parachute packing,

tandem parachute operations, and

foreign parachutists. Through this rule,

the FAA intends to enhance the safety

of parachute operations in the National

Airspace System (NAS).

The benefits of the final rule are: (1)

It should reduce the risk of a midair

collision between aircraft and persons

engaged in parachute operations, and

reduce the risk of aircraft coming in

close proximity to the parachutists in

the vicinity of an airport or within

controlled airspace; (2) it will revise

some sections of the rule for better

understanding; and (3) it will permit

certain operations that currently are

only allowed through exemptions

granted by the FAA.

The amendments to part 105 will

impose negligible additional cost, if any,

on parachutists, pilots of aircraft used in

parachute operations, certificated

parachute riggers, and drop zone

operators. Major aspects of this rule

such as the requirements for tandem

parachute operations and for parachute

jumps by foreign parachutists already

are being met under exemptions granted

by the FAA. Therefore, this rulemaking

action will not impose additional

business expenses on drop zone

operators, parachute clubs, or foreign

parachutists. Costs imposed on the FAA

23552 Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 90 / Wednesday, May 9, 2001 / Rules and Regulations

are negligible, since the agency will not

be required to provide additional

oversight of parachute operations under

the revision of parts 65, 91, 105, and

119.

In view of the negligible additional

cost of compliance to the final rule,

compared with the improvements in

operating procedures that enhance the

safety of parachute operations, the FAA

has determined that the final rule is

cost-justified.

Final Regulatory Flexibility

Determination

The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980

(RFA) establishes ‘‘as a principle of

regulatory issuance that agencies shall

endeavor, consistent with the objective

of the rule and of applicable statutes, to

fit regulatory and informational

requirements to the scale of the

business, organizations, and

governmental jurisdictions subject to

the regulation.’’ To achieve that

principle, the Act requires agencies to

solicit and consider flexible regulatory

proposals and to explain the rationale

for their actions. The Act covers a widerange of small entities, including small

businesses, not-for-profit organizations

and small governmental jurisdictions.

Agencies must perform a review to

determine whether a proposed or final

rule will have a significant economic

impact on a substantial number of small

entities. If the determination is that it

will, the agency must prepare a

regulatory flexibility analysis as

described in the Act.

However, if an agency determines that

a proposed or final rule is not expected

to have a significant economic impact

on a substantial number of small

entities, section 605(b) of the 1980 Act

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.

The FAA conducted the required

review of this final rule and determined

that it will not have a significant

economic impact on a substantial

number of small entities. The small

entities affected by this final rule consist

of parachutists, pilots of aircraft used in

parachute operations, certificated

riggers, and drop zone operators. The

final rule will impose negligible

additional cost, if any, on the entities.

Major aspects of this rulemaking such as

permitting tandem parachute operations

will not impose additional business

expenses for compliance on drop zone

operators or parachute clubs because

these entities currently adhere to the

requirements of the rule through grants

of exemptions issued by the FAA under

part 105. Accordingly, pursuant to the

Regulatory Flexibility Act, 5 U.S.C.

605(b), the FAA certifies that this final

rule will not have a significant

economic impact on a substantial

number of small entities.

International Trade Impact Statement

The Trade Agreement Act of 1979

prohibits Federal agencies from

engaging in any standards or related

activity that create unnecessary

obstacles to the foreign commerce of the

United States. Legitimate domestic

objectives, such as safety, are not

considered unnecessary obstacles. The

statute also requires consideration of

international standards and where

appropriate, that they be the basis for

U.S. standards. In addition, consistent

with the Administrator’s belief in the

general superiority and desirability of

free trade, it is the policy of the

Administration to remove or diminish,

to the extent feasible, barriers to

international trade, including both

barriers affecting the export of American

goods and services to foreign countries

and barriers affecting the import of

foreign goods and services into the

United States.

The FAA has determined that the rule

will promote parachuting by foreign

parachutists in the United States. The

final rule will permit foreign

parachutists to jump in the United

States using parachutes that are packed

in their country of origin and thereby

encourage foreign countries to grant

permission for U.S. skydivers to jump in

those countries using parachutes packed

in the United States.

Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

of 1995 (the Act), enacted as Pub. L.

104–4 on March 22, 1995, is intended,

among other things, to curb the practice

of imposing unfunded Federal mandates

on State, local, and tribal governments.

Title II of the Act 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 a $100

million or more expenditure (adjusted

annually for inflation) 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.’’

This final rule does not contain such

a mandate. Therefore, the requirements

of Title II of the Unfunded Mandates

Reform Act of 1995 do not apply.

Executive Order 13132, Federalism

The FAA has analyzed this final rule

under the principles and criteria of

Executive Order 13132, Federalism. It

has determined that this action will not

have a substantial direct effect on the

States, or the relationship betwen the

national Government and the States, or

on the distribution of power and

responsibilities among the various

levels of government. Therefore, the

FAA has detemined that this final rule

does not have federalism implications.

Environmental Analysis

FAA Order 1050.1D defines FAA

actions that may be categorically

excluded from preparation of a National

Environmental Policy Act (NEPA)

environmental impact statement. In

accordance with FAA Order 1050.1D,

appendix 4, paragraph 4(j), this

rulemaking action qualifies for a

categorical exclusion.

Energy Impact

The energy impact of the final rule

has been assessed in accordance with

the Energy Policy and Conservation Act

(EPCA) Pub. L. 94–163, as amended (42

U.S.C. 6362) and FAA Order 1053.1. It

has been determined that the final rule

is not a major regulatory action under

the provisions of the EPCA.

Distribution and Derivation Tables

The following distribution table is

provided to illustrates how the current

regulation would relate to the revised

part 105, and the derivation table

identifies how the revised part 105

would relate to the current rule.

DISTRIBUTION TABLE

Old section New

section(s)

105.1 ....................................... 105.1

105.11 ..................................... 105.1

105.13 ..................................... 105.5

105.14 ..................................... 105.13

105.15 ..................................... 105.21

105.17 ..................................... 105.23

105.19 ..................................... 105.25

105.23 ..................................... 105.25

105.25 ..................................... 105.15

105.33 ..................................... 105.19

105.35 ..................................... 105.7

105.37 ..................................... 105.9

105.41 ..................................... 105.41

105.43 ..................................... 105.43 and

105.47

DERIVATION TABLE

New section Old

section(s)

105.1 ....................................... 105.1 and

105.11

Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 90 / Wednesday, May 9, 2001 / Rules and Regulations 23553

DERIVATION TABLE—Continued

New section Old

section(s)

105.3 ....................................... New

105.5 ....................................... 105.13

105.7 ....................................... 105.35

105.9 ....................................... 105.37

105.13 ..................................... 105.14

105.15 ..................................... 105.25

105.17 ..................................... 105.29

105.19 ..................................... 105.33

105.21 ..................................... 105.15

105.23 ..................................... 105.17

105.25 ..................................... 105.19 and

105.23

105.41 ..................................... 105.41

105.43 ..................................... 105.43

105.45 ..................................... New

105.47 ..................................... 105.43

List of Subjects

14 CFR Part 65

Air traffic controllers, Aircraft,

Airmen, Airports, Alcohol abuse, Drug

abuse, Reporting and recordkeeping

requirements.

14 CFR Part 91

Afghanistan, Agriculture, Air traffic

control, Aircraft, Airmen, Airports,

Aviation safety, Canada, Cuba, Freight,

Mexico, Noise control, Political

candidates, Reporting and

recordkeeping requirements,

Yugoslavia.

14 CFR Part 105

Aircraft, Aviation safety, Recreation

and recreation areas, Reporting and

recordkeeping requirements.

14 CFR Part 119

Administrative practice and

procedure, Air carriers, Aircraft,

Aviation safety, Charter flights,

Reporting and recordkeeping

requirements.

The Amendment

In consideration of the foregoing, the

Federal Aviation Administration

amends parts 65, 91, 105, and 119 of

Title 14 Code of Federal Regulations as

follows:

PART 65—CERTIFICATION: AIRMEN

OTHER THAN FLIGHT

CREWMEMBERS

1. The authority citation for part 65

continues to read as follows:

Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701–

44703, 44707, 44709–44711, 45102–45103,

45301–45302.

2. Section 65.111 is amended by

revising paragraphs (a) and (b) to read

as follows:

§ 65.111 Certificate required.

(a) No person may pack, maintain, or

alter any personnel-carrying parachute

intended for emergency use in

connection with civil aircraft of the

United States (including the reserve

parachute of a dual parachute system to

be used for intentional parachute

jumping) unless that person holds an

appropriate current certificate and type

rating issued under this subpart and

complies with §§ 65.127 through 65.133.

(b) No person may pack, maintain, or

alter any main parachute of a dualparachute 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;

(2) Is under the supervision of a

current certificated parachute rigger;

(3) Is the person making the next

parachute jump with that parachute in

accordance with § 105.43(a) of this

chapter; or

(4) Is the parachutist in command

making the next parachute jump with

that parachute in a tandem parachute

operation conducted under

§ 105.45(b)(1) of this chapter.

* * * * *

3. Section 65.125 is amended by

revising paragraphs (a)(2) and (b)(2) to

read as follows:

§ 65.125 Certificates: Privileges.

(a) * * *

(2) Supervise other persons in packing

any type of parachute for which that

person is rated in accordance with

§ 105.43(a) or § 105.45(b)(1) of this

chapter.

(b) * * *

(2) Supervise other persons in

packing, maintaining, or altering any

type of parachute for which the

certificated parachute rigger is rated in

accordance with § 105.43(a) or

§ 105.45(b)(1) of this chapter.

* * * * *

PART 91—GENERAL OPERATING AND

FLIGHT RULES

4. The authority citation for part 91

continues to read as follows:

Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(g), 1155, 40103,

40113, 40120, 44101, 44111, 44701, 44709,

44711, 44712, 44715, 44716, 44717, 44722,

46306, 46315, 46316, 46504, 46506–46507,

47122, 47508, 47528–47531, articles 12 and

29 of the Convention on International Civil

Aviation (61 stat. 1180).

5. Section 91.307 is amended by

revising paragraph (b) to read as follows:

§ 91.307 Parachutes and parachuting.

* * * * *

(b) Except in an emergency, no pilot

in command may allow, and no person

may conduct, a parachute operation

from an aircraft within the United States

except in accordance with part 105 of

this chapter.

* * * * *

6. Part 105 is revised to read as

follows:

PART 105—PARACHUTE

OPERATIONS

Subpart A—General

105.1 Applicability.

105.3 Definitions.

105.5 General.

105.7 use of alcohol and drugs.

105.9 Inspections.

Subpart B—Operating Rules

105.13 Federal RegisterRadio equipment

and use requirements.

105.15 Information required and notice of

cancellation or postponement of a

parachute operation.

105.17 Flight visibility and clearance from

cloud requirements.

105.19 Parachute operations between

sunset and sunrise.

105.21 Parachute operations over or into a

congested area or an open-air assembly

of persons.

105.23 Parachute operations over or onto

airports.

105.25 Parachute operations in designated

airspace.

Subpart C—Parachute Equipment and

Packing

105.41 Applicability.

105.43 Use of single-harness, dualparachute systems.

105.45 Use of tandem parachute systems.

105.47 Use of static lines.

105.49 Foreign parachutists and equipment.

Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113–40114,

44701–44702, 44721.

§ 105.1 Applicability.

(a) Except as provided in paragraphs

(b) and (c) of this section, this part

prescribes rules governing parachute

operations conducted in the United

States.

(b) This part does not apply to a

parachute operation conducted—

(1) In response to an in-flight

emergency, or

(2) To meet an emergency on the

surface when it is conducted at the

direction or with the approval of an

agency of the United States, or of a

State, Puerto Rico, the District of

Columbia, or a possession of the United

States, or an agency or political

subdivision thereof.

(c) Sections 105.5, 105.9, 105.13,

105.15, 105.17, 105.19 through 105.23,

105.25(a)(1) and 105.27 of this part do

not apply to a parachute operation

23554 Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 90 / Wednesday, May 9, 2001 / Rules and Regulations

conducted by a member of an Armed

Force—

(1) Over or within a restricted area

when that area is under the control of

an Armed Force.

(2) During military operations in

uncontrolled airspace.

§ 105.3 Definitions.

For the purposes of this part—

Approved parachute means a

parachute manufactured under a type

certificate or a Technical Standard

Order (C–23 series), or a personnelcarrying U.S. military parachute (other

than a high altitude, high speed, or

ejection type) identified by a Navy Air

Facility, an Army Air Field, and Air

Force-Navy drawing number, an Army

Air Field order number, or any other

military designation or specification

number.

Automatic Activation Device means a

self-contained mechanical or electromechanical device that is attached to

the interior of the reserve parachute

container, which automatically initiates

parachute deployment of the reserve

parachute at a pre-set altitude, time,

percentage of terminal velocity, or

combination thereof.

Direct Supervision means that a

certificated rigger personally observes a

non-certificated person packing a main

parachute to the extent necessary to

ensure that it is being done properly,

and takes responsibility for that

packing.

Drop Zone means any pre-determined

area upon which parachutists or objects

land after making an intentional

parachute jump or drop. The centerpoint target of a drop zone is expressed

in nautical miles from the nearest VOR

facility when 30 nautical miles or less;

or from the nearest airport, town, or city

depicted on the appropriate Coast and

Geodetic Survey World Aeronautical

Chart or Sectional Aeronautical Chart,

when the nearest VOR facility is more

than 30 nautical miles from the drop

zone.

Foreign parachutist means a

parachutist who is neither a U.S. citizen

or a resident alien and is participating

in parachute operations within the

United States using parachute

equipment not manufctured in the

United States.

Freefall means the portion of a

parachute jump or drop between aircraft

exit and parachute deployment in

which the parachute is activated

manually by the parachutist at the

parachutist’s discretion or

automatically, or, in the case of an

object, is activated automatically.

Main parachute means a parachute

worn as the primary parachute used or

intended to be used in conjunction with

a reserve parachute.

Object means any item other than a

person that descends to the surface from

an aircraft in flight when a parachute is

used or is intended to be used during all

or part of the descent.

Parachute drop means the descent of

an object to the surface from an aircraft

in flight when a parachute is used or

intended to be used during all or part of

that descent.

Parachute jump means a parachute

operation that involves the descent of

one or more persons to the surface from

an aircraft in flight when a aircraft is

used or intended to be used during all

or part of that descent.

Parachute operation means the

performance of all activity for the

purpose of, or in support of, a parachute

jump or a parachute drop. This

parachute operation can involve, but is

not limited to, the following persons:

parachutist, parachutist in command

and passenger in tandem parachute

operations, drop zone or owner or

operator, jump master, certificated

parachute rigger, or pilot.

Parachutist means a person who

intends to exit an aircraft while in flight

using a single-harness, dual parachute

system to descend to the surface.

Parachutist in command means the

person responsible fro the operation and

safety of a tandem parachute operation.

Passenger parachutist means a person

who boards an aircraft, acting as other

than the parachutist in command of a

tandem parachute operation, with the

intent of existing the aircraft while inflight using the forward harness of a

dual harness tandem parachute system

to descend to the surface.

Pilot chute means a small parachute

used to initiate and/or accelerate

deployment of a main or reserve

parachute.

Ram-air parachute means a parachute

with a canopy consisting of an upper

and lower surface that is inflated by ram

air entering through specially designed

openings in the front of the canopy to

form a gliding airfoil.

Reserve parachute means an approved

parachute worn for emergency use to be

activated only upon failure of the main

parachute or in any other emergency

where use of the main parachute is

impractical or use of the main parachute

would increase risk.

Single-harness, dual parachute

system: means the combination of a

main parachute, approved reserve

parachute, and approved single person

harness and dual-parachute container.

This parachute system may have an

operational automatic activation device

installed.

Tandem parachute operation: means

a parachute operation in which more

than one person simultaneously uses

the same tandem parachute system

while descending to the surface from an

aircraft in flight.

Tandem parachute system: means the

combination of a main parachute,

approved reserve parachute, and

approved harness and dual parachute

container, and a separate approved

forward harness for a passenger

parachutist. This parachute system must

have an operational automatic

activation device installed.

§ 105.5 General.

No person may conduct a parachute

operation, and no pilot in command of

an aircraft may allow a parachute

operation to be conducted from an

aircraft, if that operation creates a

hazard to air traffic or to persons or

property on the surface.

§ 105.7 Use of alcohol and drugs.

No person may conduct a parachute

operation, and no pilot in command of

an aircraft may allow a person to

conduct a parachute operation from that

aircraft, if that person is or appears to

be under the influence of—

(a) Alcohol, or

(b) Any drug that affects that person’s

faculties in any way contrary to safety.

§ 105.9 Inspections.

The Administrator may inspect any

parachute operation to which this part

applies (including inspections at the site

where the parachute operation is being

conducted) to determine compliance

with the regulations of this part.

Subpart B—Operating Rules

§ 105.13 Radio equipment and use

requirements.

(a) Except when otherwise authorized

by air traffic control—

(1) No person may conduct a

parachute operation, and no pilot in

command of an aircraft may allow a

parachute operation to be conducted

from that aircraft, in or into controlled

airspace unless, during that flight—

(i) The aircraft is equipped with a

functioning two-way radio

communication system appropriate to

the air traffic control facilities being

used; and

(ii) Radio communications have been

established between the aircraft and the

air traffic control facility having

jurisdiction over the affected airspace of

the first intended exit altitude at least 5

minutes before the parachute operation

begins. The pilot in command must

establish radio communications to

receive information regarding air traffic

Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 90 / Wednesday, May 9, 2001 / Rules and Regulations 23555

activity in the vicinity of the parachute

operation.

(2) The pilot in command of an

aircraft used for any parachute

operation in or into controlled airspace

must, during each flight—

(i) Continuously monitor the

appropriate frequency of the aircraft’s

radio communications system from the

time radio communications are first

established between the aircraft and air

traffic control, until the pilot advises air

traffic control that the parachute

operation has ended for that flight.

(ii) Advise air traffic control when the

last parachutist or object leaves the

aircraft.

(b) Parachute operations must be

aborted if, prior to receipt of a required

air traffic control authorization, or

during any parachute operation in or

into controlled airspace, the required

radio communications system is or

becomes inoperative.

§ 105.15 Information required and notice

of cancellation or postponement of a

parachute operation.

(a) Each person requesting an

authorization under §§ 105.21(b) and

105.25(a)(2) of this part and each person

submitting a notification under

§ 105.25(a)(3) of this part must provide

the following information (on an

individual or group basis):

(1) The date and time the parachute

operation will begin.

(2) The radius of the drop zone

around the target expressed in nautical

miles.

(3) The location of the center of the

drop zone in relation to—

(i) The nearest VOR facility in terms

of the VOR radial on which it is located

and its distance in nautical miles from

the VOR facility when that facility is 30

nautical miles or less from the drop

zone target; or

(ii) the nearest airport, town, or city

depicted on the appropriate Coast and

Geodetic Survey World Aeronautical

Chart or Sectional Aeronautical Chart,

when the nearest VOR facility is more

than 30 nautical miles from the drop

zone target.

(4) Each altitude above mean sea level

at which the aircraft will be operated

when parachutists or objects exist the

aircraft.

(5) The duration of the intended

parachute operation.

(6) The name, address, and telephone

number of the person who requests the

authorization or gives notice of the

parachute operation.

(7) The registration number of the

aircraft to be used.

(8) The name of the air traffic control

facility with jurisdiction of the airspace

at the first intended exit altitude to be

used for the parachute operation.

(b) Each holder of a certificate of

authorization issued under §§ 105.21(b)

and 105.25(b) of this part must present

that certificate for inspection upon the

request of the Administrator or any

Federal, State, or local official.

(c) Each person requesting an

authorization under §§ 105.21(b) and

105.25(a)(2) of this part and each person

submitting a notice under § 105.25(a)(3)

of this part must promptly notify the air

traffic control facility having

jurisdiction over the affected airspace if

the proposed or scheduled parachute

operation is canceled or postponed.

§ 105.17 Flight visibility and clearance

from cloud requirements.

No person may conduct a parachute

operation, and no pilot in command of

an aircraft may allow a parachute

operation to be conducted from that

aircraft—

(a) Into or through a cloud, or

(b) When the flight visibility or the

distance from any cloud is less than that

prescribed in the following table:

Altitude Flight visibility

(statute miles) Distance from clouds

1,200 feet or less above the surface regardless of the MSL altitude .. 3 500 feet below, 1,000 feet above, 2,000 feet horizontal.

More than 1,200 feet above the surface but less than 10,000 feet

MSL.

3 500 feet below, 1,000 feet above, 2,000 feet horizontal.

More than 1,200 feet above the surface and at or above 10,000 feet

MSL.

5 1,000 feet below, 1,000 feet above, 1 mile horizontal.

§ 105.19 Parachute operations between

sunset and sunrise.

(a) No person may conduct a

parachute operation, and no pilot in

command of an aircraft may allow a

person to conduct a parachute operation

from an aircraft between sunset and

sunrise, unless the person or object

descending from the aircraft displays a

light that is visible for at least 3 statute

miles.

(b) The light required by paragraph (a)

of this section must be displayed from

the time that the person or object is

under a properly functioning open

parachute until that person or object

reaches the surface.

§ 105.21 Parachute operations over or into

a congested area or an open-air assembly

of persons.

(a) No person may conduct a

parachute operation, and no pilot in

command of an aircraft may allow a

parachute operation to be conducted

from that aircraft, over or into a

congested area of a city, town, or

settlement, or an open-air assembly of

persons unless a certificate of

authorization for that parachute

operation has been issued under this

section. However, a parachutist may

drift over a congested area or an openair assembly of persons with a fully

deployed and properly functioning

parachute if that parachutist is at a

sufficient altitude to avoid creating a

hazard to persons or property on the

surface.

(b) An application for a certificate of

authorization issued under this section

must—

(1) Be made in the form and manner

prescribed by the Administrator, and

(2) Contain the information required

in § 105.15(a) of this part.

(c) Each holder of, and each person

named as a participant in a certificate of

authorization issued under this section

must comply with all requirements

contained in the certificate of

authorization.

(d) Each holder of a certificate of

authorization issued under this section

must present that certificate for

inspection upon the request of the

Administrator, or any Federal, State, or

local official.

§ 105.23 Parachute operations over or

onto airports.

No person may conduct a parachute

operation, and no pilot in command of

an aircraft may allow a parachute

operation to be conducted from that

aircraft, over or onto any airport

unless—

(a) For airports with an operating

control tower:

(1) Prior approval has been obtained

from the management of the airport to

conduct parachute operations over or on

that airport.

23556 Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 90 / Wednesday, May 9, 2001 / Rules and Regulations

(2) Approval has been obtained from

the control tower to conduct parachute

operations over or onto that airport.

(3) Two-way radio communications

are maintained between the pilot of the

aircraft involved in the parachute

operation and the control tower of the

airport over or onto which the parachute

operation is being conducted.

(b) For airports without an operating

control tower, prior approval has been

obtained from the management of the

airport to conduct parachute operations

over or on that airport.

(c) A parachutist may drift over that

airport with a fully deployed and

properly functioning parachute if the

parachutist is at least 2,000 feet above

that airport’s traffic pattern, and avoids

creating a hazard to air traffic or to

persons and property on the ground.

§ 105.25 Parachute operations in

designated airspace.

(a) No person may conduct a

parachute operation, and no pilot in

command of an aircraft may allow a

parachute operation to be conducted

from that aircraft—

(1) Over or within a restricted area or

prohibited area unless the controlling

agency of the area concerned has

authorized that parachute operation;

(2) Within or into a Class A, B, C, D

airspace area without, or in violation of

the requirements of, an air traffic control

authorization issued under this section;

(3) Except as provided in paragraph

(c) and (d) of this section, within or into

Class E or G airspace area unless the air

traffic control facility having

jurisdiction over the airspace at the first

intended exit altitude is notified of the

parachute operation no earlier than 24

hours before or no later than 1 hour

before the parachute operation begins.

(b) Each request for a parachute

operation authorization or notification

required under this section must be

submitted to the air traffic control

facility having jurisdiction over the

airspace at the first intended exit

altitude and must include the

information prescribed by § 105.15(a) of

this part.

(c) For the purposes of paragraph

(a)(3) of this section, air traffic control

facilities may accept a written

notification from an organization that

conducts parachute operations and lists

the scheduled series of parachute

operations to be conducted over a stated

period of time not longer than 12

calendar months. The notification must

contain the information prescribed by

§ 105.15(a) of this part, identify the

responsible persons associated with that

parachute operation, and be submitted

at least 15 days, but not more than 30

days, before the parachute operation

begins. The FAA may revoke the

acceptance of the notification for any

failure of the organization conducting

the parachute operations to comply with

its requirements.

(d) Paragraph (a)(3) of this section

does not apply to a parachute operation

conducted by a member of an Armed

Force within a restricted area that

extends upward from the surface when

that area is under the control of an

Armed Force.

Subpart C—Parachute Equipment and

Packing

§ 105.41 Applicability.

This subpart prescribed rules

governing parachute equipment used in

civil parachute operations.

§ 105.43 Use of single-harness, dualparachute systems.

No person may conduct a parachute

operation using a single-harness, dualparachute system, and no pilot in

command of an aircraft may allow any

person to conduct a parachute operation

from that aircraft using a single-harness,

dual-parachute system, unless that

system has at least one main parachute,

one approved reserve parachute, and

one approved single person harness and

container that are packed as follows:

(a) The main parachute must have

been packed within 120 days before the

date of its use of a certificated parachute

rigger, the person making the next jump

with that parachute, or a noncertificated person under the direct

supervision of a certification parachute

rigger.

(b) The reserve parachute must have

been packed by a certificated parachute

rigger—

(1) Within 120 days before the date of

its use, if its canopy, shroud, and

harness are composed exclusively of

nylon, rayon, or similar synthetic fiber

or material that is substantially resistant

to damage from mold, mildew, and

other fungi, and other rotting agents

propagated in a moist environment; or

(2) Within 60 days before the date of

its use, if it is composed of any amount

of silk, pongee, or other natural fiber, or

material not specified in paragraph

(b)(1) of this section.

(c) If installed, the automatic

activation device must be maintained in

accordance with manufacturer

instructions for that automatic

activation device.

§ 105.45 Use of tandem parachute

systems.

(a) No person may conduct a

parachute operation using a tandem

parachute system, and no pilot in

command of an aircraft may allow any

person to conduct a parachute operation

from that aircraft using a tandem

parachute system, unless—

(1) One of the parachutists using the

tandem parachute system is the

parachutist in command, and meets the

following requirements:

(i) Has a minimum of 3 years of

experience in parachuting, and must

provide documentation that the

parachutist—

(ii) Has completed a minimum of 500

freefall parachute jumps using a ram-air

parachute, and

(iii) Holds a master parachute license

issued by an organization recognized by

the FAA, and

(iv) Has successfully completed a

tandem instructor course given by the

manufacturer of the tandem parachute

system used in the parachute operation

or a course acceptable to the

Administrator.

(v) Has been certified by the

appropriate parachute manufacturer or

tandem course provider as being

properly trained on the use of the

specific tandem parachute system to be

used.

(2) The person acting as parachutist in

command:

(i) Has briefed the passenger

parachutist before boarding the aircraft.

The briefing must include the

procedures to be used in case of an

emergency with the aircraft or after

exiting the aircraft, while preparing to

exit and exiting the aircraft, freefall,

operating the parachute after freefall,

landing approach, and landing.

(ii) Uses the harness position

prescribed by the manufacturer of the

tandem parachute equipment.

(b) No person may make a parachute

jump with a tandem parachute system

unless—

(1) The main parachute has been

packed by a certificated parachute

rigger, the parachutist in command

making the next jump with that

parachute, or a person under the direct

supervision of a certificated parachute

rigger.

(2) The reserve parachute has been

packed by a certificated parachute rigger

in accordance with § 105.43(b) of this

part.

(3) The tandem parachute system

contains an operational automatic

activation device for the reserve

parachute, approved by the

manufacturer of that tandem parachute

system. The device must—

(i) Have been maintained in

accordance with manufacturer

instructions, and

(ii) Be armed during each tandem

parachute operation.

Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 90 / Wednesday, May 9, 2001 / Rules and Regulations 23557

(4) The passenger parachutist is

provided with a manual main parachute

activation device and instructed on the

use of that device, if required by the

owner/operator.

(5) The main parachute is equipped

with a single-point release system.

(6) The reserve parachute meets

Technical Standard Order C23

specifications.

§ 105.47 Use of static lines.

(a) Except as provided in paragraph

(c) of this section, no person may

conduct a parachute operation using a

static line attached to the aircraft and

the main parachute unless an assist

device, described and attached as

follows, is used to aid the pilot chute in

performing its function, or, if no pilot

chute is used, to aid in the direct

deployment of the main parachute

canopy. The assist device must—

(1) Be long enough to allow the main

parachute container to open before a

load is placed on the device.

(2) Have a static load strength of—

(i) At least 28 pounds but not more

than 160 pounds if it is used to aid the

pilot chute in performing its function; or

(ii) At least 56 pounds but not more

than 320 pounds if it is used to aid in

the direct deployment of the main

parachute canopy; and

(3) Be attached as follows:

(i) At one end, to the static line above

the static-line pins or, if static-line pins

are not used, above the static-line ties to

the parachute cone.

(ii) At the other end, to the pilot chute

apex, bridle cord, or bridle loop, or, if

no pilot chute is used, to the main

parachute canopy.

(b) No person may attach an assist

device required by paragraph (a) of this

section to any main parachute unless

that person is a certificated parachute

rigger or that person makes the next

parachute jump with that parachute.

(c) An assist device is not required for

parachute operations using directdeployed, ram-air parachutes.

§ 105.49 Foreign parachutists and

equipment.

(a) No person may conduct a

parachute operation, and no pilot in

command of an aircraft may allow a

parachute operation to be conducted

from that aircraft with an unapproved

foreign parachute system unless—

(1) The parachute system is worn by

a foreign parachutist who is the owner

of that system.

(2) The parachute system is of a

single-harness dual parachute type.

(3) The parachute system meets the

civil aviation authority requirements of

the foreign parachutist’s country.

(4) All foreign non-approved

parachutes deployed by a foreign

parachutist during a parachute

operation conducted under this section

shall be packed as follows—

(i) The main parachute must be

packed by the foreign parachutist

making the next parachute jump with

that parachute, a certificated parachute

rigger, or any other person acceptable to

the Administrator.

(ii) The reserve parachute must be

packed in accordance with the foreign

parachutist’s civil aviation authority

requirements, by a certificated

parachute rigger, or any other person

acceptable to the Administrator.

PART 119—CERTIFICATION: AIR

CARRIERS AND COMMERCIAL

OPERATORS

7. The authority citation for part 119

continues to read as follows:

Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(g), 1153, 40101,

40102, 40103, 44105, 44106, 44111, 44701–

44717, 44722, 44901, 44903, 44904, 44906,

44912, 44914, 44936, 44938, 46103, 46105.

8. Section 119.1 is amended by

revising paragraph (e)(6) to read as

follows:

§ 119.1 Applicability.

* * * * *

(e) * * *

(6) Nonstop flights conducted within

a 25-statute-mile radius of the airport of

takeoff carrying persons or objects for

the purpose of conducting intentional

parachute operations.

Issued in Washington, DC on May 4, 2001.

Jane F. Garvey,

Administrator.

[FR Doc. 01–11726 Filed 5–8–01; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910–13–M

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 71

[Airspace Docket No. 01–ACE–4]

Amendment to Class E Airspace;

Chillicothe, MO

AGENCY: Federal Aviation

Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Direct final rule; request for

comments.

SUMMARY: This action amends the Class

E airspace area at Chillicothe, MO. The

FAA has developed an Area Navigation

(RNAV) Global Positioning System

(GPS) Runway (RWY) 32 ORIGINAL

Standard Instrument Approach

Procedure (SIAP) to serve Chillicothe

Municipal Airport, Chillicothe, MO.

Additional controlled airspace

extending upward from 700 feet Above

Ground Level (AGL) is needed to

accommodate the SIAP and for other

Instrument Flight Rules (IFR) operations

at this airport.

The intended effect of this rule is to

provide controlled Class E airspace for

aircraft executing the SIAP and to

segregate aircraft using instrument

approach procedures in instrument

conditions from aircraft operating in

visual conditions.

DATES: This direct final rule is effective

on 0901 UTC, September 6, 2001.

Comments for inclusion in the Rules

Docket must be received on or before

July 13, 2001.

ADDRESSES: Send comments regarding

the rule in triplicate to: Manager,

Operations and Airspace Branch, Air

Traffic Division, ACE–530, DOT

Regional Headquarters Building, Federal

Aviation Administration, Docket

Number 01–ACE–4, 901 Locust, Kansas

City, MO 64106.

The official docket may be examined

in the Office of the Regional Counsel for

the Central Region at the same address

between 9 a.m. and 3 p.m., Monday

through Friday, except Federal holidays.

An informal docket may also be

examined during normal business hours

in the Air Traffic Division at the same

address listed above.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Brenda Mumper, Air Traffic Division,

Operations & Airspace Branch, ACE–

520A, DOT Regional Headquarters

Building, Federal Aviation

Administration, 901 Locust, Kansas

City, MO 64106; telephone: (816) 329–

2524.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The FAA

has developed RNAV (GPS) RWY 32

ORIGINAL SIAP to serve Chillicothe

Municipal Airport, Chillicothe, MO.

The amendment to Class E airspace at

Chillicothe, MO, will provide additional

controlled airspace at and above 700

feet AGL, in order to contain the new

SIAP within controlled airspace, and

thereby facilitate separation of aircraft

operating under Instrument Flight Rules

(IFR). The area will be depicted on

appropriate aeronautical charts. Class E

airspace areas extending upward from

700 feet or more above the surface of the

earth are published in paragraph 6005 of

FAA Order 7400.9H, dated September 1,

2000, and effective September 16, 2000,

which is incorporated by reference in 14

CFR 71.1. The Class E airspace

designation listed in this document will

be published subsequently in the Order.