[Federal Register Volume 67, Number 53 (Tuesday, March 19, 2002)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 12826-12827]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 02-6643]



[[Page 12825]]

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

Part XII





Department of Transportation





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



Federal Aviation Administration



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



14 CFR Parts 1, 21, et al.



Certification of Aircraft and Airmen for the Operation of Light-Sport 
Aircraft; Proposed Rule

  Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 53 / Tuesday, March 19, 2002 / 
Proposed Rules  

[[Page 12826]]


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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Parts 1, 21, 43, 45, 61, 65, and 91

[Docket No. FAA-2001-11133; Notice No. 02-07]
RIN 2120-AH19


Certification of Aircraft and Airmen for the Operation of Light-
Sport Aircraft

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice of on-line public forum.

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

SUMMARY: On February 5, 2002, the FAA published a Notice of Proposed 
Rulemaking (NPRM), which proposes requirements for the certification, 
operation, and maintenance of light-sport aircraft (67 FR 5368, notice 
No. 02-03). The comment period closes on May 6, 2002. To supplement the 
traditional comment period, we are announcing an on-line public forum, 
allowing you to answer specific questions we will ask on the Internet. 
We are offering the forum to assist us in providing a clear and 
comprehensive final rule. You can continue to submit comments to the 
docket during the public forum, as outlined below and in the NPRM.

DATES: You may access the on-line public forum beginning April 1, 2002, 
at 9 a.m. DST until April 19, 2001, at 4:30 p.m. DST.

ADDRESSES: You may access the on-line public forum at 
www.rulemakingpublicforum.com.
    If you are unable to participate in the on-line public forum and 
wish to submit written comments, address your comments to the Docket 
Management System, U.S. Department of Transportation, Room Plaza 401, 
400 Seventh St., SW., Washington, DC 20590-0001. You must identify the 
docket number FAA-2001-11133 at the beginning of your comments, and you 
should submit two copies of your comments.
    You may also submit comments through the Internet to http://dms/
dot.gov. You may review the public docket containing comments to these 
proposed regulations in person in the Dockets Office between 9 a.m. and 
5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. The Dockets 
Office is on the plaza level at the Department of Transportation 
building at the address above. Also, you may review public dockets on 
the Internet at http://dms.dot.gov.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Susan Gardner at 202/267-5008 for 
questions regarding airman certification and operational issues (14 CFR 
parts 1, 43, 45, 61, 65, and 91). For questions regarding aircraft 
certification (14 CFR part 21), call Steve Flanagan at 202/267-5008. 
Due to the large volume of questions we expect from this proposal, 
please leave a message and we will answer your questions within 3 days. 
Please use this phone number for questions only.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

On-Line Public Forum

    We are soliciting on-line discussion and written comments on the 
questions below. You will be able to read the questions on-line and 
submit your answers and comments electronically. We will monitor your 
responses throughout the 3-week forum and may ask you clarifying 
questions. While we have selected topics that we are particularly 
interested in (especially related to assumptions we made to develop the 
proposal), we still welcome all of your comments and suggestions. We 
will not make any commitments or draw any conclusions while the docket 
is open for public comment.

On-Line Questions

    The questions that will appear on the Internet for the on-line 
public forum are as follows:
    (1) In general, do you agree or disagree with the FAA's proposal?
    (2) Please comment on the FAA's assessment of potential safety 
benefits that the proposed rule would generate, considering the number 
of light aircraft accidents contained in the NTSB's historical record 
for primarily U.S.-registered aircraft. This can be found in Section 
IX--Analysis of Benefits. Do you believe that most accidents over the 
past 10 years involving non-U.S.-registered light-sport aircraft were 
reported to the NTSB?
    (3) The FAA is proposing to require sport pilot certificate 
applicants to hold an airman medical certificate or to possess a valid 
and current driver's license. You can find the reasons for this 
proposal in Section VI--Section By Section Analysis of the Proposal 
under the heading ``Part 61 SFAR No. 89,'' proposed section 15. Do you 
agree with this proposed requirement? Why? Why not?
    (4) The FAA is proposing a make and model endorsement for a pilot 
exercising sport pilot privileges. The FAA believes that this 
requirement to acquire particular aircraft familiarization is 
appropriate for aircraft that are generally simple to operate, but that 
are not known to be designed to any widely accepted design standard. Do 
you believe this is appropriate? Why? Why not?
    (5) The FAA is proposing that the three exemptions issued for 
training under 14 CFR part 103 be rescinded 3 years after the effective 
date of the final rule. The FAA believes that this training (for 
compensation or hire) should be conducted with aircraft meeting the 
requirements of a special, light-sport category aircraft airworthiness 
certificate. Also, the FAA believes 3 years is sufficient for 
instructors conducting that training to obtain a flight instructor 
certificate with a sport pilot rating. Do you believe that rescinding 
the exemptions after 3 years is appropriate? If not, why not?
    (6) The FAA is proposing to require 80 hours of training for a 
repairman certificate for maintaining and inspecting special light-
sport aircraft used for rental and training. Do you think 80 hours of 
training is appropriate for this purpose?
    (7) In the proposed definition of ``light-sport aircraft,'' the FAA 
limited the speed to 115 knots in straight and level flight at maximum 
continuous engine power (VH). The FAA proposed this because 
VH is a measure of the speed and power (or kinetic energy) 
of the aircraft, and it is relatively easy to measure. Do you believe 
the FAA should consider a different method of limiting the kinetic 
energy of a light-sport aircraft? Why or Why not? What alternative 
would you propose?
    (8) The FAA excluded gyroplanes from being eligible for a 
``special, light-sport category aircraft airworthiness certificate'' 
because of the complexity inherent in the design of rotary-winged 
aircraft. In addition, experimental gyroplanes lack standardized, 
recognized design, performance and handling criteria. Do you believe 
the FAA should reconsider including gyroplanes for that certificate? If 
so, please include any data to support your reasons.
    (9) The FAA proposes that the ready-to-fly and kits for light-sport 
aircraft comply with an industry-developed consensus airworthiness 
standard in lieu of incorporating these standards into the regulations. 
This permits the light-sport aircraft industry to demonstrate that it 
has reached a significant technical level of maturity by developing and 
publishing its own aircraft design and production standards. By 
participating in the industry sponsored consensus standards group, the 
FAA supports developing and updating an effective set of

[[Page 12827]]

standards with minimum impact on FAA resources. Do you believe the FAA 
should incorporate the standards into 14 CFR? Why or Why not? What 
alternative would you propose?
    (10) The FAA is proposing that the manufacturer of ready-to-fly or 
kit light-sport aircraft comply with the consensus standard and attest 
to that fact on a manufacturer's statement of compliance. The proposal 
does not limit a manufacturer's ability to have an independent third-
party organization audit this compliance. Do you believe the FAA should 
be making the findings of compliance? Why or Why not? What alternative 
would you propose?
    (11) In the proposal, the FAA has stated that, for ready-to-fly or 
kit light-sport aircraft where there is a safety-of-flight issue that 
is not being remedied by the manufacturer (or their successor), 
certificate action could be taken against the individual aircraft owner 
(i.e. the aircraft could lose it's airworthiness certificate). The FAA 
would have to do this because of its responsibility to the public to 
maintain safety in air commerce. Do you agree with this approach of 
holding the individual aircraft owner responsible for the airworthiness 
of the aircraft? Why or Why not? What alternative would you propose?
    (12) While the FAA made an assessment of the potential cost of 
compliance of the proposed rule, the FAA requests comments on the 
validity of its assumptions. These can be found in two sections of the 
proposed rule: Section VII--Paperwork Reduction Act; and Section IX--
Regulatory Evaluation Summary. Do you believe the FAA made accurate 
estimates of the number of existing and new sport pilots impacted, the 
number of sport pilots who would become a Repairman with a maintenance 
rating for commercial purposes, the number of delivered new light-sport 
aircraft (by category, such as fixed-wing, powered parachutes, trikes, 
etc.), and the number of flight instructors with a sport pilot rating, 
over the next 10 years? Please provide data in support of your 
comments.
    (13) Is the FAA's assumption of the average price of light-sport 
aircraft potentially impacted by the proposed rule accurate?
    (14) In response to the June 1, 1998, Presidential memorandum 
regarding the use of plain language, the FAA re-examined the writing 
style currently used in the development of regulations. The memorandum 
requires Federal agencies to communicate clearly with the public. The 
FAA drafted this proposal using plain language writing techniques. Is 
the style of this document clear and did you find it easy to 
understand?
    (15) Do you have any other issues that you think should be 
addressed related to Light-Sport Aircraft policy?

    Issued in Washington, DC, on March 14, 2002.
Anthony F. Fazio,
Director, Office of Rulemaking.
[FR Doc. 02-6643 Filed 3-15-02; 10:40 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P