[Federal Register Volume 72, Number 75 (Thursday, April 19, 2007)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 19661-19665]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E7-7453]



 ========================================================================
 Rules and Regulations
                                                 Federal Register
 ________________________________________________________________________
 
 This section of the FEDERAL REGISTER contains regulatory documents 
 having general applicability and legal effect, most of which are keyed 
 to and codified in the Code of Federal Regulations, which is published 
 under 50 titles pursuant to 44 U.S.C. 1510.
 
 The Code of Federal Regulations is sold by the Superintendent of Documents. 
 Prices of new books are listed in the first FEDERAL REGISTER issue of each 
 week.
 
 ========================================================================
 

  Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 75 / Thursday, April 19, 2007 / Rules 
and Regulations  

[[Page 19661]]



DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 1

[Docket No. FAA-2007-27160; Amendment No. 1-56]
RIN 2120-AI97


Changes to the Definition of Certain Light-Sport Aircraft

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Direct final rule; request for comments.

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

SUMMARY: This action corrects an unintended consequence created when we 
adopted the original Light-Sport Aircraft (LSA) Rule; we did not have 
sufficient information at that time to foresee this difficulty. This 
action amends the definition of an LSA in two areas. The changes will 
(1) permit development of lighter-than-air (LTA) LSA, and (2) allow 
retractable landing gear for LSA intended for operation on water. The 
LTA change will result in a common land-based LSA maximum takeoff 
weight limit and allow the LTA LSA industry to design and build safe, 
functional LTA aircraft. Allowing retractable landing gear for LSA 
intended for operation on water recognizes the realities of the 
operation of these LSA and will also enhance the growth of that 
industry.

DATES: Effective June 4, 2007.
    Comments for inclusion in the Rules Docket must be received on or 
before May 21, 2007.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Larry Werth, Federal Aviation 
Administration, Aircraft Certification Service, Small Airplane 
Directorate, ACE-114, 901 Locust, Room 301, Kansas City, MO 64106; 
telephone 816-329-4147; fax: 816-329-4090; e-mail: [email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Later in this preamble under the Additional 
Information section, we discuss how you can comment on this direct 
final rule and how we will handle your comments. Included in this 
discussion is related information about the docket. We also discuss how 
you can get a copy of this direct final rule and any related rulemaking 
documents.

Authority for This Rulemaking

    The FAA's authority to issue rules regarding aviation safety is 
found in Title 49 of the United States Code. Subtitle I, section 106 
describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII, 
Aviation Programs, describes in more detail the scope of the agency's 
authority.
    This rulemaking is promulgated under the authority described in 
subtitle VII, part A, subpart III, section 44701. Under that section, 
the FAA is charged with prescribing regulations for practices, methods, 
and procedures the Administrator finds necessary for safety in air 
commerce. This regulation is within the scope of that authority because 
it establishes minimum standards required in the interest of safety for 
the design of aircraft.

Background

    On July 27, 2004, the FAA issued the ``Certification of Aircraft 
and Airmen for the Operation of Light-Sport Aircraft'' final rule (69 
FR 44772) (hereon referred to as The LSA/Sport Pilot Rule). That rule 
established a definition for the term ``Light-Sport Aircraft'' (LSA). 
Since we adopted that rule, the FAA has been working with the LSA 
industry in evaluating the overall LSA program. The past two years have 
seen remarkable growth in the overall LSA program. Over 600 new 
factory-built airplanes, powered parachutes, and weight-shift control 
aircraft have received airworthiness certificates. The exceptions to 
this rapid growth are lighter-than-air (LTA) LSA and LSA intended for 
operation on water.
    In the first area, the FAA has determined the current LTA LSA 
maximum takeoff weight (MTW) of 660 pounds (300 kilograms) precludes 
the desired effect of industry design and development of safe LTA LSA. 
In the second area, the FAA has determined the physical differences 
between LSA intended for operation on water (amphibious LSA) and land-
based LSA justify allowing retractable landing gear for amphibious LSA. 
We discuss these determinations in the following paragraphs.

Lighter-Than-Air Light-Sport Aircraft

    The LSA/Sport Pilot Rule, which became effective September 1, 2004, 
established an LTA LSA MTW of 660 pounds (300 kilograms). When the FAA 
originally considered LTA LSA, we determined that airships suitable for 
sport pilots do not need to meet all the requirements established in 
FAA-P-8110-2, ``Airship Design Criteria''.\1\ We based the criteria on 
airship designs that conventionally use low molecular weight lifting 
gases rather than hot air. We based the weight limit in the final rule 
on a review of type-certificated free balloons not using hot air as a 
captive lifting gas. Since publication of the final rule, the FAA has 
received comments from the LTA aircraft community requesting the 
addition of aircraft using hot air as a lifting gas.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ Available in the docket.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    One commenter recommended the 660 pounds MTW in the current rule be 
redefined as a ``Design Useful Load.'' The commenter reasons that, for 
designers of LTA aircraft, this definition would be a rational 
quantitative objective consistent with standards for sport pilot/light-
sport aircraft. The commenter also said the definition would make the 
envelope volume/size differences between hot-air and low molecular 
weight lifting gas LSA irrelevant. The commenter provided information 
that counters the logic used to define weights for LTA aircraft.
    Another commenter provided a table comparing envelope volume and 
maximum gross weight of 26 type-certificated hot air balloons designed 
for two-place use. The comparison table shows an average envelope 
volume of 58,615 cubic feet (ranging from 42,000 to 65,000 cubic feet), 
and an average maximum gross weight of 1,170 pounds (ranging from 870 
to 1,433 pounds).
    A commenter requested that the 660-pound design useful load be the 
LTA aircraft design weight criteria. The commenter also asked that 
existing two-place type-certificated hot air balloons be permitted to 
have maximum gross weights of at least 1,100 pounds. The commenter 
believes economics would naturally discourage a ``larger'' size

[[Page 19662]]

airship with a useful load of 660 pounds.
    We have reconsidered our decision to distinguish hot-air balloons 
and hot-air based airships from LSA in light of the facts and data 
presented by the light-sport community. We believe the characteristics 
and operation of these aircraft are within the standards for sport 
pilot/light-sport aircraft. Further, we erred in our determination of 
maximum weight for LTA aircraft as described in the preamble for the 
final rule. Based on the information presented by the LTA aircraft 
community, we have determined that the 1,320-pound MTW limit for LSA is 
applicable to LTA aircraft. This weight includes the structure, 
uninflated envelope, engine, burner system, fuel, installed equipment 
and systems, and two occupants. This increased weight limit permits LTA 
aircraft designers to provide better integrity for the structure that 
carries the sport pilot and passenger.
    We do not agree with the recommendation to establish a definition 
for ``design useful load'' as the parameter for LTA aircraft weight. As 
stated in the notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) dated February 5, 
2002 (67 FR 5376), and in the preamble for the final rule dated July 
27, 2004 (69 FR 44794), the criteria in the LSA definition are intended 
to be objective characteristics that are easily measured. Design useful 
load would not be easily verified as a limiting measure.
    Under the provisions of the Sport Pilot and Light-Sport Aircraft 
rule and revised Office of Management and Budget (OMB) Circular A-119, 
``Federal Participation in the Development and Use of Voluntary 
Consensus Standards and in Conformity Assessment Activities,'' dated 
February 10, 1998, industry and the FAA have been working with ASTM 
International (originally formed as the American Society for Testing 
and Materials) to develop consensus standards for LSA. These consensus 
standards satisfy the FAA's goal for airworthiness certification and 
establish a verifiable minimum safety level for LSA. In addition, use 
of the consensus standard process assures government and industry 
discussion and agreement on appropriate standards for the required 
level of safety.
    We have reviewed the particular consensus standards developed for 
LTA LSA and note that these standards contain provisions for airships 
and balloons based on hot air or low molecular weight gas.

Retractable Landing Gear for LSA Intended for Operation on Water

    When we drafted the original proposal for LSA appropriate for sport 
pilots, we were concerned that LSA be simple in design and operation. 
For aircraft design, low performance within the constraints of light 
weight and structural integrity were important. For aircraft operation, 
simple mechanical systems within the constraint of sport pilot training 
requirements were important. As noted in the preamble to the rule, from 
an operations perspective, 14 CFR, part 61, Sec.  61.31(e) provides a 
statement of the aircraft features that the FAA considers in assuring 
adequate training for a pilot to operate complex aircraft. From the 
aircraft operations perspective, Sec.  61.31(e) does not dictate that 
retractable landing gear makes a seaplane complex.
    We intended to allow for retractable landing gear for amphibious 
aircraft. We attempted to differentiate between retractable and 
repositionable landing gear, but that distinction has caused problems 
when implementing the rule. The term ``repositionable landing gear'' 
was defined in the preamble to the LSA/Sport Pilot Rule as ``* * * 
wheeled landing gear that allows an aircraft designed for operation on 
water to takeoff and land from a hard surface and which may be 
retracted on the ground to permit takeoff and landing on water. 
Repositionable landing gear remains fixed in its position from takeoff 
through landing.'' This definition did not fully recognize or account 
for the realities of operation of amphibious LSA. From the aircraft 
design perspective, we were concerned that malfunction or misuse of 
retractable landing gear on amphibious aircraft not impose a hazard to 
the aircraft occupants.
    During the original rulemaking, we were willing to accept the 
prospect that aircraft structure designed for water loads for takeoff 
or landing would provide occupant protection in the event of a wheels 
up landing on the ground. Since the original rulemaking, the FAA has 
received data \2\ from the industry showing that a wheels-down water 
landing accident sometimes results in minor injuries, but typically 
results in no injuries. The biggest challenge is escaping from the 
aircraft when a wheels-down landing accident results in the aircraft 
submerging in water. The simple two-place design configuration of a LSA 
facilitates easy exit from the aircraft should such an accident occur.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ See Docket Management System Docket Number FAA-2005-23030. 
Available at http://dms.dot.gov">dms.dot.gov.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Considering the relatively safe record of retractable landing gear 
on amphibious LSA and the physical differences between amphibious and 
land-based LSA, we believe use of retractable landing gear is 
appropriate for amphibious LSA. Our expectations for simple, 
mechanically operated retractable landing gear for sailplanes align 
with our expectations for operation of amphibious aircraft. (Sailplane 
fuselages are typically designed for landing loads similar to 
amphibious aircraft structural design criteria).
    Finally, with the current Sec.  1.1 LSA definition, most of the 
existing fleet of amphibious single- and two-seat ultralight-like 
aircraft in the LSA fleet cannot be issued an airworthiness certificate 
under Sec.  21.191(i)(1). These aircraft do not meet the current 
definition of a LSA since most are equipped with retractable landing 
gear and not ``repositionable'' landing gear. Unless the LSA definition 
is changed to allow retractable landing gear for amphibious LSA before 
January 31, 2008, these aircraft will be unnecessarily excluded from 
this category of aircraft.
    Czech Air Works (CZAW) petitioned the FAA for an exemption to allow 
retractable landing gear on its Mermaid amphibious airplane. As part of 
its request, CZAW provided information concerning the design and 
operation of amphibious LSA. The petition can be found in Docket No. 
FAA-2005-23030.
    The FAA received approximately 450 comments from 260 commenters. 
Comments on the petition highlighted the overall benefits for an 
airplane to be capable of land and water landings. These comments also 
addressed structural design integrity of amphibious aircraft that 
provide added protection for aircraft occupants in the event of landing 
with the landing gear in the wrong position (gear up or down). One 
commenter pointed out that, without an exemption, manufacturers might 
sell the aircraft equipped with ``beaching gear'' (for use only when 
taxiing to land from water, and vice versa, using a ramp) instead of 
landing gear. This commenter suggested that pilots may be tempted to 
use the beaching gear as landing gear, which would compromise safety.
    Several commenters objected to the petition for exemption. One 
commenter said changing gear position would increase risk to occupants 
of an amphibious LSA. Three commenters said that increasing complexity 
of LSA would increase risk. Four commenters

[[Page 19663]]

said the Mermaid aircraft would be seriously damaged if the pilot 
landed on water with the gear down. One commenter recommended allowing 
only one change of gear position each flight.
    In granting the petition for exemption to allow retractable landing 
gear for amphibious LSA, the primary concern was to determine if the 
Mermaid aircraft is as safe as any other aircraft with LSA 
airworthiness certification. We reviewed the information provided by 
CZAW and the commenters to the petition for exemption. The FAA found 
the structural integrity of the Mermaid aircraft is enhanced by its 
``flying boat'' design. This design offers increased protection for the 
occupants when landing with improperly positioned landing gear. We also 
found the simple method of actuating and monitoring the position of the 
landing gear is consistent with the design objectives for LSA.
    We agree with the commenters who implied the safety of amphibious 
aircraft is better served by allowing for retractable rather than 
repositionable landing gear because of the manner in which amphibious 
aircraft are operated. We considered the comment that pilots might be 
tempted to use ``beaching gear'' (if equipped) as landing gear to be a 
persuasive argument. Using ``beaching gear'' as landing gear would 
compromise safety because it is not designed for landing impact loads.
    Several commenters were concerned that retractable landing gear 
would add to the complexity of amphibious LSA. Commenters were divided 
on the need for landing gear position indicators for amphibious LSA. We 
find that a direct-action manual lever to mechanically operate the 
landing gear or a simple mechanical system is appropriate for 
amphibious LSA. Currently, sailplanes certificated as LSA are allowed 
to use a direct-action manual lever to mechanically operate the landing 
gear. We have determined that this revision to the definition of a LSA 
recognizes the operational requirements of amphibious LSA and is 
consistent with the stated design and safety objectives.

The Direct Final Rule Process

    The FAA anticipates that this regulation will not result in adverse 
or negative comment and, therefore, is issuing it as a direct final 
rule. The two changes in the definition of LSA will be beneficial to 
and supported by the LSA industry. Increasing the LTA MTW will result 
in a common LSA limitation and eliminate the current unnecessary 
restrictions. Allowing retractable landing gear for amphibious LSA will 
be beneficial to that portion of the LSA industry and will enhance the 
development of safe amphibious LSA.
    Unless we receive a written adverse or negative comment, or a 
written notice of intent to submit an adverse or negative comment 
within the comment period, the regulation will become effective on the 
date specified above. After the close of the comment period, the FAA 
will publish a document in the Federal Register that indicates we 
received no adverse or negative comments and confirms the date the 
final rule will become effective. If the FAA receives, within the 
comment period, an adverse or negative comment, or written notice of 
intent to submit such a comment, we will publish a document withdrawing 
the direct final rule in the Federal Register, and we may publish a 
notice of proposed rulemaking with a new comment period.
    In evaluating any comments received, the FAA will consider only 
comments supported by valid and reasonable data. Adverse comments that 
dispute previously established and accepted FAA determinations or 
decisions will not be considered. Any written notice of intent to 
submit late comments must contain a reasonable estimate of when that 
comment will be submitted. We will not delay implementing these changes 
because comments were not submitted on time.

Paperwork Reduction Act

    The Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3507(d)) requires 
the FAA to consider the impact of paperwork and other information 
collection burdens imposed on the public. We have determined that there 
are no current or new requirements for information collection 
associated with these amendments.

International Compatibility

    The FAA has determined that there are no International Civil 
Aviation Organization (ICAO) Standards and Recommended Practices that 
correspond to this regulation.

Regulatory Evaluation, Regulatory Flexibility Determination, 
International Trade Impact Assessment, and Unfunded Mandates Assessment

    Changes to Federal regulations must undergo several economic 
analyses. First, Executive Order 12866 directs that each Federal agency 
shall propose or adopt a regulation only upon a reasoned determination 
that the benefits of the intended regulation justify its costs. Second, 
the Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 (Pub. L. 96-354) requires 
agencies to analyze the economic impact of regulatory changes on small 
entities. Third, the Trade Agreements Act (Pub. L. 96-39) prohibits 
agencies from setting standards that create unnecessary obstacles to 
the foreign commerce of the United States. In developing U.S. 
standards, the Trade Agreements Act requires agencies to consider 
international standards and, where appropriate, that they be the basis 
of U.S. standards. Fourth, the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 
(Pub. L. 104-4) requires agencies to prepare a written assessment of 
the costs, benefits, and other effects of proposed or final rules that 
include a Federal mandate likely to result in the expenditure by State, 
local, or tribal governments, in the aggregate, or by the private 
sector, of $100 million or more annually (adjusted for inflation with 
base year of 1995). This portion of the preamble summarizes the FAA's 
analysis of the economic impacts of this final rule.
    Department of Transportation Order DOT 2100.5 prescribes policies 
and procedures for simplification, analysis, and review of regulations. 
If the expected cost impact is so minimal that a proposed or final rule 
does not warrant a full evaluation, this order permits that a statement 
to that effect and the basis for it be included in the preamble if a 
full regulatory evaluation of the cost and benefits is not prepared. 
Such a determination has been made for this final rule. The reasoning 
for this determination follows.
    We were too restrictive in two areas of the original LSA 
definition. With this rulemaking action, we are removing a restriction 
by allowing the LSA to use retractable landing gear when the aircraft 
is intended for operation on water. This rule will also create a common 
land-based LSA MTW limit, which will allow the LTA LSA industry to 
design and build safe, functional LTA aircraft.
    The FAA has, therefore, determined that this final rule is not a 
``significant regulatory action'' as defined in section 3(f) of 
Executive Order 12866, and is not ``significant'' as defined in DOT's 
Regulatory Policies and Procedures.

Regulatory Flexibility Determination

    The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 (Pub. L. 96-354) (RFA) 
establishes ``as a principle of regulatory issuance that agencies shall 
endeavor, consistent with the objectives of the rule and of applicable 
statutes, to fit regulatory and informational requirements to the scale 
of the businesses, organizations, and governmental jurisdictions 
subject to regulation. To achieve this principle, agencies are required 
to solicit and consider flexible regulatory proposals and to explain 
the rationale for their

[[Page 19664]]

actions to assure that such proposals are given serious 
consideration.'' The RFA covers a wide range of small entities, 
including small businesses, not-for-profit organizations, and small 
governmental jurisdictions.
    Agencies must perform a review to determine whether a rule will 
have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small 
entities. If the agency determines that it will, the agency must 
prepare a regulatory flexibility analysis as described in the RFA.
    However, if an agency determines that a rule is not expected to 
have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small 
entities, section 605(b) of the RFA provides that the head of the 
agency may so certify and a regulatory flexibility analysis is not 
required. The certification must include a statement providing the 
factual basis for this determination, and the reasoning should be 
clear.
    This final rule will not impose any costs on small entities. We 
were overly restrictive in our original rule. We are removing 
restrictions to allow retractable landing gear for LSA intended for 
operation on water and are creating a common land-based LSA MTW limit, 
which will allow the LTA LSA industry to design and build safe, 
functional LTA aircraft. Therefore, as the FAA Administrator, I certify 
that this rule will not have a significant economic impact on a 
substantial number of small entities.

International Trade Impact Assessment

    The Trade Agreements Act of 1979 (Pub. L. 96-39) prohibits Federal 
agencies from establishing any standards or engaging in related 
activities 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. The FAA has assessed the 
potential effect of this final rule and has determined that it will 
have a cost relieving impact on domestic and international entities and 
thus has a neutral trade impact.

Unfunded Mandates Assessment

    Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-
4) requires each Federal agency to prepare a written statement 
assessing the effects of any Federal mandate in a proposed or final 
agency rule that may result in an expenditure of $100 million or more 
(adjusted annually for inflation with the base year 1995) in any one 
year by State, local, and tribal governments, in the aggregate, or by 
the private sector; such a mandate is deemed to be a ``significant 
regulatory action.'' The FAA currently uses an inflation-adjusted value 
of $128.1 million in lieu of $100 million. This final rule does not 
contain such a mandate.

Executive Order 13132, Federalism

    The FAA has analyzed this final rule under the principles and 
criteria of Executive Order 13132, Federalism. We determined that this 
action will not have a substantial direct effect on the States, or the 
relationship between the national Government and the States, or on the 
distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of 
government. Therefore, we determined that this final rule does not have 
federalism implications.

Environmental Analysis

    FAA Order 1050.1E identifies FAA actions that are categorically 
excluded from preparation of an environmental assessment or 
environmental impact statement under the National Environmental Policy 
Act in the absence of extraordinary circumstances. The FAA has 
determined this proposed rulemaking action qualifies for the 
categorical exclusion identified in paragraph 312f and involves no 
extraordinary circumstances.

Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or 
Use

    The FAA has analyzed this final rule under Executive Order 13211, 
Actions Concerning Regulations that Significantly Affect Energy Supply, 
Distribution, or Use (66 FR 28355, May 18, 2001). We have determined 
that it is not a ``significant energy action'' under the executive 
order because it is not a ``significant regulatory action'' under 
Executive Order 12866, and it is not likely to have a significant 
adverse effect on the supply, distribution, or use of energy.

Additional Information

Commenting on This Direct Final Rule

    You may send comments identified by Docket Number FAA-2007-27160 
using any of the following methods:
     DOT Docket Web site: Go to http://dms.dot.gov and follow 
the instructions for sending your comments electronically.
     Government-wide rulemaking Web site: Go to http://www.regulations.gov and follow the instructions for sending your 
comments electronically.
     Mail: Docket Management Facility; U.S. Department of 
Transportation, 400 Seventh Street, SW., Nassif Building, Room PL-401, 
Washington, DC 20590-0001.
     Fax: 1-202-493-2251.
     Hand Delivery: Room PL-401 on the plaza level of the 
Nassif Building, 400 Seventh Street, SW., Washington, DC, between 9 
a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.

Availability of Rulemaking Documents

    You can get an electronic copy using the Internet by:
    (1) Searching the Department of Transportation's electronic Docket 
Management System (DMS) Web page (http://dms.dot.gov/search);
    (2) Visiting the FAA's Regulations and Policy Web page at http://www.faa.gov/regulations_policies/; or
    (3) Accessing the Government Printing Office's Web page at http://www.gpoaccess.gov/fr/index.html.
    You can also get a copy by sending a request to the Federal 
Aviation Administration, Office of Rulemaking, ARM-1, 800 Independence 
Avenue, SW., Washington, DC 20591, or by calling (202) 267-9680. Make 
sure to identify the docket number, notice number, or amendment number 
of this rulemaking.

Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act

    The Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act (SBREFA) of 
1996 requires FAA to comply with small entity requests for information 
or advice about compliance with statutes and regulations within its 
jurisdiction. If you are a small entity and you have a question 
regarding this document, you may contact your local FAA official, or 
the person listed under the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT heading at 
the beginning of the preamble. You can find out more about SBREFA on 
the Internet at http://www.faa.gov/regulations_policies/rulemaking/sbre_act/.

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 1

    Air transportation.

The Amendment

0
In consideration of the foregoing, the Federal Aviation Administration 
amends part 1 of Title 14, Code of Federal Regulations, as follows:

PART 1--DEFINITIONS AND ABBREVIATIONS

0
1. The authority citation for part 1 continues to read as follows:

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


0
2. Amend the definition of ``light-sport aircraft'' in Sec.  1.1 by 
removing

[[Page 19665]]

paragraph (1)(i), redesignating (1)(ii) and (1)(iii) as (1)(i) and 
(1)(ii), respectively, and revising paragraph (12) to read as follows:


Sec.  1.1  General definitions.

* * * * *
    Light-sport aircraft * * *
* * * * *
    (12) Fixed or retractable landing gear, or a hull, for an aircraft 
intended for operation on water.
* * * * *

    Issued in Washington, DC, on April 9, 2007.
Marion C. Blakey,
Administrator.
[FR Doc. E7-7453 Filed 4-18-07; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P