[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 206 (Wednesday, October 24, 2018)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 53590-53594]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2018-23270]


 ========================================================================
 Proposed Rules
                                                 Federal Register
 ________________________________________________________________________
 
 This section of the FEDERAL REGISTER contains notices to the public of 
 the proposed issuance of rules and regulations. The purpose of these 
 notices is to give interested persons an opportunity to participate in 
 the rule making prior to the adoption of the final rules.
 
 ========================================================================
 

  Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 206 / Wednesday, October 24, 2018 / 
Proposed Rules  

[[Page 53590]]



DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 91

[Docket No.: FAA-2018-0926; Notice No. 18-02]
RIN 2120-AL09


Removal of the Date Restriction for Flight Training in 
Experimental Light Sport Aircraft

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).

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

SUMMARY: The Federal Aviation Administration is proposing to revise its 
rules concerning the operation of experimental light sport aircraft. 
The current regulations prohibited the use of these aircraft for flight 
training for compensation or hire after January 31, 2010. Allowing the 
use of experimental light sport aircraft for compensation or hire for 
the purpose of flight training would increase safety by allowing 
greater access to aircraft that can be used for light sport aircraft 
and ultralight training. The proposed rule would add language that 
permits training in experimental light sport aircraft for compensation 
or hire for the purpose of flight training through existing deviation 
authority.

DATES: Send comments on or before November 23, 2018.

ADDRESSES: Send comments identified by docket number FAA-2018-0926 
using any of the following methods:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to http://www.regulations.gov and follow the online instructions for sending your 
comments electronically.
     Mail: Send comments to Docket Operations, M-30; U.S. 
Department of Transportation (DOT), 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, Room 
W12-140, West Building Ground Floor, Washington, DC 20590-0001.
     Hand Delivery or Courier: Take comments to Docket 
Operations in Room W12-140 of the West Building Ground Floor at 1200 
New Jersey Avenue SE, Washington, DC, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday 
through Friday, except Federal holidays.
     Fax: Fax comments to Docket Operations at 202-493-2251.
    Privacy: In accordance with 5 U.S.C. 553(c), DOT solicits comments 
from the public to better inform its rulemaking process. DOT posts 
these comments, without edit, including any personal information the 
commenter provides, to www.regulations.gov, as described in the system 
of records notice (DOT/ALL-14 FDMS), which can be reviewed at 
www.dot.gov/privacy.
    Docket: Background documents or comments received may be read at 
http://www.regulations.gov at any time. Follow the online instructions 
for accessing the docket or go to the Docket Operations in Room W12-140 
of the West Building Ground Floor at 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, 
Washington, DC, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, 
except Federal holidays.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Bart Angle, Flight Standards Service, 
Federal Aviation Administration, 800 Independence Avenue SW, 
Washington, DC 20591; telephone (202) 267-0868; email 
[email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

I. Executive Summary

    This rulemaking would amend Title 14 Code of Federal Regulations 
(CFR) Sec.  91.319(e)(2) to add language that permits training in 
experimental light sport aircraft (ELSA) for compensation or hire 
through existing deviation authority provided in paragraph (h) of that 
section. The FAA proposes this change to allow for increased 
availability of flight training aircraft with similar performance and 
handling characteristics to light sport aircraft and ultralights. This 
would be accomplished through the issuance of a letter of deviation 
authority (LODA). LODAs provide regulatory relief to enable certain 
operations to be conducted in the interest of safety under specific 
conditions and limitations.

II. Authority for This Rulemaking

    The FAA's authority to issue rules on aviation safety is found in 
Title 49 of the United States Code. Specifically, Subtitle I, Section 
106 authorizes the FAA Administrator to promulgate regulations.
    Subtitle VII, Aviation Programs, describes in more detail the scope 
of the agency's authority. Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart iii, Section 
40101 and 44701 further describe the FAA Administrator's authority. 
Section 40101 requires that the FAA regulate air commerce and other 
operations, including civil operations, in a way that best promotes 
safety and efficiency. Section 44701 affirmatively requires the FAA 
promote safe flight of civil aircraft in air commerce by regulating 
aircraft and airmen. This regulation is within the scope of that 
authority because it would expand the training opportunities for 
experimental light sport aircraft operators and ultralight aircraft 
operators and therefore enhance the safety of these operations.

III. Background

    Effective September 1, 2004, the FAA defined \1\ characteristics 
for a category of simple, small, lightweight, low-performance aircraft; 
identifying them as light-sport aircraft.\2\ Along with defining this 
group of aircraft, the FAA created a new special airworthiness 
certificate in the light-sport category (special light sport aircraft--
SLSA) in Sec.  21.190 and added light sport aircraft to the existing 
special airworthiness certificate in the experimental category 
(experimental light sport aircraft--ELSA) in Sec.  21.191(i).\3\ SLSA 
include aircraft manufactured according to an industry consensus 
standard rather than a type certificate.\4\ ELSA regulations include 
provisions for (1) a temporary allowance for migration of so-called 
``fat ultralights'' that did not conform to 14 CFR part 103,\5\ (2) 
kit-built versions of

[[Page 53591]]

SLSA aircraft, and (3) aircraft previously issued a special 
airworthiness certificate in the light sport category under Sec.  
21.190.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 14 CFR 1.1.
    \2\ 69 FR 44772, July 27, 2004 (Certification of Aircraft and 
Airmen for the Operation of Light-Sport Aircraft).
    \3\ 14 CFR 21.190 contains requirements for the issuance of a 
special airworthiness certificate for light-sport category aircraft.
    \4\ 14 CFR 21.190(b).
    \5\ 14 CFR part 103 defines and establishes rules governing the 
operation of ultralight vehicles in the United States. There are two 
categories of ultralight vehicles: powered and unpowered. To be 
considered an ultralight vehicle, a hang glider must weigh less than 
155 pounds; while a powered vehicle must weigh less than 254 pounds; 
is limited to 5 U.S. gallons of fuel; must have a maximum speed of 
not more than 55 knots; and must have a power-off stall speed of not 
more than 24 knots. Both powered and unpowered ultralight vehicles 
are limited to a single occupant. Those vehicles which exceed the 
above criteria will be considered aircraft for purposes of 
airworthiness certification and registration, and their operators 
will be subject to the same certification requirements as are 
aircraft operators. See 47 FR 38770, Sept. 2, 1982 (Ultralight 
Vehicles; Operating Requirements).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Prior to the 2004 light sport rule, the FAA had granted exemptions 
to permit ``fat ultralights''--which did not meet the part 103 
requirements--to be used for compensation or hire for the purpose of 
flight training. Although allowing for greater access to flight 
training was seen by the FAA as having a positive effect on safety, 
some of the exemptions were used for operations other than for the 
intended purpose of flight training.
    With the 2004 light sport rule, the FAA eliminated the need for the 
ultralight flight training exemptions by allowing instructors to 
conduct flight training in these aircraft until January 31, 2010. As 
stated in the final rule, a significant purpose of the rule was to 
certificate those two-seat ``fat-ultralights'' previously operated 
under part 103 training exemptions and those two-seat and single-seat 
unregistered ``fat-ultralight'' aircraft operating outside of the 
regulations.
    The FAA anticipated that the newly manufactured SLSA would replace 
the former ``fat ultralights'' (newly certificated as ELSA) such that 
flight training in ELSA would no longer be necessary. The FAA, knowing 
that the manufacture of the new SLSA aircraft would take time, used 
Sec.  91.319(e) to allow for an extension of the time period to permit 
the use of properly registered ``transitioning'' aircraft with ELSA 
airworthiness certificates to be used for flight training by the same 
owner until January 31, 2010. After that date, those ELSA aircraft 
would no longer be permitted to be used for flight training for 
compensation or hire and no further ultralight flight training 
exemptions would be granted.
    The FAA estimated that 60 months would be an adequate amount of 
time for the new SLSA to enter service to replace the ELSA and meet 
flight training demands. The FAA also expected that the 60 months would 
provide the owners of the transitioning ELSA with additional time in 
which to purchase SLSA to provide flight instruction under the new 
rule, thereby delaying replacement costs. In addition, the FAA believed 
the action would further expand the growth of the industry as a whole. 
However, the anticipated arrival of the new SLSA has not materialized 
in the way that the FAA had projected in the final rule, especially for 
two-seat aircraft used for light sport and ultralight training. There 
are some two-seat light sport low mass/high drag trainers with SLSA 
airworthiness certificates available on the market for use in flight 
training, but not in numbers that provide for widespread availability 
for use in training.
    Experimental light sport aircraft are good training aircraft for 
light sport aircraft and ultralight vehicles because they are typically 
low-mass/high-drag aircraft and have a second seat, which can be 
occupied by an FAA certificated flight instructor. The use of ELSA as a 
training option for light sport aircraft and ultralights provides an 
avenue for structured flight instruction from an FAA certificated 
flight instructor. While the FAA does not see a risk-based need to 
expand the training requirements for light sport aircraft or 
ultralights, it does not want to impede individuals who wish to take 
advantage of flight training that is relevant to the type of aircraft 
they operate. Additionally, the FAA would like to facilitate the 
availability of training aircraft for new light sport pilots or 
existing pilots who are transitioning to a low-mass/high-drag aircraft 
from conventional aircraft.

IV. Discussion of the Proposal

    Recognizing the currently limited supply of adequate aircraft for 
the flight training of light sport and ultralight operators, the FAA 
proposes to amend Sec.  91.319(e)(2) to add language that permits 
training in experimental light sport aircraft for compensation or hire 
through existing deviation authority (LODA) provided in paragraph (h) 
of that section.
    To ensure these aircraft are used solely for the purpose of flight 
training and to better control and monitor the use of ELSA for flight 
training, the FAA proposes to require a LODA for operators who intend 
to conduct flight training compensation or hire using ELSA The 2004 
Light Sport Final Rule created the LODA process to allow training for 
compensation or hire using certain categories of experimental aircraft. 
However, this rule set a January 31, 2010 time limit (Sec.  
91.319(e)(2)) on the use of a LODA for experimental light sport 
aircraft (ELSA). Prior to the 2004 Light Sport Final Rule, the 
airworthiness category of experimental light sport aircraft did not 
exist (see Table 1 of the NPRM to the 2004 Light Sport Rule (67 FR 
5369). These aircraft were unregistered two-seat ultralight vehicles 
that operated through exemptions to conduct training for compensation 
or hire. This is described, in detail, in Section III of this NPRM. 
This is also described in the 2004 Light Sport Final Rule (69 FR 
44853).
    The training LODAs themselves were never a safety problem. Rather, 
the problem was the misuse of exemptions prior to the 2004 Light Sport 
rule that created the LODA process. The exemptions applied to a broad 
class and made it impossible for the FAA to ensure their proper use by 
individual members of the class. The 2004 Light Sport Final Rule (69 FR 
44777) highlights this problem in the second paragraph of page 44777. 
The LODA process solves this problem by being issued to a single person 
through the FAA's Web Based Operations Safety System (WebOPSS). This is 
the same system used to issue specification for air carrier operations 
specifications and also allows compliance monitoring and tracking. 
These same functionalities will help the FAA ensure proper use of LODAs 
by trainers using ELSAs, making the current time limitation 
unnecessary.
    If adopted, the proposed rule would allow for an owner, operator, 
or training provider to apply for and receive a training LODA, which 
would allow for the use of experimental light sport aircraft for flight 
training for compensation or hire. The proposed rule would also allow a 
flight instructor to receive compensation for providing flight 
instruction in an experimental light sport aircraft in accordance with 
the conditions and limitations of a LODA.
    The FAA would issue a LODA on the basis of the eligibility of the 
aircraft and its maintenance requirements, the applicant,\6\ the 
instructor, and the type of training desired. LODA holders would be 
required to own or lease the aircraft and would be ultimately 
responsible for ensuring that the aircraft, training, maintenance and 
instructor(s) meet the requirements specified by the LODA. The aircraft 
would be required to have completed its initial flight testing, have 
been granted an experimental airworthiness certificate and be 
maintained in accordance with either an FAA approved inspection 
program, in accordance with the provisions of Sec.  91.409(b) or Sec.  
91.409(e), (f)(4), and (g). The aircraft must have been inspected by an 
FAA-certificated mechanic with airframe and powerplant ratings, a 
certified repairman with the appropriate qualifications for the subject 
aircraft, or a certified repair station in accordance with the 
requirements of Sec.  91.319(g). Specific training purposes and 
programs

[[Page 53592]]

must be submitted and accepted by the FAA for the issuance of a LODA.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ Applicant. An owner, operator, or training provider who is 
applying to be a LODA holder.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

V. Regulatory Notices and Analyses

A. Regulatory Evaluation

    Changes to Federal regulations must undergo several economic 
analyses. First, Executive Order 12866 and Executive Order 13563 direct 
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 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 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 to be included in the preamble if a 
full regulatory evaluation of the cost and benefits is not prepared. 
Such a determination has been made for this rule. The reasoning for 
this determination follows:
    This proposed rule removes a date restriction imposed by the 2004 
Certification of Aircraft and Airmen for the Operation of Light-Sport 
Aircraft Final Rule which prohibited the use of experimental light 
sport aircraft (ELSA) for compensation or hire flight training after 
January 31, 2010. Removing the date restriction allows owners, 
operators or training providers of ELSA that were eligible to conduct 
flight training prior to the cutoff date to do so again.
    Currently, there are some two-seat aircraft that perform and handle 
similar to an ultralight, certificated as special light sport aircraft 
(SLSA) available to conduct training, but they are not available in 
numbers that provide for widespread accessibility. With this rule in 
effect, ELSA pilots and potential pilots can choose to take flight 
training in an ELSA, which had been prohibited after 2010. Allowing the 
use of ELSA would offset the lack of availability of SLSA versions of 
these aircraft.
    An internet search of two separate flight schools offering 
instruction in SLSA shows that one company provides training for $195 
per hour,\7\ while the other offered training at a rate of $175 per 
hour.\8\ These rates are inclusive of the flight instructor and rental 
of the aircraft.\9\ FAA Aerospace Forecasts for FY 2018-2038 estimated 
there were 27,865 ELSA compared to 2,585 SLSA at the end of 2017.\10\ 
Although it is unknown how many ELSA will become available for 
training, it is anticipated that the training cost will be in the same 
range as training in SLSA. The increase in the supply of aircraft 
available for training may reduce the cost of training in both aircraft 
types depending on the training demand by new and existing light sport 
pilots.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ http://sportpilottraining.sportaviationcenter.com/pilot-training-cost/lsa-trike/ http://trikeschool.com/faqs.ydev. Accessed 
June 22, 2017.
    \8\ http://beachflight.com/pricing.html.
    \9\ http://sportpilottraining.sportaviationcenter.com/pilot-training-cost/lsa-trike/, http://trikeschool.com/faqs.ydev. Accessed 
June 22, 2017.
    \10\ https://www.faa.gov/data_research/aviation/aerospace_forecasts/media/Appendix_C_Forecast_Tables.pdf (Table 28). 
Accessed May 25, 2018.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Federal Aviation Regulations do not require an airmen certificate 
or a medical certificate for the operation of ultralight vehicles. 
Additionally, there is no practical test or knowledge exam, and flight 
training or ground instruction are not mandatory. Thus, individuals 
that choose to take flight training in ELSA or SLSA are voluntarily 
doing so because they have determined the benefits from the training 
would exceed its costs.
    The FAA has, therefore, determined that this 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. The FAA requests comments on this 
determination. Cost impacts will be small, and the rule poses no novel 
legal or policy issues.

B. 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 actions to assure that such proposals are given 
serious consideration.'' The RFA covers a wide-range of small entities, 
including small businesses, not-for-profit organizations, and small 
governmental jurisdictions.
    Agencies must perform a review to determine whether a rule will 
have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small 
entities. If the agency determines that it will, the agency must 
prepare a regulatory flexibility analysis as described in the RFA.
    However, if an agency determines that a rule is not expected to 
have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small 
entities, section 605(b) of the RFA provides that the head of the 
agency may so certify and a regulatory flexibility analysis is not 
required. The certification must include a statement providing the 
factual basis for this determination, and the reasoning should be 
clear.
    While the proposed rule would likely impact a substantial number of 
small entities, it will have a minimal economic impact. The proposed 
rule enables the use of ELSA for compensation or hire for the purpose 
of conducting flight training. Trainees can then voluntarily hire a 
flight training instructor who uses an ELSA. As the rule would increase 
the number of acceptable training aircraft, the rule would not impose 
costs.
    If an agency determines that a rulemaking will not result in a 
significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities, 
the head of the agency may so certify under section 605(b) of the RFA. 
Therefore, as provided in section 605(b), the head of the FAA certifies 
that this rulemaking will not result in a significant economic impact 
on a substantial number of small entities.

C. International Trade Impact Assessment

    The Trade Agreements Act of 1979 (Pub. L. 96-39), as amended by the 
Uruguay Round Agreements Act (Pub. L. 103-465), prohibits Federal 
agencies from establishing standards or engaging in related activities 
that create unnecessary obstacles to the foreign commerce of the United 
States. Pursuant to these Acts, the

[[Page 53593]]

establishment of standards is not considered an unnecessary obstacle to 
the foreign commerce of the United States, so long as the standard has 
a legitimate domestic objective, such as the protection of safety, and 
does not operate in a manner that excludes imports that meet this 
objective. The statute also requires consideration of international 
standards and, where appropriate, that they be the basis for U.S. 
standards. The FAA has assessed the potential effect of this rule and 
determined that the rule responds to a domestic safety objective and is 
not considered an unnecessary obstacle to trade.

D. 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 
(in 1995 dollars) 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 $155 million in lieu of $100 
million. This rule does not contain such a mandate; therefore, the 
requirements of Title II of the Act do not apply.

E. Paperwork Reduction Act

    The Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3507(d)) requires 
that the FAA consider the impact of paperwork and other information 
collection burdens imposed on the public. According to the 1995 
amendments to the Paperwork Reduction Act (5 CFR 1320.8(b)(2)(vi)), an 
agency may not collect or sponsor the collection of information, nor 
may it impose an information collection requirement unless it displays 
a currently valid Office of Management and Budget (OMB) control number.
    The FAA has determined that there would be no new information 
collection associated with the proposed requirement for an applicant to 
submit a request for deviation authority to obtain relief from the 
provisions of section 91.319(a) for the purposes of conducting flight 
training. Approval to collect such information previously was approved 
by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) under the provisions of 
the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3507(d)) and was 
assigned OMB Control Number 2120-0690.

F. International Compatibility

    In keeping with U.S. obligations under the Convention on 
International Civil Aviation, it is FAA policy to conform to 
International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO) Standards and 
Recommended Practices to the maximum extent practicable. The FAA has 
determined that there are no ICAO Standards and Recommended Practices 
that correspond to these proposed regulations.

G. Environmental Analysis

    FAA Order 1050.1F identifies FAA actions that are categorically 
excluded from preparation of an environmental assessment or 
environmental impact statement under the National Environmental Policy 
Act in the absence of extraordinary circumstances. The FAA has 
determined this rulemaking action qualifies for the categorical 
exclusion identified in paragraph 5-6.6 and involves no extraordinary 
circumstances.

VI. Executive Order Determinations

A. Executive Order 13132, Federalism

    The FAA has analyzed this proposed rule under the principles and 
criteria of Executive Order 13132, Federalism. The agency has 
determined that this action would not have a substantial direct effect 
on the States, or the relationship between the Federal Government and 
the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among 
the various levels of government, and, therefore, would not have 
Federalism implications.

B. Executive Order 13211, Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy 
Supply, Distribution, or Use

    The FAA analyzed this proposed rule under Executive Order 13211, 
Actions Concerning Regulations that Significantly Affect Energy Supply, 
Distribution, or Use (May 18, 2001). The agency has determined that it 
would not be a ``significant energy action'' under the executive order 
and would not be likely to have a significant adverse effect on the 
supply, distribution, or use of energy.

C. Executive Order 13609, International Cooperation

    Executive Order 13609, Promoting International Regulatory 
Cooperation, promotes international regulatory cooperation to meet 
shared challenges involving health, safety, labor, security, 
environmental, and other issues and to reduce, eliminate, or prevent 
unnecessary differences in regulatory requirements. The FAA has 
analyzed this action under the policies and agency responsibilities of 
Executive Order 13609, and has determined that this action would have 
no effect on international regulatory cooperation.

D. Executive Order 13771, Reducing Regulation and Controlling 
Regulatory Costs

    This proposed rule is expected to be an E.O. 13771 deregulatory 
action with de minimis cost savings.

VII. Additional Information

A. Comments Invited

    The FAA invites interested persons to participate in this 
rulemaking by submitting written comments, data, or views. The agency 
also invites comments relating to the economic, environmental, energy, 
or federalism impacts that might result from adopting the proposals in 
this document. The most helpful comments reference a specific portion 
of the proposal, explain the reason for any recommended change, and 
include supporting data. To ensure the docket does not contain 
duplicate comments, commenters should send only one copy of written 
comments, or if comments are filed electronically, commenters should 
submit only one time.
    The FAA will file in the docket all comments it receives, as well 
as a report summarizing each substantive public contact with FAA 
personnel concerning this proposed rulemaking. Before acting on this 
proposal, the FAA will consider all comments it receives on or before 
the closing date for comments. The FAA will consider comments filed 
after the comment period has closed if it is possible to do so without 
incurring expense or delay. The agency may change this proposal in 
light of the comments it receives.

B. Availability of Rulemaking Documents

    An electronic copy of rulemaking documents may be obtained from the 
internet by--
    1. Searching the Federal eRulemaking Portal (http://www.regulations.gov);
    2. Visiting the FAA's Regulations and Policies web page at http://www.faa.gov/regulations_policies or
    3. Accessing the Government Publishing Office's web page at http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/.
    Copies may also be obtained 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) 267-9677. 
Commenters must identify the docket or notice number of this 
rulemaking.

[[Page 53594]]

    All documents the FAA considered in developing this proposed rule, 
including economic analyses and technical reports, may be accessed from 
the internet through the Federal eRulemaking Portal referenced in item 
(1) above.

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 91

    Air traffic control, Aircraft, Airmen, Airports, Aviation safety, 
Noise control, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.

The Proposed Amendment

    In consideration of the foregoing, the Federal Aviation 
Administration proposes to amend chapter I of title 14, Code of Federal 
Regulations as follows:

PART 91--GENERAL OPERATING AND FLIGHT RULES

0
1. 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, 46506-56507, 47122, 47508, 47528-47531, 
articles 12 and 29 of the Convention on International Civil Aviation 
(61 stat. 1180).

0
2. Amend Sec.  91.319 by revising paragraph (e)(2) and the introductory 
text of paragraph (h) to read as follows:


Sec.  91.319  Aircraft having experimental certificates: Operating 
limitations.

* * * * *
    (e) * * *
    (2) Conduct flight training in an aircraft in accordance with 
paragraph (h) of this section.
* * * * *
    (h) The FAA may issue deviation authority providing relief from the 
provisions of paragraphs (a) and (e)(2) of this section for the purpose 
of conducting flight training. The FAA will issue this deviation 
authority as a letter of deviation authority.
* * * * *

    Issued under authority provided by 49 U.S.C. 106(f), 106(g), 
40101(d),44701(a), and 44703 in Washington, DC, on October 18, 2018.
Michael J. Zenkovich,
Deputy Executive Director, Flight Standards Service.
[FR Doc. 2018-23270 Filed 10-23-18; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 4910-13-P