Federal Register, Volume 90 Issue 140 (Thursday, July 24, 2025)

[Federal Register Volume 90, Number 140 (Thursday, July 24, 2025)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 35034-35222]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2025-13972]

[[Page 35033]]

Vol. 90

Thursday,

No. 140

July 24, 2025

Part III

Department of Transportation

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

Federal Aviation Administration

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

14 CFR Parts 1, 21, et al.

Modernization of Special Airworthiness Certification; Final Rule

Federal Register / Vol. 90 , No. 140 / Thursday, July 24, 2025 /
Rules and Regulations

[[Page 35034]]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Parts 1, 21, 22, 36, 43, 45, 61, 65, 91, 119, and 147

[Docket No. FAA-2023-1377; Amdt. Nos. 1-80, 21-109, 22-1, 36-55, 43-63,
45-32, 61-159, 65-66, 91-381, 119-22, and 147-10]
RIN 2120-AL50

Modernization of Special Airworthiness Certification

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), Department of
Transportation (DOT).

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: FAA is amending rules for the manufacture, certification,
operation, maintenance, and alteration of light-sport aircraft. The
amendments enable enhancements in safety and performance and increase
privileges under a number of sport pilot and light-sport aircraft
rules. These enhancements include increasing suitability for flight
training, limited aerial work, and personal travel. This final rule
expands what aircraft sport pilots may operate. This final rule also
amends the special purpose operations for restricted category aircraft;
amends the duration, eligible purposes, and operating limitations for
experimental aircraft; and adds operating limitations applicable to
experimental aircraft engaged in space support vehicle flights to
codify statutory language.

DATES: This final rule is effective October 22, 2025, except for
amendatory instructions 3, 8, 9, 13, 15, 17, 21, 23 through 26, 71, 72,
75, 76, and 80, which are effective July 24, 2026.
The incorporation by reference of certain material listed in this
final rule is approved by the Director of the Federal Register as of
October 22, 2025.

ADDRESSES: For information on where to obtain copies of rulemaking
documents and other information related to this final rule, see section
VII of this document.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For technical questions concerning
this action, contact James Newberger, Aircraft Certification Service
(AIR-632), Federal Aviation Administration, 800 Independence Ave. SW,
Washington, DC 20591, telephone (202) 267-1636; email
faa.gov">james.e.newberger@faa.gov.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Table of Contents

I. Executive Summary
A. Purpose of the Regulatory Action
B. Summary of the Costs and Benefits
II. Authority for This Rulemaking
III. Background
A. History of Light-Sport Category Aircraft
B. Summary of the NPRM
IV. Discussion of Comments and the Final Rule
A. General Overview of Comments
B. Differences Between the NPRM and the Final Rule
C. FAA Safety Continuum
D. Separation of Limits for Light-Sport Category Aircraft and
Sport Pilots
E. Special Airworthiness Certificates for Light-Sport Category
Aircraft
F. Design, Production, and Airworthiness Requirements for Non-
Type Certificated Aircraft
G. Miscellaneous Provisions for Issuance of Special
Airworthiness Certificates
H. Sport Pilot Certification and Privileges
I. Repairman Certificates (Light-Sport)
J. Maintenance
K. Operations
L. Experimental Airworthiness Certificates
M. Restricted Category Aircraft
N. Noise Certification of Aircraft That Do Not Conform to a Type
Certificate
O. Import and Export of Aircraft
P. Other Out of Scope Comments
Q. Effective and Compliance Dates
R. Benefits and Costs
V. Regulatory Notices and Analyses
VI. Executive Order Determinations
VII. Additional Information
A. Electronic Access and Filing
B. Incorporation by Reference Material
C. Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act
End Notes

List of Acronyms Frequently Used in This Document

ACS--Airman Certification Standards
AGL--Above Ground Level
ASTM--American Society for Testing and Material International
CAS--Calibrated Airspeed
CFR--Code of Federal Regulations
DOD--Department of Defense
EAB--Experimental Amateur-Built
eVTOL--Electric Vertical Takeoff and Landing
FAA--Federal Aviation Administration
FADEC--Full Authority Digital Electric Control
FR--Federal Register
FSTD--Flight Simulation Training Device
GA--General Aviation
IBR--Incorporation by Reference
IFR--Instrument Flight Rules
IMC--Instrument Meteorological Conditions
LOC-I--Loss of Control--In-flight
LSA--Light-Sport Aircraft
LSAMA--Light-Sport Aircraft Manufacturers Assessment
MOSAIC--Modernization of Special Airworthiness Certification
MSL--Mean Sea Level
NAICS--North American Industry Classification System
NPRM--Notice of Proposed Rulemaking
NTSB--National Transportation Safety Board
OMB--Office of Management and Budget
PIC--Pilot in Command
PTS--Practical Test Standards
RFA--Regulatory Flexibility Act
RIA--Regulatory Impact Analysis
U.S.C.--United States Code
VA--Design maneuvering speed
VFR--Visual Flight Rules
VH--Maximum speed in level flight with maximum continuous
power
VNE--Maximum never exceed speed
VS1--The stalling speed or the minimum steady flight
speed obtained in a specific configuration
VS0--The stalling speed or the minimum steady flight
speed in the landing configuration

I. Executive Summary

A. Purpose of the Regulatory Action

This final rule establishes requirements for aircraft, other than
unmanned aircraft, that hold special airworthiness certificates, airmen
that operate and maintain those aircraft, and supporting rules. This
rule expands eligibility for certification of light-sport category
aircraft while retaining a distinction in level of certification rigor
between experimental and small, type-certificated aircraft. This rule
also expands privileges for sport pilots and light-sport repairmen.
This rule aims to increase the availability of safe, modern, and
affordable aircraft for recreational aviation, flight training, and
certain aerial work.
Generally, this rule provides broad regulatory relief to the
public. That is, under this rule, manufacturers of light-sport category
aircraft may design and manufacture a broader array of aircraft,
including rotorcraft and powered-lift. In addition, the rule allows for
light-sport category aircraft with increased seating, without weight
limits, higher speeds, new types of propulsion systems, new propeller
types, retractable landing gear, and aircraft with simplified flight
controls. Sport pilot privileges are expanded to include a broader
array of aircraft and new privileges. New privileges for sport pilots
include operating helicopters, operating at night, operating aircraft
with retractable landing gear, operating aircraft with constant speed
propellers, and operating high-performance airplanes. These new
privileges for sport pilots are available via training and
endorsements. Operating privileges for certain light-sport category
aircraft are expanded to include certain aerial work. Lastly, repairman
certificate (light-sport) privileges are expanded to allow work on all
aircraft in the expanded light-sport aircraft category.
Though relieving to the public, these expansions are based on
safety data, the safety continuum, and other concepts aimed to increase
safety. Per the safety continuum concept, FAA bases the rigor of
certification requirements on the exposure of the public to risk for an

[[Page 35035]]

aircraft operation. As the risk increases due to increased operating
privileges and aircraft capability, the rigor of certification
requirements also increases.
In 2004, FAA published the ``Certification of Aircraft and Airmen
for the Operation of Light-Sport Aircraft'' final rule (69 FR 44771,
July 27, 2004) (``the 2004 final rule''), which established rules for
the manufacture, certification, operation, and maintenance of light-
sport aircraft. The successful safety record of light-sport category
aircraft since the 2004 final rule validates certification requirements
established in that rule and provides support for expanding the scope
of certification for light-sport category aircraft and operations. As a
result, FAA identified the Modernization of Special Airworthiness
Certification (MOSAIC) rule as an opportunity to expand the 2004 final
rule to include a wider variety of aircraft, increase performance, and
increase operating privileges to extend these safety benefits to more
aircraft. FAA intends for these expansions to increase the safety of
recreational aviation by encouraging aircraft owners, who may be
deciding between an experimental aircraft or a light-sport category
aircraft, to choose light-sport category aircraft that are higher on
the safety continuum and, therefore, meet higher aircraft certification
requirements. FAA also intends for this rule to increase the safety of
light-sport category aircraft by eliminating the prescriptive weight
limit for light-sport category aircraft that hinders safety-enhancing
designs and by adopting new design, production, and airworthiness
requirements.
This rule also addresses other aircraft that hold special
airworthiness certificates. Specifically, this rule codifies additional
special purpose operations for restricted category aircraft. In
addition, this rule amends the duration, eligible purposes, and
operating limitations for special airworthiness certificates issued for
experimental purposes for additional phases of flight and space support
vehicle operations.
The following sections discuss the provisions being adopted in this
final rule.
1. Certification of Light-Sport Category Aircraft
This rule (i) adopts more performance-based rules to expand and
enable innovation in the classes of aircraft that may be certificated
using consensus standards as light-sport category aircraft, including
emerging aircraft types; (ii) removes prescriptive weight limits that
hinder incorporation of safety-enhancing designs and equipage; (iii)
increases the maximum stall speed for light-sport category airplanes
and gliders; (iv) enables more capable and robust aircraft for the
pilot training environment; (v) allows for increased capacities for
passengers, fuel, and cargo; (vi) allows electric and other alternative
propulsion sources; and (vii) allows faster, higher-performing aircraft
that are more suitable for personal travel. Together, based on the
safety record under the 2004 final rule, these changes will enhance
safety by allowing for a more appealing alternative to experimental
amateur-built (EAB) aircraft that do not meet FAA design, production,
or airworthiness standards.
2. Sport Pilot Certification
This rule expands privileges for what aircraft a sport pilot can
operate, including privileges to operate many of the new light-sport
category aircraft and additional normal category aircraft while
retaining the current limit to carriage of two occupants, including the
pilot. This rule allows use of four-seat airplanes; adds a new model-
specific privilege for aircraft with unconventional simplified flight
controls designation; and adds new privileges for operating
helicopters, operating aircraft at night, aircraft with retractable
landing gear, and airplanes with constant speed propellers. This rule
also amends the limits on maximum stall and cruise speed and removes
weight and powerplant limitations.
3. Maintenance and Repairman (Light-Sport)
This rule revises privileges for repairman certificate (light-
sport) holders to align with the expansion of aircraft categories that
will be eligible for light-sport category airworthiness certificates.
In addition, light-sport repairman privileges are expanded to allow a
light-sport repairman to conduct the condition inspection on amateur-
built aircraft that are of the same category and class, as applicable,
of aircraft for which the repairman was certificated. This rule also
revises the requirements for manufacturer-issued safety directives and
revises requirements for performing repairs and alterations of light-
sport category aircraft.
4. Operations
This rule revises operating limitations for restricted category
aircraft, experimental aircraft, and light-sport category aircraft.
This rule also codifies a Congressional mandate to enable certain
aircraft with an experimental airworthiness certificate to conduct
space support vehicle flights carrying persons or property for
compensation or hire without an air carrier certificate or exemption.
This rule also makes minor revisions to right-of-way rules and
operations in the vicinity of airports in Class G airspace.
5. Experimental Aircraft
This rule establishes a new purpose for which experimental
airworthiness certificates may be issued to former military aircraft to
improve alignment between certain operations of former military
aircraft and the experimental airworthiness certificates that authorize
their operation. This rule also increases the duration of certain
experimental airworthiness certificates from one to three years.
6. Restricted Category Aircraft
This rule enhances the requirements for the certification of former
military aircraft in the restricted category by requiring the aircraft
to have a service history with the U.S. Armed Forces. Under 14 CFR
21.25(b)(7), FAA has approved additional special purpose operations for
which restricted category aircraft may be certificated. Currently,
those additional purposes are only listed in FAA policy documents for
type and airworthiness certification of these aircraft. This rule
codifies special purpose operations that have already been published
for public notice in the Federal Register.
7. Noise
This rule enables persons to voluntarily establish compliance with
part 36 noise requirements and provide a statement of compliance to FAA
for a light-sport category aircraft.

B. Summary of the Costs and Benefits

The rule largely expands opportunities for light-sport category
aircraft. These expansions may result in safety benefits; there may
also be associated design and production costs. FAA does not anticipate
more than minimal incremental costs to implement provisions of the rule
and does not have data to estimate any cost savings, such as those that
could result from operating certain light-sport category aircraft in
aerial work for compensation.

II. Authority for This Rulemaking

FAA's authority to issue rules on aviation safety is found in title
49 of the United States Code (U.S.C.). Subtitle I, section 106
describes the authority of FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII, Aviation
Programs, describes in more

[[Page 35036]]

detail the scope of the agency's authority. This rulemaking is
promulgated under the authority described in 49 U.S.C. 106(f), which
establishes the authority of the Administrator to promulgate and revise
regulations and rules related to aviation safety. This rulemaking is
also promulgated under 49 U.S.C. 44701(a)(2)(A) and (a)(5), which
provides that FAA Administrator shall promote safe flight of civil
aircraft in air commerce by prescribing regulations and minimum
standards: (1) in the interest of safety for inspecting, servicing, and
overhauling aircraft, aircraft engines, propellers, and appliances, and
(2) that FAA finds necessary for safety in air commerce and national
security; 49 U.S.C. 44703, which provides the general authority of the
Administrator to prescribe regulations for the issuance of airman
certificates when the Administrator finds, after investigation, that an
individual is qualified for, and physically able to perform the duties
related to, the position authorized by the certificate; 49 U.S.C.
40103(b)(1) and (2), which directs FAA to issue regulations: (1) to
ensure the safety of aircraft and the efficient use of airspace; and
(2) to govern the flight of aircraft for purposes of navigating,
protecting and identifying aircraft, and protecting individuals and
property on the ground; and 49 U.S.C. 44715, which provides the
Administrator the authority to prescribe regulations to control and
abate aircraft noise and sonic boom. These regulations are within the
scope of those authorities because they amend rules for the
manufacture, certification, operation, maintenance, and alteration of
light-sport category aircraft, amend rules related to restricted
category aircraft and experimental airworthiness certification, and
amend rules related to sport pilot and repairman certification. Under
Sec. 135, Public Law 116-260, 134 Stat. 1182, FAA has authority to set
standards for maintenance technician schools, and this rulemaking
incorporates such standards by reference in part 147. In addition, this
rulemaking codifies section 581 of the FAA Reauthorization Act of 2018
(Pub. L. 115-254), which amended 49 U.S.C. 44740 to allow the operator
of an aircraft with a special airworthiness certification in the
experimental category to conduct a space support vehicle flight
carrying persons or property for compensation or hire. The final rule
also addresses section 824 of the FAA Reauthorization Act of 2024 (Pub.
L. 118-63), which requires that FAA issue a final rule for MOSAIC not
later than 24 months after the date of enactment of that Act, May 16,
2024.

III. Background

A. History of Light-Sport Category Aircraft

In the NPRM (88 FR 47650, July 24, 2023), FAA proposed to amend
rules related to the certification and operation of light-sport
category aircraft. That NPRM aimed to modernize the regulatory approach
to light-sport aircraft by incorporating performance-based requirements
that reflect advances in technology and uses for this type of aircraft.
The NPRM was designed to respond to the evolving needs of this sector
and provide for future growth and innovation without compromising
safety.
The 2004 final rule provided for the operation and manufacture of
aircraft weighing less than 1,320 pounds (or 1,430 pounds for aircraft
intended for operation on water). These ``light-sport'' aircraft
included airplanes, gliders, balloons, powered parachutes, weight-
shift-control aircraft, and gyroplanes. FAA bases the rigor of
certification requirements and operational limitations on a safety
continuum that assesses the exposure of the public to risk for each
aircraft and operation; as the risk increases due to increased
operating privileges and aircraft capability, the requirements and
corresponding rigor of requirements and procedures for certification
increase.
In the 2004 final rule, FAA established a level of certification
for light-sport category aircraft between normal category aircraft and
aircraft holding experimental airworthiness certificates in view of
intended operating privileges and aircraft capability. The NPRM used
EAB aircraft for the safety continuum discussions since they are
similar to light-sport category aircraft. EAB aircraft are largely used
for recreational purposes, are flown by sport pilots and pilots with
higher grade certificates and generally have the same flight envelope
and occupancy limits. Amateur-built aircraft are below light-sport
category aircraft on the safety continuum because of their lower safety
assurance for aircraft design and being subject to stringent operating
limitations. Amateur-built aircraft have no regulatory design
requirements for suitability of materials used, structural integrity,
or instruments, equipment, and systems. Amateur-built aircraft are
limited to non-commercial operations for the purpose of education and
recreation.

B. Summary of the NPRM

Since the 2004 final rule, light-sport category aircraft have shown
a lower accident rate than EAB airplanes.1 FAA considered that the
successful safety record of light-sport category aircraft validated
certification requirements established in the 2004 final rule and
provided support for expanding the scope of certification for light-
sport category aircraft and operations. As a result, FAA proposed to
expand the 2004 final rule to include a wider variety of aircraft,
increase performance, and increase operating privileges to extend these
safety benefits to more aircraft. FAA intended for these expansions to
increase safety by encouraging aircraft owners, who may be deciding
between an EAB or a light-sport category aircraft, to choose aircraft
higher on the safety continuum and, therefore, meet higher aircraft
certification requirements.
FAA's proposal addressed other aircraft that hold special
airworthiness certificates. Specifically, FAA proposed to codify
additional special purpose operations for restricted category aircraft
that FAA has previously approved under discretion provided in Sec.
21.25(b)(7). In addition, FAA proposed to amend the duration, eligible
purposes, and operating limitations for special airworthiness
certificates issued for experimental purposes.
FAA identified proposals to improve both the safety and
functionality of light-sport category aircraft and light-sport category
kit-built aircraft. FAA proposed to amend aircraft, pilot, maintenance,
and operational requirements to increase both the safety and
performance of these aircraft while mitigating risk. FAA acknowledged
that this is a balancing act-where the risk is increased due to greater
capability in one area, mitigations may be required from the other
areas.
FAA proposed to establish performance-based requirements for
certification of light-sport category aircraft. As a fundamental
matter, FAA proposed to restructure how certification requirements for
light-sport category aircraft are presented in FAA's regulations.
Currently, issuance of special airworthiness certificates under Sec.
21.190 for light-sport category aircraft, sport pilot certificates
under part 61 subpart J, and repairman certificates (light-sport) under
part 65 are limited by a number of aircraft design limitations included
in the definition of light-sport aircraft in Sec. 1.1. FAA proposed to
remove that definition and, in its place, write performance-based
standards for aircraft and airman certification into

[[Page 35037]]

part 21, 61, and 65, where these requirements for other types of
aircraft and airman certification reside. This would make FAA's
regulatory approach to light-sport category aircraft more consistent
with its approach to other types of aircraft.
Another important change in the NPRM was to eliminate the weight
limits for light-sport category aircraft. To enable the design and
manufacture of light-sport category aircraft that are safe to fly with
increased capacity and ability, FAA proposed to apply new design and
manufacturing requirements. This would allow growth and innovation
within performance-based safety parameters. FAA also proposed to expand
aircraft that sport pilots can operate. Under the NPRM, sport pilots
could operate airplanes designed with up to four seats, even though
they would remain limited to operating with only two occupants.
Finally, FAA proposed to change the name of the repairman certificate
(light-sport aircraft) to repairman certificate (light-sport). This
certificate would apply to existing and new types of aircraft
certificated in the light-sport category, such as rotorcraft and
powered-lift. Related provisions would update the requirements for
maintenance.
FAA also proposed regulations related to noise for light-sport
aircraft, expanding applicability of part 36 noise requirements. To
provide flexibility and reduce burdens of compliance with these noise
requirements, FAA proposed options for compliance: (1) conventional
noise testing per part 36, (2) a means of compliance via FAA-approved,
industry consensus standards, or (3) using the noise requirements
determined by FAA to be appropriate for the aircraft. FAA expects that
any consensus standards would not be limited to physical measurements
of noise during test flights. They might instead to be based on
empirical data, analytical modeling, or generally accepted noise
prediction methods if the underlying noise prediction methods are found
to be robust.
In addition to maintenance and manufacturing requirements, FAA also
proposed to expand the kinds of operations that can be performed by
light-sport category aircraft. Specifically, FAA proposed to permit
light-sport category aircraft that meet applicable consensus standards
to be used in certain aerial work operations.
In addition, FAA proposed amendments to experimental aircraft
regulations. FAA proposed new operating purposes for former military
and kit-built aircraft and clarified who may apply for the operating
purpose for market survey. The proposed regulations also included new
operating limitations authorizing flight over densely populated areas
and in congested airways for all phases of flight, and new regulations
authorizing experimental aircraft to conduct space support vehicle
flights. The proposed regulations also would have increased certificate
duration and extend applicability of noise requirements to aircraft
that do not conform to a type certificate.
FAA further proposed amendments related to restricted category
aircraft, including a codification of special operating purposes for
restricted category aircraft. FAA also proposed minor changes to right-
of-way rules and operations around airports in Class G airspace.

IV. Discussion of Comments and the Final Rule

A. General Overview of Comments

FAA received approximately 1,315 comments in response to the NPRM
from a variety of commenters, including aircraft manufacturers and
operators, aviation training companies, other aviation companies, trade
associations, civil aviation authorities, and individuals. Trade
associations commenting on the NPRM included: Aeronautical Repair
Station Association (ARSA), Air Line Pilots Association (ALPA),
Aircraft Electronics Association (AEA), Aircraft Owner's and Pilot's
Association (AOPA), Association for Uncrewed Vehicle Systems
International (AUVSI), Aviation Suppliers Association (ASA), Commercial
Drone Alliance (CDA), Experimental Aircraft Association (EAA), General
Aviation Manufacturers Association (GAMA), Helicopter Association
International now known as Vertical Association International (VAI),
Light Aircraft Manufacturers Association (LAMA), Manufacturers Flight
Test Council (MFTC), National Agricultural Aviation Association (NAAA),
National Air Transportation Association (NATA), National Association of
Flight Instructors (NAFI), National Business Aviation Association
(NBAA), U.S. Paragliding & Hang Gliding Association (USPHA), and United
States Ultralight Association (USUA). Manufacturers commenting on the
NPRM included: Aerospace Volatus Infrastructure & Energy Solutions, Air
Tractor, AIR VEV, AutoGyro, Cirrus Aircraft, Cub Crafters, Desert
Aerospace, Doroni, Elanus, Flight Design, Hartzell Propeller, Jump
Aero, LEO Flight Corporation, Piper Aircraft, Inc. (Piper), Reliable
Robotics Corporation (Reliable Robotics), Skyryse, Sonex, LLC (Sonex),
Streamline Designs, LLC (Streamline Designs), Van's Aircraft, and
Whisper Aero. Operators commenting on the NPRM included: Aura,
Bombardier, Inc. (Bombardier), International Air Response (IAR), Metrea
Strategic Mobility (MSM), Textron Aviation (Textron), Virgin Galactic,
and Zipline. The only United States government organization commenting
on the NPRM was U.S. Naval Air Systems Command (NAVAIR). Civil Aviation
Authorities commenting on the NPRM included: National Civil Aviation
Agency of Brazil (ANAC), European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA), and
Transport Canada Civil Aviation (TCCA).
Group comments included the following: AEA and ARSA (hereafter,
AEA/ARSA) as a group; EAA, AOPA, NATA, and NBAA as a group; and LEO
Flight Corporation, Doroni, Aerospace Volatus Infrastructure & Energy
Solutions as a group called the Future Flight Federation (3F).
Table 1 provides a general summary of commenter support:

Table 1--Summary of Commenter Support
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Number of
Support commenters
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Oppose..................................................... 11
Support (no changes suggested)............................. 22
Support (changes suggested)................................ 1,282
------------
Total.................................................. 1,315
------------------------------------------------------------------------

Overall, most commenters expressed general support for FAA's NPRM.
Hundreds of individual commenters voiced support for, agreed with, or
applauded the NPRM generally or for specific proposals within the NPRM,
and many of those individuals advocated for proceeding as quickly as
possible with finalizing and implementing a final rule. In addition,
many associations, companies, and other non-individual commenters also
expressed support for the NPRM generally, even if they had specific
recommendations for improvement. For example, EAA, AOPA, NATA, and
NBAA's comment ``commended'' FAA for acknowledging the success of the
light-sport category and proposing the MOSAIC rule expansions and they
strongly supported FAA committing the resources to move forward and
implement the proposed changes. GAMA supported key aspects of the NPRM
such as increasing what aircraft sport pilots can fly and which
aircraft qualify for light-sport category special airworthiness
certificates. VAI

[[Page 35038]]

commented positively on including rotorcraft in the light-sport
category of aircraft, noting that it will increase the variety of
available aircraft and provide economic benefits. Van's Aircraft
characterized the MOSAIC NPRM as a ``revolutionary change'' that was
``close to the mark'' and a ``success'' even given that Van's Aircraft
had constructive feedback. Hartzell Propeller's comment applauded FAA
taking on MOSAIC and broadly supported the expansion of light-sport
aircraft and sport pilot capabilities. Sonex commented it was extremely
supportive of the NPRM, and it expected positive business impacts, an
expanded economic pathway to pilot participation, and the availability
of new aircraft with enhanced safety features at a more affordable
price compared to type-certified aircraft. Skyryse supported the
rulemaking and appreciated FAA's ``forward-thinking approach to
certification.'' AIR VEV also supported the NPRM as allowing
advancement and innovation while maintaining safety.
However, most commenters also recommended revisions to the proposed
rule that they believed would improve the rule. A small minority of
commenters were generally unsupportive of the NPRM. For example, AEA/
ARSA strongly asserted that certain aspects of the NPRM concerning
light-sport category aircraft were unnecessary and duplicative,
stemming from their preference that FAA amend and better utilize the
primary category. AEA/ARSA also stated the proposed rule disregards the
negative impact on design, certification, and installation of retrofit
technologies, as well as the aviation maintenance service industry.
ALPA commented the safety record of light-sport category aircraft
warrants a ``more formalized safety approach'' to certifying light-
sport category aircraft, certifying airmen, and establishing supporting
operating rules and privileges.
The following provides a high-level overview of key issues raised
by commenters that are addressed in more detail below.
Aircraft Stalling Speed for Certification of Light-Sport Category
Aircraft
FAA received approximately 120 comments on this topic. Most
commenters wanted an increased stall speed without lift-enhancing
devices (VS1) with the largest support for a VS1
increase to 58 knots calibrated airspeed (CAS), but with a substantial
number wanting an even higher increase. A few commenters opposed a
stall speed increase. Recommendations to increase VS1 varied
widely and covered topics such as maximum stall speed with flaps
(VS0), design maneuvering speed (VA), maximum
speed in level flight with maximum continuous power (VH),
lift-enhancing devices, safety equipment, gross weight,
crashworthiness, legacy aircraft, designs, handling, and kinetic
energy.
Simplified Flight Controls for Light-Sport Category Aircraft
Several commenters requested clarification that primary flight
controls were not available or used on aircraft with simplified flight
controls. A few commenters suggested language that would provide pilots
access to primary flight controls. Some commenters requested
clarification on flight path control, power adjustment, discontinuing
or altering flight, and inadvertent activation of safety features. A
few commenters recommended that the manner with which the pilot is
expected to control the flight path of the simplified flight controls
aircraft should not change in the presence of any single likely
failure. Two commenters thought the proposed Sec. 22.180 provisions
were too prescriptive. TCCA asked for clarification on the use of joy-
stick controllers. ALPA did not support simplified flight controls for
light-sport category aircraft because it may result in an unquantified
risk. One commenter wanted simplified flight controls to be defined.
Size of Rotorcraft and Powered Lift
Several commenters recommended the use of a maximum gross weight in
the range of 2,640 to 5,000 lbs, a 6 lb-ft\2\ main rotor disc loading
limit, or limiting the number of engines. Another commenter stated
market forces will limit powered-lift gross weights.
Aircraft Stalling Speed Limit for Sport Pilot Privileges
FAA received approximately 485 comments on this topic. Most of the
public comments recommend increasing the proposed VS1 CAS
stall speed, using VS0, or using some other stall speed
reference as the stall speed limitation, to permit a greater number of
existing certificated airplanes with similar size, weight, and
performance to be operated by sport pilots. A majority of the
commenters indicated that an aircraft they operate, with higher stall
speeds, was as safe or safer than those with lower stall speeds. Some
commenters also recommend increasing the maximum stall speed for
gliders.
Passenger Limitation for Sport Pilot Privileges
A large number of commenters recommended allowing additional
passengers when operating four-seat airplanes.
Medical Requirements for Night Operations by Sport Pilots
A large number of commenters recommended that FAA allow night
operations under the current driver's license medical qualification
requirement or additional training requirements.
Altitude Limitations for Sport Pilots
A large number of commenters recommended that FAA should permit
sport pilots to operate at higher altitudes than currently permitted.
Light-Sport Repairman Training Courses
Approximately 250 comments were received on this topic. Commenters
were concerned that aligning training courses with the Mechanic ACS
equates to repairman courses increasing in time and cost. Some
commenters suggested FAA's proposal would require light-sport repairmen
to receive the same training in terms of time and complexity as
mechanics. Many commenters recommended creating a system of certificate
endorsements, training course modules, or both. Many comments asserted
FAA is changing a process for no reason that has been proven to be
sufficient.
Light-Sport Repairman Certificate Privileges
Approximately 105 comments were received on this topic. Most
comments requested that FAA expand light-sport repairman privileges to
allow these repairmen to conduct the annual condition inspection on
aircraft issued an experimental airworthiness certificate for the
purpose of operating an amateur-built aircraft. Several commenters also
requested to expand the certificate privileges to allow these repairmen
to work on aircraft issued a standard airworthiness certificate.
Third-Party Repairs and Alterations of Light-Sport Category Aircraft
Some commenters, including AEA/ARSA, stated the proposed rule
disregards the negative impact on design, certification, and
installation of retrofit technologies, as well as the aviation
maintenance service industry. Some commenters requested FAA make
greater use of the language ``a person acceptable to the
Administrator'' to allow greater use of third-party alterations and
repairs when those

[[Page 35039]]

alterations meet applicable standards. Some commenters requested
increased opportunities for retrofit products for upgrades and
modifications, especially relating to safety-enhancing technologies.
Aircraft Noise
FAA received comments from industry, pilots, owners of light-sport
aircraft, and members of the public affected by aircraft noise. Most of
these commenters questioned the need for noise requirements, noting
that LSA are generally already quiet. Some of these commenters
expressed concern that meeting these noise requirements might
necessitate redesigns that could negatively impact performance and
safety. Many commenters supported using industry consensus standards
and self-declaration of noise compliance as methods to reduce costs and
avoid delays in certification. Regarding experimental aircraft,
industry groups such as GAMA, EAA, and various association members and
companies opposed noise requirements for EAB aircraft. Some expressed
opposition to noise requirements for any type of experimental aircraft.
Industry commenters generally supported the use of industry consensus
standards for the noise certification of MOSAIC aircraft but were
concerned that developing those standards would require resources and
pose technical challenges. A number of individual and community
commenters urged increased noise regulation, asserting that aircraft
are too noisy.
Operations of Space Support Vehicles
ALPA and Virgin Galactic were both generally supportive of the
proposed regulatory language. However, both raised concerns about the
development of guidance materials and the agency's internal policies
for the issuance of operating limitations.
Airworthiness Certification of Restricted Category Aircraft
International Air Response (IAR), with several other restricted
category aircraft operators expressing agreement, stated there was
insufficient notice of the changes to the restricted category and such
changes should be part of a separate rulemaking effort specifically for
the restricted category. IAR asserted this is problematic and since
restricted category operators may not be aware of the rule, it could
result in adverse effects on businesses.

B. Differences Between the NPRM and the Final Rule

Table 2 summarizes key changes from the NPRM made in this final
rule.

Table 2--Summary of Key Changes From NPRM
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Adopted by this final Final regulatory Additional discussion in
Proposed action in the NPRM rule citation (14 CFR) section of preamble
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The NPRM proposed to revise the This final rule Sec. 1.1.............. IV.G.5.
definition of consensus standard. removes the
definition.
The NPRM proposed to add a new This final rule Sec. 21.191(j)........ IV.L.1.c.
provision for issuance of an expands this
experimental airworthiness provision to enable
certificate to former military repositioning
aircraft to improve alignment flights between any
between certain operations of public aircraft
former military aircraft and the operation, not just
experimental airworthiness those supporting the
certificates which authorize their U.S. Armed Forces
operation. and adds a provision
to allow check
flights following
repairs,
alterations, or
maintenance.
The NPRM proposed to increase the This final rule Sec. 22.100(a)(3)..... IV.F.6.b and c.
light-sport category maximum stall increases the light-
speed for airplanes from 45 to 54 sport category
knots CAS VS1. maximum stall speed
to 61 knots CAS VS0
for an airplane and
45 knots CAS VS0 for
a glider.
The NPRM proposed to apply control This final rule Sec. 22.105........... IV.F.13.
and maneuverability requirements removes the
to the certification of light- reference to primary
sport category aircraft. flight controls so
the provision is
also applicable to
aircraft designed
with simplified
flight controls.
The NPRM proposed to apply part 36 This final rule makes Sec. 36.0............. IV.N.
noise requirements to most light- compliance with part
sport category aircraft. 36 voluntary for
light-sport category
aircraft.
The NPRM proposed to increase the This final rule Sec. 61.316(a)(1)..... IV.H.1.c.
maximum stall speed for airplanes increases the
that a sport pilot may operate maximum stall speed
from 45 to 54 knots CAS VS1. for airplanes that a
sport pilot may
operate to 59 knots
CAS VS1.
The NPRM did not propose to amend This final rule adds Sec. 61.316(b)........ IV.H.1.j. and IV.H.1.k.
the limitation listed in Sec. a provision allowing
61.316(b) for aircraft that a a sport pilot to
sport pilot may operate that the operate an aircraft
aircraft meet certain limits with retractable
``since its original landing gear or an
certification.''. airplane with a
manual controllable
pitch propeller
regardless of the
configuration status
of the aircraft when
it was originally
certificated if the
pilot meets the
training and
endorsement
requirements
specified in Sec.
61.331.
The NPRM discussed the equivalency This final rule adds Sec. 65.107(f)........ IV.I.2.a.
of a repairman certificate (light- a provision in Sec.
sport aircraft) and a repairman 65.107(f)
certificate (light-sport) but did consistent with the
not include a related provision in NPRM discussion,
Sec. 65.107. The NPRM discussed that establishes the
the equivalency of previously equivalency of
issued aircraft class privileges repairman
with the new aircraft category certificates (light-
privileges, but did not include a sport aircraft) with
related provision in Sec. 65.107. aircraft class
privileges issued
before the effective
date of this final
rule to repairman
certificates (light-
sport) with aircraft
category privileges
issued under this
final rule.
The NPRM did not propose changes to The final rule Sec. 65.109........... IV.I.10.b.
privileges for a holder of a expands privileges
repairman certificate (light- for a holder of a
sport). repairman
certificate (light-
sport) to perform an
annual condition
inspection on Sec.
21.191(g),
experimental amateur-
built aircraft.

[[Page 35040]]

The NPRM did not propose expansions The final rule adds Sec. 91.313(b)(3)..... IV.K.3.
of operating limitations exhibition to the
applicable to restricted category list of operations
aircraft. that are considered
necessary to
accomplish the work
activity directly
associated with a
special purpose
operation.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

C. FAA Safety Continuum

The safety continuum is a concept that FAA has used for years.\2\
It is ``[t]he concept that one level of safety is not appropriate for
all aviation activities.'' \3\ The concept draws statutory support from
49 U.S.C. 44701(d)(B), which requires the Administrator to consider
``differences between air transportation and other air commerce'' when
prescribing regulation.\4\ Per the safety continuum concept, FAA bases
the rigor of certification requirements on the potential risk to the
public for an aircraft operation. As risk increases with increased
operating privileges and aircraft capability, FAA mitigates that risk
through more rigorous certification requirements. For example, EAB have
not been found to meet FAA or FAA-accepted design or production
standards and therefore present a higher level of risk. FAA mitigates
that risk for EAB via operating limitations that reduce the risk to the
public. Light-sport category aircraft under this rule are subject to a
higher rigor in certification requirements and procedures for design,
production, and airworthiness than EAB aircraft. Therefore, light-sport
category aircraft are higher on the safety continuum than EAB aircraft
and can be operated under less restrictive operating limitations than
EAB aircraft.
FAA included two fundamental safety arguments to support the
proposed rule. The first safety argument was that certain changes would
improve the safety of the light-sport category. FAA noted removing the
weight restriction on light-sport category aircraft would provide
manufacturers opportunities to incorporate additional safety-enhancing
designs and equipment; design airframes that are more rugged for the
flight-training environment; increase fuel load and aircraft range;
allow for greater cabin size to enable greater occupant heights and
weights; improve aircraft handling in gusts, turbulence, and
crosswinds; and increase the suitability of light-sport category
aircraft for other intended operating purposes, including recreation
and personal travel. Also, adding performance-based part 22
requirements would increase the rigor and expected safety outcomes of
design, production, and airworthiness requirements for the
certification of light-sport category aircraft.
Secondly, FAA explained that other amendments to the rules applied
to light-sport category aircraft would improve safety more broadly
within general aviation (GA) by making light-sport category aircraft a
more appealing alternative to experimental aircraft that have higher
fatal accident rates. The current fleet of registered EAB aircraft has
approximately 26,450 aircraft. EAB aircraft are not subject to any
design limits such as aircraft class, weight, number of seats, number
or type of engines, stalling speed, or maximum speed. EAB are not
subject to design or production standards in 14 CFR or in other FAA-
accepted standards. Conversely, under the 2004 final rule, the light-
sport category was subject to limits in number of seats, stalling
speed, not-to-exceed speed, and cabin pressurization. Fatal accident
rate data comparing similar EAB, light-sport, and normal category
airplanes reflect accident rates that generally align with the safety
continuum concept; that is, accident rates for light-sport category
airplanes fall between the accident rates for EAB and normal category
airplanes.\5\ FAA views this as validation of the consensus standards
and certification requirements used under the original rules. The final
rule improves those certification requirements with new design,
production, and training requirements for compliance staff. Some
expansions enable safety improvements of light-sport category aircraft,
primarily via relieving weight limitations. Other expansions increase
risk for operations of light-sport category aircraft; that is, enabling
four occupants in airplanes exposes the public to more risk than does
enabling two occupants, but still less than for EAB aircraft that are
not subject to seating or passenger limits. And still other expansions
are clearly intended to increase the performance and usefulness of
light sport category aircraft, such as enabling more fuel capacity,
four seats for airplanes, higher speeds for personal transportation,
expanding operating privileges for light-sport category aircraft, and
expanding sport pilot privileges. Importantly, these expansions of
light-sport category aircraft design, performance, and operation would
increase safety more broadly within recreational GA because light-sport
category aircraft would become a more appealing choice for those owners
who may otherwise be considering purchasing experimental aircraft.
Overall, this shift toward light-sport category aircraft would increase
the numbers of aircraft that are designed and manufactured more safely
than experimental aircraft.
Furthermore, in 2006, FAA published a Roadmap for General Aviation
Aging Airplane Programs \6\ that was designed to aid industry in
identifying and mitigating risks of aging aircraft. At the time, the
roadmap identified the general aviation fleet as having an average age
of more than 35 years old. Almost 20 years later, the age of these
aircraft is reflected in FAA data that shows their attrition. The
availability of non-experimental fixed-wing single-engine airplanes has
decreased from 139,519 in 2010 to 126,076 in 2022, a reduction of over
13,400 airplanes.\7\ With fewer new models being produced in the normal
category and the ever-increasing average age and attrition of normal
category airplanes, pilots naturally will be driven to other
alternatives such as light-sport category and EAB airplanes. Up to now,
pilots have favored EAB airplanes because their performance resembles
that of the normal category. However, this rule should provide a safer
alternative of equivalent performing, factory-built light-sport
category aircraft that meet airworthiness requirements.
Though expanding the light-sport category to attract new entrants
from those aircraft ``lower'' on the safety continuum was the intent of
the proposed rule, such expansions raise the question of what happens
when new entrants are from those who may have otherwise chosen aircraft
``higher'' on the safety continuum. Some commenters argued that such a
shift away from normal category aircraft, for example, would reduce
overall safety

[[Page 35041]]

and counteract the benefit of shifting ownership away from EAB
aircraft. The fatal accident rate data discussed in the NPRM for non-
commercial, single, piston-engine light-sport and normal category
airplanes shows these rates have been very similar since 2018. Also,
though fatal accident rates for EAB airplanes have been generally
decreasing since 2011, these rates are clearly higher than for the
light-sport and normal categories. That is, these relative comparisons
of fatal accident rates mitigate concerns with potential shifts of new
entrants away from type-certified aircraft and further support the
safety arguments for expanding the light-sport category. FAA also notes
the ability to purchase new, less expensive EAB aircraft has driven
pilots from normal category to EAB aircraft.
A goal of this final rule is to apply the safety continuum to
safely expand light-sport category aircraft and light-sport airman
rules via safety standards of appropriate rigor that balance
flexibility for manufacturers and availability to consumers. Given the
proven track record of LSA consensus standards since at least 2011,\8\
FAA believes it can expand the privileges afforded light-sport category
aircraft with an increase in safety based on the flexible consensus
standard process. By applying new part 22 requirements to and loosening
operational restrictions on light-sport category aircraft, FAA safely
expands the middle ground on the safety continuum between relatively
risky experimental aircraft and relatively expensive normal-category
aircraft.
FAA received approximately 16 comments related to FAA's fundamental
safety arguments for the NPRM and the safety continuum. Though
fundamentally supporting the premise of FAA's proposals for the
manufacture, certification, operation, maintenance, and alteration of
light-sport aircraft, AEA and ARSA jointly asserted that the proposed
rules duplicate the primary category and the arguments for amending
design and certification requirements for light-sport aircraft are
unnecessary, duplicative, and frivolous rulemaking.
FAA disagrees. Eligibility for certification in the primary and
(current or as-amended) light-sport categories are different in terms
of acceptable classes of aircraft, weights, propellers, and engines. In
addition, airworthiness standards for the primary category are largely
taken from the applicable and more rigorous normal category standards,
whereas light-sport category aircraft requirements in part 22 are less
rigorous. Finally, design and production certification procedures for
the primary category, as opposed to the light-sport category, rely on
the more rigorous methods of showing and finding compliance to
applicable requirements during type and production certifications. FAA
does not issue a type or production certificate to a manufacturer of
light-sport category aircraft but, instead, relies on a manufacturer's
statement of compliance to applicable requirements. FAA, therefore,
disagrees that the amended light-sport category duplicates the primary
category.
As discussed below, AEA and ARSA commented that prior FAA attempts
over the last thirty years to apply the safety continuum, simplify
certification procedures, enable new technologies, and improve safety
have largely under-delivered for the industry. AEA and ARSA stated
another rulemaking is unwarranted. Contrary to this sentiment, the vast
majority of comments received on the NPRM were generally in favor of
the MOSAIC rulemaking effort, even in cases where there were specific
suggestions or recommendations as to particular sections of the
proposed rule. FAA notes that all but the newest 14 CFR parts have been
amended multiple times. Despite FAA's best efforts to collect data,
form arguments, and draft rules, and despite strong contributions from
the public in the form of aviation rulemaking committees,
recommendations, data, comments submitted to rulemaking dockets, and
such, few rules are static. That rules require regular amendment is not
a reflection of weaknesses with the rulemaking process but of its
strength in continuously adjusting based on experience with prior
amendments, changes in the industry, advances in technology, and such.
FAA disagrees with the notion that this rulemaking is frivolous and
believes changes to the CFR in this final rule are supported with
appropriate rationale. And generally, as AEA and ARSA ``acknowledge,''
the primary category ``predated the wide-spread development of
industry-led aviation consensus standards and[,] as such, [it] has not
been utilized to its intended purpose.'' \9\ Over 200 models of light-
sport category aircraft have been manufactured compared with seven
primary category aircraft models, even though the primary category has
been available to manufacturers for over thirty years.
AEA and ARSA commented that the risk related to an unbound, speed-
based aircraft proposal has not been addressed. FAA disagrees with the
comment that the light-sport category is ``unbound.'' The light-sport
category is subject to the eligibility requirements of Sec. 22.100 and
the design, production, and airworthiness requirements of part 22. FAA
considered risk in applying its safety continuum concept. Per the
safety continuum concept, FAA compares the level of exposure of the
public to risk with the level of rigor in issuance of a certificate.
For recreational operations, FAA considered EAB aircraft, light-sport
category aircraft, primary category aircraft, and normal category
aircraft. Though accident rates for EAB aircraft have been consistently
declining for about 10 years, that category remains a concern to FAA
because it is not required to meet 14 CFR or FAA-accepted design or
production standards. In addition, EAB aircraft are ``unbounded'' in
terms of aircraft design, including aircraft class, weight, number of
seats, number and type of engines, stalling and maximum speeds, and 14
CFR airworthiness standards. The proposed rule addressed the risk
consideration of all such expansions, including the increase of stall
and maximum speeds for light-sport category aircraft. The changes to
the rule will increase safety of light-sport category aircraft through
the requirements of part 22 and by attracting aviators who would
otherwise gravitate toward EAB aircraft.
AEA and ARSA commented that the safety continuum includes three
pillars of recreational aircraft categories-light-sport, primary, and
normal categories-and proposals to one pillar affect the other pillars.
AEA and ARSA commented that proposals must be weighed as to their
effect on the entire safety continuum and the Agency, in coordination
with industry, must consider all three pillars and develop policy and
guidance to support 30 years of Agency promises.
FAA agrees that light-sport category aircraft should be considered
in relation to experimental aircraft, primary category aircraft, and
normal category aircraft. Though additional policies and guidance for
applying the safety continuum to the ``three pillars of recreational
aviation'' may be beneficial, FAA carefully applied safety continuum
concepts in consideration of these three pillars in this rulemaking.
GAMA recommended that FAA develop policy, guidance, and training to
enable consistent application and full benefits of safety continuum
concepts for all general aviation products. GAMA commented that it
supports proposed light-sport category size, performance and scope
increases. However, GAMA asserted the removal of design limitations
would increase design complexity and therefore increase risk.

[[Page 35042]]

GAMA did not offer supporting data or a rationale for this assertion,
nor did it state why or to what extent raising the aircraft speed or
increasing the maximum number of seats from two to four would increase
the design complexity to such a degree as to materially increase risks
related to design compliance and aircraft conformity.
While increases in complexity and speed generally increase risk,
FAA believes the degree of expansion in size, configuration, and
performance of light sport category aircraft under this final rule may
be implemented with common, well-proven aircraft designs, engines,
propellers, systems, equipage, and technology. As such, and as
discussed throughout the NPRM and this final rule, the complexity of
light-sport category aircraft designs can be increased without an
appreciable increase in risk related to aircraft design compliance and
conformity. For example, engine manufacturers typically offer a base
engine model with small variations from that base design to achieve a
range in horsepower to accommodate a range of aircraft weights and
speeds. As another example, for retractable landing gear, the light-
sport rules have included provisions for the manufacture of amphibious
aircraft with retractable landing gear since 2007.\10\ Through
September 30, 2024, operator error led to 14 ``gear-up'' landings on
land and 10 ``gear-down'' events on water with amphibious light-sport
category airplanes. Except for those operator errors, retractable
landing gear have not been a source of fatal accidents or safety issues
related to compliance, conformity, or operations for amphibious, light-
sport category airplanes.
Regarding the proposed expansions of operating privileges with
light-sport category aircraft: aerial work, night operations, and
personal, non-commercial transportation, GAMA also commented on
increased risk from expanding operations along with increasing the
maximum number of occupants. FAA considered safety and risk in its
rationale for each of these expansions. Though GAMA raised general risk
concerns with these expansions, GAMA did not address the specific
rationale for these proposals, provide specific evidence of risk, or
provide any new information or data that would cause FAA to change its
determination to finalize these as proposed.
GAMA commented that each area of expansion of light-sport category
design limits, performance capabilities, and operating privileges lack
sufficient supporting operational safety data and need more
consideration and understanding of FAA intended risk mitigations.
Though GAMA members did not attain consensus on specific
recommendations, GAMA also compiled various, non-consensus
recommendations from different members in its comments for FAA to
consider as mitigations. As discussed previously, FAA considered each
proposal using safety continuum concepts to achieve the appropriate,
intended safety outcomes.
GAMA recommended further FAA risk evaluations related to design
compliance, production conformance, and the proposed increases in the
NPRM, and suggested FAA consider if additional safety requirements are
appropriate.
Importantly, FAA notes the comments from GAMA members and from GAMA
consider risk only in terms of how risk may change within the light-
sport category from the proposed expansions. GAMA did not provide
supporting data or rationale to support its assertion that each
expansion of the light-sport category would increase risk. FAA also
pointed out that, as discussed in the NPRM, FAA considered safety and
risk for not only the light-sport category, but for broader
ramifications of safety and risk to recreational general aviation
stemming from the scope of the light-sport category in terms of design
limits, aircraft performance, and operating privileges. GAMA's comments
reflect an isolated focus on the light-sport category itself. FAA
considered the goals and arguments for decreasing risk and improving
safety more broadly within recreational general aviation and the
overarching goal of attracting general aviation toward lower risk
aircraft than EAB aircraft.
GAMA members suggested the following for potential consideration:
first, a two-tiered concept for light-sport category aircraft based on
design and production risks; second, FAA could apply risk mitigations
via part 22 like the certification levels in part 23; and third, FAA
could consider identifying high-risk design features that would be
subject to a higher rigor of certification requirements. GAMA did not
provide supporting data or rationale to support assertions that each
expansion of design limitations would increase risks and necessitate
this recommendation. The NPRM addressed risk considerations of all
expansions of light-sport category aircraft that could be designed and
produced under this rule. Also, part 23 assigns certification levels
based on maximum seating configurations: level 1 for 0 to 1 passenger;
level 2 for two to six passengers; level 3 for seven to nine
passengers; and level 4 for 10 to 19 passengers. With the maximum
number of occupants for light-sport category aircraft limited to four
for airplanes and two for other classes of aircraft in Sec. 22.100(a),
FAA finds that the range in complexity of light-sport category aircraft
as signified by maximum seating configuration does not merit
establishing multiple certification levels or tiers in part 22.
Similarly, part 23 establishes low- and high-speed performance levels
below and above 250 knots CAS that impact applicable part 23
airworthiness standards for type certification. Since the maximum speed
of light sport category aircraft is limited to 250 knots CAS in Sec.
22.100(a)(4), FAA finds the lower maximum speed of light-sport category
aircraft does not merit the two-tiered approach of part 23 concerning
maximum airspeed.
USUA commented that light-sport category aircraft fatal accident
rates were comparable to type-certificated aircraft, implying that
consensus standards are already high level and there may come a point
where additional regulation is no longer safety enhancing. FAA notes
that much of the additional regulation in this final rule constitutes
expansions in eligibility of aircraft that may be certificated in the
light sport category, operating privileges, and airman privileges.
Rather than adding regulatory burden, such expansions generally give
the public more options and privileges. In establishing new design,
production, and airworthiness requirements under part 22, FAA was
careful to set appropriate requirements for aircraft that fall between
experimental aircraft and normal category aircraft on the safety
continuum.
One commenter stated the logic of FAA's safety continuum concept is
flawed and does not reflect that pilot error, not mechanical failure,
is the leading cause of fatal accidents. FAA applies the safety
continuum concept not only to rules related to aircraft certification
but to rules for pilot, repairman, and operating certifications. Pilots
holding an airline transport pilot certificate are subject to more
rigorous certification requirements than sport pilots. Setting
appropriate pilot certification requirements does not allow FAA to
disregard safety improvements to regulations for aircraft
certification. To maintain and continuously improve safety, FAA applies
the safety continuum concept to not only pilot certifications, but to
all safety regulations, including aircraft, repairman, and operating
certification requirements.

[[Page 35043]]

That commenter also asserted the NPRM lacks statistical data
supporting that increased operating privileges and aircraft capability
increases risks to the flying public, and the data relied upon by FAA
is ``skewed.'' FAA disagrees. The data sources for flight hour and
accident data were posted in the docket with the proposed rule and FAA
used simple mathematical division of flight hours by the number of
accidents to yield the accident rates cited.
This commenter further suggested that FAA should have used
information from the 2020 AOPA Nall Report rather than the 2021 GA
Survey because the GA Survey lacks data on the total number of flight
hours flown by pilot certificate held. FAA notes that pilots of various
levels of experience and grade of certificate may, in some cases,
conduct similar operations along the safety continuum. The accident
rates posted on the NPRM docket used data from the AOPA Nall Report and
FAA GA Survey. However, the resultant accident rates in the NPRM were
not intended to examine pilot experience level or the grade of pilot
certificate. Instead, those rates are simple calculations of the
cumulative number of fatal accidents divided by cumulative flight hours
per year for non-commercial, small, fixed-wing, fixed-landing-gear
airplanes with reciprocating engines for each of three categories of
aircraft. This is a common type of calculation that provides a top-
level safety metric by combining all fatal accidents regardless of
their root causes or corresponding pilot characteristics. In this case,
the resultant accident rate trends generally show decreases from the
EAB aircraft to light-sport category and again from the light-sport
category to the normal category. Decreases in the EAB fatal accident
rate trend reflect collaborative efforts between FAA and industry to
adopt numerous voluntary safety improvements in aircraft equipage as
well as flight test and operational procedures. Both decreases in fatal
accident rate trends correspond with increased rigor in certification
requirements and procedures for light-sport and normal category
aircraft. These accident rate trend comparisons were helpful in
assessing the safety outcomes of the certification requirements for
light-sport category aircraft under the 2004 final rule and safety
continuum arguments for expanding eligibility limits for this category
under the NPRM and this final rule.
A commenter expressed concern about the proposed increased
operating privileges for recreational pilots. That commenter asserted
that FAA is focused on promoting aviation rather than safety by
supporting sport pilots flying larger aircraft and trying to make
recreational flying easier.
Recreational operations already occur in multiple categories and
types of aircraft, including approximately 30,000 EAB aircraft. FAA
disagrees that the NPRM is focused on promoting aviation rather than
safety. Rather, the NPRM focused on applying safety continuum concepts
to provide safer alternative aircraft for recreational operations.
Though the increase of operating privileges or aircraft capability for
light-sport category aircraft considered in isolation may increase risk
concerning light-sport category operations, those risks are more than
offset by providing a safer, appealing alternative to EAB aircraft.
One commenter commented that the NPRM increases the complexity and
decreases safety by allowing things like retractable landing gear,
variable pitch propellors, multiple engines, and full authority digital
electric controls (FADEC). This commenter also commented that the goal
of the NPRM seems to be to increase the markets for these aircraft.
FAA disagrees. As described throughout the NPRM and as summarized
in this final rule in the light-sport and general aviation safety
rationales, the drivers for this rule are improving the safety of the
light-sport category and of general aviation more broadly. For example,
EAB aircraft may already be built with retractable landing gear,
multiple engines, FADECs, variable pitch propellers, and other
``complex'' systems. This rule seeks to make systems available on
light-sport category aircraft that correlate with lower fatal accident
rates and meet FAA-accepted design, production, and airworthiness
standards. FAA intends for these safety improvements to make these
aircraft a more appealing alternative to EAB aircraft. Regardless, FAA
notes that part 22 rules do not mandate installation of complex systems
such as multiple engines, variable pitch propellers, retractable
landing gear, and such. Such configurations and systems have higher
initial and recurring costs and, as in the EAB aircraft fleet, will not
likely represent the majority of configurations. See section IV.K.1.a.
for discussion of aerial work with light-sport category aircraft.
Some individual commenters expressed general opposition to changes
to the 2004 final rule. As described in the NPRM, FAA views successes
with the light-sport sector as the basis for further amendments to
improve safety and to give the public more options and privileges. FAA
notes that many of the basic certification requirements and procedures
of the original rules are unchanged, such as issuance of a special
airworthiness certificate to a light-sport category aircraft based on a
manufacturer's statement of compliance and issuance of a sport pilot
certificate based on compliance with subpart J of part 61.
One commenter asserted that though the NPRM frequently referred to
the safety continuum concept as supporting rationale for its proposals,
analytical substance is lacking to support the conclusion that the
safety continuum is satisfied. In both the NPRM and the final rule, the
safety continuum concept was applied by comparing and analyzing 14 CFR
requirements among different types and levels of certification. For
aircraft certification, FAA compared requirements among experimental,
light-sport category, primary category, and normal category aircraft.
For pilot certification, FAA compared training requirements
commensurate to the certificate privileges and limitations among sport,
recreational, and private pilots. Per the safety continuum concept, the
exposure of the public to risk should correspond with the rigor of the
related certificate. For an aircraft, exposure of the public concerns
passengers aboard the aircraft, proximity to other aircraft, and
populations on the ground. For aircraft that allow a higher exposure of
the public, those aircraft should be subject to more rigorous
certification requirements. That is, the safety continuum primarily
focuses on relative comparisons of regulatory requirements for analysis
and appropriate alignment of corresponding requirements. That is why
FAA included a safety continuum view of the MOSAIC rulemaking \11\ on
the NPRM docket. This document shows a high-level, side-by-side
comparison of the experimental, light-sport, and type-certificated
sectors for recreational aircraft that FAA used to help with
considerations for this proposal from a safety continuum perspective
and a safety continuum view of related pilot rules, including seating/
occupant limitations. See section IV.H.1.a for a discussion of the
passenger limitation for sport pilots.
One commenter requested clarification of NPRM statements about
amateur-built aircraft being lower on the safety continuum than light-
sport category aircraft. FAA ranks categories or groups of operations
on the safety continuum based on the level of risk to the public.
Greater potential risk to the general public requires greater rigor in

[[Page 35044]]

certification standards and procedures. EAB aircraft have not been
found to meet FAA or FAA-accepted design or production standards and
therefore present a higher level of risk. FAA mitigates that risk for
EAB aircraft by requiring those aircraft to meet operating limitations
that reduce the risk to the public. Light-sport category aircraft under
this rule are subject to a higher rigor in certification requirements
and procedures for design, production, and airworthiness than EAB
aircraft. Therefore, light sport category aircraft are higher on the
aircraft safety continuum than EAB aircraft and can be operated under
less restrictive operating limitations than EAB aircraft. Light sport
category aircraft that meet the requirements of this rule can safely
perform operations such as flight training and operations over densely
populated areas. Light sport category aircraft that meet certain
requirements under this final rule may also conduct certain aerial
work. Though these operations provide more risk to the public, FAA
considers that these operations still reach an appropriate level of
overall safety because light-sport category aircraft will be subject to
higher rigor in certification requirements and procedures for design,
production, and airworthiness than EAB aircraft.
One commenter asserted light-sport category airplanes had lower
fatal accident rates than type-certificated aircraft in FAA statistics
for 2020 and 2021 and the NPRM incorrectly implies that light-sport
category aircraft are less safe than certified, general aviation, or
non-commercial planes. FAA disagrees that it misrepresented this data
in the NPRM. FAA provided this data on the docket; though the commenter
is correct that accident rates were lower in 2020 for light-sport
category airplanes, the accident rate for light-sport category
airplanes was higher than the accident rate for type-certificated
airplanes in 2021.
One commenter asserted this rule decreases safety by allowing
larger numbers of less qualified pilots to operate larger numbers of
less proven planes. FAA disagrees. The 2004 final rule and the proposed
rule included safety arguments concerning the certification of light-
sport category aircraft and sport pilots. FAA has determined the
requirements of the rule allow for sufficient sport pilot
qualifications and sufficient certification of light-sport category
aircraft to maintain safety.
ANAC comments that proposed expansions in eligibility for
certification of light-sport category aircraft would allow similar,
small aircraft to be designed as light-sport, primary, normal, or
powered-lift category aircraft. ANAC also comments that, despite
similarities in aircraft designs among these categories, certification
requirements are unnecessarily dissimilar. For example, consensus
standards for light-sport category airplanes are different than for
normal category airplanes, and consensus standards are not acceptable
means of compliance for normal category rotorcraft. Given industry
interest in the benefits of type certification for similar, entry-
level, small aircraft such as additional operating privileges and
broader access to international markets, ANAC asks how FAA intends to
improve type certification of such aircraft with lighter, more
consistent requirements.
FAA notes the NPRM did not propose amendment of requirements for
normal or primary category aircraft or powered lift. All regulations,
means of compliance, policies, and procedures applicable to issuance of
a type certificate for a normal, primary, or powered lift category
aircraft are unchanged by this rulemaking. As mentioned by the
commenter, type-certificated aircraft retain some advantages over
light-sport category aircraft. For example, normal category aircraft
have higher operating privileges such as carriage of people and
property for compensation and hire, sightseeing, and international air
navigation. Also, as mentioned by the commenter, through type
validation procedures, type-certificated aircraft have access to
international markets that require type certification. FAA considers
all future rulemaking priorities such as further amendments of type
certification requirements based on a number of factors, including
feedback from industry, the public, and its bilateral partners.
TCCA expressed concern that the expansions of the light-sport
category works against incentivizing small airplane manufacturers to
pursue type certification and decreases new, small, modern type
certified airplanes under amendment 64 of part 23 \12\ and equivalent
foreign standards. Since amendment 64 of part 23 took effect on August
30, 2017, FAA has issued two type certificates under that part for
passenger airplanes with one to four seats.\13\ Given how few two to
four seat aircraft have obtained type certificates, FAA believes the
opportunity cost of discouraging them is low. This final rule has no
impact on design and production of type-certificated airplanes with
more than four seats.
FAA notes that manufacturers continue to have freedom to design and
produce airplanes with four or less seats in the normal, primary, or
light-sport categories in consideration of intended operating
privileges, market demands, and international transferability. Because
safety must be FAA's top priority, FAA must consider the safety
incentives produced by improving the safety of the light-sport
category.

D. Separation of Limits for Light-Sport Category Aircraft and Sport
Pilots

1. Definition of ``Light-Sport Aircraft''
The NPRM proposed removal of the definition of ``light-sport
aircraft'' to enable separation of limits for light-sport category
aircraft and sport pilots as discussed in the next section, section
IV.D.2. Accordingly, the NPRM proposed moving eligibility requirements
for certification of light-sport category aircraft, experimental light-
sport category aircraft, sport pilots, and repairmen (light-sport) to
the applicable 14 CFR parts. FAA received 8 comments related to this
proposal from 5 industry associations and 3 individuals. All comments
supported this proposed change.
GAMA, AOPA, EAA, NATA, and NBAA commented in favor of removing the
light-sport aircraft definition and incorporating relevant language in
part 22. These commenters noted the difficulty in obtaining exemptions
from parameters established by a definition.
One commenter recommended renaming the defined term ``light-sport
aircraft,'' to ``Sport Pilot Eligible'' aircraft. However, the NPRM
specifically eliminates this definition in favor of establishing
separate and different limits for an aircraft that may be certificated
in the light-sport category and for aircraft that may be operated by a
sport pilot. Retaining and renaming the title of the definition as
recommended by the commenter would confuse and undermine a fundamental
proposal in this rule that is discussed in section IV.D.1. Therefore,
FAA is not adopting this recommendation.
This final rule adopts the proposal to remove the definition of
``light-sport aircraft'' and replace it with separate eligibility
requirements for certification of light-sport category aircraft,
experimental light-sport category aircraft, sport pilots, and repairmen
(light-sport) in the applicable 14 CFR parts.

[[Page 35045]]

2. Elimination of the Definition of ``Light-Sport Aircraft'' Enables
Separation of Limits for Light-Sport Category Aircraft and Sport Pilots
Eliminating the definition of ``Light-sport aircraft'' from Sec.
1.1 enables FAA to establish separate limits for new light-sport
category aircraft and for sport pilots. Understanding this concept is
helpful to understand provisions of this final rule discussed in
sections IV.F concerning certification of light-sport category aircraft
and in IV.H concerning limits for sport pilots.
Since 2004, the Sec. 1.1 light-sport aircraft definition has
defined the design and performance requirements for light-sport
aircraft as well as the aircraft design and performance limits for
sport pilot certificate privileges. The definition was uniquely
structured to not only provide the design and performance criteria of
light-sport category aircraft, but it also specified the design and
performance criteria for other categories and types of aircraft to
determine which aircraft a sport pilot could act as the pilot in
command (PIC).\14\ Simply put, this structure allowed EAB aircraft and
normal and primary category aircraft to be light-sport aircraft for the
purpose of sport pilot privileges if they met the design and
performance requirements within the light-sport aircraft definition.
The definition also included other requirements such as for the design
of gyroplane rotor blade systems, even though gyroplanes are prohibited
from being certificated as light-sport category aircraft.\15\
The light-sport aircraft definition included maximum takeoff
weights for land and water-based operations and maximum airspeeds for
VH, VNE, and VS1. Other design
limitations in the definition specified maximum seating capacity,
engine, propeller, and rotor requirements, as well as cabin
pressurization and landing gear requirements.
Starting October 22, 2025, new aircraft performance limits and
design requirements in Sec. 61.316 of this rule go into effect, which
will replace the performance limits and design requirements in the
light-sport aircraft definition for which aircraft sport pilots may
operate. However, the design and performance requirements in the light-
sport aircraft definition will continue to be applied for airworthiness
certification of light-sport category aircraft under Sec. 21.190.
Then, on July 24, 2026, the light-sport aircraft definition is removed
from part 1 and new aircraft design and performance requirements for
airworthiness certification in the light-sport category are relocated
to Sec. 22.100.
The removal of these requirements from the Sec. 1.1 definition and
separation of pilot and aircraft requirements is beneficial for several
reasons. Separating aircraft design and performance requirements of
light-sport category and sport pilot certification more easily allows
regulations to be developed that meet the specific needs of aircraft
and pilots. For example, while the NPRM initially proposed the same
stall speed for both light-sport category airplanes and sport pilots,
for this final rule FAA recognized that the different purposes for
these limits could result in different stall speed limits. Based on the
comments received and the specific needs of aircraft and pilots, FAA
determined different stall speed requirements are appropriate for the
final rule. The basis for these different stall speeds is discussed in
detail in this final rule in sections IV.F.6.b and IV.H.1.c.
Separate limits allow certification requirements for light-sport
category aircraft to be established without regard to a specific grade
of pilot certificate as is true for other aircraft categories. Under
this rule, light-sport category aircraft are intended for operation by
all grades of pilots. That is, sport pilots will no longer be
restricted to operation of light-sport aircraft (or light-sport
category aircraft under this final rule); part 61 will set forth design
and performance limits that correspond to the scope of training and
operational limits of sport pilots. Instead, the aircraft design and
performance expansions in this final rule allow light-sport category
aircraft to achieve greater performance and utility that is equivalent
to four-seat normal and primary category aircraft as well as EAB
aircraft. The result will make light-sport category aircraft
performance more desirable to the other 490,470 certificated pilots
(non-student) \16\ with greater training and operational experience.
This approach also eliminates complications for obtaining exemptions
from regulations that are tied to both aircraft and pilot requirements.

E. Special Airworthiness Certificates for Light-Sport Category Aircraft

1. Application Documentation (Sec. 21.190(c))
Per Sec. 21.190(c) in this final rule, an applicant for a special
airworthiness certificate in the light-sport category must provide FAA
with a manufacturer's statement of compliance (SOC) and a pilot's
operating handbook (POH). The POH includes operating instructions and
limitations, a flight training supplement, a listing of any authorized
aerial work operations, and any instructions or limitations necessary
to safely conduct towing operations. The POH in this final rule
replaces the current Sec. 21.190(b)(1) aircraft operating instructions
(AOI) requirement. In addition, an applicant must provide a maintenance
and inspection program for the aircraft. Since this final rule makes
compliance with part 36 for new light-sport category aircraft voluntary
(see section IV.N), this final rule also includes conforming amendments
to Sec. 21.190(c). Those conforming amendments eliminate the proposed
application requirements to include a statement in the POH regarding
compliance with part 36 and submission of evidence that the aircraft
has demonstrated compliance with the applicable requirements of part 36
of this chapter.
GAMA recommended that the manufacturer's SOC, POH, and maintenance
and inspection program be prescribed in subpart B of part 22. FAA
disagrees with prescribing these documents in part 22 because they are
already required in Sec. 21.190(c) as part of the special
airworthiness certificate application process. The SOC requirements are
listed in Sec. 21.190(d) and are the foundation of the light-sport
category airworthiness certification process. FAA does not favor adding
requirements for the POH and the maintenance and inspection program in
part 22 because they are not FAA-approved or accepted documents, unlike
the documentation requirements for type certificated aircraft meeting
the airworthiness standards of parts 23, 25, 27, or 29. Part 22 also
differs from the airworthiness standards for type certificated aircraft
in that part 22 covers a wide variety of aircraft classes whereas the
parts for type certificated aircraft are specific to airplanes or
rotorcraft. This would make adding POH and maintenance program
documentation requirements to part 22 difficult because they could not
be tailored to meet the specific needs of each class of aircraft.
2. Pilot's Operating Handbook (Sec. 21.190(c)(2))
Streamline Designs suggested revised language for Sec.
21.190(c)(2)(i) so that the provision reflects industry best practices
and addresses normal and emergency procedures. FAA agrees to revise
this sentence to capture elements discussed in the NPRM. As such, FAA
will remove ``recommended'' and add ``normal'' and ``emergency'' to
this requirement.

[[Page 35046]]

``Recommended'' is being removed because it may result in confusion
over the intended outcome of the operating instructions and limitations
or appear as limiting. Certain operating instructions and limitations
in the manufacturer's POH need to be complied with to prevent death,
injury, or damage to the aircraft and should not be thought of as
``recommendations.'' Examples of these include certain airspeeds such
as VA and operating instructions such as warnings, cautions,
and emergency procedures. ``Normal'' and ``emergency'' have been
included in this requirement to provide clarity, reflect the NPRM
preamble discussion, and expand the requirement beyond just abnormal
procedures. In the NPRM, FAA stated the operating instructions should
address normal, abnormal, and emergency operating procedures.
Accordingly, the final rule revises Sec. 21.190(c)(2)(i) to read,
``Operating instructions and limitations to safely accommodate all
environmental conditions and normal, abnormal, and emergency procedures
likely to be encountered in the aircraft's intended operations.''
Streamline Designs also commented on Sec. 21.190(c)(2)(ii) stating
that ``all foreseeable conditions'' could be problematic as it is too
open-ended. FAA agrees and has changed ``all foreseeable conditions''
to ``all likely conditions.'' This change will narrow the scope to
flight training conditions that are likely or probable, based on the
aircraft and its flight envelope, instead of hypothetical scenarios
whose occurrence may be unrealistic, inconsequential, or difficult to
predict. Accordingly, Sec. 21.190(c)(2)(ii) has been changed to read,
``A flight training supplement to enable safe operation of the aircraft
within the intended flight envelope under all likely conditions.''
Jump Aero recommended that the POH include all necessary procedures
for pilots to mitigate likely failures. Reliable Robotics similarly
suggested the POH include simplified flight control failure conditions
and pilot mitigations to improve Sec. 22.180. FAA notes these
recommendations are already captured in the final rule text for Sec.
21.190(c)(2)(i) and (ii) that provides POH requirements as part of the
application for a special airworthiness certificate for a light-sport
category aircraft.
Streamline Designs recommended Sec. 21.190(c)(2)(iii) include the
words ``if applicable'' so aircraft manufacturers would not have to add
a section in their POH just to indicate aerial work does not apply. In
the final rule aerial work is authorized, per Sec. 91.327, for light-
sport category aircraft certificated on or after July 24, 2026 and
Sec. 22.195 requires each light-sport category aircraft to be ground
and flight tested to ensure the aircraft can safely conduct any aerial
work operation designated by the manufacturer. FAA disagrees with this
recommendation. Section 21.190(c)(2)(iii) does not require aircraft
manufacturers to state aerial work operations that may not be safely
conducted so ``if applicable'' is not necessary. Instead, FAA
encourages consensus standards organizations to consider safety
implications of omitting mention of aerial work when creating consensus
standards for the POH. Omission of aerial work may be confusing to the
operator.
Though not proposed in the NPRM, in response to suggestions from
commentors, this final rule includes a requirement for the POH to
include any instructions or limitations necessary to safely conduct
towing operations in Sec. 21.190(c)(iv). FAA proposed to authorize
limited towing for compensation or hire in the NPRM, but did not
include a requirement for the POH. FAA is correcting that omission
here. Towing was added to Sec. 21.190(c)(iv) because Sec. 91.327
authorizes limited towing for compensation or hire and towing can put
similar loads on aircraft structures as certain aerial work operations.
FAA has already accepted ASTM consensus standards for light-sport
category airplane and weight-shift-control aircraft to include
manufacturer-provided instructions and operating limitations for the
towing of gliders in the aircraft's POH. For example, paragraph A1.7 in
the annex of ASTM Standard F2245, Standard Specification for Design and
Performance of a Light Sport Airplane, states that operating
limitations applicable to towing operations must be established and
included in the POH. Also, ASTM Standard F2746, Standard Specification
for Pilot's Operating Handbook (POH) for Light Sport Airplane, requires
towing instructions be included in the POH. Since light-sport category
aircraft manufacturers of towing-eligible aircraft must currently state
compliance to FAA-accepted consensus standards for the POH, the
addition of towing in Sec. 21.190(c)(iv) is similar to the existing
procedures manufacturers already undertake to provide a comprehensive
POH.
3. Maintenance and Inspection Program (Sec. 21.190(c)(3))
A commenter asked if the maintenance and inspection program in
Sec. 21.190(c)(3) was accepted or approved. FAA will not accept or
approve light-sport category aircraft maintenance and inspection
manuals.
4. Evidence of Compliance With Noise Requirements (Sec.
21.190(c)(2)(iv) and (c)(4))
The NPRM proposed Sec. 21.190(c)(2)(iv) would have required the
aircraft manufacturer to provide a statement that the aircraft has
demonstrated compliance with part 36 of this chapter, the tested noise
levels of the aircraft, and the following statement: ``No determination
has been made by FAA that the noise levels of this aircraft are or
should be acceptable or unacceptable for operation in any location.''
Proposed Sec. 21.190(c)(4) would have required the applicant to
provide evidence that the aircraft has demonstrated compliance with the
applicable requirements of part 36 of this chapter.
Since this final rule makes compliance with part 36 for new light-
sport category aircraft voluntary (see section IV.N), this final rule
eliminates the proposed requirements in Sec. 21.190(c)(2)(iv) for an
applicant to provide the statements, tested noise levels, and the
evidence in Sec. 21.190(c)(4) that the aircraft has demonstrated
compliance with the applicable requirements of part 36 of this chapter.
FAA received comments from numerous commenters on the proposal to
require compliance with part 36. Streamline Designs suggested proposed
Sec. 21.190(c)(2)(iv) be reworded so the POH indicates the noise
standard to which the aircraft complies instead of an actual tested
noise level. Van's Aircraft stated a concern that proposed Sec.
21.190(c)(2)(iv)'s requirement to include ``tested noise levels'' in
the POH would need to be reviewed if a simplified method in consensus
standards is approved. Since this final rule makes compliance with part
36 for new light-sport category aircraft voluntary (see section IV.N),
these comments are no longer applicable with the omission of proposed
Sec. 21.190(c)(2)(iv).
LAMA recommended the part 36 references in proposed Sec.
21.190(c)(2)(iv) and (c)(4) be replaced with ``FAA-accepted consensus
standards for noise.'' USUA recommended the elimination of Sec.
21.190(c)(2)(iv) and (c)(4) from the final rule. LAMA and USUA's
comments are addressed in section IV.N.

[[Page 35047]]

5. Manufacturer's Statement of Compliance (Sec. 21.190(d))
a. Certified and Trained Authorized Representatives
The NPRM proposed that the manufacturer's statement of compliance
require a signature by the manufacturer's authorized representative or
agent who is certified and trained on the requirements associated with
the issuance of a statement of compliance by an organization that
certifies and trains quality assurance staff in accordance with a
consensus standard that has been accepted by FAA.
Streamline Designs asked FAA to explain the meaning of ``agent.''
FAA allows agents to submit various FAA documentation on behalf of the
owner, such as required for aircraft registration (Sec. 47.13) or an
airworthiness certificate application (Sec. 21.173). Though FAA does
not define ``agent,'' it is generally someone outside of the owner's
corporation or business who the owner has authorized to act on its
behalf. FAA has determined that the inclusion of ``or agent'' in the
requirement is redundant since an agent is a type of an authorized
representative of the manufacturer. Accordingly, FAA has removed ``or
agent'' from Sec. 21.190(d)(1).
ALPA cited FAA's 2010 Light-Sport Aircraft Manufacturers Assessment
(LSAMA) Final Report and recommended FAA provide greater regulatory
oversight of manufacturers' statements of compliance substantiating
that aircraft met consensus standards. Though this final rule does not
specifically address FAA oversight of manufacturers' SOCs, it does
establish a regulatory framework to address the consensus standards
compliance concerns identified in the LSAMA Final Report. In addition
to the trained and certified representative specified above to fulfill
the Sec. 21.190(d)(1) requirement, Sec. 22.190 requires the aircraft
to have been found compliant with the provisions of the applicable FAA-
accepted consensus standards by individuals who have been trained on
determining compliance with those consensus standards. These two
regulatory requirements will provide better assurance that a
manufacturer's staff designs, manufactures, and tests the aircraft to
meet the applicable FAA-accepted consensus standards.
FAA oversight of light-sport category aircraft manufacturers and
their facilities will be consistent with the safety continuum. Policies
and procedures for that oversight, including FAA audits, are included
in FAA Order 8130.36, Special Light Sport Aircraft Audit Program, which
will be revised to align with changes in this rule. As explained in the
NPRM, FAA would expand its oversight to verify successful
accomplishment of training by the manufacturer's compliance staff per
Sec. 22.190, as well as the training and certification of
manufacturer's staff who sign the manufacturer's statements of
compliance in Sec. 21.190(d)(1).
b. Manufacturer's Statement Whether an Aircraft is Suitable for Sport
Pilots (NRPM proposed Sec. 21.190(d)(3))
The NPRM proposed Sec. 21.190(d)(3), which would have required a
statement from the light-sport category aircraft manufacturer as to
whether the aircraft met the design and performance requirements
specified in proposed Sec. 61.316 for an aircraft that a sport pilot
would be permitted to operate. Streamline Designs recommended that this
requirement be removed because some light-sport aircraft designs may
have features or operation modes that can be toggled on and off and so
whether the aircraft meets these requirements may not be a clear yes or
no answer.
Because sport pilots may or may not have the necessary endorsements
for airplanes designed with controllable pitch propellers or
retractable landing gear, FAA agrees there may not be a clear ``yes or
no'' answer to whether certain light-sport category aircraft meet the
sport pilot aircraft performance limits and design requirements of
Sec. 61.316. However, FAA disagrees that the Sec. 61.316 requirements
of light-sport category aircraft operated by a sport pilot could be
toggled on or off by means of flipping a switch. For instance, changing
the type of installed propeller, the type of gyroplane rotor system, or
converting a helicopter with simplified flight controls to one with
primary flight controls would be impractical to accomplish with a
toggle switch or be prevented by design requirements.
Instead, FAA did not include proposed Sec. 21.190(d)(3) in the
final rule because sport pilots can fly aircraft with retractable
landing gear or controllable pitch propellers if they have obtained an
endorsement through the requirements specified in Sec. 61.331.
Accordingly, the manufacturer's statement in proposed Sec.
21.190(d)(3) would not have been practical for them to make since sport
pilots may or may not be able to fly aircraft with these features. FAA
will instead rely on a sport pilot's knowledge of the aircraft and part
61 requirements to determine whether they can fly a certain light-sport
category aircraft. With the omission of proposed Sec. 21.190(d)(3),
all subsequent proposed sections in Sec. 21.190(d) have been
renumbered accordingly in this final rule.
c. Manufacturer's Statement on Towing and Aerial Work Operations (Sec.
21.190(d)(3))
The NPRM proposed Sec. 21.190(d)(4), which the final rule
renumbers to Sec. 21.190(d)(3), to require light-sport category
aircraft manufacturers specify aerial work operations they have
determined may be safely conducted with the aircraft and state that the
aircraft has been ground and flight tested to ensure that it can be
operated to safely conduct those operations in accordance with the
instructions and limitations provided by the manufacturer.
The Soaring Society of America and Soaring Safety Foundation
commented that it is uncertain whether manufactures will consider
glider towing operations as included within aerial work operations.
They recommended changes to Sec. Sec. 21.190, 22.120 and 22.195(d) to
clarify glider operations. FAA agrees that Sec. 21.190 and the part 22
sections should be revised to include glider towing operations. Though
glider towing is not an aerial work operation per Sec. 91.327(a)(3),
it should be included in the applicable requirements of Sec. 21.190
and part 22 since glider and other towing operations puts similar loads
on aircraft structures as certain aerial work operations, manufacturers
must comply with FAA-accepted consensus standards for their towing-
capable aircraft, and manufacturers will have to state compliance to
any applicable consensus standards for towing. This topic is further
discussed in section IV.K.1.a.iv.b. Accordingly, this final rule adds
towing operations to Sec. 21.190(c)(2)(iv) and (d)(3), and Sec. Sec.
22.110 and 22.195.
The ability for light-sport category aircraft to tow gliders, per
Sec. 91.327, has existed since the 2004 final rule. However, because
the tow-hitch and installation requirements in Sec. 91.309(a)(2)
require Administrator approval, but light-sport category consensus
standards for towing have only gained FAA-acceptance, this gap has
deterred use of light-sport category aircraft in towing operations.
This situation was explained in section IV.H.6 of the NPRM. This final
rule resolves this issue with new requirements in Sec. 91.309(a)(2)
that allow for Administrator acceptance or approval of a tow-hitch and
its installation. This topic is further discussed in section IV.K.1.b.

[[Page 35048]]

The annexes in ASTM Standards F2245 and F2317 include FAA-accepted
consensus standards for the design and performance of airplanes and
weight shift control aircraft that are used to tow gliders.
Manufacturers of light-sport category aircraft designed for towing
would specify the applicable towing consensus standards on the
manufacturer's statement of compliance per Sec. 21.190(d)(5). Since
light-sport category aircraft manufacturers must currently state
compliance to FAA-accepted consensus standards for their towing-
eligible aircraft, the addition of towing to Sec. 21.190(d)(3) is
similar to the existing procedures manufacturers already undertake to
complete a manufacturer's statement of compliance.
USUA stated the provisions of proposed Sec. 21.190(d)(4) were
unnecessary because aircraft under current consensus standards have
already sustained greater loads for glider towing and flight training.
FAA disagrees with the association's statement that this requirement is
unnecessary. The proposed Sec. 21.190(d)(4) requirement holds
manufacturers accountable for designing and constructing their aircraft
to withstand the loads of, and safely perform, towing and any aerial
work operation they authorize in their aircraft's POH. This requirement
also makes the manufacturer state they have flight tested their
aircraft and found it able to safely conduct the authorized operations.
FAA agrees that glider towing and flight training can put the aircraft
under stressful loads; however certain aerial work operations, such as
dispensing liquids or helicopter sling loads, have their own unique
stressors that need to be addressed in the design. Accordingly, the
requirements of proposed Sec. 21.190(d)(4) are in this rule to ensure
the safety of towing and aerial work operations authorized by the
manufacturer. This final rule will retain Sec. 21.190(d)(4) as
proposed, except, as previously discussed, it will include towing
operations and be renumbered as Sec. 21.190(d)(3).
d. Manufacturer's Statement on Simplified Flight Controls (Sec.
21.190(d)(4))
The NPRM proposed that the manufacturer state whether the aircraft
meets the simplified flight control requirements of Sec. 22.180. FAA
did not receive any comments on this section. This final rule will
retain Sec. 21.190(d)(5) as proposed, except, as previously discussed,
it will be renumbered as Sec. 21.190(d)(4).
e. Manufacturer's Statement on Specified Consensus Standards (Sec.
21.190(d)(5))
The existing requirement in Sec. 21.190(c)(2) that the statement
of compliance specify the consensus standards used by the light-sport
category aircraft manufacturer was retained in proposed Sec.
21.190(d)(6). However, this requirement references subpart B of part
22, which contains the applicable design, production, and airworthiness
requirements for which the consensus standards would serve as a means
of compliance.
EAA, AOPA, NATA, NBAA, and GAMA recommended that FAA allow in the
definition of light-sport aircraft for manufacturers to propose safety
enhancing, risk mitigating technologies and designs in lieu of
satisfying specific regulatory requirements. FAA disagrees with the
associations' recommendation. This final rule removes the light-sport
aircraft definition in part 1 and instead has eligibility requirements
in Sec. 22.100 that specify certain design, performance, and
certification requirements of light-sport category aircraft. As
explained in the NPRM, FAA has created the requirements in part 22 for
FAA-accepted consensus standards to act as a means of compliance to
those requirements. For FAA to accept proposals from individual
aircraft manufacturers in lieu of meeting the regulatory requirements
would be contrary to the reason why FAA has implemented part 22 in this
rule. The associations' proposal would add confusion and undermine
industry member participation in, and weaken, the consensus standards
and process upon which the light-sport category relies upon for safe
aircraft.
Streamline Designs commented that the scope of proposed part 22 and
the associated consensus standards is not limited to airworthiness and
the language should reflect their actual scope. FAA disagrees that
every topic covered by a consensus standard needs to be individually
addressed in part 22. This rule will continue to use the overarching
terms of design, production, and airworthiness. The performance-based
requirements proposed in subpart B of part 22 represent the minimum
requirements a consensus standard would be required to address to be an
acceptable means of compliance for certification of light-sport
category aircraft.
FAA is making a correction to proposed Sec. 21.190(d)(6) to
require that specified consensus standards must be ``accepted or
approved'' by FAA instead of only allowing for FAA ``accepted''
consensus standards. This revision is to account for Sec. 36.0(c)(1),
which the final rule renumbers to Sec. 36.0(b)(1)(i), requiring an FAA
``approved'' noise consensus standard rather than an FAA ``accepted''
one. This final rule will retain Sec. 21.190(d)(6) as proposed, except
for this correction and, as previously discussed, it will be renumbered
as Sec. 21.190(d)(5).
f. Manufacturer's Statement on Quality Assurance System (Sec.
21.190(d)(6))
The NPRM proposed that the manufacturer state that the aircraft
conforms to the manufacturer's design data using the manufacturer's
quality assurance system. FAA did not receive any comments on this
section. This final rule will retain Sec. 21.190(d)(7) as proposed,
except, as previously discussed, it will be renumbered as Sec.
21.190(d)(6).
g. Manufacturer's Statement on Availability of Documents (Sec.
21.190(d)(7))
Similar to the existing Sec. 21.190(c)(4), the NPRM proposed Sec.
21.190(d)(8), which would require manufacturers to state that they will
make the documents specified in Sec. 21.190(c) available to any
interested person. Streamline Designs commented the language is
problematic because it does not exclude competitors and others from
requesting and freely accessing the information and utilizing it in
violation of copyright and intellectual property interests. Streamline
Designs recommended the requirement be changed to limit documents
available to pertinent safety of flight and continued operational
safety requests. FAA disagrees with Streamline Designs' requested
change. The documents in Sec. 21.190(c) include the manufacturer's
statement of compliance, a POH that includes a flight training
supplement, and a maintenance and inspection program. Though these
documents are provided to FAA for airworthiness application, they are
also provided with the aircraft to the purchaser. These documents
should not contain design data beyond what is normally provided in
these documents. Manufacturers who alleged violations of copyright and
intellectual property interests have due recourse under the law. Since
these documents are available to the purchasers when an aircraft is
sold, there should be no further restrictions on their dissemination.
The availability of these documents to the public is particularly
beneficial to prospective purchasers of these aircraft by enhancing
their understanding of the aircraft's operation, limitations, and
maintenance

[[Page 35049]]

and inspection procedures before purchase. This final rule will retain
Sec. 21.190(d)(8) as proposed, except, as previously discussed, it
will be renumbered as Sec. 21.190(d)(7).
h. Manufacturer's Statement on Continued Operational Safety Program and
Safety Directives (Sec. 21.190(d)(8))
The NPRM proposed in Sec. 21.190(d)(9) that the aircraft
manufacturer must state that it will support the aircraft by
implementing and maintaining a documented continued operational safety
program that addresses monitoring and resolving in-service safety of
flight issues, includes provisions for the issuance of safety
directives, includes a process for notifying FAA and all owners of all
safety of flight issues, and includes a process for advance notice to
FAA and all owners of a continued operational safety program
discontinuance or provider change. The NPRM also proposed in Sec.
21.190(d)(10) that the manufacturer must state it will monitor and
correct safety-of-flight issues through the issuance of safety
directives and a continued operational safety program that meets the
specified consensus standard.
EASA asked for clarity on why proposed Sec. 21.190(d)(9) requires
the manufacturer to state it will issue safety directives but in Sec.
91.327 removes the existing requirement for an owner or operator to
comply with safety directives. In response, FAA emphasizes that safety
directives are an important means for maintaining the safety of a
light-sport category aircraft. The aircraft manufacturer issues safety
directives to notify owners and future owners of any safety-critical
information for their aircraft model. FAA has previously accepted ASTM
Standard F3198, Standard Specification for Light-Sport Aircraft
Manufacturer's Continued Operational Safety Program, which states that
safety directives are issued when a condition is found to exist or
could exist in the manufacturer's fleet that may cause an unsafe
condition for flight. The removal of the requirement in Sec. 91.327
for owners and operators to comply with safety directives is discussed
in section IV.J.1.
The NPRM asked for public comments on whether manufacturers who are
discontinuing manufacturing operations should be required to send
design information of affected aircraft to FAA prior to discontinuing
their continued operational safety program. This action could
facilitate FAA's issuance of airworthiness directives if an unsafe
condition is discovered after a manufacturer discontinues its
operations. GAMA commented that the policy for light-sport category
aircraft for the transfer of such data should be similar to the policy
applicable to type certificated products. GAMA also requested that FAA
keep abandoned design information it takes ownership of confidential
unless needed to correct an unsafe airworthiness condition.
FAA has decided against requiring aircraft manufacturers that
discontinue operations to provide their design data to FAA. FAA
declines to institute this requirement because of challenges with
property rights, difficulty reviewing large volumes of data in
different formats, and providing proper storage and retrieval services
for the data. In addition, FAA lacks sufficient staff, facilities, and
equipment to assume such responsibilities for light-sport category
aircraft. FAA encourages aircraft manufacturers to maintain
responsibility for their continued operational safety system even if
they stopped manufacturing that model of aircraft. FAA also encourages
aircraft manufacturers to find a suitable manufacturer or other person
that could assume continued operational safety responsibility.
EASA asked if FAA would act as a state of design for non-U.S.
manufacturers that discontinue production of aircraft or go out of
business. Though a manufacturer discontinuing operations may provide
FAA with affected aircraft design data, FAA would not act as a state of
design.
EASA also asked about the implications on current bilateral
aviation safety agreements of FAA's proposal to remove the requirement
for owners and operators of light-sport category aircraft to comply
with manufacturer safety directives. The NPRM section IV.H.1 discussed
the removal of the requirement to comply with safety directives. The
agreements between the United States and individual European countries
and with the European Union have no light-sport specific provision or
terminology. For example, none of these agreements mention
``manufacturer safety directives,'' a term created for the light-sport
rule of 2004. These agreements equate mandatory continuing
airworthiness action with issuance of an airworthiness directive. Since
Sec. 91.327 provisions for mandatory compliance with airworthiness
directives for light-sport category aircraft are unchanged by this
final rule, and since these agreements do not use the term,
``manufacturer safety directive,'' this final rule does not impact
aviation safety agreements between the United States, the European
Union, and any individual European countries.
Streamline Designs stated NPRM proposed Sec. 21.190(d)(9) and
(d)(10) overlap and should be merged and simplified. FAA disagrees. To
contrast the two in simple terms, proposed (d)(9) requires a
manufacturer's statement of a documented continued operational safety
program, including provisions for issuing safety directives and
proposed (d)(10) requires a manufacturer's statement they will issue
safety directives (if necessary) and have a continued operational
safety program. Accordingly, because the two requirements are for
separate actions by the manufacturer, they will remain as separate
requirements.
This final rule will retain Sec. 21.190(d)(9) as proposed, except,
as previously discussed, it will be renumbered as Sec. 21.190(d)(8).
i. Manufacturer's Statement on Monitoring and Correcting Safety-of-
Flight Issues (Sec. 21.190(d)(9))
The NPRM proposed Sec. 21.190(d)(10), which would require the
manufacturer's statement of compliance to include a statement that it
will monitor and correct safety-of-flight issues through the issuance
of safety directives and a continued operational safety program. This
final rule will retain Sec. 21.190(d)(10) as proposed, except, as
previously discussed, it will be renumbered as Sec. 21.190(d)(9).
j. Manufacturer's Statement on Access to Facilities and Data (Sec.
21.190(d)(10))
The NPRM proposed Sec. 21.190(d)(11) would require the
manufacturer to state that, at the request of FAA, the manufacturer
will provide unrestricted access to its facilities and to all data
necessary to determine compliance with this section or other applicable
requirements of this chapter.
Streamline Designs recommended revising this provision to limit
such access only to ``FAA personnel'' and only to the manufacturer's
facilities. Streamline Designs contended that manufacturers should only
be required to grant unrestricted access to FAA personnel or personnel
it directly contracts with rather than anyone FAA desires. FAA
disagrees with Streamline Designs' requested change since the
requirement is for the determination of compliance with this section or
other applicable requirements of this chapter. For manufacturers with
facilities in the United States, FAA would only request that FAA
employees or its contractors be allowed to have access to facilities
and data to facilitate FAA making a determination of compliance.
However,

[[Page 35050]]

for manufacturers with facilities outside the U.S., FAA would
coordinate with the country's civil aviation authority (CAA) and may
request its assistance. In this circumstance, a country's CAA may make
or assist FAA with the compliance determination.
In addition, FAA disagrees with Streamline Designs because of the
omitted requirement for access to data. Access to a facility alone
would not result in a compliance determination if the manufacturer did
not also allow access to necessary data. The data would show the
material and design properties and production methods necessary to
determine compliance. The manufacturer's cooperation, including
allowing FAA access to data, would also be necessary for the issuance
of an airworthiness directive.
This final rule will retain Sec. 21.190(d)(11) as proposed,
except, as previously discussed, it will be renumbered as Sec.
21.190(d)(10).
k. Manufacturer's Statement on Quality Assurance Systems (Sec.
21.190(d)(11))
The NPRM proposed Sec. 21.190(d)(12) required the manufacturer to
state it has established and maintains a quality assurance system that
meets the requirements of Sec. 22.185 of this chapter. EASA commented
that proposed Sec. 21.190(d) and proposed Sec. Sec. 22.185 and 22.190
contain some overlap of quality assurance system and training
requirements. While EASA offered no change or suggestion beyond this
observation, FAA agrees that the training requirements in proposed
Sec. Sec. 21.190(d)(1) and 22.190 and the quality assurance system
requirements in proposed Sec. Sec. 21.190(d)(12) and 22.185 are
complimentary. For a quality assurance system to be successful, the
design, production, and airworthiness staff members must be trained on
determining compliance with applicable FAA-accepted consensus
standards. As previously explained, the training requirements were
implemented in this rule based on the findings in the LSAMA Final
Report. This final rule will retain Sec. 21.190(d)(12) as proposed,
except, as previously discussed, it will be renumbered as Sec.
21.190(d)(11).
6. Amended Statement of Compliance for Aerial Work (Sec. 21.190(e))
The NPRM proposed that an amended statement of compliance would
permit aerial work operations, as designated by the manufacturer, for
light-sport category aircraft certificated prior to the effective date
of Sec. 21.190 in this rule. These aircraft were originally
certificated without a provision to conduct aerial work.
A commenter stated all existing light-sport category aircraft
should be grandfathered to allow aerial work because it will create an
undue time and financial burden on owners and manufacturers, and in
some cases be impossible because the aircraft manufacturer has gone out
of business. USUA similarly disagreed with this requirement because of
the burden on owners and manufacturers. Despite acknowledging in the
NPRM that obtaining an amended statement of compliance may be ``cost
prohibitive,'' FAA generally disagrees with the commenters. Aircraft
manufacturers of light-sport category aircraft certificated prior to
July 24, 2026 have not assessed the design and structural integrity of
the owner's aircraft or provided corresponding instructions and
limitations in the aircraft's operating instructions or POH and
maintenance manual necessary to safely conduct aerial work operations.
Without this assessment and information from the original manufacturer,
aerial work operations may exceed the safe design loads of aircraft
structures.
In completing the amended statement of compliance, the original
aircraft manufacturer must reference and reaffirm the statements made
in the original statement of compliance and provide a statement that
the design and construction of the aircraft provides sufficient
structural integrity to enable safe operation of the aircraft during
the performance of the specified aerial work operations. In addition,
the NPRM proposed that the manufacturer must state that the aircraft is
able to withstand any foreseeable flight and ground loads. Consistent
with the change of ``foreseeable'' to ``likely'' in Sec.
21.190(c)(2)(ii), this final rule has changed ``foreseeable'' to
``likely'' in this provision to narrow the scope of conditions that are
likely instead of hypothetical scenarios whose occurrence may be
unrealistic or inconsequential.
The aircraft manufacturer must specify FAA-accepted consensus
standards used to make the determinations of the aircraft having
sufficient structural integrity and the ability to withstand any flight
and ground loads associated with aerial work operations listed in the
POH. For example, the specified consensus standards may be comprised of
those for structural integrity and aerial work operations. In addition,
the aircraft manufacturer must revise the aircraft's operating
instructions or POH to indicate those aerial work operations that may
be safely conducted and revise the aircraft's maintenance and
inspection program and flight training supplement with necessary
instructions in compliance with applicable FAA-accepted consensus
standards for these documents.
The final rule will make a correction to the phrase ``required by
paragraph (a) of this section'' by replacing proposed ``(a)'' with
``(e)(4)'' so that the manufacturer must specify FAA-accepted consensus
standards used to make the determination that the design and
construction of the aircraft provides sufficient structural integrity
to enable safe operation of the aircraft during the performance of the
specified aerial work operations and that the aircraft is able to
withstand any likely flight and ground loads. Paragraph (a) was an
incorrect reference since it is about the purpose of Sec. 21.190,
which is for the issuance of special airworthiness certificates that
meet the requirements of the section.

F. Design, Production, and Airworthiness Requirements for Non-Type
Certificated Aircraft

1. Naming of Part 22
Van's Aircraft recommended revising the name of part 22 to
eliminate the words ``Design, Production and,'' noting that Sec.
21.190 and parts 23, 25, and 27 do not use these words. FAA disagrees
with Van's Aircraft's recommendation because the terms ``design'' and
``production'' accurately describe some of the requirements within part
22. FAA created the part 22 name, ``Design, Production, and
Airworthiness Requirements for Non-Type Certificated Aircraft,'' to
avoid confusion with the term ``standards.'' While parts 23, 25, 27,
29, 31, 33, and 35 use the term ``airworthiness standards'' in their
titles, FAA was reluctant to follow this pattern with part 22 because
subpart B contains requirements for which consensus standards would act
as the means of compliance. To avoid confusion and ensure the proper
hierarchy of airworthiness and consensus standards, FAA used a
different naming scheme for part 22. Thus, part 22 uses the term
``requirements'' instead of ``standards.'' Also, the term
``airworthiness'' is used several times Sec. 21.190 when referring to
special airworthiness certificates for the light-sport category.
Contrary to Van's Aircraft's comment, Sec. 21.190(d)(5) includes the
phrase ``design, production, and airworthiness'' when referring to the
requirements of subpart B of part 22.
EASA also commented that the use of part 22 in this rule may create
confusion since EASA has used this identification number for CS-22,
Certification

[[Page 35051]]

Specifications, Acceptable Means of Compliance and Guidance Material
for Sailplanes and Powered Sailplanes. Similarly, AEA/ARSA objected to
the creation of part 22 as written. They stated limiting part 22 to
only non-type certificated aircraft will create unnecessary confusion
throughout the global aviation industry. Instead, they stated it should
cover all aircraft, including sailplanes and primary category aircraft,
not addressed by existing certification standards.
While FAA supports global regulatory harmony with other civil
aviation authorities, the decision to create part 22 for the design,
production, and airworthiness of non-type certificated aircraft was
based on several factors. First, FAA does not believe it would be
appropriate to include the performance-based design, production, and
airworthiness requirements in part 21 as that part is largely limited
to prescribing certification procedures, not certification
requirements. Second, FAA did not want to embed certification
requirements for non-type certificated aircraft between 14 CFR parts
dedicated to type certificated products or articles. Thus, creating
part 22 for this rule was a logical destination based on existing 14
CFR structure where more rigorous airworthiness standards began with
part 23 and continue higher. Finally, instead of designating a specific
14 CFR part to gliders, since 1987 FAA has designated type-certificated
gliders as a special class of aircraft in Sec. 21.17. FAA has used the
applicable airworthiness requirements contained in parts 23, 25, 27,
29, 31, 33, and 35 found by FAA to be appropriate for the aircraft and
applicable to a specific type design, or such airworthiness criteria as
FAA may find provide an equivalent level of safety to those parts. FAA
has also accepted requirements in EASA's CS-22 for the type
certification of gliders.
2. Applicability (Sec. 22.1)
FAA made a correction to Sec. 22.1(a) and removed proposed
``applying for an airworthiness certificate'' since it is redundant
with ``for the issue of special airworthiness certificates.'' The
removal of ``applying for an airworthiness certificate'' does not
affect or change the meaning of Sec. 22.1(a). This section will now
read, ``Except as provided in (c), this part prescribes design,
production, and airworthiness requirements for the issue of special
airworthiness certificates, and changes to those certificates, for non-
type certificated aircraft.''
The NPRM proposed in Sec. 22.1(c) that part 22 did not apply to
aircraft issued an experimental airworthiness certificate, aircraft
operating under a special flight permit, or unmanned aircraft. AEA/ARSA
asked about the applicability of part 22 design and performance
standards to special-light-sport and experimental-light-sport aircraft.
Upon further consideration, FAA realizes that an exception should have
been added to Sec. 22.1(c) for light-sport category kit-built
aircraft. When these kit aircraft receive their experimental
airworthiness certificate, they had been designed and produced to meet
applicable part 22 requirements just like the certificated light-sport
category aircraft their design is based on. Kit aircraft certificated
for the experimental purpose of operating light-sport category kit-
built aircraft, Sec. 21.191(k), are subject to applicable part 22
requirements for the design and production of the aircraft on and after
July 24, 2026 and the final rule includes a correction to address this
situation. Accordingly, in this final rule Sec. 22.1(c) will read,
``This part does not apply to: (i) aircraft issued an experimental
airworthiness certificate, except for light-sport category kit-built
aircraft; (ii) aircraft operating under a special flight permit; or
(iii) unmanned aircraft.'' The correction does not impact or change the
airworthiness certification requirements of light-sport category kit-
built aircraft in Sec. Sec. 21.191 and 21.193 in this final rule.
Special-light sport aircraft is a colloquial term for light-sport
category aircraft certificated under Sec. 21.190. As indicated in the
title of part 22, this part applies to light-sport category aircraft.
A manufacturer's statement of compliance accompanies each light-
sport category kit-built aircraft and identifies the manufacturer's
compliance with applicable FAA-accepted consensus standards. Certain
FAA-accepted consensus standards, such as those for production
acceptance as required by Sec. 22.195, will not be included on the SOC
since the manufacturer did not assemble or test fly the kit aircraft.
Because the kits are built by amateur-builders or with the help of
builder-assist companies, the kits must be certificated for the
experimental purpose.
FAA did not include experimental aircraft certificated for the
Sec. 21.191(l) purpose of operating former light-sport category
aircraft in the Sec. 22.1(c) exception because these aircraft could
have been altered from their former light-sport category configuration
prior to being issued the Sec. 21.191(l) experimental airworthiness
certificate. For instance, the alteration could have occurred while the
aircraft was operating under an experimental airworthiness certificate
for the purpose of research and development or exhibition. The
modification would likely cause the aircraft design to no longer comply
with FAA-accepted consensus standards in effect when the aircraft was
originally certificated in the light-sport category.
AEA/ARSA also asked whether part 22 would apply to non-type
certificated unmanned aircraft. The NPRM stated part 22 would not be
applicable to unmanned aircraft as the proposed requirements would not
be appropriate to address the design of an aircraft that could be
remotely operated. In this final rule, part 22 does not include any
proposed requirements for telemetry, remote control stations, or other
launch or recovery equipment unique to unmanned aircraft. The NPRM
noted the requirements for non-type certificated unmanned aircraft
could be proposed at a later date.
A commenter recommended that new performance-based aerial work and
noise requirements only apply to higher performance aircraft with a
VS1 above 45 knots. FAA disagrees with the commenter since
light-sport category airplanes and gliders are the only aircraft
classes with a stall speed limit more than 45 knots CAS VS1.
Rotorcraft and powered-lift are also high-performance aircraft, but
they do not have a stall speed limit. In this final rule, all light-
sport category aircraft classes must meet the part 22 requirements, as
applicable. As explained in the NPRM, the proposed expansion of the
classes of aircraft eligible for certification under the proposal and
the increase in the size and performance of these aircraft requires the
adoption and use of more detailed performance-based requirements.
Regarding aerial work being only applicable to aircraft with a
VS1 greater than 45 knots, the commenter's position is
overly restrictive as light-sport category aircraft classes other than
airplanes and gliders can also do commercial operations. These other
classes include rotorcraft (helicopters and gyroplanes), powered-lift,
and lighter-than-air aircraft (airships and balloons). The commenter's
statement regarding noise no longer applies since this final rule makes
compliance with part 36 voluntary for new light-sport category aircraft
(see section IV.N).
This final rule adopts Sec. 22.1 as proposed, except for the
correction and Sec. 22.1(c) changes discussed above.
3. Eligibility (Sec. 22.100)
EASA and GAMA commented that it is unclear if the subpart A
requirements

[[Page 35052]]

would also apply to aircraft manufactured outside the United States.
FAA agrees and has made a few corrections to Sec. 22.100(a) and (b) to
provide clarity that all aircraft, whether manufactured inside or
outside the United States, are subject to the applicability
requirements in subpart A and the eligibility requirements in subpart B
of part 22. The proposed title of Sec. 22.100(a), which stated,
``Aircraft manufactured in the United States,'' has been removed. FAA
realized that this title was misleading since it would have made it
seem like aircraft manufactured outside the United States were excluded
from being subject to Sec. 22.100(a) eligibility requirements. In
Sec. 22.100(b), the proposed title ``Aircraft manufactured outside the
United States'' has also been removed. Since the first sentence of
Sec. 22.100(b) begins with ``For aircraft manufactured outside the
United States,'' the title was unnecessary. The proposed language in
Sec. 22.100(b) that stated, ``to be eligible for a special
airworthiness certificate in the light-sport category under Sec.
21.190 of this chapter'' was also removed since it repeats what is
stated at the beginning of Sec. 22.100(a), making the language
redundant. Finally, ``also'' was added to Sec. 22.100(b) to make it
clear that an applicant of an aircraft manufactured outside the United
States must also provide FAA with evidence it meets the requirements of
Sec. 22.100(b) in addition to meeting the requirements of Sec.
22.100(a).
In addition, FAA removed proposed Sec. 22.100(b)(1) from this rule
since it only required aircraft manufactured outside the United States
to meet the requirements of subpart B of part 22. Deleting this
proposal clarifies that aircraft manufactured outside the United States
are subject to both subparts A and B of part 22. This final rule
renumbers NPRM proposed Sec. 22.100(b)(2) and (3) as (1) and (2),
respectively.
Another commenter stated light-sport category aircraft should
continue to be designed for sport pilots and should not increase the
complexity of current light-sport aircraft. FAA disagrees. Section
III.1 of the 2004 final rule acknowledged that time and experience will
determine whether the rules require modification. Prior to initiating
this rule, FAA consulted with industry members and listened to their
recommendations for change. Based on this feedback and supporting
accident data in FAA's annual Continued Operational Safety Report \17\
for light-sport category aircraft, FAA determined that changes to the
design and performance of light-sport category aircraft were warranted.
The separation of light-sport category aircraft design and performance
limits in part 22 from those tailored for sport pilots in part 61
aligns with the regulatory structure of every aircraft category. This
structure allows regulations to be developed that meet the specific
needs of aircraft and pilots. Furthermore, given the sport pilot
training framework, sport pilots should not be solely dependent upon
operating light-sport category aircraft but instead may operate any
aircraft, regardless of the airworthiness certificate issued, as long
as the aircraft meets the design and performance limitations authorized
for sport pilots.
EASA asked if an aircraft with some initial characteristics outside
this proposal could be certificated in the light-sport category after a
modification to its propeller, stall speed, or other characteristics
like mass. The answer would depend on the modifications and whether a
standard, primary, restricted, limited, or provisional airworthiness
certificate, or an equivalent airworthiness certificate issued by a
foreign civil aviation authority had ever been issued for that
aircraft. Mass or gross weight is not an eligibility criterion for
light-sport category aircraft certificated on or after July 24, 2026.
If an aircraft had previously been issued one of the aforementioned
airworthiness certificates, then the aircraft would not be eligible for
airworthiness certification in the light-sport category. If the
aircraft was newly produced, had never previously been issued one of
the listed airworthiness certificates, met the requirements of subpart
B of part 22, as applicable, and the applicant could provide the
certification requirements specified in Sec. 21.190(c) of this rule,
then the aircraft could be issued an airworthiness certificate in the
light-sport category. Note that subpart B requires that the aircraft
must have met the design, production, and airworthiness requirements
specified in subpart B using a means of compliance consisting of
consensus standards accepted by FAA. Thus, if the aircraft was designed
or manufactured prior to FAA acceptance of consensus standards that act
as a means of compliance to part 22 requirements, then the aircraft
manufacturer would have to be able and willing to sign a statement of
compliance that the aircraft complies with the applicable FAA-accepted
consensus standards for a light-sport category aircraft.
a. Eligibility--Class of Aircraft
FAA proposed in the NPRM to allow any class of aircraft to be
eligible for certification in the light-sport category under Sec.
21.190, provided the aircraft meets the eligibility criteria in
Sec. Sec. 21.190 and 22.100 and the proposed performance-based
requirements in part 22 using an FAA-accepted consensus standard as a
means of compliance.
All comments FAA received on this proposal generally supported
expansion of the light-sport category to other classes of aircraft.
Upwards Aero supported the proposal and moving toward performance-based
requirements for light-sport category aircraft. Safari Helicopter
commented favorably that the ability to certificate helicopters as
light-sport category aircraft provides potential pilots confidence that
their helicopter is built to FAA-approved safety standards. VAI
commented about the positive impact of including rotorcraft in the
light-sport category. The Gyrocopter Flight Training Academy commented
that it was long overdue to include gyroplanes in the light-sport
aircraft category.
The response from EAA, AOPA, NATA, and NBAA asserted that the
exclusion of gyroplanes from the 2004 final rule was unfortunate, that
gyroplanes have continued to be excluded from rulemaking for too long,
and recommended broad regulations that relied upon FAA-accepted
standards developed by standards organizations. GAMA agreed with
removing exclusions based on class from the rule to enable future
growth of the light-sport category and new innovations.
Whisper Aero commented supportively that original equipment
manufacturers will be on an equal playing field in new aircraft
development and that certification consistency will allow for
components that are standardized, produced at greater volumes, more
affordable, and higher quality.
On or after July 24, 2026, this final rule allows any class of
aircraft to be eligible for certification in the light-sport category,
provided the aircraft meets the performance-based requirements of part
22 and the eligibility criteria in Sec. Sec. 21.190 and 22.100. FAA
encourages industry to develop acceptable and appropriate consensus
standards to comply with the performance-based requirements in part 22
for all classes of aircraft.
b. Eligibility--Removal of Weight Limitations
Until July 24, 2026, light-sport category aircraft will continue to
be certificated based on a maximum takeoff weight in Sec. 1.1 of not
more than 1,320 pounds (600 kilograms) for aircraft not intended for
operation on water or 1,430

[[Page 35053]]

pounds (650 kilograms) for an aircraft intended for operation on water.
Though this rule does not contain weight limits for light-sport
category aircraft certificated on or after July 24, 2026, light-sport
category aircraft certificated prior to July 24, 2026 will continue to
be subject to these weight limits under Sec. 21.181(a)(3)(iv)(A).
In the NPRM, FAA proposed to remove maximum takeoff weight
restrictions for light-sport category aircraft citing many benefits
such as enabling manufacturers to include more safety-enhancing designs
and equipment. Instead of a maximum takeoff weight restriction, FAA
proposed a stall speed for light-sport category airplanes, gliders, and
weight-shift-control aircraft and determined that maximum seating
capacity and limited aerial work operations would also help to
reasonably constrain size and weight.
ANAC disagreed with the removal of the weight limit and recommended
FAA retain the maximum takeoff limit of up to 1,320 pounds for gliders
and weight-shift-control aircraft. ANAC also questioned whether
allowing heavier gliders and weight-shift-control aircraft would
adversely affect safety. FAA disagrees that allowing heavier aircraft
weight alone decreases safety. Though glider and weight-shift-control
designs generally try to minimize weight, if the design of a glider or
weight-shift-control aircraft accounts for the aircraft weight by
providing the necessary aerodynamic performance and structural support,
safety should not be adversely affected. FAA analyzed weight-shift-
control aircraft accident data dating back to 2004 from the National
Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) and noted none of the occurrence
categories were attributed to a weight-related reason. For light-sport
category gliders, there have been two fatal accidents since 2004, which
occurred during the initial climb and post-impact flight phases.\18\
Otherwise, FAA received overwhelming support in the public comments
for removal of the maximum takeoff weight restriction. The largest
number of commenters on this topic stated the removal of the weight
restriction would benefit aircraft designs, handling, and the inclusion
of safety equipment. For example, GAMA stated existing light-sport
category aircraft weight restrictions inhibit the ability to include
many design and safety features and make more robust airplanes. Van's
Aircraft also noted the positive effect of eliminating weight
restrictions on the ability to develop electric aircraft due to the
weight of batteries.
Many commenters stated the weight restriction resulted in handling
challenges during airplane landings with gusty winds due to light wing
loading. For example, one commenter wrote that eliminating weight
limits allows for higher wing loadings and therefore easier to fly
aircraft. The comments from GAMA, EAA, AOPA, NATA, NBAA, and the
Gyrocopter Flight Academy noted handling or flying challenges caused by
light wing loading resulting from the current light-sport category
weight restriction. Safari Helicopter noted safety, stronger airframe,
and turbulence and wind resistance benefits of higher weight limits.
A few commenters told of unsafe situations they had witnessed due
to the existing maximum takeoff weight restriction on light-sport
category aircraft. The Gyrocopter Flight Training Academy alleged the
potential for manufacturers to cut corners, citing several examples it
had witnessed, which could in turn reduce aircraft structural
integrity. Another commenter alleged rampant, irresponsible flying of
light-sport category aircraft at well above gross weight as a potential
safety danger and asserted that eliminating weight limits will
hopefully address this issue by allowing aircraft to be built more
robustly and with more useful loads.
These allegations are very concerning to FAA. For light-sport
category aircraft certificated prior to July 24, 2026, non-compliance
with a light-sport aircraft definition requirement would disqualify an
aircraft from being certificated in the light-sport category unless an
exemption was obtained. ``Cutting corners'' on manufacturing materials
or processes to save weight would potentially endanger safety, likely
be a violation of the manufacturer's statement of compliance, and
resultingly invalidate airworthiness certification of the aircraft in
the light-sport category. Per the recent FAA Prohibition on
Falsification final rule, a fraudulent or intentionally false
statement, an incorrect statement or omission of fact, or other
fraudulent activities involving certain documents, such as a
manufacturer's statement of compliance, would serve as the basis for
FAA to take certificate action that could include denying, suspending,
revoking, or other appropriate action. Manufacturers of part 22
compliant light-sport category aircraft will not be subject to a weight
limit, which should alleviate future concerns as those raised by the
commenters.
Other commenters favored removal of the maximum takeoff weight
restriction for a variety of reasons. These commenters identified
benefits to pilot or flight training, building stronger, safer, or more
rugged aircraft, enabling the carriage of more cargo, passengers, or
fuel, and increasing safety margins.
Several commenters cited occupant weight as a reason why the
maximum takeoff weight limit should be removed. One commenter stated an
increased weight allowance is more realistic and will improve safety
given heavier individuals, luggage, and a desire for extra fuel for
wind or weather purposes. Another commenter noted challenges in
accommodating themselves, fuel, and a designated pilot examiner given
weight limits. EASA, AOPA, NATA, NBAA, and GAMA commented that the
weight restriction has caused numerous unintended consequences
including concerns about minimal useful load and resulting pilot and
passenger size limitations. Finally, another commenter favored weight
limits that would allow two full sized adults.
Many commenters cited that the removal of a weight restriction in
this rule would allow many popular recreational and training airplane
models to be certificated in the light-sport category. One commenter
stated that the new proposal would better enable sport pilots to get a
biennial flight review. As discussed in greater detail in the stall
speed section (Sec. 22.100(a)(3)), this rule would continue to
restrict aircraft that have been previously certificated in the normal
or primary categories from being issued an airworthiness certificate in
the light-sport category. Owners of kit aircraft holding an
experimental airworthiness certificate for the purpose of operating an
amateur-built aircraft also would not be able to subsequently have
their aircraft certificated in the light-sport category. However,
manufacturers of normal or primary category aircraft, or aircraft
models commonly sold as kits, could certificate new aircraft in the
light-sport category if those aircraft or kits were built by the
manufacturer and meet the requirements of Sec. 21.190 and the light-
sport aircraft definition or part 22, as applicable.
Many commenters acknowledged that the current weight restriction is
not ideal due to the light wing loading, safety equipment sacrifices
made by manufacturers, and reduced fuel carried by operators to operate
under maximum takeoff weight. Despite these considerations, FAA agrees
with a commenter who stated current light-sport category aircraft
designs are fine when flying within their design envelopes and have not
been shown to

[[Page 35054]]

be deficient or easily fail under current loads.
FAA received several recommendations for establishing a maximum
takeoff weight limit for light-sport category airplanes, mostly from
commenters that preferred a weight limit rather than a stall speed
limit. These recommendations ranged from a high of 6,000 pounds, based
on previously applicable BasicMed operations, to a low of 1,080 pounds,
proposed by AEA/ARSA as aligning with the empty weight of a Cessna
model 152, with the majority of the commenters favoring 3,000 pounds as
the maximum takeoff weight limit for this rule.
Though the NPRM clearly stated that a maximum takeoff weight
restriction would not be included in this rule, many commenters seemed
to be under the misimpression that FAA was indirectly using stall speed
to impose a specific weight restriction of 3,000 pounds. Several
commenters, including TCCA, recommended setting an explicit weight
limit if the stall speed was being used to drive a roughly 3,000-pound
weight limit. EASA questioned the background for not setting a direct
3,000-pound limit.
Establishing a stall speed for light-sport category airplanes in
this rule will allow aircraft designers greater flexibility than
establishing a specific maximum takeoff weight. A reasonable stall
speed coupled with other design and performance limitations in this
rule, such as a maximum of four seats, a maximum of four occupants, and
limited aerial work operations,\19\ will likely constrain the size of
light-sport category airplanes to a reasonable size for this category.
Market forces will also constrain designs to those that are desired by
and affordable to the consumer.
In creating this rule, FAA did consider extreme examples, such as
the Antonov An-2, which is a single engine biplane that weighs
approximately 12,000 pounds, has no published stall speed, and has a
maximum speed well under the 250 knot CAS VH restriction in
this rule. FAA believes it unlikely that airplanes like the An-2 will
be developed for the light-sport category due to the four seat, four
occupant, and aerial work limitations. Because of these restrictions,
the marketability of a An-2 type airplane for airworthiness
certification in the light-sport category would be significantly
diminished.
As discussed in section IV.F.6.b., FAA also weighed commenters'
concerns of accommodating electric airplanes in the stall speed
decision. Commenters were concerned that a low stall speed allowance
would prohibit the development of electric aircraft by limiting their
battery size. Batteries add significant weight to electric aircraft and
need to be large enough to provide useful range and endurance. FAA
considered this feedback in developing the increased airplane stall
speed requirement in the final rule.
c. Eligibility--Weight Limit of Powered-Lift and Rotorcraft
Though a stall speed limit would generally constrain the weight of
airplanes, it would not have the same effect for powered-lift and
rotorcraft since these aircraft classes can hover in place and not
stall. In the NPRM, FAA requested comments on appropriate parameters to
limit the weight of light-sport category powered-lift and rotorcraft.
AIR VEV recommended against using weight as a regulatory limitation but
instead allow industry to develop consensus standards to address this
matter. FAA disagrees with allowing industry to develop consensus
standards to establish eligibility criteria and FAA will not relinquish
this responsibility to consensus standards organizations. This practice
is consistent with the certification of normal category airplanes in
Sec. 23.2005 and avoids confusion caused by the continual shifting of
requirements for applicants.
Commenters recommending a maximum takeoff weight limit proposed a
range of weights. One commenter recommended doubling the existing limit
to 2,640 pounds, asserting that a higher limit was essential for light-
sport category powered-lift. GAMA recommended a 3,375-pound limit for
light-sport category powered-lift to accommodate newer designs and
features including electric propulsion systems. GAMA recommended a
maximum certificated weight threshold of 2,700 pounds for light-sport
category rotorcraft. These weight limits are also used with Sec. 21.24
primary category seaplanes and rotorcraft. VAI recommended a 3,000-
pound weight limit to facilitate the equipage of safety, avionics, and
control systems of powered-lift and rotorcraft. If a weight limit was
to be developed, AIR VEV favored 5,000 pounds, noting that current
powered-lift design requirements work against the ability to meet the
same airplane weight requirements and that 5,000 pounds is lower than
the limit for part 27 small rotorcraft. Vertical Aviation Technologies,
Cicare USA, and a few individuals stated light-sport category
helicopter designs should be subject to a four seat and 3,000-pound
limitation. Four commenters stated these parameters for rotorcraft
should be the same as that proposed for airplanes, even though this
rule did not propose a maximum weight limit for any light-sport
category aircraft class. Some commenters favored a 3,000-pound weight
for rotorcraft since it would allow for more stability in gusty winds,
the inclusion of safety equipment and crashworthy designs, greater fuel
load for increased range, and greater utility.
Generally, these recommendations suggested actual weight limits
instead of parameters to limit weight as requested by the NPRM and
failed to include rationales sufficient to convince FAA that a weight
limit should be imposed for rotorcraft and powered-lift, particularly
given the rationale provided in the NPRM for not imposing weight limits
and the fact that no weight limit is being proposed for light-sport
category airplanes. FAA emphasizes this rule does not impose a maximum
weight limit as an eligibility criterion in Sec. 22.100 so the
aforementioned benefits of a larger helicopter and powered-lift could
be included in light-sport category designs. Regardless of the
helicopter or powered-lift weight and as explained in section IV.F.4.,
this rule will limit light-sport category helicopters and powered-lift
to two seats. Instead of imposing a weight limit on rotorcraft and
powered-lift in this final rule, the maximum seating capacity of two
seats, two occupants, and limited aerial work operations should provide
the basis for keeping light-sport category rotorcraft and power-lift at
a reasonable size and weight.
ANAC suggested the use of the six-pound per square foot main rotor
disc loading and 2,700 pounds weight limitations used for primary
category helicopters. FAA considered the six-pound per square foot main
rotor disc loading limit for rotorcraft and powered-lift but did not
adopt it. The limit may not work well with powered-lift because of the
potential for heavier weights in certain designs. Also, this value does
not effectively limit the size or weight of a helicopter and could
allow overly complex and outsized helicopters that would not be
appropriate for the design, production, and airworthiness requirements
of the light-sport category. Effectively, without an accompanying
weight limit, the main rotor disc loading limit alone would not provide
any benefits in limiting weight or size making it no more effective
than not imposing a weight limit in this rule. For these reasons, FAA
does not favor the use of a disc loading limitation.

[[Page 35055]]

Whisper Aero commented that competitive market forces will
naturally limit powered-lift gross weights since they are limited to
two seats and a heavier aircraft for the same payload will be more
expensive and louder. It also opined that a weight limit for light-
sport category powered lift was unnecessary as such aircraft are very
weight-sensitive and will become subject to part 36 noise restrictions.
FAA agrees. However, this final rule does not mandate compliance with
part 36 for light-sport category powered lift. The other reason cited
by Whisper Aero, in addition to the limited aerial work operations and
two-person occupancy restriction in Sec. 91.327, will reasonably
control the weight and size of powered-lift.
To limit the weight of light-sport category helicopters indirectly,
Skyryse suggested a limit on the number of engines to a single
conventional powerplant or the functional equivalent for electric
engines. FAA disagrees with this suggestion since it may limit future
development of designs and technologies, and it may also result in more
accidents due to underpowered helicopters or lack of redundancy in
designs.
FAA received a few comments that assumed gyroplanes were going to
be held to a 1,320 pound maximum weight limit. This assumption is
incorrect. Another commenter stated gyroplanes should have a higher
weight limit just like light-sport category airplanes. Similar to the
rationale for powered-lift and helicopters, this rule will not impose a
maximum weight limit for gyroplanes. A maximum seating capacity of two
seats, two occupants, and limited aerial work operations should provide
the basis for a reasonably sized light-sport category gyroplane.
d. Eligibility--Weight Limitation of Light-Sport Category Aircraft
Certificated Prior to July 24, 2026.
For light-sport category aircraft originally certificated prior to
July 24, 2026, the requirements in Sec. 21.181(a)(3) of this rule
specify that a light-sport category aircraft's airworthiness
certificate will remain effective as long as the aircraft conforms to
its original or properly altered configuration, the aircraft has no
unsafe condition and is not likely to develop an unsafe condition, and
the aircraft meets all of the conditions listed in Sec.
21.181(a)(3)(iv)(A) through (L). The requirements in (A) through (L)
are the same as those in the light-sport aircraft definition in effect
at the time of certification.\20\
Several commenters stated they would like to see a path for light-
sport category aircraft, certificated prior to the effective date of
part 22, to increase the maximum takeoff weight above the 1,320- or
1,430-pound restriction in the light-sport aircraft definition. One
commenter recommended that the regulations and ASTM provide a path for
aircraft with sufficient available data to increase gross weight
limits. Another commenter similarly supported existing light-sport
category aircraft being able to increase their gross weight, asserting
that many such aircraft can handle higher gross weights, and such
weight increases would allow for carrying full fuel for increased
safety.
This rule does not provide a regulatory provision for light-sport
category aircraft, certificated prior to July 24, 2026 to increase the
maximum takeoff weight above the 1,320- or 1,430 pound weight
restriction in effect at the time of certification. As discussed in
section IV.Q, this rule implements a clean break in light-sport
category manufacturing and certification requirements upon the
implementation of part 22 requirements in this rule. On and after July
24, 2026, light-sport category aircraft will be subject to new design,
production, and airworthiness requirements. The existing construct of
light-sport category consensus standards will no longer be valid for
the production of new aircraft. To not be subject to a weight limit, an
aircraft would have to meet the applicable Sec. 21.190 and part 22
requirements in this final rule and the consensus standards that will
be developed to act as a means of compliance to the requirements. The
more rigorous requirements in this final rule and associated consensus
standards will likely prevent or preclude compliance of existing models
certificated prior to July 24, 2026. FAA does note that light-sport
category aircraft manufacturers may petition for an exemption to
increase the maximum takeoff weight of their existing certificated
models and this may be a potential avenue for those that can meet the
requirements of the part 11 exemption process.
e. Eligibility--Types of Aircraft Engines and Propellers
The current Sec. 1.1 light-sport aircraft definition limits light-
sport aircraft to a single reciprocating engine if the aircraft is
powered and a fixed or ground-adjustable propeller if a powered
aircraft other than a powered glider. Powered gliders are allowed a
fixed or feathering propeller. With the performance expansions in this
final rule for the design of light-sport category aircraft, there is no
longer a need to restrict light-sport category aircraft to a single
reciprocating engine or a fixed or ground-adjustable propeller.
Removing these restrictions is necessary for the introduction of
powered-lift and certain rotorcraft, e.g., electric vertical takeoff
and landing (eVTOL), into the light-sport category. It will also allow
for the development of light-sport category twin-engine airplanes that
require a feathered propeller for single engine emergency operations.
These changes will also enable the development of new technologies,
including electric, hydrogen, and hybrid engines and motors. Effective
July 24, 2026, with the removal of the light-sport aircraft definition
in Sec. 1.1, this final rule will no longer have single reciprocating
engine and propeller limitations for light-sport category aircraft.
Section 22.100 will allow light-sport category aircraft to be
manufactured with any number and type of engines, motors, or
propellers.
Several commenters supported these changes or portions of these
changes and only one commenter opposed. The commenter opposed to these
changes stated light-sport aircraft are for entry level rather than for
high-performance flying and recommended continuing the one engine (or
electric motor) and existing propellor restrictions. FAA disagrees with
the recommendation. The removal of the restrictions on engines, motors,
and propellers is necessary to open the light-sport category to all
classes of aircraft and benefit from the development of emerging engine
and motor technologies. Under this rule, the designs of light-sport
category aircraft will no longer be bound to the training,
capabilities, and limitations of sport pilots; effectively making their
performance and utility more appealing to a broader range of pilots.
Several commenters supported the removal of the engine
restrictions. Pivotal commented on the benefits to aircraft redundancy
and aircraft safety of non-reciprocating and multi-engine distributed
electric propulsion. Pivotal also commented that the NPRM allowed for
manufacturer innovation to realize the advantages of more complex
systems and failure mitigation through automation. Whisper Aero
commented that removing the single engine requirement enhanced the
ability to develop advanced aircraft, noting the prevalence of
distributed propulsion in electric powered-lift aircraft. Elanus
Aerospace expressed being encouraged by the proposed allowance of
electric motors for light-sport category aircraft.

[[Page 35056]]

Several commenters encouraged allowing more innovative power
systems such as turbine engines, multi-engines, or electrical and
hybrid powerplants. Another commenter applauded the move to become
propulsion agnostic.
EAA, AOPA, NATA, NBAA, and GAMA strongly supported allowing
alternative powerplants since it would allow for innovative propulsion
technologies. They also supported controllable pitch propellers being
allowed for light-sport category aircraft, noting that electric
powerplants and piston engines with forced induction are severely
disadvantaged without such propellers.
Sonex commented as to how crucial turbine powerplants were to
increased energy efficiency, and how continued development will aid
general aviation with shifting away from leaded aviation fuels. It
similarly noted how important controllable pitch propellers were to
turbine-powered, propeller-driven aircraft.
Finally, EASA asked what propulsion engines could be installed on
different types of new light-sport category aircraft and whether such
aircraft could use a pressurized cabin for higher altitudes possible
with turbine engines, electric hybrid, and other types of propulsion.
Upon July 24, 2026, this rule will not prohibit any type or number of
engines or motors on light-sport category aircraft. Though turbine
engines can operate more efficiently at much higher altitudes compared
to reciprocating engines, Sec. 22.100(a)(5) of this final rule
requires light-sport category aircraft to have a non-pressurized cabin,
if equipped with a cabin. This cabin design requirement remains
unchanged from the 2004 final rule.
f. Eligibility--Rotor System for Gyroplanes
Currently, Sec. 21.190 prohibits the issuance of a special
airworthiness certificate in the light-sport category to gyroplanes.
However, the current Sec. 1.1 light-sport aircraft definition limits
gyroplanes to a fixed-pitch, semi-rigid, teetering, two-blade rotor
system. Under the current regulations, though gyroplanes cannot be
certificated in the light-sport category, they are eligible to be flown
by sport pilots if they have a fixed-pitch, semi-rigid, teetering, two-
blade rotor system.
As proposed in the NPRM, this final rule will allow gyroplanes to
be certificated as light-sport category aircraft and will eliminate
restrictions on the rotor system designs of these aircraft. This means
that on or after the effective date of July 24, 2026, newly
manufactured gyroplanes certificated in the light-sport category are
not limited to a fixed-pitch, semi-rigid, teetering, two-blade rotor
system. Gyroplanes will have to comply with the applicable performance-
based requirements in part 22 to be certificated in the light-sport
category. Consensus standards that act as the means of compliance to
part 22 requirements will have to be developed by consensus standards
organizations for light-sport category gyroplanes and gain acceptance
by FAA. Section IV.H.1.h. discusses the applicability of gyrocopter
rotors for sport pilots.
AutoGyro and an anonymous commenter supported this proposal. FAA
did not receive any opposing comments. AutoGyro supported the proposal
wholeheartedly, stating that removing this requirement allows for
innovative designs. The anonymous commenter applauded the inclusion of
designs on gyroplanes, which allow for jump take off systems.
This final rule corrects Sec. 21.181(a)(3)(iv) by removing
proposed provision (I) that specified gyroplanes originally
certificated prior to July 24, 2026 had to have a fixed-pitch, semi-
rigid, teetering, two-blade rotor system for their special
airworthiness certificate in the light-sport category to remain
effective. This provision is removed because gyroplanes are prohibited
from being issued special airworthiness certificates in the light-sport
category. Given this correction, the NPRM proposed provisions Sec.
21.181(a)(3)(iv)(J) through (M) are renumbered as (I) through (L) in
the final rule.
g. Eligibility--Types of Landing Gear
Currently, the Sec. 1.1 light-sport aircraft definition requires
light-sport aircraft to have fixed landing gear, except for an aircraft
intended for operation on water or a glider. Aircraft intended for
operations on water may have fixed or retractable landing gear, or a
hull. Gliders may have fixed or retractable landing gear.
As proposed in the NPRM, this final rule will eliminate
restrictions on the landing gear designs of light-sport category
aircraft. This means that on or after July 24, 2026, newly manufactured
aircraft certificated in the light-sport category will be allowed to
have fixed or retractable landing gear, or floats for aircraft intended
for operation on the water. The NPRM proposed removing the landing gear
requirements for light-sport category aircraft since the proposed part
22 eligibility requirements were not contingent on a sport pilot
operating the aircraft. The proposed rule to eliminate weight limits
for light-sport category aircraft also allowed for more robust
structures and greater weight allowances, which would accommodate the
necessary structural enhancements needed for retractable landing gear.
FAA received support for its landing gear proposal from EAA, AOPA,
NATA, NBAA, GAMA, and Sonex. GAMA and a consolidated comment from EAA,
AOPA, NATA, and NBAA stated there is minimal impact on safety of
retractable landing gear for airplanes, injury rarely results from
``gear up'' events, and they anticipate new cockpit technology that
would make such occurrences less likely. They also stated while adding
complexity, these systems are well-understood and can be safely
implemented. Sonex noted previous FAA retractable gear exemptions that
did not lessen safety, and that retractable gear aircraft are more
energy efficient in cruise flight.
One commenter opposed the proposal, stating that the changes will
add complexity, increase failure or pilot error, and would not draw
more people to light-sport category aircraft from experimental
aircraft. While FAA agrees that the inclusion of retractable landing
gear, by itself, will not draw people away from EAB aircraft, the NPRM
did not make this claim. Rather, the NPRM stated its proposals to
include a wider variety of aircraft, increase performance, and increase
operating privileges were intended to increase safety by encouraging
aircraft owners deciding between experimental aircraft and light-sport
aircraft category to choose aircraft higher on the safety continuum.
While retractable landing gear adds some degree of complexity, can
malfunction, and may not be extended from time to time during landings,
these concerns can be mitigated with proper training and checklist
discipline obtained with a complex aircraft endorsement. Also, aircraft
manufacturers can mitigate risks with comprehensive inspection and
maintenance procedures and designs that include effective alerting
systems. FAA encourages consensus standards organizations for light-
sport category aircraft to develop consensus standards that address the
inspection and maintenance of retractable landing gear and alerting
systems that would help to prevent gear-up landings. Based upon the
above, FAA disagrees that light-sport category aircraft in this final
rule should continue to be subject to the existing landing gear
restrictions.
4. Maximum Seating Capacity for Other Light-Sport Category Aircraft
(Sec. 22.100(a)(1))
For light-sport category aircraft classes other than airplanes, FAA

[[Page 35057]]

proposed to keep the maximum seating capacity of gliders, weight-shift-
control aircraft, lighter-than-air aircraft, and powered-parachutes at
two seats. The NPRM stated two seats were appropriate for these classes
since they are operated for recreation \21\ and that additional
passengers would increase risk. The additional weight of a third person
in certain classes, such as gliders, would be detrimental to
operational efficiency and result in cumbersome designs.
As discussed above, AEA/ARSA opposed seat increases for light-sport
category aircraft citing that the primary category already provides a
pathway for aircraft with a seating capacity of four persons. Of note,
the primary category only applies to airplanes and rotorcraft but not
weight-shift-control, powered parachute, powered-lift, and lighter-
than-air classes. AEA/ARSA's opposition to four seat light-sport
category aircraft aligns with the two-seat maximum capacity for light-
sport category rotorcraft in this final rule. FAA's response to AEA/
ARSA's opposition with respect to four seat light-sport category
airplanes is provided in section IV.F.5.
One commenter advocated for increasing the seating capacity of
weight-shift-control aircraft to three seats citing that three-seated
weight-shift-control trikes already exist and they are just as safe as
two-seaters. FAA disagrees with increasing the seating capacity of
weight-shift-control aircraft as weight-shift-control aircraft have the
highest fatal accident rate of any light-sport category aircraft,
dating back to fiscal year 2005 and based on the total fleet size, per
FAA's 2022 Continued Operational Safety Report for light-sport category
aircraft. FAA is not increasing the seating capacity of weight-shift-
control aircraft in this rule based on the high fatal accident rate for
this class, recreational-only operations, and increased risk of
additional passengers.
Four commenters, including USUA, recommended increasing the seating
capacity of powered parachutes to three. The commenters cited the
availability of bigger engines, increased utility and marketability,
and that three and four seat trikes and powered parachutes operate
outside the United States. A few commenters cited ITEC's Maverick, a
four seat off-road powered parachute, which operated in the U.S. under
an experimental airworthiness certificate for the purpose of
exhibition. Though FAA generally agrees that bigger engines could
increase the feasibility of greater seating capacities and that the
marketability and utility of powered parachutes could be increased with
more seating, FAA does not agree that these enhancements outweigh the
risks of three or more passengers being flown on powered parachutes.
For example, of the four Maverick powered parachutes built by ITEC, two
of them were involved in accidents. Because of limited production of
powered-parachutes models with more than two seats, operations
predominantly occurring in foreign countries, and authorization being
other than in the light-sport category, the FAA could not obtain
comprehensive accident data for these models. However, FAA continues to
affirm that two seats are appropriate for powered parachutes since
powered parachutes are only operated for recreation and additional
occupants would increase risk.
FAA received two comments to increase the seating capacity of
light-sport category airships. One commenter favored three seats for
greater utility or two seats and one stretcher to allow their use in
search and rescue or ambulance operations. The other commenter
requested up to ten seats to train pilots on platforms similar to the
configuration of type-certificated airships. Though FAA generally
favors increasing the utility of aircraft, considering that there were
zero light-sport category lighter-than-air aircraft in the FAA Registry
per FAA's 2022 Light-Sport Category Aircraft Continued Operational
Safety Report, FAA did not increase the seating capacity of lighter-
than-air aircraft in this rule.
In the NPRM, FAA proposed that the two new light-sport category
classes, powered-lift and rotorcraft, would have a maximum seating
capacity of two seats. FAA stated because of the lack of experience
with safety metrics associated with powered-lift and rotorcraft classes
of light-sport category aircraft, the maximum seating capacity of two
seats was appropriate. Unlike light-sport and normal category
airplanes, consensus standards for the airworthiness certification of
rotorcraft or powered-lift of any category have yet to be accepted by
FAA. Since the development of appropriate consensus standards is
starting at ground level, this risk will be mitigated with a maximum
seating capacity of two seats for rotorcraft and powered-lift in this
rule.
AIR VEV and Streamline Designs proposed that the maximum seating
capacity limitation be prescribed in FAA-accepted consensus standards.
AIR VEV suggested that the consensus standards would initially limit
rotorcraft and powered-lift to two seats only and could be modified
once the industry and FAA had gained sufficient safety data regarding
these types of aircraft. Streamline Designs noted industry consensus
standards have included limitations in addition to what the rules
require and the same should be done with the maximum seating limit. FAA
disagrees with these recommendations. Like the airworthiness standards
for other aircraft categories, seating capacity is often used as a
regulatory eligibility criterion for airworthiness certification
purposes. Though potentially less flexible than consensus standard
development, rulemaking would provide FAA an opportunity to propose the
regulatory structure of performance-based limitations and requirements
necessary for safe operations of light-sport category rotorcraft and
powered-lift with increased seating capacities. As stated in the NPRM,
FAA could consider future rulemaking to increase the proposed two seat
limitation for these aircraft classes as experience increases and
consensus standards are developed. Like all classes of light-sport
category aircraft, FAA will monitor the accident rates of rotorcraft
and powered-lift and consider this data for future privileges and
performance expansions.
Several commenters, including VAI, commented that the maximum
seating capacity of helicopters and gyroplanes should be increased to
four seats for the same reasons FAA used for airplanes. As discussed
above, FAA lacks experience with safety metrics associated with
rotorcraft classes of light-sport category aircraft, which includes
helicopters and gyroplanes, and could consider future rulemaking to
increase the two-seat limitation as experience increases and consensus
standards are developed. Other commenters, including EAA, AOPA, NATA,
NBAA, 3F, and Streamline Designs, commented that all classes of light-
sport category aircraft should have a maximum seating capacity of four
seats and USUA recommended that all non-airplane light-sport category
aircraft have a three-seat limit. FAA disagrees with these perspectives
for the reasons discussed above regarding each individual category of
non-airplane light-sport aircraft. In addition, one of the major safety
objectives of this rule is to make light-sport category airplanes a
more appealing alternative compared to EAB airplanes and dampen the
increasing growth into amateur-built airplanes. FAA Registry data shows
this safety benefit is more prevalent for airplanes because there are
far more EAB airplanes than other aircraft classes. As of November 14,
2024, FAA Registry shows there are 26,453 registered EAB airplanes
compared to only 1,162 EAB helicopters, 189 EAB gyroplanes, 285 EAB
gliders, 63 EAB

[[Page 35058]]

weight-shift-control aircraft, and 8 EAB powered-parachutes. Because
this safety benefit is targeted at light-sport category airplanes, FAA
determined that increased seating capacity was necessary for light-
sport category airplanes, but the benefit did not justify seating
increases for other aircraft classes due to lower EAB demand and the
other considerations discussed above with regard to each individual
category of non-airplane light-sport aircraft.
VAI, Vertical Aviation Technologies, Cicare USA, Skyryse, and
several individual commenters recommended increasing light-sport
category helicopters maximum seating capacity to four seats. These
commenters cited that a larger size to accommodate additional seating
would make the helicopter more structurally rugged, perform better in
windy or turbulent air conditions, be equipped with additional safety
devices and crashworthy features, and have a greater fuel load or
battery capacity. Commenters stated larger helicopters have larger
rotor systems or more blades, which results in better autorotation
performance and reduced noise levels. FAA agrees that these
recommendations would increase the marketability, utility, and safety
of light-sport category helicopters. FAA believes it is an
oversimplification to state that larger rotor systems or more blades
results in reduced noise levels, as there are many other considerations
needed to arrive at such a conclusion. FAA generally agrees with these
arguments as most were used to justify the seating increase of light-
sport category airplanes. However, FAA notes this rule will not impose
any size or weight limitations on light-sport category helicopters so
these performance expansions and benefits of a larger-sized helicopter
could be included in light-sport category helicopter designs, even with
the two-seat limitation. An individual commenter favored limiting
helicopters to two seats with a weight limitation; however, this
commenter did not state a recommended weight limitation. As previously
stated, this rule will require a two-seat maximum seating capacity for
light-sport category helicopters to mitigate risk while FAA gains
experience in safety metrics. Future accident data will need to show
the effectiveness of newly developed consensus standards for light-
sport category helicopters.
FAA received comments from the Gyrocopter Flight Training Academy,
AutoGyro, and several individuals to increase the maximum seating
capacity of gyroplanes to either three or four seats. Comments
addressed increased utility and market demand and cited gyroplanes with
more than two seats operating in other countries. AutoGyro commented
that additional seating would allow flight schools to take advantage of
the Gemini method of allowing more than one student on board. Though
FAA generally agrees with these comments, FAA disagrees with increasing
the maximum seating capacity above two seats for gyroplanes primarily
because of the increased risk and, as previously stated, the lack of
experience with safety metrics for these aircraft. The NPRM stated
future rulemaking to increase the proposed two seat limitation for
these aircraft classes could be considered as experience increases and
consensus standards are developed. Like the other classes of light-
sport category aircraft, FAA will monitor the accident rates of
gyroplanes and consider this data for future privileges and performance
expansions.
Another commenter opposed three or four seat gyroplanes but also
challenged some of the NPRM statements regarding gyroplanes and
asserted that FAA's two-seat limitation could limit gyroplane
commercial applications that are evident in other countries. FAA
disagrees with the commenter's challenge to these NPRM statements
because the commercial use cases cited by the commenter could be
accomplished in a two-seat gyroplane and do not necessitate additional
seating, or in the case of the sightseeing use case would not be
permitted as an aerial work operation because it involves the carriage
of a non-essential person for compensation or hire.
FAA received one comment to increase the maximum seating capacity
of powered-lift. The commenter stated a seat limitation for powered-
lift would discourage spending on required resources for the
implementation of distributed electric propulsion and simplified
vehicle operation technologies that provide increased safety advantages
through redundancy and loss of control protection. FAA notes that,
regardless of seating capacities for powered-lift, certain technologies
like distributed propulsion systems may be necessary for the
certification of certain light-sport category powered-lift to show
compliance with requirements for control and maneuverability (Sec.
22.105) and the propulsion system (Sec. 22.145). FAA also notes the
simplified flight controls requirements in Sec. 22.180 are not
applicable to all light-sport category aircraft. As previously
discussed, this rule will require a two-seat maximum seating capacity
for light-sport category powered-lift to mitigate risk while FAA gains
experience in safety metrics. Future accident data will need to show
the effectiveness of newly developed consensus standards for light-
sport category powered-lift.
5. Maximum Seating Capacity for Light-Sport Category Airplanes (Sec.
22.100(a)(2))
FAA proposed to increase the maximum seating capacity of light-
sport category airplanes from two seats to four seats. As explained in
the NPRM, the addition of two more seats should increase safety by
making manufacturer-built light-sport category airplanes that meet
design, production, and airworthiness requirements a more appealing
alternative to EAB airplanes. In addition, pilots holding private pilot
certificates or higher would likely find light-sport category airplanes
with four seats more appealing due to the greater utility. Attracting
more pilots with higher levels of experience and training into light-
sport category airplanes increases the overall safety of those
operations.
Most commenters favored increasing light-sport category airplane
seating capacity from two to four seats. AEA, ARSA, and ALPA opposed
the proposed increase in seating. AEA/ARSA stated primary category
airplanes already allow four seats. FAA agrees that the primary
category is a viable option for manufacturing a four-seat recreational
airplane; FAA recognizes that primary and light-sport category
airplanes will share similarities of weight and seating capacities as a
result of this rule. Accordingly, it would be detrimental to the
utility and marketability of light-sport category airplanes to limit
them to two seats when they will have the size and performance to carry
four people, including the pilot. ALPA asserted that increased seat
capacity would reduce the safety benefits of normal category airplanes
because significantly more pilots will likely migrate down to light-
sport category airplanes. FAA agrees that some pilots may migrate from
normal to light-sport category airplanes just as they have migrated
from normal to EAB airplanes. Regardless, the performance-based
requirements in part 22 will increase safety of light-sport category
airplanes since appropriate consensus standards (for an airplane with a
maximum of four seats) can be created to act as a means of compliance
to those requirements.
FAA notes that a few minor inconsistencies exist regarding seating
when comparing normal, primary, and light-sport category airplanes and
EAB airplanes. Low speed, level one normal category airplanes have a
maximum

[[Page 35059]]

seating configuration of zero to one passenger and level two normal
category airplanes can have a maximum seating configuration that allows
up to six passengers.\22\ Primary category airplanes are limited to
four seats and, like normal category airplanes, are type
certificated.\23\ Thus, primary and normal category aircraft share
similar airworthiness certification paths since they must show
compliance to similar airworthiness requirements. At the low end of the
safety continuum, EAB airplanes do not have to meet any airworthiness
standards and are not bound to a maximum seating capacity restriction.
As of May 13, 2025, only 157 EAB aircraft in the FAA Registry had more
than four seats.
Despite the wide array of certification rigor for normal, primary,
and light-sport category airplanes and EAB airplanes, FAA considered
the seating variances when proposing this rule and determined that a
maximum seating capacity of four seats for light-sport category
airplanes was reasonable given the expected similarities in size and
performance. FAA anticipates that light-sport category airplanes with
four seats will share similar dimensions (i.e., wingspan, length) and
general configurations as the popular models of the other three types
of four-seat airplanes. Likewise, all four types of four-seat airplanes
should share similar engine or motor models and operate within a
similar performance envelope of altitudes and airspeeds.
A few commenters favored increasing the maximum seating capacity of
light-sport category airplanes to more than four seats. One commenter
was concerned that a four-seat limit would dissuade families with more
than two children from buying light-sport category airplanes and
thereby unnecessarily restrict the market. The commenter questioned the
difference, referencing the structural ability of the airplane, in
carrying the weight of four adults compared to a couple with four
children.
FAA agrees that the maximum seating capacity of an airplane plays a
large role in its utility and marketability. As previously discussed,
FAA evaluated the certification categories at the low end of the safety
continuum, including EAB airplanes, to determine the acceptable maximum
seating capacity of light-sport category airplanes. As long as an
airplane is operated within its authorized performance envelope and
weight and balance limits, the presence of passengers does not
necessarily make an airplane less safe. Rather, increasing the seating
capacity allows for the carriage of more passengers, which exposes more
people to risk. Airplanes that carry more passengers, especially for
commercial purposes, should be certificated at increasing levels of
rigor because they have the capacity to expose more people to risk.
Given where light-sport category airplanes fall on the safety continuum
and the seating capacity limits of normal and primary category
airplanes, which have a long history of four-seat airplane designs, FAA
deems four seats as an appropriate seating limit for light-sport
category airplanes.
Another commenter who favored more than four seats asserted that
decoupling light-sport category airplanes from sport pilots eliminated
the need for a four-seat limit and that the handling, controls, and
performance limitations will result in larger airplanes that are safer
and simpler than older alternatives. For the reasons previously
discussed, FAA disagrees with exceeding the four-seat limit for
airplanes in this final rule. Also, the addition of a new light-sport
category airplane does not necessarily correlate with the retirement of
an older airplane, regardless of the category of that older airplane.
As evidenced by the well-documented aging of the general aviation
fleet, used aircraft remain appealing to buyers who need or want lower
cost or higher certificated options. In addition, the commenter does
not provide support for their statement that the handling, controls,
and performance limitations of a larger light-sport category airplane
will make them safer and simpler than older normal category
alternatives. Though this rule aims to increase the safety of light-
sport category airplanes and of general aviation by making light-sport
category airplanes a more appealing alternative to EAB airplanes, FAA
finds no compelling basis for predicting that the safety of light-sport
category airplanes will exceed that of airplane categories higher on
the safety continuum.
Another commenter asked whether six-seat airplanes with two seats
removed would be acceptable. Section 22.100 specifies that light-sport
category airplanes have a maximum seating capacity of not more than
four persons, including the pilot. This means an airplane could not be
designed with more than four seats and be eligible for light-sport
category airworthiness certification under Sec. 21.190. Also note that
Sec. 91.327 as adopted in this final rule prohibits persons from
operating an aircraft certificated in the light-sport category that
carry more than four occupants, including the pilot, if the aircraft is
an airplane. Accordingly, even if there were extra floor space in the
airplane where additional occupants could fit, Sec. 91.327 prohibits a
pilot from carrying more than four occupants, including the pilot.
Many commenters that favored a maximum seating capacity of four
seats for light-sport category airplanes cited the increased utility
that four seats will provide, including for pilots with private or
higher certificates and for training, personal transportation,
recreation, and flight school rental. Other commenters favoring the
seat increase stated it would make pilot training more efficient since
it would allow two students to receive training on the same flight,
citing the ``Gemini Method'' commonly used by flight schools. Under
this method, the non-flying student would be able to observe and learn
from the instruction provided to the other student. The non-flying
student could also increase flight safety by visually clearing for
other aircraft and hazards or assisting with emergencies. Van's
Aircraft highlighted increased marketability for private aviation and
flight schools for such aircraft and the ability for flight schools to
fly with more than one student.
One commenter stated the four-seat change would enable more legacy
aircraft in the light-sport category and allow additional versatility
in future designs. Though FAA agrees that the seat increase will allow
more versatility in future designs, the comment about allowing more
legacy aircraft to be included in the light-sport category needs
clarification. The issuance of a special airworthiness certificate in
the light-sport category for airplanes that have been previously issued
a standard, primary, restricted, limited, or provisional airworthiness
certificate, or an equivalent airworthiness certificate issued by a
foreign civil aviation authority is prohibited per Sec. 22.100.
This final rule sets the maximum seating capacity at four seats for
light-sport category airplanes. FAA finds that four seats are
appropriate for the certification rigor of light-sport category
airplanes given their primary use of recreational flight. The increased
maximum seating capacity from two seats to four seats provides enhanced
utility and marketability of light-sport category airplanes. This
enhanced utility and marketability will make light-sport category
airplanes a more appealing alternative to EAB airplanes and will help
to attract more pilots with higher levels of experience and training
into manufacturer-built light-sport category airplanes, thereby
increasing safety.

[[Page 35060]]

6. Maximum Takeoff Weight and Aircraft Stall Speeds (Sec.
22.100(a)(3))
a. Maximum Takeoff Weight
Streamline Designs commented that there is no certificated takeoff
weight because there is no type certificate. The requirement to use
certificated takeoff weight in proposed Sec. 22.100(a)(3) was taken,
and is unchanged, from the existing requirement in the definition of
light-sport aircraft in Sec. 1.1. The requirement to use certificated
takeoff weight in existing Sec. 1.1 and proposed Sec. 22.100(a)(3)
was a reference to the maximum takeoff weight tied to the airworthiness
certificate and not based upon a type certificate as light-sport
category aircraft are not issued a type certificate. However, given the
concerns raised in this comment, FAA recognizes that `certificated'
takeoff weight is not the best terminology to use in this final rule
with light-sport category aircraft. As such, this final rule eliminates
``certificated'' from proposed Sec. 22.100(a)(3) to determine the
maximum stalling speed or minimum steady flight speed at the aircraft's
maximum takeoff weight. FAA's Airplane Flying Handbook (FAA-H-8083-3C)
defines maximum takeoff weight as the maximum allowable weight for
takeoff. In addition, ASTM Standard F3060, Standard Terminology for
Aircraft, states that maximum takeoff weight is used to determine
maximum flight loads and flight requirements and it may also be the
weight used to determine the maximum ground loads when it is the same
as the ramp weight, landing weight, or towing weight.
The aircraft manufacturer should include the aircraft's actual and
maximum weight limits in the POH since they are necessary to conduct
safe operations as required by Sec. 21.190(c)(2)(i). As part of the
application for an airworthiness certificate in the light-sport
category, an applicant provides FAA with the aircraft's POH and FAA
Form 8130-15, Manufacturer's Statement of Compliance for a Light-Sport
Category Aircraft/Kit. This form assists a manufacturer in fulfilling
statement of compliance requirements in Sec. 21.190(d) and includes an
entry for the manufacturer to specify the aircraft's maximum takeoff
weight. The maximum takeoff weight in the POH and on FAA Form 8130-15
should match. Accordingly, this is also the weight that should be used
by the manufacturer when conducting flight tests, per Sec. 22.195,
such as verifying the applicable stall speed requirement in Sec.
22.100(a)(3).
b. Airplane Stall Speed
FAA proposed in Sec. 22.100(a)(3) a maximum stall speed of 54
knots CAS, without the use of lift-enhancing devices (VS1),
at the airplane's maximum certificated takeoff weight and most critical
center of gravity. FAA proposed this increased stall speed because on
and after July 24, 2026, with the removal of the weight limits of the
light sport aircraft definition, aircraft have increased weight
allowances. Increased weight allowances must be accompanied with an
increased stall speed. Since most light-sport category airplane
accidents occurred during approach and landings, FAA proposed 54 knot
CAS VS1 with the goal of reducing kinetic energy in
survivable aircraft landing accidents,\24\ which would result in fewer
occupant injuries and fatalities. FAA also noted 54 knots CAS was the
highest VS1 for which an exemption had been granted for the
light-sport category.\25\
The proposed 54 knot CAS VS1 eligibility requirement for
light-sport category airplanes received over 120 comments. Over 50
commenters stated the proposed 54 knot CAS VS1 should be
increased to a higher VS1. These commenters suggested
VS1 values that ranged from 57 to 65 knots, with the
greatest number of commenters supporting an increase to, or at least a
minimum of, 58 knots CAS VS1. Some of the commenters wanted
VS1 to be increased above the proposed 54 knots CAS but did
not provide a specific value. Other commenters supported a stall speed
increase that used a landing configuration airspeed (VS0).
The commenters that favored using VS0 suggested values
ranging from 48 to 65 knots, with the majority supporting a
VS0 of 54 knots. Almost half of these commenters did not
specify a VS0 speed. Some commenters specified a stall speed
(VS1 or VS0) increase with the inclusion of
equipment requirements, operational considerations, design aspects,
crashworthiness, or other considerations.
Other commenters said an increased stall speed above the proposed
54 knot limit or even above the current 45 knot limit was unnecessary.
One commenter supported the proposed 54 knots CAS VS1,
stating it will allow for both adequate safety margin and more robust
and safer designs. AEA/ARSA jointly disagreed with increasing the stall
speed limit to 54 knots CAS and instead asserted that this rulemaking
should instead update rules for the primary category. FAA disagrees
that these changes are better suited to primary category. Since 2004,
light-sport category aircraft manufacturers have produced over 200
designs and approximately 3,500 aircraft, whereas primary category
aircraft manufacturers, since 1992, have produced 53 aircraft and
obtained 7 type certificates.\26\ The use of consensus standards in the
airworthiness certification of light-sport category airplanes has
produced successful and safe results as shown by the relatively low
accident rate for light-sport category airplanes.\27\ FAA considers
that it is more efficient to address these safety considerations in the
aircraft that are most numerous in the airspace for the general
aviation community.
ALPA also did not favor increasing VS1 above 45 knots
CAS because it would allow significantly heavier and larger aircraft to
operate in the light-sport category, which would lower safety. Heavier
and larger light-sport category airplanes will be able to operate under
the higher stall speed limit in this rule. FAA disagrees that, by
itself, an aircraft's heavy weight or large size decreases safety.
Heavier weights or larger sizes usually must be coupled with another
parameter such as poor design, inadequate power or performance, or poor
decision making by the pilot to result in adverse impacts to safety.
Conversely, the existing low weight and resultingly low wing loading of
light-sport category airplanes is one of the main reasons for their
historically high number of landing accidents \28\ because low weight
and wing loading create challenging handling qualities in windy or
turbulent conditions. Elimination of weight limits in this rule should
decrease the number of landing accidents associated with low wing
loading.
FAA considered all comments and has decided to increase the maximum
stall speed eligibility requirement in Sec. 22.100(a)(3) from the
proposed 54 knots CAS VS1 to 61 knots CAS VS0 for
special airworthiness certification of light-sport category
airplanes.\29\ The 61 knot CAS VS0 is a compromise between
the proposed stall speed that would provide lower kinetic energy for
survivable emergency landings and one that could achieve safe
operations of heavier airplanes allowed by this rule, as discussed in
the following paragraphs. Though most commenters favored either a 58
knot CAS VS1 or a 54 knot CAS VS0 or higher, the
same safety justification for raising the maximum VS to any
of these values can also be applied to 61 knots CAS VS0 with
equal validity.
FAA considered stall speed limits of similar types of four-seat
general aviation airplanes. Light-sport and

[[Page 35061]]

primary category airplanes share the same maximum stall speed limit of
61 knots CAS VS0.\30\ Normal category and EAB airplanes do
not have a maximum stall speed limit despite EAB airplanes not being
subject to design standards, unlike normal category airplanes.
Increasing this rule's airplane stall speed limit to 61 knots CAS
VS0 is reasonable considering the design and performance
similarities of these types of general aviation airplanes.
A 61 knot VS0 stall speed limit has been applicable to
the production of four-seat primary category airplanes since September
1992. The 1992 primary category final rule explained that the 61 knot
VS0 limit was adopted simply based on its 50-year track
record in part 23 that ``established it as an acceptable level for
single-engine airplane performance for safe operation by general
aviation pilots.'' \31\ This historical use sets a traditional design
threshold for small general aviation airplanes.
Van's Aircraft commented that the performance enhancements in this
rule should encourage greater ownership in light-sport category
airplanes since they will resemble the operational capabilities of
amateur-built airplanes. FAA anticipates the higher stall speed should
also encourage higher certificated pilots into ownership of light-sport
category airplanes resulting in greater safety benefits. Compared to
sport pilots, private and commercial pilots have completed more
training and have more experience with the larger operating envelope
light-sport category airplanes will have as a result of this rule.
One commenter requested the stall speed be increased so that more
aircraft are included that can fly safer, under max weight, and with
full fuel and passengers. Van's Aircraft stated the proposed 54 knot
CAS VS1 will result in an unmarketable aircraft, noting the
dilemma of needing to choose amongst full fuel, seats, or baggage, but
not all three. FAA agrees the NPRM proposal of 54 knots CAS
VS1 could be limiting to the operational utility of four-
seat designs. The increased stall speed in this rule will increase
safety by accommodating airplane designs for heavier weight operations,
which could result in a reduction in the occurrence of overweight
takeoffs.
In considering the maximum stall speed limit for this rule, FAA
determined that the majority of four-seat, single-engine general
aviation airplanes used in the NPRM analysis were built and originally
certificated when, for weight and balance purposes, the U.S. standard
average adult passenger weight was 160 pounds in the summer or 165
pounds in the winter.\32\ Today, FAA uses body measurement data from
the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention for aircraft weight
and balance calculations.\33\ That data shows that the average weight
for women is 170.8 pounds and for men it is 199.8 pounds.\34\ FAA
aircraft weight and balance control guidance allows for an additional
five pounds of summer clothes and 10 pounds of winter clothes.\35\
Thus, in a conservative scenario, a legacy four-seat aircraft \36\ with
four men onboard could have, on average, an additional 179 pounds of
extra weight to account for.\37\ To put the significance of this 179
pounds example in perspective, that equates to approximately 29.8
gallons of avgas, which is slightly more than half the fuel capacity of
several popular four-seat legacy airplane models.\38\
Though a 61 knot CAS VS0 will allow heavier airplanes
than originally proposed in the NPRM, this stall speed will not
guarantee adequate takeoff and climb performance for all circumstances,
nor will it accommodate overweight takeoffs. Pilots will still be
responsible for verifying their airplane's takeoff and landing
performance data is suitable for the runway and airport environment and
ensuring their airplane's weight and balance is within limits
established in the POH. Even with a 61 knot CAS VS0, pilots
will still have to determine if they will need to limit the number of
passengers or the amount of fuel or baggage carried.
Though NTSB does not provide specific data for accidents caused by
overweight airplanes or inadequate takeoff and climb performance, these
accidents are usually captured in loss of control data since the
airplane fails to takeoff or stalls during initial climb. U.S. general
aviation accident data for personal use, single reciprocating engine
airplanes from 2008 through 2022 shows loss of control in-flight (LOC-
I) was the third most common type of accident.\39\ This data is
relevant because light-sport category airplanes under this rule share
similar performance characteristics with a greater number of other
general aviation airplanes. The NTSB LOC-I data in Table 3 shows that
takeoff and initial climb experienced the second highest number of
fatalities of any flight phase. This is likely because performance
margins during takeoff and initial climb are most critical when the
aircraft is at its highest gross weight.

Table 3--Fatalities by Phase of Flight Due to LOC-I
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fatalities
Flight phase (2008-2022)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Takeoff and initial climb............................... 205
Enroute................................................. 113
Maneuvering............................................. 255
Approach and landing.................................... 193
------------------------------------------------------------------------

FAA notes there could be a myriad of reasons loss of control occurs
during takeoff or initial climb, including pilot error occurrences such
as over-rotation, poor wind analysis, visual fixation or distraction,
loss of visual cues, uncoordinated flight, missed checklist items, or
lack of fuel. Regardless, the high number of accidents during the
takeoff and initial climb phase related to LOC-I could likely be
reduced with aircraft designs that can meet greater operational
demands, such as having four seats occupied (for certain pilots) or
designs that have better handling in turbulence.
Many commenters recommended a higher stall speed stating that
handling would improve in turbulent or gusty conditions. These
commenters stated an increase to the proposed VS1 would
raise the design maneuvering speed, or VA, which would
provide a safety benefit for operations in turbulent air. VA
is the maximum speed at which the limit load can be imposed (either by
gusts or full deflection of the control surfaces) without causing
structural damage.\40\ The EAA, AOPA, NATA, NBAA, GAMA, Sonex, and
Elanus Aerospace shared a similar comment that a higher VS1
would enable a higher VA speed, lessening the possibility
for an airplane to exceed structural limits. The commenters similarly
stated a higher VA would allow aircraft to be handled more
predictably and safely in turbulence and gusty conditions, thereby
lessening the probability for a departure from controlled flight.
Sessoms Aero added that higher wing loading would allow for more
operating margins and varied weather conditions.
FAA agrees with the commenters that heavier airplanes, which are
less susceptible to turbulence, require a higher stall speed and
resultingly have an increased design maneuvering speed. Operating at or
below VA does not provide structural protection against
multiple full control inputs in one axis or full control inputs in more
than one axis at the same time. VA should not be interpreted
as a speed that would permit the pilot unrestricted flight-control
movement without exceeding airplane structural limits, nor should it be
interpreted as a gust penetration speed.

[[Page 35062]]

An airplane's VA is affected by weight. For example,
VA may be 115 knots when the airplane is at maximum takeoff
weight, but only 90 knots when the airplane has burned much of its
available fuel. FAA agrees that an aircraft's ability to maintain
controllability in turbulent air is an important design feature and
emphasizes that continued operation in turbulent air may eventually
exceed the design loads of the aircraft. NTSB data for 2022 shows that
there was one accident and no fatalities related to an in-flight
turbulence encounter.\41\
Another commenter identified the need to account for the increased
weight of electric airplanes, asserting that stall speeds need to be
increased to accommodate the extra weight of electric batteries and
achieve practical range for electric airplanes. FAA agrees that the
battery capacity of electric airplanes increases significantly the
gross weight and an increased stall speed is needed to account for this
weight and better enable the continued development of these airplanes.
Greater battery capacity allows greater range and endurance, which can
increase safety, such as in the case of diverting to an alternate
airfield or providing more options for weather avoidance.
ANAC recommended the proposed stalling speed be increased to 61
knots CAS VS0 since FAA-accepted ASTM Standard 2245 uses the
same static inertia load criteria for emergency landing conditions as
is used by normal category airplanes. ASTM Standard 2245 states that
the structure must be designed to protect each occupant during
emergency landing conditions when occupants experience the static
inertia loads corresponding to the following ultimate load factors of 3
g's upwards, 9 g's forward, and 1.5 g's lateral. These same criteria
were originally part of Sec. 23.561 when first published in 1964 \42\
and now appear in FAA-accepted ASTM Standard F3083/F3083M--20A,
Standard Specification for Emergency Conditions, Occupant Safety and
Accommodations, for normal category airplanes. FAA anticipates that
these same or similar load factors will be used for light-sport
category airplanes as part of the means of compliance to Sec. 22.110
structural integrity and Sec. 22.165 emergency evacuation
requirements. FAA agrees with Brazil ANAC that the shared static
inertia loads for emergency landing conditions help to justify the 61
knot CAS VS0 limit. This criteria also allows for easier
adoption, by light-sport category consensus standards organizations, of
certain emergency landing crashworthiness consensus standards in ASTM
Standard F3083/F3083M--20A.
To provide a more viable solution for the development of electric
airplanes, improve handling in gusty or turbulent conditions, increase
the ability to meet greater operational demands and account for the
additional weight of today's occupants, and make light-sport category
airplanes a more appealing alternative to EAB airplanes, this rule
establishes a traditional design stall speed for light-sport category
airplanes of a maximum 61 knots CAS VS0 in Sec.
22.100(a)(3).\43\
c. Glider Stall Speed
In the NPRM, FAA did not propose to change the existing
VS1 limit of 45 knots CAS in Sec. 1.1 for light-sport
category gliders and motor gliders, hereafter referred to as gliders.
FAA received a few comments requesting the glider stall speed to be
increased to the 54 knot CAS VS1 limit proposed for
airplanes. Sonex recommended the glider stall speed be increased to a
minimum of 58 knots VS1. Desert Aerospace cited the need to
increase glider stall speed to accommodate an industry trend toward
composite gliders. Composite gliders tend to have less parasite drag
than older style metal gliders and resultingly have a higher stall
speed. Desert Aerospace also cited the dwindling supply and
availability of two seat metal gliders used for training and recognized
a popular metal training model last produced 42 years ago. Desert
Aerospace stated the 45 knot CAS VS1 glider stall speed
limit may not accommodate the newer two seat composite gliders used for
training new glider pilots. Sonex likewise stated an increased
VS1 would allow the use of modern, two-seat gliders to be
used for training.
The 2022 Light-Sport Category Aircraft Continued Operational Safety
Report showed that 100 gliders have been certificated in the light-
sport category since 2004 and there have been two fatal accidents
during that time. The phase of flight of these two fatal accidents were
initial climb and post-impact.
FAA agrees with much of Desert Aerospace's and Sonex's comments
that glider stall speed could safely be increased. Based on the low
accident rate of light-sport category gliders, this rule increases the
light-sport category glider stall speed limit in Sec. 22.100(a)(3) to
45 knots CAS VS0.\44\ FAA chose to use 45 knots CAS
VS0 in this rule rather than the 54 or 58 knots CAS
VS1 suggested by commenters to better align with EASA's and
TCCA's glider stall speed criteria that has been used by FAA for type
certificated gliders under Sec. 21.17(b). Depending on variances in
glider design, it may be possible for a glider to have both a 45 knot
CAS VS0 and a VS1 in the range of 54 to 58 knots
CAS.
FAA has previously accepted EASA's glider stall speed criteria in
EASA's Certification Specifications, Acceptable Means of Compliance and
Guidance Material for Sailplanes and Powered Sailplanes (CS-22) \45\
for type certification of gliders under the special class requirements
of Sec. 21.17(b). TCCA has also published these same criteria for
certification of gliders in its Airworthiness Manual Chapter 522
Subchapter B--Flight--Canadian Aviation Regulations.\46\ The stall
speed criteria in CS-22 and chapter 522 requires the use of
VS0 and CAS. The 45 knot CAS VS0 in this rule
would put the light-sport category stall speed requirement a few knots
below the EASA and TCCA design requirement of 90 km/h CAS
VS0 for gliders with airbrakes retracted and at maximum
weight with water ballast.\47\ Accordingly, FAA has determined that 45
knot CAS VS0 in this rule would be appropriate.
A commenter recommended that a light-sport category glider should
have the same stall speed, airspeed [VH], and weight
limitations as a light-sport category airplane and another asked FAA to
increase the glider VNE to 135 knots or such limit that is
shown to be safe. This rule will impose stall speed limits of 61 knots
VS0 for light-sport category airplanes and 45 knots
VS0 for gliders. As for VH, all light-sport
category aircraft with a maximum continuous power limit will be limited
by this rule to a maximum speed of 250 knots CAS. Aircraft such as
balloons and non-motorized gliders will not be subject to a maximum
airspeed limitation in this rule since they lack an engine or motor
with a VH limit. This rule does not need to adopt
commenter's recommendation that glider VNE be increased to
130 knots. This rule did not adopt the maximum 120 knot CAS
VNE glider limitation from the light-sport aircraft
definition and the maximum speed of gliders is well below the 250 knot
CAS VH allowed for light-sport category classes with a
maximum continuous power value. Per Sec. 21.181(a)(3)(iv) as revised
by this final rule, the special airworthiness certificate for light-
sport category gliders certificated prior to July 24, 2026 will remain
effective with a maximum 120 knot CAS VNE limit. Finally, to
address the comment regarding weight, this rule does not include a
maximum weight limitation for any class of light-sport category
aircraft.

[[Page 35063]]

d. Weight-Shift-Control and Powered Parachute Aircraft Stall Speed
The NPRM did not propose to change the 45 knot CAS without the use
of lift-enhancing devices, VS1, of light-sport category
weight-shift-control aircraft. FAA received two similar comments
advocating for an increased stall speed for weight-shift-control
aircraft equivalent to the 54 knot CAS VS1 proposed for
airplanes. The commenters supported the higher stall speed to avoid
stifling the development of weight-shift-control aircraft. Streamline
Designs also supported increasing the stall speed to 54 knots CAS
VS1 or higher with consensus standard determined
crashworthiness requirements and safety equipment. FAA disagrees with
an increase to the stall speed of light-sport category weight-shift-
control aircraft due to their higher accident rate compared to other
classes of light-sport category aircraft. In the 2022 Special Light-
Sport Category Aircraft Continued Operational Safety Report, which
includes data dating back to fiscal year 2005, weight-shift-control
aircraft had an 11.2% fatal accident rate for their class, which was
significantly greater than the next highest rate of 2.2% for airplanes.
In addition, FAA did not receive sufficient data or justification from
commenters to convince FAA that increasing the stall speed would be
appropriate for this class. FAA encourages consensus standards
organizations for light-sport category weight-shift-control aircraft to
find ways to improve the safety of weight-shift-control aircraft to
reduce the accident rate. This rule will continue to require a maximum
VS1 of 45 knots CAS for light-sport category weight-shift-
control aircraft.
Streamline Designs also favored a 54 knot CAS VS1 stall
speed for powered parachutes using the same justification as they used
for weight-shift-control aircraft. However, this rule does not include
a stall speed limitation for powered parachutes because they operate at
relatively slow speeds.
e. Requests to Clarify VS1
A few commenters requested FAA clarify VS1 for light-
sport category aircraft. The NPRM stated the acronym VS1
means ``Maximum Stalling Speed (in clean configuration).'' The Sentinel
Owners & Pilots Association stated this NPRM definition represents a
disconnect given that Sec. 1.2 defines VS1 to mean ``the
stall[ing] speed or the minimum steady flight speed obtained in a
specific configuration.'' In addition, EASA requested that FAA define
``clean configuration'' as used in the NPRM meaning of VS1.
In Sec. 1.2, VS1 means the stalling speed or the
minimum steady flight speed obtained in a specific configuration.
Because of the large variances in aircraft designs, each model could,
theoretically, have its own unique VS1 as determined by the
aircraft manufacturer. Not only could VS1 differ by flap
position, but it could also differ by weight, center of gravity (CG),
or other criteria specified by the manufacturer. When lift-enhancing
devices such as flaps or slats are not extended, this is commonly
referred to as a clean wing configuration, or ``clean configuration''
as the term was used in the NPRM. FAA is not adding a definition of
``clean configuration'' in this rule; the regulatory text ``without the
use of lift-enhancing devices'' carries the same meaning. The NPRM
discussion of VS1 being in a clean configuration was in
recognition of the prohibition of using lift-enhancing devices in
determining compliance with the maximum VS1 design
requirement. In other words, the specific configuration of
VS1 for light-sport category aircraft is obtained without
the use of lift-enhancing devices, as stated in the light-sport
aircraft definition and in Sec. 22.100 of this rule.\48\
f. Use of VS0 Rather Than VS1 for the Stall Speed
Some commenters stated VS0 is more appropriate to use
for the stall speed limitation in Sec. 22.100 rather than
VS1 because it represents the landing configuration and is
consistent with the NPRM's focus on accidents during landing and
landing speeds.
As stated in the NPRM, slower landing speeds benefit survivability
in emergency landings by reducing kinetic energy. However, the use of
VS1 does not prohibit the installation of lift-enhancing
devices that could be used to lower landing speeds in normal or
emergency operations. The advantage of using a clean wing configuration
for showing compliance with a maximum VS1 requirement is
that it levels the playing field, making all aircraft comply using the
same configuration, i.e., without the use of lift-enhancing devices.
When VS0 (landing configuration) is used as the design
criteria, manufacturers may opt to use less wing area, knowing they can
add lift-enhancing devices such leading-edge slats or adjust the size
or position of trailing-edge flaps until the airplane meets the
VS0 requirement. While a smaller wing increases efficiency
due to less form drag and less weight, the addition of certain lift
enhancing devices can add weight, complexity, and increase risk in the
event of abnormal operation.
The use of VS1 or VS0 as design criteria to
meet an eligibility requirement is situational and neither is better
than the other. When VS1 is used as design criteria, it
would not prohibit the installation or operational use of flaps or
other lift-enhancing devices during landing, if installed. The use of
VS1 in the 2004 final rule was appropriate since the rule's
weight limit kept designs simple where flaps were the predominant lift-
enhancing device. The 2004 final rule's weight limit made the addition
of other lift-enhancing devices, such as leading-edge slats, weight
prohibitive.
For light-sport category airplanes manufactured under this rule,
VS0 was selected instead of VS1 for the stall
speed limit in Sec. 22.100(a)(3) because of the historical use of 61
knots VS0 as a stall speed design criterion for small
general aviation airplanes, as well as the other reasons previously
cited in the airplane stall speed discussion. As discussed in the
glider stall speed section, VS0 is used for gliders
manufactured under this rule to better align with EASA's and TCCA's
stall speed criteria in CS-22 and chapter 522, respectively, which has
been accepted for use by FAA for the type certification of gliders
under Sec. 21.17(b). In this instance, the use of VS0 could
allow easier adoption of EASA's and TCCA's glider criteria by light-
sport category glider consensus standards organizations. As discussed
in the weight-shift-control aircraft section, the 45 knot CAS
VS1 limit remains unchanged; this rule does not increase the
stall speed of these aircraft in Sec. 22.100(a)(3) due to their higher
accident rate compared to other classes of light-sport category
aircraft.
g. Lift-Enhancing Devices
Many commenters that supported using VS0 rather than
VS1 discussed airplane design, primarily the use of lift-
enhancing devices. Several commenters conveyed that the VS1
requirement prohibits, hampers the development of, or does not
recognize the effectiveness of lift-enhancing devices on light-sport
category aircraft. Several commenters favored the installation of
passively induced or automatic lift-enhancing devices, such as
aerodynamically actuated leading-edge slats, citing that they were
simple, did not increase the workload of the pilot, and would greatly
lower landing speeds and energies.
FAA emphasizes that lift-enhancing devices have never been
prohibited

[[Page 35064]]

from the designs of light-sport category aircraft, nor will they be
going forward under this rule. Aircraft manufacturers may install lift-
enhancing devices; however, these devices may not be used to meet a
VS1 eligibility requirement. After-market lift-enhancing
devices, such as leading-edge slats or short takeoff and landing wing
extenders, are permitted on a light-sport category airplane only if
they are approved by the aircraft manufacturer or a person acceptable
to FAA.\49\ Light-sport category aircraft certificated prior to July
24, 2026 must continue to meet the VS1 requirements in Sec.
21.181(a)(3)(iv)(D) for the light-sport category airworthiness
certificate to remain effective. Aircraft manufacturers or persons
acceptable to FAA cannot authorize major alterations to these aircraft
that would result in exceeding any applicable design and performance
criteria in Sec. 21.181(a)(3)(iv) without the manufacturer or an
aircraft owner petitioning for and obtaining an exemption from FAA.
A few commenters stated vortex generators should be permitted on
light-sport category airplanes to meet the stall speed limit or
encouraged the inclusion of speedbrakes in light-sport category
aircraft. Vortex generators do not necessarily lower the stall speed;
rather they control which parts of the wing stall first to control the
wing's stall characteristics. A speedbrake is usually a fuselage
mounted panel or plate that extends into the airstream to produce drag.
Spoilers are similar devices mounted on the topside of an aircraft's
wing that also produce drag. A speedbrake is used to slow down the
aircraft while spoilers can be used to decrease speed, increase descent
rate, or roll the aircraft. Vortex generators, spoilers, and speed
brakes are not lift-enhancing devices and may be installed on light-
sport category aircraft by the aircraft manufacturer or with approval
from a person acceptable to FAA. Section IV.J.6. explains ``a person
acceptable to FAA.''
h. CAS Versus Indicated Airspeed (IAS)
A few commenters requested the stall speed be specified in IAS
rather than CAS. One commenter stated this rule should be rewritten to
accommodate the commonly accepted practice of using IAS in the
aircraft.
CAS is the speed at which an airplane is moving through the air.
IAS is displayed on the airspeed indicator and is read by the pilot.
IAS differs from CAS in that IAS includes any installation (or
position) and instrumentation errors. For example, the accuracy of IAS
may be affected by minor misalignment of the airplane's pitot tube;
whereas CAS testing traditionally uses properly calibrated instruments
and a test airspeed system independent of the aircraft's installed
equipment. The installation and instrumentation errors are greatest at
slow speeds and higher angles of attack, i.e., approaching or at stall
speed, and can result in CAS differing from IAS by several knots or
more. For example, the stall speed of an airplane may be 50 knots IAS,
but 56 knots CAS.
Position corrections vary among airplane models and can even vary
among individual airplanes of the same model. As a result, defining
stall speed in IAS would yield gross inconsistencies when determining
whether an airplane meets an eligibility requirement for design stall
speed. Because of these concerns, FAA disagrees with the comments
suggesting the design stall speed criterion be specified in IAS rather
than CAS. FAA requires CAS for determining whether an airplane meets
the design stall speed because it represents the airspeed that would be
measured by an airspeed system without position and instrumentation
errors. This ensures all airplanes meet the same standard. Regardless,
for newly manufactured light-sport category airplanes, the stall speed
will be determined by the aircraft manufacturer and verified during
ground and flight testing as required by Sec. 22.195.\50\
i. Increase VS To Allow Legacy and EAB Airplane Designs
Many commenters requested a higher stall speed so that certain
normal category or EAB airplane designs could be flown as a light-sport
category airplane because the proposed 54 knot CAS VS1 limit
would exclude many legacy aircraft. Piper commented that it supports an
increased VS1 of 58 knots CAS in order to include the PA-28-
161 and PA-28-181 series of aircraft.
FAA finds that raising the stall speed in and of itself would not
necessarily allow legacy aircraft to come under the umbrella of light-
sport category. Currently, Sec. 21.190(b)(2) prohibits an airplane
from receiving certification in the light-sport category if that
airplane has been previously issued a standard, primary, restricted,
limited, or provisional airworthiness certificate, or an equivalent
airworthiness certificate issued by a foreign civil aviation authority.
This final rule would include that same prohibition in Sec. 22.100.
Accordingly, all legacy airplanes cited by commenters that have
previously held a standard airworthiness certificate for the normal
category would not be eligible for a light-sport category airworthiness
certificate.
Though not specifically prohibited in Sec. Sec. 21.190 and 22.100,
an airplane previously certificated under the Sec. 21.191(g)
experimental purpose of operating an amateur-built aircraft likely
would not be able to subsequently be certificated in the light-sport
category. EAB airplanes are built by an amateur builder instead of by a
kit manufacturer, therefore the airworthiness certification processes
and requirements for EAB are dissimilar and noncompatible with light-
sport category requirements. For example, a certificated EAB kit
airplane could not obtain a statement of compliance to FAA-accepted
consensus standards for certification in the light-sport category. This
is because a kit manufacturer could not sign a statement of compliance
since the kit manufacturer did not completely build the airplane or
conduct necessary ground and flight tests. Likewise, an amateur builder
could not sign a statement of compliance since they are not the
aircraft manufacturer in terms of holding the kit model's design,
manufacturing, and test data, nor could they state the kit manufacturer
complied with all applicable consensus standards. Per Sec. 21.190, a
manufacturer's statement of compliance is required for a person to
apply for a special airworthiness certificate in the light-sport
category.
Despite these prohibitions, a manufacturer of normal category or
amateur-built kit airplanes would be permitted to produce new light-
sport category airplanes of its eligible models. A manufacturer of new
normal category airplanes could apply for an airworthiness certificate
in either the normal or light-sport category. A manufacturer of
airplane kits could likewise produce new, fully assembled airplanes of
one of its kit models for certification in the light-sport category, as
many kit manufacturers do today. Though no primary category models were
specifically mentioned by commenters, manufacturers of eligible models
could also produce new airplanes for certification in either the light-
sport or primary category.
For light-sport category airworthiness certification in this rule,
aircraft manufacturers would have to design, produce, assemble, and
test the airplane, with appropriately trained personnel pursuant to
Sec. 22.190, so that they could state compliance to FAA-accepted
consensus standards of applicable part 22, subpart B requirements.
Aircraft manufacturers would also have to comply with applicable
requirements in Sec. 21.190.

[[Page 35065]]

j. Increase Vs To Enable More Designs and Traditional Handling
Many commenters supporting a higher stall speed stated the increase
would benefit aircraft designs, allowing new designs to handle more
like legacy aircraft. FAA agrees that a higher stall speed would
provide an aircraft manufacturer with more design options to improve
handling. A higher stall speed, compatible with legacy airplanes, would
allow light-sport category airplanes to be manufactured with higher
gross weight, allowing designers more flexibility in adding size,
structures, or equipment to airplanes. The increased gross weight
allowance should alleviate the handling challenges in turbulent winds
of current light-sport category airplane designs due to light wing
loading.
k. VS Comments Related to VH
A few commenters discussed increasing the proposed VS1
to align with this rule's VH, a maximum speed of 250 knots
CAS in level flight at maximum continuous power under standard
atmospheric conditions at sea level. One commenter proposed lowering
VH to something ``realistic,'' noting that three times 54
knots is 162 knots and that Brazil's limit is 185 knots. Van's Aircraft
supported the NPRM increase to 250 knots VH and stated stall
speed should not control top speed. The NPRM stated an airplane's
maximum airspeed is typically limited to approximately three to four
times the aircraft's VS1 under ideal conditions. Though
three or four times the proposed 54 knot VS1 would be well
under this rule's maximum VH of 250 knots CAS, FAA did
acknowledge in the NPRM that advances in technology and manufacturing
practices could enable higher speeds.
FAA disagrees with comments suggesting the light-sport category
stall speed should align with the VH of the final rule. FAA
intends this final rule to provide a means for greater performance of
light-sport category airplanes than currently exists. Both the stall
speed limit and the maximum airspeed limit were established based upon
separate considerations and one limit should not be changed merely to
correspond to the other limit. This could potentially constrain future
development and technological advances in the manufacturing of light-
sport category aircraft. For example, Van's Aircraft provided an
example of an airplane with turbocharged engine that has a 54 knot
stall speed and a VH close to 245 knots CAS showing the
traditional three- or four-times Vs correlation is not always accurate.
Van's Aircraft also stated electric motors will break this traditional
paradigm due to their greater speed ratios. The stall speed limits were
discussed earlier in this section and VH is discussed in the
Sec. 22.100(a)(4) section.
l. Increase Vs With the Use of Angle of Attack (AOA) Indicators and
Other Safety Features
Some commenters, including Streamline Designs, suggested FAA
provide requirements in part 22 for crashworthiness and safety
enhancing features, where aircraft that met FAA-accepted consensus
standards could have a higher stall speed limit. Other commenters,
including the Airplane Factory and Van's Aircraft, favored a
requirement for the installation of AOA indicators to allow a stall
speed greater than the proposed 54 knots CAS VS1 citing it
would increase safety or prevent a tendency to inadvertently depart
controlled flight. Van's Aircraft also stated increased stall speeds
could be linked to other safety enhancing devices determined in the
consensus standards process.
FAA agrees that AOA equipment, envelope protection systems, and
other similar safety equipment could prove to be very beneficial in
significantly reducing loss of control accidents. AOA indicators assist
pilots with stall margin awareness, stall prevention, and recovery from
unusual attitudes or upset. An AOA indicator provides a visual
indication of the margin that exists between the current airfoil AOA,
and the AOA at which the airfoil will stall (i.e., critical AOA). AOA
indicators can also be useful in emergency situations such as windshear
or terrain avoidance maneuvers where the pilot operates the aircraft
very near the critical AOA or in diagnosing problems with the pitot-
static system, such as an iced-over pitot tube that provides faulty
airspeed readings.
Recently, FAA released a special airworthiness information bulletin
(SAIB) \51\ for AOA alerting systems citing these benefits. The SAIB
recommended owners and operators of airplanes type certificated under
part 23 and EAB airplanes install and calibrate critical AOA alerting
systems and receive training on the use of AOA indicators and how to
incorporate them in instrument scans. The SAIB stated, at this time,
the airworthiness concern is not an unsafe condition that would warrant
airworthiness directive (AD) action under part 39.
For light-sport category aircraft, FAA concurs with the SAIB
recommendation for the voluntary installation of AOA equipment or
systems; however, FAA disagrees with making AOA indicators, or other
envelope protection devices, required equipment for light-sport
category airplanes or tying a Sec. 22.100 stall speed requirement to
their presence in the cockpit. Regardless of whether an aircraft has a
high or low stall speed due to the presence of an AOA indicator,
survivability of loss of control accidents are very low since ground
impact usually occurs at various unpredictable attitudes. Airplane
crashworthiness designs cannot account for the severity of these types
of impact stresses. Emergency landing crashworthiness designs are only
valid for situations where the pilot maintains control of the aircraft.
Allowing consensus standards to establish an increased stall speed
based on the presence of AOA equipment or similar envelope protection
devices would pose unique challenges. For instance, if a Sec. 22.100
eligibility criterion for airworthiness certification is based on the
functionality of an installed AOA indicator, then operations of the
airplane would be contingent on having a properly trained pilot using
properly calibrated and operating AOA equipment. This may be
potentially too restrictive considering that airplanes can be safely
flown without this equipment installed or operative. Ownership
transfers may also become overly complicated in finding a pilot
previously trained, or in need of training, on the installed AOA
system. Avionics upgrades or changes could also invalidate the
airworthiness certificate or result in pilot training requirements to
operate the aircraft.
FAA's decision is also based on concerns about equipment
limitations, cost, training, ergonomics, continued calibration, and the
lack of standardization among AOA systems. Some AOA systems have
limitations, such as only being calibrated for one flap position. At
this time, FAA does not consider AOA systems to be mature enough to be
a complete solution for multiple configurations, therefore FAA declines
to prescribe them as required equipment. In addition, heated probes or
vanes would be necessary to ensure AOA equipment remains operational
when encountering icing even though AOA indications may not be reliable
because of wing contamination.
Though relatively inexpensive AOA equipment is available, there are
other costs that must be accounted for such as continued maintenance
and calibration of the equipment. A few avionics manufacturers embed an
AOA indicator on their multi-function displays. While these avionics
displays are very

[[Page 35066]]

popular, they also increase costs significantly. In many of these
displays, the AOA indicator is located next to the airspeed indicator
so if the pilot fails to monitor airspeed during a critical flight
segment, they are likely to not have the AOA indicator in view as well.
An accompanying audible or haptic feedback system would be necessary to
provide for a more fail-proof system, however, these add-ons may also
increase costs.
FAA notes pilot training may be difficult since there are a variety
of AOA systems being marketed, each with their unique displays,
operating parameters, and differing levels of complexity. Pilots would
have to be trained on their installed equipment and fully understand
the equipment's limitations. SAIB referenced a 2019 FAA study that
found pilots were not able to use AOA indicators effectively without
training.\52\
Though FAA highly encourages the installation and use of AOA and
envelope protection systems, FAA does not support mandating, as part of
this final rule, new requirements in parts 22 or 91 for the
installation of this equipment on light-sport category aircraft. In
addition, the NPRM did not propose or discuss potentially requiring the
installation of new equipment such as AOA indicators and such equipage
requirements would most appropriately be achieved through new notice
and comment rulemaking.
m. Increase VS With the Use of Crashworthiness Requirements
or Consensus Standards
Sonex recommended that FAA have flexibility to consider additional
safety enhancements, such as crashworthiness, to expand light-sport
category aircraft parameters. Two commenters recommended relying upon
consensus standards instead of, or to exceed, specific stall speeds.
Though FAA encourages consensus standards organizations and light-sport
category aircraft manufacturers to adopt crashworthy designs, FAA
disagrees with allowing consensus standards to determine eligibility
requirements. This is because consensus standards often change, which
could lead to confusion and non-standard configurations within the
light-sport category. In addition, establishing a maximum airplane
stall speed of 61 knots VS0 in this rule follows precedent
of other aircraft categories in establishing clear and distinctive
eligibility or applicability criteria. Finally, to the extent that FAA
deems it appropriate to expand parameters for the light-sport category,
FAA has the flexibility, like it has in this final rule, to engage in
further rulemaking.
Another commenter suggested rewarding crashworthy designs using
off-the-shelf technologies with an unlimited maximum stall speed. FAA
disagrees with this suggestion. Crashworthiness designs for unlimited
speeds are unreasonable because even if the crashworthiness designs
reduced damage to the aircraft, the human body would not likely be able
to tolerate such high-impact forces and stresses that unlimited stall
speeds would implicate.
One commenter recommended designs with roll cage like structures
and seats capable of protecting the pilot and passengers from large
vertical impacts could allow stall speeds above 54 knots. Other
commenters recommended that airbags, crash protection, or ballistic
recovery systems could enable a higher stall speed. FAA agrees with
commenters that designs and equipment such as roll cage structures,
crush zones, ballistic parachutes, airbags, AOA indicators, and fire-
resistant, appropriately cushioned seats with five-point shoulder
harnesses would be desirable safety enhancing features for
manufacturers to include in their light-sport category aircraft. Some
of these would benefit loss-of-control prevention while others would
benefit crashworthiness.
Since this rule removes the existing weight limitations of light-
sport category aircraft manufactured on or after July 24, 2026,
manufacturers will have greater flexibility to design new airplanes
with crashworthiness and safety enhancing features unique to their
aircraft's design. FAA is not mandating these features in this final
rule because the NPRM did not propose or discuss potentially requiring
the design or installation of specific crashworthiness features or
safety equipment and any specific crashworthiness requirements would
most appropriately be achieved through new notice and comment
rulemaking. The NPRM noted the increased weight allowance would enable
manufacturers to include safety-enhancing designs and equipment such as
advanced stall resistant airframes, increased load factor resilience,
improved passenger cabin crash safety mechanisms, ballistic safety
parachutes, and passenger airbags.
ANAC asked if FAA considered mandating stall warning for light-
sport category airplanes with stall speeds exceeding 45 knots. FAA
supports the installation of a stall warning system and encourages
consensus standards organizations for light-sport category aircraft to
create stall warning system consensus standards for applicable aircraft
classes to warn pilots of an impending stall. This would increase
safety by preventing stalls that could lead to an inflight loss of
control accident. The NPRM did not propose or discuss potentially
requiring the installation of stall warning devices.
n. Use Horsepower in Addition to Stall Speed
One commenter suggested allowing a slightly higher stall speed with
a maximum horsepower limit of 180 or 200 hp to allow the ``Warrior (PA-
160)'' and similar aircraft to qualify as light-sport category
aircraft. While FAA did consider using horsepower as an eligibility
criterion for Sec. 22.100, FAA ultimately disagrees with this
approach. Requiring a maximum horsepower limit could stifle
advancements and innovations in engine and powerplant development. In
addition, such an approach does not account for all types of engines
and would be difficult to apply to aircraft with multiple engines. For
instance, electric or hybrid motors would need a corresponding kilowatt
value or some other unique parameter. A single horsepower or kilowatt
value would also cause problems for powered-lift with multiple engine
or motor configurations since they would quickly exceed reasonable
horsepower or kilowatt values for airplanes due to their higher thrust
requirements. In addition, a kilowatt measurement is not a commonly
used term for light aircraft and may cause confusion.
o. Other Alternatives
One commenter suggested using a reasonable kinetic energy limit
instead of stall speed to limit such energy in a runway departure
accident. As discussed in the NPRM, FAA recognizes the role kinetic
energy plays in reducing injuries and fatalities in survivable aircraft
accidents. Regardless, FAA decided not to use a specific kinetic energy
value in this rule as an eligibility criterion because it would be more
difficult to make comparisons with other airplanes in the light-sport,
primary, or normal categories given the lack of kinetic energy values
for airplanes in these categories.
Another commenter recommended eliminating the stall speed
restriction, asserting that a four-seat restriction will limit the
maximum weight of light-sport aircraft to about 3,000 pounds. FAA
disagrees with the commenter's suggestion because a seating restriction
would not singularly limit the size or weight of an aircraft and could
result in aircraft that exceed the scope of the design, production, and
airworthiness

[[Page 35067]]

requirements within part 22. As discussed in the Sec. 22.100(a)(2)
section, FAA did not propose a 3,000 pounds limit in the NPRM, nor is
there a regulatory maximum gross weight limit in this rule.
One commenter encouraged FAA to look for metrics other than stall
speed that would more directly measure and fully capture the safety
intent of the MOSAIC rule. That commenter suggested handling qualities
as a potentially better metric. FAA disagrees with requiring an
eligibility criterion based on handling qualities. This criterion is
too subjective to be used for eligibility. As an example, during the
development of the NPRM, FAA considered establishing eligibility simply
based on an aircraft being easy to fly. However, it was too subjective
to define exactly what ``easy to fly'' means since it means different
things for different classes of aircraft and for different pilots. For
example, a low-hour pilot may find a particular airplane is difficult
to fly, but a pilot with more training or experience may find the same
aircraft easy to fly. Even fast military jets with narrow performance
margins can be found ``easy to fly'' by low-time military students
after they have sufficient training. Similar concerns would arise with
a handling qualities eligibility criterion.
p. Multi-Engine Airplane Stall Speed
On July 24, 2026, this rule removes the Sec. 1.1 light-sport
aircraft definition restriction to have a single, reciprocating engine
and will allow any type and number of engines or motors. Light-sport
category consensus standards will have to be developed and gain FAA
acceptance for multi-engine airplanes to be manufactured under this
rule. Appropriate engine inoperative minimum control airspeeds
(VMC) and other speeds applicable to multi-engine airplanes
will need to be included in the consensus standards for multi-engine
airplanes. FAA encourages consensus standards organizations for light-
sport category aircraft to adapt applicable FAA-accepted consensus
standards used for multi-engine normal category airplanes.
FAA received a few comments on multi-engine airplanes. One
commenter recommended letting consensus standard bodies establish
multi-engine V speed guidelines, noting that a stall speed well below
the VMC could be unsafe, that the VS1,
VS0, and VMC dynamic must be considered, and that
part 23 has long eschewed a set stall speed for multi-engine aircraft.
FAA agrees that light-sport category airplane multi-engine
airspeeds will need to be developed in new consensus standards.
Consensus standards organizations for light-sport category airplanes
could adapt consensus standards that have already been developed
specifically for multi-engine normal category airplanes. Since this
rule has increased the light-sport category airplane maximum stall
speed limit to 61 knots CAS VS0, a historical speed used for
normal category airplanes, the proposed 54 knots CAS VS1 is
no longer a consideration for multi-engine performance.
TCCA commented that the loss of control requirement in Sec. 22.105
raises the potential for asymmetric loss of thrust concerns and stall
related loss of control concerns. FAA agrees that asymmetric loss of
thrust may result in loss of control now that light-sport category
aircraft no longer have a single powered engine limit, but FAA notes
that Sec. 22.105 requires light-sport category aircraft to be
consistently and predictably controllable and maneuverable at all
loading conditions during all phases of flight and not have a tendency
to depart controlled flight inadvertently or require exceptional
piloting skill, alertness, or strength. This requirement applies to all
light-sport category aircraft, whether single- or multi-engine. Multi-
engine airplanes must meet the requirements of Sec. 22.105 when
operating in engine-inoperative scenarios when at or above the minimum
controllable airspeeds for their airplane and above the airplane stall
speed. Again, light-sport category consensus standards organizations,
with FAA participation, will have to create appropriate consensus
standards for multi-engine airplanes or adapt consensus standards
already established for normal category multi-engine airplanes.
7. Maximum Airspeed at Maximum Continuous Power (VH) (Sec.
22.100(a)(4))
As part of the eligibility criteria in Sec. 22.100, FAA proposed a
250 knot CAS maximum speed at maximum continuous power (VH)
under standard atmospheric conditions at sea level. This rule makes a
correction because the NPRM incorrectly used ``available'' instead of
``continuous'' in the proposed regulatory text for Sec. 22.100(a)(4)
and also did not specify the Sec. 1.2 VH criterion of being
in level flight. While the NPRM regulatory text was incorrect, the NPRM
preamble used the correct word ``continuous'' in defining VH
in the list of frequently used acronyms and used VH
throughout the maximum airspeed discussion in the NPRM's preamble. The
VH section heading in the NPRM preamble stated, ``Maximum
VH Airspeed in Level Flight'' to show the intent to align
with the Sec. 1.2 meaning. The NPRM explained that a maximum speed of
250 knots CAS at maximum continuous power was intended to provide an
upper limit appropriate for a category of aircraft intended for
recreation, flight training, and limited aerial work. This final rule
for Sec. 22.100(a)(4) includes the increased maximum speed of 250
knots CAS in level flight with maximum continuous power (VH)
under standard atmospheric conditions at sea level.
Based on public comments, support for the increased maximum speed
in this rule was mixed. AEA/ARSA opposed the increase because primary
and normal category aircraft already allow for an increased airspeed
above 120 knots CAS. FAA disagrees with AEA/ARSA. As previously
discussed throughout several sections of this preamble, including the
general aviation safety argument in section IV.C, the use of consensus
standards in the certification of the light-sport category over the
past two decades has proven to be successful based on the manufacture
of thousands of light-sport category aircraft and their accident rate
as shown in the 2022 Light-Sport Category Aircraft Continued
Operational Safety Report. Because of the other performance
enhancements proposed in this rule that afford light-sport category
aircraft an increase in size and weight, an increase in maximum
allowable airspeed was necessary.
One commenter supported a maximum cruise speed of 200 knots,
asserting that speeds greater than 200 knots are dangerous. Another
commenter stated they were skeptical that the higher speed limit was
safe. Neither commenter provided justification to support their
statements. In NTSB accident data reviewed by FAA for the enroute phase
of flight for U.S. general aviation airplanes with one or more
reciprocating engines used for personal flight, ``speed'' was not
listed as a defining event that caused an accident.\53\
Several commenters were in favor of the maximum airspeed increase.
One commenter stated safety will be increased and airspace congestion
will be reduced because light-sport category aircraft will be able to
operate at faster approach speeds similar to corporate and commercial
jets and turboprops. FAA cautions that the maximum airspeed increase
should not be considered as justification to operate within the traffic
flows of larger commercial and corporate aircraft. These aircraft
produce wake vortices

[[Page 35068]]

that could cause the loss of control of smaller, lighter aircraft.
GAMA, EAA, AOPA, NATA, and NBAA also supported 250 knots CAS as the
maximum airspeed limit for this rule. They stated safety statistics do
not show maximum speeds to be a significant risk in small general
aviation aircraft and a higher VH will ensure light-sport
category aircraft are not built underpowered for the sake of meeting a
lower maximum speed, thereby sacrificing safety by limiting climb
performance. FAA agrees.
Van's Aircraft also agreed with the maximum speed expansion for a
variety of reasons citing past EAB aircraft community experience in
this speed range and that safety statistics show little risk associated
with speed. Autogyro supported the 250 knot CAS maximum airspeed at
VH, asserting it will improve efficiency and keep light-
sport category aircraft as a practical and appealing choice. FAA agrees
with these comments as they support FAA's goal of increasing safety by
making light-sport category airplanes a more appealing choice than EAB
airplanes.
The NPRM noted, in general, the stall speed of an aircraft
indirectly limits its maximum airspeed to a value of three or four
times the stalling speed. One commenter objected to the notion of
indirect limitations on the basis of their not improving safety. FAA
clarifies that the 250 knot CAS maximum airspeed at VH in
this rule is not an indirect limitation and is not based on being three
to four times the proposed 54 knot CAS stall speed. Another commenter
opined that the 250-knot maximum speed should not be an issue for most,
asserting that few aircraft that meet other limitations would be able
to exceed 150 knots CAS. Van's Aircraft commented that new turbocharged
engines are being used on many European aircraft that have a stall
speed just under 54 knots and a VH close to 245 knots CAS.
Van's Aircraft asserted stall speed cannot and should not be used to
limit top speed. FAA agrees with Van's Aircraft and re-emphasizes the
reasoning in the NPRM for a maximum speed of 250 knots CAS at
VH was to allow for potential technology and manufacturing
advances that could enable higher speeds (up to 250 knots CAS
VH).
EASA asked whether helicopters and powered-lift would be subject to
this 250 knot maximum airspeed. In response, yes, Sec. 22.100(a)(4)
applies to all classes of light-sport category aircraft that have
engines or motors with a maximum continuous power setting or limit.
8. Non-Pressurized Cabin (Sec. 22.100(a)(5))
The NPRM proposed to move the existing requirement for light-sport
category aircraft to have a non-pressurized cabin, if equipped with a
cabin, from Sec. 1.1 to Sec. 22.100(a)(5). A commenter recommended
this rule allow for pressurized aircraft, provided that the
pressurization requires minimum pilot action for use. FAA disagrees
with the commenter's recommendation. Cabin pressurization systems and
the associated pressure vessel are complex to design and manufacture
and the systems can be difficult to operate. Pressurized aircraft fly
at higher altitudes and may need an oxygen system. All these
complexities come with increased risk. One of the main concerns with a
pressurized fuselage is the increased risk associated with complex and
time-consuming maintenance and repair. The effects of an improperly
maintained pressurized cabin can result in severe consequences.
FAA's advisory circulars for acceptable methods, techniques, and
practices for aircraft inspection, repairs, and alterations is only
applicable to non-pressurized areas of civil aircraft \54\ because
inspecting, repairing, or altering pressurized structures requires
different considerations. For example, with regard to inspecting, a
crack in a non-pressurized fuselage may not be a significant problem,
but the same crack in a pressurized structure could be catastrophic.
When repairing or altering a pressurized aircraft, an engineering
analysis may be required to account for the effects of pressurization.
While FAA is allowing some additional complexity in this rule, such as
retractable landing gear, FAA has determined the complexity and risk
associated with a pressurized fuselage is beyond what FAA deems
suitable for the light-sport category.
9. Legacy Aircraft (Sec. 22.100(a)(6))
GAMA commented that FAA should allow a way for newly manufactured
models of part 23 and 27 type certificated aircraft that meet the
light-sport category aircraft requirements to be able to be modified,
improved, produced, and certificated under part 22. Another commenter
stated the number of light-sport category aircraft would increase by
more than 30,000 if qualifying Cessna and Piper aircraft were all
converted. Similarly, EASA noted an overlap between the NPRM and part
23, amendment 64 applicability and asked whether applicants had full
discretion in selecting a certification path. FAA agrees manufacturers
may certificate eligible, newly produced aircraft in either the normal,
primary, or light-sport category. As previously discussed in section
IV.F.6.i, if an aircraft is eligible for airworthiness certification in
both normal and light-sport categories, then the aircraft manufacturer
may choose which certification path to follow. Once an aircraft is
issued a standard airworthiness certificate for the normal category, it
cannot be subsequently certificated in the light-sport category
pursuant to Sec. 22.100(a). Adding provisions in this rule that would
allow manufacturers of eligible, newly produced, non-certificated
aircraft to choose either original certification in the normal or
light-sport category are not necessary. Nothing in this rule prevents
manufacturers from choosing an appropriate certification path.
10. Compliance to Part 22, Subpart B (Sec. 22.100(a)(7))
FAA-accepted consensus standards for the design, production, and
airworthiness of light-sport category aircraft will be the means of
compliance to the regulatory requirements in part 22, subpart B. FAA
adopts this provision as proposed, with the small correction of
deleting ``aircraft'' from Sec. 22.100(a)(7) in this final rule
because the word was already included in the lead-in statement of Sec.
22.100(a).
VAI and Skyryse recommended that FAA allow for other means of FAA-
accepted compliance to part 22 requirements to FAA-accepted consensus
standards. The 2004 final rule required, and the NPRM proposed
requirements, for light-sport category aircraft to meet applicable
consensus standards. Allowing other means of compliance (i) would
represent a significant departure from the establishment of the light-
sport category around FAA-accepted consensus standards, (ii) may impact
industry collaboration on development of consensus standards, and (iii)
would increase burden on FAA in reviewing and accepting more standards.
FAA disagrees with the proposal as such a change should not be made
without public notice and comment.
A commenter stated the MOSAIC rule is about fixed wing aircraft and
questioned why powered parachutes are being subjected to new rules and
regulations under the MOSAIC rule if they are not receiving any
advantages and there were no glaring problems. FAA disagrees with the
commenter's statement that this rule is about fixed wing aircraft. This
rule applies to all classes of aircraft certificated in the

[[Page 35069]]

light-sport category, which includes the addition of rotorcraft and
powered-lift. The new part 22 performance-based requirements in this
rule apply to all light-sport category classes regardless of being
subject to any beneficial performance expansions. The new requirements
will serve to guide consensus standards bodies in developing
appropriate consensus standards that would be acceptable to FAA. As
stated in the NPRM, FAA expects that compliance with these requirements
would reduce the occurrence of design and production defects, resulting
in aircraft that are safe for their intended operations.
11. Aircraft Manufactured Outside the United States (Sec. 22.100(b))
GAMA requested clarification on how an aircraft gains airworthiness
in the U.S. if it already has an existing airworthiness certificate
from another regulatory entity. This final rule retains, but relocates,
the existing Sec. 21.190(b)(2) requirement to Sec. 22.100(a)(6) that
aircraft having previously been issued a standard, primary, restricted,
limited, or provisional airworthiness certificate, or an equivalent
airworthiness certificate issued by a foreign civil aviation authority,
would not be eligible for a special airworthiness certificate in the
light-sport category. In addition, for aircraft manufactured outside
the United States, the aircraft also needs to meet the country of
manufacture bilateral agreement and certification requirements of Sec.
22.100(b)(1), which this rule relocates from current Sec. 21.190(d).
Otherwise, aircraft that have not been excluded by these requirements
would have to be eligible for airworthiness certification in the light-
sport category and comply with the requirements of Sec. 21.190 and the
applicable requirements in part 22, in effect at the time of
airworthiness certification.
12. Eligible Aircraft Located Overseas (Sec. 22.100(b)(2))
Because proposed Sec. 22.100(b)(1) was omitted from the final
rule, proposed Sec. 22.100(b)(3) will be renumbered as Sec.
22.100(b)(2). This provision, unchanged from existing Sec.
21.190(d)(2), requires an applicant for a special airworthiness
certificate in the light-sport category for an aircraft manufactured
outside the United States to provide evidence that the aircraft is
eligible for an airworthiness certificate, flight authorization, or
other similar certification in its country of manufacture. EASA asked
about what would demonstrate eligibility under proposed Sec.
22.100(b)(3) for a European Union (EU) manufactured, EASA design
compliant aircraft.
Questions about existing requirements that are substantively
unchanged by this rule are outside the scope of the final rule.
Specific questions about EU manufactured aircraft that meet EASA
applicability criteria for declaration of aircraft design compliance
are more suitable for the Aircraft Certification Service's Compliance
and Airworthiness Division (AIR-700). This division issues all design
approvals for both domestic and foreign manufacturers as well as
production and airworthiness certificates, executes continued
operational safety processes, and provides flight test support.
13. Control and Maneuverability (Sec. 22.105)
The provisions in Sec. 22.105 require light-sport category
aircraft to be consistently and predictably controllable and
maneuverable at all loading conditions during all phases of flight. In
addition, the aircraft must not have a tendency to inadvertently depart
controlled flight or require exceptional piloting skill, alertness, or
strength. As discussed in the section on simplified flight controls,
Sec. 22.180, the phrase ``through the normal use of primary flight
controls'' that was included in proposed Sec. 22.105(a) has been
omitted from this requirement in the final rule so the control and
maneuverability requirement now will be applicable to aircraft designed
with primary or simplified flight controls.
EASA asked what the airworthiness criteria would be to show Sec.
22.105 compliance for eVTOL and powered-lift with fly-by-wire flight
control systems. As explained in the NPRM, light-sport category
aircraft would be required to meet the performance-based design,
production, and airworthiness requirements in part 22 by using a means
of compliance consisting of consensus standards accepted by FAA. FAA
encourages consensus standards organizations for light-sport category
aircraft, with FAA participation, to create necessary consensus
standards for new aircraft types and classes, such as eVTOL aircraft
and powered-lift, including those for fly-by-wire control systems.
Normal protocol for consensus standards requires industry development
and balloting prior to FAA evaluation for acceptance. Accordingly, a
technical discussion of fly-by-wire acceptance criteria is not
appropriate here.
TCCA asked if a takeoff, climb, cruise, descent and landing at
corner combinations of weight and center of gravity would be sufficient
to meet Sec. 22.105(a). To answer this question, FAA reiterates Sec.
22.105(a) requires a light-sport category aircraft to be consistently
and predictably controllable and maneuverable at all loading conditions
during all phases of flight. Accordingly, a light-sport category
aircraft would have to meet the Sec. 22.105(a) requirements for all
permissible aircraft weight and center of gravity combinations within
the authorized flight envelope as specified in the aircraft's POH.
TCCA also asked for clarification on the meaning of
``consistently'' and ``predictably'' and its impact on subpart B
requirements like stability, longitudinal, lateral and directional
stability and control, and stall and spin characteristics. As title 14
does not specifically define these terms, consistently and predictably
would generally have their ordinary meanings. A dictionary definition
of ``consistently'' shows it generally means ``marked by harmony,
regularity, or steady continuity; free from variation or
contradiction'' and ``predictably'' generally means ``in a manner that
can be predicted; as one would expect.'' \55\ Thus, a light-sport
category aircraft's controllability and maneuverability should
demonstrate regular, steady continuity that is free from variation and
be predictable or as one would expect. The NPRM stated proposed Sec.
22.105 would require light-sport category aircraft to be controllable
and maneuverable with no adverse handling characteristics. In this
context, no adverse handling characteristics would mean the aircraft
would be consistently and predictably controllable and maneuverable and
would not have a tendency to depart controlled flight inadvertently.
FAA notes that TCCA is referencing part 23 subpart B (flight
performance and flight characteristics) in its question and not part 22
subpart B. In part 23, longitudinal, lateral, and directional stability
requirements for airplanes not certified for aerobics are in Sec.
23.2145 while airplane stall characteristics, stall warning, and spin
requirements are in Sec. 23.2150.
The Sec. 22.105 controllability and maneuverability requirements
apply to all classes of light-sport category aircraft and not just to
airplanes as is the case for part 23. Some classes of light-sport
category aircraft, such as rotorcraft and powered-lift, do not stall.
For light-sport category aircraft, FAA-accepted consensus standards
will act as the means of compliance to the Sec. 22.105 controllability
and maneuverability requirements. Therefore, FAA encourages consensus
standards bodies

[[Page 35070]]

for light-sport category aircraft to include appropriate standards for
stability, stall, and spin, as applicable to the unique design features
of each aircraft class. As discussed in the NPRM, FAA expects that some
existing consensus standards may need updating due to the expansion of
aircraft eligible for the light-sport category. In addition, consensus
standards addressing aircraft controllability and maneuverability would
need updating to address new requirements, including that aircraft
control and maneuverability be consistent and predictable.
TCCA expressed concern that Sec. 22.105(b) lacked a clear and
distinctive stall warning requirement to warn of a potential loss of
control. FAA agrees that Sec. 22.105(b) does not require a stall
warning system. As previously stated, certain light-sport category
aircraft classes will not stall and therefore do not need a stall
warning requirement. FAA supports the inclusion of a stall warning
system and encourages consensus standards organizations for light-sport
category aircraft to create stall warning system consensus standards
for applicable aircraft classes to warn pilots of an impending stall.
This would increase safety by preventing stalls that could lead to an
inflight loss of control accident. The NPRM did not propose or discuss
potentially requiring the installation of stall warning devices and
such equipage requirements would most appropriately be achieved through
new notice and comment rulemaking.
AIR VEV commented that for the preamble description of proposed
Sec. 22.105 requiring no adverse effect on the aircraft's handling
qualities is more restrictive than the proposed regulation text and
seems unachievable. AIR VEV recommended that FAA clarify that Sec.
22.105 allows for an acceptable amount of adverse effects. AIR VEV also
recommended that FAA clarify that thrust asymmetry could occur in other
multi-engine aircraft classes. FAA agrees the loss of an engine may
cause an adverse effect on the aircraft's flight asymmetry through the
air. However, to meet the standards of Sec. 22.105, there should not
be an adverse effect on the pilot's ability to provide proper inputs,
using primary flight controls, to maintain directional control, i.e.
the aircraft's handling qualities. For aircraft designed with
simplified flight controls, automation maintains directional control,
even during pilot interface, and is accordingly responsible for the
handling qualities of aircraft. This scenario assumes the aircraft is
within weight and balance limits and above stall and minimum control
speeds, as applicable. For example, for twin-engine airplanes, a bank
angle of not more than 5[deg] toward the operative engine accompanied
with rudder deflection toward the operative engine may be necessary to
maintain straight flight at or above minimum control speed. In this
scenario, some acceptable level of sideslip would likely accompany the
5[deg] of bank. These control inputs are commonplace for twin-engine
airplanes under asymmetric power. The intent of Sec. 22.105 in this
final rule, and as discussed in the NPRM preamble, is that there should
be no adverse effect on the pilot's ability to make these necessary
control inputs to maintain directional control when under asymmetric
thrust conditions. The precise condition of zero sideslip, determined
by bank angle and rudder input, for twin-engine airplanes varies
slightly from model to model and with available power and airspeed.\56\
With the loss of an engine, the provisions of Sec. 22.105 would
require the aircraft to not require exceptional piloting skill,
alertness, or strength to maintain directional control. For aircraft
designed with simplified flight controls, aircraft controllability
would be automated, as would the handling qualities. For aircraft with
primary flight controls, whether through the use of distributed thrust,
a combination of aileron, rudder, and power inputs, or by other means,
an aircraft must remain controllable and maneuverable through all
phases of flight, which would ultimately permit a controlled, engine-
out emergency landing.
Section 22.105 states, in part, that a light-sport category
aircraft must not have a tendency to depart controlled flight
inadvertently. Section 22.145 states, in part, that the aircraft
propulsion system must be designed so the failure of any product or
article does not prevent continued safe flight and landing or, if
continued safe flight and landing cannot be ensured, the hazard has
been minimized. Though a propulsion system failure may cause the
aircraft to initiate an unplanned descent because loss of thrust no
longer allows an aircraft to maintain altitude, the propulsion system
failure must not result in a loss of control scenario where the pilot's
ability to handle the aircraft is adversely affected. Aircraft control
must still be maintained to allow flight, albeit a descent, to a more
hospitable landing surface, if one exists. In this scenario, Sec. Sec.
22.105 and 22.145 are being complied with since aircraft control is
maintained after the propulsion failure. These Sec. Sec. 22.105 and
22.145 requirements apply to all classes of light-sport category
aircraft, regardless of whether the aircraft has one or more engines.
14. Structural Integrity (Sec. 22.110)
The provisions of Sec. 22.110 require the design and construction
of a light-sport category aircraft to provide sufficient structural
integrity to enable safe operations within the aircraft's flight
envelope throughout the aircraft's intended life cycle. An aircraft is
also required to withstand all likely flight and ground loads,
including towing and any aerial work operation, when operated within
its operational limits. FAA made a conforming change in Sec. 22.110(b)
by changing ``anticipated'' in the NPRM to ``likely'' in the final
rule. FAA has used ``likely'' in several similar instances in this part
and the change standardizes the language without changing the intent of
the requirement.
As discussed in section IV.F.16., proposed Sec. 22.120 was omitted
from this rule and aerial work operations were instead referenced in
Sec. 22.110. Based on public comment, FAA agreed the special
requirements in proposed Sec. 22.120 were already captured in Sec.
22.110 and did not necessitate a stand-alone requirement for aerial
work operations of light-sport category aircraft certificated prior to
July 24, 2026. Though Sec. 22.110 includes additional provisions for
``safe operations within the aircraft's flight envelope and throughout
the aircraft's intended life cycle,'' which were not included in
proposed Sec. 22.120, these concepts were included in the NPRM
preamble for Sec. 22.120. The NPRM preamble stated the aircraft's
design and construction would need to be sufficient to protect against
deterioration or loss of strength and prevent structural failures due
to foreseeable causes of strength degradation that would be likely to
occur throughout the aircraft's flight envelope during aerial work
operations. In addition, the aircraft would need to be able to
withstand all anticipated (changed to ``likely'' in this final rule)
flight and ground loads during these operations without incurring
detrimental permanent deformation or jeopardizing the safe operation of
the aircraft. Accordingly, the structural integrity requirements for an
amended statement of compliance, as specified in Sec. 21.190(e)(4),
can be obtained from FAA-accepted consensus standards that act as a
means of compliance to the structural integrity requirements in Sec.
22.110 regarding aerial work operations.
Though listed in a separate requirement rather than as an aerial
work operation in Sec. 91.327, towing can put similar loads on
aircraft structures

[[Page 35071]]

as certain aerial work operations and has accordingly been included in
the structural integrity requirement of Sec. 22.110(b). As explained
in section IV.F.16, FAA has already accepted ASTM consensus standards
for glider towing for certain classes of light-sport category aircraft.
FAA anticipates that these, or similar, design, construction, and
performance requirements for applicable light-sport category aircraft
used in towing operations will be included in consensus standards that
act as a means of compliance to the Sec. 22.110 structural integrity
requirements. Since light-sport category aircraft manufacturers must
currently state compliance to FAA-accepted consensus standards for the
strength, structure, and installation requirements of towing-eligible
aircraft, the addition of towing to Sec. 22.110 is similar to existing
procedures manufacturers already undertake to comply with design,
construction, and performance requirements for towing aircraft.
TCCA commented that this section does not require or incentivize
more robust designs, and it suggested revising the performance-based
standards to ensure consensus standards contained incentives for
greater structural robustness and durability. FAA disagrees with TCCA's
suggestion. FAA specified ``sufficient'' structural integrity in Sec.
22.110, rather than a measure of robustness, so as not to overprescribe
the necessary robustness of aircraft structures. Excessive or
unnecessary robustness can lead to detrimental results such as an
overweight aircraft. A specific provision or timeframe for durability
is already captured in Sec. 22.110 where it states that structural
integrity must be sufficient for the aircraft's intended lifecycle. As
a result of the performance expansions of light-sport category aircraft
in this rule, the structural integrity provisions would require the
development of consensus standards for light-sport category aircraft
designs to address structural integrity under a wider range of
environmental conditions and operational parameters. In addition,
consensus standards would need to address the prevention of material
and structural failures due to likely causes of strength degradation
and protection against deterioration or loss of structural strength due
to any cause likely to occur throughout the aircraft's lifecycle.
For example, the current design and construction consensus standard
for light-sport category airplane materials in ASTM Standard F2245-20
states, ``Materials shall be suitable and durable for the intended use.
Design values (strength) must be chosen so that no structural part is
under strength as a result of material variations or load
concentration, or both.'' This consensus standard will need to be
revised to reflect that the materials must be more than just suitable
and durable for their intended use. The consensus standard will need to
reflect that the materials must also provide sufficient structural
integrity to enable safe operations within the aircraft's flight
envelope and intended lifecycle and be able to withstand all likely
flight and ground loads when operated within its operational limits.
FAA understands that ASTM consensus standards for light-sport
category aircraft are international standards and may be applicable to
other civil aviation authorities. The consensus standards do not need
to repeat the regulatory language in part 22. Regardless of how the
consensus standards are worded, the consensus standards must meet or
exceed the intent of the part 22 requirements to gain FAA acceptance.
FAA will evaluate the consensus standards for structural integrity as a
whole to ensure compliance with regulatory requirements.
Van's Aircraft and Streamline Designs recommended removing the
phrase ``intended life cycle'' from proposed Sec. 22.110. Van's
Aircraft cited that keeping this requirement would drive up the cost
and complexity of aircraft in this category and possibly deter some
companies from the light-sport category. Van's Aircraft also stated
older aircraft certificated under part 23 did not have to consider
testing related to life limits, which would create an unfair
competitive advantage with part 22 aircraft and that the standards used
to design these aircraft were conservative enough that either issues
did not occur or these issues were detectable in high time aircraft.
Streamline Designs stated the intended life cycle requirement could
lead to burdensome standards development and compliance.
FAA disagrees with Van's Aircraft claim that older certificated
aircraft would have an unfair competitive advantage with part 22
aircraft. Just because a legacy model was certificated in the normal
category under a different set of regulatory requirements does not mean
it is automatically granted airworthiness certification in the light-
sport category. A newly produced aircraft of a legacy model, not
previously certificated in the normal category, will still have to meet
applicable part 22 requirements and FAA-accepted consensus standards
that act as a means of compliance to those requirements even if they
are more rigorous than the airworthiness standards for the legacy
model. Aircraft manufacturers of newly produced aircraft based on
legacy designs will have to provide FAA with a SOC that specifies FAA-
accepted consensus standards for light-sport category aircraft used to
determine compliance with subpart B of part 22 and state that the
aircraft meets the eligibility, design, production, and airworthiness
requirements of subpart B of part 22 in accordance with those consensus
standards.
Of note, manufacturers could also choose to use FAA-accepted
consensus standards for type certificated aircraft, such as those
created by ASTM Committee F44 or other organizations, once those
standards have been evaluated and found acceptable as a means of
compliance to part 22 by FAA. The consensus standard would need to meet
or exceed the part 22 requirements. FAA would have to publish the
consensus standard in a NOA in the Federal Register and explain that
FAA would accept the consensus standard for use with light-sport
category aircraft. FAA does not negotiate a certification basis for
light-sport category aircraft with an aircraft manufacturer. The
manufacturer would either need to use FAA's accepted consensus
standards for light-sport category aircraft or choose a different
certification path. The manufacturer could also work with ASTM
Committee F37 or another consensus standards body to submit the desired
consensus standard to FAA.
FAA also disagrees with the recommendation to remove the phrase
``intended life cycle'' from Sec. 22.110. FAA notes that light-sport
category aircraft are not limited-use or consumable products, and their
design should be subject to life cycle requirements. Also, Sec. 22.110
does not specify a means of compliance for life cycle determinations
such as the testing Van's Aircraft expressed concerns about. Consensus
standards organizations may use various appropriate methods, or a
combination thereof, to comply with this requirement.
Finally, a commenter advocated for this final rule to require four
or more compartments or four or more rip stops with near double fabric
strength to improve the structural strength of airships. This request
is too prescriptive to be included in the performance-based
requirements in part 22 and is best resolved by consensus standards
organizations for light-sport category airships.

[[Page 35072]]

15. Powered-Lift: Minimum Safe Speed (Sec. 22.115)
Section 1.1 defines powered-lift as a heavier-than-air aircraft
capable of vertical takeoff, vertical landing, and low speed flight
that depends principally on engine-driven lift devices or engine thrust
for lift during these flight regimes and on nonrotating airfoil(s) for
lift during horizontal flight. The provisions in Sec. 22.115 require
manufacturers of light-sport category powered-lift to establish the
minimum safe speed for each flight condition encountered in normal
operation, including applicable sources of lift and phases of flight,
to maintain controlled safe flight. The minimum safe speed
determination would be required to account for the most adverse
conditions for each configuration. For this final rule, FAA made a
correction in Sec. 22.115 by removing ``aircraft'' from the proposed
rule to correctly reference powered-lift and align it with the Sec.
1.1 definition.
EASA asked how manufacturers should determine safe speed if the
aircraft lacks full wing-borne lift or has automatic mode transition.
To answer EASA's question, per the powered-lift definition, the
aircraft must have nonrotating airfoil(s) that have the ability to
primarily provide lift during horizontal, i.e., wing-borne, flight.
Though the NPRM noted the wings of light-sport category powered-lift
may be comparably smaller in size and have a resultantly higher stall
speed than other aircraft classes such as airplanes and gliders, the
wings must still principally provide lift during wing-borne flight.
Therefore, manufacturers must be able to provide the stall speed in
wing-borne flight, even if it is relatively high. If unable to do so,
the aircraft would be identified as a rotorcraft during airworthiness
certification.
In regard to EASA's question of automatic transition between modes,
Sec. 22.115 requires powered-lift to have a known minimum safe speed
for each flight condition encountered in normal operations, including
applicable sources of lift and phases of flight, to maintain controlled
safe flight. A flight condition is a specific configuration used for a
particular phase of flight. For instance, the powered-lift design could
have a flight condition(s) for takeoff, climb-out, cruise, etc.
Accordingly, each flight condition must have a minimum safe speed
determined by the manufacturer. Whether automatic or pilot-in-the-loop
transitions between flight conditions are used, manufacturers must
comply with Sec. 22.115 as appropriate for their design.
In relation to Sec. 22.115, EASA also asked if there shall be
failure evaluations and flight training for failure scenarios involving
automatic transitions between modes. FAA notes that though failure
evaluations are not specifically addressed in part 22, FAA would expect
such evaluations are included in aircraft design considerations,
quality assurance, ground and flight testing, and documentation for
flight operations. Ensuring the aircraft has no hazardous operating
characteristics is a requirement in Sec. 22.195. In addition, Sec.
21.190(c)(2) requires that each light-sport category aircraft
application must provide FAA with a POH that includes operating
instructions and limitations to safely accommodate all environmental
conditions and normal, abnormal, and emergency procedures likely to be
encountered in the aircraft's intended operations. The POH must also
include a flight training supplement to enable safe operation of the
aircraft within the intended flight envelope under all likely
conditions, which would include engine or motor loss scenarios.
TCCA asked why the powered-lift minimum safe speed requirement only
applies to powered-lift as opposed to conventional fixed wing aircraft.
FAA agrees that fixed wing aircraft are subject to minimum safe speeds
too. Light-sport category airplanes are subject to the stalling speed
or the minimum steady flight speed obtained in the VS0
configuration as specified in Sec. 22.100. Multi-engine airplanes also
have engine inoperative minimum control speeds, as previously discussed
in section IV.F.6.p. However, FAA created the minimum safe speed
requirement in Sec. 22.115 to address the unique features of powered-
lift.
3F expressed concern that powered-lift may be subjected to the
airplane stall speed requirement because powered-lift eVTOL aircraft
can operate like an airplane during certain flight modes and noted many
eVTOL aircraft have a zero knot minimum safe speed during any flight
mode. FAA does not anticipate any misapplication of the Sec. 22.100
maximum stalling speed or minimum steady flight speed requirement for
airplanes or the Sec. 22.115 minimum flight speed requirement for
powered-lift by an aircraft manufacturer. In addition, FAA disagrees
with 3F's claim of a zero knot minimum safe speed for many powered-lift
eVTOL aircraft during any flight mode. By definition in Sec. 1.1,
powered-lift must have a wing-borne flight phase by virtue of their
nonrotating airfoil(s). Accordingly, the minimum safe speed could not
possibly be zero knots for wing-borne flight where the wing
(nonrotating airfoil(s)) is the principal source of lift. The powered-
lift would have to transition out of wing-borne flight to a thrust-
borne or hover mode to achieve a zero knot minimum safe speed.
16. Special Requirements for Light-Sport Aircraft Used for Aerial Work
Operations (Sec. 22.120)
The NPRM proposed in Sec. 22.120 that for any light-sport aircraft
\57\ designated by the manufacturer as being suitable for the
performance of any aerial work operation, the design and construction
of the aircraft must provide sufficient structural integrity to enable
safe operation of the aircraft during the performance of that operation
and ensure the aircraft is able to withstand any foreseeable flight and
ground loads.
Several commenters disagreed with the need for this requirement.
USUA was concerned that Sec. 22.120 adds unnecessary regulation to
aircraft that have a proven ability for aerial work flight and ground
loads that are foreseeable. USUA asserted that current light-sport
aircraft performing towing or flight training aerial work have
sustained much greater loads. VAI, EAA, AOPA, NATA, and NBAA jointly
asserted that, given the limited commercial operations allowed, they
had difficulty imagining what additional standards are needed to safely
allow these activities.
FAA disagrees with commenters that state a structural integrity
requirement for aerial work is unnecessary. This requirement was
proposed in part 22 so that consensus standards organizations would
have the framework available to create consensus standards acceptable
to FAA that address an aircraft's design and construction
specifications for structural integrity requirements necessary to
accomplish aerial work operations. To avoid having structural integrity
requirements in two separate sections of part 22, this rule omits
proposed Sec. 22.120 from the final rule and instead references aerial
work operations in Sec. 22.110 as a point of emphasis. This change was
previously addressed in section IV.F.14. Aircraft manufacturers must
specify and state compliance to applicable consensus standards on the
statement of compliance per Sec. 21.190(d) or, for an amended
statement of compliance, per the requirements in Sec. 21.190(e).
FAA agrees with commenters that towing a glider or an unpowered
ultralight vehicle and flight training may produce airframe load
stresses that meet or exceed those of certain aerial work operations.
FAA has accepted ASTM consensus standards for light-

[[Page 35073]]

sport category aircraft used to tow gliders. These consensus standards
address structural integrity requirements for items such as tow
equipment attachment points and the tow hook and can be found in the
annexes of ASTM Standard F2245 for airplanes and for weight-shift-
control aircraft, ASTM Standard F2317/F2317M, Standard Specification
for Design of Weight-Shift-Control Aircraft. FAA encourages consensus
standards organizations for light-sport category aircraft to similarly
address structural integrity requirements of aerial work operations
that involve high stress activities such as sling loads and liquid
dispensing operations.
LAMA stated it expects that existing standards are acceptable
unless safety data demonstrates that particular aerial work operation
requires more design or testing. FAA disagrees with certain aspects of
LAMA's statement. As has been previously discussed in the NPRM and
preamble of this final rule, the existing consensus standards will need
to be revised to account for the performance enhancements and part 22
requirements in this rule. Also, safety data will not likely exist for
most aerial work operations, so some other criteria will likely be
needed to determine which aerial work operations require development of
consensus standards. FAA agrees that some aerial work operations, such
as aerial surveying or photography, will not need additional structural
integrity assessments as long as the aircraft has not been altered to
perform these operations and is operated within the limitations in the
POH. Any aerial work operation that does not exceed the operating
envelope, weight and balance, or other design or performance limit of
the aircraft as specified in the POH, and does not require alterations,
should be able to be conducted by simply using FAA-accepted consensus
standards for the design and structural integrity of the particular
aircraft class. Aircraft manufacturers and consensus standards
organizations for light-sport category aircraft must also consider
repetitious or prolonged stresses in their evaluation of aerial work
operations. Per Sec. 21.190(c) in this final rule, the manufacturer
must include necessary instructions and limitations for any aerial work
operations it lists in the POH. In addition, Sec. 22.195 requires
ground and flight testing of aerial work operations by the aircraft
manufacturer and Sec. 21.190(d) requires the aircraft manufacturer to
state the aircraft has been ground and flight tested to ensure it can
be operated safely while conducting the aerial work operations.
Sections 21.190(d) and (e) also contain statement of compliance
requirements for aerial work.
Van's Aircraft stated a preference for simplified requirements
necessary for sufficient design safety margin under a design consensus
standard for aerial work. Van's Aircraft asserted that the scope of
aerial work proposed is limited with little effect on aircraft life and
suggested avoiding rule language which would necessitate burdensome and
expensive aircraft life limit studies. Similar to the response in Sec.
22.110 for Van's Aircraft, the inclusion of a ``life cycle''
requirement is entirely appropriate for light-sport category aircraft.
Aircraft produced under this rule are not single-use or consumable
items. Instead, each aircraft is designed with some life span in mind.
The rule does not specify a means of compliance to demonstrating the
life cycle so various processes could be used such as a design guide,
fatigue analysis, or even tests of representative articles.
17. Environmental Conditions (Sec. 22.125)
In Sec. 22.125, the aircraft is required to have design
characteristics to safely accommodate all environmental conditions
likely to be encountered during its intended operations. Van's Aircraft
recommended the removal of ``environmental'' from this requirement
since ``environmental'' is addressed in another part 22 requirement.
FAA disagrees with removing environmental from this requirement since
doing so would make this requirement subject to all ``likely''
conditions, which would expand the scope of the regulation beyond
environmental conditions. Such expansion could include certain errors
or poor techniques by pilots such as overstressing the aircraft because
of hard landings, over-rotating the aircraft on takeoffs, or even
losing directional control inflight or on the ground. In addition, the
subtle difference between Sec. Sec. 22.125 and 22.130 is that Sec.
22.125 ensures the aircraft can operate inflight or on the ground under
the likely environmental conditions for which the aircraft is designed,
whereas Sec. 22.130 ensures the materials used in the aircraft have
the suitability and durability to withstand the likely environmental
stresses or conditions expected in service.
18. Instruments and Equipment (Sec. 22.135)
In Sec. 22.135, a light-sport category aircraft is required to
have all instruments and equipment necessary for safe flight, including
those instruments necessary for systems control and management. It also
requires the inclusion of all instruments and equipment for the kinds
of operations for which the aircraft is authorized. The aircraft's
instruments, equipment, and systems must perform their intended
functions under all operating conditions specified in the pilot's
operating handbook. Any likely failure or malfunction of equipment or a
system must not cause loss of aircraft control. All equipment and
systems must be considered separately and in relation to each other.
FAA made a few corrections in Sec. 22.135 to provide clarity. This
rule separated proposed Sec. 22.135(a) into two individual
requirements making it easier to read and removed ``also'' in the newly
created Sec. 22.135(b) since it was unnecessary. In Sec. 22.135(c),
``aircraft'' was changed to ``aircraft's'' to clarify that the
aircraft's instruments, equipment, and systems must perform their
intended functions. This change better aligns with the section title
and contents of the requirement. None of these corrections changed the
intent or meaning of the requirement.
Van's Aircraft expressed concern that proposed Sec. 22.135(b),
designated as (c) in this rule, requiring that systems and components
must be considered separately and in relation to each other may lead to
system assessments like those required for certified aircraft. Van's
Aircraft asserted that the NPRM preamble discussion indicated a more
reasonable approach and Van's Aircraft requested further clarification.
FAA agrees that the proposed wording of Sec. 22.135(b) could have
resulted in systems assessments equivalent to certified aircraft. This
final rule replaces the word ``component'' with ``equipment'' in Sec.
22.135 because the term component could include every individual item
on the aircraft and a failure analysis could result in an impractical
number of combinations to resolve. The term equipment is more
commonplace and used in a similar, but more rigorous requirement for
part 23 aircraft in Sec. 23.2500.
In the NPRM, FAA stated manufacturers could use various methods to
comply with this requirement such as the installation of back-up
systems or through testing techniques. FAA encourages consensus
standards organizations to create comprehensive solutions for the means
of compliance to part 22 requirements. Though back-up systems may be
effective for certain situations, they would be impractical to apply to
all situations because of the added weight to the aircraft. Likewise,
testing may be practical for certain systems and

[[Page 35074]]

component assessments, but it may be excessive for others where an
analytical analysis may be more beneficial.
Van's Aircraft also commented this standard still meets the correct
intent even if ``equipment'' is removed. FAA disagrees with removing
``equipment'' from Sec. 22.135. Instruments and equipment both need to
be included in this requirement to ensure safe operations of the
aircraft. ``Instrument,'' as defined in Sec. 1.1, is too narrow in
scope to stand-alone in this requirement. However, the Sec. 1.1
definition of ``appliance'' provides that instruments and equipment are
types of appliances that are used or intended to be used in operating
or controlling an aircraft in flight, are installed in or attached to
the aircraft, and are not part of an airframe, engine, or propeller.
The expansion of light-sport category aircraft classes provided by
this rule may show differing equipment needs among the aircraft
classes. In addition, certain authorized aerial work operations may
require certain equipment for safe operations. Though this rule will
remove the part 1 definition of consensus standard, the existing
definition of consensus standard requires an industry-developed
consensus standard for required equipment on light-sport category
aircraft.
Van's Aircraft and Streamline Designs commented on how equipment
impacts a light-sport category aircraft's weight and balance. Van's
Aircraft stated the term equipment is for items within weight and
balance whereas Streamline Designs stated equipment is for optional
things that affect weight and balance. ASTM Standard F2746 states the
weight and balance and equipment list section in the POH includes
``installed optional equipment list affecting weight and balance or a
reference as to where this information can be found.'' Though FAA does
not approve the equipment list for light-sport category aircraft, any
manufacturer-installed equipment for the model's standard
configuration, as well as additional equipment added by the owner or
operator, must be accounted for or identified on an aircraft's weight
and balance so that the pilot can compute an accurate center of
gravity. With the addition of new aircraft classes in the light-sport
category and the expansion of the airplane class beyond single-engine
airplanes, FAA encourages consensus standards organizations for light-
sport category aircraft to develop appropriate consensus standards that
address weight and balance considerations for these additional designs
and configurations.
A few commenters discussed instrument flight rules (IFR) operations
in light-sport category aircraft. One commenter stated light-sport
category aircraft cannot fly into instrument meteorological conditions
(IMC) unless moved to an experimental classification. FAA notes that
ASTM Standards F2245 (for airplanes) and F2564, Standard Specification
for Design and Performance of a Light Sport Glider, include a statement
that limits these aircraft to visual flight rules (VFR) flight. Glider
designs are also limited to day flight per their ASTM specification.
ASTM has recently developed consensus standards for IFR operations that
are planned to be published in the future. Operators of experimental
former light-sport category aircraft should comply with any limitations
or prohibitions on IFR flight or flight in IMC that were in the POH of
their light-sport category model. Some aircraft engines used in light-
sport category aircraft have limitations in the operating manual that
specifically warn against operations in IMC.
Another commenter wanted the rule to permit IFR operations. This
rule did not propose any limitations on equipment or operations that
would prohibit light-sport category aircraft from conducting IFR flight
or even flight in IMC. The NPRM acknowledged that light-sport category
aircraft would be able to conduct IFR flight in IMC and likely be
exposed to adverse weather conditions and operations at night. The NPRM
explained that IMC flight would have to be authorized by the
manufacturer in the POH and the aircraft would be subject to an
operating limitation requiring the aircraft to be equipped to meet the
equipment and instrumentation requirements in Sec. 91.205.
ALPA recommended that light-sport category aircraft must comply
with applicable Sec. 91.205 instrument and equipment requirements if
they are going to be allowed to operate IFR. FAA agrees and issues
light-sport category aircraft an operating limitation with the
airworthiness certificate that states, in part, IFR ``operations are
authorized if allowed by the [aircraft operating instructions] and
engine operating instructions and if the instruments specified in Sec.
91.205 are installed, operational, and maintained per the applicable
requirements of part 91.'' \58\
ALPA also stated light-sport category aircraft must comply with the
airworthiness standards for instrument and equipment in parts 21, 23,
25, 27, 29, and 31 for the types of operations that certification is
requested. FAA disagrees with this statement because the airworthiness
standards in parts 21, 23, 25, 27, 29, or 31 are for type certificated
aircraft that are higher on the safety continuum and accordingly have
more rigorous certification requirements and greater privileges than
light-sport category aircraft. The performance-based design,
production, and airworthiness requirements in part 22, subpart B, were
specifically created for non-type certificated aircraft that are issued
special airworthiness certificates for the light-sport category. As
stated in the NPRM, the performance-based requirements respond to the
need to apply a set of broad-based requirements to a wider range of
aircraft that would not be required to meet the more exacting design
requirements of type certification. They also provide industry with the
flexibility to develop consensus standards applicable to the
certification of a wide range of dissimilar aircraft.
Aithre asked whether aircraft authorized by the manufacturer for
flight ceilings above the legal requirement for oxygen must include
installed oxygen equipment. Though part 22 does not require
installation of oxygen equipment, as with all operating rules, the
pilot or operator of the aircraft is responsible for ensuring
compliance with operating regulations. Regarding the question raised in
this comment, compliance with Sec. 91.211 is required when exceeding
the specified altitudes. Section 91.211 requires supplemental oxygen
under specific circumstances but does not require ``installed oxygen
equipment'' specifically. For this scenario, if an aircraft can exceed
the altitudes where supplemental oxygen is required, as specified in
Sec. 91.211, then these requirements can be met with either an
installed oxygen system or portable oxygen bottles. If an aircraft
manufacturer has installed an oxygen system, then the equipment must
meet the Sec. 22.135 requirements.
Aithre also asked related questions on topics such as oxygen
delivery technology, oxygen sources, oxygen generation technology
(e.g., pressure swing absorption (PSA) type) or pressurized vessel/
cylinder types, and the use of real-time continuous measurements and
feedback of blood oxygenation levels of the pilot and passengers. The
means of compliance to these questions would be in FAA-accepted
consensus standards for light-sport category aircraft, which have not
been developed to date. Until consensus standards for oxygen systems
for light-sport category aircraft have been developed, manufacturers
may alternatively use applicable FAA-accepted consensus standards
related to

[[Page 35075]]

aircraft oxygen systems for type certificated aircraft, as long as they
have received FAA acceptance for use in the light-sport category. As
previously explained, FAA would have to release a NOA in the Federal
Register authorizing FAA-accepted consensus standards for type
certificated aircraft to be used for light-sport category aircraft.
Aithre also asked about whether carbon monoxide detectors are
required equipment. Such detectors are not mandatory equipment in
general aviation aircraft. FAA encourages owners to install carbon
monoxide detectors on a voluntary basis.
19. Controls and Displays (Sec. 22.140)
This rule requires light-sport category aircraft to be designed and
constructed so the pilot can reach controls and displays in a manner
that provides for smooth and positive operation of the aircraft.
GAMA recommended that FAA clarify that single controls are
allowable for all categories of light-sport aircraft and access to a
single control meets this requirement even for aircraft with dual
controls. FAA generally agrees with GAMA's recommendation. For aircraft
with dual controls, it is not necessary for the pilot to be able to
reach all controls and displays, especially those that repeat functions
or information. FAA recommends industry organizations propose consensus
standards for these types of design considerations for FAA acceptance.
In addition, the NPRM stated the pilot had to reach all controls and
displays in a manner that provides for smooth and positive operation of
the aircraft. FAA determined that the word ``all'' was not necessary
and omitted it in this rule. The removal of ``all'' from the
requirement should assist in supporting GAMA's recommendation that
access to a single control meets this requirement.
Though ALPA stated it supported the provisions of Sec. 22.140, it
recommended that light-sport category aircraft comply with certain
airworthiness standards in subpart G of part 23 if they have more than
two seats. FAA disagrees with ALPA's recommendation. Subpart G of part
23 contains airworthiness requirements for flight compartment
instruments and equipment that the flightcrew interfaces with as well
as requirements for the airplane flight manual. Much of the instruments
and equipment, e.g., glass-panel avionics, found in normal category
four-seat airplanes are also widely used in experimental amateur-built
airplanes as non-certificated equipment. This non-certificated
equipment has the same or similar functionality as the certificated
version. Light-sport category airplane manufacturers already use this
non-certificated equipment in existing models and will continue to do
so under this rule. Because of the wide-spread and long-standing use of
non-certificated instruments and equipment in light-sport category and
EAB aircraft, the more exacting requirements of part 23, subpart G, are
not necessary for light-sport category aircraft operations. The level
of rigor for the accessibility of controls and displays requirements in
Sec. 22.140 for light-sport category aircraft is appropriate.
20. Propulsion System (Sec. 22.145)
Light-sport category aircraft propulsion systems would be required
to have controls that are intuitive, simple, and not confusing and be
designed so that the failure of any product or article would not
prevent continued safe flight and landing or, if continued safe flight
and landing cannot be ensured, the hazard would be minimized. In
addition, propulsion systems would not be permitted to exceed safe
operating limits under normal operating conditions and would be
required to have the necessary reliability, durability, and endurance
for safe flight without failure, malfunction, excessive wear, or other
anomalies.
A commenter was concerned about standardization of the propulsion
system in relation to Sec. 22.145 potentially limiting options. FAA
disagrees with the generalization that light-sport category aircraft
propulsion systems are being standardized as a result of this rule.
This rule allows for the opposite; it removes the prescriptive
limitation of a single, reciprocating engine for powered light-sport
category aircraft contained in the existing Sec. 1.1 definition of
light-sport aircraft and allows any type or number of engines or
motors. If the concern is that the rule requires ``simple'' propulsion
system controls, then this provision is being added to the rule for
safety, as explained in the NPRM. Propulsion controls that are complex
may be confusing to the pilot or may delay necessary power adjustments.
Both scenarios could cause an accident. Consensus standards
organizations for light-sport category aircraft will create the means
of compliance for ``simple'' propulsion system controls, which should
not be limiting for new forms of engines, especially electrical, as
feared by the commenter.
AIR VEV commented that the preamble text does not reflect the rule,
asserting that the preamble, for the safe flight and landing
requirement, refers to a complete failure of the propulsion system
whereas the rule refers to any failure of product or article of the
propulsion system. AIR VEV recommended clarifying the preamble that
safe flight and landing is required even for partial failures. FAA
disagrees with AIR VEV's comment about the preamble text referring to a
complete failure. The example provided in the NPRM to explain this
provision stated, ``The ability to maintain safe control of the
aircraft in the event of a partial or complete failure of the
propulsion system would significantly assist in reducing the
probability of an accident or loss of aircraft control.'' The preamble
for Sec. 22.145 also included, ``The results of this proposed
requirement would not permit a partial or complete loss of power to
adversely affect the handling qualities of an aircraft.'' Accordingly,
FAA does agree that the severity of ``the failure of any product or
article'' in Sec. 22.145 could include a partial or complete failure.
Streamline Designs commented that ``any product or article'' and
``the hazard has been minimized'' in proposed Sec. 22.145 are too
vague. FAA disagrees that this language is vague. As noted in the NPRM,
Sec. 21.1(b) defines ``product'' to mean an aircraft, aircraft engine,
or propeller and ``article'' to mean a material, part, component,
process, or appliance. As to hazard language, the same is already
contained in current Sec. 23.2410 for powerplant installation hazard
assessment, which was discussed along with an illustrative example in
the propulsion section of the NPRM.
21. Fuel Systems (Sec. 22.150)
Light-sport category fuel system provisions in Sec. 22.150 require
a means to safely remove or isolate the fuel stored in the system from
the aircraft and be designed to retain fuel under all likely operating
conditions. This requirement applies to both liquid aviation fuel
(e.g., avgas) and electrical energy, whether stored in batteries or
produced by electric motors or other power generation devices.
Streamline Designs commented that the meaning of this section is
unclear. FAA proposed this requirement because aviation fuel removal or
isolation is necessary in the event fuel contamination is known or
suspected or necessary for certain aircraft maintenance repairs. The
fuel system must also be designed to retain fuel under all likely
operating conditions, such as during all authorized maneuvers,
turbulence encounters, accelerations and decelerations, and emergency
descent and landing to ensure the safe and continuous

[[Page 35076]]

operation of the aircraft's propulsion system. Fuel retention is
necessary to prevent fuel from being a source of ignition or feeding an
existing fire, maintaining the aircraft's center of gravity within
prescribed limits, providing structural support, preventing loss of
aircraft range and endurance, preventing equipment damage, preventing
toxic fumes from entering occupied compartments, and preventing
corrosion that could lead to structural damage. Consensus standards
organizations for light-sport category aircraft will be responsible for
creating the means of compliance to the fuel system requirements and
obtaining FAA acceptance.
22. Fire Protection (Sec. 22.155)
Fire protection provisions in Sec. 22.155 require the hazards of
fuel or electrical fires following a survivable emergency landing be
minimized by incorporating design features to sustain static and
dynamic deceleration loads without structural damage to fuel or
electrical system components or their attachments that could leak fuel
to an ignition source or allow electrical power to become an ignition
source.
Streamline Designs suggested Sec. 22.155 be changed to include
other flammable liquids. FAA disagrees with this suggestion because it
would make engine oil subject to this requirement. Though present in a
limited quantity, oil is a flammable liquid and is used to lubricate
certain engine parts and may be used as a hydraulic oil for
controllable pitch propellers. Since oil is housed within the engine
and propeller hub, if applicable, and is cycled through an oil cooler
in the engine compartment, it would be difficult to isolate oil with
fire protection provisions.
Streamline Designs also suggested ``loads without structural
damage'' be changed to ``loads without detrimental structural damage.''
FAA disagrees with this suggestion. The change is unnecessary because
structural damage, regardless of its perceived severity, that would
allow fuel to leak to an ignition source or allow electrical power to
become an ignition source would be detrimental. For example, minor
structural damage that allows fuel to leak to an engine source or
allows electrical power to become an ignition source would be
detrimental damage. Therefore, there is no reason to quantify the
amount of structural damage for this requirement.
23. Visibility (Sec. 22.160)
Visibility provisions in Sec. 22.160 require that the aircraft be
designed and constructed so the pilot has sufficient visibility of
controls, instruments, equipment, and placards. In addition, the
aircraft design must provide the pilot with sufficient visibility
outside the aircraft necessary to conduct safe aircraft operations.
Van's Aircraft and Streamline Designs recommended that the Sec.
22.160 proposal replace ``vision'' with ``visibility,'' with Streamline
Designs concerned that the proposed language would necessitate costly
viewshed test or analysis. FAA agrees that visibility is the correct
term to use for this requirement and that vision could be
misinterpreted to be associated with a pilot physiological or medical
ability. This final rule replaces ``vision'' with ``visibility'' in
Sec. 22.160. Consensus standards organizations for light-sport
category aircraft will be responsible for creating the means of
compliance to the visibility requirements and obtaining FAA acceptance.
While a viewshed analysis is one method of compliance, other practical
methods should be considered.
USUA and another commenter disagreed that the visibility
requirements should apply to weight-shift-control aircraft. USUA
recommended that the visibility requirement be changed so that it does
not apply to ``open cockpits.'' The other commenter stated many
requirements would not work for its open cockpit environment. Neither
commenter provided details or examples of why the visibility
requirements would not apply to open cockpit weight-shift-control
aircraft. Regardless, FAA disagrees with the commenter's
generalizations that the visibility requirements should not apply.
Though open cockpit weight-shift-control aircraft designs are simple,
it is not unreasonable for instruments, equipment, controls, and
placards to be sufficiently visible to the pilot, especially those
essential to safe flight. For example, the minimum equipment
requirements for weight-shift-control aircraft in ASTM Standard F2317/
F2317M, as a means of compliance, are few. The specified equipment
includes a fuel indicator or means to view the fuel quantity from the
pilot seat. Engine instruments must be included if required by the
engine manufacturer. If an electrical system is installed, then a
master switch and overload protection devices must be installed.
Finally, ASTM Standard F2317/F2317M states an airspeed indicator shall
be provided to enable the pilot to comply with limiting airspeeds,
unless VH is less than VA and less than
VNE. All of these items enable safe flight or safe systems
operations, and it would not be burdensome for manufacturers to provide
the pilot with sufficient visibility of these items.
Doroni Aerospace and 3F both commented that current rules do not
allow camera use in the cockpit and that cameras would improve aircraft
safety in terms of allowing pilots to see below or behind them. Though
cameras and camera displays are not prohibited, FAA does not agree that
cameras could be used to meet the light-sport category aircraft
visibility requirements. The pilot must have sufficient visibility
outside the aircraft to conduct safe aircraft operations both on the
ground and in the air. Cameras may be used to supplement the pilot's
situational awareness by providing visual access to blind spots caused
by aircraft structures. However, cameras cannot be solely relied upon
by the pilot to conduct ground or flight maneuvers, search for and
identify hazards, or comply with Sec. 91.113 right of way rules. This
is largely because the camera or display could fail, or the camera
could become blocked or distorted by bugs, oil, precipitation, other
airborne contaminants, or lighting. In addition, the acuity levels and
field of view of most cameras are an inadequate substitute for human
vision.
24. Emergency Evacuation (Sec. 22.165)
The provisions in Sec. 22.165 require light-sport category
aircraft to be designed and constructed so that all occupants can
rapidly conduct an emergency evacuation. The aircraft's design would be
required to account for conditions likely to occur following an
emergency landing, excluding ditching for aircraft not intended for
operation on water.
Van's Aircraft and Streamline Designs recommended removing the word
``all'' from proposed Sec. 22.165(a)(2) so the requirement would not
be more rigorous than the evacuation requirement in part 23. FAA agrees
that inclusion of ``all'' makes the requirement more rigorous than that
for normal category airplanes in Sec. 23.2315, which states, in part,
``. . . in conditions likely to occur following an emergency landing. .
. .'' Accordingly in the final rule, the word ``all'' has been removed
from the requirement in Sec. 22.165(a)(2). Despite the similar
language, part 23 contains additional egress and emergency exit
requirements that make it more rigorous than the evacuation
requirements of part 22.
A commenter recommended that light-sport and experimental aircraft
must meet some crashworthiness requirements of certified aircraft. FAA
notes that the NPRM proposed some specific crashworthiness requirements

[[Page 35077]]

for light-sport category aircraft in Sec. 22.155 for fire protection
and Sec. 22.165 for emergency evacuation. FAA encourages light-sport
aircraft manufacturers to incorporate crashworthiness features and the
more rigorous design requirements of type certificated aircraft into
their light-sport category aircraft designs. FAA encourages the same
for manufacturers of EAB kits; however, these aircraft are outside the
scope of this rule.
The performance-based requirements in this rule for light-sport
category aircraft should not be more rigorous than found in the
airworthiness standards for normal category airplanes and rotorcraft
since light-sport category aircraft are lower on the safety continuum.
This does not preclude consensus standards organizations from
developing emergency evacuation consensus standards for FAA-acceptance
that exceed the part 22 requirements. As previously discussed, light-
sport category aircraft manufacturers may use crashworthiness consensus
standards for type certificated aircraft as long as the consensus
standard(s) meet or exceed any part 22 requirement, and FAA would have
to accept the applicable consensus standard(s) for type certificated
aircraft for use with light-sport category aircraft.
Another commenter recommended requiring manufacturers incorporate
rollover protection for light-sport category aircraft with bubble
canopies. Upon the implementation of this final rule, all light-sport
category aircraft, even those with bubble canopies, must comply with
the emergency evacuation requirements in Sec. 22.165. ASTM Standard
F2245-20 includes a crashworthiness consensus standard in an appendix
for roadable airplanes that addresses rollovers. Consensus standards
that act as a means of compliance to the emergency evacuation
requirements will need to be developed for airplanes and other classes
of light-sport category aircraft, including those with bubble canopies.
Depending upon the design, aircraft manufacturers may need to provide
tools or equipment that allow occupants to evacuate through a bubble
canopy if no doors, hatches, or other means are available.
FAA notes that ASTM Standard F3083/F3083M-20a contains consensus
standards for normal category airplanes that address emergency landing
turnovers and anti-plowing and anti-scooping features. The ASTM
Standard allows alternate approaches that achieve an equivalent, or
greater, level of occupant protection if substantiated on a rational
basis. FAA encourages consensus standards organizations to consider
adoption of these consensus standards for occupant safety during a
turnover or develop alternative approaches.
25. Placards and Markings (Sec. 22.170)
The provisions in Sec. 22.170 require light-sport category
aircraft to display all placards and instrument markings necessary for
safe operation and occupant warning. Markings or graphics would be
required to clearly indicate the function of each control, other than
primary flight controls.
Streamline Designs asked for clarification on what the word
``control'' means. FAA declines to define ``control'' generally because
of its broad application in different areas of aviation. However,
application of this requirement to controls on an aircraft could
generally include any switch, button, knob, lever, throttle, circuit
breaker, or other device that allows the pilot to interface with the
aircraft to perform a function. Primary flight controls could include
items such as a stick, cyclic, yoke, control column, rudder pedals, or
similar devices that allow the pilot to manually control the pitch,
roll, or yaw of an aircraft through hand or foot coordination.
Streamline Designs also recommended requiring display markings in
Sec. 22.170. FAA disagrees with marking all displays. Many avionics
displays are multi-function displays and provide various types of
information to the pilot based upon which ``page'' the pilot is looking
at. Each page usually includes information for a specific function or
purpose, such as temperature and wind data for flight planning, cruise
airspeeds, elapsed or estimated time enroute, fuel quantity, fuel burn,
alternate airfields, or engine performance. Requiring a display to be
generically marked as a multifunction display adds little value.
Avionics displays and their control knobs or buttons are marked
accordingly by the avionics manufacturer and the aircraft manufacturer
should not have to provide further markings in most cases.
26. Noise (Sec. 22.175)
The proposal for Sec. 22.175 required light-sport category
aircraft to meet the applicable noise standards of part 36 of this
chapter. Since this final rule makes compliance with part 36 for new
light-sport category aircraft voluntary (see section IV.N), this final
rule omits proposed Sec. 22.175 but will instead label it as
``reserved.''
Streamline Designs and AIR VEV recommended that this section should
require compliance with an accepted noise consensus standard rather
than part 36. Similarly, GAMA recommended removal of part 36 noise
requirements and the use of FAA-accepted consensus standards for noise
compliance, if necessary. Desert Aerospace asserted there are a limited
number of turbine LAS aircraft operating and they would not present
significant noise problems. It recommended that FAA consider allowing
such flights even if there are issues in their ability to meet noise
requirements. These recommendations would have required FAA to create
noise requirements outside of the existing part 36 framework and would
eliminate the ability of light-sport aircraft to comply with
traditional noise requirements, reducing their options for compliance.
Since proposed Sec. 22.175 is not included in this final rule, these
comments are no longer relevant. If a manufacturer chooses to
voluntarily comply with part 36, FAA agrees that meeting an FAA-
approved noise consensus standard is one way a light-sport category
aircraft will be able to meet part 36 requirements. However, FAA
considers part 36 to be the proper place for that provision.
One commenter asserted there is insufficient evidence that light-
sport category aircraft are a large factor in airplane noise
complaints. This individual asserted that applying part 36 to these
aircraft would require them to be quieter than older type certificated
aircraft, thus creating additional burden, and discouraging new
aircraft development without benefit to the public. Since proposed
Sec. 22.175 is not included in this final rule, and this final rule
makes compliance with part 36 voluntary for applicable non-type
certificated aircraft, this comment is no longer relevant.
27. Aircraft Having Simplified Flight Controls (Sec. 22.180)
FAA proposed that an aircraft meeting the three requirements in
Sec. 22.180 could be designated by the manufacturer as having
simplified flight controls. Not all light-sport category aircraft will
be designed with simplified flight controls, so compliance with this
section is contingent upon the aircraft having the simplified flight
controls designation. One advantage of designing an aircraft with
simplified flight controls is that the pilot training requirements are
significantly reduced, as discussed in section IV.H.2.
a. Comment on Defining Simplified Flight Controls
AEA/ARSA recommended including a universal definition of simplified

[[Page 35078]]

flight controls for all aircraft because it could be applicable across
all designs. FAA disagrees with the recommendation. This rule will not
define simplified flight controls to avoid limiting the development and
design of automated technologies for aircraft certification categories
higher on the safety continuum. A definition of simplified flight
controls may be more prescriptive than the performance-based
requirements in Sec. 22.180, which would make compliance more
difficult. A prescriptive definition may also make the development and
adoption of future technologies more difficult, which should be
avoided.
b. Clarification of Simplified Flight Control Design
Jump Aero and AIR VEV proposed specific language changes to Sec.
22.180. They proposed revising Sec. 22.180(a) to require that aircraft
are consistently and predictably controllable and maneuverable using
simplified flight controls at all loading conditions and phases of
flight. Though Jump Aero and AIR VEV correctly noted Sec. 22.105 does
not address aircraft with simplified flight controls, FAA disagrees
with their proposal and has provided an alternative solution in this
final rule. FAA has removed ``through the normal use of primary flight
controls'' in Sec. 22.105(a) making the requirement agnostic to
primary or simplified flight controls. Thus, Sec. 22.105(a) will read,
``Be consistently and predictably controllable and maneuverable at all
loading conditions during all phases of flight.'' The requirements of
Sec. 22.105 apply to all light-sport category aircraft classes and
with this change, there is no need to repeat these specific provisions
in Sec. 22.180 as the commenters proposed. Accordingly, the
commenters' proposed Sec. 22.180(a) was not included in this final
rule.
Jump Aero and AIR VEV suggested revising Sec. 22.180(c) to require
that the pilot control scheme, during abnormal flight control modes, be
consistent with its normal mode. Jump Aero asserted that the means of
controlling the aircraft should not change even in the event of systems
failures that are extremely likely. Though FAA generally agrees that
consistency of aircraft control is important during normal and abnormal
operations, FAA disagrees with including this suggestion as a
requirement in Sec. 22.180 on the grounds that it is unnecessary since
automation controls the aircraft's flight path rather than primary
flight controls reliant upon a pilot's hand and foot coordination.
Automation allows for variances in programming normal and abnormal
operations. Of note, Sec. 22.180(b) will include a requirement that
regardless of pilot input, the aircraft is designed to prevent loss of
control under likely circumstances. This requirement should instill
confidence in automation's capacity and correct for inefficient
interface designs or poor decision making by the pilot. Since aircraft
with simplified flight controls may have greater varieties of interface
devices for the pilot to use, the human factors aspect of these
interface devices will be critical to allow effective, simple, logical,
and timely pilot inputs. These types of design choices are best
fulfilled by industry-developed consensus standards.
Jump Aero and AIR VEV suggested adding Sec. 22.180(d) to require
that aircraft with automated systems or some combination of pilot
action and automation must ensure that pilots can discontinue or alter
the aircraft trajectory. FAA notes that much of this proposal is
already captured in Sec. 22.180(a) and (c) of this final rule.
Automation that controls the flight path and available power is
included in Sec. 22.180(a) and a means to discontinue or alter the
aircraft's flight is included in Sec. 22.180(c). FAA disagrees with
the use of certain phrases in the commenters' proposal because they are
not aligned with the simplified flight control design concept. For
instance, their suggested use of ``include automated systems'' is
inadequate. Aircraft with simplified flight controls are fully
automated for controlling the flight path and available power, which
means automation is also used to inherently prevent loss of control
under likely circumstances, regardless of pilot input. If the pilot
wants to discontinue or alter the flight, then automation controls the
flight path of these functions. FAA has concerns that the phrase ``some
combination of pilot action and automation'' could be misinterpreted to
mean that primary flight controls are permitted in the designs of
aircraft with simplified flight controls, which is not the intent of
Sec. 22.180. After considering Jump Aero and AIR VEV's suggestion and
other public comments, FAA decided to not use Jump Aero and AIR VEV's
suggestion for Sec. 22.180(d) but instead use the requirements in
Sec. 22.180(a) and (c) of this final rule.
Both AIR VEV and Jump Aero stated proposed Sec. 22.180 was too
prescriptive. Though the commenters did not provide specific examples,
FAA disagrees. The performance-based requirements in Sec. 22.180
balance the need for safety with the differing requirements of
simplified flight control designs for light-sport category aircraft.
Consensus standards organizations should be able to create appropriate
consensus standards that act as a means of compliance to these
requirements and provide industry solutions that address the
automation, pilot interface, operational and safety functions (such as
prevention of loss of control and the means to discontinue or alter the
flight), and other criteria unique to aircraft with simplified flight
controls.
GAMA agreed with Jump Aero and AIR VEV's recommended Sec.
22.180(b), (c), and (d), but recommended that (a) should require that
the aircraft's motion is commanded by the pilot's flight control
inputs. GAMA commented that the proposed Sec. 22.180 is overly
prescriptive and focuses on minimum functionality instead of a
performance-based safety objective consistent with Sec. 22.105, which
would allow for different means of compliance and potential future
technological advancements.
Furthermore, GAMA and AIR VEV commented that how the pilot
manipulates commands is irrelevant if the aircraft design prevents loss
of control irrespective of pilot input, noting that an automation
system can override pilot input even in a traditional cable and pully
system. GAMA recommended that FAA allow pilot controls that resemble
traditional or primary flight controls in aircraft designated as having
simplified flight controls. GAMA commented that the NPRM preamble
suggests that simplified flight control aircraft cannot have
traditional controls, but that proposed Sec. 22.180 rule remains
silent on what pilot cockpit controls can be used. GAMA asserted that
aircraft with traditional controls that have carefree handling
characteristics, allow real time and direct control over flight
attitude and trajectory, with sustained hands-off stability and full
envelope protection, and which meets any other Sec. 22.180
requirements should be able to receive a simplified flight control
designation. GAMA illustrated its position with a light-sport
helicopter example that it believes should be eligible for simplified
flight control designation. GAMA provided some other comments on this
topic related to sport pilots that are addressed in the sport pilot
certification section.
As discussed in the NPRM preamble for the part 22 control and
maneuverability requirement, primary flight controls consist of
traditional flight controls, such as an aircraft yoke, stick, control
column, collective, throttle, or rudder pedals. The proposed rule
contained specific provisions for

[[Page 35079]]

the certification of aircraft that are designed and constructed without
primary flight controls, but rather with simplified flight controls.
These statements make clear that the intent for Sec. 22.180 is for
aircraft not to have primary flight controls but for such aircraft to
have a simplified flight control designation. Light-sport category
aircraft manufactured under this rule will either have primary flight
controls or simplified flight controls. The proposed Sec. 22.180
language captured FAA's intent to exclude primary controls by stating
``without direct manipulation of individual aircraft control
surfaces.'' Regardless, FAA disagrees with GAMA's interpretation of
simplified flight control designs. FAA finds the commenters' Sec.
22.180(a) proposal that the pilot's flight control inputs command (GAMA
proposal) or directly command (see comments from Cirrus Aircraft on the
docket) the desired aircraft motion contradicts the intent of Sec.
22.180 for aircraft whose operation solely relies on automation and
only allows the pilot to intervene through non-traditional means. This
suggestion and GAMA's proposal are further addressed in the paragraphs
below.
In addition, for FAA's Sec. 22.180(a) proposal, Cirrus Aircraft
asked FAA to clarify the intent of: (1) ``control the flight path,''
(2) the word ``only'' before control the flight path, and (3) ``without
direct manipulation of individual aircraft control surfaces or
adjustment of the available power'' or ``adjustment of available
power.'' Cirrus Aircraft stated, ``control the flight path'' could
imply a general or specific type of kinematic control. For the second
request, Cirrus Aircraft stated the NPRM indicates simplified flight
control pilots are only expected to be proficient at those controls and
may not be capable of traditional flight controls. For the third
request, Cirrus Aircraft asked if simplified flight controls exclude
traditional mechanical flight controls and fly by wire direct control
systems.
In response to GAMA, Cirrus Aircraft, and other commenters, FAA has
revised Sec. 22.180(a) in this rule to more precisely clarify the
intent of simplified flight control designs. Section 22.180(a) now
reads, ``The aircraft's flight path and available power are automated,
allowing the pilot to only intervene without the availability of
primary flight controls.'' \59\ This performance-based requirement
better clarifies that aircraft with simplified flight controls are
fully dependent upon automation while allowing a means for the pilot to
intervene with the automation, rather than a pilot's hand-flying
skills, to control the aircraft's flight path and available power. This
requirement also clearly demonstrates that the pilot is allowed to
intervene through means that interface with the automation, i.e.,
without the availability or presence of primary flight controls, to
discontinue or alter the flight path of the aircraft as referenced
later in Sec. 22.180(c). Pilot intervention could include adjustment
of the aircraft's automated available power through interfaces such as
touch screens, pushbuttons, or rotating knobs. The proposed clause ``in
its operation'' was omitted from Sec. 22.180(a) in this rule because
the meaning of the provision is clear without it being included, i.e.,
controlling an aircraft's flight path and power is the same as
operating it.
To address Cirrus Aircraft's requests, the revised Sec. 22.180(a)
should now provide greater clarity that automation that allows pilot
intervention, not pilot primary flight control inputs, is what controls
the aircraft's flight path and available power. The revised Sec.
22.180(a) also clarifies that primary flight controls are not available
on aircraft with simplified flight controls. To avoid being overly
prescriptive on how to comply with these requirements, FAA encourages
industry participation for the development of appropriate consensus
standards to address design, production, and airworthiness aspects of
necessary automation and specialized technologies for automated flight
path and power control that also include inherently preventing loss of
control under likely circumstances, regardless of pilot input. The
development of appropriate consensus standards for the pilot's ability
to interface with the aircraft's automation to fulfill the necessary
functions of aircraft normal, abnormal, and emergency operations will
also be necessary.
Regarding Cirrus Aircraft's comment that certain pilots may only be
expected to be proficient at aircraft designs with simplified flight
controls and may not be capable of traditional flight controls, FAA
agrees that this is the intent of the requirements in this rule.
Aircraft with simplified flight controls must only allow the pilot to
intervene with the automation, other than with primary flight controls,
to change the aircraft's trajectory or power. This means that the pilot
training requirements necessary to operate aircraft with simplified
flight controls are not as extensive as training requirements for
aircraft with primary flight controls. Training on aircraft with
primary flight controls is unnecessary if a pilot only desires to fly
light-sport category aircraft with simplified flight controls.
The purpose of Sec. 22.180 is to respond to industry and
manufacturers designing and producing fully automated aircraft that
allow for simple, non-traditional means for the pilot to interface with
the aircraft's automation. Such aircraft are completely dependent upon
automation, sensors, and other technologies for flightpath and power
control, even when pilot intervention is accomplished, rather than a
pilot's hand-flying skills. This rule would not prevent light-sport
category aircraft designs with primary flight controls or a combination
of automation and primary flight controls. FAA strongly encourages
manufacturers to include envelope protection and stability augmentation
features, even in aircraft designed with primary flight controls.
However, manufacturers could not designate these aircraft designs as
having simplified flight controls on the manufacturer's statement of
compliance as required by Sec. 21.190(d)(4) of this rule.
c. Clarification of Joy-Stick Controllers
TCCA expressed uncertainty as to what ``select flight commands''
means in the NPRM discussion of simplified flight controls and how this
differs from ``controlling the aircraft'' with fly by wire sidestick
controllers. Cirrus Aircraft also requested clarification on the use of
joystick controllers and whether they would qualify for simplified
flight control status.
A pilot-operated joystick, similar to the side-stick controllers
found in certain part 23 and 25 airplanes, would not be found in an
aircraft with simplified flight controls since the joystick or side-
stick controller is a type of primary flight control. As previously
discussed, the revised Sec. 22.180(a) in this rule provides the
necessary clarity for this. Though FAA agrees that the technology of
fly-by-wire systems could be included in aircraft with simplified
flight controls, the differentiator is that the presence of primary
flight controls does not exist in aircraft designs with simplified
flight controls.
However, as the NPRM discussed, joystick controllers used to select
flight commands or move a cursor on a display would be appropriate for
a simplified flight control design. This type of joystick would likely
be used intermittently to select any necessary heading, course,
altitude, or airspeed corrections to the preprogrammed route of flight.
It could also be used to move a cursor to select items displayed on an
electronic chart; either enabling a flight mode or obtaining additional
information. These corrections or selections could be in response to

[[Page 35080]]

situations such as hazard or unexpected weather avoidance.
d. Prevent Loss of Control for All Likely Circumstances
The NPRM noted, if used in the design, automation would have to
prevent loss of control of the aircraft under all circumstances. TCCA
requested clarification of ``all circumstances,'' and suggested
``likely'' needed to replace ``all'' if ``circumstances'' included
environmental, operational, and failure conditions. Alternatively, TCCA
thought it seemed too limited if ``circumstances'' only covers the
range of pilot inputs.
FAA agrees that ``likely'' should have been included in the NPRM
sentence to account for likely circumstances, without making it an
absolute criterion that is unachievable as noted by TCCA. In addition,
FAA will broaden the scope of Sec. 22.180(b) so that it is not
interpreted as only being applicable to pilot inputs. This will help
clarify that aircraft control is also maintained through automation
during engine loss or asymmetrical power scenarios. In this final rule,
Sec. 22.180(b) reads: The aircraft is designed to inherently prevent
loss of control under all likely circumstances, regardless of pilot
input.
e. Clarification on Maintaining Aircraft Control and the Use of
Aircraft Parachutes
In the NPRM, proposed Sec. 22.145(b) stated the aircraft
propulsion system must be designed so that the failure of any product
or article does not prevent continued safe flight and landing or, if
continued safe flight and landing cannot be ensured, the hazard has
been minimized. Proposed Sec. 22.180(b) and (c) stated the aircraft is
designed to inherently prevent loss of control, regardless of pilot
input, and the aircraft has a means to enable the pilot to quickly and
safely discontinue the flight and prevent any inadvertent activation of
this feature.
Doroni Aerospace and 3F commented that Sec. Sec. 22.145(b),
22.180(b), and 22.180(c) are contradictory for powered-lift. They
stated for powered-lift, a complete or partial loss of propulsion could
result in being unable to control the aircraft's descent. They also
stated for aircraft that lack control surfaces, it could result in
complete loss of control. They suggested automatic, semi-automatic, or
manual emergency ballistic device may help satisfy Sec. 22.145(b) in
such scenarios. Doroni Aerospace and 3F were concerned that Sec.
22.180(b)'s requirement that the aircraft is designed to inherently
prevent loss of control, regardless of pilot input, works against
pilots being able to deploy emergency ballistic devices. They stated
Sec. 22.145(c) contradicts Sec. Sec. 22.180(b) and 22.145(b)
regarding emergency procedures associated with loss of control. Doroni
Aeropsace recommended clear emergency ballistic device guidance in
these regulations for aircraft with simplified flight controls and
powered-lift.
FAA disagrees with Doroni Aerospace and 3F's interpretation of the
requirements in Sec. 22.180. As previously explained, the final rule
has changed the Sec. 22.180(b) requirement to prevent loss of control
under likely, rather than all, circumstances, regardless of pilot
input, and changed Sec. 22.180(c) to read, ``The aircraft has a means
to enable the pilot to quickly and safely discontinue or alter the
flight and prevent any inadvertent activation of these functions.''
Accordingly, aircraft designs that cannot meet the Sec. 22.180(b)
requirement that the aircraft inherently prevent loss of control under
likely circumstances cannot be designated by the manufacturer as having
simplified flight controls. In addition, Sec. 22.135 requires aircraft
control to be maintained in the likely event of a failure or
malfunction of a system or component.
Aircraft with simplified flight controls must be designed with
sufficient automation to prevent loss of control under likely
circumstances to include partial and complete loss of propulsion. To
achieve this requirement, the powered-lift designs could use
autorotation, distributed propulsion, wing surface area to control
glide rate of descent, other measures appropriate for the design, or a
combination of these measures to account for each flight condition.
Though FAA encourages manufacturers to add safety equipment such as
ballistic parachute recovery systems, such a parachute or system, by
itself, is not an acceptable means of compliance for the Sec. Sec.
22.135 or 22.180(b) requirements. For aircraft designed with simplified
flight controls, the intended outcome of Sec. Sec. 22.135 and
22.180(b) is to require aircraft control to be maintained until the
automation or pilot intervention (via automation) brings the flight to
a logical and safe conclusion. The aircraft must have this ability even
if the aircraft manufacturer installs a ballistic parachute recovery
system on the aircraft. FAA understands the desire to use a parachute
with powered-lift to minimize the hazards of partial and complete
engine failure. However, ballistic parachute recovery systems do not
provide full protection of the flight envelope since the parachute
requires a certain height above the ground before it can fully deploy.
FAA disagrees with Doroni Aeropsace's and 3F's interpretation that
the pilot's deployment of an aircraft parachute would violate Sec.
22.180(b). The deployment of an aircraft parachute is a separate
function and not related to the pilot's interface with the aircraft's
automation that is described in Sec. 22.180(b).
FAA also disagrees with Doroni Aerospace's and 3F's interpretation
on the level of training of a pilot, such that they have limited
knowledge and experience to determine the need to deploy a parachute in
emergency procedures. If a light-sport category aircraft is designed
with an aircraft parachute, then Sec. 21.190(c)(2) requires the
manufacturer to provide a POH that includes operating instructions and
limitations to safely accommodate all environmental conditions and
normal, abnormal, and emergency procedures likely to be encountered in
the aircraft's intended operations. This means the pilot can obtain
necessary operating instructions and limitations of the aircraft
parachute from the POH.
f. Clarification on ``Discontinue the Flight Path''
The NPRM discussed examples of actions that could qualify as
discontinuing or suspending a flight under Sec. 22.180, including an
immediate landing, a return flight to the aircraft's point of
departure, a diversion to an alternate landing site, a course change,
or initiation of a low altitude orbit or in-place hover until any
hazards have passed.
Cirrus Aircraft stated these examples are ad hoc flight path
changes. Cirrus Aircraft and Streamline Designs recommended that FAA
clarify the meaning of Sec. 22.180(c), with Cirrus Aircraft noting
Sec. 22.180(a)'s requirement that pilots ``control the flight path''
in questioning the clarity of Sec. 22.180(c) and Streamline Designs
asking the meaning of ``discontinue the flight.'' Skyryse commented
that requiring the pilot to be able to ``quickly and safely discontinue
the flight'' fails to reflect practical operational experience, as
discontinuance may not be the most appropriate or safest action that a
pilot can take in the event of an unforeseen event. It noted the
example actions from the NPRM discussed above as options available to a
pilot where circumstances preclude the completion of a mission as
planned. Skyryse stated the NPRM preamble uses the terms ``suspend''
and ``discontinue,'' implying a broader range

[[Page 35081]]

of pilot options while the NPRM regulatory text does not. Reliable
Robotics similarly commented on proposed Sec. 22.180(c), stating it
could be overly prescriptive and require additional capabilities given
the differences between simplified flight control technologies. It
stated requiring these systems to allow the pilot to ``control the
flight path'' and to ``discontinue or suspend'' the flight could
significantly increase complexity.
FAA agrees that ``discontinue'' is too narrow of scope to capture
the practical example actions discussed in the NPRM preamble that
included a course change, or initiation of a low altitude orbit or in-
place hover until any hazards have passed. However, ``suspend'' may
also be too narrow as it only implies an orbit, holding pattern, or in-
place hover. Instead, the final rule will change Sec. 22.180(c) to
include the term ``alter'' so that it reads, ``The aircraft has a means
to enable the pilot to quickly and safely discontinue or alter the
flight and prevent any inadvertent activation of these functions.''
Altering the flight reflects more viable options that could include an
orbit, holding pattern, in-place hover, course change, or an offset
while still proceeding to the original destination. It also better
describes a diversion to an alternate airfield or landing site. Note
that FAA changed the word ``feature'' to ``function'' as recommended by
Streamline Designs since ``functions'' (plural) better describes the
actions of discontinuing or altering the flight.
In response to Reliable Robotics's comment that an additional
requirement to ``discontinue or suspend'' the flight could add
significant complexity, the automation in simplified flight control
designs must be able to perform the same flight functions as a pilot.
If smoke or fumes suddenly appeared in the occupant compartment, the
design must allow the pilot to interface with the automation so that
the flight could be discontinued or altered, if necessary, such as
accomplishing a pilot-initiated divert to a suitable landing site. If
the smoke or fumes were significant enough, automation must allow the
pilot to initiate an immediate land now function. The aircraft design
must be able to handle this and similar emergency or abnormal scenarios
necessary for the safety of the aircraft and occupants.
g. Clarification on ``Inadvertent Activation''
Skyryse suggested deleting the phase ``inadvertent activation of
this feature'' from proposed Sec. 22.180(c) as ambiguous since a
single ``feature'' may not support all responses to unforeseen events.
As previously discussed, FAA changed ``feature'' to ``function'' in
Sec. 22.180(c) since ``functions'' better describes the actions of
discontinuing or altering the flight. FAA disagrees with removing
``inadvertent activation of these functions'' since protecting
inadvertent activation of equipment that performs critical functions is
a safety feature of the aircraft. This safety feature could prevent the
pilot from inadvertently putting the aircraft in a dangerous situation
such as turning the aircraft toward higher terrain, an obstacle, or
airborne hazards such as birds or other aircraft. Inadvertent
activation of an immediate landing mode, if applicable, may result in
damage to the aircraft or injury to occupants if over rugged or
unsuitable terrain.
h. Simplified Flight Controls Are Too Technical for the Light-Sport
Category
ALPA did not support simplified flight control systems for light-
sport category aircraft. It asserted such highly automated, technically
advanced flight control systems for light-sport aircraft may add an
unquantified risk, with little to no mitigation. ALPA cited an FAA
notice (77 FR 38463) (LSAMA Notice) related to the LSAMA Final Report.
The LSAMA Notice described FAA's concerns over manufacturing
facilities' ability to substantiate, through the issued statements of
compliance, that aircraft met the applicable consensus standards.
FAA-accepted consensus standards have been created for a broad
array of aircraft classes that include airplanes, gliders, lighter-
than-air, weight-shift-control, and powered parachutes. The NPRM
affirmed that the success of the light-sport category, including its
reliance on a statement of compliance to FAA-accepted, industry
consensus standards. This success serves as a sufficient basis for
expansions of this category using the same certification concepts and
procedures, including optional designs that include simplified flight
controls. For instance, ASTM F37 Committee on Light-Sport Aircraft
could work with ASTM F38 Committee on Unmanned Aircraft to obtain best
practices and specialized knowledge on common technologies. In
addition, this rule will include mitigations to decrease risk, such as
limiting light-sport category aircraft to two seats, except four seats
for airplanes, enabling more robust structures and safety equipment
through the removal of a weight limit, and not allowing the carriage of
non-essential persons and cargo for compensation or hire, except for
flight training.
In response to the LSAMA Final Report, a requirement for the
training of manufacturer's employees to ensure they understand how to
determine compliance to applicable consensus standards is included in
this rule in Sec. 22.190. In addition, Sec. 21.190(d) requires the
manufacturer's statement of compliance to be signed by the
manufacturer's authorized representative who is certified and trained
on the requirements associated with the issuance of a statement of
compliance by an organization that certifies and trains quality
assurance staff in accordance with a consensus standard that has been
accepted by FAA. These provisions are intended to correct the concerns
identified in the LSAMA Final Report.
i. Development of Consensus Standards for New Classes
A commenter proposed removing the simplified flight controls
requirement for helicopters under Sec. 21.190 because it is
inconsistent with other aircraft categories' requirements, and such
technology is still developmental and would delay new helicopter
certification. The commenter asserted that this removal would allow a
realistic ASTM certification basis with existing technology and allow
existing EAB helicopter designs to be revised to comply with industry
mechanical practices and certified.
FAA notes there are a few misconceptions in the commenter's
remarks. First, Sec. 21.190 does not contain a restriction on
simplified flight controls for helicopters. Instead, this restriction
is in part 61 and only applicable to sport pilots. Second, light-sport
category helicopters may be designed with or without simplified flight
controls, so the development of consensus standards for the Sec.
22.180 requirements will not impede new helicopter certification.
Granted, it will take time for certain types of aircraft, such as
helicopters, gyroplanes, and powered-lift, to achieve airworthiness
certification in the light-sport category as consensus standards are
developed for these aircraft. It is up to industry as to when consensus
standards for simplified flight controls will be developed for each
aircraft class, as applicable.
j. Altered Aircraft
VAI commented that the rule should allow for currently manufactured
or existing rotorcraft to have equipment installed that could achieve
performance-based standards of simplified flight control designs. VAI
recommended traditional rotorcraft be given a simplified flight control

[[Page 35082]]

designation if altered through approved and installed advanced control
augmentation systems. Though standards and procedures for type
certification are outside the scope of this rule, an applicant may
request FAA approval for such designs via the provisions in part 21 for
type certificates, changes to type certificates, or supplemental type
certificates, including the provision in Sec. 21.16 for requesting
special conditions for novel or unusual design features such as
simplified flight controls. If FAA approved a design for simplified
flight controls, the holder of that design approval would be able to
designate aircraft that incorporate that design as having simplified
flight controls.
k. Question on Consensus Standards Acceptance Criteria
EASA asked for clarity on the acceptance criteria for simplified
flight control systems. FAA will evaluate any consensus standards on
simplified flight controls to verify they meet the requirements of
Sec. 22.180 prior to FAA acceptance. Simplified flight control
consensus standards will contain the specific means of compliance for
simplified flight control designs.
28. Quality Assurance System (Sec. 22.185)
As explained above in the Sec. 22.100 section, some of the
proposed eligibility requirements were changed or omitted in this final
rule to clarify that aircraft manufactured outside the United States
had to meet the light-sport category eligibility requirements of Sec.
22.100(a) and (b). EASA asked if compliance with proposed Sec.
22.100(b)(1) includes compliance with Sec. 22.185 since the
requirement applies more to manufacturers and staff competencies than
the aircraft itself. FAA notes that proposed Sec. 22.100(b)(1) has
been omitted from this final rule, as explained in the Sec. 22.100
section. Instead, the requirement that the aircraft meet the
requirements of this subpart, as stated by proposed Sec. 22.100(b)(1),
is now under Sec. 22.100(a)(7) in this final rule. Section
22.100(a)(7) states that the aircraft meet the design, production, and
airworthiness requirements specified in this subpart using a means of
compliance consisting of consensus standards accepted by FAA.
Accordingly, since the requirement of Sec. 22.185 is written as a
requirement on the aircraft, FAA affirms that compliance with Sec.
22.100(a)(7) requires compliance with Sec. 22.185 since the aircraft
must have been designed, produced, and tested under a documented
quality assurance system to ensure each product and article conforms to
its design and is in a condition for safe operation.
As specified in Sec. 21.190(d)(5), an applicant for a special
airworthiness certificate under Sec. 21.190 must provide FAA with a
statement of compliance from the aircraft manufacturer that shows
compliance to FAA-accepted or approved consensus standards that act as
the means of compliance to the design, production, and airworthiness
requirements of subpart B of part 22. In addition, the statement of
compliance includes a statement from the manufacturer that they have
established and maintain a quality assurance system that meets the
requirements of Sec. 22.185 of this chapter and the aircraft conforms
to the manufacturer's design data, using the manufacturer's quality
assurance system that meets the specified consensus standard. These
requirements are in Sec. 21.190(d)(11) and (6), respectively.
29. Findings of Compliance by Trained Compliance Staff (Sec. 22.190)
Section 22.190 requires a light-sport category aircraft to have
been found compliant with the provisions of the applicable FAA-accepted
or approved consensus standards by individuals who have been trained on
determining compliance with those consensus standards. EASA asked if
compliance with proposed Sec. 22.100(b)(1) includes compliance with
Sec. 22.190 since the requirement applies more to manufacturers and
staff competencies than the aircraft itself. Like the prior response to
EASA provided for Sec. 22.185, FAA notes that the requirement of Sec.
22.190 is written as a requirement on the aircraft. FAA affirms that
compliance with Sec. 22.100(a)(7) requires compliance with Sec.
22.190 since the aircraft must have been found compliant with the
provisions of the applicable FAA-accepted or approved consensus
standards by individuals who have been trained on determining
compliance with those consensus standards.
For this final rule, FAA made a correction to Sec. 22.190 by
adding ``or approved'' to account for voluntary part 36 noise
requirements whose means of compliance could include FAA-approved
consensus standards. For all other part 22, subpart B requirements, the
means of compliance includes FAA-accepted consensus standards.
30. Ground and Flight Testing (Sec. 22.195)
The provisions of Sec. 22.195 require an aircraft intended for
certification as a light-sport category aircraft to have been ground
and flight tested under documented production acceptance test
procedures. This testing is required to verify aircraft performance
data, ensure the aircraft has no hazardous operating characteristics,
ensure the aircraft is in a condition for safe operation, and ensure
the aircraft can safely conduct towing or any aerial work operation
designated by the manufacturer. The manufacturer will ensure each
aircraft can safely conduct towing or any aerial work operation by
conducting flight testing of that operation. If successful, the
manufacturer would be able to provide a statement of compliance to FAA-
accepted consensus standards for this requirement.
Streamline Designs recommended changing Sec. 22.195 from ``The
aircraft'' to ``Each aircraft produced'' for the requirement that each
aircraft must have been ground and flight tested. FAA agrees that
``Each aircraft produced'' has equivalent meaning, however, the rule
will retain ``The aircraft'' to remain consistent with language used in
several other part 22 requirements.
Streamline Designs also recommended changing proposed ``validate''
to ``verify'' in Sec. 22.195(a) because, in part, validate means that
a product meets the needs of the customer while verify means the
evaluation of whether a product, service, or system complies with a
regulation, requirement, specification, or imposed condition. FAA
agrees that verify is more appropriate for Sec. 22.195(a) and has
changed proposed ``validate'' to ``verify'' in this final rule.
Streamline Designs and AIR VEV recommended changing Sec. 22.195(b)
to remove ``or design features'' so that it read, ``Ensure the aircraft
has no hazardous operating characteristics.'' AIR VEV stated hazardous
design feature testing should be conducted at the development phase
rather than at this stage. FAA agrees and has removed ``or design
features'' from Sec. 22.195(b). The provisions in Sec. 22.195 are for
the production acceptance testing of light-sport category aircraft
rather than for the flight testing of prototype and developmental
aircraft. The flight testing of developmental aircraft occurs under the
experimental purpose of research and development. This testing is for
new aircraft design concepts, new aircraft equipment, new aircraft
installations, new aircraft operating techniques, or new uses for
aircraft. Production acceptance testing is for aircraft in a final
configuration representing the light-sport category aircraft model for
certification under Sec. 21.190.
As explained in sections IV.F.14 and 16 for Sec. Sec. 22.110 and
22.120, respectively, FAA will not include proposed Sec. 22.120 in
this rule.

[[Page 35083]]

Accordingly, the final rule omits ``in accordance with Sec. 22.120''
from Sec. 22.195(d) so that it reads, ``Ensure the aircraft can safely
conduct towing and any aerial work operation designated by the
manufacturer.'' Light-sport category aircraft manufacturers specify
aerial work and towing operations that may be safely conducted by the
aircraft in the aircraft's POH per Sec. 21.190(c)(2)(iii) and (iv),
respectively. In addition, for the manufacturer's statement of
compliance per Sec. 21.190(d)(3), manufacturers must specify towing
and any aerial work operations the manufacturer has determined may be
safely conducted, and state that the aircraft has been ground and
flight tested to ensure that it can be operated to safely conduct those
operations in accordance with the instructions and limitations provided
by the manufacturer. Towing was not proposed in the NPRM for Sec.
22.195(d) but has been included in this final rule in response to
recommendations from commentors because towing puts similar loads on
aircraft structures as certain aerial work operations. The annex of
ASTM Standard F2245 specifies additional requirements for light-sport
category airplanes used to tow gliders. Compliance with these consensus
standards is shown when the towed aircraft is safely controllable under
tow at a speed for which its drag and weight are within the prescribed
maximum weight and drag limits. A similar statement for towing gliders
exists in the annex of ASTM Standard F2317/F2317M for light-sport
category weight-shift-control aircraft. Accordingly, the addition of
towing to Sec. 22.195(d) reflects similar compliance action for flight
testing already required of light-sport category aircraft manufacturers
by FAA-accepted ASTM consensus standards.
USUA recommended the elimination of proposed Sec. 22.120 and
resultingly, Sec. 22.195(d). Though FAA has removed proposed Sec.
22.120 from the final rule, FAA disagrees with eliminating Sec.
22.195(d). Ground and flight testing the aircraft ensures that towing
and any aerial work operation designated by the manufacturer could be
safely conducted. Flight testing would verify any limitation designated
by the manufacturer as being necessary to safely conduct the specified
operations.
31. Other Part 22 Comments
One commenter stated certification requirements for light-sport
category aircraft with retractable landing gear, full authority digital
engine control, adjustable propellers, and other items must be as
demanding and comprehensive as for non-light-sport category airplanes
with such features as these items are not more reliable or safe because
they are in a light-sport category aircraft than in other aircraft
where they have to be analyzed, tested, and certificated.
As previously discussed in section IV.C, the certification rigor of
light-sport category aircraft may be less than the certification rigor
of normal category aircraft since normal category aircraft have greater
operating privileges, such as carrying passengers and cargo for
compensation or hire. In addition, light-sport category aircraft have
restrictive operating limitations in Sec. 91.327 that are not
applicable to normal category aircraft.
This does not mean that complex systems will be unsafe on light-
sport category aircraft. Part 22 has comprehensive requirements that
will apply to the design, structural integrity, materials, operating
environment, and functionality of aircraft systems such as retractable
landing gear. In addition, part 22 has further requirements for quality
assurance, finding of compliance to consensus standards by trained
staff, and ground and flight testing.
In the specific case of landing gear, Sec. 22.110 requires that
the design and construction of the landing gear must provide sufficient
structural integrity to enable safe operations within the aircraft's
flight envelope throughout the aircraft's intended life cycle and must
be able to withstand all likely flight and ground loads, including any
aerial work operation, when operated within its operational limits.
Section 22.125 requires the landing gear to have design characteristics
to safely accommodate all environmental conditions likely to be
encountered during its intended operations. Section 22.130 requires the
suitability and durability of materials used for the landing gear to
account for the likely environmental conditions expected in service,
the failure of which could prevent continued safe flight and landing.
Section 22.135 requires that the landing gear must perform its intended
functions under all operating conditions specified in the pilot's
operating handbook. Likely failure or malfunction of the landing gear
must not cause loss of control of the aircraft. The landing gear must
be considered separately and in relation to other systems and
equipment. In addition, Sec. Sec. 22.185 and 22.190 require that the
landing gear must have been designed, produced, and tested under a
documented quality assurance system to ensure it conforms to its design
and is in a condition for safe operation and that it must have been
found compliant with the provisions of the applicable FAA-accepted or
approved consensus standards by individuals who have been trained on
determining compliance with those consensus standards. Finally, Sec.
22.195 requires ground and flight testing of the landing gear to ensure
it has no hazardous operating characteristics. Though these
performance-based requirements are not as rigorous as those in part 23
for the landing gear of a normal category airplane, they are
appropriate for the light-sport category and provide a proper
foundation for the creation of consensus standards that would act as a
means of compliance to the part 22 requirements.
Consensus standards will have to be developed by consensus
standards organizations for the design, production, and airworthiness
of retractable landing gear, adjustable pitch propellers, or any other
complex systems that were not previously allowed for light-sport
category designs.\60\ FAA will evaluate any proposed consensus
standards before deciding whether to accept them, to ensure that they
are an acceptable means of compliance to regulatory requirements. The
safety record of the light-sport category has demonstrated that
manufacturers' compliance with FAA-accepted consensus standards can
result in the production of safe aircraft.
AEA/ARSA disagreed with certain sections of part 22 and recommended
that the regulatory requirements of parts 23 or 36 should be used for
those systems. The associations stated they do not agree with the
aircraft system descriptions as written. The associations supported the
NPRM for performance-based safety standards; however, they suggested
the safety standards should be aligned for aircraft of comparable size,
speeds, and operations regardless of the airworthiness certificate the
aircraft carries. The associations suggested using the established
safety standards as published by FAA for two seat airplanes in part 23,
in the current amendment for level 1 aircraft, regardless of the
airworthiness certificate issued.
FAA disagrees with AEA/ARSA's comments and suggestions for several
reasons. To start with, FAA disagrees with the association's claim that
light-sport category aircraft are intended to be two seat recreational
aircraft. This statement is outdated as being aligned with the 2004
final rule but not with the NPRM and this final rule. As previously
stated in the NPRM and in section IV.C of this rule, the performance
expansions in this rule are based on the safety continuum, the
successful use of light-sport category consensus standards to provide
an accident rate commensurate with the normal category, and the

[[Page 35084]]

implementation of design, production, and airworthiness requirements in
part 22.
The associations stated general aviation safety standards should be
consistent regardless of airworthiness certificate. To this comment,
FAA points out that the associations failed to acknowledge that
amateur-built aircraft are general aviation aircraft of comparable
size, speeds, and operations as normal, primary, and light-sport
category aircraft. Yet, amateur-built aircraft operate in the national
airspace system (NAS) without any design requirements, though they do
have to meet certain part 91 equipage requirements to access certain
airspace. Omission of certificated amateur-built aircraft, which far
outnumber certificated primary and light-sport category aircraft,
weighs against the associations' claims since all three types are
considered ``general aviation'' aircraft. In explaining the part 22
proposed requirements in the NPRM, FAA made several comparisons of type
certificated, part 23 aircraft and EAB aircraft to explain where light-
sport category aircraft fit on the safety continuum and why the
proposed certification rigor for light-sport category aircraft was
appropriate. By stating the light-sport category should be held to the
same airworthiness standards as the normal and primary categories, the
associations are dismissing the application of the safety continuum.
Instead, FAA asserts that each certification process serves a specific
purpose and is bound by appropriate limitations and privileges.
FAA disagrees with AEA/ARSA's comment to replace Sec. Sec. 22.135,
22.140, 22.145, 22.150, 22.155, 22.160, 22.165, and 22.170 with the
regulatory requirements from parts 23. Though the commenters also
included Sec. 22.175, stating the requirement should be replaced with
requirements from part 36, Sec. 22.175 has been omitted from this
final rule since compliance with part 36 for new light-sport category
aircraft is voluntary. AEA/ARSA's suggestion does not align with the
airworthiness certification rigor of the safety continuum as previously
discussed in section IV.C. Sections IV.A.2 and IV.F.3 of the NPRM
provided examples of the differences in certification rigor between the
light-sport and normal categories and explained the reasoning that
allows the certification rigor of the light-sport category to be less
than that of the normal category.
Finally, FAA notes that certain existing FAA-accepted ASTM
consensus standards for light-sport category airplanes \61\ were
recently used for the primary category airworthiness design criteria
for type certification of the ICON Aircraft Model A5-8 airplane.\62\
Contrary to AEA/ARSA's claim, FAA-accepted consensus standards for the
light-sport category are sufficient for certain types of general
aviation aircraft, as demonstrated by their use for the type-
certification of a primary category aircraft. By using the light-sport
criteria for a primary category airplane, FAA found that FAA-accepted
consensus standards provided a level of safety acceptable to FAA.\63\
EASA questioned how the higher complexity of powered-lift and eVTOL
would be addressed in the light-sport aircraft category from a
manufacturing perspective. As previously stated, consensus standards
that will act as the means of compliance to the design, production, and
airworthiness requirements in part 22 will have to be developed by
consensus standards organizations for light-sport category powered-lift
and rotorcraft. The consensus standards must be accepted by FAA before
they can be used for the design, production, and special airworthiness
certification of light-sport category aircraft.
ALPA commented that FAA is avoiding its regulatory responsibilities
by using performance-based regulations that effectively empower the
manufacturers to establish the regulations for safety. ALPA recommended
that aircraft transporting persons or property should meet the
certification standards and safety requirements afforded by part 43,
91, 135, 136, and 194 for airplane and rotorcraft as applicable. ALPA
commented that FAA will have to rethink the traditional means of
aircraft certification due to novel light-sport aircraft designs, new
technologies, and varying capabilities. ALPA continued that complicated
and distinctive operating equipment and characteristics of light-sport
aircraft designs may require a combination of the aircraft
certification standards from various parts.
FAA disagrees with ALPA's claim that the performance-based
requirements of part 22 establish a new manufacturing concept.
Performance-based requirements have been used for the airworthiness
standards in part 23 for normal category airplanes since 2017. Also,
FAA disagrees that consensus standards are a form of ``certification''
authorized by the manufacturer. Instead, consensus standards act as the
means of compliance to FAA's regulatory requirements in part 22. FAA
verifies that consensus standards meet the regulatory requirements
before they are accepted by FAA. Only after earning FAA acceptance may
a manufacturer use a consensus standard for the design, production, and
airworthiness certification of light-sport category aircraft.
The recent accident rate of light-sport category aircraft, as shown
in FAA's 2022 Light-Sport Category Aircraft Continued Operational
Safety (COS) Report, demonstrates that safe light-sport category
aircraft can be produced with the use of industry-developed and FAA-
accepted consensus standards. OMB Circular A-119 directs Federal
agencies to use voluntary consensus standards, both domestic and
international, in their regulatory and procurement activities in lieu
of government-unique standards, unless use of such standards would be
inconsistent with applicable law or otherwise impractical. The use of
consensus standards for light-sport category aircraft was previously
discussed in section IV.C. However, it should be emphasized that FAA is
an active participant in the development of consensus standards.
In addition, industry-developed consensus standards are an
appropriate means to address the complex and distinctive operating
equipment and characteristics of the new classes of aircraft being
added to the light-sport category, such as powered lift and rotorcraft.
Consensus standards organizations will have to develop consensus
standards, appropriate for FAA acceptance, for novel propulsion and
energy systems associated with light-sport category designs. The use of
FAA-accepted consensus standards for other types of aircraft, such as
unmanned aircraft or aircraft requiring higher levels of certification,
may also be used as a method of compliance for the design and
performance of novel or complex systems in light-sport category
aircraft.
ALPA's comment about the certification standards of persons or
property being transported on aircraft is misplaced. The safety
continuum is used to scope appropriate limitations or restrictions that
are based on an aircraft's level of certification rigor. Since light-
sport category aircraft are at the lower end of the safety continuum,
they have more restrictions and fewer privileges than normal category
aircraft, as described in section IV.C. These restrictions on light-
sport category aircraft include the applicable operating limitations in
Sec. 91.327.

[[Page 35085]]

G. Miscellaneous Provisions for Issuance of Special Airworthiness
Certificates

1. Removal of Marking Requirements for Light-Sport Category Aircraft
(Sec. 45.23(b))
This rule eliminates the current requirement in Sec. 45.23(b) to
mark repainted or newly manufactured light-sport category aircraft with
`light-sport.' Light-sport category aircraft owners would not have to
remove existing marks. Instead, aircraft owners would be allowed to
remove the marks any time after the effective date of this provision.
EASA asked if FAA considered alternate means to depict to pilots
and passengers the safety standard compared to normal category
aircraft. This rule only effects the external ``light-sport'' markings.
FAA has accepted ASTM consensus standards that include placarding
requirements for pilot and passenger warnings. For instance, the
passenger warning in ASTM Standard F2245 states, ``This aircraft was
manufactured in accordance with Light Sport Aircraft airworthiness
standards and does not conform to standard category airworthiness
requirements.'' A similar placarded warning exists in ASTM standards
for other classes of aircraft that have type certificated equivalents
such as gliders (ASTM Standard F2564) and lighter-than-air aircraft
(ASTM Standard F2427, Standard Specification for Required Product
Information to be Provided with Lighter-Than-Air Light Sport Aircraft).
For lighter-than-air aircraft, the passenger notice reads, ``This
aircraft conforms to ASTM Consensus Standards of airworthiness
developed and maintained by the aviation community under ASTM Technical
Committee F37.'' These or similar consensus standards would meet the
placarding requirements of Sec. 22.170. Also, Sec. 91.327 addresses
EASA's concerns by requiring the pilot of light-sport category aircraft
to advise each person carried of the special nature of the aircraft and
that the aircraft does not meet the airworthiness requirements for an
aircraft issued a standard airworthiness certificate.
AEA/ARSA asserted that FAA failed to provide appropriate notice
under the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) for the proposed change to
Sec. 45.23, contending that such change is not related to the topic
area of ``modernization of special airworthiness certification.'' FAA
disagrees with the assertion that there was insufficient notice. As
explained in the NPRM, the intended applicability to the marking
proposal for Sec. 45.23 was light-sport category aircraft. Since this
rule includes aircraft that are issued special airworthiness
certificates, light-sport category aircraft and the regulatory
requirements of their airworthiness certification process clearly fall
within the scope of this rule. The proper display of marks is part of
the airworthiness certification process for every aircraft, meaning FAA
would not issue an airworthiness certificate to an improperly marked
light-sport category aircraft. Therefore, eliminating the requirement
in Sec. 45.23(b) to mark repainted or newly manufactured light-sport
category aircraft with `light-sport' is fitting to be addressed in this
rule.
Furthermore, FAA complied with its obligation under 5 U.S.C. 553(b)
to provide general notice in the Federal Register of the proposed rule
in the NPRM. It is incumbent on the public to review and respond to
that notice. For the reasons stated above, FAA disagrees that the
public received inadequate notice of the proposed change to Sec.
45.23.
2. Airworthiness Certificates: Classification (Sec. 21.175)
Section IV.N of the NPRM proposed to restructure Sec. 21.175 to
improve readability. There were no comments on this proposal. This
final rule adopts the changes as proposed.
3. Duration of Airworthiness Certificates (Sec. 21.181)
For a special airworthiness certificate in the light-sport category
to remain effective, the NPRM retained the current requirements for the
aircraft to be registered in the U.S., not have an unsafe condition,
and not likely develop an unsafe condition. The NPRM also retained the
current requirement for the aircraft to conform to its original
condition but used simpler language to capture the requirement for the
aircraft to conform to its properly altered configuration. Because the
NPRM proposed to remove the definition of light-sport aircraft from
Sec. 1.1, the provisions of the definition were included as proposed
Sec. 21.181(a)(3)(iv)(A) through (M) since they still apply to the
certification of these aircraft.
For this final rule, several changes have been made to this
section. A few changes were necessitated through the development and
implementation of effective dates, as discussed in section IV.Q. For
instance, for the first effective date of this final rule, October 22,
2025, the current Sec. 21.181 airworthiness certificate duration
requirements for light-sport category aircraft will remain valid with
minor structural changes made to Sec. 21.181(a), (a)(1), and (a)(4)
for clarification and readability. Section 21.181(a)(4) was split into
two separate sections, (a)(4) and (a)(5), to group experimental
purposes with similar durations. These two sections are discussed in
the experimental airworthiness certificate section IV.L.4. Section
21.181(a)(3)(iv) will be omitted because the aircraft registration
requirement is included in Sec. 21.181(a) as a general requirement for
the duration of all standard and special airworthiness certificates.
On the second effective date, July 24, 2026, the proposed changes
to Sec. 21.181(a)(3) will be codified as described in the NPRM.
However, FAA has determined that two corrections need to be made to the
proposals in Sec. 21.181(a)(3)(iv). First, this rule deleted proposed
language in Sec. 21.181(a)(3)(iv) that stated, ``and for which an
amended manufacturer's statement of compliance has not been submitted
to FAA in accordance with Sec. 21.190(e) on or after July 24, 2026.''
FAA determined that this clause adds no value for aircraft originally
certificated under Sec. 21.190 prior to July 24, 2026 because the
provisions of Sec. 21.181(a)(3)(iv) will still be necessary and valid
regardless of whether an amended statement of compliance has been
submitted to FAA. If this clause is not removed from this rule, there
would be no provision for the duration of a light-sport category
airworthiness certificate in Sec. 21.181 for aircraft originally
certificated prior to July 24, 2026 that did obtain an amended
statement of compliance through Sec. 21.190(e). Aircraft that obtain
an amended statement of compliance will continue to be subject to the
provisions of Sec. 21.181(a)(3)(iv).
The second correction made in this final rule to Sec.
21.181(a)(3)(iv) deletes proposed paragraph (I), which stated a
requirement for a fixed-pitch, semi-rigid, teetering, two-blade rotor
system, if a gyroplane. This provision should not have been included in
this section of the NPRM since gyroplanes cannot be certificated as a
light-sport category aircraft until on or after the second effective
date of this final rule, or July 24, 2026. As a result of this
correction, the proposed requirements in (J) through (M) are now listed
in (I) through (L).
4. Aircraft Identification (Sec. 21.182)
No comments were received on proposed Sec. 21.182. This final rule
makes a conforming change to Sec. 21.182(b)(2) by changing
``experimental certificate'' to ``experimental airworthiness
certificate'' to remain consistent with the terminology of Sec. 21.191
and the

[[Page 35086]]

explanation in section IV.I.2 of the NPRM that experimental
certificates are experimental airworthiness certificates. FAA did not
receive any comment on this terminology change for Sec. 21.191. This
final rule amends this section to make such changes as are necessary to
advance the intent of the rule.
5. Revision of Definitions Applicable to Light-Sport Category Aircraft
Definition of ``Consensus Standard''
The NPRM proposed an amendment of the definition of ``consensus
standard'' in Sec. 1.1. In addition, FAA requested comment on whether
it should remove the definition of consensus standard from Sec. 1.1
altogether or revise the definition as proposed. FAA received 17
comments in response. For this final rule, FAA has chosen to remove the
definition based on the comments received.
EASA, SAE International (SAE), GAMA, EAA, AOPA, NATA, NBAA, Van's
Aircraft, and VAI recommended eliminating the definition of ``consensus
standard.'' EAA, AOPA, NATA and NBAA provided their comments jointly in
a single response. Commenters argued that this term is commonly
accepted, used, and understood. EASA commented that the term is applied
to categories of aircraft that exceed the proposed definition. SAE,
GAMA, Van's Aircraft, EAA, AOPA, NATA, NBAA, and VAI all expressed
concerns about the limitations and potential negative impacts of
maintaining a definition of ``consensus standards.''
Several commenters did not support the removal of the definition of
``consensus standard.'' AEA/ARSA jointly commented that the proposed
definition of consensus standards now applies to all aircraft design,
operation, production, maintenance, or airworthiness applications. AEA/
ARSA recommended FAA use the Office of Management and Budget (OMB)
definition of consensus standards in OMB Circular No. A-119. FAA notes
that OMB Circular A-119 applies to FAA regardless of whether part 1
defines ``consensus standard;'' FAA's understanding and use of the
term, ``consensus standard,'' is coextensive with OMB Circular A-119.
Airbus Commercial Aircraft and Airbus Helicopters (collectively,
Airbus) expressed support for revising the definition of consensus
standards. ANAC supported the proposed definition of ``consensus
standard,'' and recommended retaining this definition for clarity and
consistency in interpretation and application. Streamline Designs also
recommended retaining the definition but requiring an opportunity for
``balanced input'' as opposed to merely ``input'' by interested and
affected persons. In deleting the definition of ``consensus standard''
from part 1, use of this and related terms will continue to be guided
by OMB Circular A-119, which includes balance of interest in the
definition of consensus standards body.
One commenter expressed concern that eliminating the definition
would cause confusion and recommended revising the definition. Another
commenter recommended choosing a new word or phrase instead of
``consensus standard,'' asserting that the current terminology creates
a ``mental block.'' As neither of these two commenters provided
specifics as to the change they would recommend, FAA is not
implementing these recommendations. FAA does note that ``consensus
standard'' is a globally used term and its use in the Federal
government is prescribed by OMB Circular A-119, Federal Participation
in the Development and Use of Voluntary Consensus Standards and in
Conformity Assessment Activities.
For this final rule, FAA will remove the definition of ``consensus
standard'' from Sec. 1.1. The term is already well known and widely
used within the aviation industry and, therefore, there is no longer a
need for a definition. Given its wide and diverse applicability, FAA
agrees with the commenters who expressed concern with unintended
negative consequences of adopting this revised definition; similarly,
many commenters stated a single definition would fail to consider the
nuances of particular applications. Commenters who expressed support
for retaining the definition mentioned factors such as clarity,
consistency, and avoiding confusion; however FAA considers that the
risk of increased confusion is low. Use of this term is commonly and
well understood within the aviation industry and its use within the
Federal government is guided by OMB Circular A-119. Accordingly, this
final rule eliminates the definition of consensus standard from Sec.
1.1.
Of note, when a specific consensus standard, e.g., American Society
for Testing and Material International (ASTM) Standard F2245, is
referenced in this final rule, it means that FAA has previously
accepted a version of that standard. Prior to the effective date of
July 24, 2026, consensus standards developed by light-sport category
consensus standards organizations were not acting as the means of
compliance to regulatory design, airworthiness, or production
requirements. The consensus standards FAA has previously found to be
acceptable for manufacture of light-sport category aircraft are
identified as FAA-accepted when the consensus standard is published in
the Federal Register as a notice of availability (NOA) for public
comment. Since consensus standards may be created for international
use, not all consensus standards published by light-sport category
consensus standard organizations are for U.S.-certificated light-sport
category aircraft or accepted by FAA. Consensus standards that have
been FAA-accepted prior to the effective date of part 22 will still
apply to light-sport category aircraft certificated prior to July 24,
2026 . On and after this date, FAA anticipates new consensus standards
will be developed as the means of compliance to the design,
airworthiness, or production requirements of part 22, including the
performance expansions and new classes of aircraft allowed by this
rule.
As required by Sec. 21.190(c)(1) and (d)(5) in this rule, as a
condition for eligibility for certification in the light-sport
category, an aircraft must meet performance-based aircraft design,
production, and airworthiness requirements using a means of compliance
consisting of consensus standards accepted or approved by FAA. The rule
provides the regulatory authority to deny airworthiness certification
for a light-sport category aircraft if any applicable requirements in
Sec. 21.190(c) or part 22 have not been met.

H. Sport Pilot Certification and Privileges

Part 61 prescribes the requirements for issuing pilot and flight
instructor certificates and ratings, the conditions under which those
certificates and ratings are necessary, and the privileges and
limitations of those certificates and ratings. Subpart J of part 61
prescribes the requirements for sport pilot certificates, while subpart
K of part 61 prescribes the requirements for flight instructor
certificates with a sport pilot rating. As discussed in the NPRM at
length, a sport pilot certificate is not issued with category and class
ratings (unlike the higher-grade pilot certificates), rather, pilots
receive a logbook endorsement for the category and class for which the
pilot is authorized to act as PIC. Currently, a person receives a sport
pilot certificate upon the successful completion of a practical test;
to obtain privileges to operate an additional category or class, the
sport pilot must receive training and an endorsement from an authorized
instructor for the additional privilege,

[[Page 35087]]

pass a proficiency check from an authorized instructor (other than the
instructor who trained them), and receive a logbook endorsement from
the instructor who conducted the proficiency check.\64\ Relatedly,
flight instructor certificates with a sport pilot rating (subpart K
flight instructors) differ from a subpart H flight instructor
certificate insofar as subpart K flight instructors may only provide
training and endorsements for persons in pursuit of a sport pilot
certificate and privileges.\65\
Sport pilot certificate privileges have been historically limited
to only operating category and classes of light-sport aircraft as
defined in Sec. 1.1. As discussed herein, this final rule removes the
definition of light-sport aircraft from Sec. 1.1 and relocates the
substantive requirements for a light-sport category aircraft to Sec.
21.190. Therefore, FAA proposed amendments to prescribe performance and
design limitations for aircraft that sport pilots can operate,
modernizing subpart J Sport Pilot and subpart K Flight Instructors with
Sport Pilot Rating regulations.
The following table summarizes key changes from the NPRM made in
this final rule for part 61.

Table 4--Summary of Key Changes From NPRM in Part 61
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Adopted by this final
Proposed action in the NPRM rule Final 14 CFR Sec. Preamble section
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Removal of ``light-sport Adopted as proposed...... Sec. 61.316....... IV.H.1., IV.H.1.g.
aircraft'' from 1.1, relocation
of performance and design
parameters since original
certification into part 61.
Stall speed (VS1) increase from Stall speed (VS1) Sec. 61 316(a)(1). IV.H.1.c.
45 knots CAS to 54 knots CAS for increase to 59 knots CAS
airplanes; retain 45 knots CAS for airplanes, retain 45
for other aircraft. knots CAS for other
aircraft.
Increase seating capacity for Adopted as proposed...... Sec. 61.316(a)(2). IV.H.1.a.
airplanes from 2 seats to 4
seats; retain 2 seats for other
aircraft.
Retain passenger limitation for Adopted as proposed...... Sec. 61.315(c)(4), IV.H.1.a.
sport pilots, add person- Sec. 61.415(k).
occupancy limitation for flight
instructors with sport pilot
ratings.
Relocate non-pressurized cabin if Adopted as proposed...... Sec. 61.316(a)(3), IV.H.1.
equipped with a cabin; for Sec.
gyroplanes, a fixed-pitch, semi- 61.316(a)(4), Sec.
rigid, teetering, two-blade 61.316(a)(7), Sec.
rotor system and fixed or 61.316(a)(8).
retractable landing gear; and
for gliders, fixed or
retractable landing gear.
Remove propeller design Adopted removal of Sec. IV.H.1.k.
restrictions; require additional restrictions and general 61.315(c)(20)(ii),
training to operate airplanes training framework; Sec.
designed with controllable-pitch revisions to clarify 61.316(a)(9), Sec.
propellers that are not training applicability 61.316(b), Sec.
automated. to airplanes with manual 61.331(b).
controllable pitch
propellers, clarify use
of any powerplant.
Remove fixed landing gear Adopted as proposed, Sec. IV.H.1.k.
requirement; require additional clarifies applicability 61.315(c)(20)(i),
training to operate aircraft for aircraft intended Sec. 61.316(b),
with retractable landing gear. for operation on water Sec. 61.331(a),
with retractable landing Sec. 61.331(c).
gear and adds training
exception for persons
who have previously
logged PIC time in such
aircraft.
Facilitate flight instructor Adopted as proposed...... Sec. 61.415(l).... IV.H.1.k.
certificate with a sport pilot
rating privileges to provide
training in an airplane with a
manual controllable pitch
propeller or an aircraft with
retractable landing gear.
Restrict sport pilot from Adopted as proposed, Sec. 61.316(a)(5). IV.H.1.b.
operating aircraft whereby a redesignated.
loss of partial power would
adversely affect the directional
control of the aircraft.
No proposal pertaining to subpart Retain restriction on Sec. 61.413(d).... IV.H.1.f.
J and K compensation. sport pilot privileges
for compensation or
hire; explicitly permits
flight instructors with
a sport pilot rating to
receive compensation
when providing flight
training.
Permit night operations with Adopts general framework Sec. 61.315(c)(5), IV.H.1.j. & IV.H.1.j.i.
training, endorsement, and with reorganization and Sec. 61.329(a),
experience requirements. revisions to minimum Sec. 61.329(c).
flight experience
requirements and
specific to the category
and class of aircraft.
Require at least a Third-Class Adopted as proposed, Sec. 61.329(b).... IV.H.1.j.iii.
medical certificate or meet the corrects incorrect
requirements of BasicMed to reference.
operate at night.
No proposal pertaining to Sec. Deconflicts provisions of Sec. IV.H.1.j.iii.
61.23. Sec. 61.23 with the 61.23(c)(1)(vi).
night operation medical
requirements in Sec.
61.329.
Facilitate flight instructor Adopted as proposed...... Sec. 61.415(n).... IV.H.1.j.ii.
certificate with a sport pilot
rating privileges to provide
night flight training.
Require pilots seeking to act as Adopted as proposed...... Sec. 61.31(l)..... IV.H.2.
PIC of aircraft certificated
with a simplified flight
controls designation to obtain
model-specific training and an
endorsement in that aircraft.
Limit a sport pilot instructor Adopted as proposed...... Sec. 61.415(m), IV.H.2.
from providing training in an Sec. 61.429(d).
aircraft with simplified flight
controls designation unless the
sport pilot has received the
model-specific training and
endorsement.
Facilitate subpart H instructors Adopted as proposed, Sec. 61.195(n).... IV.H.2.
employed by the manufacturer of redesignated from
aircraft with the simplified paragraph (m) to (n).
flight controls designation to
provide training and
endorsements.
No proposal pertaining to subpart Requires subpart H flight Sec. 61.195(m).... IV.H.3.
H flight instructor instructors to take
prerequisites for simplified their initial flight
flight controls. instructor practical
test in an aircraft with
conventional controls as
a prerequisite to
instruct in an aircraft
with simplified flight
controls.

[[Page 35088]]

Limit certain pilot time in an Adopted as proposed...... Sec. 61.9......... IV.H.2.
airplane or helicopter with a
simplified flight controls
designation from satisfying
certain flight time requirements
for a higher-grade certificate.
Require examiners who agree to Adopted as proposed...... Sec. 61.45(g)(1)- IV.H.3.
conduct practical tests for an (3).
initial pilot certificate,
rating, or privilege in an
aircraft with a simplified
flight controls designation;
hold the appropriate category
and class rating or privilege;
and have the ability to assume
control of the aircraft.
Limit a pilot who receives a Adopted as proposed, Sec. 61.45(g)(4), IV.H.3.
category and class rating or expands on paragraph Sec. 61.45(h).
privilege with a simplified (g)(4) to address
flight controls limitation to aircraft that are not
operation of only that make and capable of performing
model of aircraft. all the required tasks
in the ACS.
Require a pilot with a simplified Adopted as proposed...... Sec. 61.45(h)(1).. IV.H.3.
flight controls limitation
seeking to operate another make
and model of aircraft with a
simplified flight controls
designation in the same category
and class to receive training
and an endorsement.
Require a pilot with a simplified Adopted with Sec. 61.45(h)(2).. IV.H.3.
flight controls limitation clarification of initial
seeking to operate a different applicant applicability.
category as an initial applicant
for that category and class
rating and class of aircraft
with a simplified flight
controls designation and an
aircraft without a simplified
flight controls designation to
successfully complete a
practical test for that category
and class of aircraft.
Permit sport pilots to operate Adopted as proposed, Sec. 61.316(a)(6). IV.H.4.
helicopters certificated under redesignated.
proposed Sec. 21.190 that
include the simplified flight
control designation.
Add helicopter to flight Adopted as proposed...... Sec. 61.311, Sec. IV.H.4.
proficiency requirements and 61.409.
aeronautical experience areas of
operation.
Require minimum flight training Revises certain elements Sec. 61.313(a)(9). IV.H.4.
and time for applicants seeking of minimum flight
to obtain a helicopter privilege. training requirements
and time.
Require minimum flight experience Adopted as proposed...... Sec. 61.411(h).... IV.H.4.
requirements for applicants
seeking to obtain a flight
instructor certificate with a
sport pilot rating, helicopter
privilege.
Incorporate by reference Sport Adopts and relocates Sec. 61.14(b)(13), IV.H.5.
Pilot for Helicopter--Simplified incorporated by Sec.
Flight Controls ACS and Sport reference ACSs. 61.41(b)(17),
Flight Instructor for Appendix A.
Helicopter--Simplified Flight
Controls ACS.
Require sport pilots and flight Adopts practical test Sec. 61.321(b), IV.H.6.
instructors with a sport pilot requirement, removes Sec. 61.419(e).
rating seeking to add an knowledge test
airplane or helicopter privilege requirement,
to their existing sport pilot reorganization of Sec.
certificate or flight instructor 61.321.
certificate to accomplish a
knowledge test and practical
test.
Permit sport pilots to use up to Adopted as proposed...... Sec. 61.313(b).... IV.H.7.
2.5 hours of training credit in
an FSTD and ATD representing the
appropriate category and class
of aircraft.
Conforming amendments to remove Adopted as proposed, See preamble IV.H.9.
references to light-sport added additional light- section..
aircraft, corrected formatting. sport aircraft reference
revisions.
Conforming amendment to require a Adopted as proposed...... Sec. 61.3(m)...... IV.H.9.
sport pilot exercising the
privileges listed in Sec.
61.313 must receive a qualifying
logbook endorsement for the
appropriate category and class
privilege.
Proposed to amend wording to Adopted as proposed, and Sec. 61.45(f) and, IV.H.3.
replace light sport and proposed amended regulatory text Sec. 61.45(f)(3).
to change title of section. No to eliminate redundant
proposal to amend wording in uses of ``pilot
regulatory text. certificate'' in same
sentence.
No proposal to amend wording in Added this provision Sec. 61.315(c)(21) IV.H.1 & IV.H.8.g.
regulatory text for limitation. simply clarifies an
existing limitation
rather than making a
change to an existing
privilege or limitation.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The following sections discuss the provisions being adopted in this
final rule.
1. Sport Pilot Operational Privileges, Performance Limits and Design
Requirements (Sec. Sec. 61.315 and 61.316)
Currently, Sec. 61.315 sets forth the privileges and limitations
of a sport pilot certificate. The NPRM proposed to largely retain the
privileges and limitations as currently prescribed but proposed two
notable expansions to, first, facilitate night operations upon certain
training and an endorsement and, second, permit operations in aircraft
with retractable landing gear and controllable pitch propellers. These
proposals are further discussed in sections IV.H.1.j and IV.H.1.k of
this preamble, respectively. Aside from these two privilege expansions,
this final rule does not make any additional changes to sport pilot
certificate privileges and limitations in Sec. 61.315.\66\
The proposal to remove the Sec. 1.1 light-sport aircraft
definition would separate aircraft certification requirements from
sport pilot aircraft design and performance limitations. As a result,
FAA proposed new Sec. 61.316 to prescribe performance and design
limitations for the aircraft sport pilots can operate, which this final
rule adopts. New Sec. 61.316 will specify the expanded performance and
design limitations for aircraft that sport pilots are permitted to
operate, which includes

[[Page 35089]]

the sport pilot aircraft performance characteristics that were
originally provided in the Sec. 1.1 definition of light-sport aircraft
and a number of limitations currently set forth in the definition.
Specifically, FAA proposed several revised requirements in Sec.
61.316, to include: stall speed, maximum seating capacity, propeller
systems, directional control and controlled descent, simplified flight
controls for helicopters, and landing gear, adoption of which is
described in this section of the preamble. The unchanged requirements
from Sec. 1.1 that will reside in Sec. 61.316(a) are: non-pressurized
cabin, if equipped with a cabin (Sec. 61.316(a)(3)); for gyroplanes, a
fixed-pitch, semi-rigid, teetering, two-blade rotor system (Sec.
61.316(a)(4)); and for gliders, fixed or retractable landing gear
(Sec. 61.316(a)(7)).\67\
The final rule expands the variety of aircraft that can be
certificated under part 21, which is discussed in section IV.H.1.g of
this preamble, and aircraft that a sport pilot may operate under part
61. While the light-sport category aircraft certification requirements
set forth in Sec. 21.190 may differ from the sport pilot aircraft
limitations in Sec. 61.316, the aircraft design and performance
limitations set forth in Sec. 61.316 are specific to any aircraft that
a sport pilot may operate. Thus, a sport pilot may operate an aircraft
that meets the design and performance limitations set forth in Sec.
61.316 but may not be certificated or be eligible for certification in
the light sport category under part 21. The converse could also be
true; an aircraft could be certificated under part 21 in the light
sport aircraft category, but a sport pilot would not be able to operate
it unless it met the design and performance characteristics in part 61.
In sum, the aircraft certification requirements and pilot certification
requirements are two different safety considerations.
The expansion of eligible aircraft will provide manufacturers a
more affordable and effective method to certificate aircraft that meet
an industry standard (ASTM consensus standards), producing aircraft
that sport pilots can use for training or recreational flight
operations.\68\ The final rule also expands the aircraft sport pilots
can operate under the new Sec. 61.316, permitting sport pilots to
operate aircraft with more robust and reliable airframes than are
possible under the current light-sport aircraft definition limitations.
Moreover, the final rule will provide pilots with a safer and more
affordable aircraft alternative, compared to operating aircraft with an
experimental designation that do not meet any aircraft certification
standards.
As previously stated, new Sec. 61.316 identifies and expands the
design and performance limitations for aircraft that sport pilots and
flight instructors with a sport pilot rating can operate. This includes
those aircraft that will be available to sport pilots and flight
instructors with a sport pilot rating (subpart K) who, prior to this
rulemaking, successfully completed a practical test for an initial
sport pilot or flight instructor certificate, as well as those pilots
who successfully completed a proficiency check to operate an additional
category or class of aircraft.\69\ As discussed herein, this final rule
will most significantly expand the selection of airplanes that a sport
pilot may operate by revisions to the maximum stall speed and seating
capacity. For example, previously, a sport pilot could operate a Cessna
162 but not a Cessna 172 because the latter exceeded the light-sport
aircraft weight limitation in current Sec. 1.1. Under this new rule, a
sport pilot could now operate either a Cessna 162 or a Cessna 172 using
their sport pilot privileges. FAA analyzed the risk associated with
currently certificated sport pilots operating more complex aircraft
under new Sec. 61.316 and determined that no additional training will
be necessary for these pilots to safely operate additional aircraft
meeting the parameters of Sec. 61.316. In addition, under this final
rule and as discussed throughout this section of the preamble, these
currently certificated pilots will be required to obtain the
appropriate training and endorsement for operating characteristics that
FAA has determined necessitate additional training due to the
operational risk (e.g., night operations, airplanes with manual
propellers).\70\ FAA emphasizes the existing requirements of Sec.
61.31 continue to apply; for example, sport pilots will need to receive
additional training and an instructor endorsement prior to operating
airplanes that are high-performance or complex (or both).\71\ Because
of the similar operating profile and additional training requirements
to mitigate risks associated with these expanded operational
privileges, FAA finds these currently certificated sport pilots and
sport flight instructors can immediately take advantage of operating
more robust, reliable, stable airplanes, and can otherwise be safely
permitted to operate airplanes under the new Sec. 61.316 limitations.
To note, as proposed, this final rule will require a person seeking
to add an airplane single-engine land or sea or a rotorcraft-helicopter
privilege to successfully accomplish a practical test for that category
and class privilege as specified in Sec. 61.307(b), regardless of
whether they already hold a sport pilot certificate or whether they are
seeking an initial privilege. Given the increase in privileges
associated with operating an airplane in the NAS and the new
operational privilege for helicopters with simplified flight controls,
FAA recognizes that, going forward, it is necessary to require a
practical test to validate skill and proficiency to operate an airplane
in the NAS. In other words, airplane and helicopter performance with
the aircraft under this final rule will vary in such an extensive way
such that a proficiency check is insufficient to validate pilot
competency when adding a single-engine airplane privilege and
helicopter with simplified flight controls privilege safely in the NAS.
Practical tests conducted by authorized evaluators promote safety by
making tests more meaningful and relevant to actual flight operations
and contribute to standardization in testing these concepts; this
provision is discussed at length in section IV.H.6 of this preamble.
The following sections summarize proposed changes to Sec. 61.315
and new Sec. 61.316, adjudicate relevant public comments, and discuss
changes adopted in this final rule as an outgrowth of comments. FAA
generally received broad support for the expansion of the light-sport
category and sport pilot privileges but responds to opposing comments
herein. FAA received many unrelated comments that either did not
support or oppose the proposed rulemaking, or did not provide
substantive suggestions or recommendations for FAA to consider. As
such, FAA is unable to respond to these comments.
a. Sport Pilot Seating Limitation
Currently, sport pilots are limited by definition in Sec. 1.1 to
operating light-sport aircraft with a maximum seating capacity of no
more than two persons, including the pilot. The NPRM proposed to retain
the seating capacity limit to two persons under new Sec. 61.316 for
all aircraft except airplanes, which would allow a maximum seating
capacity of up to four persons, including the pilot. One significant
objective of this rulemaking is to facilitate and promote the use of
more robust and reliable airframes, both in the context of aircraft
certification and for those aircraft that can be operated by sport
pilots. This rulemaking will permit sport pilots to operate a variety
of additional certificated airplanes,

[[Page 35090]]

including the use of single-engine, four-seat airplanes that meet the
revised design and performance limitations listed in the new Sec.
61.316. As discussed in the NPRM,\72\ FAA maintains that the sport
pilot skills necessary to safely operate a four-seat airplane do not
materially differ from those skills required to operate a two-seat
airplane if the airplane satisfies the sport pilot aircraft design and
performance limitations listed in new Sec. 61.316. Therefore, this
final rule adopts new Sec. 61.316(a)(2), which will set forth, first,
the current two-seat limitation for all aircraft except airplanes and
second, the increase in maximum seating capacity for airplanes that a
sport pilot can operate from two to four seats.
Considering the expansion of airplanes that have a maximum seating
capacity of four persons under new Sec. 61.316, FAA stated in the NPRM
that sport pilots would continue to be limited in Sec. 61.315(c)(4) to
carrying only one passenger. Similarly, FAA proposed in Sec. 61.415(k)
to limit flight instructors with a sport pilot rating to carriage of
one person. After this NPRM published, FAA published Public Aircraft
Logging of Flight Time, Training in Certain Aircraft Holding Special
Airworthiness Certificates, and Flight Instructor Privileges final rule
on October 2, 2024,\73\ which amended Sec. 61.1(b) to define
``passenger'' as any person on board an aircraft other than a
crewmember, FAA personnel, manufacturer personnel required for type
certification, or a person receiving or providing flight training,
checking, or testing as authorized by part 61. Considering this new
definition, FAA maintains that sport pilots would be restricted to
carriage of one passenger, and flight instructors with a sport pilot
rating to carriage of one person. Because FAA defined ``passenger'' to
exclude a flight instructor and trainee, flight instructors will be
limited by ``person'' to restrict a scenario where a flight instructor
with a sport pilot rating could carry the trainee and a second person
(who would be considered the passenger). Sport pilot training
operations should not include a second person (e.g., an observer or
third party receiving a ride) due to the inherent risk via trainees
learning aircraft fundamentals and manipulating the controls. If a
pilot seeks to carry additional persons, the pilot will need to obtain
at least a private pilot certificate.
FAA received approximately 228 comments in response to these
proposed changes.
i. Increased Seating Capacity
Many commenters generally supported the proposal for sport pilots
to operate certain airplanes designed with up to four seats. Commenters
emphasized benefits such as: the resulting expansion of aircraft that
can be flown by sport pilots; the resulting appeal of these aircraft to
other pilots for recreation, training, and personal transportation; and
the availability of safer, more viable, and more versatile aircraft to
sport pilots (including the inclusion of legacy aircraft).
While most commenters supported increasing the seating capacity for
airplanes sport pilots would be permitted to operate, a few commenters,
including Air Line Pilots Association, International (ALPA), opposed
increasing seating capacity, suggesting that (1) sport pilots may not
have sufficient training, (2) the increased seating capacity would
tempt sport pilots to violate the single passenger limitation,\74\ and
(3) the expansion will allow heavier airplanes, which will reduce the
safety benefits of aircraft sport pilots are permitted to operate. ALPA
further explained that instead of pilots abandoning the use of
homebuilt aircraft, it is more likely that a significant group of
pilots will migrate from using normal category aircraft to lower-cost,
light-sport category aircraft, which are lower on the FAA safety
continuum.
Permitting sport pilots to operate airplanes with up to four seats
is consistent with FAA's safety continuum risk assessment. Sport pilots
will continue to be limited to carrying only one passenger, and the
increased seating capacity will not substantially increase the weight
of the airplane such that sport pilots will be unable to operate the
airplane safely with four seats, as compared to two. Because the
performance and handling characteristics of the airplane would not
substantially change from two to four seats, FAA maintains that the
skill needed to operate either airplane is generally similar, such as
proficiencies for normal takeoffs and landings or avoiding stalls.
Though some pilots may migrate from normal category aircraft to lower-
cost, light-sport category aircraft, FAA anticipates, and many
commenters agree, that the rulemaking will instead allow existing
production aircraft that are readily available and meet an aircraft
certification standard to be operated with sport pilot privileges.
Since many normal category aircraft are readily available to pilots and
eligible for sport pilot operations under this rule, FAA anticipates
the greater capabilities of these normal category aircraft will
continue to attract pilots, even when compared to lower-cost but less
capable light-sport category aircraft. FAA notes this was one intent of
the rulemaking project: expanding eligibility for aircraft
certification, airmen certifications, and related operating privileges
of light-sport category aircraft. This rulemaking will provide access
to safer aircraft, such as aircraft holding standard airworthiness
certificates, as an alternative for sport pilots via the performance
and design limitations in new Sec. 61.316 compared to the use of
aircraft with an experimental airworthiness certificate that do not
meet any standard for aircraft certification.
Finally, while FAA appreciates ALPA's concern that expanding the
available seats in an aircraft may tempt a pilot to carry more than one
passenger, pilots are required to comply with regulations. Any
operation intentionally contrary to the requirements will result in
enforcement action. This rulemaking will retain the one-passenger
limitation as a regulatory limitation and legal deterrent from such a
temptation. Should a pilot violate the regulation, the pilot would be
subject to an enforcement action, which may include a certificate
action, informal procedures, or both.\75\
ii. Increase Passenger Occupancy
FAA received many comments opposing the retention of the one-
passenger occupancy limitation and recommending FAA permit sport pilots
to carry more than one passenger in an airplane. Several commenters,
including ALPA, supported retaining the one-passenger limit for sport
pilots operating an airplane with up to four seats. Some commenters
emphasized safety concerns such as loss of life associated with
allowing sport pilots to carry more than one passenger. A few
commenters urged FAA to continue to require a pilot to have a higher-
grade certificate, such as a private pilot, or have higher medical
standards, such as a third-class medical or meet the BasicMed
standards, to carry more than one passenger.
Other commenters, including EAA, AOPA, NATA, and the NBAA's joint
comment, stated as the number of seats increase in aircraft sport
pilots can fly, the number of passengers allowed should also increase.
Many commenters, including Doroni Aerospace and 3F Consortium,
recommended facilitating an additional passenger allowance by requiring
additional training, instructor endorsements, or both. Conversely, some
commenters stated allowing

[[Page 35091]]

additional passengers would not require any additional pilot skills or
comprise safety concerns consistent with FAA's analysis of the light
sport category aircraft safety record. Several commenters drew
comparisons to the operation of motor vehicles, which do not have a
limit on the number of passengers. Other commenters referenced similar
accident fatality rates for existing sport pilots compared to private
pilots. These commenters emphasized a lack of data supporting the
position that more than one passenger increases accident risk and rate
in support of additional passengers, thereby increasing the sport pilot
certificate utility (including through cost sharing) and enhancing the
aviation experience. Several commenters suggested increasing passenger
allowance for recreational flying or instructional flying, or limiting
additional passengers to friends and family, flight training, and
flight school rental.
Some commenters recommended increasing the passenger limitation
with contingencies or additional requirements, such as aircraft safety
equipment; weight and balance limitations; third-class airman medical
certificate or BasicMed medical qualifications; minimum experience
requirements to carry additional passengers, such as model-specific
experience or minimum hours of flight time or PIC time; possession of a
sport pilot certificate for at least six months; training and an
endorsement from an authorized instructor in the specific make and
model used; or some combination of these requirements.
While FAA understands the commenters' suggestions, FAA does not
intend to allow operations carrying additional passengers with the
increase in number of available seats with this rulemaking. The
increase in allowable seats in airplanes is intended to expand the
reliable and stable airplanes that may safely be operated using sport
pilot privileges, thereby providing more options available to sport
pilots. To be clear, this change is about improving safety by making
more reliable and stable aircraft available to sport pilot certificate
holders. However, FAA did not propose changes to the airman
requirements to justify changing the number of passengers permitted.
Sport pilot certificates have a lower aeronautical experience
requirement and allow an airman to exercise sport pilot privileges
without holding an FAA medical certificate issued under part 67 or
BasicMed under part 68. Based on these requirements, FAA previously
determined the risk profile supports sport pilots carrying only one
passenger.\76\ In the absence of changes to those requirements, FAA
does not support expanding sport pilot privileges to include additional
passengers.
Further, FAA does not find the basis that a driver's license does
not have a passenger limitation to be a synonymous situation justifying
a passenger privilege expansion herein. Operating an aircraft is a
significantly unique and demanding operation compared to operating a
motor vehicle that is reflected by the numerous experience, training,
testing, and regulatory pilot certification requirements.
iii. Applicability of Airplane Four-Seat Expansion to Other Classes of
Aircraft
Many commenters, including Safari Helicopter, SilverLight Aviation,
LLC (SilverLight), Skyryse, AIR VEV, Vertical Aviation Technologies,
Inc., and Orlando Helicopter Airways, Inc. recommended providing the
same four-seat allowance for the new sport pilot privilege to operate
helicopters with simplified flight controls or helicopters with
conventional controls.\77\ Commenters asserted that there are few, if
any, differences between two-seat helicopters, which sport pilots will
be permitted to operate under this rulemaking, and four seat
helicopters. SilverLight suggested that if stall speed is the measure
of safety to permit four seats for airplanes, then FAA should consider
the same allowance for trikes, gyroplanes, and helicopters, stating no
technical reason why a four-seat airplane with a stall speed of 54
knots is safer than a gyroplane with a stall speed of 20 knots or
lower. AIR VEV recommended the seat limitation for other classes of
aircraft be prescribed in FAA-accepted consensus standards, which could
initially limit rotorcraft and powered-lift to two seats and then be
later modified once the industry and FAA has gained sufficient safety
data regarding these types of aircraft. Another commenter recommended
specifically increasing weight shift control aircraft seating capacity
to three persons, but did not provide reasoning as to why three seats
in weight shift control aircraft maintained safety.
FAA disagrees with permitting sport pilots to operate four-seat
helicopters or any other category and class of aircraft with four
seats, except for airplanes. The airplane maximum Vs1
stalling speed is not the only consideration for the seating capacity
of an aircraft that a sport pilot is permitted to operate. As explained
in the NPRM, because of weight and balance challenges due to unusual or
expanded seating configurations and limited experience and safety data
available, including when operating helicopters with simplified flight
controls, FAA did not find it appropriate to propose additional seating
capacity for the other aircraft category and classes and maintains this
position. Because this final rule facilitates a new class of aircraft
that sport pilots can operate, FAA does not have sufficient data
available at this time to support a commensurate seating expansion for
sport pilots to operate four-seat helicopters. Should helicopter
manufacturers develop and certify future simplified flight controls
designs for four-seat helicopters that satisfy Sec. 61.316 design and
performance limitations, they may be further assessed and considered in
future rulemaking proposals. In other words, this rulemaking does not
categorically foreclose the possibility of expanding seating capacity
in the future; rather, FAA is taking a measured approach to expansion
before implementing the same changes to a new class of aircraft that
sport pilots may fly (i.e., helicopters with simplified flight
controls).
In addition, FAA did not consider increasing the seating capacity
for the other category and classes of aircraft in the NPRM. FAA
proposed to allow sport pilots to operate four-seat airplanes because
FAA determined that the skill necessary to operate two-seat airplanes,
compared to four seat airplanes, does not appreciably differ due to the
similarity in design, weight, and operational capabilities, whereas the
required skills increase due to substantive differences in design,
weight, and operational capabilities of other aircraft categories and
classes, such as gliders and powered parachutes. That determination did
not extend to the other categories or classes of aircraft, and
expansion of seating capacity in those other categories and classes of
aircraft is outside the scope of this final rule. Further, expansion of
seating capacity (other than airplanes) would conflict with FAA safety
continuum concept. FAA asserts that if an individual wishes to operate
aircraft other than airplanes with a greater number of seats, they will
need to obtain a higher grade of pilot certificate.
Further, FAA does not find consensus standards to be the
appropriate avenue to set forth the performance limits and design
requirements for aircraft that a sport pilot may operate. As discussed
in the NPRM, currently Sec. 1.1 provides a definition for ``consensus
standard;'' however, this final rule removes the definition of a
consensus standard.\78\ Consensus standards have traditionally been
used, for example, for the

[[Page 35092]]

airworthiness certification of light-sport category aircraft to comply
with certain performance based standards for the certification of
airplanes and as a means of compliance for the operation of unmanned
aircraft systems (UAS) over people under part 107. Conversely,
consensus standards are not utilized for pilot certification because
they contain large amounts of inapplicable and extraneous information
for the pilot certification process. Rather, Sec. 61.316 will set
forth the minimum performance limits and design requirements
commensurate to the sport pilot training, which will include the
maximum seating capacity for an aircraft a sport pilot can operate.
iv. Pilots With a Higher Grade of Certificate
Some commenters recommended FAA allow pilots with a higher grade of
pilot certificate, such as private pilot or higher, to carry up to
three passengers when exercising sport pilot privileges. These
commenters reasoned that because these pilots hold a higher-grade
certificate and are only exercising sport pilot privileges, these
pilots have the experience necessary to carry more passengers safely.
Pilots who possess a higher grade of pilot certificate but are
exercising the privileges of a sport pilot certificate do so because
they have decided to exercise only the privileges associated with that
lower grade of pilot certificate. Often, the pilot cannot meet medical
or other minimum airman qualification requirements associated with the
higher grade of pilot certificate they currently possess, thereby
increasing risk to the general public and the NAS if they were
permitted to carry additional passengers. Therefore, FAA does not find
a compelling reason to broadly permit persons choosing to exercise the
privileges of a sport pilot certificate to carry more than one
passenger solely on the basis of holding a higher-grade certificate.
v. Seating Configuration
Several commenters stated FAA should consider aircraft with four
seats as qualifying at the time of the flight rather than the number of
seats since its original certification, which would further increase
the number of aircraft that a sport pilot could operate. These
commenters specifically refer to the proposal in Sec. 61.316(a), which
tethers the performance limits and design requirements for aircraft a
sport pilot may operate to those aircraft possessing the provided
characteristics since its original certificate.
First, FAA notes the expansion of the stall speed addresses
commenters' primary concern to increase the number of aircraft sport
pilots may operate. In addition, FAA maintains the limitation of
``since its original certification'' in Sec. 61.316(a) as necessary to
ensure airplane seating capacity is determined at the time of
certification rather than at the time of flight (e.g., removing seats
from aircraft with more than four seats to fit the four-seat
restriction that will be adopted within Sec. 61.316)). Airplanes with
more than four seats are traditionally heavier and characterized by
more complex operating characteristics. Removing seats merely changes
the number of persons that may be seated in the airplane but does not
substantially impact the performance characteristics associated with
heavier, more complex airplanes. Rather, the change could actually
complicate handling characteristics of the airplane (e.g., weight and
balance considerations). For example, if FAA were to remove the
original certification requirement, airplane owners could remove seats
from larger airplanes, such as a Piper PA-32 or Cessna C-206, that is
not intended for sport pilot use. These airplanes were originally
certificated with a seating capacity of more than four seats; however
simply removing seats would not change the original design and
performance of those aircraft, of which are not encapsulated by the
sport pilots training and testing regime.
FAA maintains that if an individual wishes to carry more
passengers, they may obtain a higher grade than a recreational pilot
certificate that addresses that increased risk by accomplishing the
appropriate training, qualifications, and testing for the privilege to
carry additional passengers, such as a private pilot certificate.
Section IV.H.g of this preamble further discusses additional comments
regarding original certification.
b. Directional Control and Controlled Descent of Powered Aircraft Stall
Speed
Currently, the light-sport aircraft definition set forth in Sec.
1.1 does not expressly require an aircraft to have the capability to
maintain directional control and a controlled descent in the event of a
powerplant failure. As discussed in the NPRM,\79\ there was no safety
of flight issue in this omission because the requirement was inherent
in airplane manufacture design and the light-sport aircraft definition
excluded helicopters and powered-lift, which are aircraft that are not
inherently characterized to have the ability to maintain directional
control and a controlled descent in the event of a powerplant failure.
Proposed Sec. 61.316(a)(7) included a requirement that sport pilots
may only operate aircraft in which the directional control of the
aircraft would not be adversely affected by the loss of partial power,
and the aircraft design must allow the pilot the capability of
establishing a controlled descent in the event of a partial or total
powerplant failure (excluding airships and balloons). While FAA
received several comments on this provision, FAA continues to find that
the requirement for aircraft to have the capability to maintain
directional control and controlled descent in the event of a partial or
complete powerplant failure is necessary to mitigate unacceptable risk
to other aircraft operations in the NAS, persons in those aircraft, and
persons or property on the ground, as subsequently discussed.
Therefore, this final rule adopts the content in proposed Sec.
61.316(a)(7) as Sec. 61.316(a)(5) due to renumbering in that section.
FAA received seven comments specific to the proposed loss of power
and controlled descent requirement as proposed. While some commenters,
including ALPA, supported the proposal, other commenters opposed the
new controlled descent requirement. AIR VEV expressed concern that the
proposed requirements could be interpreted in several ways because the
term ``controlled descent'' is not defined. AIR VEV suggested adding
modifiers such as ``safe'' or ``slow'' before ``controlled descent.''
AIR VEV explained they believe FAA's interpretation of controlled
descents after a power loss involves gliding, helicopter auto-rotation,
or using a ballistic parachute, which they state are safer than the
proposed language of maintaining directional control and a controlled
descent. AIR VEV also suggested proposed Sec. 61.316(a)(7) (adopted
herein as paragraph (a)(5)) be revised to require the aircraft design
to enable the pilot the capability to establish a controlled safe
descent in the event of a partial or total powerplant failure.
FAA does not find it necessary or appropriate to define the term
``controlled descent.'' ``Controlled descent'' is a foundational
principle of flight. In aviation, the term is commonly understood to
mean the process of safely and deliberately reducing altitude. Defining
the term could have unintended consequences that place restrictions on
how pilots safely land their aircraft. Weather, terrain, aircraft
characteristics, and other factors may all influence how a pilot
conducts a

[[Page 35093]]

controlled descent, making a single definition impractical.
Accordingly, FAA determined that the pilot is in the best position to
determine how to safely and deliberately reduce altitude without being
constrained by a definition. AIR VEV's reference to scenarios like
gliding, auto-rotating, or using a ballistic parachute would constitute
operational regimes that will meet the requirement for a powered
aircraft to be capable of a controlled descent in the event of a
partial or total power failure under new Sec. 61.316(a)(5).
USUA recommended the directional control and controlled descent
requirements be revised to only apply to helicopters and powered-lift
because the previous light sport aircraft definition in Sec. 1.1 did
not require a light-sport aircraft to have the capability to maintain
directional control and controlled descent in the event of a powerplant
failure. USUA stated expanding the requirements to all categories of
aircraft would be a detriment to safety and dilute resources that could
be used for relevant design and testing issues.
First, FAA did not extend powered-lift privileges to sport pilots
in this rulemaking because of the complexity of those operations and
the ongoing development of that new technology. If powered-lift are
certificated under parts 21 or 23, individuals can seek a powered-lift
category rating at the private pilot certificate level; therefore, FAA
finds it unnecessary to add an explicit application to powered-lift in
Sec. 61.316(a)(5), as USUA suggests, at this time. Further, this final
rule does not revise Sec. 61.316(a)(5) to exclusively apply to
helicopters because the increased risk associated with partial or
complete powerplant failure is applicable to all categories of aircraft
under the expanded parameters of aircraft that sport pilots may
operate. In the NPRM, FAA stated the omission of the explicit
requirement for directional control and a controlled descent in the
event of powerplant failure did not present a safety concern since it
was inherent in airplane manufacture and design under the light-sport
category aircraft definition. However, given the expanded performance
limits and design requirements for aircraft that a sport pilot may
operate and the other types of powered aircraft adopted in this final
rule that may not have these inherent safeguards in place like
airplanes, FAA finds it necessary to explicitly require these
characteristics for all aircraft for sport pilots to operate (excluding
ballons or airships). FAA did not receive any data or supporting
evidence to indicate consideration of these capabilities will dilute
resources for aircraft manufacturers or testing activities, especially
where most aircraft sport pilots operate are airplanes (where, as
previously stated, these characteristics are inherently present).
GAMA recommended FAA clarify if the intent of the rule proposal is
for single, partial, or all powerplants regarding complete or partial
loss. New Sec. 61.316(a)(5) utilizes the term ``partial'' when
describing the threshold of loss of power; ``partial'' loss means any
degree of powerplant failure that would result in incomplete power,
which could occur in only one powerplant, limiting an aircraft's
ability to maintain altitude and be forced into a descent
configuration.
c. Stall Speed Limit
The current Sec. 1.1 light-sport aircraft definition limits the
maximum VS1 stall speed for light-sport fixed-wing aircraft
to 45 knots CAS at the aircraft's MTOW and most critical center of
gravity. FAA's proposal retained the 45 knots CAS maximum
VS1 for other fixed-wing aircraft but proposed to increase
the maximum VS1 for airplanes. Specifically, in Sec.
61.316(a)(1), FAA proposed that if a pilot holds a sport pilot
certificate, they may act as pilot-in-command of an aircraft (except
for an airplane) that, since its original certification has a maximum
stalling speed or minimum steady flight speed without the use of lift-
enhancing devices (VS1) of not more than 45 knots CAS except
for airplanes. As proposed, airplanes would be required to have a
VS1 speed of not more than 54 knots CAS at the aircraft's
maximum certificated takeoff weight and most critical center of
gravity. FAA received many comments (approximately 485) regarding the
proposed maximum VS1 stall speed parameters for aircraft
that sport pilots may operate. Many of these comments were in favor of
an increase in VS1 stalling speed.
During review of the public comments, FAA found that the 54 knots
limitation excluded some existing type-certificated airplanes that
readily fit into a set of aircraft,\80\ including one- to four-seat
production airplanes, and may be operated by sport pilots given the
training and certification requirements of a sport pilot certificate.
While different makes of airplanes generally have different stalling
speeds, the results of FAA analysis for pilot operations failed to find
a correlation between increased fatality rates to a specific
manufacturer of type-certificated production airplanes with higher
VS1 stalling speeds. Moreover, the results of the analysis
did not show substantive differences among fatal accident rates related
to pilot loss-of-control (LOC) for the makes of airplane considered in
the analysis.\81\
Given the similar performance of existing type-certificated
aircraft with VS1 stalling speeds of 59 knots CAS or less,
FAA finds that increasing the maximum VS1 stalling speed to
59 knots CAS will permit the inclusion of many similar production two-
and four-seat airplanes, while continuing to appropriately limit the
size, weight, and speed of airplanes sport pilots may operate given the
training and certification framework for sport pilots. FAA did not
propose to change the aeronautical experience requirements for a sport
pilot certificate with airplane category and single-engine land or sea
class privileges. These longstanding training requirements would not
sufficiently prepare sport pilot applicants to operate airplanes that
have a stalling speed greater than 59 knots CAS VS1, which
tend to be heavier, faster, and more complex. Furthermore, it was not
the intent of the 2004 final rule nor this final rule to expand sport
pilot privileges to operate aircraft with those more demanding
characteristics.
FAA did not retain the direct weight limit for airplanes sport
pilots may operate (as currently promulgated in the Sec. 1.1
definition of light-sport aircraft) because some of these airplanes may
meet the design limitations in Sec. 61.316 (including the 59 knot CAS
VS1 stalling speed), thereby constituting an aircraft within
the sport pilot training and proficiency framework, but are slightly
heavier due to having more robust airframes or safety features.
Removing a prescriptive weight limit will encourage safety-enhancing
features on more airplanes that were previously precluded from sport
pilot operation solely due to the weight of the airplane. As technology
and innovative designs advance, FAA finds design and performance
limitations, such as stalling speed, are a more effective method of
limiting airplanes that sport pilots can operate. The increase in the
maximum stalling speed limit will also facilitate the use of more
airplanes with a standard airworthiness certificate, which provides for
increased load factor resilience, improved cabin crash safety, more
durable landing gears, and greater fuel capacity while still retaining
very similar operating characteristics.
Therefore, in Sec. 61.316(a)(1) this final rule retains the
proposed VS1 CAS maximum stall speed of 45 knots CAS for all
aircraft except airplanes; the maximum VS1 CAS stalling
speed limit for airplanes that a sport pilot is permitted to operate
will be 59 knots. The subsequent sections respond to

[[Page 35094]]

comments received regarding FAA's stall speed proposal.
i. Comments Supporting an Increase to the Maximum VS1 Speed
Eleven associations, four manufacturers, and 333 individuals
submitted comments generally supporting the proposal to increase the
maximum VS1 stalling speed limitation. EAA, AOPA, NATA, and
NBAA's consolidated comment broadly supported the rule but recommended
increasing the proposed maximum VS1 speed of 54 to 58 knots
to be more inclusive of FAA's targeted aircraft size. The joint comment
stated, with the removal of the weight limitation, the proposed 54 knot
stalling speed limit is too restrictive and that a higher
VS1 stalling speed enables a higher VA \82\
maneuvering speed, which facilitates improved structural limits,
handling, and safety during turbulence and gusty conditions. Commenters
generally explained that, by increasing maximum stalling speed to
qualify airplanes for sport pilot use, FAA would provide a more
inclusive and targeted group of aircraft and capture a broader range of
make and model airplanes with very similar performance and flight
characteristics. Van's Aircraft and Piper Aircraft also suggested
increasing the stalling speed to a minimum of 58 knots CAS to allow
more legacy aircraft and questioned how FAA decided on the proposed
VS1 54 knots CAS limitation. Similarly, ALPA, AEA and ARSA,
and 333 individual commenters supported increasing the maximum stalling
speed and recommended increasing the maximum VS1 stalling
speed to various speeds, generally ranging from 54 knots (as proposed)
to 70 knots. Commenters stated an increased maximum stalling speed
would permit the use of more existing, legacy, or vintage training
airplanes, including airplanes issued an experimental airworthiness
certificate and kit planes, to ultimately increase the number of new
pilots and could facilitate carriage of supplies.
GAMA supported the proposed increase in the size, performance, and
scope of aircraft that can be flown by sport pilots and recommended
increasing the maximum stalling speed to 58 knots CAS to capture a
broader range of specific airplane makes and models with very similar
flight characteristics, such as the Piper Archer model, which has a
stalling speed just above 57 knots. GAMA also stated the suggested
maximum 58 knot stalling speed remains below that of the primary
category aircraft certification allowance, which is 61 knots, and is
consistent with FAA's safety continuum.
Many commenters explained that the proposed 54 knot maximum
stalling speed appears arbitrary and would exclude many production
aircraft even though many of these aircraft have an excellent or proven
safety record. Several comments opined that the current proposed
VS1 CAS maximum stalling speed of 54 knots favors Cessna
production airplanes and unduly prohibits the use of many Piper
production airplanes by sport pilots, which a few commenters contend
are easier to fly than some Cessna airplanes. When discussing which
airplanes would be permitted to be operated by sport pilots due to
increasing the stalling speed limitation, commenters referenced
airplane manufacturers such as Cessna, Piper, Diamond, Beechcraft,
Grumman, Vans, Stinson, Mooney, Cirrus, and Kodiak. Many commenters
stated increasing the stalling speed a small amount would keep the
maximum weight for these airplanes far below the expected 3,000-pound
weight referenced in the NPRM. Some explained that the handling
characteristics between various legacy airplanes are marginally
different, and a further increase would not adversely affect aviation
safety.
As discussed at the beginning of this section, FAA agrees with the
commenters that the proposed maximum VS1 CAS stalling speed
of 54 knots is limiting and concurs with an increase in VS1
speed for the reasons provided. FAA has determined that a
VS1 stalling speed of 59 knots permits the inclusion of many
similar production two- and four-seat airplanes, and appropriately
limits the size, weight, and speed of airplanes sport pilots may
operate based upon the training and certification framework for sport
pilots. Though commenters suggested stalling speeds up to 70 knots, as
previously explained, the training requirements for a sports pilot
certificate would not sufficiently prepare sport pilot applicants to
operate airplanes that have a stalling speed greater than 59 knots
VS1, as these aircraft tend to be heavier, faster, and more
complex, thereby necessitating a higher degree of training and
proficiency validation.
NAFI generally supported the proposed rule but had concerns
regarding the clarity of the rule and possible misinterpretation. For
example, it commented that the regulation states the stalling speed
should be based on the ``aircraft's maximum certificated takeoff weight
and most critical center of gravity.'' It described that a late model
Cessna 182 has a stalling speed of 54 knots CAS at its most rearward
loading and a stalling speed of 56 knots CAS at its most forward
loading. Since stability is reduced as the center of gravity moves
rearward, NAFI's assumption is that the Cessna 182 qualifies as an
aircraft a sport pilot would be able to operate under the new rule.
NAFI is correct that the VS1 CAS must be determined at
the aircraft's maximum certificated takeoff weight and most critical
center of gravity. However, FAA does not find this language to be
unclear because the language gives the specific parameter where the
VS1 CAS would be determined. While FAA acknowledges the
reduction in airplane stability as the center of gravity of the
airplane moves rearward, FAA recommends consulting the aircraft's
manual to determine the stalling speed limit. If the stalling speed
limit in the airplane's manual is higher than the adopted regulatory
limit of 59 knots VS1 in any configuration, a sport pilot is
not permitted to operate that airplane. In response to the aircraft in
NAFI's specific scenario, the VS1 CAS would be the higher 56
knot CAS, as this is the most critical center of gravity. If the
aircraft's manual does not have a published VS1, FAA
maintains published guidance with FAA-accepted methods for determining
and documenting the VS1 CAS for an airplane in AC 90-89C,
Amateur-Built Aircraft and Ultralight Flight Testing Handbook,
including a method to determine CAS by conducting flight tests.
While AOPA, EAA, NATA, and NBAA recommended FAA increase stall
speed to 61 knots CAS, they also urged FAA to consider a higher maximum
stalling speed with the mitigation of installed safety-enhancing
equipment. Some individual commenters suggested other limitations, such
as a 180- or 200-horsepower powerplant limit or imposing a 3,000-pound
weight restriction for light-sport category aircraft, while also
permitting the installation of modern safety systems on new light-sport
category aircraft and allowing four-seat configurations. Other
commenters suggested permitting sport pilots to operate airplanes that
publish a qualifying stalling speed in the utility category or permit
them to operate an airplane that is re-certified using a new lower
gross weight to qualify.
Installing safety-enhancing equipment in lieu of a stall speed
limitation for aircraft a sport pilot can operate is not a suitable
alternative because it would not effectively limit the weight and
performance characteristics of aircraft a sport pilot may operate. This
final rule permits safety-enhancing equipment to be installed and used
as long as the

[[Page 35095]]

aircraft's Vs1 CAS will not exceed the limits prescribed in
Sec. 61.316(a)(1) at the time of its original certification. In some
instances, installing safety-enhancing equipment would increase weight;
however, the stalling speed limitation effectively limits the weight of
aircraft that sport pilots will be permitted to operate without
providing further prescriptive parameters (e.g., a weight limit). In
addition, FAA did not propose a powerplant horsepower limitation
because it would be too prescriptive, unnecessarily restrict
performance, and would not effectively limit the weight of aircraft
used by sport pilots; even with a horsepower limitation the maximum
gross weight of the aircraft would still be variable.
ii. Comments Opposing an Increase to the Maximum VS1 Speed
ALPA opposed increasing the maximum stalling speed limit for
airplanes that sport pilots may operate and recommended retaining the
45-knot stalling speed limit for airplanes. ALPA stated the expanded
light-sport aircraft category may entice some pilots to purchase a
light-sport category aircraft instead of buying or using homebuilt
aircraft. They further asserted it is likely that a significant group
of pilots will migrate away from normal category aircraft or the use of
private pilot privileges and move to the lower-cost light-sport
category aircraft, which is lower in FAA safety continuum. ALPA stated
it is not clear FAA evaluated the impacts on NAS safety under this rule
proposal.
Since 2005, many pilots have already moved toward the use of light-
sport category aircraft as less expensive options when conducting
general aviation flight operations in the NAS. While ALPA suggested
that pilots may be motivated to buy and fly more aircraft that are
certificated under the light-sport category and provide a higher
certification standard aircraft for light-sport category aircraft
pilots to operate in the NAS, FAA's current and adopted framework
intends to safely facilitate a variety of aircraft to be available to
pilots and does not find a reasonable basis to restrict groups of less
costly aircraft via this final rule. FAA explained earlier that other
amendments to the rules would improve safety more broadly within
general aviation (GA) by making light-sport category aircraft a more
appealing alternative to experimental aircraft that have higher fatal
accident rates.
Instead, broadening the design and performance criteria of aircraft
that a sport pilot may operate will allow sport pilots to operate many
normal category general aviation aircraft, allowing greater choice and
flexibility without incentivizing a particular aircraft certification
category.
AEA and ARSA submitted a joint comment generally supporting the
proposed revisions to the sport pilot design and performance
limitations; however, AEA and ARSA stated the new VS1
limitation as written duplicates regulatory changes made by FAA three
decades ago, referencing the Primary Category Final Rule.\83\ These
associations acknowledged that the primary category predated the
development of industry-led aviation consensus standards and, as such,
asserted the primary category has not been utilized for its intended
purpose. AEA and ARSA also stated FAA previously supported 61 knots CAS
in the Primary Category Rule as an acceptable level of single-engine
airplane performance for safe operation by general aviation pilots but
now FAA has proposed a different stalling speed without justification.
FAA disagrees that the new VS1 stalling speed limitation
in the MOSAIC final rule duplicates the regulations provided by the
Primary Category Final Rule. The Primary Category Final Rule
established procedures in part 21 for type, production, airworthiness
certification, and associated maintenance procedures for primary
category aircraft, which specified a 61 knot or less VS0
stalling speed limitation (as opposed to VS1) for airplanes.
When the Primary Category Final Rule was published in 1992, the sport
pilot certificate and the certification of light-sport category
aircraft under Sec. 21.190 using consensus standards qualification had
not yet been proposed or codified. This final rule intentionally
separates aircraft certification requirements from pilot certification
requirements, as the established 61 knot VS0 stalling speed
limitation for the certification of primary category aircraft is a
distinctly separate issue from the sport pilot aircraft limitation
requirements of Sec. 61.316. The former establishes aircraft
certification requirements while the latter sets pilot operational
requirements.
Furthermore, the Primary Category Final Rule adopted a
VS0 stalling speed limitation of 61 knots or less, whereas
this rule adopts a VS1 stalling speed limitation of 59 knots
or less. As discussed later in this final rule, due to the inherent
aircraft configuration differences, VS0 stalling speed will
generally be lower than VS1 for any given airplane. As such,
this final rule is not duplicative of the Primary Category Final Rule
because the aircraft the Primary Category Final Rule authorized to be
operated with a VS0 of 61 knots or less would have a
significantly higher VS1 stalling speed than the 59 knots
VS1 that is applicable to the airplanes that this final rule
authorizes sport pilots to operate. FAA notes that sports pilots will
be able to operate primary category aircraft so long as the limitations
set forth in Sec. 61.316(a) are met. Therefore, FAA does not agree
that the MOSAIC final rule duplicates or contradicts the Primary
Category Final Rule.
iii. Comments Specific To Using VS0 Instead of
VS1 as the Maximum Stalling Speed Limitation
One hundred and two commenters suggested FAA consider using the
published VS0 stalling speed instead of the VS1
stalling speed, ranging from 61 knots to 65 knots. Commenters stated
VS0 as the stalling speed would allow more certificated
airplanes to qualify for sport pilot use. Commenters asserted the
proposed VS1 limitation of 54 knots would be too low,
excluding many existing airplanes, and stated the stalling speed in the
landing configuration is more relevant when determining what airplanes
are appropriate for a sport pilot to operate. Many commenters asserted
the majority of fatal accidents occur in the landing phase
(VS0, flaps deployed configuration) of flight operations.
Referencing the sport pilot landing accident statistics provided in the
NPRM, one commenter asserted that most students and owners do not
consider VS1 as a basis for stalling characteristics or
behavior related to VS0.
Some commenters stated using VS0 gives credit to
aircraft designs that incorporate flaps or other high-lift devices
satisfies the goal of allowing sport pilots to fly aircraft with slower
approach and landing speeds, is closer to historical general aviation
airplanes, enables stall-reducing devices like vortex generators to
lower the stalling speed and permits more four-seat airplanes to
qualify. One commenter recommended including airplanes without pilot-
controlled flaps or lift-enhancing devices to satisfy the requirement
specified by Sec. 61.316(a)(1).
FAA identified NTSB accident data \84\ that shows there were more
fatalities in the departure phase (takeoff and initial climb,
VS1 no flaps configuration) than in the arrival phase
(approach and landing, VS0, flaps configuration). NTSB
states that takeoff begins at the application of takeoff power and the
initial climb ends upon reaching enroute (cruise) altitude and the
landing

[[Page 35096]]

phase begins at flare and ends when the aircraft comes to a stop or
exits the runway. Given the accident data from the NTSB and that
departure for most light sport aircraft occurs in a VS1
configuration, FAA has determined that using VS1 maximum
stalling speed limitation is more appropriate for indirectly limiting
what aircraft sports pilots can operate because more fatalities occur
in the departure phase (VS1 configuration).
FAA notes that, due to the inherent aircraft configuration
differences, VS0 stalling speed will generally be lower than
VS1 for any given airplane. This final rule revises the
existing maximum VS1 CAS stalling speed to 59 knots to
indirectly limit cruise speed and other performance characteristics of
airplanes that a sport pilot can operate, whereas use of the
VS0 maximum stalling speed of 61 knots, at a minimum, would
then substantially increase the VS1 stalling speed and
further expand the performance characteristics of these airplanes. In
turn, this would inappropriately permit sport pilots to operate larger,
faster, and more complex airplanes outside the scope of their minimal
training and experience requirements that a sport pilot receives.
Further, VS0 can vary from VS1 stalling speed due
to lift enhancing devices, such as flaps and slats, to lower the
VS0 regardless of the size and weight of the airplane. FAA
also recognizes that many aircraft are equipped with lift enhancing
devices. Therefore, this final rule does not exclude airplanes with
pilot-controlled flaps or lift-enhancing devices, as long the
VS1 CAS is 59 knots at the aircraft's MTOW and most critical
center of gravity without those lift-enhancing devices (as explicitly
stated in adopted Sec. 61.316(a)(1)). Existing airplanes universally
have a lower stalling speed when deploying flaps and other lift-
enhancing devices used during the approach and landing phase of flight
and are otherwise in the VS0 landing configuration. In many
instances, the VS0 stalling speed can range from 5 to 13
knots (or more) lower than the VS1 stalling speed in general
aviation two or four-seat airplanes, but there is no direct and
universal correlation between VS0 and VS1 such
that controlling for VS0 would definitively and
appropriately standardize VS1 based on a sport pilot's
expected proficiency. Using VS1 CAS will more effectively
limit airplane performance characteristics to the training and skills
expected of a sport pilot rather than a maximum VS0 stalling
speed limitation of 61 knots, as suggested by commenters, which would
permit airplanes with greater overall performance characteristics,
thereby necessitating a greater level of pilot training and proficiency
validation.
As a result, FAA has determined that using VS1 maximum
stalling speed limitation is more appropriate to limit the aircraft
available to sport pilots based on the performance characteristics
appropriate for the minimum experience and training required of a sport
pilot, which is significantly less than that of a private pilot. A
sport pilot certificate allows a pilot to fly smaller, lighter aircraft
with fewer training hours and medical requirements, making it a more
accessible and affordable option for recreational flying. However,
airplanes with a higher VS1 stall speed are larger and have
performance characteristics that are more appropriate for the private
pilot certificate, ratings, and privileges.
As previously discussed, FAA recognizes that VS1
stalling speed of 54 knots would have excluded many basic two- and
four-seat legacy/type certificated airplane trainers. The increased
VS1 of 59 knots, which will encapsulate more legacy and type
certificated airplane trainers, will address many of the concerns of
those individuals who provided comments specifically recommending the
use of the VS0 stalling speed as the maximum stalling speed
limitation for airplanes as a mechanism to expand the pool of aircraft
sport pilots would be able to operate.
iv. Comments Recommending Additional Training and Endorsement Options
Several commenters recommended allowing sport pilots to obtain
additional training and a subsequent instructor endorsement to permit
sport pilots to operate airplanes with a VS1 stalling speed
that exceeds 54 knots. As previously discussed, this final rule will
raise the maximum VS1 stalling speed from 54 to 59 knots,
facilitating sport pilots to safely operate airplanes with similar
performance and size characteristics common to two- and four-seat
general aviation production airplanes. Therefore, it is unnecessary to
adopt a specific training and endorsement regime for sport pilots to
operate airplanes with a stalling speed greater than 54 knots.
v. Comments Recommending That Indicated Speed or Indicated
VS1 Stalling Speed Be Used Instead of Calibrated Speed as
the Stalling Speed Limitation
Several commenters suggested using IAS instead of CAS to specify
the maximum VS1 stalling speed limitation to qualify
airplanes a sport pilot can operate. One commenter explained the
majority of EAB aircraft owners do not determine calibrated stalling
speeds because of the cost and complexity of flight testing and the
lack of a requirement to do so, which in turn results in the exclusion
of a large number of aircraft. Other commenters stated the stalling
limit should reference IAS because of (1) its common use, (2) the
necessity of referencing the POH table to determine CAS, and (3) the
use of lifting devices to provide a mechanism to include older aircraft
that do not publish CAS data. Other commenters explained that using
VS1 CAS as the stalling limitation is problematic because
many older aircraft do not publish the VS1 CAS or fail to
provide an airspeed calibration conversion. These commenters
recommended allowing indicated VS1 stalling speed to qualify
airplanes that do not publish the CAS stalling speed.
FAA disagrees with using IAS instead of CAS to specify the maximum
VS1 stalling speed value to qualify airplanes for sport
pilot use, as IAS is not a true measure of the airplane's actual
performance. Unlike CAS, IAS is not corrected for instrument and
position errors, at times presenting errors up to 5 knots, affecting
the aircraft's eligibility for sport pilot operations.\85\ Thus, CAS is
more precise and reliable for use in determining an aircraft's
eligibility for sport pilot operations. In response to commenters
noting that VS1 CAS is not always determined or published,
FAA maintains published guidance with FAA-accepted methods for
determining and documenting the VS1 CAS for an airplane in
Advisory Circular 90-89C, Amateur-Built Aircraft and Ultralight Flight
Testing Handbook, including a method to determine CAS by conducting
flight tests.
vi. Comments Recommending FAA Permit Airplane Alterations To Lower the
VS1 Stalling Speed To Qualify Airplanes for Sport Pilot Use
Sixteen commenters suggested FAA allow airplane alterations that
lower the stalling speed. Six of these commenters recommended
permitting aftermarket airplane alterations (e.g., vortex generators,
short takeoff and landing kits (STOL), lift-enhancing designs) that
lower the stalling speed to qualify for sport pilot operations. Ten
commenters noted the proposed rule text, ``since its original
certification,'' in Sec. 61.316(a) will unnecessarily exclude
airplanes with aftermarket STOL kit installations or automatically
deployed lifting structures, such as automated slats that can reduce
the VS1 stalling speed below

[[Page 35097]]

the proposed stalling speed limit for sport pilots. Another commenter
suggested permitting after-market modifications in conjunction with an
FAA-approved supplemental type certificate (STC) or through ASTM
oversight. One commenter recommended modifying Sec. 61.316(a) to
state, ``as currently approved.'' One commenter sought clarification on
how to present an aircraft modification to FAA that lowers the stalling
speed to qualify under Sec. 61.316 and prove that an airplane
qualifies for sport pilot use. Similarly, one commenter suggested
allowing aircraft manufacturers to lower maximum gross weight limit to
effectively lower the VS1 stalling speed for the airplane
they produce so they can qualify for sport pilot use.
As discussed previously in the section describing stall speed limit
requirements, FAA originally proposed a maximum VS1 CAS
stalling speed of 54 knots. However, FAA agreed with commenters that
this speed was limiting and determined an increase to a VS1
CAS stalling speed of 59 knots is appropriate and permits the inclusion
of many type-certificated aircraft appropriate to the sport pilot
certificate privileges and limitations intended in this rulemaking.
Since FAA has already increased the originally proposed VS1
limitation and expanded eligible aircraft, FAA disagrees with
additionally permitting airplane alterations after original
certification that decrease the published VS1 CAS stalling
speed. Allowing airplanes to meet the new 59 knots CAS VS1
requirement through the use of these modifications would
inappropriately expand aircraft characteristics beyond those intended
for sport pilot operations. These lift-enhancing devices would be
considered major alterations because they may appreciably affect the
weight, balance, structural strength, performance, flight
characteristics, or other qualities affecting airworthiness that could
affect the operation of the airplane. Therefore, FAA retains the Sec.
61.316(a) rule text limitation that states ``since its original
certification.'' FAA notes it does not prohibit a manufacturer from
submitting a new aircraft certification application to seek an
airworthiness certificate designating a new CAS VS1 for the
aircraft it manufactures. The new aircraft certification would become
the ``original certification,'' for purposes of applying Sec. 61.316.
vii. Comments on Glider Stalling Speed
As previously stated, FAA did not propose, nor does this final rule
revise the maximum stalling speed or minimum steady flight speed
without the use of lift-enhancing devices (VS1) of not more
than 45 knots CAS currently set forth by Sec. 1.1 for aircraft other
than airplanes. A few commenters, including a joint comment from
Soaring Society of America (SSA) and the Soaring Safety Foundation
(SSF), recommended increasing the maximum stalling speed from
VS1 CAS of 45 knots to 54 knots for gliders a sport pilot
can operate, stating the existing speed limitation prevents sport
pilots from using modern gliders manufactured with safety cockpits and
benign handling characteristics. Sonex Aircraft suggested an increase
in the VS1 limit would allow the use of modern two-seat
gliders for training and may better prepare a sport pilot for the
enhanced performance characteristics of modern single-place gliders
that fit within the existing 45 knot maximum stalling speed limitation.
Sonex Aircraft also stated FAA did not provide data-supported
justification for continuing to limit VS1 for gliders to 45
knots.
FAA does not find it appropriate to change the current
VS1 45 knot maximum stalling speed limitation at this time.
Gliders with maximum stalling speed greater than 45 knots generally
have more complex performance characteristics, resulting in less
stability in flight and longer landing distances, and higher maximum
gross weights. Those aircraft currently require a private pilot
certificate to ensure the pilot has additional training necessary to
safely operate the higher performance aircraft. FAA did not propose to
change this requirement and does not have sufficient information on
which to base such a change to these training requirements at this
time.
Nonetheless, this final rule removes the weight limitation for
light sport category aircraft certification and sport pilot use;
therefore, glider manufacturers could build modern two-seat gliders
that can meet the current Vs1 45 knot maximum stalling speed
limitation. Given this consideration, and because gliders are
inherently lighter than powered aircraft, FAA did not revise the
stalling speed limit. Removing the weight limitation enables
manufacturers to produce more robust and reliable airframes, including
the use of safety features, that still meet the existing glider
stalling speed limit while expanding the pool of gliders a sport pilot
may operate under this final rule.
viii. Comments on Weight Limitation
As explained in the NPRM \86\ and previously in this preamble, the
removal of weight limitation and, instead, application of maximum
stalling speed will enable increased aircraft weights while also
limiting the performance characteristics of the aircraft operated by
sport pilots. ALPA and 17 individuals commented on the removal of the
explicit weight limitation. Most comments supported removing the weight
limitation for aircraft that a sport pilot can operate. Commenters who
supported removal of the explicit weight limitation explained that it
will enable sport pilots to access a larger variety of aircraft,
facilitate innovation for new aircraft sport pilots can operate, and
allow sport pilots to carry additional safety equipment or more fuel.
Some commenters provided suggestions under the proposal to provide
options for a sport pilot to either meet the 54 knot VS1 (or
up to a 60 knot VS1) limitation or a 3,000 pound maximum.
Given this final rule's increase in maximum stalling speed for
airplanes and the removal of the weight limitation for all aircraft,
FAA does not find it necessary to regulate based on weight or an option
between stall speed and weight to meet the intent of the commenter's
suggestion (i.e., facilitating slower, smaller, and more capable
aircraft). The changes set forth in Sec. 61.316 by this final rule
will expand and encapsulate appropriate aircraft to address commenters'
concerns regarding a narrow pool of aircraft. Commenters requesting to
operate airplanes up to 3,000 pounds will find that many certificated
airplanes at or above this weight will have VS1 CAS stalling
speeds below the new 59 knot maximum and may be operated using sport
pilot privileges, assuming the airplane meets all other Sec. 61.316
requirements.
ALPA opposed removing the weight limit. ALPA explained the proposal
would authorize the use of significantly heavier and larger aircraft,
resulting in decreased safety of light-sport aircraft, and that would
include normal category single-engine airplanes. ALPA recommended FAA
include explicit weight restrictions in Sec. 61.316 at the current
weight restriction provided in Sec. 1.1 (i.e., 1,320 pounds for
aircraft not intended for operation on water or 1,430 pounds for
aircraft intended for operation on water).
FAA maintains that allowing greater weight will enable
manufacturers to build more robust, resilient, and reliable airframes,
thereby contributing to and bolstering safety. Removing the weight
limitation for aircraft, in conjunction with the other operational
characteristic expansions (e.g., stall speed, seating capacity), will
also enable use of many existing production aircraft and

[[Page 35098]]

airplanes that hold a standard airworthiness certificate. However, FAA
notes it is retaining the existing sport pilot privileges and
limitations of Sec. 61.315, which will continue to mitigate the risk
involved in sport pilot operations even with the expansion in aircraft
they are eligible to operate. In addition, weight is just one factor
that affects operational characteristics. As discussed elsewhere in
this final rule, removing the weight limit provides manufacturers the
opportunity to include additional safety features that would otherwise
have caused the aircraft to exceed weight limits. Therefore, this final
rule does not retain the original weight limitation.
d. Altitude Limitations
Section 61.315 sets forth the privileges and limitations of a sport
pilot certificate. This section includes, in pertinent part, that a
sport pilot may not act as PIC of a light-sport category aircraft at an
altitude of more than 10,000 feet MSL or 2,000 feet AGL, whichever is
higher.\87\ FAA did not propose any changes to this sport pilot
altitude operating limitation in the NPRM. However, FAA received
approximately 50 public comments recommending that sport pilots be
permitted to operate at higher altitudes. In addition to general
requests for higher operating altitudes, commenters had differing
recommendations on how to address the sport pilot altitude limitation
specifically. Such recommendations included higher maximum altitudes
based on (1) topographical and geographical considerations; (2)
supplemental oxygen requirements; (3) training and endorsements; (4)
aircraft separation; and (5) unique glider operations.
Most commenters suggested increasing the altitude limitation to
address topographical and geographical considerations, such as the need
for greater terrain clearance in mountainous areas, particularly the
western contiguous United States. Specifically, FAA received several
altitude suggestions including up to 3,000 feet AGL; up to 4,000 feet
AGL in mountainous areas; 10,500 feet MSL for westbound travel; various
altitudes between 12,500 feet MSL to 18,000 feet MSL; or the removal of
all altitude restrictions.
As with many of the individual commenters, EAA, AOPA, NATA, and
NBAA in a consolidated comment requested that FAA raise the sport pilot
altitude limitation from 10,000 feet MSL to 12,500 feet MSL to allow
for better clearance of mountainous terrain. These industry
associations also supported raising the above-ground allowances in
prominent mountainous areas. These commenters asserted further that an
altitude limit of 12,500 feet MSL would eliminate the need to calculate
AGL and would increase safety margins over treacherous areas. One
individual described the altitude limitation as unnecessary and
arbitrary, making some flights more dangerous by limiting the ability
to use flight following and other ATC services and may increase the
risk of controlled flight into terrain (CFIT). To allow for greater
terrain clearance, many commenters stated 12,500 feet MSL would be a
natural delineation and a more reasonable approach since supplemental
oxygen is only required above this altitude.\88\
In addition to recommending a maximum altitude limitation of 12,500
feet MSL to align with supplemental oxygen rules in Sec. 91.211,
several commenters recommended the use of supplemental oxygen. For
example, Van's Aircraft suggested the use of oxygen bottles and pulse
oximeters for sport pilots to operate up to Class A airspace (18,000
feet MSL) to mitigate risks associated with unintended flight into IMC
or CFIT. A couple of commenters contended that aircraft oxygen systems
are ``simple and easy'' to use and make flying safer, allowing pilots
to operate at higher altitudes for weather or terrain avoidance.
Van's Aircraft also recommended, along with several individual
commenters, high-altitude or mountainous terrain training and
endorsements for sport pilots to operate above the 10,000 feet MSL
limitation. In EAA, AOPA, NATA, and NBAA's shared comment, the
associations suggested that additional hypoxia awareness training would
reduce the increased risk of hypoxia at higher altitudes. More
specifically, a couple of commenters would like sport pilots to
participate in hypoxia training, like normobaric hypoxia training
devices or portable reduced oxygen training enclosure (PROTE), in order
to receive a high-altitude endorsement. A retired flight instructor
proposed amending the regulatory language in Sec. 61.315(c)(11) to
include ground and flight training and a logbook endorsement from an
authorized instructor for sport pilots to operate up to 18,000 feet
MSL.
Some commenters expressed concern about aircraft separation,
especially in the western region of the U.S., stating that restricting
sport pilots to an altitude limitation of 10,000 feet MSL will create
traffic conflicts with faster light-sport category aircraft. These
commenters also believed that increasing the altitude limitation will
safely facilitate more VFR cruising altitudes for mountainous areas.
Another commenter stated a higher altitude limitation would afford
sport pilots greater visibility to maintain cloud clearances and avoid
mid-air collisions.
Lastly, two comments were specific to increasing the sport pilot
altitude limitation for glider operations. One individual stated glider
pilots regularly operate at altitudes above 10,000 feet MSL, especially
in the Western United States. Commenters explained that gliders use the
potential energy they gain from being at a higher altitude to generate
the speed and lift needed for flight. Therefore, the commenters
asserted that accidents may increase when forcing sport pilots to
operate their gliders at a lower altitude.
With the introduction of the sport pilot certificate in 2004, sport
pilot flight operations were originally limited to 10,000 feet MSL to
separate sport pilot flight operations from high-speed aircraft
operations that occur at those higher altitudes.\89\ However, the 2010
Sport Pilot Final Rule recognized the burden this limitation placed on
sport pilots (and students seeking a sport pilot certificate) who
operated aircraft in areas of high elevation. Accordingly, FAA provided
additional relief to sport pilots by permitting them to conduct flight
operations up to and including 2,000 feet AGL in areas of mountainous
terrain that may exceed 10,000 feet MSL.\90\
Commenters did not provide data supporting that operating below
10,000 feet MSL increases the risk of CFIT, mid-air collisions, traffic
conflicts, and decreased access to ATC services. Every day, flights
occur below 10,000 feet MSL throughout the United States with
sufficient access to ATC services and flight following. Many of these
flights operate under VFR during which the pilots are still responsible
for terrain, obstruction, and traffic avoidance.
FAA notes that Sec. 91.211, Supplemental oxygen, describes the
requirement for the use of supplemental oxygen in both pressurized and
unpressurized aircraft. While Sec. 91.211(b) applies only to
pressurized cabin aircraft, Sec. 91.211(a) applies to all aircraft and
requires that: (1) supplemental oxygen is provided and used by the
required minimum flight crew for the part of the flight more than 30
minutes duration at cabin pressure altitudes above 12,500 feet MSL up
to and including 14,000 feet MSL; (2) supplemental oxygen is provided
to and used by the required minimum flight crew for the entire flight
time at the altitude above 14,000 feet MSL; and (3) supplemental oxygen
is provided to

[[Page 35099]]

each occupant of the aircraft at cabin pressure altitudes above 15,000
feet MSL. For example, if a sport pilot is operating over terrain that
is 12,500 feet MSL and the sport pilot chooses to operate at 2,000 feet
AGL at that same location, the pilot would then be operating at cabin
pressure altitude of 14,500 feet MSL and be obligated to use oxygen per
Sec. 91.211(a)(2).\91\
While oxygen levels are an important consideration in the 10,000
feet MSL or 2,000 feet AGL restriction, it is not the only
consideration as to the limitation. Sport pilots are only required to
possess a valid driver's license to operate an aircraft for daytime
operations. The vision requirements for driver's licenses vary from
state to state and differ from the criteria required to obtain an FAA
medical certificate. FAA maintains that sharp, clear vision (with the
best being equal to 20/20 vision) requires significant oxygen. Without
supplemental oxygen, an individual's vision declines measurably as
pressure altitudes increase. As altitude increases, the available
oxygen decreases, degrading vision along with cognitive and physical
performance in general. The increased risk associated with operations
in unpressurized aircraft at altitudes greater than the current sport
pilot allowance of 10,000 feet MSL or 2,000 AGL, whichever is higher,
is not sufficiently mitigated with the possession of a driver's
license, as it would be with an FAA medical certificate that evaluates
vision and pulmonary function. In addition, sport pilots are trained
and tested on only basic aeromedical factors. Specifically, for
airplane single-engine land and sea privileges, the applicant must
exhibit knowledge of the elements related to aeromedical factors by
explaining (1) the effects of alcohol, drugs, and over-the-counter
medications and (2) the symptoms, causes, effects, and corrective
actions of at least three of nine given factors.\92\ Conversely, higher
grades of certificates require substantially more training and testing
on aeromedical factors, as well as altitude and airspace considerations
to facilitate operations at those higher altitudes and airspace. For
example, the Private Pilot for Airplane Category ACS \93\ requires
substantially more human factors training and proficiency validation,
including the demonstration of understanding of twelve different
aeromedical and human factors, as well as risk management of
aeromedical and physiological issues and hazardous altitudes.
While additional training and possible endorsements for a sport
pilot could be considered if the training met the same higher-grade
certificate requirements, the more stringent medical requirements for
these higher-grade certificates would not be addressed. Similarly,
sport pilots operating gliders do not meet the medical requirements to
safely operate above the current altitude limitation. If individuals
seek to operate aircraft at altitudes higher than the sport pilot
altitude limitation, those individuals can seek a higher grade of pilot
certificate that properly mitigates the risk associated with high-
altitude operations.
As previously stated, FAA did not propose any amendments to Sec.
61.315(c)(11) in the NPRM, and, as such, it is not within scope to
finalize in this rulemaking. Moreover, given all these considerations,
FAA maintains the current altitude limitation set forth in Sec.
61.315(c)(11) is appropriate and will not adopt commenters' requests to
increase the sport pilot altitude limitation. Retaining the sport pilot
altitude limitation aligns with the safety continuum referenced in the
NPRM, which addressed increased risk when operating aircraft in the
NAS. Therefore, this final rule does not adopt any changes to the sport
pilot maximum altitude operating limitation.
e. IFR Privileges
Section 61.3(e) sets forth the requirements to act as pilot in
command of a civil aircraft under IFR or in weather conditions less
than the minimums prescribed for VFR flight. This section generally
requires the appropriate aircraft category, class, type (if class or
type is required), and instrument rating on that person's pilot
certificate for any airplane, helicopter, or powered-lift being
flown.\94\ Neither sport pilots nor subpart K flight instructors are
permitted to operate in IMC. In addition, sport pilots may not obtain
an instrument rating, as Sec. 61.65(a)(1) requires that a person who
applies for an instrument rating must hold at least a current private
pilot certificate or be concurrently applying for such.
FAA did not propose any revisions to the status quo of instrument
rating restrictions and basic instrument training requirements;
however, FAA received approximately 70 comments pertaining to such
privileges. Commenters generally recommended that FAA permit sport
pilots to obtain instrument training, an instrument rating, or a
similar operating privilege (e.g., operation under IFR via an
endorsement). Many of these commenters suggested that allowing sport
pilots to obtain an instrument rating would improve sport pilot
proficiency, lower insurance costs, and result in safer sport pilots,
especially with inadvertent encounters with IMC. Some commenters
recommended FAA permit basic or limited IFR rating or privileges for
sport pilots, suggesting limitations such as requiring visual
meteorological conditions for departures and approaches, only allowing
IMC operations above 1,500 feet AGL to allow sport pilots to maintain
safe flight operations in difficult weather conditions, and only
requiring a driver's license to qualify for operating under instrument
flight rules. Several commenters, including the Gyrocopter Flight
Training Academy, specifically requested IFR operations be permitted in
gyroplanes or gliders. Fly Eagle Sport did not explicitly suggest an
expansion of IFR privileges for sport pilots but suggested the
requirement for student pilots seeking a sport pilot certificate to log
flight time by reference to flight instruments before conducting solo
cross-country flights in an aircraft with a VH greater than
87 knots should be only for night flights. FAA also received comments
considered to be out of scope of this rulemaking (e.g., broad general
changes to instrument currency in Sec. 61.57). NAFI implied in its
comment that flight instructors with a sport pilot rating (subpart K)
may be operating under instrument conditions.
Certificated sport pilots will have received some degree of
instrument experience during their training. Before a person can fly
solo, a person must have a student pilot certificate, as set forth in
subpart C of part 61. A student pilot must meet the requirements of
Sec. 61.93 prior to (1) conducting a solo cross-country flight or any
flight greater than 25 nautical miles from the airport from where the
flight originated, and (2) making a solo flight and landing at any
location other than the airport of origination.\95\ Because sport pilot
training must include these scenarios (e.g., solo cross-country
experience), a person seeking a sport pilot certificate must have a
student pilot certificate. As a general requirement, student pilots
must receive and log training (in pertinent part) in the procedures for
operating the instruments and equipment installed in the aircraft to be
flown.\96\ As it pertains to student pilots receiving training for
cross-country flights in a single-engine airplane, Sec. 61.93(e)
includes the generalized training, as well as control and maneuvering
solely by reference to flight instruments if the airplane utilized for
training has a VH (maximum speed in level flight with
maximum

[[Page 35100]]

continuous power) greater than 87 knots CAS.\97\ To note, if a student
pilot seeks a sport pilot certificate utilizing an airplane that has a
VH less than 87 knots during training, the person would not
be required to complete this training at that time. However, if the
then-certificated sport pilot sought to operate an airplane with a
VH less than or equal to 87 knots CAS, the pilot must meet
the requirements of Sec. 61.327(a).\98\
While FAA may explore further expansion of privileges in the
future, FAA declines to permit sport pilots to obtain an instrument
rating or similar instrument privilege (e.g., the use of training and
endorsements) at this time. These changes would be out of scope to
finalize here. In addition, as previously explained, sport pilots are
not eligible to add an instrument rating, unless they are concurrently
seeking a private pilot certificate with the instrument rating.\99\ The
additional training and qualification requirements for a private pilot
certificate and instrument rating are necessary to ensure that a person
is appropriately prepared with a commensurate level of fundamental
training to operate safely in IMC conditions and when conducting
operations under instrument flight rules in the NAS, as operating under
IFR presents additional challenges to pilots because visual references
can be limited or unavailable.
Specifically, the minimum aeronautical experience requirements for
a sport pilot certificate are significantly less than what is required
for a private pilot certificate in providing a base level of
aeronautical experience for those privileges associated with an
instrument rating. For example, under Sec. 61.109(a), an applicant for
a private pilot certificate with an airplane category and single-engine
class rating must log at least 40 hours of flight time, with additional
experience for the instrument rating required by Sec. 61.65(d) or (g),
as appropriate. In addition, applicants are tested on basic instrument
maneuvers during the practical test for the private pilot certificate
with airplane category rating.\100\ Comparatively, those seeking a
sport pilot certificate with airplane category and single-engine class
privileges only need a minimum of 20 hours of flight time, without
required specific training by reference to instruments or any testing
of basic instrument maneuvers as required by the sport pilot PTS.
Private pilots also receive additional training in cross-country and
night operations beyond the minimum required to obtain a sport pilot
certificate. Furthermore, to exercise the privileges of their
certificate, private pilots must meet more stringent medical
qualification requirements than sport pilots.
FAA supports additional flight training from an authorized
instructor to improve pilot proficiency as a desirable practice
promoting safety. There is no prohibition for a pilot, including a
sport pilot, to accomplish additional flight training from an
authorized instructor that can include instrument training; for
example, a sport pilot may be concurrently training for a private pilot
certificate and an associated instrument rating or obtaining flight
training that is not mandated in the regulations for a sport pilot
certificate, such as instrument proficiency flight training. Seeking
additional training to become proficient when operating an aircraft
solely by reference to the flight instruments is normal practice. As
previously stated, sport pilots are restricted from operating an
aircraft solely by reference to the flight instruments, but their basic
training on procedures for operating the instruments and equipment
installed in the aircraft to be flown intends to mitigate situations
where the sport pilot may inadvertently enter IMC. FAA notes that it
does not regulate based on what third-party insurance companies may
require for coverage.
One commenter suggested expanding subpart K instructor privileges
to permit these instructors to obtain an instrument rating and conduct
IFR operations in aircraft that meet instrument equipment requirements.
This commenter also stated permitting subpart K instructors to be
eligible for an instrument rating is consistent with FAA's safety and
privileges continuum across pilot certifications and ratings.
To provide flight training under Sec. 61.93(e)(12) on control and
maneuvering an airplane solely by reference to the flight instruments
for the purpose of issuing a solo cross-country endorsement under Sec.
61.93(c)(1) to a student pilot seeking a sport pilot certificate, a
flight instructor with a sport pilot rating must meet the requirements
provided in Sec. 61.412(a) through (c), notably including a one-time
endorsement from a subpart H authorized instructor certifying the
person is proficient in providing training on control and maneuvering
solely by reference to instruments. Like sport pilots, flight
instructors with a sport pilot rating (subpart K flight instructors)
are not eligible for an instrument rating for the same reasons a sport
pilot is not eligible. Further, while subpart K flight instructors may
obtain additional training from a subpart H authorized instructor,
which permits them to provide training solely by reference to
instruments, this training does not equal that foundational training
provided by private pilot qualification or concurrent qualification for
a full instrument rating. Rather, it is limited instruction to train
sport pilots how to deal with time-limited conditions that interfere
with visual reference capabilities.
In summary, FAA did not propose expansion of privileges for sport
pilots to include privileges encompassed by an instrument rating, nor
did this rulemaking consider permitting sport pilots to add an
instrument rating or any other instrument privilege for sport pilots to
operate in IMC in the NAS. As such, this change is out of scope for
this final rule. For the previously discussed reasons, FAA maintains
that if a pilot seeks to operate in IMC, they must obtain at least a
private pilot certificate with an instrument rating and otherwise
satisfy any other requirements specified in parts 61 and 91 to operate
in IMC as pilot-in-command.
f. Business Use
Under Sec. 61.315(c), sport pilots may not act as PIC of an
aircraft for compensation or hire or in furtherance of a business. FAA
did not propose expanding sport pilot privileges to allow conduct of
any kind of commercial-related operations. FAA received many comments
suggesting FAA should permit a sport pilot to conduct flights for hire,
for compensation, or in the furtherance of a business. Some suggested
revisions such as adding a requirement to log a certain number of
hours, receive an instructor endorsement, or permit flights incidental
to business, such as commuting to business meetings. Other commenters
suggested revisions to clarify the definition of ``business'' and what
kinds of business-tangential operations are permitted. One commenter
explained the value of being able to travel to a worksite or work-
related meetings and referenced environmental considerations, including
reduced emissions compared to using a motor vehicle. Another commenter
stated there is no difference in safety or additional risk when being
paid to take a passenger or when just giving a ride. One commenter
suggested commercial privileges should be granted to flight instructors
with a sport pilot rating (subpart K flight instructors). Another
commenter indicated that limiting gyroplanes to a seating capacity of
two potentially restricts commercial use such as crop dusting, aerial
photography, sightseeing, search and rescue, etc.

[[Page 35101]]

Several commenters, including LAMA and USUA, recommended FAA
consider allowing ``commercial ratings'' for powered parachute and
weight shift control aircraft pilots or establishing alternative
pathways for pilots to engage in aerial work. LAMA and USUA asserted
that commercial privileges would (1) provide regulatory consistency by
extending ``commercial ratings'' to powered parachutes and weigh-shift-
control aircraft; (2) provide economic benefits of allowing the use of
powered parachutes and weight-shift-control aircraft as low-cost
alternatives for aerial work, aerial photography, and scouting; and (3)
improve safety by providing a legal pathway to perform aerial work in
these aircraft. Some commenters suggested that aerial work \101\ should
include activities like agriculture or construction operations, real
estate, natural disaster surveillance, aerial photography, surveying,
search and rescue, observation and patrol, aerial tours, and aerial
advertising.
FAA understands commenters' interest for allowing ``commercial
ratings'' for powered parachute and weight shift control aircraft.
However, this final rule does not permit sport pilots to conduct flight
operations in the furtherance of a business or to obtain commercial
privileges in this final rule. The 2004 final rule that implemented the
sport pilot certificate intended the associated privileges to be
limited to sport and recreational flying only. FAA maintains there
would be an increase in risk if sport pilots were permitted to conduct
commercial operations because of the limited minimum experience
requirements and qualifications required to obtain a sport pilot
certificate compared to that of a commercial pilot certificate. For
example, commercial pilot certificate requirements include, but are not
limited to, holding an FAA medical certificate, obtaining higher
minimum experience requirements, and more detailed training and testing
standards. FAA has long maintained that pilot operations involving
commercial activity or compensation, except for a few exceptions under
Sec. 61.113, must include holding a commercial or airline transport
pilot certificate, as appropriate. FAA has long held the principle that
when compensation is exchanged for transportation the public expects,
and FAA demands, a higher level of safety. In addition, a framework
allowing sport pilots to conduct commercial operations is outside the
scope of this rulemaking and would require public notice and comment.
Under this final rule, sport pilots will be able to operate a
broader array of aircraft, which could include primary category and
experimental aircraft; it follows that flight instructors with a sport
pilot rating will, therefore, provide flight training in such aircraft.
In 2024, FAA finalized a rule that reinforced its longstanding position
that, though excepted from the part 119 requirement to obtain an air
carrier or commercial operator certificate,\102\ compensated flight
training in limited, experimental, and primary category aircraft is an
operation that involves the carriage of a person for compensation or
hire. FAA has historically found it appropriate to permit flight
instructors with a sport pilot rating conducting flight training to
receive compensation; however, this privilege is not specifically
enumerated in the regulations.\103\ Therefore, this final rule adds
Sec. 61.413(d) to state that, notwithstanding the compensation and
business use restrictions in Sec. 61.315(c)(2) and (c)(3),\104\ a
person with a flight instructor certificate with a sport pilot rating
may receive compensation for providing flight training in accordance
with subpart K of part 61. FAA emphasizes that a person who is
providing flight training in an aircraft continues to be subject to
part 91, including the requirements to operate certain aircraft for the
purposes of flight training as set forth in Sec. 91.326 (i.e.,
obtaining a letter of deviation authority).
Finally, and relatedly, Aero Sports Connection (ASC) Inc.
recommended FAA permit sport pilots to provide ``transition-for-hire''
services in an aircraft issued a special airworthiness certificate with
an experimental designation with stall speeds less than 35 knots. ASC
supported its recommendation by discussing the history and use of
exemptions to permit certain ultralight operations that were later
terminated with the publication of the sport pilot 2004 final rule.
While ASC is a proponent of a pilot providing flight training without
holding a flight instructor certificate, FAA finds this recommendation
to be outside the scope of this rulemaking.
g. Aircraft Conformity Since Original Aircraft Certification
Currently, the Sec. 1.1 definition of light-sport aircraft sets
forth criteria that an aircraft must meet since its original
certification. In the 2004 final rule, FAA explained the rule intended
to prevent modification to aircraft with high payload and performance
characteristics, which would exceed the defined parameters of light-
sport aircraft. FAA further explained that modifications to an aircraft
to meet the light-sport aircraft definition may increase its complexity
to a level that is inappropriate for the skill and training
capabilities of the sport pilot.\105\ With the proposed elimination of
the light-sport aircraft definition in Sec. 1.1, FAA retained the
tether to original certification in proposed Sec. 61.316, which, as
previously discussed, sets forth the performance limits and design
requirements for aircraft a sport pilot may operate. Specifically, the
new Sec. 61.316(a) proposed to set forth the limitations of an
aircraft that a sport pilot may operate ``since its original
certification,'' and, similarly, new Sec. 61.316(b) proposed to permit
certain sport pilots \106\ to act as PIC of an airplane that possesses
retractable landing gear or a controllable pitch propeller ``since its
original certification.''
FAA received comments concerning Sec. 61.316(a) and (b) and the
tether to an aircraft's original certification. A number of commenters
recommended FAA remove this requirement, thereby allowing aircraft
modifications (e.g., through STCs, STOL kits, vortex generators, and
aftermarket improvements) after original certification to satisfy the
design and performance limitations listed in new Sec. 61.316(a) or
(b). Several commenters, including Hartzell Propeller, stated limiting
aircraft characteristics to the aircraft's original certification for
purposes of Sec. 61.316 will prohibit the use of older airplanes that
qualify for an STC permitting the installation of aftermarket vortex
generators or wing tip cuffs that can lower the stall speed to qualify
aircraft for sport pilot operations. FAA disagrees with commenters'
recommendations to remove ``since its original certification'' from
Sec. 61.316(a) to permit aftermarket modifications, including through
an STC, that could reduce the existing VS1 CAS airplane
stalling speed and possibly qualify larger and heavier airplanes for
sport pilot use. This final rule increases the maximum VS1
CAS stalling speed for airplanes that a sport pilot is permitted to
operate from 54 to 59 knots. The change in the maximum VS1
CAS stalling speed limit will allow the use of additional existing
production airplanes without aftermarket kits or other modifications
after original certification to qualify for sport pilot use,
functioning to address commenters' general concerns regarding aircraft
availability. Installation of aftermarket STOL kits or other lift
enhancing devices would facilitate heavier aircraft that have an
original VS1 CAS stalling speed exceeding the Sec. 61.316
stalling speed limit. Heavier,

[[Page 35102]]

faster aircraft usually equate to more complex aircraft, operation of
which are not commensurate with the skill and training required for a
sport pilot certificate.
FAA emphasizes that installation of STOL kits after an aircraft's
original certification is still permitted. However, the airplane's
original aircraft certification VS1 CAS stalling speed,
prior to the installation of the STOL kit, must not exceed the new
maximum VS1 CAS stalling speed limit of 59 knots, as set
forth in Sec. 61.316. To clarify, if an aircraft is certificated and
then an aftermarket installation alters the Vs1 CAS airspeed
from 61 to 59 knots, the airplane would not qualify for sport pilot use
because the alteration affecting stalling speed was accomplished after
the original certification of the aircraft. FAA maintains that based on
the safety continuum concept, individuals operating airplanes with a
VS1 CAS stalling speed greater than 59 knots must obtain at
least a recreational pilot certificate or higher grade of pilot
certificate. After consideration of the commenters' recommendations,
FAA maintains that the ``since its original certification'' language
proposed in Sec. 61.316(a) does provide a necessary safeguard to
indirectly limit the weight of aircraft sport pilots may operate by
limiting modifications after its original certification.
Three commenters explained the tether to an aircraft's original
certification as proposed in Sec. 61.316(b) would unnecessarily
exclude Piper Cubs that were originally equipped with a controllable
pitch propeller and later converted to a fixed pitch propeller. One
commenter suggested FAA should allow constant speed propellers since
its original certification.
FAA finds that post-certification alterations to the propeller or
landing gear will not fundamentally change the weight or utility of
airplanes and could provide valuable performance and safety
enhancements. Accordingly, FAA determined it would be unnecessary to
prohibit sport pilots from operating airplanes with modifications to
the propeller or landing gear configuration. Therefore, FAA has removed
``since its original certification'' from Sec. 61.316(b) in this final
rule to permit sport pilots to operate aircraft that have had landing
gear (except for gliders) modifications and airplanes that have had
propeller modifications if those sport pilots meet the training and
endorsement requirements set forth in Sec. 61.331. However, Sec.
61.316(a) retains ``since its original certification'' requirements;
because gliders are specifically required in Sec. 61.316(a)(7) to have
fixed or retractable landing gear, the glider must have had that fixed
or retractable landing gear since its original certification. FAA
determined the exception contained in Sec. 61.316(b) was unnecessary
for gliders because it is extremely rare for a glider to convert to a
retractable system as most manufacturers have two versions of gliders
if they intend to offer a retractable system. Therefore, this is not a
common modification for this type of aircraft, and an exception is not
necessary. Moreover, FAA notes that gliders, in general, were not
affected by this rulemaking, and existing eligibility requirements for
gliders to qualify as light sport aircraft were not changed and were
merely carried over from 14 CFR 1.1.
Conversely, paragraph (8) requires fixed landing gear for powered
aircraft (other than a glider), but contains an exception for those
retractable landing gear operations in accordance with paragraph (b)
(therefore permitting modifications).
h. Gyroplane Specific Issues
In this final rule, FAA removes the light sport aircraft definition
from Sec. 1.1 and relocates the performance limits and design
requirements to Sec. 61.316. FAA retains the following requirements
that pertain to a gyroplane: seating capacity of no more than two
persons including the pilot (as discussed in IV.H.1.a of this
preamble); a fixed-pitch, semi-rigid, teetering two-blade rotor system
(adopted Sec. 61.316(a)(4)); fixed or retractable landing gear
(adopted Sec. 61.316(a)(8)); and non-pressurized cabins (adopted Sec.
61.316(a)(3)). FAA received four comments specific to gyroplanes, three
of which recommended FAA permit sport pilots to operate gyroplanes with
limits and design limitations that differ from the proposed Sec.
61.316 aircraft limitations. One commenter requested revision to
proposed Sec. 61.316(a)(6) that would limit sport pilots to operating
gyroplanes that have a fixed-pitch, semi-rigid, teetering-two blade
rotor system. The commenter stated rotor systems with three or more
blades reduce the vibrational modes associated with two-blade rotor
systems, which can reduce the maintenance requirements and extend the
fatigue life of gyroplane components. In addition, the commenter stated
there is no inherent increase in pilot skill level required to operate
a gyroplane with a three-blade rotor system when compared to a two-
blade, teetering rotor system. Two commenters asked to be able to
conduct a jump takeoff. These commenters stated jump takeoff gyroplanes
are easier to take off, with one commenter stating these aircraft are
computer controlled.
FAA does not agree with allowing sport pilots to operate a three-
blade rotor system gyroplane. While FAA appreciates that there may be
benefits to operating a three-blade rotor system, FAA disagrees that
there is no inherent increase in pilot skill level required to operate
a gyroplane with a three-blade rotor system when compared to a two-
blade, teetering rotor system. A three-blade rotor system is an
inherently more complex system than a two-blade, teetering rotor
system. While vibrations may be lower in a three-blade rotor system
gyroplane, as suggested by the commenter, the addition of the third
blade creates an increase in the risk of an imbalance in the rotation
of the gyroplanes rotor occurring (i.e., ground resonance). As such, a
three-blade rotor system requires specific training and experience,
particularly in ground resonance that is not covered in the sport pilot
training and PTS for gyroplane.\107\ Given the increased complexity of
the three-blade rotor system gyroplane compared to the two-blade
gyroplane, teetering system, and given that most gyroplanes are
currently experimental, operation of the three-blade rotor system
gyroplane would be outside the scope of their minimal training and
experience requirements.
With respect to the jump takeoff comments, FAA does not restrict
pilots, including sport pilots, from conducting a jump take-off.
Gyroplanes capable of jump takeoff did not meet the definition of
light-sport aircraft under the 2004 rule because of weight. For that
reason, the commenters may have interpreted FAA's rules to prohibit the
maneuver. However, under this final rule, there is no longer a weight
restriction.
Gyrocopter Flight Training Academy (GFTA) urged FAA to continue to
support the existing process of transitioning fixed wing pilots to
light-sport gyroplanes via a flight instructor gyroplane endorsement
and separate proficiency check conducted by a different sport pilot
instructor. FAA notes this final rule retains the ability for a pilot
to add a rotorcraft gyroplane sport pilot privilege by obtaining
additional training and instructor endorsement and subsequent
successful completion of a proficiency check in accordance with Sec.
61.321(a).
i. Balloon Experience
The NPRM did not propose changes to the required aeronautical
experience for a lighter-than-air category and balloon class privilege
on a person's sport pilot certificate as set forth in Sec. 61.313.
However, FAA received a

[[Page 35103]]

comment recommending removal of the cross-country requirement for a
sport pilot seeking a lighter-than-air balloon privilege. Section
61.313(f) requires an applicant to log at least 2 hours of cross-
country flight training. FAA finds this comment and suggestion to be
outside the scope of this rulemaking and does not currently find
sufficient evidence to revise this requirement in this final rule. Any
changes to sport pilot experience requirements for a balloon privilege
must be addressed in a separate rulemaking to allow adequate notice and
an opportunity for the public to comment and FAA may consider
rulemaking on this topic at a future date. As a result, FAA maintains
the cross-country experience requirement for a sport pilot seeking a
lighter-than-air category, balloon class privilege.
j. Night Operations
Currently, Sec. 61.315(c) restricts a sport pilot from acting as
pilot in command of an aircraft at night.\108\ FAA proposed to permit
sport pilots to operate at night by accomplishing additional night
training and experience requirements, including obtaining an
endorsement from an authorized instructor, as set forth in proposed
Sec. 61.329. As explained in the NPRM, currently, sport pilots do not
have night operation privileges because a sport pilot does not receive
any training for operations at night; however, this creates a safety
risk in scenarios where pilots may feel pressure to conduct flights
before the end of evening civil twilight, especially in many northern
states with reduced daylight hours. To appropriately mitigate night
operations, especially with the expanded aircraft characteristics that
a sport pilot can operate, FAA maintains that additional night
training, an authorized instructor qualifying endorsement, and
additional medical qualifications are necessary. Therefore, in new
Sec. 61.329, FAA proposed to require three hours of flight training at
night from an authorized instructor, a logbook endorsement certifying
proficiency, at least one cross-country night flight, and ten takeoffs
and landings at night with an authorized instructor. In addition, to
account for visual acuity standards required for night operations, FAA
proposed to require a sport pilot seeking to act as PIC at night to
hold, at a minimum, an FAA medical certificate issued under part 67,
subpart D, Third-Class (or higher) Airman Medical Certificate or meet
the requirements of Sec. 61.23(c)(3), and conduct the operation
consistently with Sec. 61.113(i).\109\ Proposed Sec. 61.329(d) also
specified that if a sport pilot met the requirements of Sec.
61.23(c)(3), Sec. 61.329 controls if there is a conflict with Sec.
61.113(i).\110\
Most comments regarding the proposed sport pilot night operations
supported night operations, including the proposed training and
endorsement requirements. For example, AOPA, EAA, NATA, and NBAA's
consolidated response, AutoGyro Certification LTD, and several
individual commenters agreed with requiring minimum night training and
allowing sport pilot night operations, citing various benefits such as
promotion of better aeronautical decision-making, removal of pressure
to terminate a flight or to reach a destination as darkness sets in,
enhancement of the utility of light-sport aircraft, and greater
flexibility for sport pilot certificates. However, most comments
opposed the medical qualification requirement. As subsequently
discussed, this final rule generally adopts proposed Sec. Sec.
61.315(c)(5) and 61.329 and revises proposed Sec. 61.329 to: specify
category and class training requirements, correct regulatory
references, and harmonize the minimum experience requirements with that
of the private pilot certificate minimums.
This section discusses (1) the training and endorsement
requirements for sport pilot night operations, (2) qualifications to
provide night flight training to sport pilots, and (3) medical
eligibility requirements specific to sport pilot night operations.
i. Training and Endorsement Requirements for Sport Pilot Night
Operations
The training and endorsement requirements facilitating night
operations under new Sec. 61.329(a) and (c) will require a sport pilot
to receive three hours of flight training at night from an authorized
instructor and receive a logbook endorsement, which includes conducting
at least one cross-country flight at night, and accomplish at least ten
takeoffs and landings at night. In the NPRM, the regulatory text could
be read to indicate that the three hours of flight training at night
(proposed Sec. 61.329(a)) must have been conducted separately from the
ten takeoffs and landings at night (proposed Sec. 61.329(c)) (i.e.,
that a person could not count a takeoff and landing performed during
the three hours of flight training as counting toward the minimum
requirement of ten). Conversely, proposed Sec. 61.329(b) was clear
that the cross-country flight at night could be counted toward the
flight training under proposed Sec. 61.329(a). While a person could
conduct more than 10 takeoffs and landings with an authorized
instructor should the person feel it necessary, FAA did not intend to
mandate more than a minimum of ten takeoffs and landings. In addition,
higher grades of pilot certificates that include night privileges only
require a minimum of ten takeoffs and landings,\111\ and FAA finds no
reason a sport pilot should be required to conduct more than 10. This
final rule amends Sec. 61.329 to make clear the three hours of night
flight training from an authorized instructor (adopted as Sec.
61.329(a) introductory text) must include both the cross-country flight
at night (adopted as Sec. 61.329(a)(1)) and ten takeoffs and landings
(adopted as Sec. 61.329(a)(2)).
GAMA recommended that FAA only require 10 takeoffs and landings at
night in the new sport pilot category and class privilege, including an
instructor endorsement. In addition, GAMA explained that a flight
instructor with a sport pilot rating may have night experience in
another sport aircraft category or class of aircraft.
First, FAA disagrees with the recommendation to limit the minimum
night training requirement when adding an additional category or class
privilege at the sport pilot level to only 10 takeoffs and landings at
night (i.e., eliminating three hours of flight training in proposed
Sec. 61.329(a) and the cross-country flight in proposed Sec.
61.329(a)(1)), and further addresses BasicMed in the following section.
The three hours of flight training at night and the cross-country
flight experience is intended to provide necessary training in specific
areas of night operations that a person may not receive with only a
series of take-offs and landings: for example, different techniques in
pilotage and dead reckoning, diversions and lost procedures, and
emergency operations. FAA notes the night training requirements in
Sec. 61.329 largely mirror those required to add an additional
category or class rating for private pilots, as set forth in Sec.
61.109, as well as current sport pilot experience requirements under
Sec. 61.313 due to the different handling requirements between
category and classes of aircraft generally and at night. FAA maintains
this experience is necessary to ensure safe sport pilot operations and
finds no data to support allowing less experience than these existing
requirements.
However, in assessing GAMA's comment, FAA noted neither the takeoff
and landing requirement, nor the other general training requirements,
were explicitly required for each specific category and class
privilege; however, the preamble explained the intent to

[[Page 35104]]

generally mirror the night training requirements of the private pilot
certificate. In addition, the proposed regulatory text in Sec.
61.329(a) stated the proficiency endorsement was required in ``the''
aircraft, indicating particular aircraft training as required. FAA
acknowledges these considerations could lead to differing conclusions
as to the aircraft specificity for the training and endorsement (e.g.,
category and class, make and model, etc.). In recognition of the unique
pilot skills needed to operate various characteristics of aircraft at
night safely (e.g., night landings in single-engine airplanes vs.
helicopters), and the similar night currency requirements under Sec.
61.57(b)(1)(ii), FAA intended to require the night training and
proficiency requirements specific to category and class of aircraft.
Therefore, this final rule revises Sec. 61.329(a) to require the night
flight training and proficiency endorsement to be conducted in the
specific category and class privilege for which the pilot intends to
operate.\112\
Section 61.313 requires certain aeronautical experience to apply
for a sport pilot certificate, including minimum: flight time and
flight training; cross-country flight training; certain takeoff,
launch, and landing requirements; or any combination of the preceding,
as applicable. Under the proposal (and as adopted by this final rule),
a person could count time and experience to meet Sec. 61.329 toward
the aeronautical experience requirements of Sec. 61.313, as long as
all requirements set forth in the applicable experience and logging
provisions were met. For example, if a person received one hour of
flight training at night from an authorized instructor in a single-
engine airplane, under the proposal and this final rule, the person
could log that flight time toward both Sec. Sec. 61.313(a)(1)
(requiring at least 15 hours of flight training from an authorized
instructor) and 61.329 (requiring at least 3 hours of flight training
at night from an authorized instructor). ALPA expressed concern that
allowing Sec. 61.329 night experience to satisfy some of the current
Sec. 61.313 minimum experience requirements would be inappropriate
because the experience requirements for a sport pilot certificate, in
general, are already low. ALPA suggested the 3 hours of training at
night be in addition to the 15 hours of instruction required to acquire
a sport pilot certificate.
FAA disagrees with the recommendation that the three hours of night
training experience requirement be in addition to the 15 hours of
training. While FAA understands ALPA's concern, the 15 hours of flight
training required by Sec. 61.313(a) is a minimum time requirement. A
pilot's learning and skill level may require more than the minimum 15
hours of flight training to obtain the aeronautical knowledge and
flight proficiency required for a sport pilot certificate.
Incorporating the Sec. 61.329 night training requirements into the
minimum time requirement does not reduce the overall required flight
training. Because night operations and training are more challenging
and demanding than day operations, night pilot time experience
qualifies equally for the minimum total training time requirements.
Finally, the successful completion of a practical test with an FAA-
designated pilot examiner or proficiency check with an authorized
instructor, as appropriate, validates that a person is qualified to
operate an aircraft as a sport pilot.
GAMA, AOPA, EAA, NATA, and NBAA's consolidated comment; an
individual; and LAMA suggested that if a pilot has already been trained
at night, that training should count for the sport pilot night
experience requirements and a pilot with a higher grade of certificate
should be eligible under Sec. 61.329 without endorsement. Similarly,
an individual commenter recommended allowing sport pilot night
operations if previously qualified as a private pilot with an airplane
single-engine land rating, without requiring BasicMed.
A person with a sport pilot certificate may credit night experience
acquired from previous pilot flight training or night experience when
properly documented in a pilot's logbook or record. For example,
because a person who holds a private pilot certificate with an airplane
single-engine rating has completed the night flight training specified
by Sec. 61.109(a)(2) (i.e., three hours of night flight training that
includes one cross-country flight of over 100 nm and 10 takeoffs and
landings), that experience may be applied to meet certain requirements
in new Sec. 61.329. However, when exercising the privileges of a sport
pilot certificate and operating at night, the sport pilot must have
obtained the requisite endorsement under Sec. 61.329, regardless of
whether the pilot holds a higher grade of pilot certificate with a
higher class medical.
Commenters' recommendation to allow pilots with a higher grade of
certificate to be eligible for night privileges based on previous
experience without meeting BasicMed inaccurately correlate medical
eligibility standards with training and endorsement. Persons with
higher grades of certificates may choose to exercise the privileges of
a sport pilot certificate because they no longer meet the medical
qualification requirements to exercise privileges of a higher grade of
certificate. As discussed throughout this section, FAA maintains that
minimum medical qualifications are necessary for sport pilots to safely
operate at night and will not remove the medical requirement when a
person may hold a higher-grade of certificate, but exercises sport
pilot privileges at night.
ii. Qualifications To Provide Night Flight Training to Sport Pilots
The NPRM proposed to permit a person to receive the night training
and endorsement specified in Sec. 61.329 from an authorized
instructor: a person who holds either a flight instructor certificate
issued under subpart H of part 61 or a flight instructor certificate
with a sport pilot rating under subpart K. Subpart H flight instructors
receive training and validation of proficiency via testing on night
operations to receive their certificate and are therefore qualified to
provide flight training at night. For example, the Flight Instructor
for Airplane ACS includes various night operations tasks and elements
(e.g., Task M: Night Operations in Area of Operation II: Technical
Subject Areas, which includes knowledge, risk management, and skills
specifically key to night operations). This final rule adopts the
proposal permitting subpart H instructors to provide Sec. 61.329 night
flight training.
In the NPRM, FAA recognized it would be an unnecessary burden to
require sport pilots to find only subpart H flight instructors for
night flight training and, therefore, proposed additional training
requirements to qualify flight instructors with a sport pilot rating to
provide instruction at night. Specifically, FAA proposed to add new
paragraph (n) in Sec. 61.415, which prescribes the limits of a flight
instructor certificate with a sport pilot rating. The NPRM proposed,
and this final rule adopts, that a flight instructor with a sport pilot
rating may not provide training in an aircraft at night unless they
have completed the night training and endorsement requirements
specified in proposed Sec. 61.329 (i.e., receive three hours of flight
training at night from an authorized instructor and receive a logbook
endorsement, conduct at least one cross-country flight at night, and
accomplish at least ten takeoffs and landings at night). Therefore, a
flight instructor with a sport pilot rating must receive the required
Sec. 61.329 training and endorsement from a subpart H instructor or an
authorized subpart K flight instructor with a sport pilot rating who
has received the Sec. 61.329 training

[[Page 35105]]

and endorsement. Upon completion of the Sec. 61.329 training and
endorsement, a flight instructor with a sport pilot rating may instruct
sport pilot applicants, sport pilots, or flight instructors with a
sport pilot rating in an aircraft at night and provide the required
endorsement once the instructor finds the person is proficient in night
flight (pursuant to new Sec. 61.329). To clarify, a flight instructor
may only provide instruction at night in the category and class
privilege for which they hold the Sec. 61.329 training and
endorsement.
FAA finds the initial cadre of subpart K flight instructors with a
sport pilot rating who may provide night training will be sufficiently
established through subpart H flight instructors, who, as previously
discussed, have received training and validated proficiency via the ACS
or PTS (as applicable) night operations tasks. However, during the
pendency of the rulemaking and while addressing glider specific pilot
training and certification comments, FAA noted the absence of night
training or testing requirements in the flight instructor glider PTS
for subpart H flight instructors. FAA recently examined this absence of
a task in the ACS IBR Final Rule, where commenters recommended adding a
night operations task to the flight instructor for glider category
PTS.\113\ FAA responded that there was not an urgent, safety sensitive
reason to expand the footprint of the flight instructor test (and,
resultingly, across all certificate levels) in the ACS IBR Final Rule.
FAA continues to find it inappropriate to expand the testing standards
in this final rule, as the addition of an area of operation in a PTS
would require notice and an opportunity to comment and would affect
more than only the Flight Instructor for Glider PTS, and, as such, it
is not within scope to finalize in this rulemaking. However, FAA finds
that subpart H glider flight instructors (who will be responsible for
establishing the initial cadre of subpart K glider flight instructors,
who will then train and endorse glider sport pilots on this brand-new
privilege) will be sufficiently experienced to train and validate
proficiency for this narrow group of glider sport pilots via the
minimum requirements in Sec. 61.57(b). Specifically, the subpart H
flight instructor (who will be acting as PIC of the glider carrying a
person) will be required to have made at least three takeoffs and three
landings to a full stop in a glider during the period beginning 1 hour
after sunset and ending one hour before sunrise within the preceding 90
days.
FAA received a comment on flight instructor experience requirements
specific to night training and qualifying instructor endorsement. The
commenter recommended flight instructors with a sport pilot rating and
50 hours of logged night time as a private pilot or higher be exempted
from the night experience requirement or only be required to obtain a
night endorsement, with no specific hourly requirement.
As discussed in the previous section, FAA will recognize night
training experience acquired as a private pilot or with a higher grade
of pilot certificate. However, FAA maintains that a subpart K flight
instructor must obtain a minimum of three hours of night training,
including a qualifying endorsement validating proficiency, from either
a subpart H instructor or an authorized subpart K flight instructor
with a sport pilot rating who has received the Sec. 61.329 training
and endorsement before providing night instruction to a sport pilot
seeking night privileges, rather than simply requiring a minimum amount
of flight training. As it pertains to private pilots, FAA finds it
unnecessary to require higher flight training requirements for private
pilots (e.g., 50 hours as suggested by the commenter) because a flight
instructor with a sport pilot rating who is also a private pilot would
inherently meet the experience requirements of adopted Sec. 61.329(a),
as they largely mirror the private pilot night qualification
requirements.\114\
iii. Medical Eligibility Requirements Specific to Sport Pilot Night
Operations
As previously stated, FAA proposed minimum medical qualification
requirements to act as PIC with a sport pilot certificate during night
operations in Sec. 61.329(d). Specifically, FAA proposed that a person
must either hold a medical certificate issued under part 67, subpart D
(at least a third-class medical certificate), or meet the requirements
of Sec. 61.23(c)(3) as long as the person holds a valid U.S. driver's
license. In addition, the proposal would require the operation to be
conducted consistent with Sec. 61.113(i) and that Sec. 61.329 would
take precedence in any conflict between Sec. Sec. 61.113(i) and
61.329.
Many commenters recommended FAA: (1) not require a third-class
medical certificate; \115\ (2) remove the requirement to obtain an
initial medical certificate and permit BasicMed to be the sole medical
eligibility requirement; (3) permit possession of a valid driver's
license or a separate visual acuity test to be the basis for medical
eligibility; and (4) remove medical eligibility requirements
altogether.\116\ Conversely, other commenters stated the medical
eligibility requirements do not appropriately mitigate safety concerns
and that FAA did not sufficiently support and justify its decision to
require either a third-class medical certificate or BasicMed to
exercise the sport pilot privilege of nighttime flight. This section
responds to these categories of comments.
However, in this final rule, FAA retains the proposed medical
requirements that a person may only act as PIC with a sport pilot
certificate during night operations if that person either holds at
least a third-class medical certificate or meets the conditions of
Sec. 61.113(i) and the operation is conducted consistent with Sec.
61.329. FAA notes this was originally proposed as Sec. 61.329(d) but
will be redesignated in this final rule due to the consolidation of
proposed Sec. 61.329(a) through (c), as previously described, as Sec.
61.329(b).
During the pendency of the rulemaking, FAA noted the preamble in
the NPRM inadvertently referenced Sec. 61.315(d)(4) when explaining
the controlling regulation in the event of a conflict while Sec.
61.329(d) (adopted herein as paragraph (b)) in the amendatory
instructions cited ``this section'' (i.e., Sec. 61.329). This final
rule adopts revised Sec. 61.329(b) to state that if the privileges and
limitations in Sec. 61.113 conflict with Sec. 61.316 when sport
pilots are operating aircraft with either a medical certificate or U.S.
driver's license for BasicMed under Sec. 61.23(c), new Sec. 61.316
performance limitations and design requirements control (i.e., the
intent explained in the NPRM preamble). For example, Sec. 61.113(i)
includes a limitation that the aircraft is authorized to carry not more
than seven occupants; under adopted Sec. 61.316(a)(2), a sport pilot
could only operate an aircraft with a maximum seating capacity of two
persons, except for airplanes, which may have a maximum seating
capacity of four persons. The latter will control under this final
rule.
The NPRM did not propose conforming amendments to Sec. 61.23 but
adopts two revisions in this final rule to deconflict the provisions of
Sec. 61.23 with the night operation medical certification
requirements. Specifically, Sec. 61.23(c)(1) sets forth the specific
part 61 operations requiring either a medical certificate or U.S.
driver's license, paragraph (c)(3) sets forth the requirements to
operate under BasicMed with a U.S. driver's license (e.g., have held a
medical certificate after July 14, 2006, complete the part 68 medical
education course).

[[Page 35106]]

FAA finds it necessary to add sport pilot night operations into the
enumerated operations of Sec. 61.23(c)(1), as those operations will
require either at least a third-class medical certificate or a driver's
license with BasicMed conditions and limitations (as set forth in
Sec. Sec. 61.113(i) and 61.23(c)(3)).
Relatedly, Sec. 61.23(b) sets forth those operations that do not
require a medical certificate, including: (1) when exercising the
privileges of a student pilot certificate while seeking a sport pilot
certificate with glider or balloon privileges, (2) when exercising the
privileges of a sport pilot certificate with privileges in a glider or
balloon, and (3) when exercising the privileges of a flight instructor
certificate with a sport pilot rating in a glider or balloon. FAA
recognizes a conflict between these regulations, which do not require
any medical certificate or meeting BasicMed, compared to the
requirements of Sec. 61.329, which will require either a medical
certificate or BasicMed for all subpart J and K operations at night.
For the reasons set forth in the NPRM and this section in response to
comments opposing FAA's medical determination, FAA finds it necessary
to require these populations of pilots to meet minimum medical
qualifications.
Therefore, to address both conformities, this final rule adds new
Sec. 61.23(c)(1)(vi) and redesignates current paragraph (c)(1)(vi) as
new paragraph (c)(1)(vii) and current paragraph (c)(1)(vii) as new
paragraph (c)(1)(viii). New Sec. 61.23(c)(1)(vi) will add the exercise
of sport pilot certificate privileges at night under the conditions and
limitations set forth in Sec. 61.113(i) as an operation requiring a
driver's license and conformance with Sec. 61.23(c). This paragraph
will also contain notwithstanding language from Sec. 61.23(b)(1),
(b)(2), and (b)(6) to make clear that sport pilots conducting night
operations will require either a third-class medical or BasicMed, in
spite of the more relaxed regulations for gliders (and balloons) in
Sec. 61.23(b).
In general, some commenters stated the medical eligibility
requirements in Sec. 61.329(d) provide an unnecessary regulatory
burden on sport pilots, void the purpose of the sport pilot
certificate, and will result in continued unsafe flying practices for
night operations.
FAA does not find the requirement to comply with this final rule's
medical requirements to be an undue burden for sport pilots seeking to
exercise night privileges. Sport pilots seeking night privileges have
two options for satisfying the medical requirements in this rule: (1)
obtaining a third-class medical certificate or, (2) satisfying the
BasicMed requirements. Both are well-established options under FAA's
existing regulatory framework and for which there is an existing market
of aviation medical examiners \117\ and, in the case of BasicMed,
state-licensed physicians. With both options, there is a physical exam
focusing on findings that could indicate an aeromedical concern.\118\
FAA does not set the fee for the exam; the cost depends on local market
conditions. However, FAA recommends that AMEs charge the usual and
customary fees by other physicians in the same locality for similar
physical examination services.\119\ In a previously issued final rule,
FAA assessed the average cost for a BasicMed examination to be $117 in
2016 dollars, which roughly translates to $155 in present year
dollars.\120\
This final rule expands the privileges available to sport pilots to
include night operations. To address the increased risks associated
with night operations,\121\ FAA determined it is both reasonable and
appropriate to ensure that sport pilots exercising night privileges
meet the minimum medical qualifications in this rule. Obtaining a
medical examination is a relatively minor burden to validate a sport
pilot's medical qualification to exercise expanded privileges.
Moreover, existing standards allow a sport pilot to conduct operations
without obtaining a medical certificate or satisfying BasicMed. A sport
pilot is only affected by the additional medical qualification
requirements if that sport pilot chooses to exercise these optional new
night privileges. FAA discusses the challenges, risks, and specific
reasons supporting the medical qualification requirement in the
paragraphs that follow.
FAA disagrees that the requirement for sport pilot night medical
qualifications will result in unsafe flying practices; on the contrary,
the medical qualification requirements intend to bolster and mitigate
unsafe medical conditions that may result in unsafe night operations.
In addition, commenters did not provide or cite specific unsafe flying
practices that medical qualifications would contribute to for FAA to
consider in this final rule. FAA emphasizes that pilots are responsible
for adhering to regulations in general. Failure to satisfy those
regulatory requirements creates unacceptable risk to the public and can
result in suspension or revocation of one's pilot certificate. As
subsequently discussed in this preamble, certain medical conditions and
vision deficiencies provide unacceptable risk associated with the
conduct of sport pilot night operations in the NAS.
Also, as discussed in this section, pilots who hold a higher grade
of pilot certificate and elect to exercise sport pilot night privileges
may take advantage of these sport pilot privileges, if qualified. FAA
anticipates that many pilots conducting operations under BasicMed
qualifications will transition to using a driver's license medical
qualification to conduct sport pilot operations going forward,
especially given the expansion of airplanes that sport pilots will be
permitted to operate under this final rule. For example, some pilots
that previously complied with BasicMed to operate basic general
aviation aircraft using private pilot privileges will now be eligible
to operate their aircraft with sport pilot privileges and a driver's
license. They may choose to follow the sport pilot path because it
presents fewer requirements than BasicMed, so long as they do not
conduct night operations.
iv. Comments Related to Third-Class Medical Certificate
Many commenters opposed the proposed medical eligibility option of
a third-class medical certificate to conduct night operations. Some
commenters suggested requiring a third-class medical is ineffective,
stating sport pilots may be reluctant to seek a third-class medical
certificate because of the possibility of receiving a denial, which
then results in disqualifying sport pilot certificate privileges
altogether. Other commenters recommended changes to FAA's medical
qualification regulations generally. AOPA, EAA, NATA, and NBAA's
consolidated comment (``the consolidated comment''), USUA, and several
individual commenters asserted the third-class medical certificate
requirement defeats one of the purposes of a sport pilot rating
certificate, the certificate's utility, and does not offer a safety
benefit since third-class medical standards under part 67 do not
require night vision tests.
Many commenters suggested alternatives to the medical requirements
to mitigate any vision considerations and concerns. One commenter
opined that pilots who have previously held a medical certificate at
any time and have had no significant changes to their vision are at
very low risk for decreased visual performance at night and should not
be required to provide any additional medical certification to fly at
night. The consolidated comment suggested evidence of a successful
colorblindness test in lieu of a medical certificate. The consolidated
comment and Helicopter Association

[[Page 35107]]

International, now known as Vertical Aviation International (VAI),
recommended sport pilots receive a one-time verification that the sport
pilot previously held a third-class medical without a night limitation
or accomplish a self-certification that they can distinguish red,
green, and white lights. In support, the commenters state that color
vision is congenital and inherently stable regardless of age in the
absence of eye disease. Another commenter suggested that FAA should
permit sport pilots to self-certify for night operations or pass an
FAA-accepted (color) vision test, citing current Sec. 61.303(b)(4) as
already providing a medical mitigation.
Similarly, LAMA explained that pilots who previously held an FAA
medical without a night restriction have already demonstrated their
ability to meet the color recognition requirements for night
operations, rendering a full medical certificate or a BasicMed review
unnecessary to ascertain color vision capabilities. LAMA further
explained that FAA already offers multiple color test options to
demonstrate compliance with the color recognition requirements of night
flight and evidence of compliance could be handled by a simple
certification from someone qualified to carry out an appropriate test.
An individual commenter noted the standards for the color blindness
test were recently improved with updated guidance on acceptable tests
by FAA's Office of Aerospace Medicine and suggested FAA remove medical
certificate requirements from proposed Sec. 61.329.
Prior to this final rule, there were no means for a sport pilot to
act as PIC of an aircraft at night. FAA emphasizes the medical
qualification requirements for general sport pilot operations were not
proposed to be revised in the NPRM (i.e., those requirements set forth
by Sec. 61.303, currently), as some commenters suggested. Only sport
pilots who seek to operate at night will be required to maintain a
higher level of medical qualification. Therefore, under this final
rule, sport pilots may continue to operate (during the day) with a
current and valid U.S. driver's license. Sport pilot certificate
utility will not be affected or reduced by not pursuing a third-class
medical or satisfying BasicMed requirements. In fact, by virtue of
expanding the performance and design characteristics of aircraft sport
pilots may operate, and by facilitating night operations without having
to seek a higher grade of certificate (e.g., a private pilot
certificate), this rule bolsters sport pilot certificate utility in a
safe manner.
Night training and the associated night-time operational privilege
are an ``optional'' sport pilot privilege; a pilot who chooses not to
conduct night operations may simply continue to meet the medical
requirements set forth in Sec. 61.303. However, FAA proposed
additional medical qualification for night flight due to the differing
flight characteristics and safety risks by virtue of conducting
operations in daylight versus night. To note, the medical
qualifications proposed, and adopted by this final rule, do not require
a person to hold a third-class medical certificate at the time of night
operation, as some commenters suggest. Section 61.329(b) simply
provides a pathway for sport pilots to be able to fly at night if they
are able to meet the medical eligibility requirements of a third-class
medical certificate or BasicMed.
However, there are a number of medical deficiencies that may impair
safe night flight operations that FAA seeks to mitigate in adopted
Sec. 61.329(d) by requiring either a third-class medical certificate
or BasicMed. For example, medical conditions such as cardiac disease,
lung disease, blood disorders, and cataracts affect blood flow to the
eyes and brain, which may impact a pilot's operational ability.
Further, various medications and medical conditions such as heart
disease, pulmonary disease, vestibular problems, and neurological
diseases can independently or collectively impair a person's
performance at night, lending credence to the minimum requirement for
medical qualifications.\122\
In addition, as was often raised by commenters, the medical
qualification seeks to ensure a pilot possesses key visual
characteristics, such as depth perception, visual acuity, and color
vision to identify terrain and obstacles, read instrumentation, and
judge landing paths. For example, adequate vision is more critical to
ensure safe night flight operations such as collision avoidance,
airport, runway, and taxiway identification, flight instrument use,
recognition of adverse weather conditions, and other required tasks
unique to night flight operations. Other considerations that affect the
safety of flight at night include susceptibility to turbulence, G-
forces, spatial disorientation, night illusion issues, and autokinesis.
Night operations affect pilot performance especially when operating at
altitudes as high as ten thousand feet MSL (or higher in mountainous
terrain) in an unpressurized aircraft. In addition, certain health
conditions that may be manageable during day operations can become a
significant pilot performance issue when operating an aircraft at
night, such as cardiac disease, lung disease, blood disorders, and
cataracts that affect blood flow to the eyes and brain. Also, some
medications intended to mitigate certain health conditions can
negatively impact pilot performance during night operations, such as
antihistamines, some medications for erectile dysfunction, some
antidepressants, anti-malarial medications, steroids, and tamoxifen.
Third-class medicals require vision tests, which include testing
for color and acuity vision deficiencies, equally valid for day and
night operations. As explained, the intent of requiring a third-class
medical (or BasicMed) is not limited to only identifying visual
anomalies (e.g., colorblindness, low visual acuity); however, these are
important factors that are addressed during an FAA medical exam (and a
driver's license visual exam, as subsequently discussed). FAA does not
provide a freestanding vision test nor is FAA considering accepting
color vision tests as a standalone medical qualification because, as
previously discussed, FAA finds comprehensive health validation
necessary. The requirement to have successfully obtained and held at
least a third-class FAA medical after July 14, 2006, verifies that an
individual has met the Federal health standards for that medical
certificate at some point in time, which would have verified corrected
vision acuity of at least 20/40 and that the individual does not have
color vision deficiencies. Even if the individual's FAA medical
certificate expires after that date, it is still valid to qualify for
BasicMed.
However, FAA acknowledges that color vision is not always static
and deficiency can be acquired and change over time and with age. Red
and green color deficiency is typically congenital, whereas blue and
yellow color vision deficiency is typically acquired. As previously
stated, different medical conditions can affect color vision adversely
(e.g., cataracts, multiple medications). In addition, because BasicMed
only requires a third-class medical to have been obtained at some point
after July 14, 2006, FAA acknowledges that aging and other natural
physical deteriorations could affect a person's ability to conduct
night operations. Third-class medical certificate validity periods
ensure medical fitness for night operations and, likewise, BasicMed
ensures there is not exclusive reliance on holding a medical
certificate in the past without any other verifying mechanism through
the general medical standards and visual

[[Page 35108]]

acuity required to obtain a driver's license.
FAA also disagrees with utilizing self-certification for pilot
color vision validation; as previously explained, the medical
qualifications proposed and adopted herein are intended to ensure a
range of physical performance limitations, one of which includes visual
acuity. Many medical conditions that impede pilot performance,
especially at night, can be difficult to self-assess or diagnose
without a qualified medical professional conducting an evaluation or
medical testing.
v. Comments Suggesting Using BasicMed Without Requiring an Initial
Medical Certificate
Twenty-one commenters recommended FAA create alternatives for
medical qualification in addition to the third-class medical
certificate and BasicMed options. Some commenters questioned the
utility of BasicMed as a measure of medical qualification. Commenters
recommend that FAA apply the BasicMed requirements generally but not
require the pilot to have held a medical certificate after July 14,
2006, which would eliminate the requirement in Sec. 61.23(c)(3) when
applied to sport pilots. Some of these commenters suggested that, in
addition to BasicMed being the sole medical eligibility requirement,
FAA should impose additional requirements, such as an endorsement or
recurrent training, as an alternative means to determine eligibility
instead of requiring a medical certificate. A few of these commenters
stated requiring a medical certificate may have varying impacts on
pilots, such as being more difficult for younger pilots who need to
obtain a third-class medical certificate to qualify. In addition, a
commenter explained that the 20-year safety record for sport pilots has
proven sport pilots are more than competent to know their own
limitations. Another commenter contended that pilots who have
previously held a medical certificate at any time, and have had no
significant changes to their vision, are at very low risk for decreased
visual performance at night and should not be required to provide any
additional medical certification to fly at night. Though many
commenters disagreed with requiring a medical certificate as a medical
eligibility requirement, a few commenters generally disagreed with FAA
allowing BasicMed as medical eligibility requirement sport pilots, and
more specifically sport pilot night operations.
To emphasize, BasicMed is not the sole requirement for a sport
pilot to operate at night; rather, it is one of two options a sport
pilot may choose from to conduct sport pilot operations at night. If a
person finds it more convenient and attainable to seek a third-class
medical certificate, the sport pilot will not need to follow BasicMed
provisions, and vice versa. As previously explained, the option for
either qualification standard will provide flexibility to sport pilots,
ensuring safety while also recognizing the recreational intent of sport
pilot certificate use (as opposed to, for example, higher medical
certificate requirements for commercial pilot operations).
Further, FAA is unclear whether commenters referred to removing the
BasicMed requirements that a person must have held an initial medical
certificate sometime after July 14, 2006, to qualify for BasicMed,\123\
or misunderstood how a current third-class medical was not a
requirement but rather one of two options in Sec. 61.329(d). If the
former, this rule did not propose and will not make changes to the
general regulatory framework of BasicMed.\124\ As previously explained,
the medical eligibility requirements in Sec. 61.329 ensure the sport
pilot has, at some point, been physically evaluated for safe night
operations to a third-class medical standard.
One commenter asserted there is plenty of data to prove that
allowing BasicMed without the medical requirement is safe but did not
provide that supporting data. Another individual commented that the 20-
year sport pilot safety record is substantial proof that a driver's
license medical is more than adequate to permit night operations. While
the current driver's license requirement facilitates day operations for
sport pilots, it does not facilitate night operations. Therefore, FAA
finds the commenters' references to data overgeneralized and not
relevant at this time, as this is a new operation for sport pilots
under this final rule.
vi. Comments Recommending FAA Permit the Possession of a Valid Driver's
License as the Basis for Medical Eligibility for Sport Pilot Night
Operations
Sixty-three commenters recommended permitting the use of only a
valid driver's license to medically qualify for sport pilot night
operations, instead of requiring a third-class medical certificate or
BasicMed, citing burden and cost on sport pilots wishing to operate at
night (as previously discussed), conflicts with standing requirements
in Sec. 61.303, and alleged lack of safety need or evidence. While
some commenters recommended holding a U.S. driver's license
(considering any applicable limitations) as the sole medical
eligibility requirement for sport pilot night operations, others
suggested FAA permit the use of a driver's license with alternative
requirements, such as a vision test or additional training.
Several commenters, including Fly Eagle Sport, suggested that
possession of a driver's license alone should be sufficient
justification for a sport pilot night operations, contending that a
person's ability to operate large buses, trucks, or other non-
commercial vehicles, such as passenger vans or motorhomes, with just a
driver's license to qualify to operate at night because driving these
vehicles only requires possession of a driver's license. An individual
commenter referenced a 2009 National Highway Traffic Safety
Administration study that concluded only 1.3% of all personal vehicle
crashes are a result of medical emergencies, stating it would be safe
to assume data could be extrapolated to aircraft accidents. Some
individual commenters opined driver's licenses should be sufficient
because states have vision requirements to obtain driver's licenses and
may impose night driving restrictions on licensed motor vehicle
operations.
Possession of a driver's license alone, including a non-commercial
or commercial driver's license with a DOT Medical Exam, does not
adequately qualify a sport pilot for night operations as many medical
conditions that may significantly affect a pilot's ability to operate
an aircraft safely, especially at night (as discussed in the preceding
sections), are not adequately screened for in obtaining a state-issued
driver's license. The DOT Medical Exam referenced by these commenters
is used by the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration to medically
qualify commercial motor vehicle drivers. Unlike BasicMed and medical
exams conducted under part 67, medical providers conducting DOT Medical
Exams are evaluating the applicant based on the assumption that the
applicant is intending to operate a motor vehicle, not an aircraft.
Accordingly, the exam provider may not be considering some of the
unique aeromedical aspects, such as the effect of medications at
altitude or effects on the applicant's vestibular system. General
health conditions cannot be mitigated in an aircraft by simply pulling
over to the side of the highway, as a driver of a motor vehicle may be

[[Page 35109]]

able to do. By requiring the applicant to at least meet the
requirements for BasicMed, the PIC has received at least one baseline
part 67 aeromedical exam, mitigating risk of a medical condition that
could cause a potential hazard at night.
In addition, FAA finds the suggested fatality rates associated with
motor vehicle medical emergencies to be an insufficient basis upon
which to determine a driver's license alone is sufficient for safe
aircraft operations, as the safety considerations between cars and
aircraft operating at night differ considerably. For example, typical
speeds for operating a motor vehicle are significantly less and there
is little need to scan more than a \1/4\ to \1/2\ mile ahead visually.
If a driver encounters bad weather, becomes ill, or has a mechanical
issue it is normally easy to pull over to the side of the road safely
or slow to reduced speeds to address any hazards. Conditions such as
spatial or visual disorientation are generally limited, traffic
avoidance is much more predictable, and any atmospheric pressure or
oxygen level changes are gradual and negligible, generally. Conversely,
typical speeds in flight are significantly faster than a motor vehicle
and pilots require the visual acuity to scan miles ahead of an
aircraft. If a pilot encounters bad weather, becomes ill, or has a
mechanical issue, emergency diversions are far more complex and may
take longer to achieve a safe landing considering time to descend from
altitude and distance from a suitable landing site. The option to make
an immediate landing may not be safe or reasonable. Traffic avoidance
in an aircraft at night requires greater scan intervals ranging from
180 to 200 degrees to see and avoid traffic and obstructions. Flight
altitudes, especially above 5000 feet, have an additional effect on the
human body.
Vision and other medical standards that permit the operation of a
motor vehicle vary substantially from state to state and in most
instances do not validate color vision. Because of the lack of standard
vision requirements from state to state (or territory), and the
interval at which these vision tests are conducted, the risk associated
with medical deficiencies for pilots operating at night is not properly
mitigated using only a U.S.-issued driver's license and would otherwise
expose the public to unacceptable operational risk during night flight
operations. In addition, periodic medical examination (associated with
a medical certificate or BasicMed) is necessary to validate that a
person is minimally fit to safely operate an aircraft, particularly at
night. As the complexity and risk associated with flight operations
increase (i.e., through expansion of night privileges and aircraft that
a sport pilot may operate), the level of safety must also increase;
here, a minimal level of medical eligibility.
Further, no conflict exists between the adopted requirements of
Sec. 61.329(b) and the standing requirements of Sec. 61.303. As
explained, the NPRM did not propose revisions to the medical
requirements set forth in Sec. 61.303 to operate during the day.
Adopted Sec. 61.329 simply prescribes a higher medical qualification
requirement for those pilots who choose to operate at night. Should a
pilot only operate during the day, that pilot may meet the minimum
requirements of Sec. 61.303, as currently set forth.
Some commenters opined on the relationship between higher-level
certificates, sport pilot operating privileges, and BasicMed. Some
stated individuals qualifying under BasicMed will seek a higher grade
of pilot certificate permitting night operations. Another commenter
recommended keeping the current driver's license medical requirement
for operating light-sport category aircraft and extending its use to
apply to the private pilot certificate. A few commenters requested
additional clarification on when a pilot with a higher-grade pilot
certificate exercising sport pilot privileges may use a driver's
license for medical qualification. LAMA and several individual
commenters recommended pilots holding a higher pilot certificate and
who had previously held an aviation medical without any night
restrictions should be automatically allowed to exercise night
privileges without the need for any additional medical review providing
they continue to hold a current driver's license.
Pilots holding a higher grade of pilot certificate (i.e., private,
commercial, or air transport pilot (ATP)) can exercise the privileges
of a sport pilot certificate using a valid driver's license as the
medical qualification. However, the operating limitations of that
higher grade of pilot certificate will apply \125\ and pilots holding a
higher grade of pilot certificate must still comply with the Sec.
61.329(b) medical requirements to operate as PIC at night. It is
generally settled that certificated pilots can exercise the privileges
of a lower grade of pilot certificate within the limitations provided
for that lower grade of pilot certificate; therefore, FAA does not find
a table clarifying privileges associated with a driver's license
medical qualification is necessary. A private pilot or higher grade of
certificate can exercise the privileges of a sport pilot certificate,
likewise subject to a sport pilot's operating limitations. However,
just because a pilot may hold a higher-level certificate does not mean
the person should be automatically eligible for sport pilot operations
from a medical qualification perspective. Many pilots hold higher-level
certificates but choose to operate lower-level certificate operational
privileges because the person may not be able to meet the higher-grade
medical qualifications commensurate with the level of risk (i.e., a
first-class medical certificate for ATP privileges). In this case, the
same reasons apply that require the person to hold some level of
medical qualifications, either through at least a third-class medical
certificate or BasicMed. Conversely, if the pilot held a valid higher-
level medical certificate (i.e., first- or second-class medical), then
that pilot could operate with a sport pilot certificate at night, as
the regulatory text specifies that ``a medical certificate'' must be
held.
vii. Comments Recommending Vision Test in Combination With Unrestricted
Driver's License for Night Operations Instead of a Medical Certificate
or BasicMed
FAA received approximately 140 comments recommending a vision test
or similar test to medically qualify for sport pilot night operations
instead of any basic medical requirements (i.e., at least a third class
medical or BasicMed). Many of these commenters explained that obtaining
an FAA medical or satisfying BasicMed requirements is an excessive or
overburdensome medical qualification requirement for sport pilots to
operate at night. Commenters generally described that most pilots who
possess a sport pilot certificate, or exercise sport pilot privileges,
do so because they do not want to seek an FAA medical certificate due
to cost or because the possibility that a denial could jeopardize their
sport pilot privileges overall. Because of these concerns, many
commenters explained that most sport pilots will not seek night
privileges. Some commenters suggested that instead of the proposal, FAA
permit an eye exam conducted by a health professional who can verify
acceptable night vision, with a variety of suggestions ranging from
specific vision test parameters, minimum night experience requirements,
logbook endorsement, or a combination thereof.
As previously explained, a vision test alone is insufficient to
permit sport pilot night operations, as the intent of the third-class
medical (at least) or BasicMed requirement is not only for

[[Page 35110]]

those considerations analyzed by a vision test. A vision test would
address some of the concerns to verify a sport pilot is medically fit
to conduct operations at night, but many other medical deficiencies or
conditions previously identified would go unaddressed with just a
vision test. This preamble previously contemplated and addressed the
alleged cost and burden in section IV.H.1.j.iv.
Finally, FAA does not regulate based on concerns that a person
would be deterred from obtaining night privileges because of concerns
of being denied a medical certificate that could later affect BasicMed
or other certification considerations. As discussed in the preceding
sections, FAA finds some validation of medical fitness to be necessary
given the safety risk to a pilot, passengers, and public and does not
consider the medical qualification requirements in this rule to create
an undue burden to address that risk.
viii. Comments Recommending FAA Remove Sec. 61.329(d) Medical
Eligibility Requirements Altogether for Sport Pilot Night Privileges
Approximately 63 commenters suggested FAA remove the medical
eligibility requirement for sport pilot night privileges. Many of these
commenters, including AutoGyro Certification LTD, opined that training
and a qualifying instructor endorsement requirement would be sufficient
to validate that a sport pilot can operate safely at night without the
need for an FAA medical. Some commenters stated the medical standards
would not make night flying safer, whereas training and instructor
endorsements would. For example, one individual commenter referenced a
study that suggests pilots are not forthcoming on medical applications
to support that training is more important than medical qualifications.
While some commenters suggested specific training and endorsement
parameters (e.g., 40 hours of night experience, increased night
currency requirements), some, including USUA, recommended that proposed
Sec. 61.329(d) be eliminated from the final rule in its entirety.
Twenty-five commenters stated FAA failed to provide evidence or
data to justify the medical qualifications set forth in proposed Sec.
61.329(d).
As previously discussed, this final rule adopts certain training
and endorsement requirements to address aeronautical proficiency when
operating at night. However, training and endorsements alone are
insufficient to determine if someone is physically fit to safely
operate an aircraft at night. Flight instructors are not trained or
qualified to provide medical assessments to validate that a pilot is
medically fit to act as PIC. Designated medical examiners are trained
and authorized to conduct FAA medical examinations focused on medical
conditions specific to flight physiology, particularly those medical
considerations applicable to night operations.
For the reasons discussed herein, in combination with the other
requirements for sport pilots to be permitted to conduct night
operations, including certain training, endorsement, and experience
requirements, a sport pilot will be appropriately qualified to conduct
night operations. These requirements are similar to the requirements a
private pilot must meet to operate at night time, set forth in Sec.
61.109. FAA recognizes that the night medical qualifications for
private pilots can equally serve sport pilots for the same night
privileges and is appropriate to mitigate the risk associated with
night operations, as previously addressed in this section. FAA finds
this level of safety aligns with the safety continuum construct
explained in the NPRM.
FAA asserts that concerns regarding misleading statements \126\ on
medical applications may be applicable to all pilots who apply for a
medical certificate (or even a pilot certificate). The penalties for
those individuals are significant, including leading to revocation of a
pilot certificate. FAA's Office of Aerospace Medicine has a long
history of identifying and evaluating medical conditions or
deficiencies that create unacceptable risk to the public and the need
to medically qualify pilots ensuring safe flight operations.
ix. Comments Suggesting an Alternate Process for Those Previously
Denied an FAA Medical Certificate or Have Never Obtained an FAA Medical
Certificate
Five commenters suggested FAA permit sport pilots to operate even
if they have been denied (thereby not meeting the BasicMed requirements
set forth in Sec. 61.23(c)), deferred, or never obtained an FAA
medical certificate. One commenter suggested there should be a process
for retaining sport pilot privileges if a medical certificate is denied
or revoked.
This final rule does not adopt an alternate medical qualification
process for those applicants who have been denied, deferred,\127\ or
never obtained an FAA medical certificate, as this would involve broad
analysis of the medical certification framework not contemplated in the
scope of this rule, which is tailored to light-sport category aircraft,
operations, and sport pilot training and qualification. For the reasons
discussed, FAA finds it necessary to require a person to either hold a
medical certificate or, at minimum, have held one in the past in
accordance with the BasicMed provisions and finds those medical
considerations to justify no alternate pathway for medical certificate
denial or revocation at this time. FAA notes that, regardless of the
medical requirements for a particular operation, all pilots are
prohibited from acting as a required pilot flight crewmember during a
medical deficiency, in accordance with Sec. 61.53.
One commenter recommended that a person with a glider rating and a
self-launch endorsement should be able to medically self-certify
without a driver's license or any medical oversight from FAA to fly an
aircraft with a gross weight of up to 1,874 pounds. FAA notes that
neither a medical certificate nor a driver's license is required for
daytime glider operations in accordance with Sec. Sec. 61.303 and
61.23(b). This privilege existed under the previous rule and will be
retained in the new rule. However, FAA notes that sport pilots who wish
to exercise the newly introduced optional night privileges of Sec.
61.329 in a glider must comply with the Sec. 61.329(b) medical
requirements to act as PIC at night. These night medical requirements
are necessary to mitigate additional risk, as previously discussed, and
apply equally to glider pilots.
x. Comments Regarding Alternate Medical Personnel To Qualify Sport
Pilots
One commenter recommended FAA permit a state-licensed physician
using current FAA medical requirements to determine eligibility for
third-class medical certificates including for sport pilots. The
commenter reasoned that a personal physician is more familiar with a
person's medical conditions compared to accomplishing a physical with
an aviation medical examiner (AME). Another commenter stated only a
small percentage of the standards for a third-class medical certificate
relate to the ability to fly at night, which can be adequately
evaluated by any licensed healthcare provider.
Section 67.4 outlines the requirements for obtaining a first-,
second-, and third-class medical certificate in which the exam must be
performed by an AME designee who was designated in accordance with part
183. AMEs receive specific initial and recurrent training in aviation
medicine to include medical conditions and treatments incompatible with
aviation safety and possible mitigation of those

[[Page 35111]]

conditions. In addition, AMEs receive ongoing mentoring by FAA Office
of Aerospace Medicine as well as mandatory recurrent aerospace medical
education. Under adopted Sec. 61.329(b), a person will have received
at least one examination by an AME who is specifically trained to
ensure medical fitness pertaining to aviation operations, due to the
requirement to either currently hold or previously have held an FAA
medical certificate (i.e., for BasicMed compliance).
FAA did not consider changes to permit state-licensed physicians to
conduct evaluations for FAA medical qualification purposes, as state-
licensed physicians may not have this additional aviation focused
training, and such a change would involve broad analysis of the medical
certification framework not contemplated in the scope of this rule.
However, in accordance with Sec. 68.7, an airman may use a state-
licensed physician to conduct a BasicMed medical evaluation using the
comprehensive medical examination checklist for an airman to operate an
aircraft without an FAA medical.
k. Airplanes With a Controllable Pitch Propeller or Aircraft With a
Retractable Landing Gear
Currently, the Sec. 1.1 definition of light-sport aircraft
requires an aircraft to have a fixed or ground adjustable propeller if
the aircraft is a powered aircraft other than a powered glider; powered
gliders must have a fixed or feathering propeller system. Relatedly,
the current definition requires a light-sport aircraft to have fixed
landing gear, except for aircraft intended for operating on water or a
glider. The NPRM proposed to permit sport pilots to operate airplanes
with a controllable pitch propeller or an aircraft with fixed or
retractable landing gear (or with floats for aircraft intended for
operation on water) if that person accomplishes additional ground and
flight training and obtains the qualifying instructor endorsement, set
forth in proposed Sec. 61.331.
As it pertains to controllable pitch propellers, the NPRM explained
the intent of the proposal was to permit sport pilots to operate
airplanes equipped with either an automated or manual controllable
pitch propeller,\128\ but require sport pilots choosing to operate
airplanes equipped with manually controlled propellers to complete
additional training and receive an instructor endorsement to mitigate
the increased risks associated with operator errors affecting safety.
FAA subsequently identified a drafting error in Sec.
61.315(c)(20)(ii). As proposed, that section provided that the training
in Sec. 61.331(b) would apply to sport pilots operating aircraft with
a controllable pitch propeller. However, the language in Sec.
61.331(b) applies only to airplanes with a controllable pitch
propeller. To resolve this inconsistency and effectuate the NPRM
intent, FAA modified Sec. 61.315(c)(20)(ii) to state that it applies
to airplanes only.
In addition, FAA recognizes that proposed Sec. 61.315(c)(20)(ii)
could inadvertently capture airplanes with automated propellers,
particularly in tandem with new Sec. 61.316(a)(4), (a)(5), and (b).
Specifically, proposed Sec. 61.316(a)(4) set forth the limitation and
design requirements for the aircraft a sport pilot may operate
pertaining to propellers, stating that for powered aircraft other than
powered-gliders, a sport pilot could operate an aircraft with fixed or
ground-adjustable propeller, except as provided in Sec. 61.316(b).
Section 61.316(b), in pertinent part, proposed additional training
requirements (set forth in proposed Sec. 61.331) for those airplanes
with controllable pitch propellers. Read together, the proposal could
have inadvertently limited sport pilots from operating aircraft with
automated propellers by specifying, ``fixed or ground-adjustable,'' in
Sec. 61.316(a)(4), even though the NPRM explained FAA's intent to
permit operations in those aircraft with automated propellers. In
addition, Sec. 61.316(a)(5) proposed to limit powered gliders to
either a fixed or feathered propeller system. As previously stated, the
NPRM explained FAA's intent to remove powerplant limitations from the
performance limitations and design requirements for sport pilot
operations.
FAA continues to find the overall design of these propeller systems
is such that they are relatively simple to operate and would enable
pilots to take advantage of the improved climb performance associated
with that propeller system designed to avoid and clear obstacles during
the climb and departure phase of a flight. Similarly, FAA finds
aircraft with an automated controllable-pitch propeller would enable
pilots to take advantage of the improved aerodynamic performance
associated with these aircraft, as compared to fixed pitch propellers,
without imposing additional workload.
Therefore, this final rule adopts revised regulatory text to
capture both types of propellers, manually controlled and
automated.\129\ by modifying the proposed design limitation in Sec.
61.316(a)(4) and renumbering to Sec. 61.316(a)(9). That proposal would
have limited powered aircraft other than gliders to a fixed or ground-
adjustable propeller; in this final rule, there is no limitation on the
propeller design of aircraft that sport pilots may operate, thereby
permitting the use of any powerplant (subject to certain training
restrictions subsequently discussed). Relatedly, FAA removed proposed
Sec. 61.316(a)(5) specific to powerplant limitations for powered
gliders; therefore, this final rule will permit sport pilots to operate
gliders with any powerplant design, including those equipped with
propellers. To note, due to renumbering Sec. 61.316(a)(4) and removing
(a)(5), this final rule renumbers the subparagraphs within Sec.
61.316(a) (e.g., proposed Sec. 61.316(a)(6) will become Sec.
61.316(a)(4), proposed Sec. 61.316(a)(7) will become Sec.
61.316(a)(5), etc.). These revisions respond to various comments
seeking additional clarification due to ambiguity in the proposal.
While sport pilots will be permitted to operate an airplane meeting
the performance and design parameters in Sec. 61.316 with the use of
any powerplant, FAA continues to find it necessary to require
additional training and an endorsement to act as pilot in command of an
airplane with a manual controllable pitch propeller (as proposed in
Sec. 61.331(b)) due to the corresponding increased workload,
attention, and adjustment by the pilot. Therefore, this final rule
retains the proposed requirement for a sport pilot to obtain training
and a flight instructor endorsement to operate airplanes with a
controllable pitch propeller in Sec. Sec. 61.315(c)(20)(ii) and
61.316(b) but specifies this training is only required for manual
controllable pitch propellers. Section 61.331(b)(2) specifies that a
sport pilot must receive additional flight training and receive an
instructor endorsement to operate manually controlled propellers (Sec.
61.331(b)(1) provides an alternative to training and endorsement, which
is subsequently discussed). The additional training and endorsement
requirements for manual controllable pitch propellers will mitigate the
additional risk and safety concerns, as opposed to the propeller pitch
controls that are automated and do not correspond to the additional
workload required to operate manual propellers. In addition, FAA added
Sec. 61.415(l), which requires a flight instructor to have received
the training and endorsement in the manual controllable pitch propeller
in an airplane or an aircraft with a retractable landing gear aircraft
prior to providing flight instruction.
FAA proposed a similar framework for additional training for those
aircraft with a retractable landing gear.

[[Page 35112]]

Proposed Sec. 61.315(c)(20)(i) stated a person with a sport pilot
certificate may not act as PIC of an aircraft if the aircraft has
retractable landing gear, unless the person has met the requirements of
proposed Sec. 61.331(a); this training requirement was reiterated in
proposed Sec. 61.316(b). Proposed Sec. 61.331(a) set forth the
training and endorsement requirements for operations with these design
parameters. This final rule contains changes to that framework to
correct two drafting errors that, if left unchanged, would create
conflicting requirements between Sec. Sec. 61.315 and 61.316 and
between paragraphs (a) and (b) in Sec. 61.316. Accordingly, FAA makes
changes to Sec. 61.316, along with conforming changes to Sec. 61.315
to correct those errors. The final rule makes clear that sport pilot
certificate requires operators of aircraft intended for operation on
water with retractable landing gear to comply with training and
endorsement requirements in Sec. 61.331 unless the person logged
pilot-in-command time in such an aircraft before October 22, 2025.
The first drafting error is related to discrepancies between the
language in proposed Sec. Sec. 61.315 and 61.316. Proposed Sec.
61.315(c)(20)(i) stated a person with a sport pilot certificate may not
act as PIC of an aircraft if the aircraft has retractable landing gear,
unless the person has met training and endorsement requirements in
proposed Sec. 61.331(a). Proposed Sec. 61.316(b) also specified the
training and endorsement requirement for airplanes that have
retractable landing gear, but the language indicated that it applied to
seaplanes with retractable landing gear, as opposed to all amphibious
aircraft with retractable landing gear.
The second drafting error relates to discrepancies between Sec.
61.316 paragraphs (a) and (b). In the NPRM, FAA proposed to allow sport
pilot certificate holders to operate gliders with fixed or retractable
landing gear (proposed Sec. 61.316(a)(9)) and aircraft intended for
operation on water with fixed or retractable landing gear (proposed
Sec. 61.316(a)(10)). Again, FAA's proposed language in Sec. 61.316(b)
applied to airplanes with retractable landing gear to comply with
training and endorsement requirements in Sec. 61.331. Therefore, the
proposal would have applied to airplanes intended for operation on
water that have retractable landing gear. This directly conflicts with
the language in Sec. 61.316(a)(10) that proposed to allow sport pilots
to operate aircraft intended for operation on water with retractable
landing gear without training or an endorsement.
The history of the current requirements informs FAA's understanding
of the discrepancy. In the original 2004 rule establishing light-sport
aircraft, FAA defined gliders with retractable landing gear as light-
sport aircraft,\130\ which meant they fell within the scope of sport
pilot privileges. In contrast, aircraft intended for operation on water
with retractable landing gear did not fall within the light-sport
aircraft definition. Therefore, pilots needed a regulatory exemption to
operate aircraft intended for operation on water with retractable
landing gear under sport pilot privileges. Aircraft intended for
operation on water with retractable gear present additional
complexities for safe landings compared to fixed hull aircraft.
Accordingly, the exemption required training to mitigate the additional
risk of permitting sport pilots to operate these types of
aircraft.\131\
In 2007, FAA changed the definition of light-sport aircraft to
include aircraft intended for operation on water with fixed or
retractable landing gear.\132\ That change eliminated the need for
exemptions. However, FAA did not update the applicable regulations to
require training. That meant FAA no longer required training as a
condition of exercising light-sport privileges in aircraft intended for
operation on water with retractable landing gear.
Since then, sport pilots have been operating aircraft intended for
operation on water with retractable landing gear without applicable
training. FAA recognizes the need to mitigate the risk associated with
the potential mishandling of retractable landing gear on an aircraft
intended for operation on water, which has contributed to accidents in
these aircraft.\133\ As a result, FAA proposed Sec. 61.316(b) to
require sport pilots to complete training and obtain an endorsement to
operate aircraft intended for operation on water with retractable
landing gear. In addition, removing the weight limit on the types of
aircraft sport pilots may operate will expand the variety of aircraft
eligible for sport pilot operations. FAA anticipates this will include
additional aircraft intended for operation on water with retractable
landing gear, including amphibious seaplanes. FAA includes the training
and endorsement requirements in this final rule to mitigate the
demonstrated risk under current rules, as well as the risk associated
with expanding the variety of aircraft intended for operation on water
now available to sport pilots.
To correct the drafting errors and effectuate FAA's original intent
in the NPRM, the final rule makes clear that sport pilot certificate
holders must complete training and obtain an endorsement to operate
aircraft intended for operation on water with retractable landing gear.
The rule, as adopted, includes several changes to Sec. 61.316 to
resolve these problems. First, FAA removed proposed Sec. 61.316(a)(10)
so that it no longer creates a conflict with Sec. 61.316(b),
implementing FAA's original intent in the NPRM. Second, FAA removed the
reference to aircraft intended for operation on water from the language
in proposed Sec. 61.316(a)(11) and re-numbered that paragraph to Sec.
61.316(a)(8) so the provision applies to operation on water or
land.\134\ Third, FAA replaced the term ``airplane'' in proposed Sec.
61.316(b) with ``aircraft'' so that the adopted version now applies to
all aircraft with retractable landing gear. FAA makes this change in
response to a comment (summarized in subsequent paragraphs) and to take
into account that aircraft intended for operation on water with
retractable landing gear include other categories of aircraft. This
also resolves the conflict between Sec. Sec. 61.315(c)(20)(i) and
61.316(b). See section IV.H.1.k. for additional discussion of the
change from ``airplane'' to ``aircraft'' in Sec. 61.316(b). Together,
these changes provide that aircraft intended for operation on water
with retractable landing gear now fall within Sec. 61.316(b), which
includes the requirements for training and an endorsement.
Finally, FAA recognizes that sport pilots have been operating
aircraft intended for operation on water with retractable landing gear
since 2007 without training or an endorsement. In addition, some sport
pilots operated these aircraft with training under exemptions between
2004 and 2007. Requiring sport pilots who have already been operating
these aircraft to undergo training and obtain an endorsement would
likely create an unnecessary burden. In some cases, the pilots may have
been operating these aircraft for the past 20 years. In addition, many
of the aircraft intended for operation on water with retractable
landing gear are too heavy to have been operated as light-sport
aircraft under FAA's previous rules. Accordingly, those pilots would
have been required to hold private pilot licenses to operate them,
which would have included a complex endorsement under Sec. 61.31(e).
To ease the burden on this population, the requirement for training and
endorsement does not apply to pilots with experience operating aircraft
intended for operation on water with

[[Page 35113]]

retractable landing gear prior to October 22, 2025 as specified in
Sec. 61.331(c).
FAA received approximately 29 comments specific to permitting the
use of aircraft with an adjustable pitch propeller and retractable
landing gear. Most of these commenters, including Van's Aircraft,
AutoGyro Certification LTD, Hartzell Propeller, and GFTA, supported
these expanded privileges. Commenters generally stated these design
characteristics would constitute a safety enhancement through
improvements in climb and cruise performance.
GFTA noted concerns with manually adjusted propellers as leading to
misconfigured propellers and maintenance errors. Similarly, one
commenter stated mechanical failures and pilot errors make retractable
gear inherently more dangerous than fixed gear. FAA finds these safety
concerns are mitigated through the retention of additional training and
an endorsement validating proficiency by a qualified flight instructor.
This training and validation of proficiency through an endorsement
seeks to enable operations, while ensuring pilots are sufficiently
trained on the risks of operations with adjustable pitch propellers and
retractable landing gear and capable of taking corrective action with
respect to these systems as necessary. FAA notes there are no
prescriptive training hour requirements to retain flexibility and
deference to an authorized instructor's expertise in determining when a
person is sufficiently proficient in the aircraft operation, further
reducing any barrier due to an overly prescriptive burden.
FAA received several comments about other operational privileges
necessitating additional training and an endorsement. NAFI and some
individual commenters recommended FAA create a table to clarify what a
pilot must accomplish to obtain an endorsement to fly airplanes with
controllable pitch propellers and retractable landing gear and
requested clarification as to whether high-performance and complex
endorsements are available and applicable to a sport pilot. Pilots must
obtain training and an instructor endorsement under Sec. 61.31 to
operate complex or high-performance airplanes, which is equally
applicable to sport pilots. FAA finds the revisions previously
discussed more clearly communicate training and endorsement
requirements for adjustable pitch propellers and retractable landing
gear and align with the current training and endorsement framework in
part 61, rendering a table unnecessary at this time.
LAMA and USUA suggested modifying Sec. 61.331(b) and substituting
the word ``airplane'' with ``aircraft'' with respect to the use of
manual controllable pitch propellers. USUA further stated a few modern
gyroplanes have them and there may be a few newer weight-shift-control
trikes that have controllable pitch propellers as well.
FAA is only expanding the use of manual controllable pitch
propeller for airplanes because the intent is to only increase the
scope of the airplane and its capabilities to be similar to what FAA
currently requires in Sec. 61.31 for pilots seeking to act as pilot-
in-command of a complex airplane or a high-performance airplane in
which additional training and an endorsement are received.
One commenter opined the proposal permits multiengine and
retractable landing gear privileges and suggested providing
clarification regarding the use of logbook endorsements to permit sport
pilots to operate multiengine and retractable landing gear aircraft. A
sport pilot cannot obtain multiengine privileges in the current, nor in
the proposed or adopted, framework. Sections 61.311 and 61.313 only set
forth flight proficiency and aeronautical experience requirements for
single-engine land or sea privileges for the airplane category. FAA did
not propose a sport pilot airplane multiengine privilege and maintains
the status quo that a person seeking to operate a multiengine airplane
will need to obtain a private pilot certificate or higher with an
airplane multiengine rating.
One commenter recommended FAA expand sport pilot certificate
endorsements under the driver's license medical requirement, including
endorsements for retractable gear and adjustable pitch propeller use.
In response, FAA notes that retractable landing gear and manual
propeller pitch control privileges will be permitted by additional
training and obtaining instructor endorsement requirements, not by the
individual's medical eligibility. FAA does not find additional medical
qualification requirements necessary for these endorsements.
One commenter stated possession of a private pilot certificate and
a complex endorsement should permit a pilot to operate a constant speed
propeller with no additional training. In addition, the commenter
suggested allowing sport pilots to operate complex airplanes by
satisfying the additional training and endorsement requirements in
Sec. 61.31(e). The commenter stated constant speed propellers and
retractable landing gear are not difficult to manage, especially for
aircraft that do not incorporate a propeller control, and an
appropriately trained and endorsed sport pilot should be permitted to
operate a complex aircraft. Relatedly, several commenters recommended a
higher grade of pilot certificate, the appropriate experience, and
complex airplane endorsements to be permitted to operate aircraft with
an adjustable pitch propeller or retractable landing gear without
additional training and endorsements.
FAA maintains the safety continuum concept supports the need for
sport pilots to obtain additional training and endorsement to operate
airplanes with a manual controllable pitch propeller or retractable
landing gear because sport pilots without this additional training can
misuse these systems. The potential mismanagement of retractable
landing gear leads to additional risk of accidents. Similarly,
mismanagement of a manual controllable pitch propeller can
inadvertently damage an engine. As discussed in the NPRM, FAA finds
that requiring training in the operation of an airplane with a manual
controllable pitch propeller or an aircraft with retractable landing
gear would allow the sport pilot to become proficient with the use of
these specific designs and capabilities before acting as PIC in the
aircraft. This training and endorsement mitigates the additional risk.
As discussed in the NPRM, FAA noted manual controllable pitch
propellers and retractable landing gear are features of complex
airplanes as defined in Sec. 61.1.\135\ Pilots seeking to operate
complex airplanes are required to obtain training and an endorsement
under Sec. 61.31(e). The commenter is correct that pilots who already
hold a complex endorsement in accordance with Sec. 61.31(e) are
currently not, and will not be, required to obtain training and an
endorsement to operate airplanes with manual controllable pitch
propellers or retractable landing gear because the training to receive
a complex endorsement provides the necessary knowledge and skills to
operate aircraft with those systems. In addition, a sport pilot may
receive training and an endorsement from an authorized instructor in
accordance with that section to operate a complex airplane. Since
training in complex airplanes includes instruction on the use of manual
controllable pitch propellers and retractable landing gear, FAA
proposed, and adopts herein, Sec. 61.331(a)(1) and (b)(1), relieving a
pilot with a complex airplane endorsement from the requirement to
obtain an additional endorsement under Sec. 61.331 when seeking to
operate an airplane with manual controllable pitch

[[Page 35114]]

propellers or retractable landing gear. In addition, as stated in the
NPRM,\136\ if the person has experience in an airplane with manual
controllable pitch propellers or aircraft with retractable landing gear
but does not have a complex endorsement to meet Sec. 61.331(a)(1) or
(b)(1), FAA will accept previous flight experience acquired in an
airplane with a controllable pitch propeller or an aircraft with a
retractable landing gear obtained before or after this final rule
publishes. The pilot time must be properly documented in the pilot's
logbook or flight record and otherwise satisfies the experience
requirements provided in Sec. 61.331. However, the requirement to
obtain a flight instructor endorsement validating proficiency is still
applicable to account for any possible passage of time since the
previous flight experience.
Some commenters raised concerns that permitting controllable pitch
propellers and retractable landing gear may cause insurance premiums to
increase. FAA cannot speculate nor does FAA regulate based on insurance
company response.
Some commenters opposed expanding sport pilot privileges to
operating airplanes with a retractable landing gear, except for gliders
or for aircraft that can take off and land both on land and in water
(sometimes colloquially referred to as amphibious aircraft), for
various reasons. One commenter suggested FAA not expand sport pilot
privileges to variable pitch propellers, unless it is a single-lever
power control with no independent pilot control of pitch, but did not
provide differentiation for consideration as to the handling
characteristics.
As discussed, commenters are correct that this final rule permits
sport pilots to operate all propellers (automated and manual) but
requires pilots of airplanes with manual controllable pitch propellers
and aircraft with a retractable landing gear to receive additional
training and an instructor qualifying endorsement. FAA notes the final
rule is not reducing the minimum flight experience requirements for a
sport pilot certificate and will require the training and proficiency
validating endorsement to facilitate the expansion of privileges in a
safe manner. FAAs notes the expansion of operational privileges to
aircraft with a retractable landing gear and a controllable pitch
propeller after obtaining additional training and a qualifying flight
instructor endorsement is not novel. Since 2007, FAA has permitted
sport pilots to operate seaplanes or gliders with a retractable landing
gear and finds this privilege can extend to all category and class
privileges available to sport pilots with additional training for the
reasons explained in the NPRM and herein.\137\
Relatedly, two commenters stated it is illogical to require a
controllable pitch propeller endorsement for a fixed-pitch propeller
aircraft if that aircraft has previously equipped with a controllable
pitch propeller. FAA explains the training and qualifying flight
instructor endorsement required to operate an airplane with an
adjustable pitch propeller is only applicable if the existing
configuration of the aircraft a sport pilot intends to operate has an
adjustable pitch propeller.
2. Model-Specific Endorsement for Aircraft Certificated With a
Simplified Flight Controls Designation (Sec. Sec. 61.9, 61.31, 61.415,
and 61.429)
FAA proposed to establish (and adopts in this final rule) a
simplified flight controls designation in Sec. 22.180 (i.e., aircraft
without primary flight controls available to the pilot). Because FAA
does not currently have a regulatory mechanism to facilitate training
and a proficiency validation, and FAA anticipates varying simplified
flight controls designs from aircraft to aircraft,\138\ the NPRM
proposed to require all pilots operating aircraft designed and
certificated with simplified flight controls to obtain make and model
specific training and an instructor endorsement validating competency
in that unique design. In addition, FAA proposed that applicants
seeking an initial category and class rating or privilege in an
aircraft with simplified flight controls must successfully pass a
practical test. FAA received comments on this framework, as discussed
in the following section, but adopts the framework as proposed and
explained herein.
Therefore, new Sec. 61.31(l) will contain the qualification
requirements for persons seeking to act as PIC of an aircraft with a
simplified flight controls designation. Specifically, a pilot will be
required to obtain model-specific training in paragraph (l)(1) and a
logbook endorsement from an authorized instructor in (l)(2)). FAA notes
there are no prescriptive training hour requirements to retain
flexibility and deference to an authorized instructor's expertise in
determining when a person is sufficiently proficient in the aircraft
operation, further reducing any barrier due to an overly prescriptive
burden.
The authorized instructor may be a subpart H instructor or a
subpart K sport pilot instructor but, regardless of the instructor's
qualifications, the instructor will be required to first receive the
model-specific training and the accompanying endorsement to validate
that the instructor is proficient in the operation of the aircraft.
This final rule will add new Sec. 61.415(m) to expressly limit a
subpart K sport pilot instructor from providing training in an aircraft
with simplified flight controls designation unless the sport pilot
instructor has received the model-specific training and endorsement
required under proposed Sec. 61.31(l) from an authorized instructor.
Similarly, the addition of Sec. 61.429(d) will expressly limit a
subpart K instructor seeking to exercise the privileges of their flight
instructor certificate in a model-specific aircraft that has a
simplified flight controls designation from providing training in an
aircraft with simplified flight controls designation unless the person
has received the training and endorsement requirements specified in
proposed Sec. 61.31(l).
As discussed in the NPRM, FAA recognized that because this is a new
training requirement, no pilot will have received the training or
endorsement necessary to act as PIC. FAA expects the first cadre of
instructors will be qualified by instructor pilots employed by
manufacturers of aircraft with simplified flight controls, and the
availability of authorized instructors will expand accordingly. FAA did
not receive any feedback expressing concern with the availability of
instructors during the comment period and maintains this framework will
not create an access barrier for pilots or prospective pilots. New
Sec. 61.195(n) (which was proposed as paragraph (m)) will permit
instructor pilots who are employed or used by a manufacturer of
aircraft with the simplified flight controls designation to provide
training and endorsements to the initial cadre of authorized
instructors and pilot examiners.\139\ FAA notes that only subpart H
instructors with the appropriate category and class will be permitted
to receive training from these manufacturer instructor pilots to
establish the initial cadre of Sec. 61.31(l) authorized instructors
(i.e., other subpart H instructors and subpart K flight instructors).
The training requirements largely mirror those set forth in Sec.
61.31(l): have received and logged model specific training in that
aircraft from an instructor pilot for the manufacturer of the aircraft
and receive an endorsement validating proficiency. In sum, the
manufacturer instructor pilots may train subpart H flight instructors
(Sec. 61.195(n)); subpart H flight instructors may train other

[[Page 35115]]

subpart H flight instructors and subpart K flight instructors (Sec.
61.415(n)); and subpart K flight instructors can train other subpart K
flight instructors, sport pilots, and sport pilot applicants (Sec.
61.31(l)).
Aeronautical experience obtained in an aircraft with simplified
flight controls is not equal to the aeronautical experience obtained in
aircraft with conventional controls.\140\ For example, a person seeking
a commercial pilot certificate with a rotorcraft category helicopter
class rating should not be able to use pilot time acquired in a
helicopter with simplified flight control designation to meet the PIC
flight time experience requirement in Sec. 61.129(c)(2)(i), which
requires 35 hours of PIC flight time in a helicopter due to the
differing operational characteristics between the flight controls. To
restrict the possibility and safety risk of a pilot building time in a
more simplistic aircraft with simplified flight controls and then
seeking a higher certificate or rating in an aircraft with conventional
flight controls, FAA proposed, and this final rule adopts, new Sec.
61.9. FAA finds this safety mitigation necessary to account for the
vast differences in the handling characteristics of the designs and
breadth of aircraft generally available to a pilot after receiving a
class rating.
Therefore, pilot time acquired while operating an airplane or
helicopter with a simplified flight controls designation will not be
permitted to satisfy certain time for a private, commercial, or airline
transport pilot, except for private pilot applicants who present an
aircraft with the simplified flight controls designation to conduct the
practical test. This exception will not be permitted at higher-grade
certificates because higher-grade pilot certificates require greater
aeronautical knowledge, skills, experience, and afford greater
operational privileges, which include carrying passengers for
compensation or hire, higher on the safety continuum (i.e.,
necessitating greater risk mitigation). Experience gained by piloting
an aircraft with simplified flight controls is not equal to the
experience necessary for traditional control operations due to the
reliance on significant automation. After FAA obtains more experience
and data concerning the use of these aircraft with simplified flight
controls, FAA may consider additional pilot time credit for experience
in aircraft with simplified flight controls in future rulemaking.
ALPA and Reliable Robotics Corporation generally supported FAA's
proposal to require training and endorsements for pilots and flight
instructors seeking to act as PIC of aircraft certificated with a
simplified flight controls designation. ALPA also supported
requirements for standardized training programs that issue type ratings
or category and class ratings upon successful completion of a training
course largely comprised of flying the actual aircraft in the NAS and
practical tests ensuring competence by the Airman Certification
Standards (ACS); however, ALPA expressed concern that performance-based
standards for pilot qualifications will increase risk and reduce
safety, including related to human factors. ALPA suggested that minimum
hourly training requirements, instructor endorsements on pilot
proficiency, and the pilot demonstration of competency will create a
safe, competent, and proficient system. ALPA also suggested that
requiring only a logbook endorsement for authorizations is insufficient
and puts responsibility on instructors instead of FAA.
FAA acknowledges ALPA's concerns but asserts the principles of its
suggestions are already present in the mandatory training,
certification, and instructor endorsement regulatory framework and is
not persuaded to change the use of endorsements by authorized
instructors as a proficiency validation. First, the pilot will already
hold a pilot certificate with the appropriate category and class
ratings, validating the aircraft category and class fundamental and
foundational level of knowledge, skill and proficiency when they
successfully complete a practical test in accordance with the
applicable ACS or PTS. In the case of someone seeking an initial
certificate with a new category and class rating in an aircraft with
simplified flight controls, the person will be required, similarly, to
successfully complete a practical test in accordance with the
applicable ACS or PTS, which is discussed in section IV.H.2 of this
preamble. Authorized instructors are trained and qualified to evaluate
pilots and validate proficiency for privileges that are within that
category and class of aircraft. Flight instructors have a long history
of ensuring pilot competency when providing flight training,
recommendations for testing, and validating pilot proficiency for
various aircraft authorizations that fall within the associated
category and class ratings.\141\
Pivotal.aero recommended requiring a simplified flight controls
system-specific endorsement, based on the design of the simplified
flight controls system, rather than based on the make and model of the
aircraft. Pivotal.aero stated this alternate endorsement requirement
would allow a manufacturer or a consensus standard to define a version
of a simplified flight controls system, permitting system-specific
endorsements to apply to multiple makes and models.
FAA disagrees with a simplified flight controls ``system specific''
endorsement because the aircraft manufacturing industry has not yet
produced a standardized simplified flight controls system design
recognized or accepted by FAA; therefore, FAA has little data to
evaluate such a flight training efficiency that may present a safety
risk or otherwise validate that a system performs identically in each
aircraft. Specifically, standardized simplified flight controls may
have unique operating characteristics for each make and model of
aircraft; in other words, the same system may be installed on two
aircraft, but the drastically differing operating and handling
characteristics of the two aircraft may inherently modify the system
once installed, necessitating additional training. Until simplified
flight controls standardization has come to maturity and meets a
recognized standard for aircraft certification, FAA maintains that it
is necessary to utilize a specific make and model training and
instructor endorsement qualification to ensure a pilot is competent and
proficient with the use of each make and model aircraft with a
simplified flight control system.
USUA contended the proposed simplified flight controls training and
endorsement is overly prescriptive, stating some aircraft equipped with
certain simplified flight controls may not need specific training with
an authorized instructor endorsement. USUA stated the proposal makes it
more difficult for pilots and potential pilots to access qualified
flight instructors using aircraft equipped with simplified flight
controls and takes the failed approach of the original 2004 rule that
mandated make and model endorsements for each model of light sport
aircraft that a sport pilot wanted to fly. USUA recommended creating an
``aircraft with Simplified Controls'' rating and the manufacturer would
stipulate whether the aircraft needs specific make-model training.\142\
Safari Helicopter also opposed a simplified flight controls
designation and the associated training requirements, specifically for
helicopters sport pilots can operate, and asserted that helicopters
with conventional controls are easy to operate and understand. Safari
Helicopter stated, if FAA's proposal is to encourage fly-by-wire
systems in

[[Page 35116]]

helicopters, this proposal will add a layer of complexity rather than
simplifying. It further explained that pilots acclimated to operating
helicopters that can ``almost'' fly themselves will become reliant on
simplified flight controls systems. Many of Safari Helicopter's other
comments were not specific to simplified flight controls and instead
discussed the use of traditional flight controls, drones, financial
concerns, and flight training considerations.
FAA notes the novelty of aircraft with simplified flight controls
and general lack of data and empirical evidence to substantiate
widespread operational necessity. Consequently, this rulemaking intends
to take a measured approach to integrating these aircraft into the NAS.
While conservative in requiring defined training and instructor
endorsements for each aircraft make and model, this is a first step of
integration as it pertains to pilot training and certification. Until
there is clear, safety-based operational data for simplified flight
controls evidencing opportunity for relaxed standards in the NAS, FAA
finds the make and model specific endorsement approach will
satisfactorily ensure the pilot is proficient in the operation of each
unique simplified flight controls system installed in a given make and
model of aircraft. Helicopters with conventional flight controls are
significantly more demanding than operating those with simplified
flight controls. For example, a pilot must provide continuous flight
control inputs using the cyclic stick, collective lever, and antitorque
pedals to maintain control and stability compared to the operation of a
helicopter with simplified flight controls. This preamble further
discusses simplified flight controls considerations specific to
helicopters in section IV.H.2.
USUA is correct that the 2004 rulemaking did prescribe a make and
model endorsement requirement for aircraft that a sport pilot can
operate; FAA removed that requirement in 2010 after industry and
aircraft further developed, leading to recognition of design and
operation similarity of each category and class aircraft.\143\ However,
since simplified flight control systems do not have a standard design,
which may vary from one category and class to another, FAA determined
that make and model specific training and instructor endorsements are
necessary to validate pilot proficiency to ensure safe flight
operations. This rulemaking does not foreclose FAA from similar
standardization and streamlining to account for operational
similarities at a later time, much like the 2010 rule, once industry
and FAA garner more information and data available on simplified flight
controls.
Further, this final rule does not implement a simplified flight
controls ``rating.'' The training and endorsement model aligns with
other specialty characteristics of aircraft already integrated within
part 61; for example, operation of a high-performance airplane and a
complex airplane both require training and an endorsement.\144\ FAA
finds no compelling reason at this time to introduce further complexity
in treating aircraft designed and designated with simplified flight
controls differently from the framework already integrated into Sec.
61.31 by creating a brand new rating that was not proposed in the NPRM.
Finally, this final rule is not necessarily intended to encourage
use of fly-by-wire systems; this rulemaking is intended to leverage
training and an instructor endorsement to integrate aircraft (including
helicopters) that have a simplified flight controls system design that
allows the use of a simple to operate flight control system, compared
to conventional flight controls, into the NAS. In response to Safari
Helicopter's concern that pilots will become reliant on simplified
flight controls, this concern is the reason training and an instructor
endorsement will be required for each make and model aircraft to
validate proficiency. In addition, as discussed in section IV.H.4 of
this preamble, if a pilot seeks to operate an aircraft with
conventional flight controls, that person will be required to
accomplish a practical test in that category and class of aircraft
equipped with conventional flight controls.\145\
AUVSI commented on the inapplicability of simplified flight
controls aircraft experience credit beyond the private pilot
certificate level under new Sec. 61.9. AUVSI stated training in
aircraft with significant supporting autonomy may not be applicable to
ratings in aircraft with conventional flight controls but questioned
the general private pilot credit limitation. AUVSI suggested systems
thinking, airspace integration, decision-making, and other relevant
experience should continue to accumulate past the private pilot level
in both aircraft with simplified flight controls, and in aircraft with
conventional controls, or both.
Reliable Robotics also recommended FAA continue collaboration with
stakeholders on competency-based training programs to identify pathways
for applying credit hours when operating aircraft with simplified
flight controls under part 61 requirements for higher-grade pilot
certificates. FAA will continue to collaborate with stakeholders
concerning training, credit, and use of aircraft with simplified flight
controls as industry develops these aircraft.
AIR VEV supported FAA's proposal to limit credit toward the
operational experience requirements for higher grades of pilot
certificates, citing the reduced level of pilot input for direct
aircraft trajectory control. However, AIR VEV recommended amending the
language under Sec. 61.9 to expand the limitation applicability to all
aircraft, rather than only airplanes and helicopters, and further
specifying the systems as ``highly automated.''
FAA contends the rule text, as proposed and now adopted,
appropriately limits simplified flight controls pilot time experience
credit to account for the anticipated differences in knowledge and
skills required to operate aircraft with simplified flight control
designs. The unique character of each make and model is expected to
result in significant differences in pilot skills required for their
operation. Consequently, PIC flight time gained in an aircraft with
simplified flight controls is inapplicable for use in satisfying
aeronautical experience requirements from higher grades of pilot
certificates with traditional flight controls. This mitigation is
necessary because PIC experience gained in an aircraft with simplified
flight controls may not provide the equivalent knowledge and skills
expected for those higher grades of certificates.
In addition, FAA intentionally limited the application of Sec.
61.9 in the NPRM by using the terms ``airplanes and helicopters''
instead of ``aircraft.'' This is because FAA does not have sufficient
information on which to base a decision on how aeronautical experience
in other categories of aircraft with simplified flight controls would
apply to aircraft with conventional flight controls. Accordingly, at
this time, it is not appropriate to expand Sec. 61.9 to apply to
aircraft other than airplanes and helicopters. Therefore, FAA will
retain specific references to airplane and helicopter categories in the
Sec. 61.9 final rule text. The recommendation to revise Sec. 61.9 to
refer to ``highly automated'' systems is also unnecessary, as this
automation is already inherent in the simplified flight controls
designation.
3. Conducting Practical Tests in an Aircraft Certificated With a
Simplified Flight Controls Designation (Sec. 61.45)
As previously noted, in some instances, a pilot may only need to

[[Page 35117]]

complete training and the endorsement to operate an aircraft with
simplified flight controls and, in other instances, a pilot may need to
complete a practical test. FAA proposed Sec. 61.45(h) to set forth the
general framework to determine which proficiency event is required,
which is adopted in this final rule. Under Sec. 61.45(h)(1), if a
person has a category and class rating or privilege with a simplified
flight controls limitation and seeks to operate another make and model
of aircraft with a simplified flight controls designation in the same
category and class, the person will be required to receive training and
an endorsement in accordance with Sec. 61.31(l). As discussed in the
NPRM,\146\ FAA maintains that training and an endorsement is sufficient
due to the similarities within category and classes of aircraft. Under
Sec. 61.45(h)(2), if a person has a category and class rating or
privilege with a make and model simplified flight controls limitation
and seeks to operate either (1) a different category and class of
aircraft with a simplified flight controls designation as an initial
applicant for that category and class rating \147\ or (2) any aircraft
without a simplified flight controls designation, the person will be
required to successfully complete a practical test for that category
and class of aircraft, except as provided in Sec. 61.321(a), as
subsequently discussed in section IV.H.6. FAA maintains the design and
handling characteristics between different categories and classes and
between simplified flight controls and conventional controls, and
considering the operational profile for higher grades of certificates
than sport pilots, is significant enough to warrant a practical test to
ensure pilot proficiency. FAA proposed additions in Sec. 61.45 via new
paragraph (g) to address the wide variance of simplified flight control
designs and characteristics and ensure the safety of pilots and
examiners in these novel aircraft. The additional mitigations in
paragraph (g) are adopted in this final rule. Specifically, paragraphs
(g)(1), (2), and (3) will require the examiner to: agree to conduct the
test; hold the appropriate simplified flight controls model-specific
aircraft endorsement and an appropriate FAA designation to conduct the
test; and be able to assume control of the aircraft at any time.\148\
After successfully completing the practical test, the pilot will
receive a simplified flight controls make and model limitation under
new Sec. 61.45(g)(4) and (h).
In those circumstances where a pilot must take a practical test,
FAA recognized in the NPRM that certain aircraft may be incapable of
accomplishing all the tasks required during the conduct of a practical
test. Traditionally, Sec. 61.45(b)(2) accounts for these operational
limitations by permitting an applicant to use the aircraft with the
operating limitations for the practical test by issuing the person's
pilot certificate with corresponding limitations. This final rule does
not make changes to Sec. 61.45(b)(2).
In the NPRM, FAA stated it would develop guidance to address
aircraft that are not capable of performing all the required tasks in
the ACS. In lieu of developing guidance, FAA made changes to paragraph
(g) to address this issue. Therefore, Sec. 61.45(b)(2) and (g) serve a
similar purpose: limiting the pilot from operating aircraft that may be
able to perform tasks and maneuvers that the pilot has not received
training or satisfactorily demonstrated during a practical test or
proficiency check. FAA proposed paragraph (g) to address the
limitations related to aircraft with simplified flight controls. Anyone
who uses an aircraft with a simplified flight controls designation for
a practical test or proficiency check, irrespective of whether they
hold a higher-level pilot certificate, may only operate the specific
simplified flight control make and model used for the test. Pilots who
hold a higher certificate will receive a make-and model-specific
limitation on the person's pilot certificate under new Sec.
61.45(g)(4)(i). Sport pilots will receive a logbook endorsement
specific to that make and model aircraft under new Sec.
61.45(g)(4)(ii). As a result of the make and model limitation, it is no
longer necessary for FAA to develop guidance for aircraft that are not
capable of performing all required tasks in the ACS.
Subpart H flight instructors fill a critical role in the NAS
because they train pilots toward higher grades of pilot certificates,
including commercial and airline transport pilot certificates, and the
pilots they train may go on to serve in passenger-carrying operations
for compensation. When reviewing proposed Sec. 61.195 pertaining to
the limitations for flight instructor applicants who accomplish a
practical test in an aircraft with simplified flight controls, FAA
recognized the need to ensure a flight instructor is thoroughly
qualified to provide effective flight instruction in a conventional
aircraft prior to instructing in a simplified flight controls aircraft.
Therefore, FAA is amending Sec. 61.195(m) to require flight
instructors (subpart H) take their initial flight instructor practical
test in an aircraft with conventional controls and then may instruct in
an aircraft with simplified flight controls if the instructor has the
make and model endorsement in accordance with Sec. 61.31(l).
Conversely, subpart K flight instructors with a sport pilot rating
may only provide training towards a sport pilot certificate. For
example, an applicant seeking a subpart K flight instructor certificate
with a sport pilot rating with rotorcraft-helicopter privileges may
accomplish a practical test for an initial flight instructor
certificate in a simplified flight controls aircraft, as that is the
only helicopter privilege for sport pilots. That pilot will receive a
make and model endorsement in their logbook for their flight instructor
certificate.\149\
GAMA suggested the new Sec. 61.45(g)(2) is more restrictive than
what is currently required for practical tests and not aligned with FAA
policy addressing practical tests in single-control or single-place
aircraft. GAMA recommended FAA allow a Designated Pilot Examiner (DPE)
to make the decision on whether they are willing to conduct a practical
test in an aircraft with simplified flight controls without the
specific training and make and model endorsement. GAMA justified this
recommendation based on the allowance provided in Sec. 61.45(e)(1) and
(2) concerning a single control or single seat aircraft. GAMA further
opined that it seems contradictory to require the most experienced
instructor pilots to obtain the training and endorsement specific to
aircraft with simplified flight controls but not allow the least
experienced pilots to apply aeronautical experience obtained in an
aircraft with simplified flight controls toward a higher grade of pilot
certificate.
Operations conducted in single control or single seat aircraft are
not an appropriate comparison to and fail to take into consideration
the unique operation of aircraft with simplified flight controls. The
requirement in Sec. 61.45(g)(2), which will require the examiner to
hold the appropriate category and class rating (or privilege), the
simplified flight controls model-specific aircraft endorsement, and an
appropriate FAA designation, aligns with the expectation that examiners
must be appropriately rated and qualified to conduct practical tests to
determine applicant proficiency on a practical test. Conversely, a
single control or single seat aircraft renders an examiner largely
unable to access controls during a practical test, which is a different
safety consideration than a practical test with simplified flight

[[Page 35118]]

controls. As described in the NPRM, manufacturers do not have
standardized design standards for simplified flight controls that might
be installed in their aircraft. Consequently, it is critical to require
make and model specific training for both flight instructors and
examiners operating aircraft with simplified flight controls, as unique
knowledge and skills are necessary to operate each specific make and
model of aircraft with simplified flight controls and to avoid the risk
of improper procedures associated with training and testing, possibly
resulting in accidents.
In response to GAMA's discussion about training and experience
requirements, FAA disagrees that it is contradictory to require
experienced instructor pilots to obtain make and model specific
training and endorsements in aircraft with simplified flight controls,
or to deny less experienced pilots to use aeronautical experience
obtained in an aircraft with simplified flight controls towards higher
grades of pilot certificate. Experience acquired in an aircraft with
simplified flight controls is not equivalent to the experience
requirements obtained in an aircraft with conventional controls when
seeking private, commercial, or airline transport pilot certificate
ratings and privileges, as previously discussed.
USUA suggested there is a shortage of sport pilot examiners and
mandating model-specific endorsements would be too prescriptive,
unnecessary, and would discourage student pilots from seeking to
accomplish a practical test in aircraft with simplified flight
controls. USUA recommended FAA remove the requirement for simplified
flight controls model-specific aircraft endorsement from Sec.
61.45(g)(2) and only require a category and class rating or privileges
(and an appropriate FAA designation to conduct the test). FAA
understands the concerns about initial availability of simplified
flight control pilot examiners; however, existing flight examiners with
the appropriate category and class privilege can obtain the additional
simplified flight controls training and endorsement to otherwise
qualify to conduct a practical test in an aircraft equipped with
simplified flight controls and FAA does not find this safety mitigation
(i.e., ensuring examiners are sufficiently familiar with the controls
system such that they can evaluate proficiency or intervene in an
emergency) to overcome concerns of designee availability.
ALPA supported the Sec. 61.45(b)(2) completion of a practical test
in an aircraft with simplified flight controls resulting in a make and
model limitation. However, ALPA opposed utilizing a single set of
flight controls in aircraft used for flight training or testing,
suggesting a single set of controls would prevent the instructor from
immediately intervening in flight, leading to a possible unsafe flight
condition. As a condition to facilitating use of a simplified flight
controls model-specific aircraft test, Sec. 61.45(g)(3) requires an
examiner must be able to assume control of the aircraft at any time,
which functions to mitigate risk associated with the conduct of a
practical test in an aircraft with simplified flight controls. This
rulemaking did not propose changes to the existing Sec. 61.45(e)
allowance for a practical test to be conducted in an aircraft having a
single set of controls, which gives an examiner discretion to conduct a
test in an aircraft with a single set of controls. This examiner
discretion would extend to practical tests in an aircraft with
simplified flight control designations.
FAA provided a table of various training and qualification
scenarios in the NPRM \150\; however, since that time, FAA has
assembled a number of additional scenarios to serve as instructional.
The comprehensive table, Airmen Certification Simplified Flight
Controls Requirements, is in the docket for this final rule.
4. New Rotorcraft-Helicopter Privilege for Sport Pilots and Sport Pilot
Instructors
Currently, sport pilots and flight instructors with a sport pilot
rating are restricted from obtaining rotorcraft-helicopter (helicopter)
privileges because the light sport aircraft definition excludes
helicopters in Sec. 1.1. As discussed in the NPRM in the pilot section
and the discussion of proposed Sec. 22.180,\151\ FAA proposed to
facilitate simple-to-fly helicopter designs as light sport category
aircraft and, correspondingly, a new helicopter privilege for sport
pilots to fly those helicopters that have been certificated with a
simplified flight controls designation during aircraft certification.
FAA received a number of comments on the proposed expansion of
privileges to helicopter operations,\152\ but adopts the proposed
framework without substantive revisions, as explained herein. In sum,
this final rule adopts revisions to several standing regulations,
first, to expand sport pilot privileges to helicopters certificated
with a simplified flight controls designation (Sec. Sec. 61.311,
61.313, and 61.316) and, second, to facilitate sport pilot instructors
to obtain or add helicopter privileges to their instructor privileges
(Sec. Sec. 61.409 and 61.411).
First, Sec. 61.316(a)(6) will limit sport pilots to operate only
helicopters certificated with a simplified flight controls designation,
keeping with the intent of the 2004 final rule and this rulemaking's
objective to facilitate the operation of simple-to-fly aircraft. FAA
notes this was proposed as Sec. 61.316(a)(8) (inadvertently referred
to in the preamble as paragraph (a)(9)) and is adopted as paragraph
(a)(6) due to the removal of proposed paragraphs (a)(4) and (5). In
turn, this final rule adds ``helicopter'' in the list of aircraft in
the introductory text of Sec. 61.311, which prescribes the flight
proficiency requirements to apply for a sport pilot certificate. To
account for helicopter-specific areas necessary to attain competency in
the aircraft operation (in addition to existing areas of operation and
tasks applicable to helicopters), this final rule modifies the listed
areas of operations within Sec. 61.311 to include ground and flight
training on heliport operations in Sec. 61.311(c) and hovering
maneuvers in Sec. 61.311(d).\153\ These areas of operation are
correspondingly reflected in the Sport Pilot Helicopter ACS.
Second, the NPRM proposed in Sec. 61.313(a)(9) that an applicant
for a sport pilot certificate who seeks to obtain a rotorcraft category
and helicopter class privilege would be required to log at least 30
hours of helicopter flight time, including at least 15 hours of flight
training, 5 hours of which must be solo flight training in the areas of
operation listed in Sec. 61.311. Proposed Sec. 61.313(a)(9)(i)
through (iv) further delineated flight training requirements (e.g.,
minimum solo training, takeoffs and landings, etc.). FAA explained in
the NPRM that these minimum experience requirements aligned with the
minimum requirements for a recreational pilot certificate for
rotorcraft category and helicopter class rating. During the pendency of
the rulemaking and while evaluating the general recreational pilot
comments (further discussed in section IV.H.8.e. of this preamble), FAA
found it necessary to specifically include cross-country training for
the sport pilot rotorcraft category and helicopter class privilege
training requirements. A certificated recreational pilot is limited to
conducting flights within a certain distance (i.e., 50 nautical miles)
\154\; therefore, the lack of cross-country training does not present a
safety risk, as there is no operational privilege correlating with the
training. However, sport pilots are not limited in cross-country
operations. As Sec. 61.313(a)(9) was proposed, an applicant could

[[Page 35119]]

receive their privilege and operate in the NAS conducting cross-country
flights without ever receiving the training. As a result, FAA finds an
amendment to Sec. 61.313(a)(9) necessary to safely facilitate cross-
country operations in a helicopter for sport pilots, and that the
intended training best corresponds with that for a rotorcraft category
and gyroplane class privilege in Sec. 61.313(a)(4). FAA emphasizes
that, while these training requirements are changed in paragraph
(a)(9)(i) through (iv), the adopted training footprint taken together
results in a de minimis revision. The revisions are set forth in the
following table:

Table 5--Revisions to Sec. 61.313(a)(9)-(iv)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Proposed dection Adopted dection Adopted training
61.313(a)(9)(i)-(iv) 61.313(a)(9)(i)-(iv) delta
------------------------------------------------------------------------
2 hours of flight training en 2 hours of cross- Flights must be
route to an airport that is country flight in accordance
located more than 25 nautical training. with cross-
miles from the airport where country
the applicant normally trains. parameters set
forth in the
Sec. 61.1
definition of
cross-country
for purposes of
a sport pilot
certificate.
3 takeoffs and landings at the 10 takeoffs and Additional 7
airport located more than 25 landings to a full landings, no
nautical miles from the stop (with each requirement for
airport where the applicant landing involving a airport
normally trains. flight in the traffic distance.
pattern) at an
airport.
3 hours of solo flying in the One solo cross-country Reduced flight
aircraft for the privilege flight of at least 50 training hourly
sought, on the areas of nautical miles total requirement,
operation listed in Sec. distance, with a full- additional
61.98 that apply to the stop landing at a cross-country
aircraft category and class minimum of two nautical mile
privilege sought. points, and one minimums and
segment of the flight take off and
consisting of a landings.
straight-line
distance of at least
25 nautical miles
between the takeoff
and landing locations.
3 hours of flight training 2 hours of flight Reduced flight
with an authorized instructor training with an training in the
on those areas of operation authorized instructor preceding 2
specified in Sec. 61.311 in on those areas of calendar months
preparation for the practical operation specified by one hour.
test within the preceding 2 in Sec. 61.311 in
calendar months from the preparation for the
month of the test. practical test within
the preceding 2
calendar months from
the month of the test.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

These experience levels are commensurate to the experience levels
required for sport pilot operational privileges for other categories
and classes of aircraft set forth in Sec. 61.313 and those operational
regimes expected for rotorcraft category and helicopter class
flights.\155\
Third, FAA is likewise adopting the proposed flight proficiency
requirements to allow sport pilot instructors to obtain or add
helicopter privileges to their flight instructor certificate with a
sport pilot rating, which will mirror those aeronautical experience
requirements for instructional privileges in an airplane for those
reasons discussed in the NPRM.\156\ Much like the revisions to the
areas of operation in Sec. 61.311 and for the same reasons, this final
rule will add helicopter specific areas of operation within Sec.
61.409 to prescribe the ground and flight training areas of operation
in Sec. 61.409(e), (f), and (q) (i.e., heliport operations, hovering
maneuvers, and special operations, all of which align with the Sport
Pilot Flight Instructor Helicopter ACS, subsequently discussed in this
preamble) and except helicopters from those inapplicable areas of
operation in Sec. 61.409(l) and (m).\157\ New Sec. 61.411(h)(1) will
require an applicant for a flight instructor certificate with a sport
pilot rating seeking a helicopter privilege (only available if that
helicopter is certificated under Sec. 21.190 and obtains the
simplified flight controls designation) to complete at least 150 hours
of flight time consisting of at least: 100 hours of flight time as PIC
in powered aircraft, 50 hours of flight time in a helicopter, 25 hours
of cross-country flight time, 10 hours of cross country flight time in
a helicopter, and 15 hours of flight time as PIC in a helicopter.
VAI recommended that FAA consider a means for inclusion of
conventional rotorcraft that can achieve the performance-based
requirements established for ``simplified control systems'' through
approved and installed advanced control augmentation systems. VAI
supported the new rotorcraft-helicopter privilege for sport pilots in
addition to the proposed privileges for new rotorcraft with designed-in
simplified control systems. VAI stated it recognized there are unique
aeronautical skills necessary to operate any aircraft, including
rotorcraft. To that end, VAI expressed concern the proposed rule unduly
prevents sport pilots from operating rotorcraft with conventional
flight controls. VAI (and one individual who cited the identical
aeronautical experience requirements) referenced recreational pilots
who can obtain a helicopter rating without simplified flight controls,
contending that sport pilots could also be trained to safely operate
light-sport category rotorcraft with conventional flight controls.
Therefore, VAI recommended FAA include training requirements in the
rule that would allow sport pilots to operate light-sport rotorcraft
with conventional flight controls.
Likewise, AOPA, EAA, NATA, NBAA supported adding helicopter
operating privileges to the sport pilot certificate but questioned
restricting sport pilots to helicopters with simplified flight controls
and aircraft holding a light-sport category special airworthiness
certificate. They stated airmen can be safely trained to operate
helicopters with conventional controls in an appropriately scaled sport
pilot curriculum. They also describe that ``simplified flight
controls'' only appear in the regulatory language in the context of
what helicopters a sport pilot may operate. AOPA, EAA, NATA, and NBAA
asserted helicopters do not merit this unique classification and
suggested training and standards can be developed for helicopters with
conventional controls, describing a history of existing curriculum and
training standards for the recreational helicopter pilot certificate
that do not require a ``simplified flight controls'' designation. They
described that the only difference is that a recreational pilot must
hold an FAA medical certificate or BasicMed, but a medical certificate
does not add any more to the operation of a helicopter than it would
for any other class of aircraft (within the operational constraints of
a sport pilot certificate). Several commenters, including Cicare USA,
LLC, Vertical Aviation Technologies, Inc., and Orlando Helicopter
Airways, Inc., also urged

[[Page 35120]]

FAA to permit sport pilots to operate helicopters with conventional
flight controls for various reasons including certification and
operational expenses for helicopters equipped with simplified flight
controls, history of conventional helicopters as simple and easy to
fly, and limited availability of conventional helicopters at flight
schools that sport pilots may operate. One commenter proposed that the
requirement for simplified flight controls for helicopters should be
removed because it is inconsistent with other categories of aircraft a
sport pilot can operate, while another expressed concern about
automated system failure. The commenter also suggested the
certification of new helicopters with simplified flight controls will
be delayed because that technology is still under development, but that
ASTM standards for certification could be applied to existing
helicopter technology development. Another commenter explained that a
requirement for stability augmentation in lieu of a simplified flight
controls requirement would be a more practical requirement for light-
sport category aircraft.
Multiple individual commenters recommended FAA reconsider the
requirement for simplified flight controls for helicopters for various
reasons ranging from availability of simplified flight control
aircraft, traditional helicopters being simpler and safer to operate,
and simplified flight controls introducing additional points of failure
with no mechanical backup. Four commenters suggested FAA should allow
sport pilots to operate four-seat helicopters with conventional flight
controls.
This final rule does not permit, nor did the NPRM propose to
permit, sport pilots to operate helicopters with conventional flight
controls; however, FAA does not find this to be an undue restriction.
As stated previously, the operation of helicopters with conventional
flight controls is significantly more demanding to operate than any
other sport pilot aircraft privilege. Conventional helicopters are more
demanding to operate, requiring more skill in hovering, transitioning
between forward flight and hovering, and navigating in confined spaces.
In addition, helicopters often operate in more challenging and confined
environments (e.g., hovering, low-altitude flight, areas with poor
infrastructure, confined area operations, slope operations, rapid
deceleration/quick stop, vortex ring state, and autorotations) and,
often, more adverse weather conditions, increasing the risk of
accidents. Thus, even with simplified flight controls, helicopters have
greater risk associated with those types of flight operations. In
addition, sport pilots with a helicopter privilege would have greater
cross-country operational privileges than recreational pilots, who are
limited to a radius of 50 nautical miles from the departure
airport.\158\ Because of the complex and operational nature of
helicopters with standard flight controls and the recognition that loss
of control is a concern with helicopter operations, FAA finds that
helicopters a sport pilot can operate must have the simplified flight
controls designation to fit in the easy-to-operate construct for sport
pilot operations. If a person wishes to operate a rotorcraft helicopter
with conventional flight controls, the person must seek a higher grade
of pilot certificate with a rotorcraft-helicopter rating that ensures
appropriate training and proficiency validation for such an operational
regime. GAMA requested FAA to clarify the rationale for requiring 30
hours of flight time for sport pilots seeking a rotorcraft-helicopter
simplified flight controls privilege. GAMA suggested the same should
apply if FAA were to consider a sport pilot powered-lift privilege.
Relatedly, one commenter recommended FAA offer the rotorcraft-
helicopter privilege for sport pilots with only a minimum of 20 hours
of experience to incentivize pilot applicants to seek a rotorcraft-
helicopter privilege at the sport pilot level.
The minimum flight time training requirements for sport pilots
seeking a helicopter privilege is similar to the recreational pilot
certificate for a helicopter rating because of the general risk
associated with helicopter operations. However, as previously
explained, FAA finds the recreational pilot certificate and sport pilot
certificate to serve different purposes and operational profiles,
therefore necessitating a varied sport pilot training regime within
those 30 hours from that for a recreational pilot certificate.
5. Sport Pilot and Sport Pilot Flight Instructor for Rotorcraft-
Helicopter; Incorporation by Reference
At the time of the MOSAIC NPRM publication, FAA was engaged in a
separate rulemaking to incorporate all ACS and PTS, which contain the
required tasks, criteria, and standards for successful completion of a
practical test and proficiency check, into parts 61, 63, and 65. In
2024, FAA adopted the ACS IBR final rule, incorporating 30 pilot and
flight instructor ACSs and PTSs in part 61 by reference through a
centralized IBR section in new Sec. 61.14; \159\ directing compliance
on the respective practical tests and proficiency checks with the
appropriate ACS and PTS in Sec. Sec. 61.43, 61.57, 61.58, 61.321, and
61.419, respectively; and adding an appendix to part 61 to set forth
which ACS or PTS applies to a certificate or rating sought, or
proficiency check.
As it pertains to sport pilots and flight instructors with a sport
pilot rating, the ACS IBR rulemaking incorporated three sport pilot
PTSs into part 61: (1) FAA-S-8081-29A, Sport Pilot and Sport Pilot
Flight Instructor Rating Practical Test Standards for Airplane
Category, Gyroplane Rotorcraft Category, and Glider Category, November
2023; (2) FAA-S-8081-30A, Sport Pilot and Sport Pilot Flight Instructor
Rating Practical Test Standards for Lighter-Than-Air Category, November
2023; and (3) FAA-S-8081-31A, Sport Pilot and Sport Pilot Flight
Instructor Rating Practical Test Standards for Powered Parachute
Category and Weight-Shift-Control Aircraft Category, November 2023.
After the publication of the ACS IBR NPRM, but before the ACS IBR
final rule adoption, the MOSAIC NPRM proposed two new PTSs for sport
pilots seeking a rotorcraft category, helicopter class privileges to
account for the expanded operational privileges proposed in the MOSAIC
NPRM: (1) FAA-S-ACS-26, Sport Pilot for Rotorcraft Category
Helicopter--Simplified Flight Controls Airman Certification Standards,
(Sport Pilot Helicopter ACS) and (2) FAA-S-ACS-31, Flight Instructor
with a Sport Pilot Rating for Rotorcraft Helicopter--Simplified Flight
Controls Privilege Airman Certification Standards, (Sport Flight
Instructor Helicopter ACS). As explained in the ACS IBR NPRM, FAA is
continuously working to convert all PTSs to ACSs in collaboration with
the Aviation Rulemaking Advisory Committee (ARAC) ACS Working Group;
therefore, FAA found it most appropriate to draft ACSs to facilitate
certification for the helicopter privileges, as the remainder of the
sport pilot PTSs will eventually be converted to ACSs. Because the ACS
IBR rulemaking had not been finalized, the MOSAIC NPRM proposed
directly incorporating by reference the two new ACSs into Sec. Sec.
61.307(b) and 61.405(b) for practical tests, while recognizing the
simultaneous ACS IBR rulemaking action and stating the rules would be
reconciled, as appropriate.
As previously stated, the ACS IBR rulemaking adopted the
centralized IBR section for all of part 61 in Sec. 61.14. Therefore,
rather than independently

[[Page 35121]]

incorporating by reference the two ACSs into Sec. Sec. 61.307 and
61.405 to tether the ACSs to the practical test, as proposed, this
final rule will add the two ACSs into Sec. 61.14 and amend appendix A
to part 61 to direct which ACS applies to the practical test for the
certificate, rating, or privilege sought, aligning the overarching part
61 IBR framework. In other words, the proposals in Sec. Sec.
61.307(b)(1) and (2) and 61.405(b)(3) and (4) will not be adopted in
this final rule because the basic framework of Sec. 61.14 and appendix
A already accounts for the general requirement to conduct a practical
test in accordance with the applicable ACS or PTS. Adding the two
rotorcraft-helicopter ACSs to those provisions in this final rule will
align with the existing framework, specifically new Sec. 61.14(b)(13)
and (17),\160\ rendering the proposals in Sec. Sec. 61.307(b)(1) and
(2) and 61.405(3) and (4) duplicative. In addition, FAA will add two
rows to the part 61, appendix A table to clearly delineate the
applicability of each ACS.
In addition, the MOSAIC NPRM proposed to retain the proficiency
check language in Sec. 61.321(b) (adopted herein as Sec. Sec.
61.321(a)(2)) and 61.419(b) that simply stated (in pertinent part) that
a person had to complete a proficiency check in accordance with the
applicable aeronautical knowledge areas in Sec. Sec. 61.311 or 61.409
for the additional category and class privileges sought. After the
publication of the MOSAIC NPRM, the ACS IBR final rule revised both
Sec. Sec. 61.321 and 61.419. Under current Sec. 61.321, if a person
holds a sport pilot certificate and seeks to operate an additional
category or class of aircraft, the person (in pertinent part) must
successfully complete a proficiency check consisting of the tasks in
the appropriate areas of operation contained in the applicable
incorporated by reference PTS, as listed in appendix A, for the
additional light-sport aircraft privilege sought. Similarly, under
current Sec. 61.419(b), if a person holds a flight instructor
certificate with a sport pilot rating and seeks to provide training in
an additional category or class of aircraft, the person (in pertinent
part) must successfully complete a proficiency check consisting of the
tasks in the appropriate areas of operation contained in the applicable
incorporated by reference PTS, as listed in appendix A, for the
additional category and class flight instructor privilege sought. From
a practical perspective, these revisions adopted by the ACS IBR final
rule did not include substantive changes to the tasks required to be
conducted in the proficiency check to add additional sport pilot
privileges; rather, the ACS IBR final rule legally and appropriately
tethered the applicable PTSs. This MOSAIC final rule retains the
current language of both Sec. 61.321(b) (redesignated herein as
Sec. Sec. 61.321(a)(2)) and 61.419(b) \161\ that was already published
in the ACS IBR final rule (i.e., previously went out for notice and
comment and FAA responded to comments in that preamble). Section
IV.H.6. of this preamble further discusses the proposed exception
language within adopted Sec. Sec. 61.321(b) and 61.419(b).
In sum, the NPRM proposed to incorporate the two ACSs in Sec. Sec.
61.307(b)(1) and (2) and 61.405(b)(3) and (b)(4); this final rule is
relocating those ACSs to be incorporated by reference into Sec. 61.14
and cross-referenced in appendix A to part 61. Each ACS establishes the
aeronautical knowledge, risk management, and flight proficiency
standards for sport pilot practical tests and flight instructor
proficiency checks for light-sport category aircraft in the rotorcraft-
helicopter class for sport pilots and for sport pilots with a flight
instructor rating. The Sport Pilot Helicopter ACS contains the
following areas of operation: preflight preparation; preflight
procedures; airport and heliport operations; hovering maneuvers;
takeoffs, landings, and go-arounds; performance maneuvers; navigation;
emergency operations; and post-flight procedures. Similarly, the Sport
Flight Instructor for Helicopter contains the following areas of
operation: fundamentals of instructing; technical subject areas;
preflight preparation; preflight lesson on a maneuver to be performed
in flight; preflight procedures; airport and heliport operations;
hovering maneuvers; takeoffs, landings, and go-arounds; fundamentals of
flight; performance maneuvers; emergency operations; special
operations; and postflight procedures. Each ACS published with the
NPRM, providing the public with notice of the contents and an
opportunity to comment. FAA did not receive any comments on the content
of the two proposed ACS drafts but made a number of editorial changes
during the pendency of the rulemaking to conform with the already
adopted ACSs and PTSs (i.e., as an outgrowth of the ACS IBR Final
Rule). The table at the end of this section inventories the changes as
adopted in the ACSs herein.
Incorporation by reference is a mechanism that allows Federal
agencies to comply with the requirements of the APA to publish rules in
the Federal Register and the CFR by referring to material published
elsewhere.\162\ See sections IV.H.5 and IV.I.4 for detailed summaries
of the IBR material to be incorporated by reference. Material that is
incorporated by reference has the same legal status as if it were
published in full in the Federal Register. In accordance with 5 U.S.C.
552(a) and 1 CFR part 51,\163\ FAA makes both of the Sport Pilot ACSs
for Rotorcraft-Helicopter reasonably available to interested parties by
providing free online public access to view on FAA Training and Testing
website at www.faa.gov/training_testing. The ACS is available for
download, free of charge, at the provided web address. FAA will
continue to provide the ACS to interested parties in this manner. For
further information, contact the Training and Certification Group at
202-267-1100, faa.gov">acsptsinquiries@faa.gov, or 800 Independence Ave. SW,
Washington, DC 20591. In addition, both adopted ACSs are contained in
the docket for this rulemaking.
FAA recognizes there may be conforming amendments necessary to the
three Sport Pilot PTSs currently incorporated by reference in Sec.
61.14 and appendix A.\164\ FAA is actively reviewing these three PTSs
and will make any conforming revisions through proper notice and
comment rulemaking procedures.

Table 6--Record of Changes to ACSs
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Document Change
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
FAA-S-ACS-26B, Sport Pilot for Rotorcraft 1. Title: Changed to better align with the other ACS titles in 14
Category Helicopter--Simplified Flight CFR Section 61.14.
Controls Privilege Airman Certification 2. SH.I.D.K1: Updated to align language with other ACSs for this
Standards. Task.
3. SH.II.D.R2: Inserted new element ``Unexpected or unclear
clearances from ATC, if applicable.'' to align with other ACSs.
4. SH.II.D.R3: Inserted new element ``Hazardous effects of
downwash'' to align with other ACSs.
5. SH.V.A.S3: Updated to align language with other ACSs for this
Task.

[[Page 35122]]

6. AOO VI. Performance Maneuvers: editorial changed noted: added
single-engine helicopter-simplified flight controls.
7. SH.VII.A.R3: Changed from Unplanned fuel consumption, as
applicable, to Unplanned fuel/power consumption, as applicable.
8. Appendix 1: Changed knowledge test code to ``SHF'' to align
with test matrix.
9. Appendix 1. Paragraph ``Eligibility Requirements for a Sport
Pilot Certificate'': Updated to align with regulatory
requirements.
10. Appendix 1. Paragraph ``Sport Pilot for Helicopter-Simplified
Flight Controls Airman Knowledge Test Table'': Removed Number of
Questions, Age, Allotted Time, and Passing Score from the table
to ensure accurate knowledge testing requirements do not
conflict. Added website hyperlink for current testing matrix
requirements.
11. Appendix 1: The entire evaluator responsibilities section was
updated to align with published ACS documents.
12. Appendix 1. Table ``Sport Pilot for Helicopter-Simplified
Flight Controls Privilege to an Existing Pilot Certificate'':
Added asterisk to Balloon and Glider under Area of Operation VII
to align with the other ACSs.
13. Appendix 1. Table ``Addition of a Sport Pilot Privilege for
Helicopter-Simplified Flight Controls to an Existing Sport Pilot
Certificate'': changed the title of the table to ``Existing Sport
Pilot Certificate and Privilege(s) Held'' by inserting the word
Privilege to align with the rule.
14. Appendix 1. Table ``Sport Pilot Privilege for Helicopter-
Simplified Flight Controls to an Existing Sport Pilot
Certificate'': Added asterisk to Balloon and Glider under Area of
Operation VII to align with the other ACSs.
15. Appendix 2. Paragraph ``Single-Seat Aircraft Practical Test'':
Changed title of ACS in paragraph to match the title of the
document.
16. Appendix 2. Paragraph ``Single-Seat Aircraft Practical Test'':
Replaced ``Examiner'' with ``Evaluator'' to align with other
ACSs.
FAA-S-ACS-31B, Flight Instructor with a 1. Title: Changed to better align with the other ACS titles in 14
Sport Pilot Rating for Rotorcraft Category CFR 61.14.
Helicopter--Simplified Flight Controls 2. F.II.I.R5: Changed element from at the discretion of the
Privilege Airman Certification Standards. evaluator, use the autopilot to make appropriate course
intercepts, if installed, to use of an electronic flight bag
(EFB), if used.
3. FH.II.J.K1. Updated to align language with other ACSs for this
Task.
4. FH.V.A.K2: Editorial change to align with other ACSs. Added the
word appropriate.
5. FH.V.D.R3: Inserted new element ``Hazardous effects of
downwash'' to align with other ACSs.
6. FH.VII.A.R3: Removed ``as applicable'' to align with other
ACSs.
7. AOO VIII: Second note: Changed to ``must'' to align with the
other ACSs.
8. AOO X. Performance Maneuvers: editorial changed noted: added
single-engine helicopter-simplified flight controls.
9. AOO X, Task B Objective: Added ``in a single-engine helicopter-
simplified flight controls''.
10. FH.X.B.S12: Added ``or to the surface'' to align with task in
other helicopter CFI ACS.
11. Added Risk element. FH.X.C.R14 Main rotor (Nr) speed.
12. FH.XI.B.R9 Removed ``as applicable'' to align with other ACSs.
13. FH.XI.C.S1: Added powerplant(s).
14. FH.XI.J.K1: Removed ``as applicable'' to align with other
ACSs.
15. FH.XIII.A.S4-S6: Editorial change to make the list number
sequentially.
16. Appendix 1: Changed knowledge test code to ``IHF'' to align
with test matrix.
17. Appendix 1, paragraph ``Flight Instructor for Helicopter-
Simplified Flight Controls Airman Knowledge Test Table'': Removed
Number of Questions, Age, Allotted Time, and Passing Score from
the table to ensure accurate knowledge testing requirements do
not conflict. Added website hyperlink for current testing matrix
requirements.
18. Appendix 1: The entire evaluator responsibilities section was
updated to align with published ACS documents.
19. Appendix 1, additional privilege task table: Replaced the
title with ``Addition of a Flight Instructor with a Sport Pilot
Rating for Helicopter-Simplified Flight Controls Privilege to an
Existing Flight Instructor Certificate''.
20. Appendix 1, table ``Ratings Held``: updated title to ``Flight
Instructor Certificate and Rating(s) Held``.

[[Page 35123]]

21. Appendix 1, additional privilege task table: Replaced
``Privileges'' in the additional privileges table with ``Flight
Instructor with a Sport and Privilege(s) Held'' to align with the
14 CFR part 61 terminology.
22. Appendix 1, Flight Instructor Renewal/Reinstatement table:
Changed the description above the box from ``In accordance with
14 CFR part 61, section 61.199(a) or 61.427, the renewal or
reinstatement of a Flight Instructor Certificate, or one rating
on a Flight Instructor Certificate, renews or reinstates all
privileges existing on that certificate.'' to ``In accordance
with 14 CFR part 61, section 61.197(b)(1), 61.425, 61.199(a)(2)
or 61.427(b), a practical test for one of the ratings listed on
the flight instructor certificate, or for an additional flight
instructor rating, establishes flight instructor recent
experience or reinstates all privileges existing on that
certificate, as applicable.''
23. Appendix 2: Changed ``Simulated Powerplant Failure
Considerations (Single and Multiengine Helicopters)'' to
``Simulated Powerplant Failure Considerations (Single and
Multiengine Helicopters-Simplified Flight Controls)''.
24. Appendix 2: Changed ``Autorotations in a Single-Engine
Helicopter'' to ``Autorotations in a Single-Engine Helicopter--
Simplified Flight Controls'' to align with other ACSs.
25. Appendix 2: Changed ``Helicopter--Touchdown Autorotation
Endorsement'' to ``Helicopter--Simplified Flight Controls
Touchdown Autorotation Endorsement'' to align with other ACSs.
26. Appendix 2: Replaced paragraph ``In lieu of testing the
touchdown portion of the Tasks listed below, the evaluator has
the discretion to accept a logbook endorsement from a current
certificated flight instructor with a rotorcraft category and
helicopter class rating who meets the requirements of 14 CFR
61.195(h)(2). The endorsement must attest that the applicant
received touchdown autorotation training and is competent in the
instruction of the elements, performance, common errors, and
correction of common errors related to straight-in autorotation
and autorotation with turns'' with ``In lieu of testing the
touchdown portion of the Tasks listed below, the evaluator has
the discretion to accept a logbook endorsement from a current
certificated flight instructor with a sport pilot rating
rotorcraft helicopter-simplified flight controls privilege for
the specific make and model being evaluated. The endorsement must
attest that the applicant received touchdown autorotation
training and is competent in the instruction of the elements,
performance, common errors, and correction of common errors
related to straight-in autorotation and autorotation with turns
for the specific make and model helicopter-simplified flight
controls'' to align with other ACSs.
27. Appendix 3: Inserted after paragraph X. Performance Maneuvers:
Task C. Autorotation with Turns in a Single-Engine Helicopter-
Simplified Flight Controls. The minimum entry altitude must be
above 700 feet AGL or a suitable higher entry altitude in strong
wind conditions. At least two 90 degree turns in the same
direction, or one continuous 180-degree turn must be performed.
The 180-degree turn refers to a change in direction with respect
to ground track, and not an exact reciprocal heading. If the
applicant does not roll out of the turn by 300 feet AGL then the
evaluator must direct the applicant to perform a power recovery
and initiate a go-around, and the Task is considered
unsatisfactory to align with other ACSs.
28. Appendix 3, Task E Low Rotor Revolutions Per Minute (RPM)
Recognition and Recovery: Added Simplified Flight Controls after
the word Helicopter to align the term within part 61.
Both ACSs................................... 1. Editorial changes throughout, such as, changing ``rotor(s)'' to
``rotor'' and inserted or deleted ``as applicable'' or ``as
appropriate'' where appropriate.
2. Forward: Editorial update. Updating to align with the rest of
the ACSs. Also, updated email address inserted
faa.gov">acsptsinquiries@faa.gov.
3. Inserted Helicopter Flying Handbook (FAA-H-8083-21) into task
references as an editorial update to align with other ACSs.
4. Introduction: modified to align with other published ACS
documents.
5. Editorial and grammatical changes throughout, such as, aligning
language to match the title of the ACS, etc.
6. Appendix 3, Use of Flight Simulation Training Devices (FSTD)
paragraph: replace ratings with privilege to align with rule
terminology.
7. Appendix 3, Use of Aviation Training Device (ATD) paragraph:
replaced ratings with privilege to align with rule terminology.
Also, replace the hyperlink to the correct link due to changes in
ATD approvals.
8. Removed ``as applicable'' or ``if applicable'' after H/V
diagram throughout as it is always applicable.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

6. Require Sport Pilots and Flight Instructors With a Sport Pilot
Rating Seeking To Add an Airplane or Helicopter Privilege To Accomplish
a Practical Test
Currently, sport pilots and flight instructors may obtain an
additional category and class privilege by passing a proficiency check
from an authorized instructor,\165\ rather than completing a practical
test with a designated FAA examiner.\166\ In the NPRM, FAA explained
that, because of the significant expansion of privileges associated
specifically with an airplane or rotorcraft-helicopter privilege, a
proficiency check with an authorized instructor would not be sufficient
to validate competency of sport pilots or flight instructors with a
sport pilot rating when adding those privileges to their existing
certificate.\167\ Due to the proposed expansion under this rulemaking,
FAA proposed in Sec. 61.321(e) (adopted herein as Sec. 61.321(b))
that certificated pilots (other than student pilots) seeking to add a
sport pilot airplane single-engine land or sea or rotorcraft helicopter
privilege be required to successfully accomplish both a knowledge and
practical test.
FAA received several comments opposing the transition from a
proficiency check to a knowledge and practical test. LAMA opposed the

[[Page 35124]]

proposed framework, stating the NPRM did not provide evidence that the
current system of transitioning between light sport categories via a
proficiency check is not sufficiently effective or safe. Another
commenter echoed a lack of evidence to suggest that a practical test is
necessary due to the proposed expansion of privilege, stating that DPE-
administered tests are not considered more rigorous than a proficiency
check and questioning emphasis on airplane and helicopter testing,
specifically. Similarly, some commenters pointed out perceived
similarities between a proficiency check and a practical test based on
the applicable PTS. Two commenters generally asserted that a
proficiency check is sufficient to add a sport pilot privilege, stating
the instructor providing the proficiency check must utilize the PTS
when administering the check.
Some commenters expressed concern about a possible strain on DPEs
because of the proposed change. One commenter who supported the
continued use of proficiency checks explained that applicants must meet
the same practical test standards with a flight instructor taking a
proficiency check as they would with a DPE, and sport pilot DPEs are in
critically short supply in small communities. Another commenter
referenced the limited availability of examiners and stated Congress
mandated reforms to FAA's DPE procedures in FAA Reauthorization Act of
2018 (P.L. 115-254), section 319 (Designated Pilot Examiner Reforms),
which the commenter suggested FAA has yet to implement. Another
commenter described that the practical test requirement places an extra
burden on existing flight instructors and examiners specifically in the
case of light-sport gyroplanes due to the limited number of qualified
examiners for gyroplanes and further stated the cost will result in a
training barrier, driving many pilots away from becoming gyroplane
sport pilots. One commenter explained a proficiency check is supposed
to be the same as a practical test for a new pilot, but that the
commenter has been told by many CFIs that it is not necessary to
conduct the entire practical test and described that they can omit
tasks already covered on the original airplane practical test. The
commenter then recommended that the proficiency check should be done by
a sport pilot examiner who is trained on how to administer the
practical test.
FAA disagrees with commenters' suggestions to retain the
proficiency check as an acceptable method to add an airplane or
helicopter privilege on a person's sport pilot certificate (or flight
instructor certificate with a sport pilot rating) and maintains the
requirement to take a practical test to add an airplane or helicopter
privilege in this final rule. The significant expansion of operational
privileges associated with obtaining an airplane or helicopter
privilege and the lack of a minimum experience or training requirements
justifies the requirement for the successful completion of a practical
test. Commenters are correct that, pursuant to current Sec. Sec.
61.321(b) and 61.419(b), proficiency checks are conducted in accordance
with the applicable PTS. However, assertions that it is unnecessary to
conduct the entire practical test and CFI's can omit tasks already
covered on an original practical test is inaccurate. A proficiency
check or a practical test should inherently ensure a candidate meets
the same set of standards. Both designated pilot examiners and flight
instructors are required to develop a plan of action, use the
applicable testing standards, and evaluate applicants in all tasks
included in each area of operation, regardless of whether they are
conducting a practical test or proficiency check.\168\ However, flight
instructors do not receive the same training and oversight as a DPE who
has the added responsibility of certification. Unlike flight
instructors, DPEs are trained, qualified, and authorized by FAA to
ensure practical tests are conducted properly, including the validation
of the applicant's knowledge and proficiency in accordance with the
applicable testing standards.
In addition, FAA notes the requirement to successfully pass a
practical test for an added privilege will only apply to the addition
of an airplane single-engine land or sea, or rotorcraft helicopter
privileges.\169\ Operational risks associated with operating an
airplane or helicopter in the NAS, particularly with the expanded
aircraft design and performance limitations facilitated by this final
rule, include flight operations at notably higher speeds, altitudes,
increased weights and capacities, pilot skills, and complex airspace
operations, which differ from the other sport pilot privileges such as
gliders, powered parachutes, weight shift control, gyroplanes,
balloons, and airships. FAA also recognizes that the minimum experience
requirements for an initial sport pilot certificate seeking an airplane
or helicopter privilege do not apply when adding a privilege to an
existing sport pilot certificate. For example, if a sport pilot holds a
glider privilege and seeks to add an additional airplane single-engine
land category and class privilege to their sport pilot certificate, the
requirements of Sec. 61.321 would apply. This requires the sport pilot
to receive a logbook endorsement from an authorized instructor to
certify they have met the aeronautical knowledge and flight proficiency
requirements for the additional privilege. The pilot must then
successfully complete a practical test because they are seeking an
airplane single-engine land privilege. In this example, the sport pilot
adding the additional category and class privilege would not need to
obtain the aeronautical experience of Sec. 61.313(a)(1).\170\ This
elevates the importance of the evaluation event validating proficiency
of a sport pilot seeking to add an airplane or helicopter privilege.
Therefore, this final rule retains the proposed requirement of
Sec. 61.321(e), adopted as new Sec. Sec. 61.321(b), and 61.419(e) for
the successful completion of a practical test for both the sport pilot
and flight instructor certificate, respectively, when adding an
airplane single-engine or rotorcraft helicopter privilege. FAA notes
the proficiency check framework continues to be a process that can be
used to add a sport pilot privilege other than an airplane single-
engine land or sea class privilege or a rotorcraft category, helicopter
class privilege (i.e., glider category privileges, rotorcraft category
and gyroplane class privileges, lighter-than-air category and airship
class privileges, lighter-than-air category and balloon class
privileges, powered parachute category land or sea class privileges,
and weight shift control aircraft category and land or sea class
privileges). Requiring a practical test when a sport pilot is adding an
airplane single-engine or rotorcraft helicopter privilege is not overly
burdensome, as applicants are intended to be evaluated on all tasks
included in each area of operation, regardless of whether they are
conducting a practical test or proficiency check. However, a practical
test requires a DPE to conduct the evaluation as opposed to a flight
instructor. As previously discussed, DPEs receive training, approval,
and oversight from FAA that flight instructors who conduct proficiency
checks do not receive. Thus, FAA considers a DPE conducting a practical
test as a necessary mitigation in thoroughly validating an applicant
for an airplane single-engine land or sea, or a rotorcraft helicopter,
privilege.
Regarding commenters' concerns about the new requirement's
potential strain on the DPE community, FAA has been intentional in its
continual efforts to support and supplement the DPE

[[Page 35125]]

community nationwide while maintaining safety standards. In light of
this continued action, as well as the absence of evidence indicating a
future shortage as it pertains to the sport pilot community, FAA does
not find that this rule will strain the DPE population. FAA first notes
the agency has fulfilled the statutory mandates under section 319 of
FAA Reauthorization Act of 2018. This section required FAA to assign to
the ARAC the task of reviewing all regulations and policies related to
part 183-appointed DPEs and provide recommendations to the agency to
ensure an adequate number of DPEs are deployed and available to perform
their duties. Further, the section requires FAA to take such action as
the Administrator considers appropriate to those recommendations. FAA
notes the final recommendation report was issued in 2021,\171\ and FAA
has taken several steps to continuously supplement the DPE population,
including expanding the minimum qualifications for DPE applicants
(including military service) and removing the geographical boundaries
limiting DPEs to only the designated area overseen by their managing
Flight Standards District Office (FSDO). DPEs who currently have the
authority to conduct practical tests in a helicopter, or any other
aircraft with the simplified flight controls designation, will need to
obtain the new make and model specific endorsement to qualify to
conduct practical tests in helicopters or other aircraft with the
simplified flight controls designation. If a DPE receives their initial
designee authorization to conduct practical tests in a helicopter or
any other aircraft with simplified control privileges, all initial
qualification criteria will need to be met.\172\
Relatedly, FAA does not find a requirement that a proficiency check
be conducted by a sport pilot examiner as practical or necessary. The
commenter's recommendation would otherwise require all proficiency
checks be conducted by a DPE. FAA maintains that an authorized
instructor can effectively conduct proficiency checks to facilitate
additional sport pilot privileges for other than an airplane or
helicopter privilege. FAA notes proficiency checks have proven
successful since the 2004 introduction of the sport pilot certificate.
As previously discussed, due to the expanded operational capabilities
of aircraft a sport pilot may operate within the airplane category or
the newly added helicopter with simplified flight controls class, FAA
finds it necessary to require a practical test when adding those
privileges. Conversely, the other categories and classes of sport pilot
privileges are not significantly expanded in this final rule and,
therefore, the existing proficiency check requirements remain suitable
when adding these privileges, given the foundational knowledge a
certificated sport pilot or flight instructor with a sport pilot rating
will possess.
Several commenters questioned the concept of requiring a knowledge
test to add a privilege as contrary to Sec. 61.63(b)(4) and (c)(4),
which provide relief from the requirement to complete a knowledge test
when adding a rating to an existing pilot certificate, other than for
an airline transport pilot certificate. LAMA emphasized there is no
knowledge test requirement to add an airplane category or rotorcraft
category, helicopter class rating at the private or commercial level
and recommended eliminating the requirement to take a new knowledge
test when adding the airplane or helicopter privilege. Similarly, USUA
stated requiring additional knowledge tests runs counter to traditional
sport pilot and private pilot transition training and knowledge
specific to those privileges would be covered in a practical test. It
also stated knowledge testing for an added privilege does not increase
the safety of pilot applicants since most of the material has already
been tested in previous knowledge and practical tests and most of the
questions for different categories are drawn from the same pool of
knowledge test questions.
After evaluation as to the intent and content of a knowledge test,
FAA agrees an additional knowledge test for an added airplane or
helicopter privileges would add only a negligible level of safety
assurance and may be perceived as inconsistent with Sec. 61.63(b)(4)
and (c)(4), which do not require knowledge tests for pilots seeking
additional aircraft ratings. A pilot who possesses a category or class
privilege or rating has already validated the fundamental aeronautical
knowledge required across different aircraft categories and classes,
and competency in a new category and or class will be adequately
addressed through instructor training, qualifying endorsements and
completion of a practical test.
In addition, conducting a practical test requires a demonstration
of aeronautical knowledge and skill by validating that an applicant has
the appropriate aeronautical knowledge specific to the additional
category and class privilege the pilot or flight instructor is seeking
to add to their certificate. The oral examination portion of the
practical test is individualized to the applicant by the applicant's
flight instructor and the DPE evaluating the applicant's existing
privileges or ratings and comparing those to the privilege or rating
sought, and validating the applicant has that necessary knowledge. The
applicant must demonstrate to both the flight instructor and the DPE
conducting the practical test that the applicant has the necessary
knowledge of the additional rating that would have been covered during
a knowledge test for that rating. This ensures any potential knowledge
gaps that may have arisen due to not taking the knowledge test for the
rating sought are addressed.
One commenter stated Sec. 61.63 is not applicable to sport pilots
and is requesting a permanent change to denote this. FAA disagrees that
Sec. 61.63 needs to be modified to explicitly state it is inapplicable
to sport pilots seeking additional category or class privileges.
Section 61.63 is applicable to pilot certificates that are issued
category and class ratings. However, sport pilots are issued privileges
to operate categories or classes of aircraft, not ratings, and the
requirements for adding privileges to operate an additional category or
class of aircraft are found in Sec. 61.321.\173\ Therefore, the
regulation does not need alteration.
As such, FAA is modifying adopted Sec. 61.321(b) to remove the
requirement to take a knowledge test, which will align proficiency
validation for sport pilots adding an airplane single-engine or
rotorcraft helicopter privilege to their existing pilot certificate via
an endorsement provided in their pilot logbook or record to the Sec.
61.63(b)(4) and (c)(4) allowances for adding an aircraft category or
class, respectively, without requiring a knowledge test. On the same
basis, FAA is also modifying Sec. 61.419(e) to remove the requirement
to take a knowledge test for flight instructors with a sport pilot
rating adding an airplane single-engine or rotorcraft helicopter
privilege. These sections retain the practical test requirement because
FAA determined the practical test sufficiently validates that a sport
pilot or flight instructor with a sport pilot rating seeking to add an
airplane single-engine or rotorcraft helicopter privilege to an
existing certificate by evaluating both the knowledge and skill of the
applicant in the oral examination part of the practical test. This
final rule also makes one discrete editorial amendment by amending
Sec. 61.321(a)(4) to state ``authorized instructor'' to conform this
subsection to other references of authorized instructor within this
section.

[[Page 35126]]

7. Aviation Training Device or Flight Simulation Training Device
Credit, Removal of Certain Light-Sport Aircraft References, and Other
Amendments
Currently, FAA does not permit the use of a flight simulation
training device (FSTD) or an aviation training device (ATD) to meet
sport pilot experience requirements for a certificate or rating. FAA
proposed to permit sport pilots to obtain pilot time credit in a FAA-
approved ATD or FAA-qualified FSTD \174\ to meet the minimum experience
requirements for sport pilot certificate, consistent with FAA's long-
standing, and expanding, allowance to credit simulation training in
certain circumstances. Specifically, FAA proposed sport pilots could
credit up to a total of two and a half hours of training in an FSTD or
ATD (or a combination) representing the appropriate category and class
of aircraft to meet the experience requirements of part 61 in new Sec.
61.313(b). FAA received four comments, generally supporting the
provision and subsequently adjudicated, and adopts Sec. 61.313(b) as
proposed, with a minor grammatical revision.
ALPA stated if an FSTD is used for an evaluation facilitating a
type rating or a category and class rating, the training should be
accomplished in a full flight simulator (FFS) with six degrees of
motion and sufficient training accomplished in advance of the
evaluation. ALPA further stated, if any new forms of training like
virtual or mixed reality were to be used, it should only be after the
qualification standards have been established and should not replace
in-aircraft training.
FSTDs are approved under part 60, which sets forth qualification
requirements and would include any new types of simulators yet to be
developed, such as virtual reality designs. In addition, all FSTDs must
be sponsored by the holder of a certificate under parts 119, 141 or 142
\175\ and may only be used within an FAA-approved training program. Use
of an FFS with motion for pilot evaluations or testing is under the
supervision of an FAA aviation safety inspector who will evaluate the
training device and approve the use of qualified FFS within a FAA-
approved training program. FAA notes that flight schools and
individuals providing instruction under part 61 do not hold a part 119,
141, or 142 certificate or have an FAA-approved training program and
are not eligible to provide training in an FSTD to meet aeronautical
experience requirements of a certificate or rating. However, these part
61 training providers may provide training in an FAA-approved ATD as
specified in that ATD's FAA-issued letter of authorization.
Specific to ALPA's concern, FAA notes the training in an FSTD or
ATD that may be credited towards a sport pilot certificate under Sec.
61.313(b) is not applicable to pilot type ratings because type ratings
are not issued at the sport pilot certificate level. Furthermore, FAA
notes the maximum 2.5-hour aeronautical experience credit in an FSTD or
ATD comprises 12.5% of the minimum 20 hours total aeronautical
experience requirements for airplane category or 8.3% for helicopters
with simplified flight controls. As such, FAA does not consider this
FSTD or ATD credit to be a safety risk because an applicant for a sport
pilot certificate or privilege will still obtain the vast majority of
their aeronautical experience in an aircraft.
Two commentors are in favor of the 2.5 hours of credit time in an
ATD for sport pilots. In addition, Pivotal Aero stated it agrees with
the adoption of the 2.5 hours in an ATD. However, it suggested that FAA
should allow additional simulation pilot time credit above the 2.5
hours for aircraft with simplified flight controls. It stated there is
a high degree of similarity between aircraft and the ATD.
ATDs or FSTDs may represent aircraft with a simplified flight
controls system; however, FAA finds no reason to provide more credit
for such ATDs or FSTDs just because it represents an aircraft with a
simplified flight controls system, especially where this is a new class
of aircraft introduced into sport pilot privileges. After FAA collects
more data regarding aircraft equipped with simplified flight controls
and simulators that represent those same aircraft, as well as
consideration of the expanded type of aircraft a sport pilot may become
certificated to operate, FAA may consider additional pilot time credit
in future rulemakings for simplified flight controls aircraft or
aircraft, generally. FAA notes it does not limit the number of
instructional training hours logged in an FAA-qualified FSTD or FAA-
approved ATD but does establish the maximum allowable time that may be
credited for a certificate or rating. In other words, should an
applicant feel additional training is needed, that applicant is free to
seek training in an FSTD or ATD, but only 2.5 hours will be credited
toward the aeronautical experience requirements.
8. Miscellaneous Comments
These are comments that did not fit in other sections but pertain
to the rulemaking.
a. Standing Minimum Experience Requirements in Sec. 61.313
Currently, Sec. 61.313(a) requires a person applying for a sport
pilot certificate with an airplane category and single-engine land or
sea class privileges to log at least 20 hours of flight time, including
certain flight training time minimums, cross-country flight training,
and takeoffs and landings. The NPRM did not propose revisions to these
standing aeronautical experience requirements. However, several
commenters raised concerns about the minimum 20 hours of flight time
for airplane category privilege and suggested FAA should increase the
flight training requirements for new sport pilots to 30 or 40 hours of
flight time to parallel recreational pilots (30 hours) or private
pilots (40 hours). Commenters asserted that sport pilots, recreational
pilots, and private pilots can operate many of the same aircraft with
relatively minor differences in privileges and limitations. Commenters
specifically suggested increasing the minimum flight hours commensurate
with expanded privileges through a gradual process to retain the basic
sport pilot privileges as previously available since the 2004 final
rule (i.e., the 20 hours of flight time to obtain a sport pilot
certificate with airplane privileges).
However, this final rule does not increase the minimum experience
requirements for a sport pilot certificate for airplane category,
single-engine class privileges. The 2004 final rule adopted the minimum
hours of experience for the sport pilot certificate. In that rule, FAA
explained it expected that the 20-hour minimum flight time requirement
for all aircraft (except gliders, balloons, and powered parachutes) to
be adequate to train a person to exercise the privileges of a sport
pilot given the limited types of aircraft sport pilots may operate and
operations they are authorized to conduct. In addition, FAA noted the
applicant for a sport pilot certificate must receive a recommendation
by an authorized instructor who endorses the applicant's logbook
indicating readiness to take and pass the practical test; pass a
knowledge test on the general knowledge requirements necessary to
exercise sport pilot privileges and operate light sport aircraft in the
NAS; and demonstrate to FAA (or FAA-designated examiner) that the
practical test standards can be met.\176\ No evidence or data has been
provided to suggest those minimum experience requirements need to be
changed.\177\

[[Page 35127]]

FAA did not propose changing the minimum experience requirements
set forth in current Sec. 61.313(a) through (h) for a sport pilot
certificate and making any changes to those minimum experience
requirements would require an additional public notice and comment.
Furthermore, authorized flight instructors are responsible for ensuring
an applicant for a pilot certificate rating or privilege is proficient
in the areas of knowledge, skill, and proficiency listed in part 61 and
FAA practical test standards for a sport pilot certificate before
providing a recommendation to take a practical test in accordance with
Sec. 61.39(a)(6) or to provide a proficiency check. The minimum
experience requirement does not eliminate the need to meet these
testing standards and applicants often exceed the minimum hourly
experience and training requirements to ensure pilot proficiency.
Another commenter stated the proposed reduction of flight hour
requirements for sport pilots raises the risk of these pilots making
uneducated decisions and actions in the cockpit and urges FAA to
reconsider. FAA notes the NPRM did not propose to, nor does this final
rule, reduce the overall flight hour requirements for sport pilots.
While a sport pilot certificate requires reduced flight hours for
certificate eligibility, compared to higher grades of certificates, FAA
maintains the sport pilot training framework adequately addresses the
operational regime facilitated by a sport pilot certificate (as largely
discussed herein).
In addition, a commentor requested changes to the aeronautical
experience requirements for weight-shift control, specifically tuck/
tumble awareness and spiral recovery training. Upon review of the sport
pilot PTS, those tasks are already included in the emergency operations
area of operation.
b. Safety Pilots
A few commenters, including Fly Eagle Sport, suggested FAA permit
sport pilots to act as a safety pilot. Another commenter stated
permitting sport pilots to act as a safety pilot would allow a sport
pilot to log flight time, add utility to a sport pilot certificate,
help aspiring professional pilots build pilot time, and improve safety
by encouraging two qualified pilots to fly together. One commenter
recommended FAA clarify that private pilots exercising sport pilot
privileges are not restricted from acting as safety pilot because
instrument rated pilots practicing under simulated conditions enhances
safety. The commenter also suggested that Sec. 91.109(c)(1) should be
retained for private pilots exercising sport pilot privileges.
Section 91.109(c) requires a safety pilot for operations in
simulated instrument flight. A private pilot exercising sport pilot
privileges cannot act as a safety pilot because a sport pilot is
restricted from serving as a required flight crewmember on any aircraft
for which more than one pilot is required by the regulation under which
the flight is conducted (i.e., Sec. 91.109(c)).\178\ A person who
seeks to act as a safety pilot must satisfy the minimum pilot
certificate requirements listed in Sec. 91.109(c)(1), which limits
persons acting as safety pilots to pilots with a private pilot
certificate or a higher grade of pilot certificate \179\ because of the
expected responsibilities associated with acting as a safety pilot. For
example, safety pilots take on a quasi-supervisory role to ensure
safety of the flight when the PIC is accomplishing and executing
instrument procedures and associated communications with ATC in
simulated instrument conditions, including aircraft separation and crew
coordination responsibilities. Sport pilots are not permitted to act as
a safety pilot because the risk associated with serving as a safety
pilot is inconsistent with the level of training and experience
required by sport pilots. Specifically, private pilots require more
aeronautical experience than sport pilots, including some experience
sport pilots do not receive. For example, private pilots are tested in
areas that sport pilots are not, including navigation systems and radar
services, which includes the use of onboard navigation systems to
determine the aircraft's position. The role of safety pilot inherently
involves monitoring another pilot's maneuvering of an airplane solely
by reference to instruments and relies upon the use of navigation
systems and radar services. Due to sport pilots' lack of this
additional training and experience in these areas, FAA finds it
necessary to retain the existing Sec. 91.109(c)(1) requirement for a
safety pilot to hold at least a private pilot certificate.
Because sport pilots may not act as a safety pilot, as discussed
above, therefore suggestions regarding the logging of sport pilot
flight time as a safety pilot are beyond the scope of this rule.
c. General Comments Regarding Aircraft Sport Pilots May Operate
The United States Hang Gliding & Paragliding Association (USHPA)
commented in support of the stated justifications for the proposed
amendments. Specifically, it expressed support of the expansion of
sport pilot privileges as defined in the proposal, noting that in some
cases, the expansion of sport pilot privileges will require additional
training and a flight instructor qualifying endorsement and additional
experience.
One commenter suggested FAA should permit sport pilots to operate
three-seat powered parachutes due to the safety record of powered
parachutes. Because the commenter did not provide safety data comparing
the operation of two-seat vs. three-seat powered parachutes, or a
specific safety reason or justification to permit sport pilots to
operate powered parachutes, FAA is not expanding the seat limitation
for powered parachutes.
One commenter stated prior to the 2004 final rule, unlicensed
pilots were allowed to tow hang glider pilots who were rated by USHPA.
The commenter requested FAA consider further expanding sport pilot
privileges to include towing hang gliders. FAA did not consider
allowing the expansion of sport pilot privileges for the towing of hang
gliders due to the minimal aeronautical experience required to obtain a
sport pilot certificate. FAA continues to support the 2004 final rule,
which affirmed a person must possess at least a private pilot
certificate or higher to conduct towing operations as specified in
Sec. 61.69, including any associated private pilot qualifications and
a minimum 100 hours of PIC experience. FAA considers this necessary to
mitigate risks of towing operations, which are higher due to the
inherent involvement of multiple aircraft and pilots. Similarly, FAA
notes towing privileges were also not extended to recreational pilots.
Therefore, this final rule does not expand operational privileges to
include glider and unpowered ultralight vehicle (i.e., hang glider)
towing.
Another commenter recommended FAA permit a private pilot with a
glider rating who is seeking a sport pilot airplane privilege have
reduced minimum experience requirements under Sec. 61.313 to qualify
because the areas of operation on the practical test are almost
identical for airplane and glider.
FAA notes that a pilot who holds a higher grade of pilot
certificate, including private pilot, may add an additional sport pilot
category or class privilege to their existing certificate, in
accordance with Sec. 61.321, without meeting the aeronautical
experience requirements of Sec. 61.313 for that additional category or
class. However, Sec. 61.321 does not explicitly state that it applies
to holders of either a sport pilot

[[Page 35128]]

certificate or a higher-grade certificate, which may have contributed
to the commenter's misunderstanding. Consequently, this final rule
amends Sec. 61.321 to clearly state that it applies to holders of a
sport pilot or higher-grade certificate seeking privileges to operate
an additional category or class of aircraft at the sport pilot level.
For similar reasons, this final rule also amends Sec. 61.419 to
clarify that it applies to holders of flight instructor certificates
issued under subpart H or flight instructor certificates with a sport
pilot rating seeking privileges to provide training under subpart K in
an additional category or class of aircraft.
d. Powered-Lift
The Sec. 1.1 definition of light-sport aircraft excludes powered-
lift from being a light-sport aircraft. While the NPRM proposed to
allow airworthiness certification of powered-lift as light-sport
category aircraft under Sec. 21.190, FAA did not consider powered-lift
privileges for sport pilots, nor did FAA consider expanding powered-
lift privileges for sport pilots in the recent Integration of Powered-
Lift final rule. FAA noted in both rules that this is due to the
complexity and ongoing development of powered-lift designs and
associated pilot certifications and operational rules.\180\ ALPA
supported FAA's decision not to consider a powered-lift privilege for
sport pilots. In contrast, Doroni Aerospace, AIR VEV, and GAMA
requested FAA to reconsider its position on sport pilot privileges for
powered-lift. Doroni Aerospace and AIR VEV suggested enabling sport
pilot powered-lift privileges is similar to permitting sport pilots to
operate helicopters.
FAA notes the long history of experience with helicopters, which
have been widely produced, and operated for decades. Though helicopters
with simplified flight controls will change how a pilot operates these
helicopters, the underlying knowledge and skills necessary to safely
operate this longstanding category and class of aircraft within the NAS
is well understood. In contrast, powered-lift are still largely under
development. As a result, FAA and industry do not have data or
operational experience on the integration of powered-lift aircraft in
the NAS. Without this data and experience, FAA cannot accurately
reassess the minimum pilot standards for powered-lift aircraft to
consider sport pilot operations.
e. Recreational Pilot Certificate \181\
FAA did not propose any changes concerning recreational pilot
certificate experience, ratings, or privileges. Several commenters
opined on the proposed sport pilot operational privileges and
limitations and compared to those experience requirements, privileges,
and limitations with those of higher-grade certificates, including
recreational pilot certificates. Commenters suggested FAA revise the
recreational pilot privileges and limitations or remove the
recreational pilot certificate and include those pilots in the sport
pilot category. One commenter recommended revisions to Sec.
61.303(a)(2)(ii) to relieve pilots who hold a higher grade of pilot
certificate seeking to exercise sport pilot privileges to be exempt
from the training and endorsement requirements of Sec.
61.315(c)(14)(i), specific to aircraft with a VH greater
than 87 knots CAS, or Sec. 61.315(c)(14)(ii), specific to operating
aircraft with a VH less than or equal to 87 knots CAS. This
includes training and endorsement requirements specified in Sec.
61.327(b). One commenter recommended that the sport pilot certificate
should become the ``de facto'' initial pilot certificate, including
testing by a DPE, with the ability to upgrade to a private pilot
certificate using additional training and endorsements and a phasing
out of the recreational pilot certificate.
In response to the recommendation to revise recreational pilot
operating privileges, or to remove the recreational pilot certificate
and then provide recreational pilots with a sport pilot certificate,
such a significant rule amendment would require additional public
notice and comment because it was not proposed in the MOSAIC NPRM. Due
to the differences in operational limitations for a recreational pilot
certificate, removing the recreational pilot certificate and replacing
it with a sport pilot certificate or revising the recreational pilot
operating privileges and limitations would require additional
consideration and analysis of the safety risks, benefits, and impact of
such a change on existing certificate holders as well as other users of
the NAS. Such a change would be out of scope for this final rule,
because FAA did not provide notice of the potential for such a change
and an opportunity for comment. FAA notes a recreational pilot or
higher-grade certificate can currently obtain sport pilot privileges by
accomplishing a proficiency check or practical test; however the
limitations of the recreational pilot must still be adhered to. In
response to the recommendation that pilots with a higher grade of pilot
certificate exercising sport pilot privileges should be excluded from
the endorsement requirements of Sec. 61.315(c)(14)(i) and (ii) and
Sec. 61.327(b), FAA contends these sport pilot training and
endorsement requirements remain necessary to ensure competency for
pilots who may not have experience in aircraft with those specific
performance parameters.
f. Out of Scope Comments
FAA received multiple comments that were considered out of scope.
Some of these comments included special flight authorizations and
aerial task privileges for commercial pilots. These comments are wholly
outside the scope of this final rule, but FAA may consider changes in
future rulemaking.\182\
One commenter stated they hold a TCCA Recreational Pilot Permit and
would like to see a reciprocal agreement between FAA and TCCA to allow
FAA sport pilot certificate holders to operate within Canada and TCCA
Recreational Pilot Permit holders to operate in the United States. FAA
notes that bilateral or multilateral agreements with foreign Civil
Aviation Authorities were not addressed within the scope of this
rulemaking; however this does not preclude new or updated agreements in
the future, following the standard agreement process.
g. General Comments Pertaining to the NPRM
Aviation Impacted Communities Alliance (AICA) expressed concern
that the proposed MOSAIC rule increases operating privileges, rendering
the sport pilot the default certificate for flight training. While this
final rule does increase various operating privileges of sport pilots,
FAA does not share AICA's concern that the effect of the increase in
the operating privileges will result in the sport pilot certificate
becoming the default certificate for flight training. FAA notes the
certificate chosen is the applicant's choice and the applicants still
may choose sport, recreational, or private certification when seeking
initial flight training.
Another commenter suggested eliminating the requirement for sport
pilots to carry a logbook while in flight to mirror private pilot
requirements. Section 61.51(i)(3) requires a sport pilot to carry his
or her logbook or other evidence of required authorized instructor
endorsements on all flights. FAA declines to remove this requirement
because, unlike private pilots, a sport pilot does not carry ratings
listed on their certificate as evidence of his or her qualification to
act as PIC of a particular aircraft using sport pilot privileges.
Instead, a sport pilot's privileges are documented

[[Page 35129]]

through logbook endorsements. FAA also notes that, under the
regulation, sport pilots may choose to carry other evidence of the
required authorized endorsements instead of the logbook.
One commenter stated complex aircraft and technically advanced
airplanes (TAAs) should require additional training and an instructor
endorsement for sport pilots. A sport pilot seeking to operate a
complex airplane must receive training and a qualifying flight
instructor endorsement, in accordance with Sec. 61.31(e). However, FAA
does not recognize, nor was provided with documentation of, additional
risk for sport pilots to mandate additional training and flight
instructor endorsements for pilots who wish to operate a complex
airplane or TAA. Furthermore, FAA does not require additional training
and an instructor endorsement to operate a TAA for any pilot,
regardless of their grade of pilot certificate. However, FAA does
recommend that any pilot who intends to operate an aircraft with
avionics systems they are not familiar with consider seeking avionics
familiarization training with an authorized instructor.
GFTA stated FAA's proposal would permit the use of turbine
powerplant technology in light-sport category aircraft and recommended
eliminating the type rating requirement for operators of turbojet
powered light-sport aircraft. Desert Aerospace, LLC and Sonex Aircraft
suggested FAA remove type rating requirements for turbojet-powered
light-sport category airplanes and recommended a logbook endorsement to
operate those airplanes.
FAA notes that a person who acts as PIC of certain aircraft,
pursuant to Sec. 61.31, must hold a type rating for that aircraft,
which includes turbojet powered airplanes.\183\ FAA did not propose
revising this requirement, which applies to all aircraft at all
certificate levels (including sport pilots). FAA is retaining the type
rating requirement for pilots who seek to operate turbojet-powered
aircraft due to the complexity associated operating those aircraft.
However, it was not the intention of FAA to allow a sport pilot to
operate an aircraft that requires a pilot to hold a type rating due to
the complexity associated with operating those aircraft and the
training footprint of sport pilots. FAA has long maintained that the
performance, environment, and operating characteristics of turbojet-
powered airplanes require the PIC to demonstrate proficiency operating
that specific airplane \184\ and FAA does not find a compelling reason
to lift the type rating requirement for all aircraft. However, this
final rule amends Sec. 61.315 to specifically state that a sport pilot
may not act as pilot in command of an aircraft that requires a pilot to
hold a type rating in accordance with Sec. 61.31(a). FAA notes Desert
Aerospace's reference to turbine powered aircraft is a broad term that
includes both turbojet and turboprop powerplants, but the type rating
requirement only applies to ``turbojet'' powered aircraft.
In addition, Desert Aerospace recommended modifying Sec. 61.58(a)
to exclude gliders and turbine powered light-sport category aircraft or
light-sport category aircraft equivalent airplanes. Sonex also
recommended removing the Sec. 61.58 requirements for a yearly pilot
proficiency check to carry a passenger in a turbojet-powered light
sport airplane.
FAA notes that Sec. 61.58(a) sets forth the PIC proficiency check
requirements for the operation of an aircraft that requires more than
one pilot flight crewmember or is turbojet-powered. As previously
discussed, this final rule amends Sec. 61.315(c) to specifically state
that a sport pilot may not act as PIC of an aircraft that requires a
type rating in accordance with Sec. 61.31(a). Consequently, the Sec.
61.58 requirements are inapplicable to aircraft that may be operated
under sport pilot privileges. FAA further notes that the self-
launching, turbojet-powered gliders that Desert Aerospace refers to
have operating limitations that require an FAA-issued authorization to
act as PIC. In these circumstances, the existing requirements for
meeting the aircraft operating limitations and FAA authorization remain
applicable and may require compliance with Sec. 61.58. This rulemaking
does not change the existing requirements for these aircraft.
One commenter suggested that multiengine airplanes would be an
acceptable privilege for sport pilots and requested clarification on
whether a sport pilot can seek privileges to operate a multiengine
airplane with a single-engine class privilege. In addition, GFTA asked
for clarification on whether a light-sport aircraft with more than a
single powerplant would require a sport pilot multiengine rating and
asked if this would be analogous to flying a light-sport aircraft
seaplane without a seaplane rating.
FAA did not propose a new airplane category ``multiengine class''
privilege for sport pilots. The multiengine reference is specific to
the rotorcraft category, multiengine helicopters, which may include
helicopters with more than one engine or multi-rotor designs. Under the
permissible category and class privileges available to sport pilots
outlined in Sec. 61.313, helicopters may have more than one engine or
rotor and still be operated by a sport pilot with a rotorcraft-
helicopter privilege. In addition, sport pilots who intend to operate a
seaplane must obtain an airplane category and single-engine sea class
privilege to operate single-engine seaplanes.
One commenter opposed the proposed Sec. 22.100(a)(4),\185\ which
indirectly allows sport pilots to operate light-sport category aircraft
at an increased maximum speed of 250 knots CAS. The commenter asserted
that sport pilots cannot safely operate at that speed without
additional training and higher grade of pilot certificate. Accordingly,
the commenter suggested a maximum CAS of 200 knots as a sport pilot
certificate limitation.
As explained in the NPRM, a maximum speed of 250 knots CAS was
intended to provide an upper limit appropriate for a category of
aircraft intended for recreation and flight training for sport pilots
to operate.\186\ However, FAA did not propose to impose a speed
limitation on the sport pilot certificate. Therefore, this comment is
out of scope for this final rule. In addition, FAA does not have a
safety concern with this change in light-sport aircraft certification
because aircraft that may be operated under sport pilot privileges are
limited by Sec. 61.316 performance and design limitations.
Specifically, the stall speed limitation in Sec. 61.316(a)(1)
indirectly limits the maximum cruise speed of the aircraft that may be
operated under sport pilot privileges.
One commenter asked hypothetical questions regarding specific
operational privileges. Specifically, the commenter asked whether a
person could travel to their job in an airplane under the provisions of
this rule or do non-passenger carrying commercial work. The commenter
further asked for justification and data if FAA did not permit these
operations.
FAA notes that subpart J of part 61 does not prohibit sport pilots
from using an aircraft for personal use or travel. Section 61.315
provides the privileges and limitations of a sport pilot certificate,
and a sport pilot determines whether his or her operation is
characterized by any of the limitations prior to operation. With
respect to the commenter's question regarding whether sports pilots are
allowed to conduct non-passenger carrying commercial work, Sec.
61.315(c)(2) prohibits a person from acting as PIC of a light sport
aircraft for compensation or

[[Page 35130]]

hire, and FAA did not propose any revisions to that specific limitation
in the NPRM. Therefore, a sport pilot would not be permitted to conduct
non-passenger commercial work if the sport pilot were to receive
compensation for it. FAA notes that what constitutes compensation is
not limited to profit, profit motive, or the actual payment of funds,
but is the receipt of anything of value that is contingent on the pilot
operating the aircraft.\187\ GAMA recommended changing the section
heading from ``design requirements'' to ``parameters,'' stating that
``design requirements'' appears to be blurring the lines between
aircraft certification and pilot privileges/limitations. GAMA stated
the section is intended to prescribe requirements that establish the
parameters and performance limitations for the aircraft in which a
sport pilot may act as pilot in command. Though understanding GAMA's
suggestion, FAA declines to change the terminology used because Sec.
61.316 is meant to define aircraft design criteria allowed for sport
pilots to operate.
One commenter recommended FAA permit sport and private pilots to
log flight time as second in command (SIC) by acting as copilot. The
commenter also suggested that allowing a sport pilot to act as SIC
would facilitate safety with a two-pilot flight deck and provide an
additional pathway to meet recency and log additional pilot time for
advanced certifications.
Currently, in accordance with Sec. 61.55, FAA does not permit
sport pilots to serve as SIC. As a result, a sport pilot cannot log
flight time as SIC in aircraft that only requires one pilot under the
type certification of the aircraft to operate as pilot in command.\188\
If a private pilot complies with Sec. 61.55, they may log SIC time.
FAA did not consider amending Sec. 61.55 to include the sport pilot
certificate, as a sport pilot certificate was created for recreational
purposes and not intended to fulfill a safety-sensitive role such as
safety pilot, which essentially amounts to a two-pilot flight crew
operation. Therefore, changes to the requirements for logging second-
in-command flight time for a sport pilot are outside the scope of this
rule.
One commenter recommended revising Sec. 61.109(i) to permit
student pilots seeking a private pilot certificate to credit training
from a flight instructor with a sport pilot rating (subpart K) to
normalize the inclusion of aircraft with more than one seat and avoid
disenfranchising the employment of subpart K instructors training sport
pilots at flight schools that already have subpart H instructors
employed. Training from a flight instructor with a sport pilot rating
(subpart K) can be credited to the experience requirements for a
private pilot certificate; however, a student pilot receiving training
from the subpart K flight instructor must have obtained their sport
pilot certificate before that training time can be used as pilot time
credit toward a private pilot certificate.\189\
Another commenter suggested that a private pilot certificate
appears to have twice the requirements as a sport pilot certificate,
but that the difference is much smaller in practice, and recommended
FAA allow sport pilots to obtain private pilot privileges after
obtaining a certain number of flight hours. This commenter also
contends research shows that experience is part of increased safety,
but did not provide the source of the research referenced. A sport
pilot can obtain additional training and experience leading to the
issuance of a private pilot certificate. However, because of the
expanded privileges associated with a higher grade of pilot
certificate, an applicant still would need to meet all the additional
experience requirements and medical qualifications for that
certificate.
One commenter suggested allowing a private pilot who is flying
under sport pilot privileges without a valid medical be allowed to
operate at VFR minimums and VFR-on-top, because such pilots have
already demonstrated proficiency. A pilot must comply with the
privileges and limitations of the certificate that he or she is
exercising. Therefore, even though the private pilot would have
demonstrated proficiency at the private pilot level, the pilot would be
exercising sport pilot privileges and would be subject to those
privileges and limitations. Section 61.315 does not allow for the
operations suggested by the commenter, and FAA did not consider
amending Sec. 61.315 to permit these types of operations.
NAFI requested that FAA should provide outreach via advisory
circulars and social media to help foster a clear understanding of the
new rules. It is FAA's intent to implement the rule to the public by
way of communications, webinars, and published guidance.
9. Conforming Amendments
This final rule makes conforming amendments to replace ``a light-
sport aircraft'' with ``an aircraft'' in the following sections:
Sec. Sec. 61.1(ii), 61.89(c)(5), 61.113(h), 61.327, 61.412; 61.415(e),
61.415(f), 61.415(g), 61.423(a)(2)(iii)(C), and 61.423(a)(2)(iii)(D).
Similarly, this final rule makes conforming amendments to replace ``a
light-sport aircraft'' and with ``an aircraft meeting the performance
limits and design requirements of Sec. 61.316'' in the following
sections: Sec. Sec. 61.23(c)(1)(i), (ii), (iii), and (iv);
61.23(c)(2)(iv); 61.89(c)(1); 61.325; 61.327(a); 61.327(b);
61.411(a)(1)(v), (b)(1), (c)(1)(v), (d)(1)(v), (e)(1)(iii), (f)(1)(v),
and (g)(1)(v). Finally, this final rule makes conforming amendments to
remove ``light-sport'' from the following sections: Sec. Sec. 61.45;
61.313; 61.317; 61.321; 61.321(a)(1), (2), and (4); 61.325;
61.327(a)(2) and (b)(2); 61.403(b); 61.417; 61.423(a)(2)(iii)(A),
(a)(2)(iv), and (b). The removal of the reference to light-sport
aircraft in subpart J is consistent with FAA's removal of the
definition for these aircraft in Sec. 1.1. Where appropriate, FAA has
removed the reference to light-sport aircraft and replaced it with a
reference to new Sec. 61.316, which sets forth the performance
limitations for the aircraft a sport pilot may operate. As explained in
section IV.H.1 of this preamble, this change in terminology is
accompanied by broadening some of the limitations that currently exist
in the definition of light-sport aircraft in Sec. 1.1.
Section 61.3 speaks to pilot certificates, ratings, and
authorizations that are required to operate aircraft in the United
States. Currently, the privileges provided in Sec. 61.313 are not
codified in Sec. 61.3. In the NPRM, FAA also proposed a conforming
amendment to Sec. 61.3 that adds a new paragraph requiring that a
sport pilot exercising the privileges listed in Sec. 61.313 receives a
qualifying logbook endorsement for the appropriate category and class
privilege, as applicable. This clarification to Sec. 61.3 is required
because sport pilots do not obtain a rating issued on a sport pilot
certificate, but instead they receive an endorsement in their logbook
facilitating the appropriate category and class ``privilege,'' as
referenced in Sec. 61.317. FAA did not receive comments on this
proposal and adopts this conforming amendment as proposed.
Finally, in the NPRM, FAA noted Sec. 61.305 is improperly
formatted as it sets forth a paragraph (a) but no corresponding
paragraph (b) and proposed to redesignate existing paragraph (a) as
introductory text, existing paragraph (a)(1) as new paragraph (a), and
existing paragraph (a)(2) as new paragraph (b). No substantive changes
were proposed for this section and no comments were received.
Therefore, this final rule reformats Sec. 61.305 as proposed.
Additional conforming amendments are throughout the regulatory
instructions as they are changed along with other regulatory changes.
FAA

[[Page 35131]]

received no public comments on these conforming amendments.

I. Repairman Certificates (Light-Sport)

Part 65 provides the requirements for certification of airmen other
than flight crewmembers, including certification of a repairman in
subpart E. In the NPRM, FAA described the existing regulations
prescribing eligibility requirements, privileges, and limitations of
the repairman (light-sport aircraft) certificate \190\ and discussed
several proposed amendments related to certification, privileges, and
limitations of light-sport repairmen. FAA received approximately 400
comments overall on the proposals related to light-sport repairmen
training, certificates, and privileges, from approximately 230
different commenters. This section discusses the adopted provisions and
adjudicates the received comments. Throughout this section, FAA will
refer to repairman certificate (light-sport) holders as ``light-sport
repairman'' and ``repairman certificate (light-sport)'' as ``light-
sport repairman certificate'' for readability.
1. Revisions to Terminology
In the NPRM, FAA proposed several amendments to part 65 terminology
to conform to other substantive proposals made in the NPRM.
First, FAA proposed to change the certificate title of ``repairman
certificate (light-sport aircraft)'' to ``repairman certificate (light-
sport)'' to align with the removal of the Sec. 1.1 definition of
``light-sport aircraft'' and future aircraft certification in the
light-sport category.\191\ One commenter asked how to request a
replacement certificate with the new title. It is not necessary for a
repairman with a repairman certificate (light-sport aircraft) to
replace their certificate with a certificate displaying the new
certificate title. As discussed in the NPRM, light-sport repairman
certificates issued before a final rule effective date will remain
valid, as FAA did not propose or adopt changes to existing privileges
or limitations to ratings on a repairman certificate. However, an
airman can request a replacement certificate through FAA's Airmen
Online Services.\192\ After the applicable effective date of this final
rule, a replacement or amended certificate will display the new
certificate title. Advisory Circular AC 65-32B, Certification of
Repairmen (Light-Sport) provides additional information on the
procedures for requesting a replacement or amended certificate.
One commenter asked that FAA consider leaving the certificate title
as-is, stating that changing the title will only cause confusion. As
discussed in the NPRM, FAA considered the impact the certificate title
change would have when developing the proposal. FAA maintains that
changing the certificate title will be beneficial over the long-term,
reducing confusion between currently designated ``light-sport
aircraft'' under the Sec. 1.1 definition, which will be removed on
July 24, 2026, and future light-sport category aircraft. During
analysis of the comment, FAA noted changing the certificate title to
repairman certificate (light-sport) in part 65 would inadvertently
result in the certificates issued before this final rule takes effect
unrecognized in part 65, since the adopted regulations will solely
refer to ``repairman certificate (light-sport).'' To address this
discrepancy, this final rule adds language under new Sec. 65.107(f),
which is discussed further in section IV.I.2.d of this preamble.
Therefore, FAA adopts the certificate title change to ``repairman
certificate (light-sport),'' as proposed, in Sec. 65.107 and new Sec.
65.109. The NPRM proposed a conforming amendment in Sec. 91.327(c)(1)
to reflect the certificate title change, and subsequently identified
conforming amendments are necessary in Sec. 91.327(b)(1) and (b)(2)
and Sec. 91.319(g)(1). FAA makes these conforming amendments in
Sec. Sec. 91.319(g)(1), 91.327(b)(1) and (2), and 91.327(c)(1).
Second, FAA proposed removing the term ``light-sport aircraft'' in
Sec. Sec. 65.107 and 65.109 when defining what aircraft are included
in the light-sport repairman certificate privileges. Instead, when
defining aircraft privileges, Sec. 65.109 would directly cross-
reference the applicable aircraft, as defined by the airworthiness
certificate issued for the aircraft under part 21. FAA did not receive
comments on this terminology change and adopts the removal and cross-
references.
Third, FAA proposed to replace references to ``class'' of aircraft
with ``category'' of aircraft in amended Sec. 65.107 and new Sec.
65.109. In the NPRM, FAA discussed that Sec. 1.1 defines those terms
differently depending on whether the term is being used in the context
of either aircraft certification or airman certification. With respect
to airman certification, ``category'' refers to a broad classification
of aircraft \193\ and ``class'' refers to a classification of aircraft
within a category having similar operating characteristics.\194\
Consistent with these definitions, part 65 does not establish repairman
certificate privileges and limitations by aircraft operating
characteristics; rather, privileges and limitations are defined by a
broad classification of aircraft. FAA finds the use of ``category'' to
be the correct term to describe light-sport repairman certificate
privileges. FAA did not receive comments on this editorial correction
and adopts the proposal to replace the term ``class'' with ``category''
throughout Sec. 65.107 and new Sec. 65.109.\195\ However, FAA may
issue light-sport repairman certificates with aircraft category
privileges that are limited to a class within the category (e.g.,
rotorcraft category, helicopter class). To facilitate aircraft class
limitations for training course content and subsequent class
limitations within category privileges on a repairman certificate, this
final rule adds class applicability to Sec. Sec. 65.107(c), 65.107(d),
65.107(e)(3)(iv), 65.109(a)(3), and 65.109(b)(3). This preamble
provides additional discussion on training courses designed for a class
within a category in section IV.I.7.d and on limiting light-sport
repairman certificate privileges to a class within a category in
sections IV.I.8 and IV.I.10.a.
This final rule also makes a conforming change to Sec.
65.109(a)(2) and (b)(2) by changing ``experimental certificate'' to
``experimental airworthiness certificate'' to remain consistent with
the terminology of Sec. 21.191 and the explanation in section IV.I.2
of the NPRM that experimental certificates are experimental
airworthiness certificates. FAA did not receive any comments on this
terminology change for Sec. 21.191.
In addition, as discussed in the NPRM, FAA finds the modifier of
``particular'' to ``class'' in current Sec. 65.107(a)(2)(ii) and
(a)(3)(ii) superfluous, as there is no related distinction established
in Sec. 1.1 definitions. FAA did not receive comments on this
editorial revision and removes the term ``particular'' as a modifier of
``class'' in adopted Sec. Sec. 65.107(c) and 65.107(d) from this
section.
Finally, in the NPRM, FAA explained that the language ``approve and
return to service'' is not accurate in the context of repairman and
mechanic certificate privileges because these certificate holders do
not ``return'' aircraft to service. FAA proposed to use the language
``approve for return to service'' in Sec. Sec. 65.81(a), 65.85(a) and
(b), 65.87(a) and (b), and new 65.109(b)(1) (formerly Sec.
65.107(c)(1)) to align with the privileges provided in part 65 and to
be consistent with part 43 maintenance regulations. FAA received one
comment on this proposed change from AEA/ARSA, which stated the
proposed changes to Sec. 65.81 are unrelated to the MOSAIC rulemaking
and, as such, FAA

[[Page 35132]]

has not provided appropriate notice as required by the APA with regard
to the intended applicability of this change and persons affected by
this proposal.
The language ``approve and return to service'' is inaccurate
because an aircraft is not ``in service'' until it is flown or
operated. The holder of a repairman or mechanic certificate cannot
``return'' the aircraft to service under the privileges of that
certificate as flying an aircraft is not a privilege bestowed by any
regulation in part 65. Rather, the certificated mechanic or repairman
approves the aircraft for its return into service. Further, FAA finds
that the public was provided sufficient notice of this proposed
amendment to change the regulatory language to ``approve for return to
service,'' FAA exercised appropriate discretion in including this
amendment under this rulemaking given its relation to part 65 repairmen
certificates, and would have considered all comments received regarding
this amendment. However, FAA did not receive any other comment on this
revision and maintains the amendment is a nonsubstantive revision for
accuracy; this final rule adopts the regulatory language to ``approve
for return to service'' in Sec. Sec. 65.81(a), 65.85(a) and (b), and
65.87(a) and (b), 65.109(b)(1) (formerly Sec. 65.107(c)(1)), and
65.109(c) (formerly Sec. 65.107(d)) to more accurately capture the
intended privileges of the certificate.
2. Repairman Certificate (Light-Sport) Eligibility
a. General
Section 65.107, prior to the applicable effective date of this
final rule, sets forth the eligibility, privileges, and limits to a
repairman certificate (light-sport aircraft) to include a table
establishing the general eligibility requirements to obtain a repairman
certificate (light-sport aircraft), as well as the specific
requirements to obtain an inspection rating and a maintenance rating on
the repairman certificate. In the NPRM, FAA proposed to reorganize
previous Sec. 65.107 into two sections to improve readability and
understanding of the requirements. Specifically, FAA proposed to amend,
first, Sec. 65.107 to include only the certificate eligibility and
training course requirements for the repairman certificate (light-
sport) and, second, to add new Sec. 65.109 to set forth the
certificate and rating (i.e., inspection, maintenance) privileges and
limitations. FAA did not receive any comments regarding the proposed
reorganization of the table into paragraphs and therefore the
reorganization is adopted in the final rule. To note, the
reorganization of Sec. 65.107 will not, by itself, substantively
change the eligibility requirements or process to obtain a light-sport
repairman certificate.
As noted in the NPRM, Sec. 65.107(a)(1)(ii), prior to the
applicable effective date of this final rule, allows that, if a person
is prevented from reading, speaking, writing, or understanding English
due to a medical reason, FAA may place a limitation on the repairman
certificate, as necessary, to ensure safe performance of the actions
authorized by the certificate and rating.\196\ FAA explained that, in
practice, this limitation is issued via an exemption in conjunction
with the application and temporary airman certificate, as other part 65
certificates are treated; therefore, FAA proposed the removal of the
limitation from restructured Sec. 65.107 (specifically, Sec.
65.107(b)(2) setting forth the language requirements). FAA did not
receive comments on this change, therefore, in the final rule, FAA is
adopting Sec. 65.107(b)(2) as proposed.
b. Citizenship
In the NPRM, FAA proposed to move the repairman applicant
citizenship requirements from Sec. 65.107(a)(1)(iv) to Sec.
65.107(b)(3). FAA received two comments stating concerns with retaining
the requirement that a person must be a U.S. citizen, or a citizen of a
foreign country who has been lawfully admitted for permanent residence
in the United States, to be eligible for a light-sport repairman
certificate. One of the commenters stated the requirement excludes
persons who are legitimately in the United States on non-immigrant
visas and who have a lawful reason to work. Both commenters suggested
it is within the purview of U.S. immigration laws to provide pathways
for individuals to legally work in the United States. In addition, both
commenters stated requiring U.S. citizenship or permanent residency is
inconsistent with the regulations for pilot, aircraft dispatcher,
parachute rigger, and mechanic certificate eligibility and that such a
requirement prevents qualified and otherwise eligible individuals from
obtaining a light-sport repairman certificate.
FAA agrees with commenters and finds removing the citizenship
requirement appropriate for the privileges associated with light-sport
repairman certificates. As stated by commenters, an applicant for a
mechanic certificate does not have a similar requirement for
citizenship or permanent residency.\197\ Neither the 2004 final rule,
nor the 2002 NPRM, that initially adopted the citizenship requirement
for light-sport repairman applicants provided a rationale for adopting
a citizenship requirement, nor does FAA find a safety basis for
preventing this possible pool of repairman from becoming certificated.
FAA notes that, while this final rule removes U.S. citizenship or
lawful permanent residency as an eligibility requirement for a light-
sport repairman certificate, all light-sport repairman must exercise
the privileges of the certificate in compliance with all applicable
laws and regulations of the United States. Therefore, in this final
rule, FAA is removing the citizenship requirement in Sec. 65.107 for
repairman certificate (light-sport) eligibility.\198\
c. Demonstration of Requisite Skill
In the NPRM, FAA proposed to retain the requirement in Sec.
65.107(a)(1)(iii) prior to the applicable effective date of this final
rule, for a light-sport repairman certificate applicant to demonstrate
the requisite skill to determine whether the aircraft is in a condition
for safe operation, in proposed Sec. 65.107(b)(4). Upon further
review, FAA found this requirement to be unclear as to what satisfies a
demonstration of skill requirement. In current practice and consistent
with FAA guidance,\199\ a person may accomplish this ``demonstration''
by presenting the certificate of completion issued by the training
course provider. FAA finds no reason to perpetuate unclear
``demonstration'' in this final rule; rather, FAA finds demonstration
of training completion and passing of the course test, is appropriate.
Completion of a training course as required prior to the applicable
effective date of this final rule,\200\ is adopted in this final rule
as Sec. 65.107(b)(3).\201\ Similarly, FAA proposed to add new Sec.
65.107(b)(6), a requirement for a written test to be administered by
the training course provider, as is the practice of training courses
prior to the applicable effective date of this final rule,\202\ which
this final rule adopts as Sec. 65.107(b)(4).
Therefore, this final rule adopts the requirement to present
documentary evidence of course completion and passage of the required
written test for an applicant to demonstrate the applicant has the
requisite skill. FAA also proposed to require training course providers
to provide a certificate of completion to each student who completes
the training course and passes the course test, in Sec. 65.107(e)(3).
A person may utilize this certificate of completion as the documentary
evidence, though other documentary evidence, such as transcripts and a
letter

[[Page 35133]]

from the course provider confirming passage of the required written
test, may also be appropriate.\203\ This final rule does not adopt
proposed Sec. 65.107(b)(4) and, instead, FAA finds an applicant
demonstrates they have the requisite skill to determine whether an
aircraft is in a condition for safe flight by presenting the
documentary evidence of training course completion and passage of the
required written test as set forth in Sec. 65.107(b)(5).
d. Changes to Repairman Certificate Privileges
In the NPRM, FAA discussed that aircraft class privileges issued
prior to, and valid before a final rule takes effect, would be
equivalent to category privileges of the same name.\204\ FAA received
five comments related to the eligibility of existing repairman
certificate (light-sport aircraft) holders to hold and exercise the
privileges of a repairman certificate (light-sport) after the effective
date of a final rule. These commenters questioned how a final rule
would affect repairman certificates issued before this final rule takes
effect.
In the NPRM, FAA explicitly stated should the proposal be adopted,
repairman certificates issued before the effective date specified in
the final rule would be valid without additional training or reissuance
to account for the broader scope of light-sport category aircraft
characteristics, which FAA further explained would not result in a
reduction in safety.\205\
As proposed in the NPRM, Sec. 65.107(a) will set forth the ratings
that may be issued on a light-sport repairman certificate: inspection
and maintenance. The NPRM did not propose any changes to the ratings
that may be issued on the certificate. However, as discussed in section
IV.I.1 of this final rule, the changed certificate title will
inadvertently result in the certificates issued before this final
rule's applicable effective date being unrecognized in part 65.
While the NPRM explicitly discussed this, FAA finds that regulatory
inclusion is needed to address this discrepancy. As such, this final
rule adopts a new paragraph specifying that repairman certificates and
ratings issued with ``repairman certificate (light-sport aircraft)''
before this final rule takes effect will remain valid, in Sec.
65.107(f), setting forth certificate issuance and equivalency
parameters. This principle was discussed in the NPRM preamble; \206\
however, the plain text of the regulations would not have accounted for
these certificates. Under this final rule, Sec. 65.107(f)(2) will
state that a repairman certificate (light-sport aircraft) that was
issued before, and was valid on, October 22, 2025 is equivalent to a
repairman certificate (light-sport) with the same ratings. New Sec.
65.107(f)(3) will also state that aircraft class privileges issued
before, and valid on October 22, 2025 are equivalent to aircraft
category privileges, with an exception in Sec. 65.107(f)(4) for
certificates with gyroplane class privileges issued before October 22,
2025 (as subsequently discussed). For example, an individual's valid
repairman certificate (light-sport aircraft) with an inspection rating
and weight-shift-control class privileges will be recognized under
Sec. 65.107(f)(2) and treated equivalently as a repairman certificate
(light-sport) with an inspection rating and weight-shift-control
category privileges. Similarly, an individual's valid repairman
certificate (light-sport aircraft) with a maintenance rating and
airplane class privileges will be recognized under Sec. 65.107(f)(3)
and treated equivalently to a repairman certificate (light-sport) with
a maintenance rating and airplane category privileges.
As discussed in section IV.I.8, a certificate with an inspection
rating and gyroplane class privileges issued before the final rule
takes effect will have rotorcraft category privileges that are limited
to aircraft in the gyroplane class. Therefore, the exception in Sec.
65.107(f)(4) states a repairman certificate (light-sport aircraft),
with an inspection rating and gyroplane class privileges issued before
and valid on October 22, 2025, is equivalent to a repairman certificate
(light-sport), with an inspection rating, and rotorcraft category
privileges that are limited to aircraft in the gyroplane class.
One commenter stated light-sport repairmen should be grandfathered
into the new light-sport aircraft rules as fully functional and
authorized mechanics. The commenter stated this would solve the current
difficulty in finding mechanics for light-sport aircraft. FAA disagrees
with the commenter; neither current nor future light-sport repairman
certificate holders meet or will be required to meet the minimum
knowledge and skills necessary to obtain a mechanic certificate. Though
FAA proposed to use the Mechanic General, Airframe, and Powerplant
Mechanic Certification Standards (Mechanic ACS) \207\ as a standard for
training light-sport repairmen applicants, the proposed rule only
required training that applies to a particular category of aircraft.
The breadth and scope of mechanic training and, therefore, the breadth
and scope of mechanic certificate privileges are much broader than just
work completed on light-sport category aircraft or a single category or
class of aircraft. FAA does not find implementing the commenter's
suggestion would provide an equivalent level of safety.
3. Inspection Rating Training Requirements
Section 65.107(a)(2), prior to the applicable effective date of
this final rule, sets forth the training requirements for a repairman
certificate (light-sport aircraft) with an inspection rating. These
requirements include: (1) meeting the general eligibility requirements
of the section and (2) completing a 16-hour training course accepted by
the Administrator on inspecting the category of experimental aircraft
for which the person intends to exercise the privileges of the rating.
FAA proposed to retain these training requirements for an inspection
rating: the general eligibility requirements were proposed in Sec.
65.107(b), while the training requirements were proposed in Sec.
65.107(c) without revision. FAA received three comments but adopts
Sec. 65.107(c) as proposed (with minor editorial revision).
One commenter stated inspection rating training courses are mostly
redundant regardless of aircraft type and proposed that a 4 to 8-hour
abbreviated course should be considered for each additional type of
aircraft after the 16-hour course has been completed for one specific
category of aircraft.\208\ Another commenter questioned why 16 hours of
training is all that is required and asked how that compares to the
requirements to obtain an inspection authorization on a mechanic
certificate and perform essentially the same function on a non-light-
sport aircraft. One commenter asked that time requirements for courses
be removed.
In the 2004 final rule preamble,\209\ FAA explained the 16-hour
inspection rating training course is designed to train an individual
owner who does not have background in aviation maintenance or
inspection to perform a satisfactory annual condition inspection on
their experimental light-sport aircraft and, based on that inspection,
make a determination if that aircraft is safe to fly. In the NPRM
associated with this rulemaking, FAA did not propose substantive
changes to the 16-hour inspection rating course requirement given the
limited scope of privileges of the inspection rating (i.e., condition
inspections only) compared to the broad scope of privileges of a
maintenance rating (i.e., all inspections and maintenance), which
correspondingly require a broader footprint of training.

[[Page 35134]]

FAA recognizes that inspection rating training courses may contain
content that is applicable to multiple aircraft categories, as the
commenter suggests. FAA notes the regulation does not limit how a
training course provider structures its training so long as the
training course is applicable to the category, and class as
applicable,\210\ of aircraft for which the person intends to exercise
the privileges of the rating.
A training course provider may minimize duplication of course
content by structuring its inspection rating courses in modules. For
example, a training course provider could design a module on
regulations and ASTM consensus standards that applies to all inspection
rating courses and other modules with course content that provide
training specific to the aircraft category, and class as applicable. In
such a scenario, a person could complete a training course accepted by
FAA that included the regulations and ASTM module and, if the person
sought repairman privileges for another category (or class) of
aircraft, could be credited as already completing the regulations and
ASTM module for the second training course, if the training course was
structured and accepted by FAA in such a manner. When requesting FAA
acceptance of the course(s), the course provider will have to define
which modules make up an inspection rating training course for a
particular aircraft category, and class as applicable, the hours
assigned to each module, and the course content of each module.
Furthermore, the regulation does not prevent course providers from
accepting previously completed, verifiable training hours from an FAA-
accepted training course toward the training necessary to add a rating
or aircraft category privileges, or class limitations to those category
privileges.\211\ Therefore, this final rule adopts the parameters for
inspection rating training courses in Sec. 65.107(c): the training
course must be at least 16 hours and must provide the student with the
requisite skill to determine if aircraft in that category, and class as
applicable, are in a condition for safe operation. For additional
discussion on training course providers using training modules, refer
to section IV.I.4e.
The requirements for obtaining an inspection authorization on a
mechanic certificate should not be compared with the requirements for a
light-sport repairman certificate inspection rating. These privileges
are not necessarily comparable: an inspection authorization is only
applicable to certain work \212\ done on aircraft holding a standard
airworthiness certificate, which is not a privilege afforded to light-
sport repairmen. As detailed throughout this rulemaking, light-sport
aircraft are placed lower on the safety continuum than aircraft holding
standard airworthiness certificates. While the scope and detail of the
annual and condition inspections may be similar, aircraft holding
standard airworthiness certificates must have an annual inspection
\213\ conducted by the holder of an inspection authorization or an
appropriately rated repair station.
FAA made a minor clarifying revision to the regulatory text from
what was proposed in Sec. 65.107(c) to remove ``satisfactorily'' as
the qualifier to completing a 16-hour training course accepted by the
Administrator. FAA removed ``satisfactorily'' because satisfactory
completion of the training course is sufficiently determined by
completing the training course and passing the written test, as now
required in Sec. 65.107(b)(3) and (b)(4).
4. Maintenance Rating Training Requirements and Incorporation by
Reference
Section 65.107(a)(3), prior to the applicable effective date of
this final rule, sets forth the training requirements for a repairman
certificate (light-sport aircraft) with a maintenance rating. These
requirements include: (1) meeting the general eligibility requirements
of the section and (2) completing a training course acceptable to FAA
on maintaining the particular class of light-sport aircraft for which
the person intends to exercise the privileges of the rating. Section
65.107(a)(3)(ii) further set forth prescriptive hourly requirements for
different aircraft privileges.\214\ The maintenance rating training
course ensures light-sport repairman certificate applicants have the
knowledge and skills necessary to maintain light-sport category and
certain experimental aircraft.\215\ In the NPRM, FAA proposed to
replace the prescriptive hours-based training requirements for
obtaining a light-sport repairman certificate maintenance rating with a
performance-based requirement in Sec. 65.107(d). As proposed, the
performance-based standard would require that the training include
appropriate knowledge and skills applicable to the category of aircraft
for which privileges are sought.\216\ The performance-based standard
would require maintenance rating training courses to include, at a
minimum, the knowledge, risk management, and skill elements for each
subject contained in the Mechanic ACS, as appropriate to the category
of aircraft being taught.\217\
To note, FAA proposed a bifurcated approach to the maintenance
training courses to ease the transition from prescriptive hour courses
to performance-based courses. As discussed in the NPRM, FAA proposed to
delay the compliance requirement for having a training course
containing the knowledge, risk management, and skill elements of the
Mechanic ACS. The proposal would have allowed for a 6-month compliance
timeframe in proposed Sec. 65.107(d)(1). FAA intended that, during
that time period, both an hours-based training course (developed under
regulations in effect prior to this final rule) or an ACS-based
training course (developed under the proposed regulations) would be
accepted by FAA for issuance of the maintenance rating on a repairman
certificate (light-sport).
Instead of adopting the bifurcated approach, FAA adopts a framework
providing training course providers additional flexibility as an
outgrowth of comments received, which are subsequently discussed. While
the means of FAA acceptance for maintenance rating training courses is
shifting from an hours-based focus to a performance-based focus in this
rulemaking, the content in the hours-based courses previously accepted
by FAA continues to be accepted because those courses contained the
required content to be accepted after this rulemaking and therefore do
not need to be reviewed and accepted after this final rule is
published. In addition, because all these training programs will meet
the adopted regulations (i.e., the performance-based framework), FAA
finds no need to adopt the proposed six-month delayed effective date to
allow for training courses (other than glider training courses) to come
into compliance with the regulation. Accordingly, proposed Sec.
65.107(d)(1) is not adopted, and proposed Sec. 65.107(d)(2) will be
adopted as Sec. 65.107(d).
Specifically, Sec. 65.107(d) will adopt the performance-based
training course requirement, requiring a person to complete a training
course accepted by the Administrator that includes content on, at a
minimum, the knowledge, risk management, and skill elements for each
subject contained in the Aviation Mechanic General, Airframe, and
Powerplant Airman Certification Standards (incorporated by reference,
see Sec. 65.23), that are appropriate to the category, and class as
applicable, of aircraft for which the person intends to exercise the
privileges of the rating. However, rather than permit prescriptive
hours for up to six months after the effective date of the rule, as

[[Page 35135]]

proposed, FAA finds that courses based on prescriptive hours and
accepted by FAA prior to this final rule, with the exception of glider
courses, already contain the course content appropriate to the
category, and class as applicable, of aircraft for which the training
is designed. Section IV.I.5 of this preamble discusses the removal of
the proposed Sec. 65.107(d)(1) in the context of glider training
courses.
In 2022, the Mechanic ACS was incorporated by reference into part
65 as the testing standard for issuance of a mechanic certificate under
part 65, subpart D.\218\ Incorporation by reference is a mechanism that
allows Federal agencies to comply with the requirements of the
Administrative Procedure Act (APA) to publish rules in the Federal
Register and the Code of Federal Regulations by referring to material
published elsewhere. Material that is incorporated by reference has the
same legal status as if it were published in full in the Federal
Register. Because 5 U.S.C. 552(a) requires the Director of the Federal
Register to approve material to be incorporated by reference,
incorporation by reference is governed by the Office of the Federal
Register and as promulgated in its regulations: 1 CFR 51. Specifically,
1 CFR 51 provides certain requirements that a regulatory incorporation
by reference must contain. As a result of the adoption of the Mechanic
ACS as a standard under new Sec. 65.107(d), FAA amends Sec.
65.23(a)(3) to add Sec. 65.107 in the referenced regulations for which
the incorporation by reference of the Mechanic ACS applies. Section
552(a) of title 5, United States Code, requires that matter
incorporated by reference be ``reasonably available'' as a condition of
its eligibility. Further, 1 CFR 51.5(b)(2) requires that agencies
seeking to incorporate material by reference discuss in the preamble of
the final rule the ways that the material it incorporates by reference
are reasonably available to interested parties, and how interested
parties can obtain the material. In accordance with 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and
1 CFR 51, FAA makes the Mechanic ACS reasonably available to interested
parties by providing free online public access to view or download the
document from the FAA ACS website at: www.faa.gov/training_testing/testing/acs. For further information, contact the Training and
Certification Group at 202-267-1100, faa.gov">acsptsinquiries@faa.gov, or 800
Independence Ave. SW, Washington, DC 20591.
This final rule subsequently summarizes and adjudicates comments
received. In summary, FAA adopts proposed Sec. 65.107(d) in the final
rule: to obtain a maintenance rating on a repairman certificate (light-
sport), a person will be required to complete a training course
accepted by the Administrator that includes content on, at a minimum,
the knowledge, risk management, and skill elements for each subject
contained in the Mechanic ACS that are appropriate to the category, and
class as applicable, of aircraft for which the person intends to
exercise the privileges of the rating, with three minor additional
changes. The changes clarify regulatory text and do not add any
requirements not already proposed or intended in the NPRM.
First, FAA is adding the language ``content on'' in the requirement
to provide a training course, to clarify that an FAA-accepted training
course defines content, and is not simply a copy of applicable
knowledge, risk management, and skill elements of the Mechanic ACS
verbatim. FAA points out this additional language does not change the
intent of the proposed rule because the term, course content, was used
in various locations throughout the proposed Sec. 65.107.\219\ In
addition, the intent of proposed Sec. 65.107(d) for a training course
to include course content was set forth in draft AC 65-32B, posted to
the rulemaking docket with the NPRM, and evidenced in the sample
maintenance rating training course content in appendix B of the
Advisory Circular.
Second, FAA is adding the words ``that are'' prior to
``appropriate'' in Sec. 65.107(d), to facilitate a plain language
reading of the requirement for determining what knowledge, risk
management, and skill elements of the mechanic ACS must be included in
a maintenance rating training course. Specifically, only those elements
that are appropriate to the category, and class as applicable, of
aircraft for which the person intends to exercise the privileges of the
rating must be included in the maintenance rating training course.
Third, FAA removed ``satisfactorily'' as the qualifier to
completing the FAA-accepted maintenance training course required in
Sec. 65.107(d). FAA removed ``satisfactorily'' because satisfactory
completion of the training course is sufficiently determined by
completing the training course and passage of a written test, as
specified in Sec. 65.107(b)(3) and (b)(4).
In response to the proposed changes to light-sport repairman
certificate training requirements, FAA received comments from
approximately 150 different associations and individual commenters.
Though several commenters provided positive feedback, most comments
were against the proposed changes to maintenance rating training
courses. Within those comments, FAA identified the following commenter
concerns:
a. The proposed rule is incomplete, unclear, or otherwise not
justified.
b. The proposed rule adds time and cost on light-sport repairman
applicants.
c. The proposed rule does not address the expanding scope of
aircraft design that light-sport repairmen could maintain and approve
for return to service.
d. FAA should use a system of endorsements or aircraft type ratings
to further define light-sport repairman certificate privileges.
e. Training courses should use modules to deliver required training
and for training on design features of more complex light-sport
category aircraft.
FAA adjudicates commenters' concerns in the subsequent sections.
Nonetheless, this final rule amends the maintenance rating training
course standard from the prescriptive hours-based requirement to a
performance-based standard based on the Mechanic ACS.
a. Comments Stating the Proposed Rule Is Incomplete, Unclear, or
Otherwise Not Justified
Several commenters stated FAA did not provide a justification of
the proposed changes or the proposal was unclear, vague, or not well
thought out. FAA disagrees with commenters that the proposed rule was
unclear or vague. FAA's review of comments found most of the answers to
questions and comments were addressed sufficiently in the NPRM \220\ or
in the draft AC 65-32B.\221\
Several commenters stated the proposed changes to maintenance
rating training courses are not necessary because the existing training
courses already provide the intended outcome of providing the necessary
knowledge and skills for working on light-sport category aircraft.
Commenters referred to the accident data in the NPRM to argue there is
no justification to revise the maintenance training course standard.
When drafting the initial repairman certificate (light-sport
aircraft) regulations for the original light-sport aircraft rulemaking,
FAA initially proposed an 80-hour training course for maintenance
rating privileges for any class of aircraft.\222\ However, in the
resulting final rule, FAA implemented varied training hour
requirements, depending on aircraft class, after finding different
training hours were required to

[[Page 35136]]

address distinct knowledge elements due to characteristic and
performance differences between those classes of aircraft. Though the
general reasons for additional course hours for certain classes of
aircraft were discussed in the 2004 final rule, no methodology was
discussed on how FAA decided on the baseline 80 course hours initially
proposed or the specific hours adopted in the 2004 final rule.
In drafting the NPRM, FAA considered recent rulemaking for part
147, which sets forth the regulations governing the training
requirements for mechanics. It is important to note that the part 147
rulemaking,\223\ which incorporated the Mechanic ACS by reference into
the training requirements in Sec. 147.17, was pursuant to a
Congressional mandate \224\ requiring the training of mechanics to
align with the entire content of the Mechanic ACS. FAA has consistently
expected that an applicant must be able to demonstrate a minimum level
of knowledge and skill, with respect to the certificate's
privileges,\225\ to be issued any type of FAA certificate. This intent
is, likewise, evident in the 2002 NPRM \226\ and the 2004 final rule
preamble that discussed training courses, training course hours, and
the skills necessary to maintain the different classes of aircraft.
However, the prescriptive requirement, on its face in the regulations,
did not accurately reflect the expectation that an applicant be trained
and evaluated on knowledge and skills appropriate to the category, and
class as applicable, of aircraft for which the person intends to
exercise the privileges of the certificate and rating.
When drafting the NPRM, FAA decided that rather than continue
requiring prescriptive course hours, a performance-based standard for
course content based on necessary knowledge and skill would provide an
improved training standard. The transition to a performance-based
course retains the intent of the prescriptive-hours requirement by
ensuring applicants complete course content on the necessary knowledge
and skill, while removing the required prescriptive-hours approach. The
performance-based approach gives course content providers flexibility
to determine the appropriate time necessary to deliver course content
to prepare applicants for their duties and privileges under a light-
sport repairman certificate with a maintenance rating.
The performance-based standard provides applicants and training
course providers with a regulatory standard for the knowledge, risk
management, and skill elements that will be used to determine the
training content an applicant must be taught. Importantly, the standard
also requires the training content to be appropriately tailored to the
category, and class as applicable, of aircraft for which the applicant
is seeking privileges. FAA emphasizes intentional language in the
regulation tailoring the training course content an applicant must
complete to the elements for each subject appropriate to the category,
and class as applicable, of aircraft. Therefore, an applicant must only
complete, and a training course provider is only required to provide,
content on the knowledge, risk management, and skill elements that
apply to the category, and class as applicable, of aircraft privileges
sought; in other words, a training provider does not have to provide
training on all elements of all subjects within the Mechanic ACS if the
element does not apply to that category, and class as applicable, of
aircraft. Entire subject areas may not be applicable, while other
subject areas may have some or all elements being applicable. For
example, for airplane category training, the Mechanic ACS section III.
Powerplant, subject area B. Turbine Engines, may not be applicable
until there are light-sport category aircraft operating in the NAS with
turbine engines. Under the Mechanic ACS Section I. General, subject
area F. Ground Operations and Servicing, training courses could exclude
those knowledge, risk, and skill elements not typically applicable to
light-sport category aircraft operating in the NAS, such as oxygen
system servicing, or deicing servicing procedures.
The draft AC 65-32B \227\ provided a sample \228\ of training
course content that would be acceptable to FAA under the proposed
performance-based training requirement. This sample demonstrates that
the new regulation will provide training course providers flexibility
in tailoring their courses, rather than imposing additional
requirements or burden. Importantly, draft AC 65-32B identified the
training course content that was used to accept courses under the
hours-based training requirement, included in AC 65-32A, to then show
what will be acceptable under the performance-based training
requirement (i.e., what the overlapping footprint will be for currently
operating training providers). The AC illustrates a method of
compliance \229\ for providing the appropriate training course content
(i.e., the applicable knowledge, risk management, and skill elements
for each subject contained in the Mechanic ACS) that will be acceptable
to FAA under adopted Sec. 65.107(d). As demonstrated in the AC, the
training course content that was appropriate under the hours-based
requirement should substantively correlate to the same content under
the ACS-based training standard, except for glider class courses, which
are further discussed in section IV.I.5.
FAA acknowledges commenters' concerns that the term ``appropriate''
(defining the elements and subject areas applicable to the category of
aircraft the person intends to exercise the privileges of the rating)
may result in a standard that could be applied differently, especially
over time. While the Mechanic ACS is the overarching standard, FAA
retains the authority to update the regulations over time as safety
demands, which may result in changes to what constitutes
``appropriate.'' FAA will consider the following three guidelines \230\
when providing training course acceptance,\231\ and training course
providers should use these guidelines in deciding the appropriate
course content, initially based on the Mechanic ACS, for each
maintenance rating training course.
First, appropriate content can only be determined by considering
the certificate and certificate privileges for which the training is
designed. This means that for any given applicable subject area or
element in the Mechanic ACS, the course content must have appropriate
information on topics that are relevant to the aircraft for which an
applicant seeks a certificate and accompanying privileges. Second, a
determination of what constitutes appropriate course content should
consider the designs and configurations of aircraft operating in the
NAS for which light-sport repairmen will be expected to perform
maintenance on and approve for return to service. It would be
unreasonable for training course providers to develop course content
and train (and repairman applicants to learn) about potential light-
sport category aircraft designs that may never exist or never be
operated in the NAS. For example, light-sport category aircraft are no
longer limited to using a single reciprocating engine; however, it
remains to be seen if multi- or turbine engine light-sport category
designs will operate in the NAS. As such, light-sport repairman
training courses do not need to train on multi- or turbine engine
light-sport category aircraft until such time that multi- or turbine
engine light-sport category aircraft exist and operate in the NAS.
Third, appropriate course content should be based on those tasks that
the majority of repairmen will be expected to conduct or that a newly
certificated

[[Page 35137]]

light-sport repairman would be expected to perform. The knowledge, risk
management, and skill elements in the Mechanic ACS set forth the
foundational knowledge and skills a mechanic or repairman could
encounter while performing aircraft maintenance work. Taken together,
with the additional guidance and sample course content provided in the
AC, FAA does not find the modifier of ``appropriate'' to be ambiguous,
arbitrary, or burdensome.
One commenter noted that, while FAA's proposal does not directly
suggest the maintenance rating training requirement would increase,
aligning current courses to the Mechanic ACS would almost certainly
require increased training. The commenter further added that, by
leaving the range of potentially acceptable training curricula entirely
unclear, FAA fails to adhere to the requirement of the APA to allow for
comment, as the potential scope of the resulting requirements for the
issuance of the certificate are so broad as to inhibit their ability to
meaningfully comment.
As discussed previously, aircraft owners, operators, the light-
sport industry, and FAA cannot foresee exactly which aircraft designs
will be viable, produced under these new regulations, and ultimately
operate in the NAS in numbers that warrant revisions to light-sport
repairman training requirements. As those aircraft increasingly operate
in the NAS, the appropriate training should evolve to include those
aircraft designs as necessary, and FAA may conduct future rulemaking to
address any safety concerns. It is possible that maintenance rating
training course content that is appropriate today, and subsequently
accepted by FAA, could at some point in the future be found to no
longer contain appropriate content and create a substantial safety
risk. Should this occur, FAA will work with training course providers
to address safety issues and follow its policy \232\ on rescinding its
FAA acceptance if those issues are not addressed.
However, all documents incorporated by reference are regulatory
and, therefore, must go through notice and comment rulemaking.\233\ FAA
finds the regulated community has had two opportunities to comment on
the Mechanic ACS. First, FAA incorporated by reference the Mechanic ACS
with notice and comment rulemaking during the Aviation Maintenance
Technician School (AMTS) interim final rule.\234\ In addition, FAA
provided notice in the NPRM for this rulemaking through a detailed
explanation on the proposed use of the Mechanic ACS in the regulation
as a basis for a repairman training course for a maintenance rating.
FAA also notes that, in addition to the first comment period (dated
July 24, 2023, through October 23, 2023), the NPRM was extended to
allow the opportunity for public comment on the NPRM and associated
documents in the docket (dated October 23, 2023, through January 22,
2024). FAA provided a draft of AC 65-32 in the docket with the NPRM, so
the public had the same opportunity to comment on the illustration and
implementation of performance-based course content based on the revised
Advisory Circular. As such, FAA has fulfilled its obligations under the
APA of providing notice and opportunity to comment specific to the
content of the Mechanic ACS and for the use of the Mechanic ACS as the
basis for repairman training course content. FAA will continue to
adhere to the required notice and comment procedures for any revisions
to the Mechanic ACS.
b. Comments Stating the Proposed Rule Adds Time and Cost for Light-
Sport Repairman Applicants
Numerous commenters, including a training course provider with
multiple FAA-accepted training courses, stated eliminating the current
maintenance rating training course standards would dramatically
increase the time and expense needed to obtain a light-sport repairman
certificate with a maintenance rating. Some commenters suggested that
the proposed changes would disrupt existing training programs or
increase time and cost burden, exacerbating the shortage of qualified
personnel necessary to maintain and inspect these aircraft and
decreasing the safety of the fleet and aviation safety overall. Some
commenters asserted the proposed rule would require light-sport
repairman applicants to have the same training as a mechanic
certificate applicant. In sum, most commenters stated, as evidenced by
FAA light-sport category aircraft data, maintenance rating training
courses accepted by FAA prior to this rulemaking provided the
appropriate training, and these commenters suggested there is no reason
to change the training course regulations.
FAA agrees a substantial decrease in light-sport repairmen could
negatively impact the safety of the aircraft that are inspected or
maintained by light-sport repairmen. FAA does not find the final rule
will increase the time or cost to applicants for a light-sport
repairman certificate; however, FAA understands commenters perceived
the proposal as including more stringent requirements. First, FAA will
not require light-sport repairman applicants to complete training to
the same extent as for mechanic applicants. Second, repairman training
courses accepted prior to the applicable effective date of this final
rule, with the exception of courses specific to glider category as
specified in section IV.I.5, will remain valid following the
implementation of this final rule.
First, FAA's intent is not to require light-sport repairmen
applicants to undergo the same training as mechanic applicants
attending a part 147 AMTS. While the Mechanic ACS standard provides a
regulatory basis for training content, the actual course content in a
repairman course is, and will continue under this final rule to be,
less than that required for mechanic training, which corresponds with
the spectrum of privileges afforded on each certificate, respectively.
A light-sport repairman maintenance rating training course will only be
required to teach content on those knowledge, risk, and skill elements
that are appropriate to the category, and class as applicable, of
aircraft for which privileges are sought. Light-sport repairman
certificate privileges and limitations are set forth in Sec. 65.109;
therefore, any determination by course providers of ``appropriate''
Mechanic ACS subjects and elements and resulting course content must
consider the overall privileges of the repairman certificate and
appropriate \235\ content tailored to the aircraft category or class.
Conversely, AMTS course content requires content related to every
knowledge, risk, and skill element in the Mechanic ACS be taught in a
broad enough manner that reflects the privileges of a mechanic
certificate. Therefore, the training footprint for a repairman
certificate with maintenance rating will be less than that of the
mechanic certificate.
Second, after consideration of comments to the NPRM, FAA agrees
with commenters that existing training course content (delivered within
prescriptive hours) achieves the necessary knowledge and skill to be
issued a light-sport repairman certificate, with the exception of
glider training courses accepted prior to this final rule taking
effect.\236\ As discussed in the NPRM,\237\ FAA foresees the hours that
maintenance rating course providers are required to design their
courses to under the existing regulations will be similar to the hours
training course providers would include in new/revised courses because
those courses should already be teaching students the necessary
information on how to maintain their category, or class as

[[Page 35138]]

appropriate, of aircraft. Under this final rule, training course
providers will be free to maintain their training course hour minimums;
FAA is simply removing the prescriptive hours requirement in
recognizing that training course providers are in the best position to
determine the appropriate duration of course work to achieve student
proficiency. For example, a repairman certificate (light-sport)
maintenance rating training course provider with a 120-hour airplane
category privilege course may continuing offering the 120-hour course,
as long as the course contains the appropriate knowledge, risk
management, and skill elements from the Mechanic ACS that pertain to
the airplane category privilege. Conversely, the training course
provider may determine that these ends can be achieved by removing or
adding course hours, which could be facilitated under this final rule
with FAA acceptance.
One commenter stated moving to a competency-based process is good
news for individuals with significant maintenance, engineering, or
building experience outside of formal, traditional hours-based mechanic
training. Under this final rule, training course providers will have
the ability to increase or decrease the course hours, as long as the
course provides the appropriate content; however, FAA clarifies,
contrary to this comment, that the standard is not solely a competency-
based standard. Applicants for a light-sport repairman certificate are
still required to complete an FAA-accepted training course that meets
the regulatory parameters specified in Sec. 65.107. Training course
providers should not solely contemplate a student's previous knowledge
or experience for the purpose of issuing credit toward their FAA-
accepted course.
In summary, FAA is adopting the performance-based standard for
maintenance rating training courses as proposed. FAA disagrees with
commenters that replacing the hour-based prescriptive training course
standard with a performance-based training course standard will result
in an increase in the time or expense necessary to complete a
maintenance rating training course and obtain a light-sport repairman
certificate compared to the requirements prior to this final rule
taking effect. Consequently, FAA does not find a basis to commenters'
assertions that the performance-based training course standard will
result in less light-sport repairman certificate holders, nor does FAA
find any basis for an alleged decrease in safety associated with a
decline resulting from increased training burden.
c. Comments Stating the Proposed Rule Does Not Address the Expanding
Scope of Aircraft Design That Light-Sport Repairmen Could Maintain and
Approve for Return to Service
AEA/ARSA stated the extensive expansion of size, speed, and
complexity of light-sport aircraft and the expanded flight training and
aerial work operations of these aircraft as proposed were not
considered when the light-sport repairman certificate was established
in 2004; however, AEA/ARSA did not recommend any changes or
considerations specific to this rulemaking in this context. In
developing the proposed changes to light-sport repairmen requirements
in this rulemaking, FAA did consider the potential for the expansion of
aircraft size, speed, complexity, and operations that this final rule
will allow. While most commenters to the light-sport repairman proposal
argued the added training burden is not necessary, many of those same
commenters suggested that FAA should mandate additional training or
experience using ratings or endorsements. These comments suggest that
commenters recognized additional training or experience may be
necessary for light-sport repairmen before approving for return to
service those aircraft having design features of which the certificate
holder does not have knowledge or skills.
Until such time as aircraft in the new aircraft categories and with
new design features are issued light-sport category airworthiness
certificates and are operating in the NAS, it would be unreasonable to
mandate additional training for all possible design features for
obtaining a light-sport repairman certificate. By virtue of defining
sets of aircraft based on similar characteristics through category and
class, which has long been FAA's framework, it is unreasonable to
capture every unique design feature that may vary from aircraft to
aircraft. For example, rotorcraft-helicopters are captured under a
common class of aircraft without a requirement that a person have
specific training on a two-blade rotor system if working on a
helicopter with two blades or a three-blade rotor system if working on
a helicopter with three blades (etc.). Rather, FAA finds the training
framework set forth in the mechanic ACS sufficiently addresses the
commonality in design, size, speed, and complexity of the expanded
light-sport category aircraft. Further, FAA points to related
requirements for both mechanics \238\ and light-sport repairmen with a
maintenance rating \239\ that prohibit those certificate holders from
exercising the privileges of their certificate if the individual has a
lack of knowledge or skill, relative to the work the certificate holder
intends to perform. These requirements serve as a safety mitigation to
ensure an aircraft may only be approved for return to service by a
certificate holder who is not only appropriately rated, but who also
has previously done that work satisfactorily.\240\
AEA/ARSA also asserted the proposed expansion of authority of the
light-sport repairman is discriminatory and creates an uneven playing
field for aircraft maintenance service technicians. The commenters
stated if FAA has determined that the limited knowledge, skills, and
abilities as described in draft AC 65-32B, Certification of Repairmen
(Light-Sport), are a safety limit considering the size, complexity, and
operations of the new light-sport aircraft, then FAA must reconsider
the knowledge standards and experience requirements for certification
of mechanics under Sec. Sec. 65.75 and 65.77, Knowledge requirements,
and repairman, Sec. 65.101.
FAA interprets AEA/ARSA's comment to imply that, because the light-
sport repairman training standard is now based on the Mechanic ACS, a
light-sport repairman can do the same work as a mechanic, and the
mechanic certification process unnecessarily requires more training to
earn the same privileges a light-sport repairman is permitted. The
maintenance rating training course content in AC 65-32B contains
examples of minimum course content that would be found acceptable to
FAA for light-sport repairman training. While determining appropriate
course content is based in part on the privileges and limitations that
an airman would have once issued a certificate, that course content
does not equate to privileges or limitations of a light-sport repairman
certificate. Privileges and limitations are set forth in Sec. 65.109.
To be clear, the required training for a light-sport repairman
certificate must only be appropriate to the privileges afforded by the
certificate. As such, the mechanic training is more comprehensive than
training for a light-sport repairman certificate because mechanic
certificates afford more privileges. Furthermore, the privileges
afforded a light-sport repairman with a maintenance rating in new Sec.
65.109 (Sec. 65.107 prior to this final rule taking effect), do not
limit, and have never limited those certificate holders by the aviation
work and tasks that may be performed (with the exception of meeting
those additional requirements in Sec. 65.109(c) previously discussed).

[[Page 35139]]

Instead, light-sport repairmen are, and always have been, limited based
on the airworthiness certificate issued to the aircraft and the
category, and class as applicable, of aircraft on which the certificate
holder has demonstrated the requisite knowledge and skill. The specific
work tasks a light-sport repairman can perform are not limited; rather,
light-sport repairmen are limited as to the aircraft on which work can
be performed.
One commenter stated the Mechanic ACS was written without light-
sport aircraft in mind. FAA disagrees; the purpose of the Mechanic ACS
is to ensure mechanic applicants have the broad-scope foundational and
essential knowledge and skills necessary to exercise the privileges of
a mechanic certificate once certificated. Those certificate privileges
include conducting maintenance (including inspections and repairs) and
alterations on light-sport category aircraft. FAA maintains that
mechanic training designed to meet the Mechanic ACS would be required
to include training to support privileges to perform maintenance on
light-sport category aircraft, the light-sport repairman certificate
simply limits that work to certain kinds of aircraft.
To note, the knowledge, risk, and skill elements in the Mechanic
ACS may not be equivalent to course content when comparing between a
repairman training course and a mechanic training course, largely due
to the training footprint required for the associated privileges of
each certificate. Some elements in the Mechanic ACS address specific
knowledge, and other elements require understanding or skill to a
broader degree. As a hypothetical, mechanic applicants would typically
learn about airships by way of structures, fabric, engines, (in
general) and a light-sport repairman airship training course would
contain specific content based on the airship consensus standard (upon
inception). Particularly in elements related to certificate privileges
and regulations, it is implied in the language of the element that the
training would include course content related to light-sport category
aircraft. For example, elements AM.I.I.K1 and AM.I.I.K8 require that an
applicant must demonstrate understanding of the privileges and
limitations of a mechanic certificate and the regulatory framework,
including general subject matter of the parts of 14 CFR relevant to
aircraft maintenance and mechanics.
That said, just because a subject area in the Mechanic ACS uses the
term ``mechanic,'' this does not conclusively mean that it is
inapplicable to repairmen. When using the Mechanic ACS as a training
course standard for light-sport repairman training, where the Mechanic
ACS specifically refers to ``mechanics,'' it may be appropriate to
include that same content in a light-sport repairman training course in
the context of light-sport aircraft, as the repairman training course
is for a maintenance rating. For example, in the element AM.I.I.K8, it
would be appropriate for maintenance rating training courses to include
content on the regulatory framework, including general subject matter
of the parts of 14 CFR relevant to aircraft maintenance and light-sport
repairman certificate holders, even though AM.I.I.K8 specifically
states ``[t]he regulatory framework, including general subject matter
of the parts of 14 CFR relevant to aircraft maintenance and
mechanics.''
One commenter recommended FAA develop a separate ACS applicable to
light-sport category aircraft. Another commenter suggested that FAA
create separate ACS for each endorsement-based training module within
the maintenance rating training course. At this time, FAA is not
considering developing a separate ACS for light-sport category
aircraft. Light-sport repairmen and mechanics perform the exact same
work, though light-sport repairmen are limited as to which aircraft
that work may be performed on. If FAA were to develop an ACS specific
to light-sport category aircraft, such an ACS would be almost identical
to the Mechanic ACS with minor exceptions, particularly considering the
expanded design and performance specifications that could exist in the
various categories (airplane, rotorcraft, powered-lift, etc.) in light-
sport category aircraft under this final rule. Therefore, FAA finds it
would be neither efficient nor streamlined to create separate ACSs.
Relatedly, FAA did not propose an endorsement based-training option and
is not adding regulations to support an endorsement system for light-
sport repairman certification. AC 65-32 contains information on the
development of training courses, but it is not necessary to create a
separate ACS for each training module, and maintains the Mechanic ACS
adequately covers the minimum standard required for light-sport
repairman certification.
Some commenters suggested that when maintenance is performed on a
light-sport category aircraft, it is performed differently than the
same work done on an aircraft certificated in another category and
suggested it would not be appropriate to use the Mechanic ACS as a
training standard because the ACS would not apply. FAA disagrees since
the maintenance requirements of part 43 apply to light-sport category
aircraft, as defined in part 43 and Sec. 91.327. One commenter stated
the differences between maintaining light-sport category aircraft and
type-certificated aircraft warrant different training standards. FAA
assumes the commenter is referring to the consensus standards to which
light-sport category aircraft are designed as being the difference in
maintaining these aircraft comparative to type-certificated aircraft.
Many commenters seemed to equate the consensus standards on which
light-sport category are designed with standards for performing
maintenance. There could be multiple consensus standards accepted by
FAA for the design of a particular category of light-sport aircraft,
just as there are many aircraft design standards \241\ for other
categories of aircraft. While some elements of the Mechanic ACS focus
on knowledge of regulations and the significance of the design
standard, the ACS does not require specific knowledge of the design
standards themselves. Most of the elements in the Mechanic ACS require
knowledge and skill on the techniques for maintenance, inspection,
repair, and alteration that will be used to ensure the aircraft will
continue to meet that design standard over its operational life. As
previously discussed, FAA acknowledges there will be differences in
training course content for mechanics and light-sport repairmen
applicants. Nonetheless, the Mechanic ACS provides a standard for
determining what those course content differences should be and intends
to provide repairmen applicants (and mechanic applicants) with
foundational knowledge and skill to then apply to different aircraft
within a category (and class if applicable).
Some commenters stated light-sport aircraft have distinct standards
for maintenance manuals, which offer detailed instructions specific to
each aircraft, and contrasted the specificity in maintenance manuals
with the broad privileges granted by mechanic certificates based on
general training. FAA interprets these comments to imply the commenters
are stating light-sport repairman certificate training should be
different from mechanic training because of maintenance manual
standards. Light-sport repairman certificate privileges are not based
on an aircraft's maintenance manual content; therefore, maintenance
manual standards are not a consideration when determining training
requirements. The Mechanic ACS includes knowledge, risk, and skill
elements on the use of manufacturer maintenance manuals,

[[Page 35140]]

which would be requisite training for a light-sport repairman
maintenance rating course, under subject area I. Regulations,
Maintenance Forms, Records, and Publications.
d. Comments Stating FAA Should Use a System of Endorsements or Aircraft
Type Ratings To Further Define Light-Sport Repairman Certificate
Privileges
AEA/ARSA recommended the light-sport repairman certificate
maintenance rating be revised to require that a repairman be type-rated
on the aircraft the repairman is authorized to maintain. Several other
commenters also recommended that FAA establish a certification system
involving aircraft type ratings or endorsements, similar to how
certificate privileges are identified for pilots, to identify the
specific privileges and limitations of a light-sport repairman
certificate maintenance rating. Several of these commenters implied
that a system of endorsements would be less burdensome than what was
proposed in the NPRM.
FAA disagrees with the commenters that creating a system of
endorsement or aircraft type ratings would be less burdensome than what
was proposed since this rulemaking does not increase training burden in
any way from what was required prior to this final rule taking effect.
FAA also disagrees with establishing a system of endorsements for
recording a light-sport repairman's experience in performing certain
work. Rather, FAA finds a type or endorsement system to be more
burdensome, as a person would have to seek training and the endorsement
for each specific aircraft they would seek to perform work on rather
than have the privilege of performing work on any aircraft within the
category (and class if applicable). To develop such an endorsement
requirement, FAA would also need to revise the regulations to add a
recordkeeping requirement, develop and add an endorsement framework,
and establish instructor requirements to provide such training. Again,
the maintenance rating limitations formerly in Sec. 65.107(c) have
proven effective in ensuring the safety of light-sport category
aircraft maintenance where there may be an initial gap in knowledge of
an aircraft within the category (and class if applicable) and have been
recodified in Sec. 65.109(c).\242\ Furthermore, FAA did not consider
establishing endorsements for repairman certificates in this rulemaking
and such a change (which would require input on the aforementioned
regulatory parameters) is therefore outside the scope of this
rulemaking.
e. Comments Stating Training Courses Should Use Modules To Deliver
Required Training and for Training on Design Features of More Complex
Light-Sport Category Aircraft
EAA, AOPA, NATA, NBAA, and many other commenters commented that the
current maintenance rating training courses can be supplemented by
additional modules appropriate to these new aircraft, components, and
technologies.
FAA notes the regulation does not limit how a training course
provider structures its training and agrees that training course
providers have the option to structure their inspection rating and
maintenance rating training courses using modules. However, as proposed
and adopted in this final rule, the courses must include the
appropriate course content aligned with the Mechanic ACS, as
applicable.\243\ FAA will only accept an FAA course when the course
provider can demonstrate to FAA that the course includes all required
training applicable to the rating and category, and class as
applicable, as well as privileges for which the course is designed. In
the draft AC 65-32B, FAA suggested training course content could be
provided in module format if the course provider chose to set the
training course up in that manner; however, the draft AC suggested that
course providers could choose other course designs.
EAA, AOPA, NATA, and NBAA stated additional training modules could
be offered by the original training course provider, the aircraft or
component manufacturer, or anyone equipped to offer this training.
Under EAA, AOPA, NATA, and NBAA's proposed framework, they stated a
light-sport repairman would need to show completion of these course
modules before performing maintenance on applicable aircraft. First,
FAA agrees that any of these entities listed by the commenters would be
able to submit training courses for FAA-acceptance and subsequently
deliver training that meets the requirements of Sec. 65.107, as
adopted in this final rule. Unlike part 147 AMTS requirements for
training on obtaining a mechanic certificate, which require a person to
successfully complete a part 147 certificated AMTS curriculum (if not
applying for a mechanic certificate on the basis of practical
experience), FAA does not place air agency certification requirements
on training providers of light-sport repairman training courses.
However, the training course must be an entire course, not just an
added module by separate providers, as the training course as a whole
must be FAA-accepted and deemed to meet the requirements of revised
Sec. 65.107 (e.g., contain the appropriate content from the Mechanic
ACS). For example, a person could not take 75% of a training course at
one provider and then take individual modules at a second provider to
result in an entire training course.
Second, the requirement that inspection and maintenance rating
training courses be FAA-accepted does not prevent a training course
provider from developing additional training courses on topics beyond
the minimum certification standard and offering those courses as add-on
training. However, such additional training is not required for an
applicant to be eligible for a light-sport repairman certificate and
the applicant is not required to show completion of these course
modules before performing maintenance on applicable aircraft. While not
required for eligibility, attending additional training is always
encouraged and may be one way to meet Sec. 65.109(c), depending on the
specific training provided.\244\
Another commenter stated there is no discussion in the proposed
rule of add-on courses and asked how a current certificate holder would
add additional categories of aircraft to their certificate, such as
rotorcraft and powered-lift, and how the modular concept would work
with these new skill-based courses. Training course providers will be
responsible for developing training courses for any new aircraft
category, and class as applicable, privileges that would be allowed
under this final rule. It is permissible for a training course provider
to use existing course modules as a portion of a new FAA-accepted
training course. AC 65-32 provides information on how a training course
provider could request a new course acceptance using modules that may
be included as part of another training course.
For example, a training provider could develop a module specific to
the certificate privileges of light-sport repairmen, which would be
applicable to every FAA-accepted training course the training provider
offers. Then, the training course provider could credit a student with
previous completion of that training module if the training course
provider could verify the student had already completed that training;
in this case, the student would then not have to retake that training
module. However, the student must still complete and pass a written
test administered by the training course provider that covers the
contents of the course, to include all course modules

[[Page 35141]]

including the module on certificate privileges, before being issued a
certificate of completion for that training course.
One commenter emphasized that allowing online course work would
help in making additional training available for maintenance topics not
covered in the base repairman training. Just as the regulations do not
restrict training course providers from providing additional training
course content, the regulations do not prescribe a delivery method.
Therefore, a training course provider could use online delivery for
some of the training within an FAA-accepted courses. Training course
providers should review the ACS standards for elements that require
students to demonstrate skill, for which training on those skills, with
very few limited exceptions, is best suited to hands-on, in-person
learning with a qualified instructor.
5. Training Course Revision for Gliders: Delayed Compliance
As a result of the proposed change to training course standards for
the maintenance rating (i.e., from prescriptive hours to performance
based), the NPRM discussed that existing course providers would need to
review their existing training courses to determine if those courses
include the appropriate knowledge, risk management, and skill elements
from the Mechanic ACS. Furthermore, the NPRM discussed that if course
revision is necessary, the course provider would have to submit the
revised course to FAA for acceptance. To allow for a transition period
between the current and proposed training standards, FAA proposed in
Sec. 65.107(d)(1) to retain the prescriptive hour requirements for 6
months. The NPRM discussed that during that 6-month timeframe, either
an hours-based training course or a performance standard ACS-based
training course (developed under the proposed and adopted regulations)
would be accepted by FAA for issuance of the maintenance rating on a
light-sport repairman certificate.
As discussed in section IV.I.4.a, FAA surveyed the existing FAA-
accepted maintenance training courses and determined that each training
course, with the exception of the glider courses previously discussed,
already include course content that covers the knowledge, risk
management, and skill elements contained in the Mechanic ACS
appropriate to the category of aircraft on which the training
applies.\245\ However, upon review of the glider training courses, FAA
identified two FAA-accepted glider class training courses, including
one 16-hour glider class inspection rating course \246\ and one 80-hour
glider class maintenance rating course, that only include content on
unpowered gliders.\247\ FAA does not distinguish powered and unpowered
gliders as different classes of aircraft within the glider category
\248\ and does not issue light-sport repairman certificate limitations
based on aircraft design features alone. Because the glider category of
aircraft includes both powered and unpowered gliders, FAA determined
each training course for gliders should cover both powered and
unpowered gliders, which will be required via the Mechanic ACS through
an applicable powerplant subject area.\249\ To ensure training course
operators have ample time to add this content, and for FAA to accept
the revised training course, this final rule more narrowly scopes the
delayed compliance language from that originally proposed into new
Sec. 65.107(g), which will only apply to glider training courses.
Section 65.107(g) will apply to both the maintenance rating course (as
proposed in the NPRM) and adds the inspection rating course for glider
category. Further, this final rule extends the proposed 6 month delayed
effectivity to a one-year effectivity. Therefore, two glider-specific
training courses (accepted by FAA prior to this final rule) will have
one year to integrate both powered and unpowered training topics into
their course content and all new glider-specific training courses must
include applicable course content for both powered and unpowered
gliders upon submission for FAA-acceptance.
Glider training courses accepted by FAA prior to October 22, 2025,
may be offered until July 24, 2026.\250\ After that date, the course
may not be offered, but individuals who have completed the course prior
to that date will still be eligible for a light-sport repairman
certificate with glider category privileges if all eligibility
requirements in Sec. 65.107 are met because course completion
certificates do not expire. At the time of this final rule, there are
approximately 11 light-sport repairmen issued an inspection rating and
141 light-sport repairmen issued a maintenance rating, with glider
class privileges issued before the publication of this final rule.
These repairman certificates were not originally issued with a powered
or unpowered differentiation; however, these repairmen hold glider
category privileges for both unpowered and powered gliders, consistent
with Sec. 65.107(f), Certificate issuance and equivalency, and Sec.
65.109.\251\
6. Training Course Exams
As mentioned previously, FAA proposed to add a requirement as Sec.
65.107(b)(6) for an applicant for a light-sport repairman certificate,
for either an inspection or maintenance rating, to pass a written test
administered by the training course provider that covers the content of
the training course. Prior to October 22, 2025, FAA guidance specified
that training course providers submit a course test, along with their
training course, as part of the training course package for FAA review
and acceptance.\252\ Furthermore, guidance specified that the training
course include a final course test, for which the student must achieve
an 80 percent or higher to be considered as having successfully
completed the course. FAA proposed to codify the requirement that
students pass a test on the course content with a minimum passing grade
of 70 percent as required by Sec. 65.17. As explained in the NPRM, the
proposal aligned with a historical NTSB position, suggesting FAA
implement a testing requirement. Further, FAA finds testing is an
essential step in the airman certification process as a proficiency
determination. Therefore, while FAA received several comments opposing
the testing requirement as subsequently discussed, this final rule
adopts the requirement for an applicant to pass a written test
administered by the training course provider that covers the contents
of the maintenance or inspection training course as applicable to the
rating sought, in Sec. 65.107(b)(4). As discussed in the NPRM, there
is no need to restate a minimum passing grade in Sec. 65.107 because
the minimum passing grade requirement (70 percent) specified in Sec.
65.17(b) applies to all tests administered under part 65 and therefore
will apply to the written test required by Sec. 65.107(b)(4). FAA will
continue to require submission of a course test covering the contents
of the course at the time of course acceptance review.
FAA received a comment submitted jointly by EAA, AOPA, NATA, and
NBAA, plus 3 additional comments from individuals, on the topic of a
training course test. The joint EAA, AOPA, NATA, and NBAA comment and
two individuals stated they do not support codifying the acceptance of
tests or prescribing a passing grade in the regulation as described in
the NPRM, but did not provide supporting rationale for their
perspective. These same commenters stated any exams

[[Page 35142]]

related to the training course should continue to be the domain of the
individual course curricula and associated policies. While these
commenters stated they do not support the codifying of ``acceptance''
of tests, FAA notes the regulation as proposed would not require FAA
acceptance of the course provider's tests. The regulation, as proposed
and subsequently adopted, requires the training course to be accepted
by FAA, and then further requires that the training course provider
administer a written test that covers the contents of the FAA-accepted
course. FAA requests a copy of the written test when submitting the
training course for FAA-acceptance solely to confirm the course
provider has a written test for the course. FAA is not reviewing the
written test for FAA-acceptance separate from FAA-acceptance for the
training course.
One commenter stated to be issued a certificate, a light-sport
repairman applicant should complete oral and practical exams \253\ to
ensure sufficiency of training, without further supporting explanation.
FAA disagrees with this commenter's assertion that the light-sport
repairman certification process should require an oral and practical
test in addition to, or in lieu of, the written test already
administered. The training and testing requirements to be eligible for
a light-sport repairman certificate (i.e., certification rigor) are
consistent with FAA's safety continuum related to light-sport category
aircraft, and certificate privileges afforded to a light-sport
repairman.\254\ For example, to obtain a mechanic certificate with both
an airframe and powerplant rating, a person must have either 30 months
of practical experience or training by a part 147 certificated AMTS on
all subject areas and elements in the Mechanic ACS.\255\ FAA testing
for a mechanic certificate includes a written test \256\ and oral and
practical tests \257\ that cover the subject areas and elements of the
Mechanic ACS. During testing, practical demonstrations may be required
on any type of aircraft that operates in the NAS. In contrast,
repairman training (light-sport) must only include those subject areas
and elements of the Mechanic ACS that are applicable to the rating,
aircraft category, and class requested; testing is done by course
providers, not FAA, and only a written test is required. The
certification framework differs between mechanics and light-sport
repairman because the privileges afforded each certificate are very
different. It would be burdensome to require oral and practical testing
of light-sport repairman applicants without any data or supporting
evidence that an added layer of proficiency validation is necessary.
7. Basis for Training Course Acceptance
a. FAA Training Course Acceptance
In the NPRM, FAA noted the agency will continue its current
practice of accepting training courses, which involves providing an
acceptance letter and assigning a course acceptance number to the
course provider. In practice, FAA has issued course acceptance with a
24-month expiration consistent with FAA Order 8000.84B. In addition,
FAA would notify a training course provider 60 days before the end of
the acceptance period, at which time the training provider was asked to
reapply for continuing acceptance to provide the training. The NPRM
discussed that, because FAA seeks to align training course content with
the ACS, FAA no longer sees a need to assign a date for the expiration
of course acceptance. Therefore, a training course that is found
acceptable to FAA will no longer include a 24-month expiration date; a
training course will continue to be acceptable unless a safety concern
or regulatory non-compliance is identified. AC 65-32 discusses FAA
regulatory and investigative authority; training course providers must
ensure training course compliance with applicable provisions of part 65
(e.g., Sec. Sec. 65.17, 65.107(c), 65.107(d), and 65.107(e)).
In addition, in the NPRM, FAA discussed a change in terminology
that training courses be ``acceptable to'' FAA to ``accepted by'' FAA
based on a Notice N8900.444 ``Meaning of the Terms `Acceptable to' and
`Accepted by' for Use by Aviation Safety Inspectors.\258\ FAA noted
Sec. 65.107 used the term ``acceptable to;'' however, in practice, the
courses are ``accepted by'' FAA. Therefore, FAA proposed to align the
regulatory terminology with its practice and use the term ``accepted
by.'' This final rule adopts ``accepted by'' terminology in Sec.
65.107.
EAA, AOPA, NATA, and NBAA and one individual stated they disagreed
with any notion of FAA acceptance of the light-sport repairman
certificate maintenance rating course. The commenters stated it would
be a change in policy from today's highly effective and efficient
system for certificating these repairmen. The commenters favored
adherence to industry and FAA standards by ``self-declaration'' or
``affirmation'' of the course provider, and that any such self-
declaration would be subject to FAA oversight.
This final rule will not be a burdensome change in policy from
today's system of training course review and acceptance. The policy and
practice in place prior to this final rule did not provide for any
``self-declaration'' or other such ``affirmation'' by a training course
provider. As discussed in the NPRM and explained herein, FAA has
already required in Sec. 65.107(a) light-sport repairman training
courses to be determined acceptable to FAA, including courses for both
an inspection rating and a maintenance rating. In addition, FAA
includes the assigned acceptance number on the training course
completion certificate for reference as evidence of eligibility for a
light-sport repairman certificate. Further, this final rule revises
certain policy to make the acceptance process less burdensome by no
longer assigning an expiration date on a training course, thereby not
requiring re-submission of training course acceptance materials every
24 months. Therefore, Sec. 65.107 of this final rule will continue to
require FAA acceptance of light-sport repairman training courses for
both ratings.
In response to the NPRM discussion on course acceptance, one
commenter asked who accepts training courses and how training courses
are accepted. Section 65.107(c) and (d) will set forth the acceptance
requirements for a repairman training course with an inspection rating
or maintenance rating. As discussed further in this preamble, training
course providers must also meet the requirements in Sec. 65.107(e)
(appropriate facilities, equipment, and materials to the training
course content, appropriately qualified instructors, and provide a
certificate of completion). Advisory Circular 65-32, Certification of
Repairmen (Light Sport) describes the process for how a training course
provider would request FAA acceptance. In addition, appendices A and B
of AC 65-32 provide recommended course content for an inspection rating
training course and a maintenance rating training course.
b. Training Course Provider Facilities, Equipment, Materials, and
Instructors
In the NPRM, FAA explained it is crucial to set minimum standards
for training course providers and proposed those standards in new Sec.
65.107(e). FAA explained it proposed to simply codify provisions
consistent with AC 65-32A, which provides guidance on the acceptability
of a training course, and current practice. Specifically, FAA proposed
in Sec. 65.107(e) that training course providers deliver the course
using facilities, equipment, and

[[Page 35143]]

materials appropriate \259\ to the training course content being taught
and by instructors who are appropriately qualified \260\ to teach the
course content. FAA did not receive comments on these provisions. In
this final rule, FAA adopts the requirements but separates the
requirements for readability. Section 65.107(e)(1) will address
facilities, equipment, and materials while Sec. 65.107(e)(2) will
address instructors.
c. Training Course Completion Certificate
In the NPRM, FAA discussed that the current regulatory text lacks
the explicit steps between completing the training and receiving the
certificate. In turn, this creates a discrepancy between the
eligibility element for a repairman certificate applicant to complete a
training course and how that person provides proof of completing such a
course upon certificate application. Therefore, FAA proposed to require
in Sec. 65.107(e) that training course providers issue each student a
certificate of completion after the student has completed the training
and passed a written test, intended to ensure an applicant has the
means to demonstrate to FAA that the applicant has met the requirements
for the certificate or rating. As proposed, the training provider would
be required to issue a certificate of completion that includes the name
of the training provider, FAA course acceptance number, the inspection
or maintenance rating applicable to the training course, the aircraft
category, and class as applicable, the training was based on, and the
date of completion of the training.
FAA did not receive any comments regarding Sec. 65.107(e). While
FAA proposed this requirement in Sec. 65.107(e), this provision is
also separated for readability and is adopted as Sec. 65.107(e)(3).
d. Training Course Design for a Class Within a Category
As further discussed in section IV.I.8, which details the revisions
from the NPRM to this final rule, FAA finds a commenter's arguments
that training courses should be category and class specific to be
persuasive. In consideration of the commenter's concerns, FAA finds
requiring training course content to be specific to a category, and
class as applicable, appropriate because class-specific training course
content will facilitate tailored training and, and subsequent category
privilege limitations by class, for the light-sport repairman
applicant. Issuance of category privileges and class-specific
limitations on light-sport repairman certificates aligns with the Sec.
1.1 definitions of category and class with respect to airman
certification, and, as discussed in section I.V.I.10.a of this
preamble, and is based on the training completed by the applicant.
However, FAA finds it is not necessary to require or permit
separate training courses for certain classes defined in Sec. 1.1, for
example, the single vs. multi-engine and land vs. sea classes in the
airplane, weight-shift-control aircraft, and powered parachute aircraft
categories. From a maintenance perspective, FAA finds it is not
necessary to prescribe certificate limitations based on the number of
engines or the type of landing gear (floats vs other) an aircraft has
because training courses should already be teaching applicable content
from the Powerplant section and the Landing Gear subject area of the
Mechanic ACS and covering aircraft with single vs. multi-engines and
design difference (primarily landing gear) of land vs. sea classes. If
FAA were to require separate training courses for these classes,
courses would be almost identical in content with very minor
differences. Such minor differences could be covered in a category-
based training course, rather than require development and acceptance
of a class-based training course.
In contrast, the rotorcraft classes of gyroplane and helicopter and
the lighter-than-air classes of airship and balloon have design
differences between classes that would result in substantial training
course content differences. For example, gyroplanes and helicopters,
while both rotary-wing aircraft, differ primarily in how the rotors
generate lift, which results in differences in the transmission and
drive systems of each. Helicopters use a main rotor for lift and a tail
rotor or other yaw generating system for directional control, while
gyroplanes use a propeller for forward thrust, the rotor for lift, and
typically incorporate a rudder for directional control in flight. Thus,
differences in flight-control systems result in significant training
differences. In general, gyroplanes are considered more simplistic in
design compared to a helicopter.
Similarly, airships and balloons have design differences
necessitating significant training differences across the classes in
the lighter-than-air category. An airship, while relatively simple
compared to an airplane, is considerably more complex in design
compared to a balloon. While a balloon design consists of a fabric
envelope, basket, burner, and limited instrumentation (if any), an
airship adds training complexity related to a passenger carrying
fuselage, engines, propellors, and a completely different flight
control system, including related instruments.
In summary, FAA will require class-specific training for both
inspection and maintenance rating training courses for the gyroplane,
helicopter, airship and balloon classes, but will not require class-
specific training for the single and multi-engine, and land and sea
classes for airplanes, weight-shift-control aircraft, and powered
parachutes. This is reflected in the regulatory text through use as
``class as applicable.''
Providing for class-specific training for gyroplane, helicopter,
airship, and balloon classes will provide more flexibility for light-
sport repairman applicants to select the training course specific to
the category and class they want to hold privileges for, rather than
requiring training on all classes within a category and thus having to
complete training on class(es) for which they do not wish to hold
privileges. In addition, training course providers will not be required
to design class-specific courses when class differentiation is based on
aircraft design that does not result in substantial differences in
course content, thus reducing the burden on training course providers
to design additional training courses that would provide mostly
duplicative training except for minor differences.
In sum, as adopted in Sec. 65.107(c) and (d), training courses and
content could be tailored to a category (for example, airplane) or to a
single class, as applicable, of aircraft within the category (i.e.,
helicopter or gyroplane class within the rotorcraft category), for
purposes of obtaining repairman certificate privileges. As discussed in
section IV.I.1, FAA is adding ``and class as applicable,'' to Sec.
65.107(c) and 65.107(d) to require training course content be specific
to category and a class within that category, when there is a class
within a category for which a light-sport repairman could obtain
privileges (e.g., lighter-than-air category, balloon class and airship
class).
8. Rotorcraft Category Privileges
In the NPRM,\261\ FAA explained the proposal to expand aircraft
certificated under Sec. 21.190 to rotorcraft and powered-lift would
facilitate the ability of an airman to obtain a light-sport repairman
certificate with privileges in the rotorcraft category and powered-lift
category. Because Sec. 21.190 is adopted to include these two
categories of aircraft, this final rule makes a corresponding expansion
to light-sport repairman

[[Page 35144]]

certificate privileges to ensure safe maintenance and inspection of
these aircraft. As discussed in section IV.I.1, this final rule aligns
the terms category and class as used in Sec. Sec. 65.107 and 65.109
with their use in Sec. 1.1, as applicable to airman certification.
Therefore, light-sport repairman certificates will be issued with
privileges for the rotorcraft category, not the gyroplane or helicopter
class; however, as subsequently discussed, due to design differences
between the gyroplane and helicopter classes, FAA will permit training
to be class-specific, and will therefore issue limitations on a light-
sport repairman certificate, limited to either gyroplanes or
helicopters within the rotorcraft category, depending on the training
completed. Before light-sport repairman certificates can be issued with
privileges for these categories of aircraft, training course providers
will have to develop supporting training courses, submit them to FAA
for acceptance, and make that training available to students.
In accordance with Sec. 65.107(c)(2) (as written prior to the
applicable effective date of this final rule), FAA issues a repairman
certificate (light-sport aircraft) with an inspection rating with class
privileges for gyroplanes. Between establishing the repairman
certificate (light-sport aircraft) in 2004 and the publication of this
rulemaking, FAA has issued approximately 45 repairman (light-sport
aircraft) certificates with an inspection rating and gyroplane class
privileges. These repairmen completed an FAA-accepted gyroplane
training course at some point in time, though there are no gyroplane
training courses currently FAA-accepted. A maintenance rating with
gyroplane class privileges was not permitted historically because FAA
did not certificate gyroplanes as light-sport category aircraft under
Sec. 21.190.\262\
In the NPRM,\263\ FAA discussed that a rotorcraft category training
course is sufficient for either helicopter or gyroplane privileges,
rather than requiring separate courses because there is not a
substantial difference in systems on gyroplanes and helicopters from a
maintenance perspective. FAA received one comment regarding the
proposal to permit a single rotorcraft training course that covers both
gyroplanes and helicopters. The commenter posited there are significant
differences between maintenance on helicopter versus gyroplane and,
therefore, requiring students to learn both could limit the
availability of training for those who only want to work on one
aircraft in that category, such as gyroplanes. The commenter further
stated these proposed changes are more restrictive than requirements
prior to this final rule.
As proposed, FAA would have required training covering all aircraft
classes within a category and issue repairman certificates (light-
sport) with privileges extending to all aircraft classes in the
category. FAA does not find the proposed changes, in general, to be
more restrictive, since FAA regulations have not accounted for an
inspection rating with helicopter class privileges or for a maintenance
rating with privileges for either helicopters or gyroplanes. FAA
acknowledges there are substantive differences between gyroplane and
helicopter design, and to the commenter's point, those differences,
combined with the complexity of helicopter and gyroplane designs, will
result in substantial varied course content between those classes of
aircraft. As previously discussed in section IV.I.7.d, the substantive
differences between helicopters and gyroplanes, despite both being in
the rotorcraft category, necessitate separate training courses for
these classes of rotorcraft.
Therefore, FAA finds training courses providing instruction on both
classes would insufficiently train applicants on the design and
operational differences between these aircraft. Separate training for
the rotorcraft category helicopter class and gyroplane class is
necessary to ensure light-sport repairmen are sufficiently trained to
perform the duties of their certificate, ratings, and privileges.
Similar to the rotorcraft category, the lighter-than-air category
training courses must be separated into class-specific training for
airship and balloon classes due to the substantial design differences
in these classes. Accordingly, FAA has determined training on a single
class of aircraft within the rotorcraft and lighter-than-air categories
are necessary safety measures to ensure light-sport repairmen are
sufficiently trained to perform the privileges on their certificate.
Further, allowing certificate limitations based on training would allow
repairmen applicants to tailor their training to the ratings and
privileges they wish to obtain. FAA expects that helicopters and
gyroplanes will have different consensus standards, due to differences
in design and operational characteristics, therefore, allowing training
by class would support training course development on one class,
regardless of whether a consensus standard was created for the other
classes within the category.\264\ In addition, should future classes of
aircraft be added to any category (e.g., powered-lift \265\), FAA could
address certificate privileges through these privilege limitations
based on training completed by the airman.
To date, FAA has issued 40 repairman certificates (light-sport),
with an inspection rating and gyroplane class privileges. On October
22, 2025, these light-sport repairmen will hold a certificate that
states the repairman has gyroplane class privileges, but for which the
regulation provides rotorcraft category privileges limited to gyroplane
class. These repairmen had to complete a 16-hour training course that
was found acceptable to FAA on inspecting the gyroplane class of
experimental light-sport aircraft.
After October 22, 2025, a person holding a light-sport repairman
certificate (light-sport aircraft) with an inspection rating and
gyroplane class privileges may request a replacement repairman
certificate from FAA showing rotorcraft category privileges with a
gyroplane class limitation, consistent with Sec. 65.107(f)(3) as
adopted in this final rule. Regardless of whether the airman requests a
replacement certificate, as outlined in final rule Sec. 65.107(f)(3),
on October 22, 2025, a repairman certificate (light-sport aircraft),
with an inspection rating and gyroplane class privileges, is equivalent
to a repairman certificate (light-sport), with an inspection rating and
rotorcraft category privileges limited to the gyroplane class.
9. Duration of Repairman Certificates
In the NPRM,\266\ FAA proposed to revise Sec. 65.15(a) and (b),
which set forth the duration and effectivity of certificates issued
under part 65, to reflect the distinction of the effective period of
repairman certificates issued under Sec. 65.101 from that of other
repairman certificates issued under Sec. Sec. 65.104 and 65.107.
Specifically, employment is a requirement unique to repairman
certificates issued under Sec. 65.101, whereas different durations
apply to repairman certificates used under Sec. Sec. 65.104 and
65.107, which include an exception from the employment requirement (and
the other general eligibility requirements set forth in Sec. 65.101).
As proposed, this revision will retain the existing duration of
repairman certificates issued in accordance with Sec. 65.101 to be
effective until the repairman is relieved from the duties for which the
repairman was employed and certificated (unless the certificate is
sooner surrendered, suspended, or revoked). Concurrently, the proposed
revision clarifies previous language, which implied the duration of
repairman certificates issued under

[[Page 35145]]

Sec. Sec. 65.104 and 65.107 were tied to employment and job duties
without enumerated employment requirements. The NPRM also proposed to
remove the date reference in Sec. 65.15(d), which specifies that
(except for temporary certificates issued under Sec. 65.13) the holder
of a paper certificate issued under part 65 may not exercise the
privileges of that certificate after March 31, 2013. That date referred
to a compliance date that has since passed and, as such, is no longer
necessary.
FAA received one joint comment from AEA/ARSA on the proposed
changes to Sec. 65.15. The commenters did not agree with the proposed
rule as written based on the Aviation Rulemaking Advisory Committee
(ARAC) Repairman Certificate Portability Working Group's (RCPWG)
preliminary recommendation report, dated September 22, 2023.\267\ In
the report, the RCPWG recommended that Sec. 65.15(b) be deleted in its
entirety, Sec. 65.101(a)(2) be amended to remove the language relating
to employment, and Sec. 65.101(a)(3) be deleted in its entirety. The
report recommended these changes to align part 65 subpart E with the
revised language of Sec. 145.159, which ``revised the certification of
repairmen to promote and encourage workforce development'' in 2004
amendment no. 145-27.\268\
Revising Sec. Sec. 65.15 and 65.101 as recommended in the
preliminary report from the ARAC Repairman Certificate Portability WG
is inconsistent with the purpose of this final rule. As explained in
the NPRM, this rulemaking is specific to special airworthiness
certification, including increased privileges for repairman, and in the
context of Sec. 65.15 the ability of a light-sport repairman to
perform maintenance on specified aircraft. The ARAC RCPWG's
recommendations referenced by AEA/ARSA pertain to the portability of
repairman certificates issued in accordance with Sec. 65.101 specific
to employment and an alleged disconnect between part 65 and part 145.
The NPRM did not propose revising repairman certificates issued under
Sec. 65.101 or any revisions to part 145. The proposed amendments to
Sec. 65.15 were intended to correct inaccurate regulatory text related
to the duration of repairman certificates issued in accordance with
Sec. 65.107 (i.e., light-sport repairman certificate). To note, the
RCPWG report was published after the MOSAIC NPRM published, and FAA
continues to analyze the report. These recommendations on parts 65 and
145, which would encompass sections unrelated to this rulemaking, would
be more appropriately addressed in an independent action with notice to
the regulated community and an opportunity for comment if FAA
determined regulatory changes were appropriate.
Therefore, in this final rule, FAA is adopting the amendments to
Sec. 65.15, as proposed.
Relatedly, Sec. 65.103 provides the privileges and limitations for
a repairman certificate issued under Sec. 65.101. In the NPRM, FAA
proposed to amend Sec. 65.103(c) to state that Sec. 65.103 does not
apply to the holder of a repairman certificate issued in accordance
with either Sec. 65.104 (experimental aircraft builder) or Sec.
65.107 (light-sport). As explained, Sec. 65.103 indicates that
paragraphs (a) and (b) are only applicable to repairman certificates
issued in accordance with Sec. 65.101, which is the only repairman
certificate type that has requirements relating to employment; however,
Sec. 65.103 also does not apply to a repairman certificate issued in
accordance with Sec. 65.104 (experimental aircraft builder repairman).
No comments were received on this proposal. Accordingly, in this final
rule, FAA adopts the amendment to Sec. 65.103(c), as proposed.
10. Repairman Certificate (Light-Sport) Privileges and Limitations
a. General
As previously discussed, light-sport repairmen are issued a
repairman certificate with either an inspection or a maintenance
rating, based on the rating requested and the aircraft category
privileges sought. The certificate and rating are issued only after the
applicant has completed training and then passed a test administered by
the training course provider, which are specific to both the rating
sought and the aircraft category, and class as applicable, for which
privileges are requested. As discussed in section IV.I.1, the
privileges of a light-sport repairman certificate are limited,
depending on the rating(s), to aircraft holding certain airworthiness
certificates and operating purposes. One commenter stated the final
rule should state explicitly that persons who have completed training
for a light-sport repairman certificate be allowed to maintain aircraft
approved under the requirements prior to this final rule taking effect.
FAA notes training is a requirement for certification, training does
not in and of itself provide certificate privileges. In the NPRM, FAA
stated existing repairman certificate (light-sport aircraft) holders
may inspect or maintain aircraft as permitted by privileges and
limitations afforded that repairman under this final rule. Consistent
with the discussion in section IV.I.7.d, explaining that training
courses are to contain training course content in a category, and class
as applicable, FAA will issue light-sport repairman certificates with
applicable rating and category privileges, and will issue a limitation
for the specific class within the rotorcraft and lighter-than-air
categories, specific to the class of aircraft for which the applicant
completed the training course. For example, if a light-sport repairman
applicant completes a 16-hour inspection rating training course for a
rotorcraft category, helicopter class, the light-sport repairman would
be issued a repairman (light-sport) certificate with an inspection
rating in the rotorcraft category limited to helicopter class. As
another example, if a light-sport repairman applicant completes a
maintenance rating (based on the Mechanic ACS) in the lighter-than-air
category, specific to the balloon class, the applicant would be issued
a repairman (light-sport) certificate with a maintenance rating in the
lighter-than-air category limited to the balloon class.
To provide for the issuance of limitations based on a class of
aircraft within an aircraft category, this final rule includes a
provision in Sec. 65.107(f)(1) stating that an applicant may have a
limitation placed on their airman certificate that limits the
certificate privileges to a class within the category. The regulation
also states the limitations added to a certificate reflect the FAA-
accepted training the applicant has completed. A certificate with no
class limitations would have privileges on all classes within the
category.
In the NPRM,\269\ FAA proposed to move the requirements from Sec.
65.107(b)(2), which sets forth that a person may perform the annual
condition inspection if the aircraft has been issued an experimental
airworthiness certificate under Sec. 21.191(i), with certain
conditions, to new Sec. 65.109 (setting forth a comprehensive section
of privileges and limitations). To address a situation where an
individual was issued a repairman certificate (light-sport aircraft)
with an inspection rating specific for a former light-sport category
aircraft (experimental purpose under proposed Sec. 21.191(i)), and the
aircraft was later re-certificated as a light-sport category aircraft
(special airworthiness certificate under Sec. 21.190), FAA proposed to
remove certain language in Sec. 65.107 (adopted as new Sec. 65.109).
Specifically, FAA proposed to remove the phrase ``been issued'' and, as

[[Page 35146]]

discussed in section IV.I, this final rule makes a conforming
terminology change from ``experimental certificate'' to ``experimental
airworthiness certificate'' so the text reads ``. . . has an
experimental airworthiness certificate. . .'' This removal will require
that, to exercise the privileges of the light-sport repairman
certificate inspection rating, the aircraft must have the appropriate
experimental airworthiness certificate; the privileges do not extend to
an aircraft that had ever ``been issued,'' at some point in time, an
experimental airworthiness certificate for one of the purposes
specified in the regulation. No comments were received on this proposed
amendment; however, this same language was used in Sec. 65.107(c)(1)
and (2). For the same reasons discussed in the NPRM regarding Sec.
65.107(b)(2), FAA is adopting this clarifying change for purposes of
the recodification of Sec. 65.107(c)(1) and (2) at Sec. 65.109(b)(1)
and (2) of this final rule.
The NPRM proposed a conforming amendment to Sec. 65.109(a)(2) and
(b)(2) based on proposed Sec. 21.191, which removed paragraph (i)(3)
from Sec. 21.191. The NPRM explained this conforming amendment as
necessary because Sec. 65.109(a)(2) and (b)(2) state what aircraft a
light-sport repairman is privileged to approve for return to service
and refer to Sec. 21.191 regulatory language that was proposed to be
amended in the NPRM. However, as discussed in section IV.L, this final
rule will retain Sec. 21.191(i)(3) until July 24, 2026. In addition,
FAA is adding new Sec. 21.191(l) for issuance of airworthiness
certificates for the purpose of operating a former light-sport category
aircraft, and new Sec. 21.191(k) for issuance of airworthiness
certificates for the purpose of operating a light-sport category kit-
built aircraft. FAA intended for light-sport repairmen to be privileged
to work on the same aircraft, whether certificated before or after
October 22, 2025.
Therefore, Sec. 65.109(a)(2) and (b)(2) of this final rule retain
the language providing for privileges on aircraft certificated under
Sec. 21.191(i) and have also been revised to include aircraft issued
an experimental airworthiness certificate under Sec. 21.191(l) and
(k). In addition, FAA is expanding repairman privileges in Sec.
65.109(a)(2) and (b)(2) to aircraft certificated under Sec. 21.191(g).
This expansion in privileges is discussed in detail in the subsequent
section.
b. Expand Repairmen (Light-Sport) Privileges To Include EAB Aircraft
Under Sec. 21.191(g)
FAA received approximately 75 comments from commenters who
recommended that FAA expand Sec. 65.109 privileges to allow light-
sport repairmen to perform a condition inspection on aircraft issued an
experimental airworthiness certificate under Sec. 21.191(g) for the
purpose of operating EAB aircraft. Commenters stated a shortage of FAA-
certificated mechanics makes it difficult to find a mechanic to do the
condition inspections on EAB aircraft and allowing light-sport
repairmen to do the condition inspection on these aircraft would
alleviate the demand on mechanics and would create a business case for
light-sport repairmen. Commenters also stated increasing the number of
certificated persons who are authorized to inspect EAB aircraft would
enhance safety.
Some commenters implied that condition inspections may not be
performed as required by the regulations due to their inability to find
a certificated mechanic or repair station. Many commenters who are
owners of these aircraft stated, because owners are permitted to do the
maintenance on their EAB aircraft, owners are much more knowledgeable
on the aircraft than the mechanic who must perform the condition
inspection and supported the expansion of privileges to EAB aircraft so
they could perform the condition inspections themselves. Commenters
also stated the costs associated with having a mechanic or repair
station perform the annual condition inspection are overly burdensome
due to the lack of available resources to perform this work. Commenters
contended that expanding light-sport repairman certificate privileges
to EAB aircraft would enhance safety, control costs, keep maintenance/
inspections accessible, allow for more and better training of operators
and maintainers, and ease the burden on FAA-certificated mechanics.
Some commenters also suggested that mechanics worry about unnecessarily
increasing their liability in finding these aircraft safe for flight
when owners are already liable for these aircraft.
Several commenters cited the similarities between light-sport
category aircraft and EAB aircraft. In some cases, owners claim to have
built EAB aircraft to the same plans and specifications as a factory-
built light-sport category aircraft and the only difference is
paperwork. FAA notes there may be similarities between EAB and light-
sport category aircraft, but design and production standards are an
important difference. While many EAB or kit-built aircraft may have an
identical design (on paper) to a factory-built aircraft, aircraft
certification in the light-sport category includes meeting consensus
standards and part 22, which have additional requirements such as
training, quality control, etc., that are not applicable to other
builders.
Currently, operating limitations issued to EAB aircraft provide
that an appropriately rated mechanic, a repair station, or the holder
of a repairman certificate (experimental aircraft builder) issued in
accordance with Sec. 65.104 may perform a condition inspection on an
EAB aircraft. Only the primary builder of the EAB aircraft is eligible
for a certificate issued under Sec. 65.104, and the certificate is
limited to performing the annual condition inspection on that specific
aircraft (by aircraft make, model, and serial number). When an EAB
aircraft is sold by the original builder, the builder's repairman
certificate (experimental aircraft builder) privileges are still valid
for the aircraft (by make, model, and serial number); however, the new
owner does not have the option to get a repairman certificate
(experimental aircraft builder) because the new owner is not the
builder of the aircraft. This results in the new owner lacking
eligibility for a repairman certificate (experimental aircraft builder)
and having to obtain the services of a certificated mechanic or repair
station to perform the required condition inspection on their EAB
aircraft.
FAA agrees with commenters' suggestions and finds there is a safety
benefit in permitting additional properly trained and certificated
repairmen to perform condition inspections on EAB aircraft because it
will be easier for owners to find qualified personnel to conduct
required inspections. Therefore, this final rule expands the privileges
of a light-sport repairman certificate under Sec. 65.109 to allow a
certificate holder, with either rating (inspection or maintenance), to
perform the annual condition inspection on an EAB aircraft issued an
experimental airworthiness certificate under Sec. 21.191(g).\270\
The changes adopted in Sec. 65.109(a) and (b) of this final rule
do not impose additional restrictions but rather expand the privileges
of a light-sport repairman. Specifically, Sec. 65.107(c) will allow a
light-sport repairman with an inspection rating to perform the annual
condition inspection on an EAB aircraft that is owned by the repairman
and that is in the same category of aircraft for which

[[Page 35147]]

the certificate holder was trained.\271\ In addition, Sec. 65.109(b)
will permit a light-sport repairman with a maintenance rating to
perform the annual condition inspection on an EAB aircraft that is in
the same category of aircraft for which the certificate holder was
trained.\272\
To emphasize, this final rule expands light-sport repairman
privileges only to aircraft issued an experimental airworthiness
certificate under Sec. 21.191(g) (operating EAB aircraft) and the
condition inspection required on those aircraft; the expanded
privileges do not extend to other aircraft issued an experimental
airworthiness certificate under Sec. 21.191. Similar to light-sport
aircraft, EAB aircraft are typically of simple design. If the
complexity of an EAB aircraft exceeds the light-sport repairman's
training (for example, large, turbine, or jet-powered aircraft),
repairman privileges would not include that aircraft because the
operating limitations issued to these aircraft require inspections
beyond that of a condition inspection. Depending on the complexity of
the aircraft, FAA may prescribe operating limitations under Sec.
91.319(i) that require such aircraft be maintained in accordance with
an inspection program meeting the scope and content of Sec. 91.409(f).
The inspections referred to in Sec. 91.409(f) are not condition
inspections and therefore do not fall under the privileges of a light-
sport repairman. Inspections required under Sec. 91.409(f) must be
performed by a certificated mechanic or repair station.
FAA reviewed the historical rulemaking specific to EAB
aircraft,\273\ and the comments raised during that rulemaking process,
because the privileges afforded to a repairman (experimental aircraft
builder) under that rulemaking were similar to the privileges
recommended by commenters during this rulemaking. The expanded
privileges apply to EAB aircraft, which are lower on the safety
continuum than light-sport aircraft, and FAA has considered past public
comment concerning the performance of condition inspections on EAB
aircraft and has considered the history in adopting this change in the
final rule. FAA notes this change places no additional requirements
onto certificate holders or applicants since these certificate holders
are already required to be trained on performing a condition inspection
applicable to that aircraft.
Regarding FAA's safety continuum concept, EAB aircraft rank lower
on the safety continuum than light-sport category aircraft. EAB
aircraft are not required to be built to any design or production
standard and are not required to be maintained under part 43. This
differs from light-sport category aircraft, which have design and
production standards and are required to be maintained under part 43.
However, under the authority of Sec. 91.319(i),\274\ FAA issues
operating limitations for EAB aircraft, which are considered a part of
the aircraft's airworthiness certificate. One such operating limitation
issued to the majority of EAB aircraft \275\ prohibits operation of the
aircraft unless, within the preceding 12 calendar months (before the
intended operation), the aircraft has had a condition inspection
performed per the scope and detail of part 43, appendix D.\276\
Allowing light-sport repairmen to perform the annual condition
inspection on EAB aircraft is consistent with the overall safety
continuum concept and, as noted by numerous commenters, would expand
the opportunity for the required condition to be completed by a
certificate holder who is trained in conducting such an inspection.
Moreover, FAA notes that light-sport repairman privileges already
extend to certain other aircraft issued experimental airworthiness
certificates,\277\ including aircraft that are not built to a consensus
standard, such as aircraft issued an airworthiness certificate in
accordance with Sec. 21.191(i)(1).\278\
The issuance of a repairman certificate (experimental aircraft
builder) is based on the individual having demonstrated knowledge and
skill to FAA.\279\ Therefore, FAA finds that completion of a light-
sport repairman training course, and passing of a course test, would be
another way that an individual could demonstrate the necessary
knowledge and skill to perform the condition inspection on an EAB
aircraft. Such training is already designed to provide the knowledge
and skills necessary to determine if an aircraft is in a condition for
safe operation. Under Sec. 65.107(c) of this final rule, training for
an inspection rating must include a minimum of 16 hours of training on
inspecting the category, and class as applicable, of aircraft for which
privileges are sought on the certificate. Under Sec. 65.107(d) of this
final rule, training for a maintenance rating must include training on
the knowledge, risk management, and skill elements for each subject in
the Mechanic ACS that are appropriate to the category, and class as
applicable, of aircraft privileges sought on the certificate. This
training must include training on the performance of a condition
inspection.\280\ Training courses differ based on the aircraft category
privileges sought. The training must cover a specific aircraft
category, and class as applicable (refer to section IV.I.7.d for
additional discussion). Therefore, it follows that an individual who is
appropriately trained on particular category and applicable class of
aircraft and their systems, or trained on performing a condition
inspection on a specific category and applicable class of aircraft, and
who takes and passes a test on that knowledge, would also have
demonstrated to FAA the person has acceptable knowledge to perform a
condition inspection on an EAB aircraft that falls in the same aircraft
category for which the individual was trained.
The rulemaking \281\ that created the repairman certificate
(experimental aircraft builder) under Sec. 65.104, allows the person
who built the major portion of an EAB aircraft to obtain this repairman
certificate to perform the required condition inspection on that
specific EAB aircraft.\282\ During that rulemaking, several commenters
suggested that the repairman certificate (experimental aircraft
builder) be made available to all owners of EAB aircraft after the
owner demonstrates the required level of knowledge and skill. FAA
disagreed with the suggestion because, at the time, there was no method
for such persons to demonstrate their knowledge and skill apart from
being the person that built the aircraft; however, that is no longer
the case. Light-sport repairmen are specifically trained in conducting
a condition inspection on a particular category, and class as
applicable, of aircraft, and that training can also be applied to
conducting a condition inspection on an EAB aircraft in the same
category, and class as applicable. Light-sport repairman training
courses can provide those owners of EAB aircraft, who did not build the
major portion, with an alternate method of demonstrating the necessary
knowledge and skill to perform the required condition inspection.
Another comment addressed in the 1979 final rule asserted that
having built a part of the aircraft does not qualify a person to
inspect all of that aircraft. FAA responded that inspection does not
require extensive knowledge of systems. This principle and response
remain valid, evidenced by the different training requirements
associated with the inspection and maintenance ratings on a light-sport
repairman certificate; discussed in sections IV.I.3 and IV.I.4,
respectively. Therefore, under this final rule, while an EAB aircraft
builder may only inspect the aircraft the builder has built, a light-
sport repairman may inspect any aircraft in the category and

[[Page 35148]]

applicable class of aircraft on which the repairman was trained.
In summary, FAA finds that expanding the privileges of a repairman
certificate (light-sport) to allow the holder to conduct the condition
inspection on an EAB aircraft aligns with the safety continuum for the
aircraft's certification basis, reduces the burden on aircraft owners
on finding qualified personnel to inspect their aircraft, and results
in a safety benefit. Therefore, this final rule expands the privileges
of the light-sport repairman inspection rating in Sec. 65.109(a)(2) to
allow a holder of that certificate and rating to conduct an annual
condition inspection on an aircraft owned by that repairman, which has
an experimental airworthiness certificate for the purpose of operating
EAB aircraft, and on which the repairman has completed the prescribed
training on the corresponding category and applicable class of
aircraft. Furthermore, FAA adopts the same expansion in Sec.
65.109(b)(2) for those holders of a light-sport repairman certificate
with a maintenance rating.
c. Expand Repairmen Certificate (Light-Sport) Privileges to Aircraft
Holding Standard Airworthiness Certificates
FAA proposed to move repairman privileges from Sec. 65.107(b) and
(c) to new Sec. 65.109(a) and (b), respectively. This final rule
adopts this redesignation, which continues to prohibit a light-sport
repairman with either rating from performing inspections or maintenance
on an aircraft issued a standard airworthiness certificate in
accordance with Sec. 21.183. In response to the NPRM, FAA received
approximately 27 comments suggesting that FAA expand the privileges of
a light-sport repairman certificate to allow the holder of such a
certificate to perform maintenance and inspections (to include the
annual inspection) on aircraft holding standard airworthiness
certificates and that meet the performance limits and design
requirements in Sec. 61.316 that a sport pilot is authorized to
operate.
Commenters cited difficulty and costs in finding a mechanic to
perform maintenance and an inspection authorization (IA) holder to
perform the annual inspection on these aircraft. Other commenters
stated there are no differences between aircraft that hold standard
category airworthiness certificates and certain light-sport category
aircraft.
FAA disagrees with commenters that light-sport repairman
certificate privileges should extend to performing work on aircraft
that hold standard airworthiness certificates. Though, as commenters
mention, there are examples of light-sport category aircraft that look
identical to aircraft holding standard airworthiness certificates, such
aircraft are designed and manufactured to different standards. Aircraft
holding standard airworthiness certificates are higher on the safety
continuum than light-sport category aircraft and meet more rigorous
requirements for design, production, and airworthiness certification.
The higher placement of aircraft holding standard airworthiness
certificates on the safety continuum also merits corresponding greater
rigor for certification of persons who may inspect and maintain these
aircraft in conformity with the applicable type certificate than those
of a light-sport repairman. The NPRM did not propose to change
regulations relating to the aircraft holding standard airworthiness
certificates and to allow repairman light-sport certificate holders to
do so would likely require increased training requirements to be issued
a repairman certificate.
It is important to note that aircraft with a standard airworthiness
certificate are not light-sport category aircraft, even though some of
those aircraft may be operated by a sport pilot.\283\ FAA does not
agree that just because a pilot can operate certain aircraft that hold
standard category airworthiness certificates that those aircraft can be
maintained and inspected by someone other than a mechanic or repair
station. FAA regulations specify the appropriate airman certificate
necessary for performing maintenance and inspections based on the
airworthiness certificate issued to the aircraft, which is reflective
of the aircraft's placement on the safety continuum. Aircraft that hold
standard airworthiness certificates may be used for carriage of people
and property for compensation or hire. Though a sport pilot may be
authorized to operate this aircraft (based on whether the aircraft
meets the parameters set forth in new Sec. 61.316), another
appropriately certificated and rated pilot may use that same aircraft
for carriage of people or property for compensation or hire. Therefore,
at all times, these aircraft must be inspected and maintained by
appropriately certificated persons who have met a higher standard of
knowledge and skill to preserve conformity with their respective type
certificates, reflecting the greater privileges and exposure of the
public to risk for operations of type-certificated aircraft.
FAA recognizes that costs associated with the maintenance and
inspection requirements of aircraft that hold standard airworthiness
certificates are typically higher than that of light-sport category or
experimental aircraft. However, those costs are well known to owners,
prospective owners, and operators of these aircraft; other options for
aircraft ownership and operation are available. FAA prioritizes the
safety of higher risk operations above cost. In summary, FAA declines
to expand repairman certificate (light-sport) privileges to aircraft
holding standard airworthiness certificates.
d. Changes to FAA Policy for Issuance of a Repairman Certificate
(Light-Sport) Inspection Rating
FAA will no longer require an applicant for a light-sport repairman
certificate to show evidence of aircraft ownership and will not deny a
certificate or rating based on whether an applicant owns an aircraft
certificated in accordance with Sec. 21.191(g), (i), (k), or (l).
Though not discussed in the NPRM, this is a change to internal policy
and does not impose new burdens or obligations to the regulated
community, nor does this change affect existing or future certificate
privileges. Ownership is not a certificate or rating eligibility
requirement specified in Sec. 65.107(b); rather, ownership is a
requirement to exercise the privileges of an inspection rating, as
specified in adopted Sec. 65.109(a). Furthermore, applicants will not
be asked to provide, and repairman certificates (light-sport) will not
be issued with, aircraft registration number (N-number) and serial
number (S/N) information of aircraft owned by the applicant.
In the NPRM, FAA discussed inspection rating privileges and
limitations in paragraph F.7.\284\ FAA explained that, should the
proposal be adopted as a final rule, the language in Sec. 65.107(b)(2)
could result in a situation where an individual was issued a repairman
certificate with an inspection rating specific for a former light-sport
category aircraft (experimental purpose under proposed Sec.
21.191(i)), and the aircraft could later be re-certificated as a light-
sport category aircraft (special airworthiness certificate under Sec.
21.190). In this scenario, if the aircraft was then again re-
certificated in accordance with Sec. 21.190, that repairman's
certificate, which states the aircraft N-number and S/N could lead the
repairman to believe they could continue to conduct the annual
condition inspection on that aircraft. FAA did not intend to allow for
repairmen with an inspection rating to conduct an annual condition
inspection on aircraft certificated under Sec. 21.190; rather, Sec.
65.109(a)(2) sets forth the aircraft a light-sport repairman with an

[[Page 35149]]

inspection rating may perform the annual condition inspection upon. FAA
finds that by not specifying the aircraft N-number and S/N information
on the repairman certificate, the scenario described would be unlikely
to occur.
11. Other Comments on Repairman Certificates
Two commenters indicated they understood the proposed regulations
to require a light-sport repairman with a maintenance rating to have
supervision by a mechanic. FAA disagrees; maintenance rated light-sport
repairmen are authorized to maintain and approve for return to service
without the supervision of a mechanic, as permitted by Sec. 65.109(b)
and (c). This final rule did not narrow the practical application of
the privileges of a repairman certificate to require supervision.\285\
One commenter pointed out that the regulations for light-sport
repairmen do not authorize a light-sport repairman to supervise non-
certificated individuals. The commenter stated the lack of a specific
regulation prohibiting the supervision of a non-certificated person by
a light-sport repairman has resulted in light-sport aircraft repair
companies using non-certificated individuals. The commenter recommended
that FAA specifically state whether a light-sport repairman can or
cannot supervise non-certificated persons doing work on aircraft.
FAA disagrees that adding a specific regulation prohibiting light-
sport repairmen from supervising non-certificated individuals is
necessary. Under Sec. 65.109, light-sport repairmen are not provided
broad supervisory privileges over maintenance, preventive maintenance
or alteration, such as that provided a mechanic under Sec. 65.81 or a
Sec. 65.101 repairman under Sec. 65.103. Supervisory privileges for
light-sport repairmen are included in Sec. 65.109(c),\286\ but only to
the extent of supervising a person already holding a repairman
certificate (light-sport).
Though Sec. 43.3(d) specifies that a person (i.e., a non-
certificated person) working under the supervision of the holder of a
repairman certificate may perform work on aircraft to which part 43
applies, that authority only applies to work the repairman certificate
holder is authorized to perform, in accordance with the privileges
granted in part 65. Therefore, while light-sport repairmen may
supervise other repairmen or mechanic certificate holders in the
context of Sec. 65.109(c), light-sport repairmen may not supervise
non-certificated persons performing work under Sec. 43.3(d), as
permitted for other certificate holders.
One commenter suggested that light-sport repairmen should have
currency requirements similar to mechanics as set forth in Sec. 65.83.
FAA disagrees that recent experience requirements are necessary for
repairmen given the placement of light-sport repairman certificate
privileges being lower on the safety continuum and more narrow
privileges commensurate to the training and proficiency profile.
One commenter expressed concern the requirement in Sec. 65.109(c),
to only approve for return to service work that the light-sport
repairman has previously performed satisfactorily is not likely to be
detected given the oversight requirements of light-sport repairmen by
FAA inspectors. Furthermore, the commenter asserted that current
policies would likely hinder enforcement if FAA found a light-sport
repairman who returned an aircraft to service without documented
experience for that work. FAA expects certificated persons to comply
with all applicable regulatory requirements, regardless of any
perception of FAA's ability to enforce the regulation. There is no
requirement for individuals to retain documented evidence of their
experience showing Sec. 65.109(c) has been met. The Sec. 65.109(c)
restriction has existed in Sec. 65.107 since the inception of the
light-sport repairman regulations in 2004, and a similar requirement
has existed in Sec. 65.81 for mechanics for a much longer time.
Therefore, FAA will not make any amendments related to this comment.
In the NPRM, FAA proposed to recodify the language in Sec.
65.107(d) prohibiting a light-sport repairman with a maintenance rating
from approving for return to service any work unless the repairman has
previously performed that work satisfactorily, to new Sec. 65.109(c).
AEA/ARSA commented that, while they agree with the provision, the
regulation should be amended to require recordkeeping to show the
person is qualified on a specific task (i.e., a technician logbook).
The commenters stated such a change would be consistent with the
regulations of Sec. 145.163, as well as international maintenance
technician standards. FAA declines to place an additional burden on
certificate holders in the form of recordkeeping when existing
regulations have not shown an adverse effect on safety.
LAMA recommended Sec. 65.109(c) be revised to include language
from Sec. 43.13. Specifically, LAMA recommended FAA amend Sec. 65.107
to include that ``[t]he holder of a repairman certificate (light-sport
aircraft) with a maintenance rating may not approve for return to
service any aircraft or part thereof unless that person has
successfully completed appropriate training for the work performed and
shall use the methods, techniques, and practices prescribed in the
current manufacturer's maintenance manual or Instructions for Continued
Airworthiness or specific training or instruction prepared by its
manufacturer, or other methods, techniques, and practices acceptable to
the Administrator.''
The commenter stated Sec. 43.13 Performance rules (general) have
provided an acceptable level of safety for traditional airframe and
powerplant mechanics and there is no data that suggests applying the
same concept to light-sport repairmen would reduce safety. FAA finds it
is not necessary to add Sec. 43.13 language to Sec. 65.109(c). Under
Sec. 91.327, light-sport category aircraft must be maintained in
accordance with part 43, which includes Sec. 43.13; therefore, it is
unnecessary to duplicate the Sec. 43.13 requirements in part 65.
GAMA requested clarification that training or other acceptable
means would address the requirement in Sec. 65.109(c) that only
permits a light-sport repairman to approve for return to service when
the work has been previously performed satisfactorily. While Sec.
65.109(c) requires the person to have performed the work
satisfactorily, the regulation does not prohibit a person from meeting
this requirement by performing the work in a training environment.
One commenter is concerned the NPRM leaves significant portions of
the proposal undefined, as indicated by the use of asterisks, and is
concerned the public will not have opportunity to comment before
changes become regulatory. FAA follows the National Archives and
Records Administration Document Drafting Handbook (DDH) to draft
rulemaking documents for publication in the Federal Register. Pursuant
to the DDH, asterisks are used to represent text in regulations that is
not being changed.\287\
One commenter expressed concern that FAA did not pre-coordinate the
proposed rule with manufacturers and the aviation community.
Specifically, the commenter found it especially troubling that the
repairman training course providers were not asked for input into
defining the training requirements for maintenance and inspection
considering that course providers have the greatest expertise in this
area. The commenter asked that the light-sport repairmen training
requirements be reconsidered with a

[[Page 35150]]

heavy emphasis placed on input from light-sport repairman training
course providers. Under 5 U.S.C. 553, the APA requires agencies to
provide the public with notice of proposed rulemaking. To satisfy
required notice under section 553, agencies afford interested persons a
reasonable and meaningful opportunity to participate in the rulemaking
process, generally referred to as ``an opportunity to comment.'' As an
agency engaging in the rulemaking process, FAA published the NPRM \288\
for MOSAIC on July 24, 2023. As previously discussed, and stated in the
NPRM, the intent of the MOSAIC proposed rule was to provide relief and
greater flexibility to repairman training course providers. Therefore,
FAA afforded the public reasonable and meaningful opportunity to
participate in the rulemaking process through public comment submission
in the rulemaking docket, initially through October 23, 2023, and then
extended the public comment period by 90 days, to January 22, 2024. FAA
received over 1,350 comments, including comments from training course
providers. In developing this final rule, FAA considered all comments
received on the NPRM, including those provided by training course
providers.
12. Out of Scope Repairman Comments
a. Mechanic Certification
Several commenters expressed concerns about a shortage of
certificated mechanics; some suggested the proposed rule will ease the
burden caused by this shortage while others suggested the regulations
would instead exacerbate the shortage. Some commenters suggested the
light-sport repairman training courses could provide a path toward
obtaining a mechanic certificate, particularly if the training would
count toward the requirements of a mechanic certificate. Multiple
commenters stated FAA should develop new regulations to transition from
light-sport repairman to mechanic, while others commented that the
light-sport regulations should be left alone for the same reason. One
commenter recommended amending the mechanic certification regulations
to include the use of endorsements. Van's Aircraft commented on the
need for additional mechanics and other maintenance personnel and asked
that FAA look at the opportunity to credit hours within high school
programs toward mechanic certification. Another commenter proposed that
FAA redesign the mechanic certification process to allow a person who
wished to work on aircraft to be able to do so in steps. AEA/ARSA
recommended this rulemaking update the title of a certificated mechanic
to certificated aviation maintenance technician.
The proposed rules were not intended to address issues specific to
FAA-certificated mechanics and FAA does not believe this rule will
significantly impact the number of future mechanics. While light-sport
repairman training courses cannot be credited toward meeting Sec.
65.77 requirements for a mechanic certificate or rating applicant, such
an applicant may apply practical experience \289\ gained towards
meeting the experience requirement in Sec. 65.77(b)(1). Comments
suggesting broad changes to mechanic certification rules are outside
the scope of this rulemaking.
b. Mechanic Training
Approximately 55 different commenters asserted FAA-certificated
mechanics are not trained or otherwise familiar with performing
maintenance on light-sport category aircraft and suggested mechanics
should be required to get additional training applicable to light-sport
aircraft. As discussed in section IV.I.11, Sec. 65.81 prohibits
mechanics from approving work for return to service unless the mechanic
has previously performed that work satisfactorily. FAA finds this
requirement to sufficiently ensure the person is adequately familiar
and proficient on the required work to be performed. Training would be
one way a mechanic could meet Sec. 65.81 (i.e., perform the work
satisfactorily in a training environment).
One commenter stated all mechanic certificates should be a basic
certificate with training and endorsements for more complex systems. As
previously stated, mechanic certification and training are outside the
scope of this rulemaking.
c. Part 147 AMTS Curriculum
One commenter recommended that part 147 school curriculums be
modified to teach more new engine technologies and avionics. Another
commenter stated AMTS curricula do not include training mechanics to
work on light-sport aircraft and there is little interest in doing so
because most mechanics will be working on highly complex aircraft, not
light-sport aircraft. Part 147 AMTS curricula are outside of the scope
of the MOSAIC rulemaking; however, FAA notes that AMTS curricula must
include content on light-sport aircraft, since mechanic certificate
privileges include those aircraft. In addition, AMTS can modify their
curricula at any time to teach additional content. The requirement for
AMTS to align their curriculum with the Mechanic ACS is a minimum
standard.
13. Part 147
FAA notes the final rule includes an amendment to the incorporation
by reference (IBR) provision in Sec. 147.17 to update the contact
information to Certification Testing Group, 202-267-1100,
faa.gov">ACSPTinquiries@faa.gov. This final rule makes a conforming amendment to
Sec. 65.23 in the introductory paragraph to correct the group contact
name to ``Training and Certification Group'' for consistency with Sec.
147.17 IBR and accuracy of contact details.

J. Maintenance

Aircraft certificated in the light-sport category are subject to
the operating limitations specified in Sec. 91.327, which include
requirements related to maintenance, repairs, and alterations. This
final rule revises the maintenance requirements for light-sport
category aircraft in Sec. 91.327 regarding safety directives, major
and minor repairs and alterations, and other limitations. In addition,
FAA is adopting conforming changes to Sec. Sec. 43.1, 65.85, 65.87,
and 91.417.
1. Manufacturer's Safety Directives
In the NPRM, FAA proposed removing the requirement in Sec.
91.327(b)(4) that an owner or operator of a light-sport category
aircraft comply with safety directives issued by the aircraft
manufacturer. FAA also proposed removing the corresponding requirement
to record compliance with manufacturer safety directives in Sec.
91.417(a)(2)(v).
FAA received four comments related to the proposed rule to remove
the requirement to comply with safety directives issued by the aircraft
manufacturer. Two commenters supported the proposed rule, one commenter
was unclear as to whether the proposed rule also removed the
requirement to record accomplishment of safety directives, and one
commenter stated the proposed rule does not enhance safety and
questioned FAA's ability to evaluate manufacturers' safety directives
and issue airworthiness directives.
The proposed amendment of Sec. 91.327 to remove the requirement to
comply with manufacturer's safety directives was accompanied by a
corresponding revision to Sec. 91.417 to remove the requirement to
record compliance with such safety directives in the aircraft's
records. However, there are still regulations prescribing recording
requirements in Sec. Sec. 43.9 and 43.11 that

[[Page 35151]]

are applicable to maintenance, alterations, and inspections. Therefore,
if a safety directive that involves maintenance, alteration, or
inspection is complied with, applicable part 43 records must be made.
As discussed in the NPRM, aircraft owners are encouraged to
continue to comply with manufacturers' safety directives to address
safety concerns on their aircraft. A separate regulatory requirement to
comply with manufacturers' safety directives is unnecessary because
Sec. 91.7 prohibits any person from operating a civil aircraft unless
it is in an airworthy condition. Where a safety-of-flight condition
exists on an aircraft, that condition would need to be corrected for
the aircraft to be considered in an airworthy condition to satisfy the
Sec. 91.7 requirement. In addition, safety-of-flight conditions would
need to be corrected for the aircraft to be approved for return to
service after its annual condition inspection required by Sec.
91.327(b)(2).
Compliance with manufacturer-issued safety directives is not
required after the effective date of this final rule. This includes
safety directives issued prior to this final rule, including those with
repetitive requirements, but would not include excusing violations of
Sec. Sec. 91.327(b)(4) or 91.417(a)(2)(v) that occurred prior to the
applicable effective date of this final rule. FAA recommends owners,
operators, and maintenance providers carefully review all manufacturer
safety directives and comply when appropriate. Many safety directives
may identify safety of flight or other airworthiness issues. Such
issues, if present on the aircraft, would make the aircraft
unairworthy. For example, a manufacturer might issue a safety directive
that notifies owners of possible cracking in a certain part of the
aircraft's primary structure. While the manufacturer safety directives
would not be mandatory under the NPRM, if the aircraft structure is
found to have the crack that the safety directive highlights, then the
aircraft is unairworthy, and the crack must be repaired before the
aircraft can be approved for return to service and subsequently
operated.
Furthermore, Sec. 43.13 requires each person performing
maintenance to use methods, techniques, and practices prescribed in the
current manufacturer's maintenance manual; Instructions for Continued
Airworthiness prepared by its manufacturer; or other methods,
techniques, and practices acceptable to the Administrator. In the
previous example, the repair instructions in a manufacturer issued
safety directive would be considered an acceptable method to repair the
crack; though there may be other methods, techniques, or practices
acceptable to the Administrator that could be used to repair the crack.
However, if FAA issued an AD regarding the unsafe condition of possible
cracking, and the AD refers to repairing any actual crack found per the
safety directive, then compliance with the safety directive would be
mandatory unless an alternate means of compliance under Sec. 39.19 was
approved by FAA and used.
Given these existing and continuing safety-of-flight requirements,
FAA has determined there is no degradation in safety from the proposed
revision to Sec. 91.327(b)(4). It is important to note that
manufacturers of light-sport category aircraft are still required to
implement and maintain a documented continued operational safety
program that monitors and resolves in-service safety of flight issues.
The program must include provisions for the issuance of safety
directives and a process for advance notice to FAA and owners of
discontinuance of its continued operational safety program or any
transfer of the program to another responsible party, per Sec.
21.190(d)(8). Therefore, owners will continue to be notified of safety
issues through manufacturer issued safety directives and are
responsible to ensure their aircraft are airworthy. FAA notes that
though it does not typically issue ADs for non-type-certificated
products, FAA policy \290\ includes monitoring and analyzing safety
data for light-sport category aircraft to determine if FAA action is
required, including the issuance of an FAA AD.
Therefore, in this final rule FAA is adopting the NPRM proposal to
remove the Sec. 91.327(b)(4) requirement for an owner or operator of a
light-sport category aircraft to comply with safety directives issued
by the aircraft manufacturer. FAA is also adopting the NPRM proposal to
amend Sec. 91.417(a)(2)(v) to remove the corresponding record keeping
requirement for manufacturer-issued safety directives.
In the NPRM, FAA proposed replacing Sec. 91.327(b)(4) with a
requirement that prohibits operation of a light-sport category aircraft
unless the aircraft has demonstrated compliance with the applicable
requirements of part 36. As discussed in section IV.N, the holder of
the airworthiness certificate, rather than the pilot of an aircraft, is
fundamentally responsible for ensuring that their aircraft complies
with airworthiness requirements. In addition, section IV.N discusses
that this final rule makes compliance with part 36 for light-sport
category aircraft voluntary. Based upon this, FAA has removed this
requirement from Sec. 91.327(b)(4). As a result of the removal of
existing language in Sec. 91.327(b)(4), this final rule renumbers the
remaining subparagraphs (5), (6), and (7) as (4), (5), and (6).
2. TBO/Time Limits/Life Limited Parts
FAA received twelve comments asking for clarification on whether
the owner or operator of light-sport category aircraft is required to
comply with manufacturer mandated intervals such as engine time-
between-overhaul (TBO) intervals or component time-life intervals that
have not been explicitly FAA-approved. The NPRM did not make any
proposals related to TBO intervals or component time-life intervals. As
such, comments that were received requesting clarification of these
topics or suggestions of additional regulatory revisions are outside
the scope of this rulemaking. FAA has existing guidance that explains
the requirements for meeting manufacturer's specified TBOs or other
time-life intervals.\291\
3. Minor Repairs and Minor Alterations
In the NPRM, FAA proposed to revise Sec. 91.327(b)(5), renumbered
to Sec. 91.327(b)(4) in this final rule, to add repairs to the
requirement that already included alterations. The proposed amendment
to Sec. 91.327(b)(5) was to allow for minor repairs and minor
alterations to be accomplished without authorization from the
manufacturer or a person acceptable to FAA. In addition, FAA proposed
to remove language from Sec. 91.327(b)(5) regarding alterations
``accomplished after the aircraft's date of manufacture'' because
aircraft must have been manufactured to engage in flight operations.
Finally, FAA proposed language that repairs and alterations meet FAA-
accepted consensus standards that are specified in the manufacturer's
statement of compliance that was originally submitted to FAA at the
time of aircraft certification.\292\ This amended language provides
that, though consensus standards may change over time, the aircraft is
only required to meet the consensus standards identified on the
manufacturer's statement of compliance submitted at the time of
original airworthiness certification.
After additional review, FAA finds the NRPM proposal to include the
term ``minor'' prior to ``repair'' and ``alteration'' in proposed Sec.
91.327(b)(5) unnecessary because it implies that the language retained
from the existing regulation, regarding meeting the consensus standards
identified in the statement of compliance, is not required

[[Page 35152]]

for major repairs and major alterations. In accordance with Sec.
21.181(a)(3), a special airworthiness certificate in the light-sport
category is effective as long as the aircraft meets the eligibility
criteria for the issuance of an airworthiness certificate in the light-
sport category specified in Sec. 21.190(b). Therefore, the requirement
to comply with the consensus standards identified in the statement of
compliance submitted to FAA applies regardless of whether the
alteration or repair is major or minor. Removing the word ``minor'' in
the final rule from proposed Sec. 91.327(b)(5) does not change FAA's
intent from what was proposed in the NPRM and clarifies that all
repairs and alterations must be made in accordance with applicable
consensus standards.
FAA received five comments from nine commenters related to the
proposed changes to proposed Sec. 91.327(b)(5), renumbered to Sec.
91.327(b)(4) in this final rule. EAA, AOPA, NATA, NBAA, GAMA, the Light
Aircraft Manufacturers Association, and two other commenters are in
support of the proposed changes. One commenter is opposed to allowing
minor repairs and minor alterations to be accomplished without
manufacturer approval.
Five of the supporting commenters discussed the need for guidance
related to understanding requirements around minor alterations and
minor repairs. FAA intends to develop guidance in an Advisory Circular
(AC) on the maintenance requirements for light-sport category aircraft,
including guidance for understanding and applying requirements
concerning minor repairs and minor alterations.
Van's Aircraft commented that the full definition of what is minor
and what is major is unclear and the current requirement for
manufacturers is that items included within the maintenance manual are
minor and those not included in the maintenance manual are major. It
asked if there are any conflicts with Sec. 43.1 that need to be
resolved and asked for further clarification on the definition of what
is minor, and what changes FAA would propose within the ASTM standards
to support this.
FAA disagrees that the definition of major vs. minor is unclear.
FAA has long defined these terms in Sec. 1.1. FAA believes Van's
Aircraft's description of which items are minor or major is based on,
or in line with, terminology definitions contained in consensus
standards such as ASTM F2483-18e1.\293\ These consensus standard
definitions appear to have been made without consideration of the Sec.
1.1 definitions for major and minor repair and major and minor
alteration, upon which FAA relies on when using these terms. The
definition for ``consensus standard'' included in Sec. 1.1 prior to
this final rule required a consensus standard to include standards for
the identification and recording of major repairs and major
alterations. However, the definition did not imply that consensus
standards should redefine ``major'' repair or alteration, as FAA has
already defined these terms. The language directing ``standards for
identification and recording of major repairs and alterations'' does
not extend to redefining the terms themselves. When FAA uses the terms
``major repair'' or ``major alteration,'' such as used in the Sec. 1.1
``consensus standard'' definition, the regulation refers to what FAA
has defined. Though the comment from Van's Aircraft questioned whether
there are conflicts with Sec. 43.1, the commenter did not identify
specific concerns. FAA has reviewed Sec. 43.1 and believes there are
no conflicts in Sec. 43.1 requirements for light-sport aircraft
regarding major repairs or major alterations.
Finally, Van's Aircraft asked for further clarification on the
definition of what is minor, and what changes FAA would propose within
the ASTM standards to support this. The above discussion clarifies
FAA's position on major vs. minor. FAA declines to recommend ASTM
revisions in this preamble as FAA provides comments and recommends
changes to ASTM standards when those documents are submitted to FAA for
acceptance or approval.
While one commenter opposed allowing minor repairs and minor
alterations to be accomplished without manufacturer authorization, FAA
believes that requiring manufacturer authorization for minor repairs
and minor alterations is unnecessary. As pointed out by AEA/ARSA and
other commenters, minor alterations and minor repairs do not
appreciably affect weight, balance, structural strength, performance,
powerplant operations, flight characteristics, or other qualities
affecting airworthiness. Thus, there is low safety risk associated with
the accomplishment of such alterations or repairs. It is unreasonable
to believe that an aircraft will remain exactly as it was when it was
manufactured following operation or over a period of time, as aircraft
accumulate a certain amount of wear and tear, or other minor defects.
Minor repairs and alterations will likely need to be made to all
aircraft following commencement of flight operations over time.
Allowing minor repairs and alterations to occur without manufacturer
authorization parallels requirements currently in place for aircraft
designed to CAR 3 and part 23 standards and issued a standard category
airworthiness certificate. There is little reason to hold light-sport
category aircraft to a different or higher standard for minor repairs
and minor alterations when such repairs or alterations, by definition,
do not appreciably affect weight, balance, structural strength,
performance, powerplant operation, flight characteristics, or other
qualities affecting airworthiness of the aircraft.
One commenter is concerned that a lack of manufacturer
authorization of minor alterations would increase the burden on
prospective buyers to find an aircraft that has not been altered other
than as authorized by the manufacturer. Section 43.9(a) requires a
maintenance record entry be made for all maintenance and alterations,
and Sec. 91.417(b) requires those record entries to be retained until
the work is repeated or superseded by other work or for 1 year after
the work is performed. In many, if not most, instances, though not
required by Sec. 91.417(b), maintenance record entries are retained
indefinitely as a part of the aircraft's records. Prospective buyers of
any aircraft certificated in any category have the burden of
determining the extent of maintenance, repairs, and alterations
performed on an aircraft prior to purchasing. FAA believes the
reduction of burden on actual aircraft owners and operators by not
having to obtain manufacturer authorization for minor alterations and
repairs outweighs any additional burden potential aircraft owners may
have to determine if minor repairs or alterations were made. As
previously stated, wear and tear on operational aircraft is to be
expected, along with repairs and alterations to maintain the aircraft.
In addition, the same requirements apply to aircraft holding standard
airworthiness certificates and have not resulted in safety issues.
FAA is adding the language ``or approved'' to proposed Sec.
91.327(b)(5), renumbered to Sec. 91.327(b)(4) in this final rule, in
reference to the consensus standards that are applicable. This change
is to conform with changes in part 22 that reflect that, while most
consensus standards are accepted by FAA, some consensus standards are
approved by FAA.
In summary, this final rule adopts proposed Sec. 91.327(b)(5) as
Sec. 91.327(b)(4), with minor changes described previously.

[[Page 35153]]

4. Major Repairs and Major Alterations
In the NPRM, FAA proposed to add major repairs to the requirements
in Sec. 91.327(b)(6), renumbered to Sec. 91.327(b)(5) in this final
rule, which already included major alterations. In addition, the NPRM
proposed to remove the language ``to an aircraft product produced under
a consensus standard.'' \294\ In the proposed rule, FAA retained the
language that would require major repairs and major alterations to be
authorized by the manufacturer (or a person acceptable to FAA) and for
major repairs and major alterations to be performed and inspected \295\
in accordance with maintenance and inspection procedures developed by
the manufacturer (or a person acceptable to FAA). FAA received one
comment from five commenters, including EAA and ARSA, agreeing with the
proposed addition of ``repairs'' to the language in Sec. 91.327(b)(6).
After additional review, FAA believes it is not appropriate to
remove the language ``to an aircraft product produced under a consensus
standard'' from Sec. 91.327(b)(6) as proposed. Though no comments were
received on this proposed change, this language differentiates between
requirements for light-sport aircraft products produced under a
consensus standard versus those products produced under an FAA-approval
(i.e., such as a type-certificate, production certification, parts
manufacturer approval (PMA), or technical standard order (TSO)), with
respect to the performance and recording of major repairs and major
alterations. The existing regulations require that when type-
certificated products installed on a light-sport aircraft are subject
to a major repair or major alteration, then those products must be
repaired or altered in accordance with part 43 requirements applicable
to a type-certificated product, to include recording requirements for
major repairs and major alterations. This is because such products
could be removed from a light-sport category aircraft and subsequently
installed on a type-certificated or other aircraft to which all of part
43 applies. In Sec. 43.1(d), light-sport category aircraft are
excepted from the recording requirements applicable to other aircraft
to which part 43 applies, but only with respect to products not
produced under an FAA approval. Specifically, the requirement to use
FAA Form 337 (under Sec. Sec. 43.5(b) and 43.9(d)) and to disposition
that form in accordance with appendix B of part 43 does not apply when
a major repair or alteration is performed on a light-sport category
aircraft or product that was not produced under an FAA approval.
In summary, in the final rule FAA is adopting the NPRM proposed
amendment to Sec. 91.327(b)(6), renumbered as Sec. 91.327(b)(5), but
will retain the language ``to an aircraft product produced under a
consensus standard.''
5. Other Amendments to Sec. 91.327
In the NPRM, FAA proposed a change to Sec. 91.327(b)(1) regarding
how maintenance on a light-sport category aircraft must be performed.
Specifically, the NPRM replaced the language ``a person'' acceptable to
FAA with ``other maintenance and inspection procedures'' acceptable to
FAA. The intent of that proposal was to align light-sport category
maintenance requirements with those found in Sec. 43.13(a), which
provides an option of either the manufacturer's instructions or other
methods, techniques, and practices acceptable to the Administrator.
However, FAA found the proposed change was not explained in the NPRM
preamble and that such a change is not necessary because Sec. 43.13(a)
already provides the option for maintenance to be conducted in
accordance with either the manufacturer's instructions, or other
methods, techniques, and practices acceptable to the Administrator.
FAA received four comments from seven commenters, including AEA/
ARSA, regarding this provision. However, the comments were not related
to the proposed regulatory text changes. Their comments were directed
at existing regulatory language in Sec. 91.327(b)(1) that was not
proposed for change, as related to the applicable provisions of part
43. One commenter asked why a type-certificated aircraft can be
repaired or maintained with part 43, yet a simple light-sport aircraft
cannot. Similarly, another commenter stated the regulations should
absolutely allow part 43 for acceptable materials repairs,
modifications, parts, etc., since there is no support for repair or
modification authorizations if a light-sport manufacturer goes out of
business.
FAA agrees with commenters that light-sport aircraft should and, in
fact, must be repaired or maintained in accordance with applicable
provisions of part 43. Section 91.327 specifically requires that a
light-sport category aircraft be maintained in accordance with the
applicable provisions of part 43; this includes the option to use
acceptable methods, techniques, or practices acceptable to the
Administrator under Sec. 43.13(a). Section 43.1 explains the
applicability of part 43; light-sport category aircraft are excepted
from certain requirements related to the recording of major repairs and
alterations on products not produced under an FAA approval. However,
there are no other exceptions in part 43 related to light-sport
category aircraft; therefore, all other provisions of part 43 apply.
EAA, AOPA, NATA, NBAA, and GAMA commenters pointed out that it is
confusing and inappropriate for the regulation to require compliance
with both part 43 and manufacturer maintenance and inspection
procedures.
FAA disagrees that it is confusing or inappropriate that the
regulations require in certain instances compliance with part 43 as
well as maintenance and inspection procedures developed by the
manufacturer (or a person acceptable to FAA). The regulations must be
applied harmoniously, one does not override another. As discussed
previously in this section, all part 43 requirements apply to light-
sport category aircraft except where specifically stated in Sec. 43.1,
Applicability. In addition, Sec. 91.327 includes several requirements
for compliance with procedures from the manufacturer or a person
acceptable to FAA. Specifically, Sec. 91.327(b)(1) requires compliance
with the manufacturer's (or person acceptable to FAA) maintenance and
inspection procedures. Section 91.327(b)(2) requires the annual
condition inspection be performed in accordance with inspection
procedures developed by the aircraft manufacturer or a person
acceptable to FAA. Section 91.327(b)(6), renumbered to Sec.
91.327(b)(5) in this final rule, requires that major repairs and major
alterations be performed and inspected in accordance with maintenance
and inspection procedures developed by the manufacturer or a person
acceptable to FAA. Lastly, Sec. 91.327(c) requires that a 100-hour
condition inspection be performed in accordance with inspection
procedures developed by the aircraft manufacturer or a person
acceptable to FAA.
While Sec. 91.327 specifies when an annual condition inspection
(under Sec. 91.327(b)(2)) or a 100-hour inspection (under Sec. 91.327
(c)) must be done, the regulation does not require the aircraft to be
inspected using a checklist that meets part 43 appendix D. Rather,
Sec. 91.327 requires compliance with manufacturer inspection
procedures in terms of the appropriate items that must be inspected. At
the same time Sec. 91.327 requires persons performing the inspections
to use the manufacturers inspection procedures; there is no other
minimum inspection standard for inspections on light-sport category

[[Page 35154]]

aircraft, such as the content in appendix D to part 43 applicable to
aircraft issued a standard airworthiness certificate. If the regulation
omitted the inspection procedures requirement, then the inspections
would have no performance requirement (i.e., the inspection must be
done, but there would be nothing stating what must be inspected).
Similarly, major repairs and major alterations performed on light-
sport category aircraft do not require FAA to approve the data for such
modifications. Instead, FAA regulations permit the manufacturer (or a
person acceptable to FAA) to authorize major repairs and major
alterations. Here too, FAA leaves it to the aircraft manufacturer or an
FAA acceptable person to define the maintenance and inspection
procedures that apply to the major repair or major alteration. The
language in Sec. 91.327 subsequently requires that a person must use
those maintenance and inspection procedures when performing or
inspecting the major repair or major alteration.
For all these reasons, the language in Sec. 91.327(b)(1) stating
``and inspection and maintenance procedures . . .'' is appropriate and
clear.
AEA/ARSA stated the maintenance and continued airworthiness of
light-sport aircraft is the most restrictive requirement in aviation
because of how major repairs and alterations are defined and the
requirement for the manufacturer's approval. Commenters also point out
that standard category aircraft are held to the maintenance performance
standards in Sec. 43.13(a), and it is inconsistent for a light-sport
category aircraft to be held to a more restrictive maintenance
performance standard.
The definition of major repairs and major alterations is found in
Sec. 1.1. There is no difference in applying these definitions to
light-sport category aircraft, and therefore, FAA disagrees that these
aircraft are held to a more restrictive standard in this regard.\296\
Further, FAA disagrees that light-sport category aircraft are held
to a more restrictive standard for maintenance as stated by the
commenter. As previously discussed, light-sport category aircraft must
be maintained in accordance with part 43; however, where Sec. 91.327
requires the use of maintenance or inspection procedures developed by
the manufacturer or a person acceptable to FAA, then those procedures
must be used. These requirements are similar to how the regulations
apply to aircraft issued a standard airworthiness certificate, on which
inspections must be performed in accordance with the scope and detail
of appendix D of part 43. Similarly, where major repairs and major
alterations to light-sport category aircraft must be inspected and
maintained using maintenance and inspection procedures developed by the
manufacturer or a person acceptable to FAA, aircraft holding standard
airworthiness certificates must be inspected and maintained using the
instructions for continued airworthiness that are included as a part of
FAA Form 337 approved by the Administrator. In addition, Sec. 91.327
has always allowed major repairs and major alterations on light-sport
category aircraft to be authorized by either the manufacturer or a
person acceptable to FAA who is not the manufacturer. This is less
restrictive than requirements for aircraft holding standard
airworthiness certificates, which must have FAA approval of the data
used for performing major repairs and major alterations.
In summary, the final rule is not revising Sec. 91.327(b)(1),
except to conform the name of the repairman certificate (light-sport)
as discussed in section IV.I.1.
6. Third-Party Modifications
In response to the NPRM, FAA received seven comments related to the
regulatory requirements around the performance of ``third-party
modifications'' on light-sport category aircraft. By ``third-party
modification,'' FAA understands the commenters to mean a major repair
or major alteration to the aircraft that was not part of the original
manufacturer's design, and which was not authorized by the original
manufacturer.\297\ Similarly for this discussion, by ``third-party
modifier,'' FAA understands the commenters to mean a person, other than
the original aircraft manufacturer, who authorizes a third-party
modification. Use of such third-party modifications on aircraft would
have to meet the applicable regulatory requirements, including Sec.
91.327(b)(6), renumbered as Sec. 91.327(b)(5) in this final rule,
requiring each major repair or major alteration to an aircraft product
produced under a consensus standard to be authorized by the
manufacturer or a person acceptable to FAA. The term third-party
modifier does not refer to maintenance providers such as light-sport
repairmen, mechanics, or repair stations solely because that person is
performing the work of incorporating a repair or alteration onto the
aircraft that a third-party modification consists of, or who are
otherwise using authorized inspection or maintenance procedures to
perform work.
AEA/ARSA stated the maintenance and continued airworthiness of
light-sport aircraft is the most restrictive requirement in aviation
because of the definition of major repairs and alterations and FAA's
delegation of approval to only the original equipment manufacturer.
These commenters state that the proposed rule disregards the negative
impact on design, certification, and installation of retrofit
technologies, as well as the aviation maintenance service industry.
Another commenter pointed out that manufacturers may not be available
or amenable to minor updates to an aircraft. One other commenter stated
the general understanding is that only the original aircraft
manufacturer can approve a major modification to a light-sport category
aircraft. That commenter further stated, if an aircraft manufacturer
refuses to approve a change to an aircraft, the only path forward for
the owner/operator to ``legally'' modify a light-sport category
aircraft is to put the aircraft into the experimental category, which
in turn has restrictions on certain aircraft operations. Van's Aircraft
stated the light-sport industry has a major gap in the area of major
repairs and alterations.
GAMA commented that currently there is no practical way to support
customers who request upgrades or different avionics solutions that are
not supported by the original aircraft manufacturer. GAMA believes that
the industry needs a practical means for third parties to perform major
alterations to LSA and supports the provision for ``a person acceptable
to FAA'' to authorize such alterations. EAA, AOPA, NATA, NBAAA, GAMA,
Van's Aircraft, and another commenter encouraged FAA to make greater
use of the ``a person acceptable to FAA'' clause in the regulation to
allow greater third-party alterations and repairs to light-sport
aircraft when those alterations and repairs meet applicable standards.
GAMA stated the original light-sport aircraft rule clarified the
intent of the phrase ``a person acceptable to FAA'' applied only to
minor alterations, and stated it is not clear if that same list also
applies to major alterations. GAMA further stated a clear path for
receiving FAA approval for major repair, alteration, or major change in
type design is required to support the life cycle of part 22 aircraft
and to afford the ability to add safety enhancing technology or to meet
future operational mandates, without reliance upon the manufacturer.
Van's Aircraft expressed three main concerns with third-party
maintenance from a manufacturer perspective. The first concern stated
is that manufacturer liability issues may be caused by

[[Page 35155]]

providing an alternate path to manufacturer approval. Van's second
concern is the marketability of light sport aircraft to flight schools,
and that manufacturers need an alternative path for major repairs and
alterations that allows aircraft in a flight school to remain viable
indefinitely and independent of the manufacturer. The third concern is
that there should be a check gate to ensure that third parties acting
independently would be held to the same level of rigor as a
manufacturer who signs an FAA form 8130-15, Statement of Conformity.
For example, Van's Aircraft asserted that a third-party modifier should
need the same training as that required of a manufacturer, should
consider all the safety issues related to the current major repair and
alteration (MRA) process, should notify a manufacturer, and should
maintain a continued operational safety program to maintain their
repairs and alterations over time. Van's Aircraft also suggested three
ways to address this concern: (1) that a third-party be required to
submit an amended statement of compliance form as proposed in Sec.
21.190(e) for aerial work, which would provide a record of the aircraft
modification for future reference by a manufacturer or a future third-
party planning a subsequent alteration; (2) utilize the existing and
ongoing ability of a manufacturer to issue a safety directive against a
potential alteration; and (3) that FAA should work with industry to
develop a solution within the consensus standard process. Van's
Aircraft pointed out that the ASTM F37 committee is currently working
on a third-party alteration standard and asked that FAA continue to
provide support and pressure as necessary to enable the committee to
develop a working solution within the consensus process.
In general, the above comments request that FAA provide additional
guidance and regulations with respect to third-party modifications and
facilitate increased use of the ``a person acceptable to FAA'' clause
in Sec. 91.327. Because Sec. 91.327(b)(5) allows for ``a person
acceptable to FAA'' to authorize major repairs or major alterations in
lieu of a manufacturer authorization, FAA believes that the existing
regulations are sufficient for allowing third-party modifications. In
addition, much of the comments in this regard are outside of what the
NPRM proposed or are more general expressions of concern rather than
specific recommendations related to the NPRM. The requests for
additional rulemaking are outside the scope of this rule and would
require separate notice and comment rulemaking. However, FAA agrees
that additional guidance would benefit the public. FAA intends to
revise existing guidance to provide further information related to
third-party modifications. Responses to some specific assertions from
the comments are discussed in the following paragraphs.
FAA disagrees with commenters understanding that only the original
manufacturer can authorize major repairs or major alterations to light-
sport category aircraft. In the NPRM, FAA referred back to the 2004
final rule,\298\ where FAA clarified that ``a person acceptable to
FAA'' includes: (1) the manufacturer that issued the statement of
compliance, (2) any person who has assumed, and is properly exercising,
the original manufacturer's responsibility for carrying out the
continued airworthiness procedures described in the consensus standard,
(3) the holder of an FAA-approved TSO authorization, PMA, type
certificate (TC), or supplemental type certificate (STC) for a product
or part installed on the aircraft, and (4) any person authorized by the
manufacturer to produce modification or replacement parts in accordance
with the applicable consensus standard addressing ``qualification of
third-party modification or replacement parts.'' FAA finds that there
may be other persons acceptable to FAA. FAA intends on developing an
Advisory Circular on the maintenance requirements for light-sport
category aircraft, which will include further guidance on third-party
modification and persons acceptable to FAA as used in Sec. 91.327.
Regarding GAMA's comment that the original light-sport aircraft
rule clarified the intent of this phrase ``a person acceptable to FAA''
only applied to minor alterations, FAA points out that, prior to this
final rule, Sec. 91.327(b)(5) applied to all alterations (minor and
major), while Sec. 91.327(b)(6) applied to major (not minor)
alterations. Under this final rule, Sec. 91.327(b)(5) and (6) were
renumbered to Sec. 91.327(b)(4) and (5) and do not require that minor
repairs and minor alterations have authorization by the manufacturer or
a person acceptable to FAA, nor are minor repairs and minor alterations
required to be performed and inspected in accordance with maintenance
procedures developed by the manufacturer or a person acceptable to
FAA.\299\
In addition, the suggestion from Van's Aircraft to add regulations
requiring a third-party to submit an amended statement of compliance
form, similar to that proposed in Sec. 21.190(e) for aerial work,
cannot be implemented without additional notice and comment rulemaking.
7. Owner-Pilot Preventive Maintenance
The proposed rule and existing regulations allow a sport-pilot to
perform preventive maintenance on light-sport category aircraft owned
or operated by that sport pilot. However, the regulations do not allow
sport-pilots to perform preventive maintenance on aircraft issued a
standard airworthiness certificate, but which a sport pilot is
permitted to operate in accordance with Sec. 61.316.
In response to the NPRM, FAA received eleven comments related to
pilots and aircraft owners performing preventive maintenance on
aircraft that a sport-pilot is permitted to operate. Commenters request
that sport-pilots be permitted to perform preventive maintenance tasks
on all aircraft that a sport-pilot is permitted to operate, including
aircraft holding standard airworthiness certificates that meet the
performance limits and design requirements of Sec. 61.316. In general,
commenters would like FAA to revise Sec. 43.3(g), to allow sport
pilots to perform preventive maintenance on any aircraft the sport-
pilot owns or operates.
One of the eleven commenters is against allowing owners to perform
their own maintenance and stated some owners are not mechanically aware
enough to notice a future problem. Four commenters noted the difference
in what a private pilot is permitted to do compared to a sport pilot.
One of these commenters stated he has a lot of maintenance experience
but is not permitted to do maintenance tasks on his aircraft that a
private pilot with zero maintenance skills can do; that commenter
further stated the only difference between himself and a private pilot
is the medical. Another commenter points out there is no difference in
training between sport pilots and private pilots and states the medical
is not justification to limit ground maintenance. Three commenters
suggest establishing an endorsement process to be allowed to perform
maintenance tasks on aircraft owned by the pilot. Another three
commenters suggest allowing pilots to perform maintenance after the
pilot has had training, such as an owner maintenance course. One
commenter mentions the economic burden placed on him to have oil and
tire changes completed by a certificated mechanic.
When the sport-pilot certificate was created in 2004, FAA discussed
that the decision to prohibit sport pilots from performing maintenance
on type-

[[Page 35156]]

certificated aircraft is because those pilots do not have the same
level of experience as persons who currently perform preventive
maintenance on type-certificated aircraft. This is evidenced in the
differences between, for example, the current private pilot airplane
ACS \300\ and the PTS.
Amending Sec. 43.3(g) to allow sport pilots to perform preventive
maintenance on type-certificated aircraft is outside the scope of this
rulemaking. Such a change was not proposed in the NPRM, and considering
such changes would require notice and the opportunity for comment and
would delay the issuance of this final rule and the realization of its
intended benefits. Therefore, this final rule does not make changes
related to pilot preventive maintenance privileges contained in part
43.\301\
8. Downgrades of Type-Certificated Aircraft to Light-Sport
FAA received comments and questions from several commenters who
refer in one way or another to an aircraft that was originally
certificated with a standard airworthiness certificate (Sec. 21.183)
and subsequently recertificated as a light-sport category aircraft
(Sec. 21.190) or experimental operating light-sport category (Sec.
21.191). Commenters questioned equipment installation eligibility and
maintenance and inspection requirements on a former standard
classification aircraft that was downgraded to the light-sport
category. Other commenters suggest such a recertification be allowed so
light-sport repairmen could then perform the required maintenance and
inspection on those aircraft. GAMA specifically proposed that FAA allow
legacy certified aircraft (Part 23 or Civil Aviation Regulation (CAR)
part 3) that fall within light-sport aircraft guidelines to be changed
to an experimental light-sport aircraft. GAMA contended that allowing
owners to obtain this level of airworthiness certificate would create a
path for owners to keep these older aircraft functional and updated
with modern avionics or other parts that may no longer be available.
GAMA further stated it would also reduce operating costs by allowing
owner maintenance after taking a light-sport repairman training course.
As more fully discussed in section IV.F.6, under current Sec.
21.190(b)(2), now relocated to Sec. 22.100(a)(6) in this final rule,
aircraft that were previously issued a standard airworthiness
certificate are not eligible for certification as light-sport category
aircraft. Similarly, aircraft with a standard airworthiness certificate
are not eligible to be issued an experimental airworthiness certificate
for the purpose of operating light sport aircraft since eligibility for
that experimental airworthiness certificate is limited to aircraft that
were previously issued a special airworthiness certificate under Sec.
21.190. While the comments cite various rationales in support of such
airworthiness certificate changes, these rationales do not speak to the
underlying basis for the different categories, or to the specific
experimental purposes. To be issued any experimental airworthiness
certificate for any purpose, an aircraft must meet the applicable
requirements of Sec. 21.191. In addition, as explained in the 2004
final rule for current Sec. 21.190(b)(2), allowing aircraft with a
standard or primary category airworthiness certificate to obtain a
light-sport category airworthiness certificate was seen as an
unnecessary burden on manufacturers, operators, and FAA.\302\
While GAMA suggested that allowing aircraft holding standard
airworthiness certificates to be recertificated with an experimental
airworthiness certificate for operating light-sport aircraft would
allow owners to make these aircraft functional, there is no evidence
that safety would be either increased or maintained at current levels.
As previously mentioned, experimental aircraft are not required to be
maintained in accordance with part 43, would only require an annual
condition inspection,\303\ and would no longer be required to meet any
design standards at all. FAA has recognized the challenges that owners
and operators of vintage aircraft face and provides guidance for
substantiating parts or materials substitutions in multiple
documents.\304\
Aircraft holding a standard airworthiness certificate, such as the
legacy aircraft that commenters are referring to, are higher on the
safety continuum than a light-sport category aircraft. Therefore, FAA
does not agree with the commenters' recommendations to allow legacy
aircraft holding a standard airworthiness certificate to be
recertificated with a ``lower'' light-sport category or experimental
operating light-sport airworthiness certificate, as suggested by
commenters.
Finally, the NPRM did not propose any changes to part 21
regulations for the purpose of allowing aircraft holding standard
airworthiness certificates to downgrade into the light-sport category
or the experimental purpose for operating light-sport aircraft. Any new
changes would be out of scope of this rule and should be accomplished
with appropriate notice and opportunity to comment.
Based upon these reasons, FAA disagrees with commenters'
recommendations to allow an aircraft that was originally certificated
with a standard airworthiness certificate to be subsequently
recertificated as either a light-sport category aircraft under Sec.
21.190 or experimental operating light-sport category aircraft under
Sec. 21.191.
9. Changes to Certificated Mechanic Privileges
In the NPRM, FAA discussed that language in Sec. Sec. 65.85(b) and
65.87(b) did not align with the proposed Sec. 91.327(b)(6), renumbered
as Sec. 91.327(b)(5) in this final rule. This misalignment was because
current Sec. Sec. 65.85(b) and 65.87(b) did not require a mechanic to
verify that a major repair or alteration was authorized by the
manufacturer or a person acceptable to FAA before approving an airframe
or powerplant for return to service. Performing the major repair or
major alteration in accordance with instructions developed by the
manufacturer or a person acceptable to FAA may not sufficiently verify
the aircraft or engine meet the requirement for the major repair or
major alteration to be authorized by the manufacturer (or a person
acceptable to FAA). Therefore, in the final rule FAA is adopting the
NPRM proposed amendments to Sec. Sec. 65.85(b) and 65.87(b).
One commenter noticed that the proposed changes to Sec. 65.87(a)
failed to correct ``approve and return it to service'' with ``approve
for return to service'' as described in the NPRM. In this final rule,
FAA has corrected the clerical error to Sec. 65.87(a) and adopted the
language change proposed.
10. Conforming Amendments and Other Comments
a. Conforming Amendment to Sec. 43.1
The NPRM proposed a conforming amendment to Sec. 43.1 based on
proposed Sec. 21.191, which removed paragraph (i)(3) of Sec. 21.191
in its entirety. The NPRM conforming amendment was necessary because
Sec. 43.1(b) states what aircraft to which part 43 does not apply and
refers to Sec. 21.191 regulatory language that was being amended in
the NPRM. However, as discussed in section IV.L, this final rule will
retain Sec. 21.191(i)(3) but will not issue airworthiness certificates
under that regulation after July 24, 2026. In addition, FAA is adding
new Sec. 21.191(l) for issuance of airworthiness certificates to
operate a former light-sport category aircraft. Just as part 43 does
not apply

[[Page 35157]]

to former light-sport category aircraft issued an experimental
airworthiness certificate under Sec. 21.191(i)(3), part 43 does not
apply to former light-sport category aircraft issued an experimental
airworthiness certificate under new Sec. 21.191(l). The titles and
requirements of the Sec. 21.191(l) experimental purpose remain
unchanged from the NPRM; the only difference being its new paragraph in
Sec. 21.191 for this final rule. Therefore, in this final rule, Sec.
43.1(b)(2) will retain the exception for aircraft for which FAA has
issued an experimental airworthiness certificate under the provisions
of Sec. 21.191(i)(3) and is amended to exclude aircraft issued an
experimental airworthiness certificate under Sec. 21.191(l) from part
43 requirements.
This final rule also makes a conforming change to Sec. 43.1(b)(1)
and (2) by changing ``experimental certificate'' to ``experimental
airworthiness certificate'' to remain consistent with the terminology
of Sec. 21.191 and the explanation in section IV.I.2 of the NPRM that
experimental certificates are experimental airworthiness certificates.
FAA did not receive any comment on this terminology change for Sec.
21.191.
b. Other Comments and Changes Related to Maintenance
NAVAIR noted the title of part 43 contained a spelling error in the
NPRM; the word ``preventitive'' should be ``preventive.'' FAA did not
intend to change the title of part 43 and this was a clerical error in
the NPRM. FAA agrees with the commenter and has corrected this error in
the final rule.
One commenter pointed out that the proposed language in Sec.
43.13(a) changed from ``shall'' to ``must'' with no explanation for the
change. FAA agrees with the commenter and has corrected the final rule
language to retain ``shall'' as used in Sec. 43.13(a) prior to this
final rule.
In the NPRM, FAA proposed to remove the paragraph title from Sec.
43.13(c) to ensure consistency with Sec. 43.13(a) and (b), which do
not use headings. In addition, minor language changes were proposed to
appropriately cross reference to parts 121, 135, and 129 of title 14,
chapter I. No comments were received on the proposed changes;
therefore, the changes are adopted in this final rule.
Van's Aircraft commented that a light-sport repairman,
appropriately rated mechanic, or an appropriately rated repair station
would be able to perform minor repairs and alterations on light-sport
category aircraft and asked what training has been put in place to
ensure that mechanics and repair stations understand the consensus
standards. Van's Aircraft also stated a concern related to Letters of
Authorization (LOAs) being used for major alterations when consensus
standards use Major Repair and Alterations (MRA) forms. Van's Aircraft
questioned that if an LOA is erroneously used for a major alteration,
how will FAA ensure mechanics and repair stations understand the
consensus standards.
The Mechanic ACS is the standard for both mechanic and light-sport
repairmen (with a maintenance rating) training content. The Mechanic
ACS includes subject I. Regulations, Maintenance Forms, Records and
Publications. Element AM.I.I.K8 requires mechanics and light-sport
repairmen know the regulatory framework, including general subject
matter of the parts of 14 CFR relevant to aircraft maintenance and
mechanics. Therefore, these certificate holders are expected to know
the regulatory framework, which includes the regulatory framework
around consensus standards related to performing maintenance on light-
sport category aircraft. For example, a mechanic must understand that
some aircraft are built to design standards in part 23. The expectation
is not for mechanics to memorize each subparagraph of part 23, but to
understand how it relates to aircraft design and maintenance overall.
Similarly, FAA expects mechanics to understand that light-sport
aircraft must comply with part 22, which requires that the aircraft be
designed to meet a consensus standard accepted by FAA.
Once a person is a certificated mechanic or light-sport repairman,
FAA notes that the regulations provide ongoing requirements that these
certificated persons must meet to exercise the privileges of their
certificate. Specifically, Sec. Sec. 65.81(a), (b) and 65.109(c)
prohibit supervision or approval for return to service unless the
certificate holder has satisfactorily performed the work before at an
earlier date, and unless the certificate holder understands the current
instructions of the manufacturer, and the maintenance manuals, for the
specific operation concerned. The regulations put responsibility on the
certificate holder to ensure they are qualified to perform specific
tasks, but the regulations do not mandate specific training. In
addition, while a consensus standard can indicate recommended training
for a task, the consensus standard cannot mandate additional training
requirements that are beyond what applicable 14 CFR regulations
require. However, manufacturer recommended training would be one way a
certificate holder could meet the requirements of Sec. Sec. 65.81 or
65.109(c) to exercise the approval for return to service privileges of
their certificate.
An appropriately rated part 145 repair station performing work on
light-sport category aircraft must comply with regulations that include
training requirements for their personnel. Specifically, Sec.
145.151(c) requires each certificated repair station to ensure it has
enough employees with the training or knowledge and experience in the
performance of maintenance, preventive maintenance, or alterations
authorized by its repair station certificate and operations
specifications to ensure all work is performed in accordance with part
43. In addition, Sec. 145.163 requires a repair station to have an
employee training program approved by FAA that ensures each employee
assigned to perform maintenance, preventive maintenance, or
alterations, and inspection functions can perform assigned tasks.
Therefore, training requirements are already in place in part 145 for
an appropriately rated repair station performing work on light-sport
category aircraft to include pertinent training material that would
ensure an understanding of the consensus standards specific to the work
the repair station performs. The expectation is that a repair station
will develop or revise its training program, as appropriate, for the
work performed under the repair station's ratings.
One commenter wanted to continue to allow experimental aircraft
builders to do their own condition inspections, maintenance, etc., and
recommended initiating and promoting training and certification
programs to facilitate the same. FAA notes that inspection and
maintenance requirements for aircraft that hold an experimental
airworthiness certificate for the purpose of operating amateur-built
aircraft (in accordance with Sec. 21.191) remain unchanged and were
not a part of this rulemaking. The repairman certification requirements
and process for repairmen certificated in accordance with Sec. 65.104
(Repairman certificate--experimental aircraft builder) also remain
unchanged. As such, these recommendations are outside the scope of this
rulemaking.
AEA/ARSA commented that aircraft that are used in commercial
operations to include flight training and aerial work must not be
exempt from Sec. 43.1(d), but failed to provide any reason, rationale,
data or other information to justify or support their recommendation.
Section 43.1(d) only exempts light-sport category aircraft from the
recording requirements related

[[Page 35158]]

to FAA form 337, and only when the major repair or major alteration did
not involve a product produced under an FAA approval. Section 43.1(d)
does not exempt any aircraft based on the type of operations it is
conducting. The NPRM did not propose any changes to the applicability
of Sec. 43.1(d) and any new change should be accomplished with
appropriate notice and comment. Given this, FAA disagrees with
implementing this recommendation in this final rule.
c. Definition of ``Current'' as it Relates to ASTM Standards
One commenter stated while it has been longstanding FAA policy that
aircraft only have to be maintained to the standards that were in force
at the time of certification, the commenter has encountered issues in
the field with maintaining foreign-manufactured aircraft whose
manufacturers assume that subsequently approved ASTM standards are
retroactive. The commenter suggested that this policy should be
codified, or at least placed in an advisory circular, clearly stating
policy specifically in regard to light-sport category aircraft to
eliminate confusion.
The final rule adopts Sec. 91.327(b)(5), renumbered as Sec.
91.327(b)(4) in this final rule. This language clarifies that repairs
and alterations to an aircraft must meet the applicable and current
FAA-accepted or approved consensus standards specified in the aircraft
manufacturer's statement of compliance that was submitted with the
application for the original airworthiness certificate for that
aircraft.
11. Out of Scope Maintenance Comments
Two commenters suggested that FAA allow EAB aircraft to be
certificated in the experimental light-sport category, to allow owners
to take the 2-day repairman certificate (light-sport) inspection rating
course and conduct their own condition inspections. An EAB aircraft is
not eligible for an experimental airworthiness certificate under Sec.
21.191(i), (k) (kit-built light-sport aircraft) or (l) (former light-
sport category aircraft) because those aircraft do not meet the
requirements to hold those airworthiness certificates. However, as
discussed in section IV.I.10.b, FAA is expanding the privileges of
light sport repairman certificate holders to include conducting the
condition inspection on an EAB aircraft certificated under Sec.
21.191(g). For example, a person who meets Sec. 65.107(b), which
requires completion of a 16-hour inspection rating training course,
would be eligible for a repairman certificate (light-sport) with
privileges to conduct the condition inspection on an EAB aircraft owned
by the certificate holder and that is in the category of aircraft for
which the certificate holder was trained.
One commenter suggested that FAA allow experimental engines to be
put on part 23 aircraft and added that requiring those experimental
engines to meet industry consensus standards would be acceptable. The
commenter asserted this would create newer, safer powerplants for
legacy aircraft, add much needed competition, and keep costs from
getting exorbitant. As the NPRM did not propose rules concerning
allowing experimental engines to be put on part 23 aircraft, this
comment is outside the scope of this rulemaking and proposals of this
nature would require appropriate notice to the public and opportunity
for comment.

K. Operations

1. Operating Limitations for Light-Sport Category Aircraft
a. Aerial Work
As proposed in the NPRM, this final rule adds a new paragraph to
Sec. 91.327(a) to allow certain light-sport category aircraft to
conduct aerial work operations for compensation or hire. To be able to
operate under this amendment, a light-sport category aircraft must meet
the applicable airworthiness certification requirements in Sec. 21.190
relating to aerial work. Specifically, the new Sec. 91.327(a)(3)
permits certain light-sport category aircraft to conduct aerial work
operations if such operations are designated by the manufacturer and
specified in the aircraft's pilot operating handbook or operating
limitations, as applicable, and in the manufacturer's statement of
compliance for the aircraft in accordance with Sec. 21.190.
Several commenters welcomed the proposed rule to allow aerial work
operations for certain light-sport category aircraft. These commenters
stated this operational expansion of light-sport category aircraft
would enhance the industry. However, FAA received several comments
requesting FAA define ``aerial work'' and requesting clarity on the
types of aircraft and operations subject to the exception. For the
reasons discussed subsequently, this final rule adopts Sec.
91.327(a)(3), as proposed in the NPRM, with one minor editorial
amendment to change the phrase ``aircraft's statement of compliance''
to ``manufacturer's statement of compliance for the aircraft'' for
clarity and to align with the terminology used in Sec. 21.190. In
addition, as proposed in the NPRM, this final rule changes one word in
the title of Sec. 91.327 from ``having'' to ``issued'' in order to
align this section with the terminology used in Sec. Sec. 21.190 and
21.191.
i. Defining Aerial Work
FAA received several comments regarding the definition of ``aerial
work'' and what types of operations should be considered aerial work.
USUA, NCE Inc., SkyRunner, LLC, Doroni Aerospace, and 3F organizations
as well an individual commenter recommended that aerial work operations
should be broadened and defined in Sec. 1.1. In addition, these
commenters offered suggestions on how aerial work should be defined,
such as including specific operational requirements, an FAA-approved
comprehensive list of operations, and a delineation from commercial
flights based on the purpose of the flight (i.e., for transportation or
local work). USUA specifically proposed FAA define aerial work as VFR
flights for compensation or hire that take off and land at the same
location.
Doroni Aerospace agreed that the scope of allowable aerial work
should be determined by the capability of the aircraft design and
defined by ASTM consensus standards, but it suggested expanding aerial
work to allow additional opportunities for manufacturers and operators,
such as by including the carriage of persons or property. 3F suggested
that aerial work operations include ride-sharing operations, and one
individual commenter similarly suggested FAA extend the definition of
aerial work to encompass the carrying of cargo for hire.
FAA has consistently interpreted the term ``aerial work'' to mean
work done from the air with the same departure and destination points,
while no property of another is carried on the aircraft, and only
persons essential to the operation are carried on board the aircraft.
Though there is a list of some aerial work operations in Sec.
119.1(e)(4), this list is not exhaustive or comprehensive.\305\ As
proposed in the NPRM, certain aerial work operations for aircraft that
meet the applicable consensus standard for that operation, based on the
manufacturer's designation, will be permitted. Accordingly, to permit
future innovation, FAA declines to create a strict regulatory
definition for aerial work and is instead providing a path for a risk-
based assessment of current and future aerial tasks through the use of
consensus standards.

[[Page 35159]]

Specifically in response to Doroni Aerospace's and 3F's comments
regarding the carriage of persons or property for hire, as noted
previously, FAA generally does not consider aerial work to include the
carriage of passengers or property.\306\ The carriage of property of
another or persons not essential to the operation is outside the scope
of aerial work and does not meet the exception in Sec. 91.327(a)(3).
Carriage of persons or property for compensation and hire is reserved,
with some limited exceptions, for aircraft holding standard
airworthiness certificates. This is because standard category aircraft
are designed, manufactured, and produced with FAA oversight from
inception through certification, to include showing compliance across a
broad spectrum of regulatory and design standards, and thus, ensure the
highest level of safety for the carriage of persons or property for
hire. Therefore, FAA declines to expand the scope of aerial work
allowed under Sec. 91.327(a)(3) to include the carriage of non-
essential persons or property for hire, and this rule will not allow
light-sport category aircraft holding airworthiness certificates issued
under Sec. 21.190 to carry non-essential persons or property for
compensation or hire.
Accordingly, FAA cautions that any operation that exceeds the
bounds of FAA's aerial work interpretation (i.e., an operation that
carries non-essential persons or property, or does not have the same
departure and destination points) is not authorized by Sec.
91.327(a)(3). In addition, any operation involving compensation or hire
that is beyond the scope of what FAA considers to be aerial work would
also not meet the exception in Sec. 119.1(e)(4) and may require a
commercial operator or air carrier certificate under part 119.
ii. Aerial Work Does Not Include Air Tours
Lockwood Aircraft Corp, LAMA, SkyRunner, and Fly Eagle Sport
requested to broaden the interpretation of aerial work to include
sightseeing, air tours, or both. These comments included
recommendations on how aerial work air tours could be defined and their
operational considerations (i.e., tours would be limited to unscheduled
flights, made under VFR conditions, with commercial certificated
pilots, tours beginning and terminating at the same location, and the
aircraft used would conform to consensus standards with required
inspections).
In response to these organizations' recommendations to include air
tours in a broadened definition of aerial work, FAA notes that nonstop
commercial air tours have historically been treated as a distinct
category of operation from aerial work. A commercial air tour is
defined in Sec. 110.2 as a flight conducted for compensation or hire
in an airplane, powered-lift, or rotorcraft where a purpose of the
flight is sightseeing. This definition inherently includes the carriage
of passengers who are not essential or necessary to perform the flight
operation \307\ and, therefore, FAA has previously interpreted air
tours to be outside the scope of the aerial work exception.\308\
Moreover, nonstop commercial air tours and aerial work are
separately itemized as exclusions from part 119 certification
requirements in Sec. 119.1(e)(2) and (e)(4), respectively. In
accordance with the requirements of Sec. 119.1(e)(2), nonstop
commercial air tours are reserved for aircraft holding standard
airworthiness certificates. As explained herein, the carriage of
persons and property for hire is typically reserved for aircraft
holding standard airworthiness certificates, to ensure the highest
level of safety for passengers. As such, commercial air tours must not
be conducted with light-sport category aircraft. Thus, this final rule
will not be combining these separate kinds of operations and does not
authorize light-sport category aircraft to conduct commercial air tours
using the exception in Sec. 91.327(a)(3).
iii. Aerial Work for Weight-Shift-Control Aircraft and Powered
Parachutes
USUA and two individual commenters recommended that weight-shift-
control aircraft should also be allowed to conduct aerial work
operations. They asserted these aircraft are uniquely suited for aerial
work operations like low-altitude aerial survey and search and rescue
missions. With regard to powered parachutes, one manufacturer and ten
individuals commented that powered parachutes should be allowed to
conduct aerial work operations for compensation and hire. Their opinion
is that powered parachutes, in particular, are well suited for aerial
work operations due to slow and stable platforms. Moreover, two
commenters stated powered parachute airframes are designed and capable
of enduring basic flight training, so they posited that those powered
parachutes airframes can easily and safely perform aerial work
operations too. The manufacturer further contended that FAA would
provide preferential treatment if it allowed some light-sport category
aircraft to conduct aerial work and excluded other aircraft like
powered parachutes.
In response to the comments, FAA states that Sec. 91.327(a)(3)
does not specifically exclude any type of aircraft. Accordingly, any
new light-sport category aircraft, including weight-shift-control
aircraft and powered parachutes, certificated on or after July 24, 2026
may be eligible to conduct aerial work. The aircraft will have to meet
the aerial work requirements of part 22 and the specific FAA-accepted
consensus standards that act as a means of compliance to those
requirements. In addition, the aircraft manufacturer must provide the
corresponding documentation requirements in Sec. 21.190(c) and (d).
However, a pilot must still have appropriate pilot privileges to
conduct aerial work for compensation or hire in these aircraft. The
changes to Sec. 91.327(a)(3) do not alter pilot certification
requirements. For example, this rule does not amend Sec. 61.315(c)(1)
or (2), which prohibit the holder of a sport pilot certificate from
carrying a passenger or property for compensation or hire and from
operating for compensation or hire, respectively. A further explanation
of the changes to pilot certificates and privileges under part 61 can
be found in section IV.H, Sport Pilot Certification and Privileges, of
this rule.
iv. Aerial Work for Gyroplanes
One flight school and a separate individual recommended that FAA
allow commercial aerial work operations for gyroplanes. It is their
opinion that gyroplanes are ideal for commercial applications, like
aerial photography, news reporting, aerial tours, and search and
rescue.
FAA notes that as proposed in the NPRM, and as adopted in this
final rule, on or after July 24, 2026, any class of aircraft, including
gyroplanes, is eligible for certification in the light-sport category,
provided the aircraft meets the performance-based requirements of part
22 and the eligibility criteria in Sec. Sec. 21.190 and 22.100.
Accordingly, gyroplanes that have been issued special airworthiness
certificate in the light-sport category are able to conduct commercial
aerial work operations as long as the requirements of Sec.
91.327(a)(3) are met. Specifically, the aircraft will have to meet the
aerial work requirements of part 22 and the specific FAA-accepted
consensus standards that act as a means of compliance to those
requirements. And per Sec. 91.327(a)(3), aerial work operations will
need to be specified in the aircraft's pilot operating handbook or
operating limitations, as applicable, and specified in the
manufacturer's

[[Page 35160]]

statement of compliance for the aircraft, in accordance with Sec.
21.190.
b. Towing a Glider or Unpowered Ultralight Vehicle
This final rule maintains the current exception in Sec.
91.327(a)(1) allowing for compensation or hire operations in a light-
sport category aircraft to tow a glider or an unpowered ultralight
vehicle in accordance with Sec. 91.309. As explained previously, this
final rule also adopts a new exception, Sec. 91.327(a)(3), which will
allow some light-sport category aircraft to conduct certain aerial work
operations.
The SSF noted positive support for the broad goals of this NPRM.
However, SSF expressed concern that the addition of the aerial work
exception in Sec. 91.327(a)(3) may cause confusion regarding glider
towing operation because the proposed revisions to Sec. 91.327(a) did
not remove or add clarifying text to Sec. 91.327(a)(1). The SSF stated
if FAA views glider towing as separate from aerial work, this should be
clarified. In addition, the SSF noted the proposed amendments to
aircraft certification rules in Sec. Sec. 21.190(c)(2)(iii),
21.190(e), 21.190(e)(6), 22.120, and 22.195(d) require a manufacturer
to identify the kinds of aerial work operations that may be conducted
using the aircraft but do not include a similar requirement for glider
towing operations. The commenter further stated Sec. 91.327(a)(3)
requires manufacturers to document the types of approved aerial work
operations in the POH but that there is not a similar requirement in
Sec. 91.327(a)(1) for glider towing operations.
In response to SSF's comment, FAA is clarifying that the towing of
gliders and unpowered ultralight vehicles is not considered aerial work
for purposes of Sec. 91.327(a)(3). Since 2004, Sec. 91.327(a)(1) has
allowed light-sport category aircraft to tow a glider or an unpowered
ultralight vehicle for compensation or hire in accordance with Sec.
91.309. FAA recognizes glider or unpowered ultralight vehicle towing as
a specialized operation with its own specific regulations, such as
Sec. Sec. 91.309 and 61.69. These specific regulations require
additional safety mitigations (e.g., aircraft equipage, pilot
experience and training requirements, towline specifications, and ATC
or FAA flight service station coordination), which may not be
applicable to typical aerial work operations. Accordingly, this final
rule is not intended to change the preexisting exception in Sec.
91.327(a)(1), and, with the revisions to Sec. 91.309(a)(2) adopted by
this final rule, FAA is reiterating its intention that all towing of
gliders and unpowered ultralight vehicles by aircraft holding a special
airworthiness certificate in the light-sport category be accomplished
in accordance with the requirements of Sec. 91.309.
With respect to SSF's comment regarding whether glider towing
operations conducted under the exception in Sec. 91.327(a)(1) must be
specified in the POH, it has always been the position of FAA, since the
exception was created by the 2004 final rule, that an aircraft must
meet any applicable consensus standards for glider or unpowered
ultralight vehicle towing and must be operated in accordance with any
towing procedures and limitations outlined in the POH. For example, the
annex in ASTM Standard F2245, which is applicable to light-sport
category aircraft, includes FAA-accepted consensus standards for the
design and performance of airplanes that are used to tow gliders, and
this standard specifies that aircraft manufacturers must include
operating limitations applicable to towing operations in the POH.
Accordingly, the POH for a light-sport category aircraft equipped for
towing should already meet the requirements of ASTM Standard F2245,
Annex A1.7, and, in turn, any light-sport category aircraft certified
to that standard would be required to operate in accordance with those
requirements.
This final rule, as explained previously in section IV.E.2, adds an
explicit requirement in Sec. 21.190(c)(2)(iv) that the POH include any
instructions or limitations necessary to safely conduct towing
operations. This rule also adds a requirement in Sec. 21.190(d)(3)
\309\ that the manufacturer's statement of compliance specify any
towing operations the manufacturer has determined may be safely
conducted. Therefore, in the interest of clarity, and in alignment with
these certification standards in this rule, FAA agrees with SSF's
suggestion to add language to Sec. 91.327(a)(1) clarifying that,
similar to aerial work operations, towing operations conducted under
this exception must be specified in the aircraft's pilot operating
handbook or operating limitations, as applicable, and specified in the
manufacturer's statement of compliance for the aircraft. And, with
respect to the SSF's reference to aircraft certification requirements
in Sec. 21.190 and part 22, further discussion of these requirements
may be found in sections IV.E.2, IV.E.5.c, IV.F.14, and IV.F.30 of this
rule.
c. Maximum Occupants in Light-Sport Category Aircraft Operations
This final rule adopts Sec. 91.327(f)(1) and (2) as proposed in
the NPRM. FAA anticipates the expansion of aerial work in this rule,
along with the other amendments applicable to light-sport category
aircraft, may lead to an increased interest in light-sport category
aircraft operations that carry a higher number of occupants. The
addition of Sec. 91.327(f)(1) and (2) addresses these concerns. The
new regulations state that no person may operate an airplane
certificated as a light-sport category aircraft when carrying more than
four occupants, including the pilot. For light-sport category aircraft
other than airplanes, the new language also states that no person may
operate such aircraft when carrying more than two occupants, including
the pilot.
USUA commented favorably about the expansion of airplane seating to
four occupants but requested FAA similarly increase the maximum
occupancy for other types of light-sport category aircraft.
Specifically, USUA proposed amending Sec. 91.327(f)(2) to authorize
operation with more than two occupants. Another commenter, similarly,
wanted light-sport category airships (lighter-than-air) aircraft to
allow for up to ten occupants. Lastly, a self-identified flight
instructor opined that three-seated weight-shift-control trikes are as
safe as the two-seated trikes as long as the additional occupants are
seated in a position that maintains a balanced center of gravity. As
such, the flight instructor recommended that private pilots flying
weight-shift-controlled trikes should be able to operate with three
occupants on board, and suggested FAA revise the proposed regulatory
language under Sec. 91.327(f)(2) to allow for a person to operate a
weight-shift-control aircraft certificated in the light-sport category
with three occupants. In addition to this recommendation, the flight
instructor agreed that sport pilots flying weight-shift-controlled
trikes should be allowed to carry only one occupant.
FAA appreciates these commenters' suggestions for a revision to the
proposed language Sec. 91.327(f)(2) to allow for a person to operate
aircraft other than airplanes certificated in the light-sport category
with additional occupants, beyond the two occupants proposed by the
rule. Section IV.F.4 of this rule discusses FAA's rationale for
retaining a two-seat limit for eligibility for a special airworthiness
certificate in the light-sport category for aircraft other than
airplanes. These reasons also support not expanding the number of

[[Page 35161]]

persons on board a light-sport category aircraft other than an
airplane.
Accordingly, as explained previously in section IV.F.4, this final
rule retains in the certification requirements in Sec. 22.100 the
maximum seating capacity of not more than two persons, including the
pilot, for all classes of light-sport category aircraft other than
airplanes. Therefore, to be eligible for a special airworthiness
certificate in the light-sport category issued under Sec. 21.190, an
aircraft other than an airplane can only have seating capacity for two
occupants, including the pilot. As a result, any aircraft other than an
airplane holding a special airworthiness certificate in the light-sport
category is limited to two seats. In alignment with the certification
requirements, this rule will retain the maximum occupancy limit in
Sec. 91.327(f) of no more than two persons for classes of light-sport
category aircraft other than airplanes, which includes gyroplanes,
gliders, weight-shift-control aircraft, powered parachutes, balloons,
airships, and new types of light-sport category aircraft such as
rotorcraft and powered-lift.
FAA may consider future rulemaking to increase the two-occupant
limitation for classes of aircraft other than airplanes as FAA's
experience with these aircraft increases and consensus standards are
developed.
FAA also notes that the addition of Sec. 91.327(f)(1) does not
change the restriction in part 61 for pilots holding a sport pilot
certificate, which does not allow such pilots to carry more than two
persons, including the pilot. Pilots holding valid higher grade of
certification, such as a private, commercial, or ATP certificate, may
operate light-sport category aircraft with the higher number of
occupants allowed under the new Sec. 91.327(f)(1). Moreover, even with
the addition of Sec. 91.327(f)(1), persons carrying passengers in
operations for compensation or hire that do not qualify for an
exception in Sec. 119.1(e) must hold an appropriate air carrier or
commercial operating certificate as required by part 119.
2. Operating Limitations for Experimental Aircraft
In the NPRM, FAA proposed to amend Sec. 91.319(c) to allow the
Administrator to issue operating limitations to certain aircraft with
experimental airworthiness certificates to conduct operations over
densely populated areas, in congested airways, or both, for all phases
of flight, which includes, but is not limited to, takeoffs and
landings. This final rule adopts the amendments to Sec. 91.319(c) as
proposed in the NPRM, with a few minor administrative changes. Section
91.319(c) expands the types of operations authorized over densely
populated areas or in congested airways for certain aircraft with
experimental airworthiness certificates by allowing the Administrator
to issue operating limitations that allow such operations for all
flight segments. The general prohibition against experimental aircraft
operating over densely populated areas or in congested airways
continues to apply to all experimental aircraft that do not hold
appropriate operating limitations issued by the Administrator.
a. Section 91.319(c) Regulatory Language
FAA received a few comments on the proposed regulatory language for
Sec. 91.319(c). One commenter suggested that FAA provide an official
definition of congested airway because they assert the term is vague
and is applied in an inconsistent manner by local FSDO inspectors,
which causes confusion for pilots about where they can fly. Piper,
along with another commenter, requested FAA amend the language of Sec.
91.319(c) to replace ``takeoffs and landings'' with ``approaches and
departures,'' since many aircraft operations occur within the vicinity
of an airport without an actual landing. Piper stated this language
change would allow for multiple approaches and certain flight-testing
operations that do not require a physical landing and therefore may not
be compliant with the ``takeoffs and landings'' requirement in Sec.
91.319(c). Another commenter proposed new regulatory language that
would prohibit prolonged operation over densely populated areas and
allow pattern work \310\ as an exception to Sec. 91.319(c). Lastly,
one individual requested that FAA remove paragraph (c) from Sec.
91.319 entirely, asserting that most pilots of experimental aircraft
are in violation of this regulation as many airports are surrounded by
densely populated areas.
In response, FAA declines to define the terms ``densely populated
areas'' or ``congested airways'' in this final rule. FAA historically
applies these terms on a case-by-case basis,\311\ which allows for
flexibility in its administration of balancing the interests of the
pilot's operation and protecting persons and property on the ground. In
response to Piper's request, FAA notes the NPRM proposed removing in
entirety the ``takeoffs and landing'' limitation from the regulatory
text. While the previous Sec. 91.319(c) only authorized the
Administrator to issue special operating limitations to conduct
takeoffs and landings, the proposed new Sec. 91.319(c) allows the
Administrator to issue operating limitations for all flight segments,
which is broad enough to include approaches and departures.
Accordingly, it is not necessary to amend the language of Sec.
91.319(c) to include approaches and departures, because the new
regulatory language already authorizes the Administrator to issue
operating limitations for all phases of flight, which includes allowing
approaches and departures to be conducted over densely populated areas
and in congested airways.
FAA declines to remove paragraph (c) from Sec. 91.319 as one
commenter requested, as their assertion that most pilots of
experimental aircraft are in violation of this regulation due to
densely populated areas surrounding many airports is inaccurate.
Notwithstanding the general prohibition against experimental aircraft
operating over densely populated areas or in congested airways, FAA
does not agree with this commenter's assertion that these operations
are in violation of Sec. 91.319(c) when the Administrator has issued
operating limitations authorizing takeoffs and landings. While this
final rule authorizes the issuance of operating limitations that
include additional phases of flight, FAA intends to retain the general
prohibition on operations over densely populated areas or in congested
airways for aircraft that do not hold appropriate operating
limitations.
With respect to the commenter's proposal for new regulatory
language to prohibit prolonged operation over densely populated areas
and allow pattern work as an exception, FAA does not agree with
changing the proposed regulatory text to codify these exceptions. Some
of these operations may be authorized by operating limitations in
accordance with the policy and procedures that will be outlined in a
future update to FAA Order 8130.2, which the Agency will issue in draft
form for public comment. FAA intends to retain the general prohibition
on operations over densely populated areas and in congested airways for
all experimental aircraft that do not hold appropriate operating
limitations allowing such operations. Moreover, ``pattern work'' is not
a recognized phase of flight and is not clearly defined within or by
regulation; therefore, its inclusion in this regulation may create more
ambiguity.
As discussed herein, FAA is adopting as final the language proposed
in the NPRM, with two minor changes. First, in the NPRM, FAA
inadvertently removed the phrase ``congested airway'' from the proposed
text of Sec. 91.319(c).

[[Page 35162]]

FAA did not intend to remove the general prohibition on operations in
congested airways, as evidenced by the repeated discussion of
``congested airways'' in the preamble of the NPRM. In this final rule,
FAA is retaining the phrase ``over a densely populated area or in a
congested airway,'' in Sec. 91.319(c), as it read previously. Second,
FAA has added the word ``airworthiness'' after ``experimental'' in the
title of the section and throughout Sec. 91.319 to conform and align
the language in this section with the rest of this final rule. Adding
the word ``airworthiness'' is not intended to change the meaning or
intent of these paragraphs. Other than these two minor changes, FAA is
not making any other modifications to the regulatory text proposed in
the NPRM.
b. Policy Related to the Issuance of Operating Limitations
FAA received several comments on this proposal from industry
associations such as EAA, AOPA, NATA, NBAA, GAMA, and the Manufacturers
Flight Test Council; from industry manufacturers such as Hartzell
Propeller, Bombardier, and Textron; from Contract Air Support providers
Tactical Air Support, Inc. and Top Aces Corp; as well as from
individual commenters. The commenters were generally supportive of the
proposal to amend the language in Sec. 91.319(c) and many requested to
collaborate with FAA in developing and expanding the policies related
to the issuance of such operating limitations. Most of these comments
focused on FAA's internal policies and procedures governing the
issuance of operating limitations.
Specifically, some commenters expressed concern that FAA may
abandon well-accepted, risk-based certification processes for
experimental aircraft. Some commenters voiced concern and varying
opposition to the NPRM preamble language that detailed FAA's proposed
policy to administer this change. In particular, the industry
associations objected to the policy proposed in the NPRM that plans-
built aircraft or other experimental aircraft be excluded from this
operating privilege. Commenters noted FAA Order 8130.2 currently allows
FAA to issue operating limitations for these types of aircraft for
certain flights over densely populated areas, following risk mitigation
through Phase I flight testing. An individual commenter added that if
amateur and kit-built aircraft have been issued a special airworthiness
certificate and deemed safe for flight, then restrictions on issuing
operating limitations should be removed regardless of whether the
aircraft is kit or plans-built.
One individual opposed the NPRM's proposed policy statement that
experimental aircraft having a single point of failure should not be
eligible for the proposed operating limitations over densely populated
areas or in congested airways. They asserted that because some legacy
aircraft that already hold such operating limitations can have single
points of failure, such a restriction would inconstantly apply risk
mitigation.
Textron expressed concerns that the NPRM indicated FAA may further
restrict operations of aircraft with ejection seats or detachable
external stores to operate over densely populated areas. Textron stated
existing prohibitions on external stores are effective and prevent
inadvertent detachment while operating in the national airspace system.
Textron expressed concern that further restriction would severely
hamper new product development with no safety benefit. Textron further
stated it is a false assumption to equate ejection seats with increased
risk since the probability of a modern defense aircraft suffering a
catastrophic failure is equivalent to any other aircraft in that
category or class. It asserted that ejection seats are not installed to
counteract an unsafe aircraft characteristic. Top Aces Corp, in
contrast to Textron's specific concerns for restricted operations for
aircraft with ejection seats or detachable external stores, generally
requested that all former military aircraft holding experimental
airworthiness certificates operating repositioning flights be eligible
for operating limitations over densely populated areas.
In response, FAA agrees with the commenters' assertions that the
preamble is not the appropriate venue for discussion about policy and
relative risk, and about which classes, designs, or specific
experimental aircraft may or may not be eligible for this operating
limitation. Accordingly, and in response to Top Aces Corp's request,
FAA will not be publishing exclusionary criteria for any aircraft in
this final rule and this preamble does not reference any class, group,
or category of aircraft that may be excluded from obtaining certain
operating limitations. With respect to commenters' concerns that FAA
may be changing or further restricting aircraft equipped with external
stores, it is not the intent of FAA to codify any new restrictions on
external stores in Sec. 91.319 of this final rule.
As explained in the NPRM, FAA will continue to use a risk-based
approach when evaluating a given operator's eligibility for an
operating limitation allowing operation over a densely populated area
or in a congested airway. FAA will utilize follow-on policymaking
documents, such as FAA Order 8130.2, to publish policy related to the
issuance of operating limitations that allow flight over densely
populated areas, in congested airways, or both. FAA intends to publish
for public comment a draft policy governing the issuance of operating
limitations and a non-exhaustive list of factors FAA intends to
consider for eligibility, following the publication of this final rule.
FAA will consider the associations', manufacturers', and other
commenters' concerns and recommendations discussed above as FAA Order
8130.2 is revised and new procedures relating to operating limitations
are developed. The publication process will also allow other interested
parties to provide additional feedback on FAA's policy governing the
issuance of operating limitations. Following the receipt of public
comments, FAA expects a revised FAA Order 8130.2 incorporating these
changes to be published prior to the effective date of this final rule.
c. Conforming Amendments to Sec. 91.319
This final rule makes conforming amendments to Sec. 91.319 to
standardize the language used in this section with the rest of the
rule. In paragraphs (a) through (g) and paragraph (j), the term
``experimental certificate'' is replaced with the term ``experimental
airworthiness certificate.''
Additional changes were made to Sec. 91.319(e) and (f) to align
these paragraphs with the changes made to Sec. Sec. 1.1 and 21.191(i).
Specifically, as explained subsequently in section IV.L.1.a of this
rule, effective October 22, 2025, the airworthiness certification of
light-sport category kit aircraft, which previously occurred under
Sec. 21.191(i)(2), will occur under the Sec. 21.191(k); and the
airworthiness certification of former light-sport category aircraft,
currently under Sec. 21.191(i)(3), will occur under the new Sec.
21.191(l). In addition, effective July 24, 2026, the definition of
``light-sport aircraft'' will be removed from Sec. 1.1.
Accordingly, FAA has removed the term ``light-sport aircraft'' from
the introductory language in paragraphs (e) and (f) of Sec. 91.319 and
from subparagraph (e)(2), effective July 24, 2026. In tandem with the
removal of this term, FAA is adding a reference to ``Sec. 21.191(i),
(k), or (l)'' in each of these paragraphs to clarify the aircraft to
which these paragraphs are applicable. Sections 21.191(i), (k), and
(l), as

[[Page 35163]]

adopted by this final rule, include the same aircraft as the previous
Sec. 21.191(i)(1), (2), and (3). Therefore, these conforming
amendments are intended to align and standardize the language used
throughout this rule and are not intended to change the applicability
or meaning of these paragraphs.
3. Operating Limitations for Restricted Category Aircraft
This final rule responds to the evolving needs of restricted
category civil aircraft and provides for future growth and innovation
without compromising safety by codifying in part 21 previously approved
special purposes for restricted category aircraft operations.\312\ The
NPRM did not propose any corresponding changes to the operational rules
for restricted category aircraft in Sec. 91.313. However, as discussed
previously in section IV.K.2, the NPRM did propose, and this final rule
adopted, changes regarding the issuance of operating limitations for
aircraft with experimental airworthiness certificates in Sec.
91.319(c), that allow the Administrator to authorize flight over
densely populated areas or in congested areas for all phases of flight
and flight segments.
This amendment to Sec. 91.319(c) without a corresponding change to
Sec. 91.313(e) may have inadvertently placed restricted category
aircraft below experimental aircraft on the safety continuum, which is
out of alignment with the way in which these categories of aircraft are
typically regulated.\313\ To apply a uniform safety continuum
throughout the aviation industry, FAA recognizes that acceptable level
of risk varies between sectors and implements regulations accordingly.
Accordingly, to properly realign restricted category civil aircraft
with experimental aircraft within the safety continuum, FAA is
clarifying Sec. 91.313(e) to ensure the Administrator is authorized to
issue operating limitations to restricted category aircraft using the
same risk-based approach as is used to issue operating limitations to
experimental aircraft.
Specifically, FAA is amending Sec. 91.313(e) by removing the word
``special,'' which preceded ``operating limitations,'' in order to
align this paragraph with the language used for experimental aircraft
in Sec. 91.319(c). The word ``special'' in Sec. 91.313(e) may have
inadvertently precluded the issuance of operating limitations; and
consequently, operating limitations were rarely issued to restricted
category aircraft in practice. The removal of the term ``special'' is
intended to eliminate any ambiguity surrounding the Administrator's
ability to issue such operating limitations to restricted category
aircraft.
It is FAA's intention that, with this clarification, certain
restricted category aircraft may be issued operating limitations
authorizing flight over densely populated areas, in congested airways,
or near a busy airport using a similar risk-based approach as is used
for experimental aircraft. In addition, Sec. 91.313(e) retains the
authority of the Administrator to issue an operator a certificate of
waiver.
As with the issuance of these operating limitations to experimental
aircraft, FAA will use a risk-based approach when evaluating a given
operator's eligibility for an operating limitation to certain aircraft
holding restricted airworthiness certificates. As explained previously
with respect to the issuance of operating limitations for aircraft
holding experimental airworthiness certificates, following the
publication of this final rule, FAA will be publishing for public
comment a draft policy relating to the issuance of operating
limitations and a non-exhaustive list of factors FAA considers when
considering a given aircraft's eligibility. This process will allow
interested parties to provide additional feedback on FAA's policy
applicable to the issuance of operating limitations, and those comments
provided will be considered in the development of an updated FAA Order
8130.2. FAA expects the revised FAA Order 8130.2 to be published prior
to July 24, 2026, the effective date of this final rule applicable to
Sec. 91.313.
In addition, this final rule makes a minor amendment to Sec.
91.313(b)(3) to allow restricted category aircraft to be relocated for
exhibition. Currently under Sec. 91.313(a), a restricted category
aircraft cannot be operated for other than the special purpose for
which it is certificated, or other than an operation necessary to
accomplish the work activity directly associated with that special
purpose. This final rule retains and does not amend this restriction.
Instead, this minor amendment adds ``exhibition'' to the list in Sec.
91.313(b)(3) of operations that are considered necessary to accomplish
the work activity directly associated with a special purpose operation.
This change allows restricted category aircraft to fly to exhibitions,
trade shows, and other events. FAA cautions, however, that while at the
exhibition event, operation of the aircraft is still limited to the
``special purpose for which [the aircraft] is certificated,'' in
accordance with Sec. 91.313(a)(2). Therefore, depending on the
aircraft's special purpose, an aircraft may be limited to static
display at such events.
This amendment is intended to realign restricted category civil
aircraft within the safety continuum. Both restricted category aircraft
and aircraft holding experimental airworthiness certificates are
limited in operations to the special purposes for which the aircraft is
certificated, with limited exceptions. However, experimental
airworthiness certificates can be issued for multiple special purposes,
including for the purpose of exhibition, whereas restricted category
aircraft cannot. There is no special purpose operation for which
restricted category aircraft may be certificated that allows operation
for exhibition. This places these aircraft out of alignment on the
safety continuum.
Accordingly, the minor amendments made to Sec. 91.313(b) and (e)
are intended to ensure certain restricted category aircraft, which hold
a higher-grade airworthiness certificate than an experimental aircraft,
have similar privileges as that of certain experimental aircraft.
Though this amendment would allow restricted category aircraft to
operate for the purpose of relocating to a trade show or other kind of
exhibition, a restricted category aircraft will still need to be issued
appropriate operating limitations or a certificate of waiver to operate
such a relocation flight over a densely populated area, in a congested
airway, or near a busy airport, in accordance with Sec. 91.313(c).
4. Operating Limitations for Experimental Aircraft Operating Space
Support Vehicle Flights
FAA received three comments regarding the new Sec. 91.331 proposed
in the NPRM, which codifies section 581 of FAA Reauthorization Act of
2018 (the Act) and 49 U.S.C. 44740. The Act and corresponding statute
authorized certain operators of aircraft with special airworthiness
certification in the experimental category to conduct space support
vehicle flights to simulate space flight conditions carrying persons or
property for compensation or hire.
First, ALPA suggested FAA codify its space support vehicle
regulations in title 14, chapter III, which governs Commercial Space
Transportation, rather than in title 14, chapter I, as proposed in the
NPRM. ALPA claimed that consolidating the space support vehicle and
space support vehicle flight regulations into title 14, chapter III
will ensure that all commercial space research, development, and
operations approvals are contained in one dedicated set of regulations
for commercial space.

[[Page 35164]]

While FAA appreciates ALPA's goal of consolidation, FAA has
determined the proposed regulations related to space support vehicles
are appropriately located in part 21 and 91, which are in title 14,
chapter I. ALPA's proposed location, title 14, chapter III,
``Commercial Space Transportation,'' explicitly applies to the
procedures and requirements applicable to activities conducted under 51
U.S.C. subtitle V, chapter 509. When an aircraft is operating as a
space support vehicle for the purpose of simulating space flight
conditions, and not for the purpose of a launch, title 51 is not
applicable. Instead, the operation and the aircraft are governed by
title 49. Therefore, the regulations proposed in the NPRM to implement
the Act, and associated 49 U.S.C. 44740, are appropriately located in
title 14, chapter I, which applies generally to all aircraft regulated
by FAA operating under title 49.
Second, ALPA recommended that FAA develop guidance materials to
clarify and expand on the terms and use of space support vehicles. ALPA
recommended the guidance provide the public with a better understanding
of the dividing line between space support vehicle operations and
commercial space launch operations to ensure that there is no
operational safety gap between the two types of operations. In
response, FAA agrees that guidance materials will be helpful for both
the operator and the agency in determining how to implement and apply
the new Sec. 91.331. As with the other provisions of this final rule
that address operating limitations, FAA anticipates publishing for
public comment a draft policy governing the issuance of operating
limitations for space support vehicles. FAA will consider the comments
submitted in response to the NPRM, as well as any new comments
submitted in response to the publication of the draft policy, in
formulating its revision to FAA Order 8310.2. FAA anticipates a revised
FAA Order 8130.2 incorporating this guidance will be finalized and
published prior to the effective date of the new Sec. 91.331.
Virgin Galactic also provided similar comments on FAA's proposal in
the NPRM. Virgin Galactic supported FAA's proposed regulatory language
in Sec. 91.331 because it did not deviate from the straightforward
Congressional statutory mandates. However, Virgin Galactic took issue
with FAA's suggested policies for implementing the new regulation.
Specifically, Virgin Galactic read the NPRM to be proposing a ``single
use'' approval process that would require FAA to review and approve
every proposed space support vehicle flight prior to its occurrence,
which it viewed as cumbersome. Virgin also raised concerns with the
NPRM's proposed fact-intensive policy for reviewing and approving
requests for operating limitations and questioned FAA's methodology for
and ability to review whether a particular research and development
task for a proposed flight requires the unique capabilities of the
aircraft and whether a person qualifies as a potential space flight
participant, government astronaut, or crew.
FAA did not intend to give the impression in the NPRM that every
proposed space support vehicle flight would require individual
approval. As is current practice, FAA will continue to issue
experimental airworthiness certificates for eligible space support
vehicles subject to the durations of Sec. 21.181. As described in
section IV.G.3, this final rule increases the duration of an
experimental airworthiness certificate issued for research and
development, showing compliance with regulations, crew training, or
market survey. Such certificates will remain effective for three years
from the date of issue or renewal unless FAA prescribes a shorter
period. Accordingly, repeated space support vehicle flights are
permitted under an experimental airworthiness certificate as long as
the experimental airworthiness certificate remains in effect and the
operation meets the requirements of Sec. 91.331 and any applicable
operating limitations.
Regarding Virgin's concern about FAA's proposed policies for
implementing Sec. 91.331, FAA is taking Virgin's comments under
consideration, and as stated previously, FAA will be publishing for
public review and comment proposed policies and guidance for the
issuance of operating limitations in FAA Order 8130.2 prior to the
effective date of the new Sec. 91.331. FAA has determined that this
final rule is not the appropriate place to finalize policies or
guidance for the issuance of operating limitations relating to space
support vehicles.
The intent of this final rule is simply to codify statutory
language and ensure that FAA's regulations harmonize and do not
conflict with 49 U.S.C. 44740. Regarding the definitions in Sec. 1.1,
NPRM proposed adding two new definitions for ``space support vehicle''
and ``space support vehicle flight.'' The definitions are consistent
with the way these terms are used and defined in 49 U.S.C. 44740 and 51
U.S.C. 50902. The only comment received regarding the definitions noted
the definitions were identical to those used in the statutes.
Therefore, FAA is adopting these definitions as proposed.
FAA did not receive any comments about the regulatory text of Sec.
91.331. Therefore, FAA is adopting Sec. 91.331 as proposed, with one
minor clarifying amendment. The NPRM proposed Sec. 91.331(a)(1) to
read: ``The aircraft has a special airworthiness certificate issued
under Sec. 21.191 of this chapter to operate the aircraft for the
purpose of conducting a space support vehicle flight.'' FAA has
determined that the use of the word ``purpose'' here may be confusing
because this final rule explicitly does not create a new experimental
purpose under Sec. 21.191 for space support vehicle flights. A plain
reading of the proposed Sec. 91.331(a)(1) may give the impression that
an operator must obtain a certificate under Sec. 21.191 for the
``purpose of conducting a space support vehicle flight,'' which does
not exist. Instead, as stated in the NPRM, space support vehicles would
conduct space support vehicle flights under an existing Sec. 21.191
experimental purpose, such as research and development or crew
training. Therefore, FAA is removing this superfluous language, and
Sec. 91.331(a)(1) will now read: ``The aircraft has a special
airworthiness certificate issued under Sec. 21.191 of this chapter.''
This minor amendment does not change the application, intent, or
meaning of the regulation, as paragraph (a) already limits the
applicability of Sec. 91.331 to persons operating an aircraft ``to
conduct a space support vehicle flight.''
Lastly, IAR commented that it is currently authorized to conduct
space vehicle launch support operations with its restricted category
special airworthiness certificate, and requested FAA refrain from
making any regulatory changes or taking other actions that may limit
restricted category operators' ability to conduct space vehicle launch
support operations. In response, FAA states that the changes to
Sec. Sec. 91.331 and 91.319 regarding space support vehicle flights
are solely intended to implement section 581 of the Act and, therefore,
only apply to aircraft with special airworthiness certification in the
experimental category. This final rule is not intended to impact the
ability of any restricted category aircraft to continue to conduct
authorized space vehicle launch support operations.
5. Right-of-Way Rules
The NPRM proposed amendments to Sec. 91.113(d)(2) and (3) to
expand the categories of aircraft listed in the right-of-way rules.
Specifically, the proposed amendments replaced an enumerated listing of
aircraft categories with the

[[Page 35165]]

broader term ``powered aircraft'' and replaced the term ``engine-
driven'' with the term ``powered aircraft'' to better convey the
inclusion of aircraft that may have non-traditional forms of
propulsion, including electric propulsion.
As further explained, this final rule adopts the changes as
proposed in the NPRM, with one minor clarification in paragraph (d)(3)
regarding airships. FAA also notes that after the publication of the
NPRM, FAA published the final rule for the Integration of Powered-lift:
Pilot Certification and Operations (hereinafter ``Powered-Lift Rule''),
which added a new paragraph (d)(4) to Sec. 91.113. To align paragraph
(d)(4) with the rest of the changes made by this final rule, FAA has
also replaced the term ``engine-driven'' with ``powered aircraft'' in
this paragraph.
ALPA was generally supportive of the proposed changes to Sec.
91.113 but raised a concern about powered-lift. Specifically, ALPA
asserted that the proposed language explicitly treats powered-lift
operating in wing-borne flight mode as fixed-wing aircraft; however,
powered-lift operating in vertical-lift flight mode are not equivalent
to fixed-wing aircraft, and therefore, should not be treated the same
under the proposed regulation.
In response to ALPA's concern, FAA notes that after the publication
of the MOSAIC NPRM, FAA published the final Powered-Lift Rule.\314\
This rule amended Sec. 91.113(d)(2) and (3) by adding ``powered-lift''
to the types of enumerated aircraft in the regulation. When proposing
these changes in the NPRM, the Powered-Lift Rule explicitly proposed
that powered-lift, airplanes, and rotorcraft should be grouped in the
same right-of-way category and did not distinguish between whether the
powered-lift was operating in vertical or wing-borne flight mode. As
stated in the Powered-Lift Rule NPRM, if a powered-lift is converging
with an airplane, the aircraft to the right would have the right-of-
way, regardless of the flight mode in which the powered-lift is
operating. Furthermore, the Powered-Lift Rule acknowledged that the
MOSAIC rule would subsequently amend Sec. 91.113, and thus the changes
were intended to be superseded by the publication of this final rule.
Accordingly, the amendments adopted in this final rule are consistent
with the Powered-Lift Rule, in that a powered-lift is treated as a
``powered aircraft'' regardless of the flight mode in which it is
operating.
One commenter expressed confusion about the proposed language in
Sec. 91.113(d)(3), stating that it was not clear which aircraft has
the right-of-way when an airship meets an aircraft towing or refueling
other aircraft because under the regulation both have the right-of-way
over all other powered aircraft. To address this commenter's concern,
FAA has amended the proposed language to clarify that an aircraft
towing or refueling always has the right-of-way over all other powered
aircraft. Section 91.113(d)(3) will now expressly state that an airship
has the right-of-way over all other powered aircraft, except for an
aircraft towing or refueling other aircraft; and an aircraft towing or
refueling other aircraft has the right-of-way over all other powered
aircraft.
FAA also received several comments regarding UAS operations. AURA
Network Systems, Inc. (AURA), DroneUp LLC (DroneUp), AUVSI, CDA, and
Reliable Robotics Corporation's comments were generally supportive of
the NPRM's proposed amendments to Sec. 91.113(d)(2) and (3), but they
requested amendments to Sec. 91.113(b) as well. AURA specifically
expressed that the NPRM was a logical update to address the ever-
expanding complexity of aircraft operating in the NAS, including right-
of-way rules. However, AURA suggested that FAA needs to address the
concern that UAS operations are not able to comply with the general
provision in Sec. 91.113(b) as currently written. AURA posited that
the use of the word ``see'' in this section requires a pilot to use
unaided vision to see other aircraft in the vicinity. AURA and CDA
submitted that revising Sec. 91.113(b) to include ``detect'' in
addition to seeing and avoiding other aircraft may reduce the UAS
industry's regulatory burden by eliminating the need for a certificate
of waiver or authorization with respect to right-of-way rules for UAS
flights not subject to part 107 and possibly reduce FAA's
administrative burden of processing certificate of wavier or
authorization requests. Reliable Robotics Corporation similarly
recommended the addition of ``or detect using a means approved by the
Administrator'' to Sec. 91.113(b) and AUVSI added that including the
term ``detect'' in Sec. 91.113(b) is consistent with collision
avoidance language in ICAO's UAS publication in 2011.\315\
Generally, each of these commenters wanted pilots to see or detect
and avoid other aircraft. They posited that advancements in Detect and
Avoid (DAA) technology allows light-sport category aircraft pilots the
ability to detect and track all aircraft traffic without human vision,
even those without a transponder. Moreover, the commenters maintained
that DAA technology and the requested amended language to Sec.
91.113(b) have the potential to improve safety by reducing midair
collisions with unmanned aircraft as well as manned aircraft.
In response, FAA declines to amend Sec. 91.113(b) as requested by
these commenters. FAA deems this request beyond the scope of the MOSAIC
rulemaking because FAA did not propose any amendments to Sec.
91.113(b) in the NPRM. Though FAA shares the commenters' mission for
improving safety within the NAS by reducing midair collisions with
unmanned and manned aircraft, DAA technology is not addressed within
this final rule. DAA technology will not be included in this rulemaking
for many reasons, which include, but not limited to: (1) additional
rulemaking approval and a separate public comment period; (2)
additional costs on operators created by equipage issues; (3)
additional training and pilot certification requirements; and (4)
additional development of a performance standard for its incorporation,
each of which are well beyond the scope of the changes proposed by the
NPRM. However, the recommendations of AURA, DroneUp, AUVSI, CDA, and
Reliable Robotics Corporation may be considered for future rulemaking.
6. Operations at Airports in Class G Airspace
This final rule makes two changes to Sec. 91.126(b) that differ
from what was proposed in the NPRM. First, with respect to (b)(1), FAA
removed the phrase ``and powered-lift aircraft operating in wing-borne
flight mode.'' In the period between the publication of the NPRM and
this final rule, FAA published the Powered-Lift Rule. Section
194.302(e) and (f) of the Powered-Lift Rule applied Sec. 91.126(b)(1)
to powered-lift operating in wing-borne flight mode and applied and
(b)(2) to powered-lift operating in vertical-lift flight mode.
Accordingly, the proposed language in Sec. 91.126(b)(1) regarding
powered-lift is redundant, as powered-lift operating in wing-borne
flight mode are already required to comply with (b)(1). Therefore, FAA
removed the language in Sec. 91.126(b)(1) specific to powered-lift.
Secondly, with respect to Sec. 91.126(b)(2), FAA received one
comment noting that the proposed language was confusing in its
applicability to non-powered gliders and gyroplanes, because it
required non-powered gliders as well as gyroplanes to avoid the powered
fixed-winged traffic pattern, which is a departure from the current
practice. Another comment

[[Page 35166]]

similarly noted the proposed regulation was silent on non-powered
gliders, which are currently allowed to fly within the same traffic
pattern as powered aircraft if circumstances permit. The commenter also
stated this regulation conflicts with the right-of-way rules in Sec.
91.113(d)(2), because it implies that non-powered gliders must give way
to powered, fixed-wing aircraft even though, under Sec. 91.113(d)(2),
a glider has the right of way over powered aircraft. Accordingly, the
commenter noted the change, as worded, is ambiguous and is counter to
current safe practices, producing unexpected traffic conflicts.
FAA agrees with the commenters that the proposed text was ambiguous
with respect to non-powered aircraft. The final rule clarifies
paragraph (b)(2) in this final rule by adding the word ``powered''
before ``aircraft,'' such that (b)(2) now applies to ``any other
powered aircraft.'' This minor language addition remedies the
commenter's concerns regarding non-powered gliders. Consistent with the
guidance in AC-90-66C, Non-Towered Flight Operations, if both airplanes
and gliders use the same runway, the glider traffic pattern should be
inside the pattern of powered aircraft. Gliders may fly the same
direction traffic pattern as powered aircraft in certain wind
conditions and may use a separate, opposing direction traffic pattern
in other wind conditions.
With respect to one commenter's statement that proposed Sec.
91.126(b)(2) conflicted with Sec. 91.113, FAA disagrees. It has always
been FAA's position that the right-of-way rules in Sec. 91.113 are
still in effect throughout the traffic pattern and when landing, even
at uncontrolled airports in Class G airspace. This means that all
pilots operating at a non-towered airport have the general
responsibility to see and avoid under Sec. 91.113(b) and that, per
Sec. 91.113(d), when two or more aircraft are approaching an airport
for the purpose of landing, the aircraft at the lower altitude has the
right-of-way. Specifically, the right-of-way rules in Sec. 91.113(d)
apply when aircraft are converging. Therefore, it was not FAA's
intention with the proposed changes to Sec. 91.126(b)(2) to suggest
that non-powered aircraft, including gliders, must give way to powered
aircraft in all circumstances. The revised language adopted in this
final rule is intended to remedy that confusion.
7. Section 91.309
In the NPRM, FAA proposed to amend Sec. 91.309(a)(2) to correct an
oversight in the allowable process to attach a tow hook to eligible
light-sport category aircraft.\316\ FAA received several comments on
the proposed amendment. The Soaring Society of Boulder requested FAA
treat light-sport category aircraft equal to standard airworthiness
certificated aircraft with respect to towing of gliders and permit
installation of a glider tow-hitch in the same manner as standard
certificated aircraft. Fly Eagle Sport commented specifically with
respect to light-sport category aircraft and stated FAA should clarify
in the rule that a tow-hitch approved by the manufacturer can be used.
Seven individual commenters asked that Sec. 91.309 allow for light-
sport category aircraft towing privileges equivalent to standard
category aircraft. Several commenters also suggested that the rule
needs to remove ``Administrator Approval'' requirements for tow hooks
for light-sport category aircraft and allow alternate methods of
attachment.
As explained in the NPRM, Sec. 91.309(a)(2) is amended to remedy
an oversight in the 2004 final rule, which required a towing aircraft
to be equipped with a tow-hitch ``approved by the Administrator'' and
installed in a manner ``approved by the Administrator.'' This language
was unworkable for light-sport category aircraft and inadvertently
precluded such aircraft from towing gliders and unpowered ultralight
vehicles, because, in practice, FAA does not routinely approve a tow-
hitch or tow-hitch installation on a light sport-category aircraft,
since the aircraft itself is not approved (rather, the aircraft must
meet industry consensus standards). Accordingly, FAA's final revised
Sec. 91.309(a)(2) language applicable to light-sport category aircraft
uses the terms ``approved by the Administrator,'' or ``acceptable to
the Administrator'' with respect to the kind of tow-hitch and
``acceptable to FAA'' with respect to the manner of installation. The
proposed language allows light-sport category aircraft the option to
install a tow-hitch that is acceptable to FAA but does not have FAA
approval because the aircraft itself was never subject to an FAA
approval process. It also allows the use of an ``acceptable'' method of
installation.
In contrast, aircraft holding a standard airworthiness certificate
must use an FAA-approved tow-hitch and install it in a manner approved
by the Administrator, which is more restrictive than the options now
available to light-sport category aircraft under the new Sec.
91.309(a)(2). Though several commenters requested light-sport category
aircraft be treated equally to standard category aircraft, FAA's
intention with the revised Sec. 91.309(a)(2) language was to allow
light-sport category aircraft more flexibility than standard aircraft
with respect to the kind of tow hooks that can be installed because
they can be both ``approved'' and ``acceptable'' and may be installed
in an ``acceptable'' rather than ``approved'' manner.
With respect to Fly Eagle Sport's comment regarding light-sport
category aircraft, a tow-hitch that is part of the original equipment
and therefore part of the manufacturer's authorized design would be
considered acceptable to FAA. Section 91.309(a)(2)(iii) would therefore
allow a light-sport category aircraft to use and install such an item
if it is installed in a manner acceptable to FAA. In addition, Sec.
91.327(b)(5) permits certain persons, other than the manufacturer, who
are acceptable to FAA, to authorize alterations to a light-sport
category aircraft (i.e., third-party alteration), and such alterations
involving an acceptable tow-hitch would also be acceptable to FAA under
Sec. 91.309(a)(2)(iii). FAA adopted Sec. 91.309 in the final rule, as
proposed in the NPRM, without any changes.
8. Section 91.409 Clarifying Amendment
The NPRM proposed to make minor clarifying amendments to Sec.
91.409(c)(1) by removing the first ``or'' and adding the words
``airworthiness certificate'' following the word ``light-sport'' within
the list of special airworthiness certificates. In the NPRM, FAA stated
the amendments were intended to clarify that an aircraft that carries a
special flight permit, a current experimental airworthiness
certificate, a light-sport category airworthiness certificate, or a
provisional airworthiness certificate is excepted from the requirements
in Sec. 91.409(a) and (b). Inadvertently, the words ``airworthiness
certificate'' following ``light-sport'' were not included in the
proposed regulatory text of the NPRM. In this final rule, FAA is
effectuating the intent of the NPRM by adding these words. In addition,
to conform with the terminology used throughout the rest of this final
rule, FAA is changing the term ``light-sport airworthiness
certificate'' to ``a special airworthiness certificate in the light-
sport category.'' For the same reason, FAA is adding the word
``airworthiness'' in-between ``experimental'' and ``certificate.''
Paragraph (c)(1), as adopted, now reads as follows: ``An aircraft that
carries a special flight permit, a current experimental airworthiness
certificate, a special airworthiness certificate in the light-sport
category, or provisional

[[Page 35167]]

airworthiness certificate.'' As noted in the NPRM, these amendments are
intended to provide better clarity, readability, and understanding for
the operator for proper use of the exception.
FAA received two comments on this language, from AEA/ARSA, which
were both supportive of the minor technical amendments to paragraph
(c)(1). However, AEA/ARSA's comments suggested that aircraft meeting
light-sport performance criteria should also be exempt from the
inspection requirement in Sec. 91.409(a)(1). These associations
proposed that standard airworthiness certificated aircraft that meet
the performance requirements of light-sport and primary category
aircraft be allowed to receive an annual condition inspection rather
than an annual inspection as is currently required by Sec. 91.409(a).
The associations asserted that this revision would standardize
inspection criteria and permit certificated mechanics without
inspection authorizations to conduct these inspections.
In addition to these comments concerning Sec. 91.409(a), two
commenters addressed inspections for former military aircraft under
Sec. 91.409(f)(3), for which there were no amendments proposed in the
NPRM. Specifically, contract air service providers, MSM and Top Aces
Corp, recommended including language relating to North Atlantic Treaty
Organization (NATO) military service inspection programs in this final
rule's preamble. Specifically, they noted under a previous version of
FAA Order 8130.2J, which has been superseded by a newer version, Top
Aces Corp's guidance allowed military contractors operating former
military aircraft to comply with Sec. 91.409(f)(3) by selecting an
inspection program recommended by the manufacturer or NATO military
service. MSM and Top Aces Corp requested we add clarifying language to
this rule regarding this change to FAA Order 8130.2J.
In response to AEA/ARSA's comments, FAA will not be adopting any
changes to proposed Sec. 91.409(a) in the final rule. The commenters'
proposed change is not in the interest of safety, as this change would
standardize the yearly inspection criterion for all aircraft below
2,700 pounds regardless of the type of airworthiness certificate held.
FAA disagrees with this approach to maintaining continued
airworthiness. According to part 43, a qualified mechanic must maintain
and inspect normal category aircraft with a standard airworthiness
certificate. A mechanic with an inspection authorization is required to
inspect these aircraft at least once every 12 calendar months. These
heightened requirements for maintenance and inspection are consistent
with where standard airworthiness certificated aircraft fall on the
safety continuum. Standard airworthiness certificated aircraft fall
higher on the safety continuum than light-sport category or
experimental aircraft because they are approved for air carrier
operations, which involve higher risks to public safety. Accordingly,
these aircraft have more stringent requirements than light-sport
category aircraft. For these reasons, FAA finds AEA/ARSA's suggestions
outside the scope of the MOSAIC rule. FAA declines to change the
inspection requirements for aircraft holding a standard airworthiness
certificate, regardless of whether an aircraft meets the light-sport
performance criteria that would allow operation by a pilot holding a
sport pilot certificate.
With respect to MSM's and Top Aces Corp's comments, FAA notes these
comments are similarly beyond the scope of the MOSAIC rulemaking. FAA
did not propose any changes to Sec. 91.409(f)(3) in the NPRM and will
not be making any changes to this section in the final rule.
Accordingly, this preamble, which does not otherwise address Sec.
91.409(f)(3), is not the appropriate platform for an interpretation of
or policy discussion about this regulation.
9. Other Comments on Operations
a. ADS-B and DAA
Several individuals commented on requirements pertaining to the
installation of Automatic Dependent Surveillance-Broadcast (ADS-B)
technology and other equipment requirements, which are beyond the scope
of the regulatory changes proposed by the NPRM. For example, one
commenter expressed concern that certain aircraft such as gliders and
balloons are excepted by Sec. 91.225 and are not required to be
equipped with ADS-B technology. Another expressed concern about the
lack of electronic visibility of ultralights and gliders and suggested
that all aircraft, including part 103 ultralight operations, be
equipped with ADS-B. Another commenter opined that the MOSAIC proposal
failed to require DAA technology in new light-sport category aircraft.
Similarly, ALPA recommended that if light-sport category aircraft are
to be authorized to operate under IFR, they should be required to
comply with all the applicable instrument and equipment requirements
for aircraft holding standard airworthiness certificates in Sec.
91.205.
These comments are beyond the scope of this final rule because FAA
did not propose any amendments to Sec. Sec. 91.113(b), 91.205, 91.215,
or 91.225 in the NPRM. Though FAA shares the commenters' mission for
improving safety within the NAS by reducing midair collisions with
unmanned and manned aircraft, ADS-B and DAA technology was not
contemplated by this rule. Accordingly, new aircraft equipage
requirements and DAA technology will not be included in this final
rule, as it may require the development of a TSO performance standard
for incorporation of DAA technology and the complicated subject matter
would require a separate notice and public comment period. In addition,
the inclusion of new equipment requirements may impose added costs on
operators and may create additional training and pilot certification
requirements not contemplated by this rule.
Regarding the comment from ALPA addressing aircraft equipage for
certain IFR operations conducted in the NAS, FAA notes there are
substantial regulations, performance standards, and equipage
requirements governing IFR flight operations. As stated in the NPRM,
certain light-sport category aircraft equipped for flight at night or
under IFR may be issued an operating limitation stating that the
aircraft must comply with the applicable instrument and equipment
requirements of Sec. 91.205. Flights under IFR in IMC would therefore
have to be authorized by the manufacturer in the POH, and the aircraft
would be subject to appropriate operating limitations. Section
91.327(g) allows FAA to prescribe additional limitations that it
considers necessary for aircraft holding a special airworthiness
certificate in the light-sport category. Accordingly, FAA will, as it
does presently with other aircraft holding special airworthiness
certificates, issue operating limitations allowing IFR flight for
certain aircraft, using a risk-based approach that evaluates a given
operator's eligibility for an operating limitation.
b. Flight Tests
Bombardier suggested that Sec. 91.305 is too narrowly scoped, and
it should be modified along with the changes to Sec. 91.319(c) to
allow for certain flight test exceptions. Specifically, Bombardier
suggested that Sec. 91.305 be modified to allow the Administrator to
issue operating limitations permitting flight test operations in areas
other than over open water, or sparsely populated areas having light
air traffic, similar to the authorizations under Sec. 91.319(c). In

[[Page 35168]]

response, FAA notes that changes to Sec. 91.305 were not proposed in
this rulemaking because its applicability is narrowly tailored to allow
flight for aircraft that have not yet demonstrated the ability to hold
certain operating limitations. It is thus different than the scope of
aircraft and operations covered by Sec. 91.319(c). For Sec.
91.319(c), FAA uses a risk-based approach when evaluating a given
operator's eligibility to obtain certain operating limitations allowing
operation over a densely populated area or in a congested airway, in
accordance with the published guidance in FAA Order 8130.2. However, as
a general matter, the risk to persons and property associated with
allowing provisionally certificated aircraft to operate over densely
populated areas is much greater than the risks associated with an
aircraft holding an experimental airworthiness certificate. Because
this change was not proposed in the NPRM, FAA is not addressing
Bombardier's proposal in this final rule but may take this comment into
consideration for future rulemaking actions.

L. Experimental Airworthiness Certificates

1. Issuance of Experimental Airworthiness Certificates (Sec. 21.191)
a. Operating Kit-Built and Former Light-Sport Category Aircraft (Sec.
21.191(i), (k), & (l))
In the NPRM, FAA proposed to remove the current Sec. 21.191(i)
experimental purpose of operating light-sport aircraft and replace it
with the proposed experimental purpose of operating former light-sport
category aircraft. EAA, AOPA, NATA, and NBAA opposed the removal of the
existing requirements of Sec. 21.191(i) citing undesirable unintended
consequences of not providing a ``regulatory home'' for these aircraft.
Based upon the concerns raised by the commenters, FAA agrees and will
keep the experimental purpose of operating light-sport aircraft as
Sec. 21.191(i). By doing so, a ``regulatory home'' will exist for
aircraft certificated for this experimental purpose that may need a
replacement certificate at a later date. However, upon the first
effective date of this rule, October 22, 2025, experimental
airworthiness certificates will no longer be issued for this purpose
and Sec. 21.191(i)(2) and (i)(3) will be revised accordingly to
reflect this. FAA notes that experimental airworthiness certificates
have not been issued under Sec. 21.191(i)(1) since January 31, 2008.
Also, on October 22, 2025, the reference to Sec. 21.193 will be
removed in Sec. 21.191(i)(2) since it is an application requirement
and application for original certification is no longer available for
this purpose. The final rule also makes a conforming change to Sec.
21.191(i)(1), adding the word ``airworthiness'' to the middle of
``experimental certificate'' for clarity and standardization with the
phrase ``experimental airworthiness certificate'' in Sec. 21.191 of
this rule. Section IV.I.2 of the NPRM explained that the purpose of
this terminology change is to clarify that experimental certificates
are airworthiness certificates. FAA did not receive any comment on this
topic. The revisions in Sec. 21.191(i)(2) and (i)(3) also cite
``experimental airworthiness certificate.''
On or after October 22, 2025, the airworthiness certification of
light-sport category kit aircraft will occur under the Sec. 21.191(k)
experimental purpose of operating light-sport category kit-built
aircraft. Likewise, the airworthiness certification of former light-
sport category aircraft, currently under Sec. 21.191(i)(3), will occur
under the Sec. 21.191(l) experimental purpose of operating former
light-sport category aircraft. The titles and requirements of the Sec.
21.191(k) and (l) experimental purposes remain unchanged from the NPRM,
the only difference being their new paragraphs in Sec. 21.191 for this
final rule.
The changes in Sec. 21.191 for these two experimental purposes
were necessary because, on July 24, 2026, significant changes occur,
such as the implementation of part 22 and the removal of the light-
sport aircraft definition from Sec. 1.1. Accordingly, without a light-
sport aircraft definition, it would no longer be appropriate to issue
experimental airworthiness certificates under the ``operating a light-
sport aircraft'' purpose. However, rather than waiting for the second
effective date, this rule transitions experimental kit-built and former
light-sport category aircraft to Sec. 21.191(k) and (l), respectively,
at the first effective date to accommodate repairmen requirements. See
section IV.I. for further discussion. Though the light-sport aircraft
definition will still be in effect in Sec. 1.1 on and after this date
of transition to Sec. 21.191(k) and (l), these experimental aircraft
were previously, or are based on a model of, a certificated light-sport
category aircraft under Sec. 21.190. Accordingly, it is acceptable to
use Sec. 21.191(k) and (l) at the first effective date of this rule
rather than waiting for the second effective date.
Because of these changes, the Sec. 21.191(k) and (l) experimental
purposes have been added to Sec. 45.29(b)(1)(iii) to enable the
continuity of allowing marks at least 3 inches high for former and kit-
built light-sport category aircraft with a maximum cruising speed not
in excess of 180 knots CAS. The Sec. 21.191(i) reference will remain.
In addition, this final rule makes a conforming change to Sec.
45.29(b)(1)(iii) by changing ``experimental certificate'' to
``experimental airworthiness certificate'' to remain consistent with
the terminology of Sec. 21.191 and the explanation in section IV.I.2
of the NPRM that experimental certificates are experimental
airworthiness certificates. FAA did not receive any comment on this
terminology change for Sec. 21.191.
b. Weight of Experimental Kit-Built and Former Light-Sport Category
Aircraft
Manufacturers of light-sport category aircraft may sell kits of
their aircraft models that have already received airworthiness
certification in the light-sport category; however, these kits are
issued experimental airworthiness certificates. If certificated prior
to October 22, 2025, the applicable experimental purpose is operating a
light-sport aircraft per Sec. 21.191(i)(2). On or after October 22,
2025, original issuance of experimental airworthiness certificates will
no longer be under Sec. 21.191(i)(2). Instead, all original
certifications of light-sport category kit aircraft thereafter will be
for the experimental purpose of operating light-sport category kit-
built aircraft under Sec. 21.191(k).
One commenter, building a kit aircraft with a 1,450 pounds design
gross weight, favored removing weight limits for the light-sport
category so their aircraft can exceed the existing 1,320 pounds weight
limit applicable in the light-sport aircraft definition. FAA is
concerned this commenter has misunderstood the provisions of this rule
as proposed in the NPRM. First, as explained in the preceding
paragraph, this commenter's kit aircraft would not be eligible for
airworthiness certification in the light-sport category. Instead, it
would be certificated for an experimental purpose under Sec.
21.191(i)(2) or (k) depending if certification occurs before, or on or
after October 22, 2025. Second, though this rule will not impose a
maximum takeoff weight restriction for light-sport category aircraft,
it does not mean that a weight limit no longer applies to kits sold
prior to July 24, 2026 but certificated on or after this date. In this
instance, the manufacturer's statement of compliance that accompanied
the commenter's kit specified a maximum takeoff weight of 1,320 pounds
or less and this weight limit must be complied with, especially since
some of the

[[Page 35169]]

performance data and limitations in the aircraft's POH are based on
this gross weight.
Another commenter asked about the ability to change the gross
weight of experimental light-sport category aircraft. Though there is
no regulatory requirement for former or kit-built experimental light-
sport category aircraft to maintain the same configuration and gross
weight limitations as the light-sport category model upon which the
experimental aircraft is designed after, it is unsafe for owners of
experimental light-sport category aircraft to exceed the manufacturer's
maximum weight limits or any other design limit that is published in
the aircraft's POH.
c. Operating Former Military Aircraft (Sec. 21.191(j))
The NPRM included a new provision Sec. 21.191(k) for issuance of
an experimental airworthiness certificate to former military aircraft
to improve alignment between certain operations of former military
aircraft and the experimental airworthiness certificates which
authorize their operation. FAA received comments from 11 commenters,
nine supportive and two opposed. Of the nine supportive commenters,
eight proposed changes to this proposal.
NAVAIR generally concurred with this proposal to facilitate civil
operations of former military aircraft that also engage in public
aircraft operations but recommends several changes. First, NAVAIR
recommended that FAA consider deleting Sec. 21.191(k)(1) to enable
inclusion of unmanned aircraft in Sec. 21.191(k) as former military
aircraft. Due to the significant airworthiness and operational
differences between unmanned and manned aircraft, FAA excludes unmanned
aircraft certification from this rulemaking. Such a change would
require much broader consideration and amendment of 14 CFR requirements
than the intended scope of this rulemaking.
NAVAIR provided the following comments concerning what aircraft
would be considered former military aircraft under Sec. 21.191(k)(2)
and, therefore, eligible for a U.S. airworthiness certificate under
this section. NAVAIR commented that the proposed rule lacks sufficient
clarity in whether the phrase ``under contract by the U.S. Armed Forces
or a foreign military'' applies to manufacture, purchase, and
modification or only to modification. FAA agrees that use and placement
of the phrase, ``under contract,'' may be unclear. FAA intends for this
purpose for issuing experimental airworthiness certificates for
operating former-military aircraft to include aircraft manufactured,
purchased, or modified by the U.S. Armed Forces or a foreign military,
whether the military entity performed any of these actions itself or
via a contract. Since a military can be said to have accomplished any
of these actions in either case, the phrase, ``under contract'' is
unnecessary. The final rule text is amended to delete the phrase,
``under contract'' for clarity. This revision does not change the
intent of the provision.
NAVAIR also commented that the provision does not explicitly allow
ownership or registration by a military as an additional method to be
considered for establishing the eligibility status of a former military
aircraft. NAVAIR recommended modifying Sec. 21.191(k)(2) to add the
option of the aircraft being on the registry of the U.S. Armed Forces
or a foreign military or using ``accepted for use by'' language like
that in Sec. 21.25(a)(2). As discussed in the previous paragraph,
since the proposed rule was intended to include aircraft ``purchased by
the U.S. Armed Forces or a foreign military,'' this proposal would
include aircraft owned by a U.S. Armed Force or foreign military.
Similarly, FAA considers former registration by a military entity to
represent an acceptable means of establishing an aircraft as a former
military aircraft and amended the text to include this as another
option. To qualify as a former military aircraft, the aircraft must
have first been a military aircraft. In FAA's view, former registration
by a military entity represents a firmer relationship of the military
with the aircraft than simply via ``acceptance for use by'' the
military. Accordingly, FAA will revise the proposed language to delete
the first ``or'' before ``modified'' and add ``, or on the registry
of'' before ``the U.S. Armed Forces.''
NAVAIR also recommended clarification to affirm that former
military aircraft that are subsequently modified by a civilian operator
for use under a contract with the U.S. Armed Forces be considered
former military aircraft under Sec. 21.191(k)(2). FAA notes that
contract air services provided by a civilian organization for a
military entity using former military aircraft would not negate the
former military status of such aircraft.
NAVAIR also recommended adding a definition of ``former military
aircraft'' to 14 CFR. With clarifications of the intent and amendments
of this text as recommended, FAA has determined the resultant text is
sufficient to enable issuance of airworthiness certificates for former
military aircraft under this section without the added complication of
creating a new definition of the term, ``former military aircraft.''
NAVAIR commented there are civil aircraft with no prior military
pedigree that have been modified by the owner/operator to support
contracted public aircraft operations for the U.S. government and asked
FAA to consider repositioning provisions like those of Sec.
21.191(k)(3)(iii). This proposed rule centered on creating a new
experimental purpose for former military aircraft. Since this proposed
rule did not address civil aircraft with no prior military pedigree,
this NAVAIR recommendation exceeds the scope of this rulemaking. As
such, FAA will not consider this recommendation under this final rule.
NAVAIR and IAR recommended increasing the scope of repositioning
flights under Sec. 21.191(k)(3)(iii). NAVAIR recommended changing the
proposed rule from repositioning the aircraft for use under contract
``with the U.S. Armed Forces'' to ``for a public aircraft operation.''
This would allow repositioning flights of former military aircraft for
other public aircraft operations with other U.S. government agencies,
such as the National Aeronautics and Space Administration or the
Department of Agriculture. FAA recognizes that former military aircraft
are suitable for and perform valuable public services in a wide variety
of operations for a wide variety of U.S. government organizations. As
such, FAA agrees this provision should not be limited to enabling
public aircraft operations under contract with the U.S. Armed Forces.
Accordingly, this rule will broaden the proposed rule to enable the
reposition of former military aircraft for any public aircraft
operation. IAR recommended revising this text to allow repositioning
flights for any purpose. IAR did not provide, and FAA is not aware of,
a safety case for an unlimited provision for repositioning former
military aircraft. Accordingly, FAA will not amend the text to create
an unlimited provision for repositioning former military aircraft.
NAVAIR, Draken International, MSM, and IAR recommended expanding
Sec. 21.191(k)(3) to include other operating purposes. NAVAIR and
Draken International recommended increasing the scope of Sec.
21.191(k)(3) to enable operations following repair, alterations, or
maintenance. FAA notes that check flights following a repair,
alteration, and maintenance are required under Sec. 91.407 when tests
and inspections on the ground are insufficient to find that

[[Page 35170]]

a repair, alteration, or maintenance have not appreciably changed the
flight characteristics or substantially affected the flight operation
of the aircraft. Accordingly, FAA agrees that Sec. 21.191(k)(3) should
be amended to specifically allow check flights following a repair,
alteration, or maintenance.
Draken International and MSM recommended increasing the scope of
Sec. 21.191(k)(3) to include flight training and another commenter
recommended including pilot proficiency and exhibition. In response,
FAA concludes these changes are unnecessary since experimental purposes
for flight training and exhibition already exist under Sec. 21.191(c)
and (d), respectively. An applicant for a U.S. airworthiness
certificate may apply for multiple experimental airworthiness
certificates or a single, multi-purpose certificate under one
application. Regarding the pilot proficiency recommendation, of all the
experimental purposes under Sec. 21.191, only exhibition and air
racing include provisions for ``maintenance of exhibition flight
proficiency'' and ``practicing for such air races'' under Sec.
21.191(d) and (e), respectively, reflecting the unique operating
characteristics of an exhibition or race that warrant practice above
and beyond fundamental flight operations. Since the new experimental
purpose of operating former military aircraft simply enables relocation
of certain aircraft under certain conditions, these operations involve
the most fundamental of pilot skills that are most appropriately
developed and maintained under the experimental purpose of crew
training under Sec. 21.191(c). Proficiency operations are feasible
under the experimental purpose of crew training and will not be enabled
under the new experimental purpose of operating former military
aircraft.
One commenter stated all amendments concerning experimental and
restricted category certification of former military aircraft should be
removed from this rule and addressed separately from rulemaking
concerning the light-sport sector. The original rules \317\
establishing the restricted category in 1950 included provisions for
military aircraft. As discussed in the NPRM, FAA is already issuing
experimental airworthiness certificates to former military aircraft.
That is, civil registration, certification, and operation of former
military aircraft has been occurring for nearly 75 years. This rule
merely clarifies a longstanding provision in Sec. 21.25 and
establishes a new experimental purpose under Sec. 21.191 to better
align the purpose of the certificate with the intended operation. FAA,
therefore, does not find merit with the commenter's recommendation for
removing these changes for separate rulemaking.
One commenter opposed this proposal for several reasons. First, the
commenter asserted that FAA would exceed its responsibilities for civil
aviation in enabling operation of former military aircraft that engage
part-time in public aircraft operations for the Department of Defense
(DoD). This is incorrect. The FAA airworthiness certificate would apply
to civil aircraft operations only and would not be in effect when the
aircraft is operating as a public aircraft.
Second, the commenter asserted FAA allows operators of former
military aircraft to operate some aircraft beyond their military design
life limits, asserting this is very risky as the Armed Forces took them
out of service because of such life limits. This is incorrect. Per
Sec. 91.319(i), FAA may prescribe additional operating limitations for
experimental aircraft that it considers necessary. As such, an
operating limitation issued with experimental airworthiness
certificates per appendix D of FAA Order 8130.2, Airworthiness
Certification of Aircraft, requires compliance with applicable life
limits. Furthermore, FAA only issues an experimental airworthiness
certificate for a former military after reviewing aircraft records,
inspecting the aircraft, identifying appropriate operating limitations,
and making a finding the aircraft is in a condition for safe operation;
this process may result in requirements to remove or disable some
systems to establish conditions for safe operation for the intended
use.
Third, the commenter asserted that operations of these aircraft
involve additional risk related to the availability of replacement
parts. FAA notes that each owner of a civil aircraft is required to
maintain its aircraft in a condition for safe operation for its
airworthiness certificate to remain valid.
Fourth, the commenter asserted that FAA is exceeding its authority
in enabling training of warfighters with civil aircraft. This is
incorrect. An aircraft may be operated alternately in civil and public
aircraft operations. FAA has no responsibility for, or involvement
with, public aircraft operations. The civil airworthiness certificate
is not in effect during public aircraft operations. EAA, AOPA, NATA,
and NBAA jointly expressed support for this proposal while noting it
would not impact historic former military aircraft flown for display
(``warbirds'') under Sec. 21.191(d).
Lastly, the final rule revises the paragraph numbering for this
section from Sec. 21.191(k) (proposed) to Sec. 21.191(j).
2. Application for Special Airworthiness Certificates Issued for
Experimental Purposes (Sec. 21.193)
a. Experimental Purpose Change in Sec. 21.193(e)
To align with the start of the operating light-sport category kit-
built aircraft (Sec. 21.191(k)) experimental purpose and the cessation
of the issuance of original certificates under Sec. 21.191(i)(2) on
October 22, 2025, Sec. 21.191(k) will replace Sec. 21.191(i)(2) in
the current Sec. 21.193(e) requirement.
b. Comments on Program Letters
The provisions in Sec. 21.193 require applicants for an
experimental airworthiness certificate to provide the necessary details
to FAA so that it can understand the purpose and scope of an
applicant's experiment and operations. These details will allow FAA to
ensure an airworthiness certificate is being issued for the appropriate
experimental purpose and duration and create or apply appropriate
operating limitations for safe operations.
GAMA, Manufacturers Flight Test Council, and Textron asked if the
changes to Sec. 21.193 will affect the current program letter process
and expressed that program letter updates can be burdensome, especially
in a flight test environment.
The policies and procedures for program letters are in FAA Order
8130.2, Airworthiness Certification of Aircraft. The provisions in
Sec. 21.193 of this final rule will not change the program letter
process. Applicants will still use program letters to provide the
information in Sec. 21.193 to FAA's certificating office when applying
for an experimental airworthiness certificate. While preparing a
program letter can take time and divert resources from a flight test
program, FAA uses program letter information to create appropriate
operating limitations. These operating limitations mitigate the risks
of experimental aircraft and developmental flight test activities and
serve to protect the general public. Since Sec. 21.181 of this rule
expands the certificate duration of certain experimental purposes from
one year to three years, unless FAA prescribes a shorter period, it is
imperative that applicants provide FAA with the necessary information
for the desired duration of the experimental airworthiness certificate.
Providing this necessary information will reduce the

[[Page 35171]]

need for amendments to program letters, amendments to operating
limitations, and potential impacts to flight testing schedules.
Another commenter similarly stated the annual letter for
experimental gliders is an onerous task that is a waste of time for FAA
personnel and such letter is unnecessary if the glider is well
maintained. Though not specified by the commenter, the comment likely
refers to the annual program letter for the experimental purpose of
exhibition. Unlike other experimental airworthiness certificates with
unlimited duration, owners of any aircraft operated for the
experimental purpose of exhibition or air racing must submit an annual
program letter to FAA per the assigned operating limitation. The
applicant provides a list of events at which the aircraft will be
exhibited over the upcoming year. FAA disagrees with the commenter as
this annual program letter is necessary to show FAA that the aircraft
will be operated for the purpose for which the experimental
airworthiness certificate was issued per Sec. 91.319(a).
c. Light-Sport Kit Aircraft Application Information (Sec. 21.193(h))
EAA, AOPA, NATA, and NBAA opposed the proposed move of special
airworthiness application requirements for light-sport category kit-
built aircraft from Sec. 21.193 to the proposed Sec. 21.191
experimental purpose of operating light-sport category kit-built
aircraft. The commenters found this change unnecessary and confusing
and recommended that these application requirements remain in Sec.
21.193. Upon further consideration of the comments received, FAA agrees
it is unnecessary to put application requirements in a section that
describes experimental purposes. This rule will retain the application
requirements for light-sport category kit-built aircraft in Sec.
21.193. However, proposed Sec. 21.193(h), which concerns evidence of
compliance with applicable noise limits in part 36, has been omitted
since noise compliance for experimental kit and former light-sport
category aircraft is voluntary in this final rule.
Hartzell Propeller cited a situation where a kit builder may have
started their light-sport category kit aircraft prior to the effective
date of this rule and completed it afterwards. With the implementation
of voluntary part 36 noise requirements in this final rule and the
omission of proposed Sec. 21.193(h), this comment is no longer
relevant since kit aircraft are not subject to mandatory noise
compliance.
In this final rule, a correction was made to proposed Sec.
21.191(j)(4), which the final rule relocates to Sec. 21.193(h)(4). In
the NPRM, this section incorrectly cited Sec. 22.175 (noise) when
Sec. 22.195 (ground and flight testing) should have been cited. The
NPRM preamble correctly explained that light-sport kits do not have to
be ground and flight tested by the manufacturer in accordance with
production acceptance test procedures. This is because the kits are
assembled away from the manufacturer's facilities by amateur or
contract builders. This correction aligns with the existing requirement
in Sec. 21.193(e)(4).
3. Experimental Purpose of Market Survey, Sales Demonstrations,
Customer Crew Training (Sec. 21.195)
The NPRM proposed amendments to clarify Sec. 21.195. No comments
were submitted to the docket concerning this proposal. For the final
rule, ``airworthiness'' was added to the NPRM proposed Sec. 21.195 to
change references to ``experimental certificate'' to ``experimental
airworthiness certificate'' in the title and subsections (a), (b), (c),
and (d) of Sec. 21.195. This was a conforming change to retain
consistent use of ``experimental airworthiness certificate'' throughout
this rule. In discussing this terminology change in Sec. 21.191, NPRM
section IV.I.2 explained this change was to clarify that experimental
certificates are airworthiness certificates. This final rule amends
this section to make such changes as are necessary to advance the
intent of the rule.
4. Duration of Experimental Airworthiness Certificates (Sec.
21.181(a)(4) and (a)(5))
In Sec. 21.181(a)(4), the NPRM proposed to extend the duration of
an experimental airworthiness certificate issued for certain
experimental purposes from one to three years from the date of issue or
renewal unless FAA prescribes a shorter period. With the retention of
the Sec. 21.191(i) experimental purpose, ``operating light-sport
aircraft,'' discussed in section IV.L.1.a, this final rule adds this
purpose to Sec. 21.181(a)(5). The certificate duration of the Sec.
21.191(i) purpose will be maintained in this rule. No comments were
submitted to the docket concerning the Sec. 21.181(a)(4) proposal or
the duration of the operating light-sport aircraft experimental
purpose.
This final rule adds ``airworthiness'' to references to
``experimental certificate'' in proposed Sec. 21.181(a)(4) and (a)(5)
to clarify these durations are for experimental airworthiness
certificates and to retain consistent terminology throughout this rule.
The basis for this terminology change was discussed in section IV.I.2
of the NPRM, and FAA did not receive any comment on changing this
terminology. In addition, the sequence of the experimental purposes in
proposed Sec. 21.181(a)(5) was changed to align with their sequence in
Sec. 21.191. This final rule will retain Sec. 21.181(a)(4) as
proposed, except for the addition of ``airworthiness,'' and has added
``operating light-sport aircraft'' and ``airworthiness'' to Sec.
21.181(a)(5).
5. Other Comments on Experimental Airworthiness Certificates
Several commenters asked if a particular legacy aircraft could be
operated under an experimental airworthiness certificate for one of the
experimental purposes related to light-sport category aircraft. In
response, FAA notes that eligibility regulations in current Sec.
21.190 and final rule Sec. 22.100 prohibit aircraft previously issued
a standard, primary, restricted, limited, or provisional airworthiness
certificate, or an equivalent airworthiness certificate issued by a
foreign civil aviation authority, from obtaining a special
airworthiness certificate in the light-sport category. The experimental
purposes related to light-sport category aircraft require either prior
airworthiness certification under Sec. 21.190 or be based on a make
and model that was previously certificated under Sec. 21.190.
Therefore, legacy aircraft could not operate under the experimental
purpose related to light-sport category aircraft in Sec. 21.191(i),
(k), or (l).
GAMA asked for additional clarification regarding the airworthiness
certification procedures for aircraft manufactured outside the U.S., in
particular, clarification on how an aircraft gains airworthiness in the
U.S. if it already has an existing airworthiness certificate from
another regulatory entity.
For airworthiness certification in the light-sport category,
aircraft manufactured outside the U.S. that meet the eligibility
requirements of Sec. 21.190 (current) or Sec. 22.100 on or after July
24, 2026, may apply for a special airworthiness certificate for the
light-sport category. As previously mentioned, aircraft that have
previously been issued a standard, primary, restricted, limited, or
provisional airworthiness certificate, or an equivalent airworthiness
certificate issued by a foreign civil aviation authority, would not be
eligible for airworthiness certification under

[[Page 35172]]

Sec. 21.190. Accordingly, these aircraft would also not be eligible
for the experimental purposes, Sec. 21.191(i), (k), or (l), since
these purposes require the aircraft to have either previously held an
airworthiness certificate issued under Sec. 21.190 or be based on a
previously certificated light-sport category aircraft make and model.
In addition, for a light-sport category aircraft or kit manufactured
outside the U.S., Sec. Sec. 22.100 and 21.193 require that the
aircraft or kit, respectively, would have to be manufactured in a
country with which the U.S. has a Bilateral Airworthiness Agreement
concerning airplanes or a Bilateral Aviation Safety Agreement with
associated Implementation Procedures for Airworthiness concerning
airplanes, or an equivalent airworthiness agreement.
ANAC suggested that FAA consider replacing the term
``experimental'' with the term ``flight permit.'' It stated the
adoption of this term may help in acknowledging the inherent risks
involved and convey the idea that the approval of flight conditions is
not related to the safety of the design. FAA disagrees with this
suggestion as the term ``experimental'' has been used with the
registration or airworthiness certification of U.S. aircraft for nearly
the past century. Because of this long history and the widely accepted
use and understanding of ``experimental,'' FAA will continue to use the
term for airworthiness certificates issued under Sec. 21.191. The
``experimental'' marking requirements of Sec. 45.23 and the Sec.
91.319 requirement that each person carried be advised of the
experimental nature of the aircraft are in place to bring crew and
passenger awareness that the design may not conform to more rigorous
airworthiness requirements.

M. Restricted Category Aircraft

1. Amendments of Special Purpose Operations (Sec. 21.25)
The NPRM included amendments to Sec. 21.25 to clarify text,
exclude aircraft previously certificated in the light-sport or primary
categories from eligibility for type certification in the restricted
category, and to add special purpose operations. Comments were
submitted on multiple aspects of Sec. 21.25.
IAR raised several concerns related to restricted category
aircraft. Several other commenters supported all the comments submitted
by IAR. IAR commented that the agency must consider prior
correspondence it submitted to the agency. IAR submitted the
correspondence prior to, and outside of, the NPRM comment process,
asserted that the correspondence contained proprietary and confidential
business information, and requested that FAA contact IAR if the agency
could not find it.
As a general matter in responding to comments, the agency considers
the information actually submitted in a comment. While the NPRM
provided that ``FAA will consider all comments it receives on or before
the closing date for comments,'' FAA only considers information it
receives as part of the comments submitted to the NPRM.\318\ Public
comments on the docket available for all to see better enable
transparency in what information the government considered in reaching
the final rule. In addition, to separately to seek out this additional
information would both be unfair to other commenters that similarly
referenced or requested that FAA seek out information they failed to
submit to the docket and would likely represent ex parte
communications, which would then implicate the need to reopen the
comment process to offer similar opportunities to other commenters,
adding further delays to issuing this final rule and realizing the
benefits it will generate, and would potentially create a perception
that the government was favoring a commenter by seeking out additional
information from it. Based upon the above, FAA did not seek out these
correspondences.
IAR also commented that the NPRM provided inadequate notice to the
public and that IAR believes many restricted category aircraft
operators may not be aware of the MOSAIC rulemaking or its scope. IAR
recommended that the changes to the restricted category should be done
in a separate rulemaking. Similarly, another commenter stated changes
to the restricted category should be done separately from these light-
sport category regulations. FAA disagrees that the public received
inadequate notice of the NPRM. FAA notes that a restricted category
aircraft that meets the requirements of Sec. 21.185 is issued a
special airworthiness certificate. As such, the title of this proposal,
``Modernization of Special Airworthiness Certification,'' indicates
applicability to restricted category aircraft. The summary paragraph on
the first page of the NPRM includes discussion of amendments concerning
restricted category aircraft. In addition, the table of contents on the
first page of the NPRM shows that supplemental information for
amendments related to the restricted category is included in section
IV.J of the NPRM. That is, the restricted category is referenced or
discussed three times on the first page of the NPRM and discussed at
length in section IV.J of the NPRM. The initial comment period for this
proposal closed 90 days after its publication on October 23, 2023.
Based on a request from multiple commenters, FAA extended the comment
period by 90 days to January 22, 2024. Finally, pursuant to 44 U.S.C.
1507, publishing the NPRM in the Federal Register constituted
constructive notice to the public. It is incumbent on the public to
review and respond to that notice.
In summary, there was clear indication that the NPRM addressed the
restricted category, the public was provided six months to submit
comments to the docket, and FAA fulfilled its statutory obligations to
publish proposed rules in the Federal Register. FAA has discretion in
choosing which amendments it combines under a given rulemaking action.
This rulemaking is a combination of many different proposals related to
special airworthiness certification, and this change concerning type-
certification of restricted category aircraft is well within the scope
of these proposals since restricted category aircraft are issued
special airworthiness certificates. Accordingly, FAA finds the public
was provided sufficient notice of proposed amendments concerning
restricted category aircraft, FAA exercised appropriate discretion for
combining amendments under this rulemaking, and, except for changes as
discussed herein, FAA will proceed with final rulemaking as proposed
concerning restricted category aircraft.
MSM and Top Aces Corp recommended that eligibility for restricted
category type certification be expanded to include U.S. military
aircraft that have been accepted by foreign militaries. FAA notes the
proposed amendments in the NPRM concerning eligibility for restricted
category type certification were clarifications only, not substantive
changes. The NPRM did not consider or discuss expanding eligibility to
military aircraft from other than the U.S. Armed Forces. As such, FAA
disagrees with this recommendation for this final rule as it would be a
substantive change that exceeds the scope of this rulemaking and would
require appropriate notice to the public and opportunity for comment.
NAVAIR requested clarification of the phrase ``accepted for use
by'' in Sec. 21.25(a)(2)(i) concerning aircraft accepted for use by
the U.S. Armed Forces. NAVAIR was uncertain whether this phrase means
an aircraft type ``operated by'' or ``on the registry of'' the

[[Page 35173]]

U.S. Armed Forces. NAVAIR stated this difference may affect the
eligibility of certain military aircraft types the U.S. Armed Forces
acquires for foreign military sales. FAA specifically avoided
requirements in this section for establishing specific documentation,
registration requirements, bailing arrangements, and such for
establishing whether an aircraft was accepted for use and operated by a
U.S. Armed Force, especially since those methods and records may not be
standardized across all U.S. Armed Forces and may be subject to change.
Each applicant for restricted category type certification under this
section will be responsible for showing evidence that the aircraft type
was accepted for use by the U.S. Armed Forces to be eligible for type
certification in restricted category.
NAVAIR requested clarification of the requirement in Sec.
21.25(a)(2)(ii) that the ``aircraft is of a type that has a service
history with the U.S. Armed Forces acceptable to FAA.'' Specifically,
NAVAIR asked whether service history concerns an individual aircraft or
an aircraft type. FAA notes that Sec. 21.25(a)(2) intentionally uses
the word ``type'' to highlight that this is not referring to individual
aircraft, just as a type certificate in the restricted category is not
issued to individual aircraft. FAA extends eligibility for restricted
category type certification to certain aircraft that were manufactured
in accordance with the requirements of and accepted for use by the U.S.
Armed Forces. In issuing restricted category type certificates under
Sec. 21.25(a)(2), FAA relies on the collective rigor of military
development, design, test, manufacture, operations, and continued
operational safety through service experience to attain the level of
safety intended for the restricted category. For example, FAA would be
concerned with finding compliance for restricted category type
certification for a military aircraft type that was cancelled before
accruing some minimally acceptable service history to identify and
correct unsafe conditions.
NAVAIR recommended replacing the term ``U.S Armed Forces'' with ``a
U.S. Armed Force'' in Sec. 21.25(a)(2)(i) and (a)(2)(ii). Section 1.1
defines ``Armed Forces'' and the rules of construction in Sec.
1.3(a)(2) state that, ``Words importing the plural include the
singular.'' FAA prefers using a defined term as permitted by this rule
of construction. Accordingly, this final rule retains the term, ``U.S.
Armed Forces.''
IAR commented that FAA's ``petition process'' for approval of a new
special purpose operation is ``cumbersome, time consuming, and
lengthy,'' the public comment required by the petition process can
dissuade companies from pursuing new special purposes, and that FAA
failed to act on some requests. IAR, therefore, recommended replacing
the list of special purpose operations in Sec. 21.25(b) with a
provision to permit any aerial work operations as long as the aircraft
meets Sec. 21.185(b). IAR commented that this approach would eliminate
individual approvals for each type of aerial work operation.
Alternatively, IAR recommended adding aerial work along with
approximately 10 other special purpose operations to Sec. 21.25(b).
Similarly, two other commenters requested new special purpose
operations. NAAA recommended adding ``any agricultural aircraft
operations under part 137'' to Sec. 21.25(b)(1). NAVAIR recommended
adding ``patrolling of waterways'' and ``patrolling of oceans'' as
additional special purpose operations.
As to IAR's concerns with the petition process for approval of a
new special purpose operation, FAA does not agree with IAR's
characterizations of the petition process. FAA is unaware of failures
to act on requests submitted using its process, and no specific
information on such asserted failures was provided in the comment.
Public notice of, and public comment on, requests for new special
purpose operations is a valuable process that provides transparency to
the public and an opportunity for the public to provide information and
its comments and thoughts on such requests.
Regarding IAR's recommendation to replace the list of special
purpose operations in Sec. 21.25(b) with an ``aerial work'' provision
for aircraft that meet Sec. 21.185(b), IAR's proposal is internally
inconsistent in that the requirements of Sec. 21.185(b) include a
requirement that aircraft be type certificated in the restricted
category. Furthermore, Sec. 21.25(a) affirms that a type certificate
in the restricted category is issued for one or more special purpose
operations. That is, an aircraft inspection for issuance of an
airworthiness certificate under Sec. 21.185(b) cannot circumvent
regulatory requirements for issuance of restricted category type
certificate for one or more special purpose operations. As such, this
comment does not explain how replacing the list of special purpose
operations with a single aerial work provision would meet the Sec.
21.25 requirement that an applicant for a restricted category type
certificate ``shows that no feature or characteristic of the aircraft
makes it unsafe when it is operated under the limitations prescribed
for its intended use'' as reflected in the issuance of a type
certificate of that special purpose operation. Finally, the NPRM did
not consider or discuss such a proposal. As such, it would be a
substantive change that exceeds the scope of this rulemaking and would
require appropriate notice to the public and opportunity for comment.
Based upon all the above, FAA disagrees with this recommendation for
this final rule.
As to the recommendations proposed above to add new special purpose
operations, petitioning FAA for consideration of a new special
operating purposes under the authority in Sec. 21.25(b)(7) can be done
using the process in FAA Order 8110.56, Restricted Category Type
Certification. The Order advises applicants to provide information,
views, and arguments to support the proposed special purpose operation
and the petition process includes FAA seeking public comment in the
Federal Register. FAA updates FAA Order 8110.56 with any newly approved
special purpose operations. Because FAA has an established process for
considering such petitions and such process provides for appropriate
public notice of such petitions and opportunity for public comment, FAA
deems it more appropriate to consider such recommendations through that
established process.
IAR commented that the proposed list of special purpose operations
does not reflect the agency's commitment to performance-based
regulations. IAR asserted that rather than generalizing common
operations, the rule, for example, unnecessarily prescribes multiple
types of special purpose operations for patrolling and aerial
surveying. Though FAA embraces performance-based regulations, 14 CFR
rules are comprised of many legacy rules that are more prescriptive in
nature. During rulemaking, FAA makes challenging decisions of whether
to make simpler amendments of legacy, prescriptive rules or more
fundamentally amend such rules using performance-based concepts. For
Sec. 21.25, the proposed rule was limited in nature and did not
fundamentally amend provisions concerning the issuance of type
certificates for restricted category aircraft. As such, the NPRM did
not propose or discuss eliminating the list of special purpose
operations in Sec. 21.25(b) in favor of a more performance-based
approach, which would be significantly different than the more limited
changes in this final rule. Consideration of such a new approach to
special purpose operations would require appropriate notice to the
public and opportunity for comment. As such, this recommendation to
revamp FAA's approach to special purpose

[[Page 35174]]

operations exceeds the scope of this rulemaking.
GAMA, NAAA, and Air Tractor commented that the addition of the word
``crop'' to Sec. 21.25(b)(1)(i) may exclude currently approved
agricultural special purpose operations that do not treat a specific
crop. FAA did not intend for the proposed rule to limit current
operations in any way but recognizes that the addition of the word
``crop'' could have that unintended effect on agricultural special
purpose operations. Accordingly, this final rule eliminates the word
``crop'' from the Sec. 21.25(b)(1)(i) that was proposed in the NPRM.
GAMA, NAAA, and Air Tractor asked which special purpose operations
an applicant would be approved under Sec. 21.25 for a previously
issued type certificate that includes multiple special purpose
operations and other uses for which the special purpose operation is
not specified. Operators may continue to perform approved operations
without updating the TCDS or airworthiness certificate. Since 2006, FAA
specifies approved special purpose operations on the TCDS for
restricted category aircraft. For a TCDS issued before 2006, future
revisions of that TCDS may clarify the approved special purpose
operations. For questions about which special purpose operations are
approved under a type certificate for a restricted category aircraft,
contact the issuing office for that type certificate.
IAR commented that it opposes any change that would limit the
ability of restricted category aircraft to support space vehicle
launches. FAA approved the special purpose operation of space vehicle
launching using the process in FAA Order 8110.56, including
notification in the Federal Register.\319\ The proposed rule intended
to merely codify this previously approved special purpose operation
without change but added the word ``support'' in error. Correcting this
error affirms that no change is intended in the use of this special
purpose operation as approved. FAA therefore adopts Sec.
21.25(b)(7)(viii) as proposed but deletes the word ``support.''
ALPA also expressed concern with the proposed amendment to Sec.
21.25 to codify space support vehicle and space support vehicle
flights, but ALPA did not specify what the concern was, and Sec. 21.25
does not use these terms.
Concerning approval of new special purpose operations under Sec.
21.25(b)(7), IAR commented that uses should be allowed unless the
aircraft cannot satisfy Sec. 21.185. This comment incorrectly
conflates the requirements for issuance of a restricted category type
certificate under Sec. 21.25 with requirements for issuance of an
airworthiness certificate for restricted category aircraft under Sec.
21.185. Section 21.25 contains the requirements for type certification
in the restricted category.
GAMA and NAAA recommended modification of Sec. 21.25(a)(2)(i) to
clarify that an aircraft produced under an FAA type and production
certificate, modified, and accepted for use by a U.S. Armed Force would
be eligible for a restricted category type certificate under this
section. FAA finds the language in Sec. 21.25 is sufficiently broad to
accommodate the scenario described by the commenter. An aircraft that
was produced under an FAA type or production certificate and then
entered service with a U.S. Armed Force is eligible to be type-
certificated in the restricted category by complying with Sec.
21.25(a)(2). Alternatively, the aircraft may be able to be conformed to
its standard classification type certificate. No changes to this
paragraph are necessary.
Streamline Designs disagreed with the exclusion of primary and
light-sport category aircraft from eligibility for type certification
in the restricted category and commented that the NPRM does not include
a supporting safety argument for this proposal. Also, Streamline
Designs asserted that if a light-sport category aircraft may conduct
the same operation as a restricted category aircraft, it would be
limiting to exclude that aircraft from eligibility for certification in
the restricted category. NPRM paragraph IV.J.1 discussed the safety
argument for excluding primary and light-sport category aircraft from
eligibility for type certification in the restricted category. Also,
FAA notes several types of operations are common among various aircraft
categories. For example, operations for sport, recreation, personal
travel, flight training, and towing may be conducted with experimental,
light-sport category, primary category, and normal category aircraft.
Regardless, certain shared operating privileges do not render an
aircraft that was certificated in one category eligible for
certification in a higher category on the safety continuum. Similarly,
just because light-sport and restricted category aircraft may share
similar operating privileges for certain aerial work does not mean that
light-sport category aircraft should be eligible for certification in
the restricted category. Its higher placement on the safety continuum
means the rigor of certification standards and procedures for
restricted category aircraft are greater than aircraft lower on the
safety continuum, including light-sport and primary category aircraft.
Accordingly, FAA affirms its position that light-sport and primary
category aircraft are not eligible for certification in the restricted
category.
FAA made a technical correction to Sec. 21.25(b)(4)(i) through
(vi) in the final rule by omitting ``patrolling of'' in the special
purpose operations since the lead-in statement already included
``patrolling'' and ``patrolling of'' was redundant. This technical
correction does not change the intent of the provision.
2. Corrections to Issuance of Restricted Category Airworthiness
Certificates (Sec. 21.185)
The NPRM proposed amendments to Sec. 21.185 to standardize
terminology concerning special purpose operations and to correct Sec.
21.185(a) by removing ``original issue of'' because ``original''
specifies compliance with the applicable requirements of Sec. 21.183
only for the original issuance of a restricted category airworthiness
certificate. This causes confusion in situations wherein a restricted
category aircraft's airworthiness certificate must be re-issued. The
public submitted multiple comments concerning Sec. 21.185.
After issuance of the NPRM, FAA noticed that in removing ``original
issue of'' to clarify the applicability of Sec. 21.185(a) for the
issuance of recurrent airworthiness certificates for used aircraft,
this change did not correctly apply the statutory requirements for
issuance of an airworthiness certificate for such aircraft. As written,
the proposed rule would have the unintended effect of expanding the
scope of the reference in this paragraph to Sec. 21.183 to include
inspections under Sec. 21.183(d) for used restricted category
aircraft. Such inspections have not been required under Sec. 21.185,
were not intended or described in the proposed rule, and would
constitute an unintended expansion of the scope of requirements under
Sec. 21.185(a). Therefore, this final rule amends Sec. 21.185(a) to
refer only to paragraphs Sec. 21.183(a) and (b) as applicable rather
than all of Sec. 21.183. Also, 49 U.S.C. 44704(d)(1) mandates that,
``(t)he Administrator shall issue an airworthiness certificate when the
Administrator finds that the aircraft conforms to its type certificate
and, after inspection, is in condition for safe operation.'' Therefore,
this final rule corrects Sec. 21.185(a) to align with the statute and
require that a used aircraft conform to its type certificate and be in
a condition for safe operation.
IAR commented that the NPRM proposes a significant new requirement
that an aircraft be type certificated for a

[[Page 35175]]

special purpose operation to be eligible for issuance of a special
airworthiness certificate under Sec. 21.185, including an aircraft
that is in a good state of preservation and repair, in a condition for
safe operation, and capable of conducting that special purpose
operation. IAR also commented that design changes to enable certain
special purpose operations do not always specify the intended special
purpose operation. IAR strongly recommended removal of this proposal
for consideration under separate rulemaking.
FAA notes that prior to the NPRM, Sec. 21.185(b) applied to ``An
applicant for a restricted category airworthiness certificate for an
aircraft type certificated in the restricted category,'' and Sec.
21.25(a) entitled an applicant to a type certificate for an aircraft in
the restricted category for special purpose operations. That is,
currently Sec. Sec. 21.185(b) and 21.25(a) require type certification
in the restricted category, and for specific special purpose
operations, respectively. Furthermore, 49 U.S.C. 44704(d) requires, in
part, that FAA ``shall issue an airworthiness certificate when the
Administrator finds that the aircraft conforms to its type certificate.
. . .'' Conformity to a restricted category type certificate includes
conformity to requirements applicable to the approved special purpose
operation. Contrary to IAR's comment that the NPRM proposes a
significant modification and a new requirement for Sec. 21.185(b)(1),
that proposal does not add anything new to what was previously
required. As described in the NPRM, amendments of Sec. 21.185(b)(1)
merely clarify current requirements.
FAA notes that a type certificate includes changes to a type
certificate approved under subpart D of part 21. Such changes may
include a supplemental type certificate or a minor change in type
design under Sec. 21.95. When the modification is not a major design
change, other FAA-approved data may take the place of the restricted
supplemental type certificate (STC). In this case, an FAA aviation
safety inspector (ASI) can issue the restricted category airworthiness
certification based on review of applicable aircraft records and an
aircraft inspection. Regardless, any design change that adds a new
special purpose operation for an aircraft would require an amendment of
the airworthiness certificate to include that special purpose
operation. Neither the NPRM nor this final rule changes these
requirements. In summary, the proposed rule clarifies existing
requirements. As such, FAA disagrees with the commenter's
recommendation to withdraw this proposed rule for separate rulemaking.
One commenter stated Sec. Sec. 21.25 and 21.185 seem to indicate
that FAA may issue a special airworthiness certificate for restricted
category aircraft based on an aircraft inspection without finding that
the aircraft conforms to a type certificate that includes the
applicable special purpose operation. FAA notes even before the NPRM,
Sec. 21.185(a), (b), and (c) included requirements for type
certification in the restricted category as conditions for issuance of
airworthiness certificates under this section. Furthermore, the
entitlement for issuance of a type certificate in the restricted
category under Sec. 21.25(a) is for specific special purpose
operations. That is, issuance of a restricted category type
certificate, including an STC, for a special purpose operation is a
prerequisite for issuance of an airworthiness certificate under this
section for that special purpose operation. Lastly, if a modification
is not a major design change, other FAA-approved data may take the
place of the restricted STC. In this case, an FAA ASI can issue the
restricted category airworthiness certificate based on review of
applicable aircraft records and an aircraft inspection. The NPRM and
this final rule clarify but do not substantively amend these
requirements. FAA is also clarifying related implementing policies and
procedures for FAA inspectors and designees.
One commenter requested clarification on the meaning of ``good
state of preservation and repair'' in Sec. 21.185(b)(3). This phrase
already exists in Sec. 21.185(b) and is not defined elsewhere in 14
CFR. This rule merely relocates this language within Sec. 21.185 but
does not change it. This language will continue to have the same
meaning it had prior to this final rule. However, FAA recommends that
the commenter consider following the directive feedback process of
appendix K of FAA Order 8130.2, Airworthiness Certification of
Aircraft, to request clarification of this phrase.
Streamline Designs commented that the parenthetical phrase ``other
than primary category or light-sport category'' in NPRM proposed Sec.
21.185(b)(2)(ii) incorrectly implies that light-sport category aircraft
are type certificated. Accordingly, Streamline Designs recommends
deleting this parenthetical phrase. On further review, FAA finds that
this parenthetical phrase is unnecessary since Sec. 21.25 already
excludes light-sport and primary category aircraft from type
certification in the restricted category. FAA also agrees that the text
as written incorrectly implies that light-sport category aircraft are
type-certificated. Accordingly, the final rule omits the parenthetical
phrase, ``other than primary category or light-sport category'' in the
revision to Sec. 21.185(b)(2)(ii).
NAVAIR submitted several comments concerning Sec. 21.185. NAVAIR
recommended in Sec. 21.185(b)(2)(i) replacing the term ``U.S Armed
Forces,'' clarification of the phrase ``accepted for use by,'' and
clarification of the requirement that the ``aircraft is of a type that
has a service history with the U.S. Armed Forces acceptable to FAA.''
NAVAIR submitted, and FAA addressed, these same comments in section
IV.M.1 concerning issuance of restricted category type certificates.
Those dispositions apply to Sec. 21.185.
This final rule amends this section to make such changes as are
necessary to advance the intent of the rule.
3. Issuance of Multiple Airworthiness Certificates for Restricted
Category Aircraft (Sec. 21.187)
This rule revises the heading of Sec. 21.187 by adding ``for
restricted category aircraft'' to clarify this section applies only to
restricted category aircraft. One commenter requested clarification on
whether FAA issues experimental airworthiness certificates under this
section. In response, FAA notes that Sec. 21.187 sets forth
requirements for an applicant for an airworthiness certificate in the
restricted category and another category. From the establishment of the
restricted category in 1950, FAA policy has limited the issuance of
airworthiness certificates under this section to categories as defined
via type certification.\320\ That is, for the purposes of this section,
FAA does not view experimental aircraft as a category since an
experimental aircraft has not been found to conform to a type
certificate. Accordingly, longstanding FAA policy excludes the issuance
of experimental airworthiness certificates under Sec. 21.187.
N. Noise Certification of Aircraft That Do Not Conform to a Type
Certificate
In a change from the NPRM, the final rule does not require noise
certification of aircraft that do not conform to a type certificate.
This is consistent with the Administrator's discretionary authority to
prescribe ``as he deems necessary . . . regulations to control and
abate aircraft noise,'' 49 U.S.C. 44715, and it conforms to executive
branch policy of being ``prudent and financially responsible in the
expenditure of funds,

[[Page 35176]]

from both public and private sources, and to alleviate unnecessary
regulatory burdens placed on the American people,'' E.O. 14192 (January
31, 2025). When exercising that discretionary authority, 49 U.S.C.
44715 requires the Administrator to consider several factors, including
relevant information about noise, economic reasonableness, and
appropriateness for the applicable aircraft. Considering LSA, despite
broad growth in the sector, remain a small portion of the GA fleet, as
well as the comments received and data at his disposal, the
Administrator has declined at this time to exercise this authority to
require noise certification of aircraft that do not conform to a type
certificate.
The final rule amends part 36 to provide a voluntary means for
aircraft owners and manufacturers of aircraft that do not conform to a
type certificate to demonstrate compliance with part 36 noise levels
for their aircraft. This rule permits the use of industry consensus
standards as a means of compliance with part 36 for the first time and
permits the use of a statement of compliance (SOC) as a method of
showing compliance. This rule does not create new noise limits, nor
does it apply to aircraft that conform to a type certificate.
By providing a voluntary means of compliance, FAA allows those who
wish to comply to utilize flexible, cost-effective procedures,
requiring far fewer resources than traditional part 36 noise testing
for type-certificated aircraft. FAA also intends to gather data on the
effectiveness of a voluntary approach to compliance with part 36 for
non-type-certificated aircraft, as well as provide a means for those
who wish to demonstrate compliance for their own purposes, such as
preparing aircraft for international export or showing efforts to be a
good neighbor to noise-sensitive communities, to do so.
1. Authority To Regulate Aircraft Noise
The Administrator has authority to prescribe noise standards and
regulation ``as he deems necessary . . . to control and abate aircraft
noise and sonic boom'' under 49 U.S.C. 44715. Through this provision,
Congress provided broad discretionary authority for the Administrator
to prescribe noise regulations for any aircraft. In 1968, with the
addition of 49 U.S.C. 44715(a)(3), Congress mandated noise testing when
the agency issues type certificates. In addition to consultation with
appropriate Federal agencies and State authorities, 49 U.S.C. 44715(b)
directs the Administrator to consider four items when prescribing noise
regulation: (1) relevant information related to aircraft noise, (2)
whether the standard or regulation is consistent with the highest
degree of safety in air transportation or air commerce in the public
interest, (3) whether the standard or regulation is economically
reasonable, technologically practicable, and appropriate for the
applicable aircraft, aircraft engine, appliance, or certificate, and
(4) the extent to which the standard or regulation will carry out the
purposes of the section. Through these provisions Congress directed the
Administrator to regulate aircraft noise for type certificated
aircraft, which he did through the promulgation of part 36, and gave
the Administrator broad authority to regulate aircraft noise ``as he
deems necessary'' for aircraft not conforming to a type certificate.
2. Noise Certification Background
The primary means of controlling aircraft noise for type
certificated aircraft is assessing noise at its source, the aircraft
itself, against the noise limits in part 36 during the type
certification process. This process uses measurement procedures and
methods that are relevant to day-to-day operations to ensure designs
meet the noise limits. Noise limits are set based on weight, design,
and means of propulsion. Measurement procedures are based on leading
scientific practices for noise measurement. Part 36 has noise limits
and measurement procedures for fixed wing small airplanes, jets,
helicopters, and tiltrotor aircraft. Historically, as new aircraft
types develop, FAA gathers the appropriate data to determine the
acceptable level of noise and proper measurement procedures. If the
aircraft is sufficiently new and novel that it does not fit into an
existing category, FAA can develop an ad-hoc noise certification basis
for that specific aircraft with specific means and methods of
compliance.
3. Means and Methods of Compliance \321\
There are four means of compliance contemplated under this rule.
The use of industry consensus standards, the conventional means of
compliance available in part 36 for type certificated aircraft, the use
of a means of compliance developed for a same or sufficiently similar
type-certificated aircraft, or the development of an ad-hoc noise
compliance basis. Industry consensus standards for noise would be
developed by a consensus standards body and contain means and methods
of compliance approved by FAA. This consensus standards-based approach
would provide industry with unprecedented flexibility to develop lower
cost ways to demonstrate compliance than the noise testing required for
type certificated aircraft. For example, consensus standards may allow
the use of prediction models as a method of compliance rather than
require the extensive testing that is necessary for type certificated
aircraft. FAA anticipates that most persons who choose to comply with
part 36 will demonstrate compliance with this rule through adherence to
consensus standards when these standards are completed and approved by
FAA.
Conventional standards for type certificated aircraft in part 36
also serve as an option if a person seeking to comply so chooses or no
consensus standard exists. If conventional standards for part 36 are
utilized to demonstrate compliance, the aircraft must fit into one of
the categories in part 36 (fixed wing small airplane, transport
category large airplane, jet, helicopter, or tiltrotor). If FAA has
determined, for noise purposes, that an aircraft is the same or
sufficiently similar to a type certificated aircraft, compliance can be
demonstrated by using the same testing requirements and noise levels of
that type-certificated aircraft. If FAA finds that an aircraft is
sufficiently new and novel that it does not fit into a part 36
category, the agency can create an ad-hoc noise compliance basis by
modifying the certification basis of an aircraft that is type
certificated or utilize some combination of part 36 and other
standards. This could involve using parts of current regulations in
part 36, regulations in part 36 that are no longer used for new
certifications, accepted noise compliance standards that are not
published in part 36 (such as those applicable to a single aircraft
model), and portions of FAA-approved noise consensus standards. This
provision, Sec. 36.0(d)(2), which the final rule renumbers to Sec.
36.0(b)(3)(ii), is intended to allow the agency maximum flexibility to
find an appropriate combination of requirements.
Persons who choose to seek compliance with part 36 for their
aircraft will need to show that they meet the noise limits of that part
and submit an SOC to FAA to state they are in compliance. A person who
submits such an SOC to FAA may share that SOC with other interested
stakeholders. Manufacturers of light-sport category aircraft may use
FAA Form 8130-15 for this SOC.
By providing a variety of options, FAA hopes to incentivize
voluntary compliance with part 36 by minimizing

[[Page 35177]]

the cost of compliance for those who wish to do so.
4. Summary of Changes Between the NPRM and the Final Rule
FAA has made the following modifications and clarifications to the
final rule.
a. Compliance With Part 36 Noise Limits Voluntary for Non-Type-
Certificated Aircraft
The NPRM proposed expanding part 36 applicability to non-type
certificated aircraft ``at application for a first airworthiness
certificate, or when an aircraft previously issued an airworthiness
certificate incorporates an alteration that would result in an acoustic
change.'' \322\
As previously discussed, the Administrator has the authority to
regulate aircraft noise for non-type certificated aircraft at his
discretion. The statute that grants him this authority, 49 U.S.C.
44715, also requires him to consider ``relevant information related to
aircraft noise,'' and whether a potential ``standard or regulation is
economically reasonable, technologically practicable, and appropriate
for the applicable aircraft.'' In addition, while FAA anticipated in
the NPRM that most aircraft owners and manufacturers would utilize
consensus standards to demonstrate compliance with part 36, these
standards are not yet developed or approved by FAA. Given this is the
first time a consensus standards-based approach is being taken toward
demonstration of noise compliance, the risk of not having standards in
place prior to the effective date of this rule is elevated. The
preliminary Regulatory Impact Analysis for this rule concluded that if
these standards were not in place, it could cost up to $20,000 per
aircraft per model for compliance that would impose a significant cost
on aircraft owners and manufacturers.
On January 31, 2025, President Trump signed E.O. 14192 ``Unleashing
Prosperity Through Deregulation.'' In this order, the President
declared it the policy of the Executive Branch to ``. . . be prudent
and financially responsible in the expenditure of funds, from both
public and private sources, and to alleviate unnecessary regulatory
burdens placed on the American people.''
Considering the potential for additional cost burden on the public
and administration policy regarding reducing regulatory burden, the
Administrator cannot justify mandatory regulation of LSA noise at this
time.
Therefore, consistent with the requirements in 49 U.S.C. 44715 and
executive branch policy outlined in E.O. 14192, the Administrator has
chosen not to impose compliance with part 36 for aircraft not
conforming to a type certificate. FAA remains committed to reducing
public exposure to aircraft noise where appropriate and anticipates
using data gathered from voluntary compliance with part 36 under this
final rule to evaluate the effectiveness of this voluntary approach, as
well as the use of consensus standards for non-type certificated
aircraft to demonstrate compliance with part 36. The Administrator
reserves the right to promulgate future regulation under the authority
of 49 U.S.C. 44715 if necessary. FAA believes this approach minimizes
the burden on those seeking airworthiness certification while still
providing a means to comply for those who may want to demonstrate
compliance with part 36. Meanwhile, this approach eliminates the
potential burden on the public if consensus standards are not in place
by the effective date of this rule and maintains compliance with E.O.
14192's requirement to limit regulatory burden. In addition, FAA will
be able to gather data on the effectiveness of voluntary consensus
standards for aircraft not conforming to a type certificate to
demonstrate noise compliance.
Under this rule, altering an aircraft in a manner that increases
aircraft noise would invalidate a previously issued SOC, and noise
compliance would need to be reevaluated if a person wishes to show or
state compliance with part 36 for the altered aircraft.
b. Removal of Noise Provisions From Sec. Sec. 91.319(l) and
91.327(b)(4)
The NPRM proposed to apply 14 CFR part 36 noise requirements to
some light-sport category aircraft and, accordingly, proposed to amend
Sec. Sec. 91.327(b)(4) and 91.319(l) to prohibit a person from
operating an aircraft issued an experimental airworthiness certificate
under Sec. 21.191(i) or (j), or a special airworthiness certificate in
the light-sport category, respectively, unless the aircraft
demonstrated compliance with the applicable requirements of part 36.
Commenters, including Hartzell Propeller, expressed concern with
placing responsibility on pilots for knowing whether their aircraft
complied with part 36. Specifically, Hartzell Propeller stated the
proposed amendments may pose an issue for pilots, because there would
be no statement in flight manuals, logbooks, or similar documents
indicating whether part 36 is applicable to a particular aircraft and,
if so, whether the requirements of part 36 have been met. Hartzell
Propeller questioned whether it should be the pilot's responsibility to
determine the applicability of part 36 to a given aircraft and stated
the noise provisions should not be enforced at the pilot operating
level.
FAA agrees that placing the responsibility on the pilot as stated
in the NPRM would not have been appropriate, and responsibility would
have better been placed on the aircraft owner. However, in removing the
requirement for mandatory compliance with part 36 for alterations of
light-sport category and experimental light-sport kit-built aircraft,
the proposed operating limitations in Sec. Sec. 91.327(b)(4) and
91.319(l) are no longer relevant and are removed in this final rule.
Any persons seeking to voluntarily comply with part 36 under this rule
must submit a statement of compliance to FAA per Sec. 36.0.
c. Agriculture and Firefighting Aircraft Remain Exempt From Part 36
FAA requested comment on whether any other categories of aircraft
should or should not be subject to part 36 noise requirements. NAAA and
GAMA expressed concern that agricultural and firefighting aircraft not
conforming to a type certificate would be required to comply with part
36 under this rule.
In removing the requirement for mandatory compliance with part 36
for all non-type-certificated aircraft, exempting non-type-certificated
aircraft that have been designated exclusively for agricultural or
firefighting aircraft operations is unnecessary. Persons seeking to
voluntarily comply with part 36, including for aircraft designated for
agricultural or firefighting aircraft operations, may opt to
demonstrate compliance with part 36 under this rule.
d. Modification of the Factors for Evaluating Noise Consensus Standards
In the preamble to the NPRM, FAA articulated a set of factors that
it anticipated using to evaluate noise consensus standards. Many
commenters argued that these factors were too strict and impractical to
follow. In response, FAA has modified these factors. Specifically, the
factor that ``The noise levels generated from using the standard must
be within 90 percent of confidence limits and must be within +/-2
decibels A (dBA) when compared to results from using the full noise
measurement procedures in the corresponding appendix of part 36'' has
been modified to ``within +/-3dB,'' and the 90 percent confidence
limits

[[Page 35178]]

requirement has been removed. These changes simplify the criteria and
make it easier to balance the rigor of the methods with ease of use.
In addition, FAA made a minor modification in a factor for
clarification. The factor ``The standard must consider developments in
other associated fields (such as research programs into quantification
and control of aircraft noise) and participation by stakeholders'' was
modified to add ``in the development of the standard'' following
``stakeholders'' to clarify that FAA expects to consider the degree to
which stakeholders participated in the standard development process.
The remaining factors remain unchanged as they were outlined in the
NPRM. FAA, therefore, now expects to consider the following four
factors when evaluating new noise consensus standards to evaluate
compliance:
(1) The methods in the standard, whether based in physical noise
testing or through validated and/or generally accepted noise prediction
methods, must be environmentally responsible, economically reasonable,
technologically practicable, and appropriate for the aircraft to which
it would apply;
(2) The standard must consider developments in other associated
fields (such as research programs into quantification and control of
aircraft noise) and participation by stakeholders in the development of
the standard;
(3) The noise levels generated from using the standard must be
within +/-3 decibels A (dBA) when compared to results from using the
full noise measurement procedures in the corresponding appendix of part
36; and
(4) The standard must clearly document all assumptions used in the
development, validation, results, and limitations of the methods
presented.
e. Technical Corrections
FAA made several revisions to part 36 to conform to the changes
discussed in this preamble. Section Sec. 36.0 has been retitled to
``Applicability and statements of compliance for aircraft that do not
conform to a type certificate.'' to reflect the nature of the section.
Throughout Sec. 36.0 regulatory text has been modified to reflect that
``persons'' may voluntarily seek to demonstrate part 36 compliance,
rather than reflecting ``applicants'' are required to apply for noise
certification as proposed in the NPRM. In addition, the entirety of
Sec. 36.0 has been reorganized for clarity. The citations below
reflect the location of the relevant text in the final rule.
Section 36.0(a) has been modified to reflect that the section
applies to persons seeking to show compliance with noise standards for
aircraft not conforming to a type certificate described in Sec. Sec.
21.190, 21.191(k), or 21.191(l), of this chapter. The NPRM proposed
including all aircraft certificated under Sec. 21.191. This change
clarifies that Sec. 36.0 is only applicable to experimental aircraft
that are operating light-sport category kit-built aircraft (Sec.
21.191(k)) and operating former light-sport category aircraft (Sec.
21.191(l)). In addition, the final rule omits Sec. 21.193(h) and part
22 from Sec. 36.0(a) as redundant as Sec. Sec. 21.190, 21.191(k), and
21.191(l) are sufficient to cover the aircraft intended by this rule.
Section 36.0(b)(1) and (b)(3) have been modified to reference
aircraft described under Sec. 36.0(a) rather than aircraft that do not
conform to a type certificate to more accurately reference the aircraft
these provisions apply to.
Section 36.0(b)(1)(ii) has been modified to remove ``and applicable
to the aircraft's specific design'' as FAA determining the
appropriateness for the aircraft includes determining if the consensus
standard is appropriate for the ``aircraft's specific design.''
Section 36.0(b)(3)(i)(A) has been modified to clarify that a person
seeking to demonstrate compliance with part 36 for an aircraft for
which Sec. 36.0(a) applies may use the same testing requirements as a
type-certificated aircraft if FAA determines for noise purposes the two
aircraft are substantially similar.
Section 36.0(b)(3)(i)(B) has been modified to remove ``to the
aircraft when the aircraft has not been altered to result in an
acoustical change.'' This reflects that when an aircraft is type
certificated, it includes compliance with part 36. Therefore, this text
is unnecessary. Section 36.0(b)(3)(i)(B) has also been modified to
clarify that FAA is determining for noise purposes whether the type-
certificated aircraft is the same or sufficiently similar in design.
Section 36.0(b)(3)(ii) has been modified to replace the word ``an
applicant'' with ``a person'' as the entity that can seek noise
compliance for conformity with the remainder of Sec. 36.0.
FAA has also split Sec. 36.1501(a) into two sub-paragraphs, Sec.
36.1501(a)(1) and (2), to differentiate between aircraft with and
without type certificates. These modifications do not change the
substance of this requirement for aircraft with type certificates. For
aircraft without type certificates, given compliance with part 36 is
now voluntary, the final rule in Sec. 36.1501(a)(2) revises the NPRM
proposed requirement to include noise levels in the POH to instead
require that all procedures, weights, configurations, and other
information or data employed for obtaining noise levels, including
equivalent procedures used for flight testing and analysis must be
provided by the applicant to FAA. This change was made to maintain
consistency with the SOC requirements.
This final rule relocates the substance of proposed Sec.
36.1581(h)(1), (2), and (3) to Sec. 36.0(c)(1)(i), (ii), and (iii),
respectively. Section 36.0(c)(1)(i) has been modified to add ``the
applicable provisions of'' to narrow the SOC to the applicable
provisions of part 36. Section 36.0(c)(1)(ii) has been modified to add
``, and procedures, aircraft configurations, aircraft weights, and
other information employed for obtaining the noise levels'' to maintain
consistence with the SOC requirements. Section 36.0(c)(1)(iii) has been
revised to add ``or unacceptable'' to match the statement currently
required in Sec. 36.1581(c). This language was inadvertently omitted
from the NPRM proposal. The remainder of proposed Sec. 36.1581(h) is
removed completely as voluntary noise compliance is documented by an
SOC and is not as specified in Sec. Sec. 21.190(d) or 21.191.
5. Discussion of Comments
a. Suitability of Noise Limits to Light-Sport Category Aircraft
Industry commenters including GAMA, Van's Aircraft, and Hartzell
Propeller, as well as some individuals, expressed concern about or
opposed adding noise requirements to light-sport category aircraft.
The commenters stated light-sport category aircraft are limited in
size and already have a reduced noise profile. In addition, Van's
Aircraft and Hartzell Propeller stated they reviewed EASA and FAA noise
databases and stated light-sport category aircraft fall well below the
maximum noise level limits. Van's Aircraft also commented that most of
its light-sport category aircraft would easily meet existing noise
requirements; specifically, stating the company's RV models built in
Europe must demonstrate noise compliance for EASA certification. Van's
Aircraft also stated noise certification requirements could lead to a
detrimental decrease in safety-enhancing aircraft performance.
FAA disagrees with the claim that the NPRM would have required
design changes, compromises, or performance reductions that could
negatively impact safety. Since multiple industry commenters have
stated most light-sport category aircraft are already quiet and likely
meet the noise requirements, there would have been minimal need for

[[Page 35179]]

design changes. In addition, Van's Aircraft stated in its comments that
its aircraft are already required to comply with EASA's noise
certification requirements, which are more stringent than those
proposed under the NPRM. Even if design changes would have been
necessary to meet proposed noise requirements of the NPRM, aircraft
would have still needed to meet airworthiness requirements that ensure
the aircraft is safe for flight.
As previously stated, the Administrator has chosen not to mandate
part 36 for aircraft not conforming to a type certificate. This change
was made, in part, due to feedback from individuals, manufacturers, and
associations on the proposal to mandate noise requirements.
As stated previously, this final rule retains requirements and
procedures applicable to certain non-type-certificated aircraft should
a person or manufacturer choose to demonstrate compliance with part 36.
Specifically, this final rule revises proposed Sec. 36.0 to (1) state
this provision applies to light-sport category aircraft and light-sport
category kit-built aircraft that do not conform to a type certificate,
(2) clarify the voluntary provision for a person to comply with part 36
and to document that compliance with an SOC, (3) relocate the
information for documenting compliance to this section from Sec.
36.1581(h), and (4) delete paragraph (e) since listing exceptions is no
longer applicable for a voluntary provision.
The United States Ultralight Association (USUA) recommended that
FAA remove noise requirements from the final rule. USUA argued the
justification for the noise requirements was a `` `just in case'
argument'' and sought to remind FAA that ``if a problem manifests
itself with `obsolete, overly loud technology' being introduced into
the fleet that the agency will still have the ability to create
regulations and policies to address real problems.'' Comment from
United States Ultralight Association (USUA), FAA-2023-1377-1302
(quoting from the NPRM).
FAA acknowledged in the NPRM there are existing noise concerns, and
these concerns along with the potential growth of LSA aircraft led the
agency to propose regulation of noise to limit the future adverse
impact of LSA noise. Following review of public comments and assessing
the potential costs of noise compliance, along with the fact that
current policy of the United States is to avoid regulatory burden
wherever possible, FAA is proceeding with a voluntary program for those
who wish to comply. As USUA suggests, this data-gathering will help FAA
regulate noise from non-type-certificated aircraft if the Administrator
deems it necessary at a future date.
Hartzell Propeller stated FAA did not provide any rationale for the
expected cost of compliance with part 36. It asserted FAA should
prepare more details, including timelines and the potential opportunity
cost of lost sales, for several different project scenarios, as well as
including the costs use of professional services such as Designated
Engineering Representatives (DERs). Van's aircraft expressed concern
about the backlog of testing that could occur if LSA were required to
be tested to certify part 36 compliance as well as the high costs if
testing were required.
In the preliminary Regulatory Impact Analysis (RIA) for this rule,
FAA provided a lower bound cost estimate based on the use of industry
consensus standards that may rely on prediction methods as a means of
compliance. In the case of the prediction-based approach, the cost of
estimating aircraft noise levels was anticipated to be de minimis. The
preliminary RIA also included an upper bound estimate using noise type
certification testing for an average of $20,000 per LSA model. This
upper-bound estimate considers flight testing and the use of a
professional service such as acoustic DER. See the preliminary RIA on
the docket for more information. While FAA anticipates most persons
seeking voluntary compliance to part 36 to utilize the prediction-based
approach based on consensus standards, the upper bound cost estimate
serves as a ``worst case scenario'' based on established data and
methods. Because consensus standards are not yet in place, the agency
considered this ``worst case scenario'' when assessing potential burden
on the public to avoid underestimating the impact.
Because the mandatory noise certification had the potential to add
costs and burden to the public, and given the administration policy
regarding reducing regulatory burden, FAA decided the potential noise
mitigation did not justify the cost of mandatory noise certification of
aircraft not conforming to a type certificate.
b. Suitability of Applying Noise Limits to Some Experimental Aircraft
GAMA, EAA, and some individual and industry commenters expressed
concerns with applying noise requirements to some experimental aircraft
and stated it would burden individual aircraft owners without clear
benefits. Commenters also said the new noise requirements may stifle
experimentation, especially for EAB aircraft.
As compliance with part 36 for aircraft without type certificates
under this rule is now voluntary, individual aircraft owners and
manufacturers are free to make whatever decisions they deem
appropriate, within the boundaries of 14 CFR. FAA notes, however, that
Congress granted it statutory authority and responsibility to regulate
aircraft noise to protect the public health and welfare. As illustrated
by FAA's regular noise reviews and noise-based litigation, this is an
issue that greatly animates the public. FAA does not agree, as some
commentors insinuated, that noise certification lacks value entirely.
c. Suitability of Applying Consensus Standards to Powered-Lift Aircraft
EASA had concerns about the suitability of noise consensus
standards for powered-lift aircraft, because there is limited noise
measurement data available for them. Hartzell Propeller commented that
some novel aircraft designs are yet to be well defined and are not
covered by the aircraft categories shown in part 36, so applying noise
requirements to those aircraft would be detrimental to the industry.
FAA agrees with EASA and anticipates that development of consensus
noise standards would focus on aircraft that already have sufficient
noise data available. FAA notes this rule does not create new noise
limits but rather uses the noise limits already included in part 36.
Further, FAA works with other regulatory authorities and industry
and has been actively engaged in the International Civil Aviation
Organization Committee of Aviation Environmental Protection Working
Group 1 (ICAO CAEP WG1) to develop future noise standards for powered
lift aircraft.
For novel aircraft, including some powered lift aircraft, voluntary
noise compliance could be demonstrated through proposed Sec.
36.0(d)(2), which the final rule renumbers to Sec. 36.0(b)(3)(ii),
even when there are no industry consensus standards and an aircraft
does not fit into an existing part 36 category. This approach was
adopted to provide flexibility to persons who choose to seek part 36
noise certification.
d. Use of Consensus Standards
Industry associations and individual commenters generally supported
the use of industry consensus standards in

[[Page 35180]]

noise certification of light-sport category aircraft but expressed
concern about the resources required to develop the standards and the
technical challenge in developing consensus standards. Several
commenters including Hartzell Propeller, GAMA, EASA, EAA, and
individuals wondered why FAA would ``approve'' noise consensus
standards while FAA ``accepts'' safety-based airworthiness standards.
Hartzell Propeller cited challenges in developing industry
consensus standards, such as balancing technical rigor with ease of
use, considering that manufacturers or owners of aircraft may not have
experience in noise certification. It also cited the need for accessing
FAA's aircraft noise data to support standard development. In addition,
Hartzell Propeller expressed concern about whether the noise consensus
standards would be available in time for the effective date of the rule
and if the standards would be able to cover all the aircraft design
types covered by this rule.
EASA indicated a need to maintain a sufficient level of regulatory
oversight in terms of approval of the consensus standards and methods
used in demonstrating compliance, citing the need for harmonization
between the two regulatory bodies. EASA stated it currently applies the
same noise requirements to light-sport category aircraft as it does to
type certificated aircraft, that is, noise flight testing to
demonstrate compliance.
EASA and Hartzell Propeller sought clarification about the criteria
used in validating industry consensus standards. Hartzell Propeller
indicated +/-2 decibels might be too narrow a range for prediction-
based methods.
FAA is requiring approval of noise consensus standards in this rule
because the use of consensus standards for noise certification is new
for both government and industry, and it believes approval is necessary
to ensure the process accomplishes the intended goals. FAA's approval
process of noise consensus standards for aircraft not conforming to a
type certificate is similar to FAA's approval process for equivalent
noise testing procedures used for type-certificated aircraft. The
factors that describe how FAA will evaluate these consensus standards
are given above, in section IV.N.5.d, and those factors have been
broadened beyond +/-2 decibels. Utilizing a proven process is important
for both supporting industry and working with international partners.
FAA agrees with the commenters that there is no guarantee that
consensus standards will be complete by the effective date of this
rule. The agency is willing to support consensus standard development
by sharing noise data and by providing input to standard development
organizations on an ``as-needed'' basis and will do so consistent with
the requirements and procedures found in OMB Circular No. A-119. FAA
expects industry will take a leading role in the development of noise
consensus standards, as it has with airworthiness standards.
FAA acknowledges the Hartzell Propeller comment regarding balancing
technical rigor with ease of use and can provide input on specific
topics on an as-needed basis. FAA expects standard-setting committees
to balance this to the best of their knowledge and engineering
judgement. In evaluating noise consensus standards for approval, FAA
will focus on the factors described in section IV.N.5.d of this rule.
FAA already works with EASA and other authorities to harmonize the
practices used in noise certification for type certificated aircraft
and expects to do the same for non-type certificated aircraft going
forward.
FAA also notes that if an aircraft not conforming to a type
certificate is of the same design as an aircraft that has already
received noise certification from EASA in accordance with ICAO Annex 16
Volume 1, the manufacturer can use the noise data from its EASA
certification to demonstrate compliance with the voluntary noise
requirements of this rule.
e. Demonstration of Compliance
Industry commenters including GAMA, Hartzell Propeller, EAA, and
many individuals sought clarification about the level of oversight FAA
will require to demonstrate compliance. They expressed concerns that if
the level of oversight required would be similar to that of noise
certification of type certificated aircraft, it would delay projects
and cause resource constraints for both FAA and the industry. Many
suggested the use of a self-declaration process to show compliance with
part 36. GAMA commented that Sec. 36.1581(h) is not necessary for
special light-sport category aircraft (S-LSA) because if noise
compliance is required, it may be enforced elsewhere rather than at the
pilot operating level. Hartzell Propeller further commented that
requiring an airworthiness change for an experimental light-sport
category aircraft (E-LSA) from one experimental category to a different
experimental category for the purposes of testing a modification
accomplishes little.
As discussed earlier in this preamble, FAA has provided several
means of compliance that the agency believes provides a flexible
approach to demonstrate compliance with part 36. Through use of a
voluntary approach, FAA can gather information on the effectiveness of
voluntary compliance with part 36 for non-type certificated aircraft.
The statement of compliance process utilized by this rule is self-
declarative in nature and will not require the level of FAA oversight
required for type certification projects.
Since this final rule makes compliance with part 36 voluntary for
non-type-certificated aircraft, this final rule also removes from part
21 corresponding requirements for an SOC to part 36. Similarly, this
final rule deletes from the last sentence of proposed Sec. 36.1501(a),
``noise levels achieved during airworthiness certification must be
included in the Pilot's Operating Handbook,'' and deletes the second
sentence of proposed Sec. 36.1851(h), ``Noise compliance with this
part must be documented as specified in Sec. 21.190(ed) or 21.191 of
this chapter, as applicable.'' This final rule relocates the substance
of proposed Sec. 36.1581(h)(1), (2), and (3) to Sec. 36.0(c)(1). As
stated earlier in this preamble, manufacturers and persons seeking
voluntary compliance with part 36 may display the SOC in a manner of
their choosing.
f. Other Comments on Certification Processes and Standards
EASA and Hartzell Propeller had questions and concerns related to
the applicability of part 36 appendix F to noise certification under
this rule. EASA sought clarification as to whether the use of appendix
F would be exclusively for compliance demonstration. EASA, Hartzell
Propeller, and individuals also commented that the requirements for
testing in appendix F are not necessarily simpler than appendix G, as
asserted in the NPRM.
FAA notes that use of appendix F was offered as an example of a
method that could serve as the basis of a consensus noise standard, not
necessarily a means or method of compliance that should be undertaken
for noise certification. This example was offered because appendix F
uses an A-weighted maximum noise level (Lamax) while appendix G
requires measurement of sound exposure level (SEL). If a prediction
model is to be used for propeller driven aircraft, it is generally
easier to predict Lamax than SEL. This final rule does not require
appendix F flight testing procedures or correction of noise levels from
appendix F to appendix G.
Hartzell Propeller commented that the noise requirements for
propeller-driven

[[Page 35181]]

aircraft in part 36 create a ``tilted playing field'' with respect to
aircraft age and weight, and the noise limit curve penalizes newer and
lighter aircraft, discouraging aircraft turnover. Van's Aircraft also
questioned the reason for the weight-based approach to noise
classification. FAA notes the noise limits in part 36 are identical to
the globally recognized ICAO standards and are based on extensive
collaboration and coordination among aviation authorities of ICAO
member states and industry representatives worldwide. ICAO recognizes
that larger, heavier aircraft yield greater utility and thus should be
allowed to generate more noise. This concept serves as the basis for
these standards.
Hartzell Propeller suggested that FAA continue to issue
airworthiness certificates to LSA based on designs in production prior
to the effective date, even if those newly constructed aircraft do not
comply with part 36.
On or after July 24, 2026, FAA will only issue an airworthiness
certificate for a light-sport category aircraft if the applicant meets
the requirements of this final rule. See related discussion in sections
IV.L.2.e and IV.Q. As previously discussed throughout section IV.N,
this final rule does not require compliance with part 36 for non-type-
certificated aircraft.
g. Community Noise Concerns
FAA received 13 comments on the MOSAIC NPRM from community groups
and individuals expressing concern about the impacts of noise from
expanded MOSAIC provisions.
AICA stated noise impacts of the NPRM are difficult to determine by
impacted communities, insufficient information was shared by FAA, and
the rule will result in increased levels of high-performance aircraft.
It also stated part 36 noise limits referenced in the rule are
difficult for communities to understand, let alone evaluate.
Several individuals who commented expressed concerns, stating that
FAA has failed to address worsening aircraft noise, particularly from
general aviation, as well as the impact of noise on public health,
environmental quality, and community welfare. Commenters stated they
believed the MOSAIC rule could potentially exacerbate these issues by
introducing more aircraft and pilots without adequately balancing the
resulting noise and environmental effects. In addition, commenters
referenced FAA's recent Noise Policy Review (NPR), which received
thousands of submissions documenting noise impacts from general
aviation. Commenters urged FAA to prioritize compliance with its
obligations under 49 U.S.C. 44715 to protect public health and welfare
from aircraft noise before advancing the MOSAIC rule.\323\
FAA recognizes that aircraft noise is a concern for many
stakeholders. The agency's Neighborhood Environmental Survey (NES) and
ongoing NPR reflect FAA's ongoing commitment to understand aircraft
noise across all aircraft. As discussed earlier, under 49 U.S.C. 44715,
the Administrator has full discretionary authority over when to
prescribe regulations to control and abate aircraft noise for non type-
certificated aircraft. Among the considerations when exercising this
authority are relevant information related to aircraft noise,
consistency with the highest degree of safety in air transportation or
air commerce in the public interest, and economic reasonableness. In
addition, under E.O. 14192, it is the policy of the executive branch to
``alleviate unnecessary regulatory burdens placed on the American
people.'' After giving due consideration to the factors outlined in 49
U.S.C. 44715, and consistent with current executive branch policy under
E.O. 14192, the Administrator has decided not to exercise his authority
at this time.
The Programmatic Environmental Assessment (PEA) discloses the
potential environmental impacts associated with this rule and its
implementation, including noise impacts. A draft PEA for this rule
based on policy in the NPRM was issued on May 27, 2025, for public
comment. A final PEA based on policy included in this final rule is
described in section V.G and is available on this rule's docket. In
general, both PEAs and the associated noise technical studies
demonstrate this final rule would not result in significant adverse
noise impacts. Please refer to the final PEA for further information on
noise impacts.
FAA believes that by establishing a process for non-type
certificated aircraft to voluntarily demonstrate compliance with part
36, the agency has provided an option for those who wish to do so,
while also providing a method to determine the effectiveness of
voluntary standards for aircraft not conforming to a type certificate.
This voluntary program may also provide useful data should future
policy changes be necessary.
h. General Comments
GAMA, VAI, EAA, AOPA, NATA, NBAA, and many individuals commented on
the following sentences in the NPRM: ``In the past two decades, the
reality of the number of aircraft operating that do not conform to a
type certificate has overtaken those historical presumptions. There are
now tens of thousands of aircraft that do not conform to type
certificates, many of them nearly identical.''
Commenters disputed this, saying that while many experimental
aircraft may indeed appear ``nearly identical,'' engines, propellers,
and exhaust systems vary widely even among similar airframes.
FAA intended to describe models of aircraft not conforming to a
type certificate that are similar to specific type certificated general
aviation aircraft. The agency acknowledges there are similar models and
airframes with significantly different noise profiles due to variations
among engines, propellers, exhaust, and other systems.
Hartzell Propeller expressed concern that the proposed part 36
requirements would apply to existing aircraft types for which there are
no FAA de[filig]ned or accepted procedures or limits for noise
compliance in part 36; namely gyroplanes, weight shift control
vehicles, and powered parachutes. Hartzell Propeller further stated the
industry cannot de[filig]ne a consensus standard for these vehicles for
the same reason.
FAA reiterates that balloons, gyroplanes, weight shift control
vehicles, and powered parachutes, which have no or limited noise
sources and do not readily fit into categories with noise measurement
standards defined in part 36 appendices, were excepted from the
requirement to demonstrate compliance with part 36 under Sec.
36.0(e)(2) in the NPRM. Regardless, under this final rule, compliance
with part 36 is voluntary for all light-sport category aircraft and
light-sport category kit-built aircraft that are not type-certificated.
Hartzell Propeller questioned the organization of the noise
requirements added to multiple sections of the CFR, i.e., in parts 21,
22, 36 and 91, and suggested consolidation of those references.
Further, the commenter argued that the manner in which part 36
compliance was applied to all experimental categories and then exempted
all but light sport was problematic, because it could possibly imply
some future rulemaking.
As discussed previously, under this final rule compliance with part
36 is voluntary for all light-sport category aircraft and light-sport
category kit-built aircraft that do not conform to a type-certificate.
As such, corresponding requirements in parts 21, 22, and 91 no longer
apply and are removed.

[[Page 35182]]

O. Import and Export of Aircraft

The NPRM proposed to amend Sec. 21.183(d)(2) to enable acceptance
of an inspection performed by a foreign maintenance organization to
support imports of used aircraft from countries with which the U.S. has
a bilateral agreement that includes acceptance of imported aircraft.
That proposal was intended to align regulatory text with the intent
expressed in the preamble when Sec. 21.183(d)(2) was last amended. No
comments were submitted to the docket concerning this proposal. This
final rule adopts this section as proposed.
The NPRM proposed revising Sec. 21.327 to require that an
applicant for an export certificate of airworthiness for an aircraft be
an owner of that aircraft and the aircraft must be registered in the
U.S. This proposal would preclude persons from exporting aircraft for
which they are neither the owner nor the owner's agent. Furthermore, by
requiring the aircraft to be registered in the U.S., this proposal
would allow the aircraft to be under the regulatory authority of the
U.S. before export. FAA received two comments related to this proposal.
One commenter asked if an owner's agent would be able to apply for
an export certificate of airworthiness for an aircraft. As discussed in
the preamble of the NPRM, an owner's agent would be able to sign and
submit this application. The final rule amends this section to add,
``(or the agent of the owner)'' for clarity.
Another commenter stated an amendment concerning importing or
exporting aircraft should be addressed in separate rulemaking. FAA has
full latitude for managing its rulemaking activities, including whether
to bundle proposals within one rulemaking action or address such
proposals in separate rulemaking actions. The NPRM was a combination of
many different proposals related to special airworthiness
certification, and this change concerning exports was well within the
scope of these proposals, especially for export of type-certificated
aircraft that are issued special airworthiness certificates. Also, FAA
notes that the table of contents on the cover page of the NPRM showed a
section of the NPRM for amendments concerning import and export of
aircraft, clearly indicating inclusion of this subject matter on the
first page of the NPRM. Accordingly, given that FAA acted rationally
and within its authority for combining proposals within a given
rulemaking action, FAA disagrees with the commenter that this matter
should be addressed in separate rulemaking.
This final rule adopts Sec. 21.327 as proposed, except for the
addition regarding agents discussed above.
The NPRM proposed revising Sec. 21.329(a)(1) requirements for the
issuance of an export certificate of airworthiness to remove the word
``airworthiness,'' clarifying that a new or used aircraft manufactured
under subpart F or G of the part would need to meet all applicable
requirements under subpart H of the part--not just those requirements
that may apply to airworthiness. Subpart H contains requirements for
items other than airworthiness, such as requirements for aircraft
registration and identification. No comments were submitted to the
docket concerning this proposal. This final rule adopts this section as
proposed.

P. Other Out of Scope Comments

MFTC and GAMA commented that this NPRM only covers FAA-issued
experimental flight permits and requested that this NPRM apply to FAA-
issued special flight authorizations (SFA) also. MFTC noted
Bombardier's flight test vehicles are Canadian-built and registered and
have TCCA experimental flight permits with FAA SFAs and operate in the
U.S. (i.e. Bombardier at Wichita Airport).
FAA did not address SFAs in the NPRM and there were no proposed
changes to SFA-related regulations in the NPRM. In addition, it is
unclear specifically what parts of the NPRM are being requested apply
to SFAs and what the rationales or justifications would be for
expanding applicability to SFAs for each part, as none is offered in
the comment. As such, FAA disagrees with this recommendation for this
final rule as it lacks sufficient clarity to appropriately consider the
recommendation, and it may be a substantive change that exceeds the
scope of this rulemaking. Such a proposal would likely require
appropriate notice to the public and opportunity for comment.
One commenter stated the MOSAIC proposal does not address the kit
aircraft community under the current ``fifty-one percent'' rule under
Sec. 21.191(g). The commenter recommended either eliminating the
``fifty-one percent'' rule or modifying the ``fifty-one percent'' rule
to remove ``substantially.'' FAA notes the ``fifty-one percent'' rule
is a common reference to the requirements to obtain an experimental
airworthiness certificate for the purpose of operating amateur-built
aircraft. Specifically, Sec. 21.191(g) requires that the major portion
of the aircraft has been fabricated and assembled by persons who
undertook the construction project solely for their own education or
recreation. As noted in the comment, the NPRM did not address kit
aircraft in terms of the ``fifty-one percent'' rule. FAA disagrees with
this recommendation as it is outside the scope of this rulemaking. Such
a proposal would require appropriate notice to the public and
opportunity for comment.
One commenter stated, in reference to aircraft parts and
components, that manufacturers provide parts but may not have them in
stock or in some cases the company may cease to exist. This can leave
aircraft owners with needlessly grounded aircraft. The commenter
encouraged FAA to collaborate with the industry to [filig]nd a solution
to this ``checkmate'' situation and stated perhaps there can be a way
to provide a ``field approval'' of sorts to allow parts fabrication.
Revising regulations related to parts fabrication is out of scope of
this rulemaking and would require appropriate notice to the public and
opportunity for comment.

Q. Effective and Compliance Dates

The NPRM proposed requiring compliance with the rule based upon two
staggered effective dates. The NPRM proposed an effective date of two
months after publication of the final rule for provisions that do not
depend on the creation or revision of industry consensus standards. For
proposals that depend on the creation or revision of industry consensus
standards, the NPRM proposed an effective date of six months after the
final rule to allow organizations that are currently developing
industry consensus standards to finalize its consensus standards based
on the final rule; FAA review and acceptance or approval of such
consensus standards; notice of availability of such standards; and
sufficient time to allow manufacturers to design, retool, obtain
supplies, subcontract, train employees, produce parts, assemble,
conduct flight and ground testing, and create required documentation.
Section IV.L of the NPRM discussed and listed the proposed rules for
which this proposed six-month effective date would apply.
As proposed in the NPRM, after the effective date of six months
after publishing the final rule, manufacturers of light-sport category
aircraft would be unable to deliver new aircraft until all required
consensus standards for the applicable class of aircraft have been
revised and accepted or approved by

[[Page 35183]]

FAA, and that are non-compliant with new requirements.
Since the delayed effective date of six months is intended to
accommodate industry responsibilities for compliance with the final
rule, the NPRM requested comment on whether six months appropriately
balances enabling compliance as soon as practical with the need for
additional time to prepare for compliance with the final rule.
Following publication of the NPRM, FAA identified other proposed
amendments that would be impacted by the availability of new or revised
consensus standards related to the light-sport sector. In addition, as
part of its proposed amendment to Sec. 91.319, FAA committed to
developing procedures concerning operating limitations for operations
over densely populated areas and in congested airways that it would
provide to the public for comment prior to adoption. Those procedures
impact issuance of experimental airworthiness certificates. Similarly,
this final rule amends operating limitations for restricted category
aircraft under Sec. 91.313 and creates new operating limitations for
experimental aircraft conducting space support vehicle flights in Sec.
91.331. Development of procedures concerning the issuance of these
operating limitations for public review and comment merits application
of a longer effective date for Sec. Sec. 91.313, 91.319, and 91.331.
FAA received 14 comments related to effective dates. Streamline
Designs commented with respect to Sec. 21.190(d)(6), that an effective
date of at least 12 months is required to prevent a situation in which
manufacturers are unable to deliver aircraft by allowing sufficient
time for completion and FAA-acceptance of supporting consensus
standards and for manufacturers to revise compliance documentation. FAA
notes that no class of light-sport category aircraft will meet part 22
without new or revised consensus standards. Because consensus standards
are a means of compliance to the final rule's requirements, they cannot
be finalized until after publication of the final rule. Based on the
time for industry to revise consensus standards to meet the
requirements of the final rule; for FAA to review, accept or approve,
and publish notices of availability for those consensus standards; for
manufacturers to revise their compliance documentation; and for
manufacturer compliance, FAA agrees with the commenter that an
effective date of approximately a year is necessary for any provision
that depends on the creation or revision of industry consensus
standards.
One commenter stated at least one year is required to promulgate
guidance, allow the public time to understand the changes, and for FAA
to fulfill its responsibilities. Similarly, another commenter argued
that a minimum of six months is required for all proposals, given the
massive scope of proposals.
FAA agrees that more time is required than provided for with the
proposed first effective date of two months after publication of the
final rule to promulgate draft guidance and directives with the final
rule for public comment, revise those documents based on public
comment, and publish final documents to support the first effective
date. This rule, therefore, will apply an effective date of 90 days
after publication of this final rule for provisions that do not depend
on the creation or revision of industry consensus standards or new
procedures for establishing operating limitations under Sec. Sec.
91.313, 91.319, and 91.331.
Regarding the comment concerning the scope of the NPRM, the scope
of the whole rule is not the sole factor for implementing parts of the
rule. Other factors include whether a particular element of the rule is
relieving, enabling, ready to implement, dependent on new or revised
consensus standards and such. Some parts of the rule are clearly
relieving, enabling, ready to implement, or not dependent on revised
consensus standards. As such, their implementation may be quicker to
enable the public to benefit sooner. Other parts of the rule require
more steps for implementation and thus require more time to prepare for
implementation.
The estimated time needed to implement the MOSAIC final rule is the
basis for establishing the two delayed effective dates described in
this rule. Accordingly, FAA will implement some rules sooner and others
later, as described for individual amendments throughout this preamble.
Hartzell Propeller doubted that two months from the final rule
would be sufficient time for FAA to manage and complete projects and
for FAA-accepted consensus standards to be available. The NPRM
addressed this concern with a longer proposed effective date to enable
completion and acceptance of new or revised consensus standards and for
manufacturer compliance with those standards. As discussed previously
in this section, FAA agrees that more time is required than provided
for with the proposed first effective date of two months after
publication of the final rule to promulgate draft guidance and
directives with the final rule for public comment, revise those
documents based on public comment, and publish final documents to
support the first effective date.
Hartzell Propeller also commented about the effective date of the
final rule as it relates to kit-built, light-sport category aircraft.
Hartzell Propeller described that the process of procurement of kits
and components, assembling, testing, and certification often occurs
over many years. Accordingly, builders who started such projects before
this final rule should not be subject to the new requirements. FAA
understands and agrees with this argument. Requirements of the final
rule applicable to kit-built light-sport category aircraft will apply
to light-sport aircraft kits purchased on or after the applicable
effective date of this rule.
Van's Aircraft requested a provision to allow existing light-sport
aircraft to be produced for some period after publication of the final
rule. The delayed effective date in the final rule is intended for this
purpose. Van's Aircraft did not offer comment on the sufficiency of the
proposed effective date of six months for this purpose. Van's Aircraft
also requested provision to allow an ``overlap'' of unspecified
duration during which manufacturers could produce under the regulations
in existence prior to the final rule or those regulations as amended by
the final rule. The NPRM did not propose such an overlap provision. An
overlap would require retaining both the pre-amended and as-amended
text of the regulations. As described in the NPRM, the proposed rule
includes deleting a definition of light sport aircraft in part 1 that
is applied in multiple 14 CFR parts, the creation of part 22, and the
establishment of separate eligibility requirements for aircraft, sport
pilot, and light-sport repairman certification. Providing an overlap of
current and proposed requirements, therefore, would require overly
complex regulatory text, implementing policies and guidance, and likely
cause confusion among stakeholders. FAA does not agree with changing
the proposed rule to provide this overlap. Instead, the final rule
applies a delayed effective date to provide sufficient time for
industry to transition to compliance with the requirements of the final
rule.
Nine other commenters recommended that FAA should implement the
final rule as expeditiously as possible to enable the public to benefit
sooner from these proposals. FAA will establish an effective date no
longer than necessary to provide those with responsibilities for
compliance with new requirements sufficient time for fulfilling those
responsibilities.

[[Page 35184]]

Though FAA proposed effective dates of two and six months for this
final rule, FAA recognizes the public comments on the proposed
effective date given the public's responsibilities for compliance with
these rules. In particular, FAA finds the comments of Streamline
Designs, the former chair and current co-chair of the ASTM Committee
F37 on Light Sport Aircraft, significant and compelling concerning the
minimum timeline to complete industry consensus standards necessary for
establishing means of compliance to many of these rules. In addition,
procedures for establishing operating limitations in issuance of
experimental airworthiness certifications require public review and
comment following this rulemaking as discussed in the NPRM.
Accordingly, for provisions that depend on the creation or revision of
industry consensus standards or new procedures for establishing
operating limitations under subpart D of part 91, this action will
apply an effective date of 365 days after publication of the final
rule. This will allow time for organizations, such as ASTM, that are
developing industry consensus standards to revise consensus standards
to meet the requirements of the final rule; FAA to review, accept or
approve, and publish notices of availability for those consensus
standards; manufacturers to revise their compliance documentation; and
compliance by light-sport manufacturers. This will also allow FAA to
develop and publish draft procedures and operating limitations
authorizing certain operations of experimental aircraft and restricted
category aircraft; for the public to review and comment on those draft
procedures and operating limitations; and for FAA to disposition public
comments and publish the final procedures and operating limitations.
The effective dates for each amendment are included in the dates
and amendment sections of this final rule.

R. Benefits and Costs

1. Summary of Comments
The AEA asserted newer, larger, more complex light-sport aircraft
will compete with type certificated aircraft and the agency must
consider the significant technical, administrative, and financial
impact on the small businesses that support the aviation certification
process under other provisions of part 21. Sonex expected a positive
economic impact for its manufacturing business and foresees positive
safety impacts and lower costs. It concluded that the rule will
facilitate the entrance of new aircraft benefiting consumers,
manufacturers, maintainers, and airports.
An individual asked how fewer regulations of affected aircraft
contributes to aviation safety and stated this assertion was not
supported by data. The individual also questioned why FAA is concerned
with recreational values. Another individual stated retractable gear,
variable pitch propellors, two empty seats, and night operations do not
make an airplane safer to fly. This individual also disputed that the
needed changes to training courses, including the addition of
retractable landing gear and variable pitch propellors, represent only
a minor rewrite expense.
One individual stated FAA did not consider the recertification work
for the ASI when aircraft move from one category to the expanded light-
sport category. Another commented on the cost of purchasing ASTM
Standard F2245 from ASTM instead of free availability from FAA. Another
individual requested an ASTM standard for parts, engines, etc. so
aircraft can be upgraded without imposing burdensome costs on the
average aviator.
One individual stated several proposals unnecessary and irrelevant
for powered parachutes would require extra paperwork from
manufacturers, pilots, and repairmen causing a switch from powered
parachutes to less safe aircraft. Another individual stated the rule
will provide economic incentives to increase the number of active
pilots as well as provide them with new affordable aircraft and related
technologies, boosting the number of jobs available in the aviation
industry. Another individual stated the rule will lower flight training
costs for students by increasing the availability of less expensive,
more fuel-efficient aircraft for primary flight training. They
concluded the rule would help reduce a pilot deficit.
2. FAA Response
FAA addresses the issue of competition with type-certificated
aircraft in section IV.C. As noted in that section, this rule has no
impact on airplanes with more than four seats. Further, with safety as
its top priority, FAA must consider broader needs and opportunities for
improving safety within general aviation that may be achieved by
improving the safety of the light-sport category through the expansions
in aircraft eligibility, operating privileges, and sport pilot
privileges contained in the rule. Though impacts will depend on the
extent to which affected entities pursue these opportunities and the
specific results, the potential for benefits noted by Sonex exists.
Regarding potential safety impacts, FAA addresses the data and
rationale that support expanding the types of aircraft and features
that can be operated as light-sport aircraft, and operating privileges
for sport pilots, generally in section IV.C. Specific discussion on why
FAA believes these feature and operating rule changes, such as
retractable landing gear, variable pitch propellers, or night
operations, do not constitute a change in safety can be found in the
respective portions of section IV. Recreational activity is a large
component of light-sport aircraft operations. However, FAA acknowledges
recreational value is not the motivation for the rule and does not
consider it in the benefit-cost analysis.
Regarding the rewrite of training courses, for the NPRM, FAA stated
providers of training for light-sport repairmen would have to submit
their courses to FAA for acceptance within six months after rule
publication. However, as described in section IV.I of this preamble,
FAA has determined the existing training courses already contain the
applicable content. Therefore, there will be no need to review or
revise training courses. The exception is two training courses on
gliders that will need to be updated to include content on both
unpowered and powered gliders for which FAA has provided a one-year
compliance period.
There would not be recertification activity for ASIs. Airworthiness
certificates issued to light-sport category aircraft under Sec. 21.190
and experimental light-sport category aircraft under Sec. 21.191(i)
before the effective date of this final rule remain in effect after the
effective date of this final rule. Those aircraft do not change
categories after the effective date of this final rule. Recertification
of those aircraft is not required.
Industry consensus standards bodies develop many consensus
standards to support certification of various aviation products,
articles, and services. ASTM is the only consensus standards body to
date that has specifically developed consensus standards for
certification of light-sport category aircraft. In the United States,
these consensus standards are primarily to help aircraft manufacturers
of light-sport category aircraft meet the design, production, and
airworthiness requirements of part 22. Though FAA recognizes the
commenter's willingness to purchase these consensus standards for
greater familiarization with the certification

[[Page 35185]]

pedigree of the commenter's aircraft, an owner of a light-sport
category aircraft is not required to purchase or be familiar with these
consensus standards. ASTM consensus standards concerning light-sport
category aircraft include design and manufacture of aircraft engines
and parts. The rule expands provisions for alterations of light-sport
category aircraft.
Regarding powered parachutes, the commenter does not say which
proposals will increase costs including extra paperwork and testing.
FAA addresses paperwork requirements further in section V.E. FAA agrees
with comments regarding the potential for new affordable aircraft and
lower flight training costs.

V. Regulatory Notices and Analyses

A. Regulatory Impact Analysis

Executive Orders 12866 (``Regulatory Planning and Review'') and
13563 (``Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review'') require agencies
to regulate in the ``most cost-effective manner,'' to make a ``reasoned
determination that the benefits of the intended regulation justify its
costs,'' and to develop regulations that ``impose the least burden on
society.'' OMB has determined that this rule is not a significant
regulatory action as defined in section (3)(f) of Executive Order
12866.
This final rule is considered an E.O. 14192 deregulatory action.
Details on the estimated cost savings of this rule can be found in the
rule's economic analysis. This section provides FAA's analysis of the
regulatory impact of the rule.
1. Introduction and Background
This rule modernizes the regulatory approach to light-sport
aircraft, incorporating performance-based requirements that reflect
advances in technology and use cases for this type of aircraft. FAA
designed the rule to respond to the evolving needs of this sector and
provide for future growth and innovation without compromising safety.
The rule also includes amendments concerning certification and
operations of aircraft (other than light-sport aircraft) that hold
special airworthiness certificates.
An airworthiness certificate is an FAA document that grants
authorization to operate an aircraft in flight. A registered owner or
owner's agent of an aircraft may apply for an airworthiness
certificate. FAA issues two different classifications of airworthiness
certificates: standard and special. A standard airworthiness
certificate (FAA form 8100-2 displayed in the aircraft) is FAA's
official authorization allowing for the operation of type certificated
aircraft in the following categories: normal, utility, acrobatic,
commuter, transport, manned free balloons, and special classes. A
special airworthiness certificate (FAA Form 8130-7) is authorization to
operate an aircraft, including type certificated,\324\ in the U.S.
airspace in one or more of the following types shown in Table 7. The
rule affects the light-sport and experimental types of special
airworthiness certificates shown in Table 7. There are also minor
changes affecting the restricted category.

Table 7--Types of Special Airworthiness Certificates
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Category Purpose
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Primary...................... Aircraft flown for pleasure and personal
use.
Restricted................... Aircraft with a ``restricted'' type
certificate, including: agricultural,
forest and wildlife conservation, aerial
surveying, patrolling (pipelines, power
lines), weather control, aerial
advertising, other operations specified
by the Administrator.
Multiple..................... Multiple airworthiness certificates
restricted category aircraft.
Limited...................... Aircraft with a ``limited'' type
certificate.
Light-sport.................. Operation of a light-sport aircraft.
Experimental................. Aircraft flown for research and
development, showing compliance with
regulations, crew training, exhibition,
air racing, market surveys, operating
amateur-built aircraft, operating kit-
built aircraft, operating light-sport
aircraft, unmanned aircraft systems.
Special flight permit........ Special-purpose flight of an aircraft
that is capable of safe flight.
Provisional.................. Aircraft with a ``provisional'' type
certificate for special operations and
operating limitations.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Source: https://www.faa.gov/aircraft/air_cert/airworthiness_certification/sp_awcert.

a. Light-Sport Category Aircraft
The rule expands the classes of aircraft that may be certificated
using consensus standards as light-sport category aircraft; removes
weight limits; increases capacity for passengers, fuel, and cargo;
enables electric propulsion; and enables faster, higher-performing
aircraft. Table 8 summarizes these changes.

Table 8--Summary of Changes for Light-Sport Category Aircraft \1\
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Feature Current \2\ Final rule \3\
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Aircraft class................ Airplanes, gliders, Not prescribed.
lighter-than-air,
powered parachute,
and weight-shift-
control.
Maximum number of seats....... 2 seats............... 4 seats for
airplanes, 2
seats for
others.
Maximum weight................ 1,320 pounds for land- Not prescribed.
based aircraft; 1,430
pounds for amphibious
aircraft.
Maximum stall speed........... 45 knots VS1 CAS...... 61 knots VS0 CAS
for airplanes,
45 knots VS0
for glider,
Unchanged for
others.
Maximum airspeed.............. 120 knots CAS......... 250 knots CAS.
Engine........................ Single reciprocating Not prescribed.
engine.
Propeller..................... Fixed or ground- Not prescribed.
adjustable if powered
other than powered
glider; fixed or
feathering if powered
glider.
Landing gear.................. Fixed................. Not prescribed.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
CAS = calibrated airspeed; VS0 = stall speed with full flap extension;
VS1 = stall speed without the use of lift-enhancing devices.

[[Page 35186]]

\1\ 14 CFR 21.190.
\2\ Per 14 CFR 1.1 definition of light-sport aircraft.
\3\ 3. Per 14 CFR 21.190 eligibility.

b. Noise Standards
The rule amends part 36 to add a voluntary means for aircraft
owners and manufacturers of aircraft that do not conform to a type
certificate to demonstrate compliance with part 36 noise levels.
Aircraft owners and manufacturers can comply with the noise standards
through FAA-approved consensus standards, the applicable part 36
appendix, or the development of an ad-hoc certification basis
determined by FAA for new and novel aircraft.
c. Sport Pilots
The rule expands privileges for sport pilots, including to operate
most of the new light-sport category aircraft. There are also new
privileges granted to sports pilots for model-specific light-sport
category aircraft with simplified flight controls, helicopters,
automatic constant-speed and manual controllable pitch propellers,
retractable landing gear, unprescribed limit on maximum speed, and
night operations. Table 9 summarizes these changes and Table 10
summarizes changes to associated training.

Table 9--Summary of Changes to Sport Pilot Privileges \1\
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Category Current \2\ Final rule \3\
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Aircraft privileges........... Airplanes, Adds helicopters with
gliders, weight- simplified flight
shift-control, controls
powered- certificated under
parachutes, Sec. 21.190; adds
lighter than simplified flight
air, and controls model-
gyroplanes. specific privilege
for aircraft with
simplified flight
controls
designation.
Maximum seats................. 2 (2 persons).... 4 seats for airplanes
(2 persons), 2 seats
for others.
Weight........................ 1,320/1,430 Not prescribed.
pounds.
Maximum stall speed........... 45 knots CAS..... 59 knots (VS1) CAS
for airplanes only,
45 knots CAS for
other categories.
Maximum airspeed.............. 120 knots CAS.... Not prescribed.
Engine........................ Single, Not prescribed.
reciprocating.
Propeller..................... Fixed or ground- Allow airplanes with
adjustable a manual
(powered other controllable pitch
than glider). propeller (with
training).
Landing gear.................. Fixed except Allow aircraft that
glider (fixed or have retractable
feathering)/ landing gear (with
water (fixed, training).\4\
retractable, or
hull).
Pilot endorsements............ NA............... For simplified flight
control designated
aircraft, night
operations,
controllable pitch
propeller, and
retractable landing
gear.
Sport pilot in command Privileges and Clarifying an
limitation. limitations existing limitation
exist. that states pilots
may not act as PIC
of an aircraft
requiring a type
rating.
Medical certificates.......... Daytime Daytime operations:
operations: no change; Night
valid driver's operations: BasicMed
license; \5\ \6\ or FAA medical
Night certificate.
operations: NA.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
NA = not applicable.
CAS = calibrated airspeed; VS1 = stall speed without the use of lift-
enhancing devices.
\1\ Applies to experimental and light-sport category aircraft, and small
type- and production-certificated aircraft (14 CFR part 23).
\2\ 14 CFR 1.1 definition of light-sport aircraft.
\3\ Part 61 eligibility criteria.
\4\ The final rule includes a provision to allow pilots with pilot in
command experience in aircraft intended for operation on water with
retractable gear to continue to operate these aircraft without
additional training and endorsement in new Sec. 61.331(c).
\5\ Applies if most recently issued medical certificate (if the person
has held a medical certificate) has not been suspended or revoked or
most recent Authorization for a Special Issuance of a Medical
Certificate withdrawn.
\6\ BasicMed is an alternate way for pilots to fly without holding an
FAA medical certificate as long as they meet certain requirements of
Sec. 61.23(c).

Table 10--Summary of Changes to Sport Pilot and Instructor Training
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Category Current Final rule
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sport pilot certificate, Training in Sport pilot: new
Sport pilot flight applicable helicopter with
instructor certificate. knowledge and simplified flight
flight operations controls privilege
by authorized available. Sport
instructor; pilot flight
knowledge test and instructor: new
practical test for training privilege
1 of 5 aircraft for helicopters
category with simplified
privileges.\1\ flight controls.
Specified flight
experience.
Sport pilot: Add another Training in Practical test \2\
category and class applicable for airplane or
privilege; Sport pilot knowledge and helicopter with
flight instructor: Add flight operations simplified flight
another category and class by authorized controls privilege;
training privilege. instructor; no change for
proficiency check other.
with another
authorized
instructor.
Simplified flight controls NA.................. Sport pilot: \3\
model-specific endorsement. flight training in
the model-specific
aircraft or in a
corresponding
flight training
device or simulator
and logbook
endorsement from an
authorized
instructor; New
applicant:
practical test.
Endorsement for aircraft NA.................. Training and
retractable landing gear, certifying logbook
and airplane controllable endorsement.
pitch propeller.

[[Page 35187]]

Flight simulation training NA.................. Allow for up to 2.5
device and aviation hours for training
training device credit. credit in a
qualified device
representing the
appropriate
category and class
aircraft.
Night operations............ NA.................. Training and
certifying
endorsement from an
authorized
instructor.
Flight proficiency Lists of required Added heliport and
requirements for sport tasks for training. hovering maneuvers
pilot and flight instructor which apply to
with sport pilot. helicopters only.
Flight instructor NA.................. Training in an
qualifications (Subpart H aircraft with
only). simplified flight
controls requires
an instructor to be
qualified in
category and class
prior to adding the
make and model
limitation.
Flight instructor for new NA.................. An instructor pilot
make and model-initial may serve as a
cadre. flight instructor
for the purposed of
initial cadre.\5\
Testing standards for NA.................. FAA-S-ACS-26, Sport
Rotorcraft Category Pilot for
Helicopter--Simplified Rotorcraft Category
Flight Controls Privilege. Helicopter--Simplif
ied Flight Controls
Privilege Airman
Certification
Standards; FAA-S-
ACS-31, Flight
Instructor with a
Sport Pilot Rating
for Rotorcraft
Category
Helicopter--Simplif
ied Flight Controls
Privilege Airman
Certification
Standards.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
NA = not applicable.
\1\ Airplane, glider, weight shift control aircraft, powered parachute,
or lighter-than-air.
\2\ Compared to a proficiency check, a practical test is a more formal
test conducted by an FAA aviation inspector or Designated Examiner.
\3\ Must already hold category and class privilege of the simplified
flight controls model-specific aircraft.
\4\ If the model-specific aircraft has operating characteristics
precluding completing all the category and class tasks required by
airman certification standards, the applicant's certificate will have
a model-specific limitation that could be later removed with
appropriate additional testing.
\5\ Instructor pilot can be a pilot employed or used by the manufacturer
of an aircraft with simplified flight controls designation.

d. Maintenance and Repairmen
The rule expands light-sport repairmen privileges to align with the
expansions of eligibility for certification of light sport category
aircraft. The rule also clarifies provisions for persons acceptable to
FAA who may perform repairs and alterations of light-sport category
aircraft. The rule also removes the requirement for owners/operators of
light-sport category aircraft to comply with safety directives issued
by the aircraft manufacturer.
FAA is also replacing the specified aircraft class training hour
requirements with a performance-based standard for light-sport
repairman maintenance rating training.
e. Space Support Vehicles
The rule codifies language in the FAA Reauthorization Act of 2018
(Pub. L. 115-254) that authorized certain operators of aircraft with
special airworthiness certification in the experimental category to
conduct space support vehicle flights carrying persons or property for
compensation or hire to simulate space flight conditions.
f. Operations
The rule updates regulations related to operating limitations for
experimental aircraft, restricted category aircraft, and light-sport
aircraft. For example, the rule allows the Administrator to issue
operating limitations to authorize certain aircraft with experimental
airworthiness certificates to operate over densely populated areas and
in congested airways for all flight segments, beyond takeoffs and
landings.
FAA is also allowing some light-sport category aircraft to conduct
certain aerial work operations for compensation or hire, which expands
the limited exceptions for light sport category aircraft to conduct
operations for compensation or hire beyond the flight training and
glider towing operations allowed previously.
Need for the Regulation
This section describes the need for the regulation, including a
description of the problem, technological changes, market failure, FAA
strategic goals, and requirements mandated by Congress.
a. Description of Problem
FAA must update its regulations periodically to keep pace with
technological and industry changes, and to add or remove requirements
based on experience. With respect to special airworthiness
certificates, updates are warranted to codify provisions FAA has
granted in multiple exemptions based on safety considerations. Adopting
more performance-based standards provides industry greater latitude for
rapid revisions to supporting consensus standards as needed to address
emerging safety issues as well as for enabling more rapid innovation.
FAA determined that performance-based rather than time-based training
for light-sport repairmen is also appropriate. Also, regulations
requiring certification to noise standards currently do not apply to
aircraft that are not type-certificated and FAA has determined that it
is now appropriate to allow for voluntary compliance by manufacturers
of these aircraft.
b. Technological Changes
Current regulations for light-sport aircraft contain a specific
weight limit. Changing this limit to a performance limit may improve
safety by enabling greater inclusion of safety-enhancing technologies
such as parachutes, ADS-B, and AOA displays. Greater weight allowances
will also enable sturdier designs that are able to withstand the rigors
of a flight training environment and greater utility in extended range
and endurance as a personal recreational aircraft. Removing weight
restrictions also enables electric powered aircraft to carry more
battery weight, which improves the range and performance of
electrically powered aircraft. Also, FAA is increasing the maximum
airspeed for light-sport aircraft to account for potential advances in
technology and manufacturing practices.
The rule also permits any type of engine or propeller to be
installed on light-sport category aircraft. This change enables
performance enhancements beyond the reciprocating engines and fixed-
pitch propellers that currently

[[Page 35188]]

define light-sport category aircraft. New types of engines could
include electric, turbine, compressed natural gas, hydrogen, or solar.
For example, electric flight is now available on the market, but
currently cannot be flown as a light-sport category aircraft or by a
sport pilot.\325\
c. FAA Strategic Goals
FAA's 2021 Continued Operational Safety Report for Special Category
Light-Sport Aircraft \326\ describes its vision of increasing industry
accountability and safety, with a goal of an equivalent or lower fatal
accident rate than other segments of ``personal'' aviation, without
requiring FAA type design certification or FAA production oversight.
This vision includes supporting a regulatory and policy structure for
industry to achieve FAA safety goals through self-declared compliance
with industry developed and maintained consensus standards. The rule
implements this vision.
d. Congressional Mandate
This rule also codifies language in the FAA Reauthorization Act of
2018 (Section 581) authorizing certain operators of aircraft with an
experimental airworthiness certificate to conduct space support vehicle
flights carrying persons or property for compensation or hire. An
operator may conduct space support vehicle flights to simulate space
flight conditions in support of training for potential space flight
participants, government astronauts, or crew; the testing of hardware
to be used in space flight; or research and development tasks, which
require the unique capabilities of the aircraft conducting the flight.
Finally, as stated in section II, this rule addresses section 824
of the FAA Reauthorization Act of 2024, which requires that FAA issue a
final rule not later than 24 months after the date of enactment of that
Act, May 16, 2024.
Baseline for the Analysis
The baseline for the analysis of incremental benefits and costs of
the rule includes existing regulations and standards, affected entities
and the aircraft to which the rule applies, and existing risks
including safety and environmental.
a. Existing Regulations and Standards
The 2004 final rule, Certification of Aircraft and Airman for the
Operation of Light-Sport Aircraft (69 FR 44772), established
regulations for the manufacture, certification, operation, and
maintenance of light-sport aircraft. The 2004 final rule specifies
maximum weight, stall speed, airspeed, and seats; engine, propeller,
and landing gear types; requirements for maintenance and repairs; and
requirements and privileges for sport pilots. These specifications and
certification requirements reflect small, simple, easy-to-fly aircraft
for sport and recreation with small range. Regulations in 14 CFR 21.191
cover experimental light-sport aircraft, including kit-built, intended
for the purposes shown in Table 7.
FAA also works with industry in developing consensus standards for
light-sport category aircraft, which it reviews periodically.
Currently, consensus standards for the certification of light-sport
category aircraft have been developed by ASTM and accepted for use by
FAA.\327\ For example, in 2023, FAA reapproved (completed review with
no technical changes) ASTM F2724-14, Standard Specification for Pilot's
Operating Handbook (POH) for Light Sport Airplane.
Regulations in part 23 cover airworthiness standards for normal
category airplanes.\328\ FAA amended its airworthiness standards for
normal, utility, acrobatic, and commuter category airplanes in 2016 by
replacing prescriptive design requirements with performance-based
airworthiness standards (81 FR 96572). The standards provide risk-based
divisions for airplanes with a maximum seating capacity of 19
passengers or less and a maximum takeoff weight of 19,000 pounds or
less.
Regulations in part 36 establish the applicability, standards, and
test methods for aircraft noise. FAA's noise certification process is
entirely performance-based; there are no noise-reduction technologies
defined in the noise regulations. Applicants are free to choose any
methods or technologies that allows their aircraft to pass the noise
limits. FAA sets the noise limits in the regulations so that aircraft
with current technology pass those noise limits.
Currently, noise standards do not apply to previously defined
special light-sport aircraft or experimental light-sport aircraft in
the United States. Foreign light-sport aircraft manufacturers, however,
may already be subject to noise testing and certification requirements.
For example, EASA and Australia both require almost all aircraft
operating in their airspace, including light-sport aircraft, to comply
with the environmental noise protection requirements contained in the
Standards of ICAO Annex 16, Volume I. Therefore, any domestic or
foreign light-sport aircraft manufacturers in these markets that also
export to the United States are already required to comply with
accepted standards for noise.
b. Affected Entities
The rule may affect manufacturers, pilots, and repairmen of light-
sport category aircraft and experimental light-sport category aircraft.
This section describes these entities. The rule could also provide
additional options for entities performing certain types of aerial work
and those involved with space support vehicles.
i. Manufacturers
The rule may affect aircraft, aircraft engine, and aircraft parts
manufacturers (North American Industry Classification 33641) to the
extent that they design and manufacture the types of aircraft for which
performance-based standards apply. For example, FAA maintains a listing
of all known make/model combinations that have received, or may be
eligible to receive, special airworthiness certificates as light-sport
category aircraft.\329\ Data from June 2022 show a total of 208 make/
model combinations from 70 foreign and 59 US manufacturers. FAA
Registry \330\ data provide information to identify which of these
models are being produced currently. Table 11 shows these data.

Table 11--Manufacturers of Light-Sport Category Aircraft \1\
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Category Manufacturers \2\ Models \3\
------------------------------------------------------------------------
US................................... 26 35
Foreign.............................. 28 38
Total................................ 54 73
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Source: FAA Registry.
\1\ Based on production from 2018-2022.
\2\ Includes manufacturers of previously defined special light-sport
aircraft and experimental light-sport aircraft (drop down and kits).
\3\ Produced since 2020.

[[Page 35189]]

ii. Pilots
In 2023, there were over 7,000 active sport pilots (Table 12). For
comparison, Table 12 also shows the number of pilots in other small
aircraft categories.

Table 12--Estimated Active Airmen Certificates Held
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Category No.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Recreational (only).................................. 71
Sport (only)......................................... 7,144
Private Airplane..................................... 167,711
Rotorcraft (only).................................... 13,428
Glider (only)........................................ 21,292
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Source: 2023 Active Civil Airman Statistics, Table 1, available at:
https://www.faa.gov/data_research/aviation_data_statistics/civil_airmen_statistics.

FAA conducts a General Aviation Survey to estimate activity levels.
Table 13 shows baseline estimates of hours flown in different aircraft
types for recent years.

Table 13--Estimated Total Hours Flown
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Category 2022 2021 2020
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Gliders................................................ 75,574 92,002 50,352
Lighter-than-air....................................... 77,090 64,323 35,535
Experimental--Amateur.................................. 1,001,165 1,105,526 943,995
Experimental Light-sport \1\........................... 138,874 148,963 117,529
Experimental--Exhibition............................... 73,511 92,588 64,221
Other Experimental..................................... 65,265 46,616 50,177
Special Light-sport.................................... 231,068 245,156 201,615
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Experimental light-sport includes aircraft with experimental airworthiness certification and light-sport
aircraft for which airworthiness certificates are not final.
Source: FAA General Aviation and Part 135 Activity Survey, Table 1.3 and 2.1. Available at: https://www.faa.gov/data_research/aviation_data_statistics/general_aviation.

iii. Repairmen
In 2023, there were 283 light-sport aircraft repairmen.\331\
c. Risks
Existing safety and environmental risks include accidents and noise
profiles of light-sport aircraft. Table 14 shows accidents and
fatalities involving previously defined special light-sport aircraft.
Table 15 shows accidents, fatalities, and serious injuries involving
EAB aircraft.

Table 14--Accidents and Fatalities: Special Light-Sport Category Aircraft
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Year Fatal accidents Fatalities Nonfatal accidents
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2023................................................ 3 4 53
2022................................................ 9 13 47
2021................................................ 5 6 54
2020................................................ 4 4 63
2019................................................ 4 7 75
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Source: FAA 2024 data.

Table 15--Accidents, Fatalities, and Injuries: EAB Aircraft
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Year Fatal accidents Nonfatal accidents Fatalities Serious injuries
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2023............................. 34 141 39 35
2022............................. 38 124 55 27
2021............................. 37 117 46 38
2020............................. 39 118 49 34
2019............................. 38 141 47 32
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Source: NTSB, 2024. Case Analysis and Reporting Online (CAROL). Accessed November.

In 2012, NTSB found there are a disproportionate number of
accidents involving EAB aircraft relative both to their proportion of
the general aviation fleet and their share of general aviation flight
activity. NTSB found the overall accident rate per 1,000 aircraft to be
nearly twice that of comparable non-EAB aircraft, and the fatal
accident rate between 2.5 and 3 times higher.\332\
FAA does not have data on the baseline noise profiles of light-
sport

[[Page 35190]]

category aircraft. FAA's noise certification regulations, however, are
technology-following. This means that FAA intends to allow aircraft
with current noise-reduction technology to successfully meet those
requirements, but not aircraft with older or louder technology (e.g.,
two-stroke engines, unmuffled exhaust). FAA also intends for its noise
certification requirements to provide a basis for comparing aircraft
noise levels, but not as a method for determining how the noise of
aircraft operations affects people. FAA treats the effects of aircraft
noise in part 150 and 161. The rule does not modify or supplant part
150 and 161.
Benefits
The benefits of the rule include the value of changes in safety and
environmental risks.
a. Safety Benefits
The rule could reduce risks associated with light-sport category
aircraft to the extent that the relaxation of certain requirements
spurs changes that make these aircraft safer to fly. For example,
removing the specific weight limit provides greater flexibility for the
inclusion of safety-enhancing technologies such as parachutes, ADS-B,
and angle of attack displays. The performance-based rules could also
enhance safety by enabling appealing alternatives to EAB aircraft that
do not meet 14 CFR or consensus standards. FAA determined that removing
the requirement to comply with safety directives issued by the aircraft
manufacturer would not adversely affect safety because any safety-of-
flight condition underlying such directive would need to be corrected
for aircraft to be in airworthy condition.
For example, as shown in Table 15, in 2023 there were 39 fatalities
and 35 serious injuries from 34 fatal and 141 nonfatal accidents
involving EAB aircraft. FAA estimates the value of reducing the risk of
fatalities and injuries using the value of statistical life (VSL) \333\
and the Maximum Abbreviated Injury Scale (MAIS).\334\ For example,
reduction in the risk of one fatality generates benefits equal to the
VSL (approximately $13.7 million). Reduction in the risk of serious
injury generates benefits equal to the fraction of the VSL associated
with MAIS level 3 (.105), or approximately $1.4 million (0.105 x $13.7
million; Table 16).

Table 16--Values Associated With Levels of Injury Severity Based on the VSL
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
MAIS level Severity Fraction of VSL Value \1\
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
MAIS 1..................................... Minor........................ 0.003 $41,100
MAIS 2..................................... Moderate..................... 0.047 643,900
MAIS 3..................................... Serious...................... 0.105 1,438,500
MAIS 4..................................... Severe....................... 0.266 3,644,200
MAIS 5..................................... Critical..................... 0.593 8,124,100
MAIS 6..................................... Unsurvivable................. 1 13,700,000
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
VSL = value of statistical life.
\1\ Fraction of VSL multiplied by VSL.

Given the number of fatalities and serious injuries, relatively
small reductions in risks enabled by the rule could generate
substantial benefits (e.g., a 10 percent reduction in fatalities and
serious injuries from the 2023 level for amateur-built aircraft would
generate undiscounted benefits of $53 million and $5 million,
respectively).\335\ However, since these types of modifications and
developments are yet to be available, FAA is not able to estimate the
potential for risk reductions under the rule.
The rule will also enable larger light-sport category aircraft and
higher airspeeds. However, because the accompanying performance-based
design standards require predictable control and maneuverability
through all phases of flight without requiring exceptional piloting
skill, FAA does not anticipate that the increases will increase safety
risks for sport pilots. The adjusted training requirements for sport
pilots seeking these privileges, and light-sport repairmen maintaining
these planes, also ensure against increased risks. Finally, the rule
allows light-sport category aircraft to be used in limited aerial work.
FAA determined these limited operations also will not negatively affect
safety.
b. Environmental Benefits
FAA sets noise certification limits so that aircraft with current
technology can meet those limits. As a result, FAA expects the rule
will likely not lead to significant noise reductions. However,
voluntary compliance with the standards could keep new designs and
modifications of existing aircraft from increasing noise above the
limit. Because FAA cannot predict the amount of increase in noise that
would occur in the absence of the rule, and compliance with noise
standards is voluntary, it is unable to quantify these benefits.
The potential for adoption of new technologies such as electric
motors also has the potential to reduce noise levels (as well as
aircraft emissions). FAA also does not have an estimate of the extent
of adoption of such technology with and without the rule to estimate
potential benefits.
c. Uncertainty
There are several limitations in the analysis of benefits. Table 17
provides the limitations and the likely impact on the potential for
benefits.

Table 17--Uncertainties in the Analysis of Benefits
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Direction of
Assumption or uncertainty impact Comments
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Voluntary compliance with noise standards..... + There may be trade-offs required between
desired performance and noise compliance.
Technological advances improving safety and + The potential for benefits may directly relate
the environment. to specific technological advances, and
manufacturer incorporation of such
improvements in new or modified designs.

[[Page 35191]]

Future activity levels........................ ? Different factors (e.g., unmanned activity,
environmental or safety concerns) could
influence activity in this sector in different
directions.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
`+' = Positive impact on benefits; `?' = uncertain impact on benefits.

5. Costs
The rule could result in incremental compliance costs for design
and production of light-sport category aircraft. The sections below
also discuss cost considerations relevant to training and operations
provisions, and voluntary compliance with noise certification.
a. Design and Production
The rule establishes performance-based design and production
standards for light-sport category aircraft. As a result, most, if not
all, existing consensus standards for the areas in subpart B of part 22
need revision. Manufacturers are not required to take advantage of the
expanded design opportunities, but for those that do, the cost of
conformance to revised consensus standards will be inherent in the new
design.
There could be implications for continued production of existing
light-sport category aircraft depending on the make and model design.
Part 22 standards that may impact manufacturers most include fire
protection and emergency evacuation.\336\ Since current standards used
to demonstrate compliance for current make and model aircraft designs
represent minimum requirements, FAA does not have data on those designs
that exceed current minimum standards to a degree that will meet
revised standards.
There may also be opportunity costs (lost production) to the extent
it takes longer than 12 months (the effective date of the standards)
for industry to revise consensus standards and FAA to accept those
standards.
The rule also expands the criteria for aircraft that may be
certified as light-sport category aircraft through consensus standards.
Because obtaining a special airworthiness certificate through
conformance with consensus standards may be less costly compared to
obtaining type certification under part 23, manufacturers may
experience cost savings. FAA does not have data on the incremental
difference in design cost under type certification compared to
consensus standards.
b. Noise Certification
Manufacturers of light-sport category aircraft may voluntarily
comply with the noise standards in part 36 and provide an SOC for their
aircraft. Manufacturers can comply using consensus standards, once
developed, in lieu of traditional noise measurement flight tests.
FAA expects costs for noise certification to be significantly less
(minimal) using consensus standards compared to traditional testing.
FAA is researching methods to support the industry in developing these
consensus standards. The preliminary investigation shows that existing
SAE standards for predicting light propeller-driven aircraft noise have
potential for further development into a modeling-based consensus
standard tool. Such a tool will also assist manufacturers in making
design choices early in the development process.
Because consensus standards are not yet available, FAA also
estimated an upper bound cost based on using the applicable part 36
appendix. This method entails developing a noise certification test
plan, submitting the plan for approval by FAA, conducting the required
noise measurements, and submitting the noise certification report for
FAA's review and approval. Based on experience with type-certificated
airplanes, FAA estimates that noise certification testing costs using
Appendices J, G, and F (light helicopters and propeller driven
aircraft) to part 36 is at most $20,000 per model.\337\
c. Sport Pilot Certification and Training
The rule revises the required training for a sport pilot or sport
pilot instructor seeking to add another class privilege from training
and a proficiency check to training and a practical test. This change
is because these two privileges (airplane and helicopters with
simplified flight controls) result in the operation of larger and
heavier aircraft with speeds up to 250 knots CAS and operation in Class
B, C, and D airspace. The rule also adds training requirements to
accommodate the expanded privileges (simplified flight controls model-
specific endorsement, and endorsements for complex aircraft, night
operations, and aircraft with retractable landing gear). FAA is
facilitating these operations, which necessitates the endorsements, but
these operations are not required and, therefore, do not impose any
mandatory costs.
The rule does not impose increased training or testing costs on any
pilots, though those seeking to add a sport pilot airplane or
rotorcraft privilege to an existing pilot certificate will require the
practical tests. Those who successfully complete the updated
requirements will receive the privileges that were not previously
available (though it is possible that some individuals could prefer the
current unexpanded category, privileges, and training).
d. Repairmen Certification and Training
The rule replaces the minimum training course hour requirements for
light-sport repairmen with performance-based standards. The rule
requires that training courses must, at a minimum, include the
knowledge, risk management, and skill elements for each subject
contained in the Aviation Mechanic General, Airframe, and Powerplant
Airman Certification Standards, as appropriate to the category, and
class as applicable, of aircraft being taught.
Existing light-sport repairman training courses already contain the
course content that a light-sport repairman must know to obtain the
applicable rating and aircraft category privileges sought.\338\
Therefore, these courses already contain and align with the applicable
content of the Mechanic ACS. Removing the hours-based requirement may
result in some time savings, depending on the course.
e. Cost Savings From Other Rule Provisions
The rule allows light-sport category aircraft to be used in certain
aerial work. Some light-sport category aircraft may be less costly than
the aircraft currently being used for this work such that there could
be cost savings associated with switching. However, FAA does not have
data to estimate the extent the rule will result in a switch to light-
sport category aircraft for the limited types of work allowed or
associated cost savings.

[[Page 35192]]

f. Uncertainty
Table 18 provides a summary of key uncertainties and assumptions
and the likely direction of impact on the compliance cost estimates.

Table 18--Uncertainties in the Analysis of Compliance Costs
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Assumption or uncertainty Impact on costs Comments
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Design changes needed for revised consensus + Some changes may be needed in the areas of fire
standards. protection and emergency evacuation for some
models. For noise, FAA does not have data
concerning the impact of applying part 36
standards to current make and model designs.
Reduced design costs for models that could - The extent to which manufacturers pursue one
meet consensus standards rather than be type- certification path versus the other is not
certificated. known.
No costs associated with aligning and ? Changes are largely enabling in nature.
conforming rule changes.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
`+' = positive impact on costs; `-' = negative impact on costs; `?' = uncertain impact on costs.

6. Summary
The rule largely expands opportunities in the light-sport aircraft
sector. As such, benefits and costs depend on the extent to which
affected entities pursue these opportunities and the specific results.
These expansions may result in safety; there may also be associated
design and production costs and cost savings. The rule also amends part
36 to allow for voluntary compliance with noise standards by
manufacturers in this sector. FAA expects the cost to comply
voluntarily with the noise standards to be minimal using industry
consensus standards. FAA does not anticipate more than minimal
incremental costs for other provisions of the rule. FAA also does not
have data to estimate any cost savings, such as could result from
operating certain light-sport category aircraft in aerial work for
compensation.

B. Regulatory Flexibility Act

The Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) of 1980, (5 U.S.C. 601-612),
as amended by the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of
1996 (Pub. L. 104-121) and the Small Business Jobs Act of 2010 (Pub. L.
111-240), requires Federal agencies to consider the effects of the
regulatory action on small business and other small entities and to
minimize any significant economic impact. The term ``small entities''
comprises small businesses and not-for-profit organizations that are
independently owned and operated and are not dominant in their fields,
and governmental jurisdictions with populations of less than 50,000.
This final rule largely expands opportunities for manufacturers of
light-sport category aircraft. FAA does not anticipate more than
minimal incremental costs to implement provisions of the rule. Also,
compared to the proposed rule, this final rule enables manufacturers to
voluntarily comply and state compliance with part 36 noise
requirements. Given the voluntary compliance with noise standards,
manufacturers will comply under circumstances beneficial to their
business.
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) and based on the foregoing,
the head of 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 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. FAA has
assessed the potential effect of this proposed rule and determined it
would respond to a domestic safety objective and would not be
considered an unnecessary obstacle to trade.

D. Unfunded Mandates Assessment

The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (2 U.S.C. 1531-1538)
governs the issuance of Federal regulations that require unfunded
mandates. An unfunded mandate is a regulation that requires a State,
local, or tribal government or the private sector to incur direct costs
without the Federal government having first provided the funds to pay
those costs. FAA determined that the rule will not result in the
expenditure of $187,000,000 or more ($100,000,000 adjusted for
inflation using the most current Implicit Price Deflator for the Gross
Domestic Product) by State, local, or tribal governments, in the
aggregate, or the private sector, in any one year.

E. Paperwork Reduction Act

The Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3507(d)) requires
that 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 valid OMB control number.
This action contains amendments to the existing information
collection requirements approved under OMB Control Numbers 2120-0018,
2120-0022, 2120-0690, and 2120-0730. As required by the Paperwork
Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3507(d)), FAA has submitted these
proposed information collection amendments to OMB for its approval.
Summary and Use: FAA is proposing to amend rules for the
manufacture, certification, operation, maintenance, and alteration of
light-sport category aircraft. Certificate holders required to

[[Page 35193]]

comply would experience the following conforming revisions to existing
information collection activities:

Table 19--Summary of Conforming Revisions
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Control No. Revisions
------------------------------------------------------------------------
2120-0018.............. FAA Form 8130-6, Application for U.S.
Airworthiness Certificate:
Update the ``LIGHT-SPORT'' field to
accommodate any aircraft class.
Update the ``RESTRICTED'' filed to add
newly codified operations.
Update the ``EXPERIMENTAL'' field to
add new purpose for operating former military
aircraft.
FAA Form 8130-15, Light Sport Aircraft
Statement of Compliance:
Update the ``Check applicable items''
field to change the 14 CFR reference for kits,
accommodate any aircraft class, and indicate
whether the aircraft meets eligibility
requirements in part 61 for a sport pilot.
Update the ``FAA Applicable Accepted
Standard(s)'' and corresponding
``Manufacturer's Documentation'' fields to
reflect new requirements for manufacturer's
training requirements, optional simplified
flight controls, and optional aerial work.
Add a statement concerning acceptable
aerial work operations.
Revise statement(s) to remove
references to 14 CFR definition of light-sport
aircraft and include new statements required
by this rule.
Include new requirements of Sec.
21.190(f)(3), (4), and (5) for an amended
statement of compliance.
Update the certifying statement field
to add training/certification credentials for
the person signing the form.
Add provision for the manufacturer of
light-sport category aircraft to notify FAA
and owners of aircraft it manufactured in
advance of discontinuance of its continued
operational safety program or transfer of its
execution to another responsible party.
2120-0022.............. FAA Form 8610-3, Airman Certificate and/or
Rating Application--Repairman:
Change the certificate title from
repairman certificate (light-sport aircraft)
to repairman certificate (light-sport).
Use the term ``Aircraft Category'' in
place of ``LSA Class'' and list the following
aircraft categories: airplane, rotorcraft,
glider, lighter-than-air, powered-lift,
powered parachute, and weight-shift-control
aircraft.
2120-0690.............. FAA Form 8710-11, Airman Certificate and/or
Rating Application (previously part of OMB
Control Number 2120-0690):
Update the ``Application Information''
field to accommodate any aircraft class, and
to specify whether the aircraft meets
requirements for simplified flight controls.
Update the ``Record of Pilot Flight
Time'' field to accommodate any aircraft
class.
2120-0730.............. 14 CFR 91.417, Maintenance Records--SLSA Safety
Directive Recording:
Cancelled (compliance no longer
mandatory).
------------------------------------------------------------------------

Public Comments: FAA received three comments concerning FAA Form
8130-6, no comments concerning FAA Form 8130-15, one comment concerning
FAA Form 8610-3, no comments concerning FAA Form 8710-11, and no
comments concerning Sec. 91.417.
Air Tractor, Inc., NAAA, and GAMA asked which uses and special
purpose operations may be selected when applying for a special
airworthiness certificate for restricted category aircraft. They also
asked about the basis for determining eligibility for special purpose
operations.
FAA notes that, per Sec. 21.185, FAA issues an airworthiness
certificate for restricted category aircraft for aircraft that were
type certificated in the restricted category and that, per Sec.
21.25(a), FAA issues ``a type certificate for an aircraft in the
restricted category for special purpose operations.'' That is, FAA Form
8130-6 merely reflects the requirements of these regulations. The
revised form includes the uses and special purpose operations included
in the NPRM and an applicant may select all uses and special purpose
operations included on the applicable type certificate, including any
design changes approved per subpart D of part 21.
As with any application for issuance of an airworthiness
certificate, it is incumbent on the applicant to provide evidence of
compliance with applicable requirements, including, in this case,
eligibility issuance of a special airworthiness certificate for a
restricted category aircraft for the special purpose operation under
the applicable type certificate. FAA has responsibility for reviewing
all such records and inspecting the aircraft to verify that the
applicant met applicable requirements and the aircraft is airworthy.
One commenter asked if there will be changes to FAA Form 8610-3
related to the repairman certificate (light-sport) changes. As
discussed in the NPRM, changes will be made to FAA Form 8610-3, which
is a part of information collection 2120-0022, through the OMB approval
process.
The revisions to the information collection instruments (i.e.,
forms) related to this rulemaking do not result in changes to the
current OMB approved burden estimates in the affected collections.
Respondents (including number of): No change.
Frequency: No change.
Annual Burden Estimate: Changes to these forms, including those
related to the dispositions of public comments, have no impacts on the
burden estimates for paperwork burden for these collections.

F. International Compatibility

In keeping with U.S. obligations under the Convention on
International Civil Aviation (Chicago Convention), it is FAA policy to
conform to International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO) standards
and recommended practices to the maximum extent practicable. In the
event this final rule differs with ICAO standards, the United States
can address this issue with ICAO.
FAA notes that multiple aviation authorities have established
provisions for the certification of light-sport category aircraft.
Requirements among these authorities share similarities for enabling
the certification of small aircraft for recreation. However, the
specific eligibility parameters for certification as light-sport
category aircraft; design, performance, and production requirements;
and certification procedures are not harmonized among these
authorities. FAA understands that EASA requires the use of the noise
standards in Annex 16 Volume I of the Chicago Convention. This rule
would not require the use of Annex 16 Volume I for these aircraft.
Regardless of differences among national civil aviation authorities for
the certification of light-sport category aircraft, the final rule
generally aligns with recent rulemaking in Brazil and the

[[Page 35194]]

European Community in enabling increased safety and performance of
these aircraft.
This final rule will enable specialty air services conducted
pursuant to the United States-Mexico-Canada Agreement (USMCA). As
required by the Chicago Convention Annex 2, persons conducting
specialty air services must comply with the pertinent regulations of
both their country of origin and the country in which they are
operating.\339\ When there is a variance in regulation between the two
countries, the more stringent set of regulations controls the specialty
air service operation.\340\ By reducing the burden that the United
States imposes on certain aerial work operations, this rule will enable
specialty air services by reducing instances in which more stringent
United States regulations impose undue costs on services.

G. Environmental Analysis

The National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA), as amended
(42 U.S.C. 4321-4336e), requires Federal agencies to consider the
environmental impacts of their actions in the decision-making process.
NEPA requires Federal agencies to assess the environmental effects of
proposed Federal actions prior to making decisions and involve the
public in the decision-making process. FAA Order 1050.1F, Environmental
Impacts: Policies and Procedures, establishes FAA's policies and
procedures for the evaluation of environmental impacts under NEPA.\341\
An environmental assessment (EA) is prepared for an action for which a
categorical exclusion is not applicable and is either unlikely to have
significant effects or when significance of the action is unknown. The
EA is a concise public document that provides sufficient evidence and
analysis to determine whether to prepare an environmental impact
statement or a finding of no significant impact (FONSI). The EA
describes the proposed action, the purpose and need for the action, the
alternatives considered, the environmental impacts of the action and
alternatives, and a listing of the preparers and agencies and persons
consulted. If, after reviewing the EA and public comments if
applicable, in response to a draft EA, an agency determines that a
proposed action will not have a significant impact on the human or
natural environment, it can conclude the NEPA analysis with a FONSI. A
programmatic environmental assessment may be used to assess the
environmental effects of a program, policy, plan, or national level
proposal that may lead to later individual actions.
FAA prepared a draft Programmatic Environmental Assessment (draft
PEA) to analyze and disclose potential environmental impacts for the
NPRM consistent with NEPA and FAA Order 1050.1F. The NPRM amends
regulations related to the certification and operation of light-sport
category aircraft and other aircraft that hold special airworthiness
certificates, establishes requirements for airmen who operate and
maintain those aircraft, and provides other supporting rules. The
proposed rule responds to the evolving needs of the light-sport sector
and increases the availability of safe, modern, and affordable aircraft
for recreational aviation, flight training, and certain aerial work.
The draft PEA considered the environmental effects of the NPRM and
the effects of not issuing the proposed rule (no action alternative).
In accordance with FAA Order 1050.1F, the draft PEA analyzed relevant
environmental impact categories to the proposed action, including noise
and noise-compatible land use, air quality, biological resources,
children's environmental health and safety risks, Department of
Transportation Act section 4(f), farmlands, historical and cultural
resources, and visual effects. The draft PEA evaluated the significance
of environmental effects for each impact category using the
significance thresholds and factors to consider from FAA Order 1050.1F.
The draft PEA identifies the personnel and contractors involved in its
preparation. FAA did not consult with other agencies or persons in
preparing the draft PEA. Based on the analyses in the draft PEA, a
draft finding of no significant impact (FONSI) was prepared.
FAA provided notice of availability of the draft PEA and draft
FONSI for a thirty-day public comment period in the Federal Register on
May 27, 2025.\342\ The draft PEA and draft FONSI were posted to the
docket for this rulemaking at FAA-2023-1377. After reviewing comments
submitted on the draft PEA and draft FONSI, FAA prepared a final PEA,
which is provided in the regulatory docket. The final PEA includes
revisions to the analysis of noise effects to account for the change in
the final rule to not require noise certification of aircraft that do
not conform to a type certificate and to allow voluntary compliance
with part 36 for non-type certificated aircraft.
1. Comments on Notice of Proposed Rulemaking--Noise and Environmental
The comments submitted on the NPRM focused on noise, air emissions,
and other environmental effects.
a. Noise Effects
Several commenters expressed concern about the impacts of aviation
noise, though many of the comments were general in nature and not
specifically in reference to the aircraft types covered by the NPRM.
One commenter noted GA noise is damaging to humans. Another commenter
submitted multiple comments discussing the possible impacts of aviation
noise on human health and well-being, including concerns about flight
training schools. One person stated FAA's data already shows a
substantial increase in the percentage of people who are highly annoyed
by aircraft noise over the range of aircraft noise levels considered,
including at lower noise levels.
A few commenters focused on the MOSAIC rulemaking provisions and
discussed whether implementation of the final rule might result in
increased aviation noise levels, though these commenters said they
could not easily draw conclusions based on the information in the NPRM.
Concerned Residents of Palo Alto, AICA, and Groton Ayer Buzz commented
that current high-performance aircraft are exceedingly loud. Groton
Ayer Buzz noted communities have concerns about the expansion of
privileges listed in the proposed rule and whether this could result in
more aviation noise. The provisions mentioned include the proposed
expansions to certain sport pilot privileges through training and
endorsements for aircraft under MOSAIC, and to conduct night
operations, in addition to the proposed changes to regulations
affecting the privileges and limitations of a flight instructor
certificate with a sport pilot rating.
AICA and Concerned Residents of Palo Alto commented that GA-
impacted communities would find the noise impacts of the NPRM difficult
to determine and insufficient information was shared in the NPRM. AICA
stated the communities find the part 36 noise limits difficult to
understand. Concerned Residents of Palo Alto, Groton Ayer Buzz, and
AICA expressed concern that the proposed rule increases operating
privileges for recreational pilots, which would further impact their
communities already impacted by GA operations. Concerned Residents of
Palo Alto also commented that FAA's current noise policy is inadequate
and does not reflect the actual impacts experienced by residents and
the NPRM similarly does not adequately disclose impacts.
On the other hand, some commenters stated the NPRM is likely to
result in

[[Page 35195]]

reduced noise levels in the NAS. One commenter stated using LSA would
help solve the noise problem at a local municipal airport. Another
commenter noted the use of LSA for glider towing under the NPRM would
result in less noise emissions because most of the current towplane
fleet are older, louder aircraft repurposed from crop-dusting roles.
One person stated most LSA are powered by quieter engines.
In response to public comments about aviation noise impacts that
are beyond the scope of the MOSAIC rulemaking, FAA acknowledges that
aviation noise effects are widespread, and noise can impact human
health and well-being. FAA maintains a range of programs and
initiatives to reduce the impacts from aviation noise emissions,
including the promotion and certification of noise-reducing
technologies on aircraft, the abatement of high noise levels at noise-
sensitive properties around certain airports, and continued
implementation of the Noise Complaint Initiative and noise portal. In
addition, as mentioned by a few commenters, FAA is currently
considering updating its civil aircraft noise policy through the NPR.
In response to public comments that focused on the NPRM provisions,
including the expanded LSA pilot privileges, FAA highlights that light-
sport category aircraft make up approximately one percent of the
overall GA fleet in the U.S. While FAA has not measured LSA for noise
certification, commenters have provided supporting data that shows LSA
typically generate lower noise levels than most other GA aircraft. FAA
also reiterates that the final MOSAIC rulemaking will enable the safe
implementation of technologies that could reduce noise emissions
further, including noise-abatement equipment and electric-propulsion
systems.
To help address some of the in-scope noise comments, including
statements that the noise impacts of the NPRM are difficult to
determine based on the NPRM, FAA prepared a Programmatic Environmental
Assessment (PEA) analyzing the potential effects to the environment
that may result from implementation of the MOSAIC final rule. FAA
considered the potential for noise impacts based on the increased
operating privileges for LSA pilots, the removal of the LSA definition,
and other provisions in the rulemaking that could result in increased
noise levels at noise-sensitive properties such as residential,
educational, health, and religious structures. Based on the results of
the PEA and the associated noise and air emissions technical studies,
FAA determined that implementation of the MOSAIC rule provisions would
not result in significant environmental impacts.
b. Air Emissions Effects
Two commenters raised concerns about air emissions from aircraft,
though not specifically regarding the types of aircraft and regulatory
provisions covered by the NPRM. The individual commenters mentioned
lead (Pb) as the primary concern, as some GA aircraft use leaded fuel.
One commenter stated lead and many other aviation pollutants cause
adverse health impacts and reduce educational attainment. The commenter
expressed further concerns with exposure to lead and other air
pollutants resulting in impacts to health, human development, and
behavior. Another commenter noted FAA has not addressed lead pollution
as aviation operations have greatly increased.
In contrast, other commenters stated the proposed MOSAIC provisions
would have a positive effect on air quality, since the rulemaking would
enable the adoption of more efficient technologies and modern
equipment. One commenter stated the adoption of experimental-grade
fuel-injection systems would result in benefits such as cleaner fuel
burn and reduced fuel consumption that would benefit the environment
and society. Another commenter stated the proposed MOSAIC provision for
glider towing will displace the existing towplane fleet that are much
older and generate lead pollution. The commenter noted the use of LSA
for glider towing in Europe has proven to be a beneficial solution for
many soaring groups there and advances in electric propulsion will lead
to LSA operations that do not utilize aviation fuel.
In response to comments about air emissions, FAA acknowledges
aircraft emissions can result in environmental impacts around the NAS,
including from the use of leaded fuel. The MOSAIC PEA investigated
whether promulgation of the rule has the potential to cause or
contribute to any exceedance of emissions of six criteria pollutants
covered under the Clean Air Act's National Ambient Air Quality
Standards (NAAQS), including lead. Based on the results of the PEA and
associated technical reports, FAA determined that implementation of the
final rule would not violate air quality standards and would not result
in any significant impacts to air quality, water quality, or ground
resources.
Regarding lead emissions specifically, it is important to note that
FAA, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), and industry are
implementing ongoing programs to find a safe replacement for leaded
fuel, including the Eliminate Aviation Gasoline Lead Emissions (EAGLE)
Initiative and the Piston Aviation Fuel Initiative (PAFI), with the aim
of eliminating leaded fuel across the NAS by 2030. FAA also notes that
many current LSA are powered by Rotax engines that do not use leaded
fuel, and the rule may facilitate other lead-free technologies, such as
the development of battery-powered electric aircraft.
c. Other Environmental Comments
Two individual commenters raised concerns about the potential for
adverse impacts to wildlife, though not specifically regarding the
NPRM. One commenter urged that any increase in aircraft operations
should not be considered and that GA aircraft noise is damaging to
humans and wildlife. Another commenter stated a helicopter flight
training school has the potential to harm trees, birds, wildlife, and
humans. While referencing potential impacts to wildlife that could
result from various aviation activities, the commenter did not mention
LSA or the specific provisions or activities covered by the NPRM.
In response to comments expressing concern with negative impacts to
wildlife, FAA emphasizes this rule does not authorize the harassment,
harming, or killing of birds, mammals, or ocean-dwelling animals. These
types of actions are prohibited by other laws and regulations such as
the Migratory Bird Treaty Act (see 16 U.S.C. 703; 50 CFR part 21), the
Endangered Species Act (ESA), and the Marine Mammal Protection Act
(MMPA). FAA emphasizes that in addition to satisfying the provisions of
this rule, LSA pilots will remain subject to all applicable laws,
including environmental and wildlife laws. In addition, because the
rule covers only a small subset of the overall GA fleet (light-sport
category aircraft represent approximately one percent), and because any
future growth in LSA operations and fleet size will occur gradually,
incrementally, and dispersed across the NAS, FAA determined that
implementation of this final rule would have no effect on wildlife
populations.
2. Comments on Draft Programmatic Environmental Assessment
One comment was received on the draft PEA and draft FONSI. The
comment recommended increasing the clean stall speed from 54 knots to
55 knots to allow the inclusion of Cessna C177 aircraft produced
between 1968

[[Page 35196]]

and 1978. This comment does not expressly identify environmental
effects. The draft PEA and supporting analysis evaluated noise effects
using the maximum stall speed that is adopted in the final rule. The
revised noise analysis in the final PEA also uses the maximum stall
speed that is adopted in the final rule. As described in the draft PEA
and the final PEA, there are no significant noise effects associated
with the issuance of the MOSAIC rule or its implementation.
3. Finding of No Significant Impact
Based on FAA's analysis of the MOSAIC rule provisions as described
in the final PEA, FAA finds that codification and implementation of
this rule will not result in a significant impact to the human
environment. A copy of the Finding of No Significant Impact is provided
in the regulatory docket.

H. Regulations Affecting Intrastate Aviation in Alaska

Section 1205 of the FAA Reauthorization Act of 1996 (110 Stat.
3213) requires the Administrator, when modifying 14 CFR regulations in
a manner affecting intrastate aviation in Alaska, to consider the
extent to which Alaska is not served by transportation modes other than
aviation, and to establish appropriate regulatory distinctions.
Because this final rule will apply to issuance of airworthiness
certificates for restricted category aircraft, light-sport category
aircraft, and certain experimental aircraft; operating limitations for
restricted category aircraft, light-sport category aircraft, and
experimental aircraft; and sport pilot limitations and privileges, it
could affect intrastate aviation in Alaska once adopted. This
rulemaking generally expands privileges for small aircraft with special
airworthiness certificates. Small aircraft are important to the economy
of Alaska, and FAA anticipates this rule will make small aircraft more
readily available to private consumers and small businesses. This
rulemaking also codifies special operating purposes for restricted
category aircraft that are specific to operations in Alaska,
simplifying the issuance of type, production, and airworthiness
certificates for those aircraft. Therefore, FAA believes this
regulation will have a generally positive impact on aviation in Alaska.

VI. Executive Order Determinations

A. Executive Order 13132, Federalism

FAA has analyzed this final rule under the principles and criteria
of Executive Order 13132, Federalism. FAA has determined this action
will 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, will not have federalism implications.

B. Executive Order 13175, Consultation and Coordination With Indian
Tribal Governments

Consistent with Executive Order 13175, Consultation and
Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments,\343\ and FAA Order
1210.20, American Indian and Alaska Native Tribal Consultation Policy
and Procedures,\344\ FAA ensures that Federally Recognized Tribes
(Tribes) are given the opportunity to provide meaningful and timely
input regarding proposed Federal actions that have the potential to
have substantial direct effects on one or more Indian tribes, on the
relationship between the Federal government and Indian tribes, or on
the distribution of power and responsibilities between the Federal
government and Indian tribes; or to affect uniquely or significantly
their respective Tribes. At this point, FAA has not identified any
unique or significant effects, environmental or otherwise, on tribes
resulting from this final rule.

C. Executive Order 13211, Regulations that Significantly Affect Energy
Supply, Distribution, or Use

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

D. Executive Order 13609, Promoting International Regulatory
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. FAA has analyzed
this action under the policies and agency responsibilities of Executive
Order 13609 and has determined this action will have no effect on
international regulatory cooperation.

VII. Additional Information

A. Electronic Access and Filing

A copy of the NPRM, all comments received, this final rule, and all
background material may be viewed online at https://www.regulations.gov
using the docket number listed above. A copy of this final rule will be
placed in the docket. Electronic retrieval help and guidelines are
available on the website. It is available 24 hours each day, 365 days
each year. An electronic copy of this document may also be downloaded
from the Office of the Federal Register's website at https://www.federalregister.gov and the Government Publishing Office's website
at https://www.govinfo.gov. A copy may also be found at FAA's
Regulations and Policies website at www.faa.gov/regulations_policies.
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.
All documents FAA considered in developing this final rule,
including economic analyses and technical reports, may be accessed in
the electronic docket for this rulemaking.

B. Incorporation by Reference Material

Approved incorporation by reference material may be viewed online
at https://www.faa.gov/training_testing. For further information,
contact the Training and Certification Group at 202-267-1100,
faa.gov">acsptsinquiries@faa.gov, or 800 Independence Ave. SW, Washington DC
20591.

C. 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. A small entity with questions regarding this document may
contact its local FAA official, or the person listed under the FOR
FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT heading at the beginning of the preamble.
To find out more about SBREFA on the internet, visit www.faa.gov/regulations_policies/rulemaking/sbre_act/.

[[Page 35197]]

Endnotes

\1\ Light aircraft fatal accident trends are included on the
docket at FAA-2023-1377.
\2\ See, e.g., NPRM, Revision of Airworthiness Standards for
Normal, Utility, Acrobatic, and Commuter Category Airplanes, 81 FR
13452 (Mar. 14, 2016) (``The FAA's safety continuum philosophy is
that one level of safety may not be appropriate for all aviation.
FAA accepts higher levels of risk, with correspondingly fewer
requirements for the demonstration of compliance, when aircraft are
used for personal transportation.'').
\3\ 81 FR 13463 (Mar. 14, 2016).
\4\ NPRM, Modernization of Special Airworthiness Certification,
88 FR 47651 (Jul. 24, 2023).
\5\ Light aircraft fatal accident trends are included on the
docket at FAA-2023-1377.
\6\ The FAA roadmap can be found at: https://www.faa.gov/sites/faa.gov/files/aircraft/air_cert/design_approvals/small_airplanes/roadmapGAAgingAirplane.pdf.
\7\ General Aviation (Tables 28-31); available at https://www.faa.gov/data_research/aviation/aerospace_forecasts.
\8\ See 88 FR 47653 (Jul. 24, 2023).
\9\ Comment from AEA/ARSA, FAA-2023-1377-1238 at 2.
\10\ See Direct final rule, Changes to the Definition of Certain
Light-Sport Aircraft, 72 FR 19661 (Apr. 19, 2007).
\11\ MOSAIC Safety Continuum View 07242023, contained in U.S.
DOT/FAA--Supplemental Documents, July 24, 2023, FAA-2023-1377-0002.
\12\ Final rule, Revision of Airworthiness Standards for Normal,
Utility, Acrobatic, and Commuter Category Airplanes, 81 FR 96572
(Dec. 30, 2016).
\13\ Cirrus SR10, type certificate data sheet number A00021CH
for up to 2 passengers. Tecnam P-Mentor, type certificate data sheet
number A00067IB for up to 1 passenger. FAA is the certificating
authority for the SR10 and the validating authority for the P-
Mentor.
\14\ Per 14 CFR 61.315(a) as amended, if you hold a sport pilot
certificate, you may act as PIC of a light-sport aircraft, except
under the circumstances in 14 CFR 61.315(c).
\15\ After the effective date of 14 CFR 21.190 in this rule,
gyroplanes will be eligible for airworthiness certification in the
light-sport category under 14 CFR 21.190.
\16\ Data from 2023 Active Civil Airman Statistics (MS Excel),
available at https://www.faa.gov/data_research/aviation_data_statistics/civil_airmen_statistics.
\17\ These annual reports are available at: https://www.faa.gov/aircraft/gen_av/light_sport.
\18\ Data from FAA's 2022 Special Light-Sport Category Aircraft
Continued Operational Safety Report.
\19\ These limitations are contained 14 CFR 91.327 (occupant and
aerial work). 14 CFR 91.327 restricts compensation and hire flights
to towing gliders and ultralight vehicles, flight instruction, and
aerial work operations.
\20\ This rule removes the definition of light-sport aircraft
from 14 CFR 1.1 on July 24, 2026. However, the light-sport aircraft
requirements in that definition will be moved to 14 CFR 21.181 and
continue to apply to aircraft certificated prior to July 24, 2026.
The only exception is that the current 14 CFR 1.1 requirement that
gyroplane have a fixed-pitch, semi-rigid, teetering, two-blade rotor
system was not retained for the reasons discussed in section
IV.F.3.g.
\21\ Though this rule allows certain light-sport category
aircraft to be used in aerial work operations, weight-shift-control
aircraft and powered parachutes will be excluded from conducting
aerial work operations because of commercial pilot requirements in
14 CFR 61.127 & 61.129. Flight training is not considered an aerial
work operation and may be conducted per 14 CFR 91.327.
\22\ 14 CFR 23.2005.
\23\ 14 CFR 21.24.
\24\ Survivable Accident: An accident in which the forces
transmitted to the occupant through the seat and restraint system do
not exceed the limits of human tolerance to abrupt accelerations. In
addition, the structure in the occupant's immediate environment
remains substantially intact to the extent that a livable volume is
provided for the occupants throughout the crash sequence.
Traditionally, whether or not an accident was survivable was based
on an accident investigator's opinion regarding if the occupants
should have survived. Design for crashworthiness places the
responsibility on the designer to choose the level of survivability.
Source: Small Airplane Crashworthiness Design Guide; AGATE-WP3.4-
034043-036; Released April 12, 2002; available at https://www.regulations.gov/document/FAA-2015-1621-0019.
\25\ See Terrafugia, Incorporated, Exemptions No. 16648, May 12,
2016 and 16648A, May 2, 2018.
\26\ Per the FAA Registry as of March 20, 2024, 49 of the 53
primary category aircraft are gyroplanes.
\27\ Accident data was from the 2022 Special Light-Sport
Category Continued Operational Safety Report.
\28\ Accident data was from the 2022 Special Light-Sport
Category Continued Operational Safety Report.
\29\ For airplanes designed without lift-enhancing devices such
as flaps, VS1 = VS0.
\30\ 14 CFR 21.24(a)(1)(i).
\31\ Final rule, Primary Category, 57 FR 41360 (Sept. 9, 1992).
\32\ The historical average adult passenger weights were taken
from FAA Advisory Circular 120-27A, Aircraft Weight and Balance
Control (May 14, 1980).
\33\ Applicable to operators that are either required to have an
approved weight and balance control program under parts 121 and 125
or that choose to use actual or average aircraft, passenger, or
baggage weights when operating under part 91K or part 135.
\34\ Though not developed for use with light-sport category
airplanes, FAA Advisory Circular, AC 120-27F, Aircraft Weight and
Balance Control (May 6, 2019), uses data derived from the National
Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES), conducted by the
Centers for Disease Control (CDC), to obtain a ``standard average
passenger weights.'' The data is located at https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/fastats/body-measurements.htm and https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/series/sr_03/sr03-046-508.pdf. The standard average passenger
weights were obtained in September 2024.
\35\ Advisory Circular 120-27F, Aircraft Weight and Balance
Control, May 6, 2019. Advisory Circular 120-27F states that it would
be unsafe for an aircraft operator to use standard average weights
in single-engine piston-powered aircraft, multiengine piston-powered
aircraft, and turbine-powered single-engine aircraft. Instead,
operators of these types of aircraft should obtain and use actual
passenger weights (including clothing) when calculating the weight
and balance.
\36\ Though undefined, the term ``legacy aircraft'' is commonly
used in this context to refer to a type certificated normal category
airplane subject to 14 CFR 23 or Civil Airworthiness Regulations
(CAR) part 3 airworthiness standards.
\37\ A 179.2 pounds difference is obtained by the formula:
((199.8 pounds current male passenger average weight-160 pounds
historical passenger weight) + 5 pounds summer clothing) x 4
passengers.
\38\ Avgas weights approximately 6.01 pounds per gallon.
\39\ United States accident data based on single reciprocating
engine airplanes, available at: https://www.ntsb.gov/safety/StatisticalReviews/Pages/CivilAviationDashboard.aspx.
\40\ FAA's Pilot's Operating Handbook, FAA-H-8083-25A, is
available at: https://drs.faa.gov/browse/OTHER_PS_HANDBOOKS/doctypeDetails?modalOpened=true.
\41\ Table 27, Defining Event for Accidents in 2022, US General
Aviation (Personal Flying), 2003-2022 U.S. Civil Aviation Accident
Statistics, https://www.ntsb.gov/safety/Pages/research.aspx.
According to the Occurrence Category Definitions, https://www.intlaviationstandards.org/Documents/OccurrenceCategoryDefinitions.pdf, in-flight turbulence encounter
could include clear air, mountain wave, mechanical, and/or cloud-
associated turbulence; wake vortex encounters; and turbulence
encountered by aircraft when operating around or at buildings,
structures, and objects.
\42\ Airworthiness Standards: Normal, Utility, and Acrobatic
Category Airplanes [New], 29 FR 17955 (Dec. 18, 1964).
\43\ Though FAA did not propose any crashworthiness requirements
in this rule, FAA encourages consensus standards organizations for
light-sport category airplanes to consider consensus standards like
those in ASTM Standard F3083/F3083M-20A as a means to mitigate the
increased kinetic energy of the 61 knot CAS VS0 in
emergency landing conditions.
\44\ For gliders designed without lift-enhancing devices such as
flaps, VS1 = VS0.
\45\ CS-22 can be found at https://www.easa.europa.eu/en/document-library/certification-specifications/group/cs-22-sailplanes-and-powered-sailplanes#cs-22-sailplanes-and-powered-sailplanes.
\46\ TCCA's Chapter 522 Subchapter B is available at: https://tc.canada.ca/en/corporate-services/acts-regulations/list-regulations/canadian-aviation-regulations-sor-96-433/standards/airworthiness-manual-chapter-522-gliders-powered-gliders/airworthiness-manual-chapter-522-subchapter-b-flight-canadian-aviation-regulations-cars#522_45.

[[Page 35198]]

\47\ 45 knots = 83.34 km/h and 90 km/h = 48.6 knots.
\48\ The VS1 limitation in this rule only applies to
weight-shift-control aircraft.
\49\ These lift-enhancing devices would be considered major
alterations because they may appreciably affect the weight, balance,
structural strength, performance, flight characteristics, or other
qualities affecting airworthiness.
\50\ Any stall speed changes as a result of a major alteration,
approved by the manufacturer or a third party acceptable to FAA,
will be provided in revised POH documentation that accompanies the
alteration.
\51\ FAA Aviation Safety, Special Airworthiness Information
Bulletin 2024-07, Stall Warning System, Angle of Attack Alerting
Systems, December 26, 2024; available at https://drs.faa.gov/browse/excelExternalWindow/DRSDOCID117071009620241226214236.0001.
\52\ DOT/FAA/TC-TN19/11, ``A Review of Angle-of-Attack Display
Research from 1958-2014,'' October 2019, available at: https://rosap.ntl.bts.gov/view/dot/57876.
\53\ NTSB's U.S. Civil Aviation Accident Dashboard: 2008-2022,
available at https://www.ntsb.gov/safety/StatisticalReviews/Pages/CivilAviationDashboard.aspx.
\54\ AC 43.13-1, Acceptable Methods, Techniques, and Practices--
Aircraft Inspection and Repair, and 43.13-2, Acceptable Methods,
Techniques, and Practices--Aircraft Alterations, available at:
https://www.faa.gov/regulations_policies/advisory_circulars/.
\55\ Definitions from Merriam-Webster dictionary; available at
https://www.merriam-webster.com (last accessed 4 December 2024).
\56\ Summarized from FAA's Airplane Flying Handbook, FAA-H-8083-
3C, available at https://www.faa.gov/regulations_policies/handbooks_manuals/aviation/airplane_handbook.
\57\ Applicable to light-sport category aircraft certificated
prior to Sec. 21.190 and part 22 in this final rule becoming
effective.
\58\ FAA Order 8130.2K, Airworthiness Certification of Aircraft.
\59\ Proposed 14 CFR 22.180(a) in the NPRM was written as, ``The
aircraft allows the pilot to only control the flight path of the
aircraft or intervene in its operation without direct manipulation
of individual aircraft control surfaces or adjustment of the
available power.''
\60\ Consensus standards for fixed and ground-adjustable
propellers exist in ASTM Standard F2506-13, Design and Testing of
Fixed-Pitch or Ground Adjustable Propellers.
\61\ ASTM Standard F2245, ASTM Standard F2506, ASTM Standard
F2746, ASTM Standard F2483, Standard Practice for Maintenance and
the Development of Maintenance Manuals for Light Sport Aircraft, and
ASTM Standard F3198, Standard Specification for Light Sport Aircraft
Manufacturer's Continued Operational Safety (COS) Program.
\62\ Issuance of final airworthiness criteria, Airworthiness
Criteria: Primary Category Airworthiness Design Criteria for the
ICON Aircraft Inc., Model A5-8 Airplane, 88 FR 83019 (Nov. 28,
2023).
\63\ Per Sec. 21.17(f) requirements for type certification of a
primary category aircraft.
\64\ 14 CFR 61.321.
\65\ 14 CFR 61.413, 61.415. Conversely, a subpart H flight
instructor may provide training and endorsements in pursuit of any
pilot certificate.
\66\ FAA notes new 14 CFR 61.315(c)(21) adopted in this final
rule, as discussed in section IV.H.8.g of this preamble; however,
this provision simply clarifies an existing limitation rather than
making a change to an existing privilege or limitation.
\67\ These requirements are currently set forth in paragraphs
(10), (9), and (13) respectively, under the 14 CFR 1.1 light-sport
aircraft definition.
\68\ See section IV.E. of this preamble for additional
discussion on FAA's approach to light-sport category aircraft
certification.
\69\ See 14 CFR 61.321.
\70\ See 14 CFR 61.331 & 61.329.
\71\ See 14 CFR 61.31(e) & (f).
\72\ 88 FR 47682 (Jul. 24, 2023).
\73\ Final rule, Public Aircraft Logging of Flight Time,
Training in Certain Aircraft Holding Special Airworthiness
Certificates, and Flight Instructor Privileges, 89 FR 80310 (Oct. 2,
2024).
\74\ 14 CFR 61.315(c)(4).
\75\ See FAA Order 2150.3C, FAA Compliance and Enforcement
Program.
\76\ See Final rule, Certification of Aircraft and Airmen for
the Operation of Light-Sport Aircraft, 69 FR 44772 (Jul. 27, 2004).
\77\ See section IV.H.4 of this preamble for further discussion
on the operation of helicopters with simplified flight controls
under this rulemaking.
\78\ See discussion at IV.G.5.
\79\ 88 FR 47683 (Jul. 24, 2023). FAA notes that the 14 CFR
61.316(h) reference in this NPRM section was a typographical error,
and the correct subsection reference in the NPRM was 14 CFR
61.316(a)(7).
\80\ In 14 CFR 61.1 Definitions, ``Set of aircraft'' means
aircraft that share similar performance characteristics, such as
similar airspeed and altitude operating envelopes, similar handling
characteristics, and the same number and type of propulsion systems.
\81\ See Docket ID: FAA-2023-1377, FAA's Office of Accident
Investigation & Prevention (AVP), Analytical Summary of VS1 Stall
Related Accident Rates in Support of the Modernization of Special
Airworthiness Certification Rule (Apr. 29, 2024). AVP's analysis is
published on the docket in tandem with this final rule.
\82\ VA means design maneuvering speed. See 14 CFR
1.2.
\83\ 57 FR 41360 (Sept. 9, 1992).
\84\ See https://www.ntsb.gov/safety/StatisticalReviews/Pages/CivilAviationDashboard.aspx and https://www.faa.gov/newsroom/general-aviation-safety. NTSB and FAA actively track accidents for
all pilots; collect data; provide a detailed analysis to determine
the cause of those accidents; determine whether regulatory and
policy changes are needed to support safety in the NAS; and make
that information available to the public.
\85\ Calibrated airspeed (CAS) is indicated airspeed corrected
for instrument and position error. Pilot's Handbook of Aeronautical
Knowledge (PHAK) Glossary (faa.gov).
\86\ 88 FR 47657.
\87\ 14 CFR 61.315(c)(11).
\88\ 14 CFR 91.211(a).
\89\ 69 FR 44772 (Jul. 27, 2004).
\90\ NPRM, Certification of Aircraft and Airmen for the
Operation of Light-Sport Aircraft; Modifications to Rules for Sport
Pilots and Flight Instructors with a Sport Pilot Rating, 73 FR 20181
at 20188 (Apr. 15, 2008). Final Rule, Certification of Aircraft and
Airmen for the Operation of Light-Sport Aircraft; Modifications to
Rules for Sport Pilots and Flight Instructors with a Sport Pilot
Rating, 75 FR 5209 (Feb. 1, 2010).
\91\ FAA guidance recommends pilots to consider using oxygen
whenever they are operating above 10,000 feet MSL. See FAA
Aeronautical Information Manual (AIM) Chapter 8 Section 1. Fitness
for Flight, Effects of Altitude 8-1-2a.5.
\92\ See FAA-S-8081-29A, Sport Pilot and Sport Pilot Flight
Instructor Rating Practical Test Standards for Airplane Category,
Gyroplane Category, and Glider Category, I. Area of Operation:
Preflight Preparation, Task G: Aeromedical Factors (ASEL and ASES),
(Nov. 2023).
\93\ See FAA-S-ACS-6C, Private Pilot for Airplane Category
Airman Certification Standards, Area of Operation I. Preflight
Preparation, Task H: Human Factors, (Nov. 2023).
\94\ 14 CFR 61.3(e)(2) through (4) address when a pilot holds an
ATP and the requirements for a glider and airship.
\95\ See 14 CFR 61.93(a). 14 CFR 61.93(b) contains exceptions to
this requirement.
\96\ 14 CFR 61.93(e)(8), (f)(8), (g)(8), (h)(8), (i)(8), (j)(8),
(k)(8), (l)(8), and (m)(8).
\97\ 14 CFR 61.93(e)(12).
\98\ A person is not required to meet the training and
endorsement requirements to operate an airplane with a VH
of less than or equal to 87 knots CAS as set forth in 14 CFR
61.327(a) if the person logged flight time as PIC of an airplane
with a VH less than or equal to 87 knots CAS prior to
April 2, 2010.
\99\ 14 CFR 61.65(a).
\100\ Private Pilot for Airplane Category ACS, FAA-S-ACS-6C
(November 2023), Area of Operation VIII. Basic Instrument Maneuvers.
FAA notes that these minimum requirements continue to apply when an
applicant concurrently applies for a private pilot certificate with
the associated instrument rating.
\101\ Aerial work is discussed further in section IV.K.1.a,
Operations, Operating Limitations for Light-Sport Category Aircraft,
Aerial Work of this rule.
\102\ See 14 CFR 119.1(e) and Final Rule, Public Aircraft
Logging of Flight Time, Training in Certain Aircraft Holding Special
Airworthiness Certificates, and Flight Instructor Privileges, 89 FR
80310 (Dec. 2, 2024).
\103\ FAA recognizes that compensation for flight training is
also not specifically enumerated in the subpart H flight instructor
requirements; however, subpart H flight instructors are required to
have an underlying commercial pilot certificate or an ATP
certificate with an aircraft category and

[[Page 35199]]

class rating appropriate to the flight instructor rating sought for
subpart H flight instructor certificate eligibility (Sec. 61.183).
Both a commercial pilot certificate and an ATP certificate
facilitate operations for compensation or hire.
\104\ Unlike the underlying commercial pilot certificate and ATP
certificate that facilitate operations for compensation or hire for
a subpart H instructor, the underlying sport pilot certificate
specifically restricts compensation and hire. Therefore, FAA finds
it necessary to except the restrictions from Sec. 61.413(d).
\105\ 69 FR 44792 (Jul. 27, 2004).
\106\ I.e., pilots trained and endorsed in accordance with
proposed 14 CFR 61.331.
\107\ FAA notes that ground resonance is addressed in the
helicopter simplified controls and PTS for sport pilots. However,
FAA notes that helicopters tend to have more stability than
gyroplanes and have the ability to timely correct for imbalances
that three-blade gyroplanes may not be able to.
\108\ 14 CFR 1.1 defines ``night'' as the time between the end
of evening civil twilight and the beginning of morning civil
twilight, as published in the Air Almanac, converted to local time.
\109\ To qualify for BasicMed, a person must have held a FAA
medical certificate after July 14, 2006, must hold a valid U.S.
driver's license, and must also comply with any restrictions
associated with that US issued driver's license. 14 CFR 61.23(c)(3).
BasicMed qualification requirements include completion of online
training course every two years and a physical examination with a
state licensed physician every four years.
\110\ See Advisory Circular (AC) 68-1A, BasicMed.
\111\ E.g., 14 CFR 61.109.
\112\ FAA notes that the night currency requirements specified
in 14 CFR 61.57(b) will continue to be applicable for all pilots.
\113\ Final rule, Airman Certification Standards and Practical
Test Standards for Airmen; Incorporation by Reference, 89 FR 22503
(Apr. 1, 2024).
\114\ 14 CFR 61.109.
\115\ FAA notes that this section primarily discusses medical
certificates in the context of third-class, as this is the lowest
``grade'' of medical certificate in part 67 and FAA did not receive
comment on first- or second-class medical considerations.
\116\ One commenter generally asserted that operating in a
glider can be done safely without a medical certificate. FAA agrees
and affirms there is currently no requirement to possess a FAA
medical to operate a glider.
\117\ FAA has an up-to-date listing of Aviation Medical
Examiners searchable on its website, https://www.faa.gov/pilots/amelocator.
\118\ BasicMed requires the pilot to have held a medical
certificate issued under part 67 at any point since July 14, 2006.
\119\ See Guide for Aviation Medical Examiners, updated 01/01/
2025, https://www.faa.gov/ame_guide/media/ame_guide.pdf.
\120\ Final Rule, Alternative Pilot Physical Examination and
Education Requirements, 82 FR 3149 (Jan. 11, 2017).
\121\ See Section IV.H.1.j.iv for a discussion of medical
conditions and risk to night operations.
\122\ See Pilot's Handbook of Aeronautical Knowledge, chapters
13 and 17 for more information about how medical deficiencies affect
night vision. www.faa.gov/regulations_policies/handbooks_manuals/aviation/phak.
\123\ 14 CFR 61.23(c)(3)(i)(B).
\124\ Congress mandated the regulatory framework of Basic Med in
the FAA Extension, Safety, and Security Act of 2016, Pub. L. 114-
190, July 15, 2016, section 2307. Congress amended these
requirements in the FAA Reauthorization Act of 2024, Pub. L. 118-63,
May 16, 2024, sections 815 and 828.
\125\ For example, a private pilot who is exercising the
privileges of a sport pilot certificate would be subject to the
restriction of carrying one passenger pursuant to 14 CFR
61.315(c)(4).
\126\ See 14 CFR 67.403 & 61.59, which address and restrict
falsification, reproduction, alteration, and incorrect statements on
applications, certificates, logbooks, reports, or records.
\127\ Medical certificate deferral does not, in and of itself,
disqualify an airman from meeting BasicMed requirements. See 14 CFR
61.23(c)(3).
\128\ As stated in the NPRM, proposed Sec. 61.316 would permit
sport pilots to fly an airplane with a fixed or ground-adjustable
propeller, but also allow those with an automated controllable-pitch
propeller. See 88 FR 47661. FAA notes an inadvertent typographic
error on that Federal Register page by citing to 14 CFR 61.316(e)
instead of 14 CFR 61.316(a)(4).
\129\ Hartzell Propellers provided a comment stating that the
final rule should not limit the use of propeller automation. This
final rule clarification responds to Hartzell's comment.
\130\ See 14 CFR 1.1 (2004).
\131\ See, e.g., Exemption No. 8823, issued January 17, 2007.
\132\ 72 FR 19661 (Apr. 19, 2007).
\133\ See section IV.C for discussion on retractable landing
gear on an aircraft intended for operation on water.
\134\ As described in section IV.H.4., FAA re-numbered 14 CFR
61.316(a) as a result of other changes to the proposed language.
\135\ As defined in 14 CFR 61.1, a complex airplane means an
airplane that has a retractable landing gear, flaps, and a
controllable pitch propeller, including airplanes equipped with an
engine control system consisting of a digital computer and
associated accessories for controlling the engine and propeller,
such as a full authority digital engine control; or, in the case of
a seaplane, flaps and a controllable pitch propeller, including
seaplanes equipped with an engine control system consisting of a
digital computer and associated accessories for controlling the
engine and propeller, such as a full authority digital engine
control.
\136\ See 88 FR 47685 (Jul. 24, 2023).
\137\ See 72 FR 19661 (Apr. 19, 2007).
\138\ See 88 FR 47685 (Jul. 24 2023).
\139\ As discussed at length in the NPRM, instructor pilots
generally develop and validate training for an aircraft for the
manufacturer. Therefore, the duties of an instructor pilot establish
intricate knowledge of the aircraft's systems and components,
ensuring they are qualified to create the initial cadre of
authorized instructors who may provide training under new 14 CFR
61.31(l). 88 FR 47686.
\140\ 88 FR 47686 (Jul. 24, 2023).
\141\ FAA notes this framework is currently utilized in 14 CFR
61.31 to obtain additional privileges (e.g., operation of tailwheel
airplanes, high performance airplanes, etc.).
\142\ USUA detailed the necessary regulatory text revisions
necessary under this general framework affecting 14 CFR 61.31(l),
61.45(g)(2), 61.195(n)(2), 61.415(m), and 61.429(d); because this
final rule does not implement USUA's recommendation, the regulatory
text recommendations are summarized for brevity.
\143\ See 69 FR 44772 (Jul. 27, 2004); 75 FR 5204 (Feb. 1,
2010).
\144\ 14 CFR 61.31(e) and (f).
\145\ 14 CFR 61.45(h)(2).
\146\ 88 FR 47687 (Jul. 24, 2023).
\147\ This final rule adds the applicability to an initial
applicant for that category and class rating to address a potential
situation where a person may have two category and class ratings
(e.g., airplane single engine and rotorcraft helicopter) and adds a
simplified flight controls privilege in one of those category and
classes. Under the proposed regulatory text, the FAA identified
ambiguity as to whether the person would be required to only receive
training and endorsement to add a simplified flight controls
privilege in the other category and class because the person would
be seeking a different category and class of aircraft with
simplified flight controls. Adding the applicability to initial
applicants for that category and class rating serve to make clear
that a practical test is only required for a different category and
class if the person does not already have the base category and
class ratings for the aircraft with simplified flight controls.
\148\ FAA notes that the regulatory text adopted (as proposed)
will contain an exception for the examiner's ability to assume
control if the sport pilot practical test is conducted in an
aircraft with a single seat. In this instance, 14 CFR 61.45(f) will
control in lieu of 14 CFR 61.45(g)(3), only (i.e., 14 CFR
61.45(g)(1) and (2) will still apply).
\149\ See 14 CFR 61.429(d).
\150\ See Table 1, Airman Certification Simplified Flight
Controls Requirements, 88 FR 47687 (Jul. 24, 2023).
\151\ 88 FR 47688 (Jul. 24, 2023).
\152\ In response to a commenter's recommendation that sport
pilots should be permitted to operate helicopters with three blade
rotors, FAA notes it does not limit the number of rotor blades for
rotorcraft-helicopters that sport pilots may operate under this
final rule.
\153\ FAA recognizes a number of standing operations are
inherently inapplicable to helicopters (e.g., soaring techniques);
this final rule makes conforming amendments to except helicopters
from those areas of operation in redesignated 14 CFR 61.311(g), (j),
and (k).
\154\ See 14 CFR 61.101(b).
\155\ To note, FAA also proposed to permit sport pilot
applicants to use a qualified FSTD or a FAA-approved ATD (basic or
advanced)

[[Page 35200]]

to meet some of the experience requirements for a sport pilot
certificate. Adoption of that provision is discussed in section
IV.H.7. of this preamble and renumbers current Sec. 61.313(a)
through (h) as Sec. 61.313(a)(1) through (9).
\156\ 88 FR 47690 (Jul. 24, 2023).
\157\ FAA notes redesignation of current paragraphs 14 CFR
61.409(f) through (p) due to the addition of new paragraph (f),
Hovering maneuvers (applicable only to helicopters).
\158\ See 14 CFR 61.101, Recreational pilot privileges and
limitations.
\159\ 89 FR 22482 (May 31, 2024).
\160\ FAA notes that the list of ACSs in Sec. 61.14(b) are
listed in numerical order by version number; therefore, FAA-S-ACS-
26, Sport Pilot for Helicopter--Simplified Flight Controls Airman
Certification Standards, will be new 14 CFR 61.14(b)(13), which will
shift the subsequent numbers by one (i.e., current paragraph (b)(13)
will become (b)(14), current paragraph (b)(14) will become (b)(15),
current paragraph (b)(15) will become (b)(16)). FAA-S- FAA-S-ACS-31,
Sport Flight Instructor for Helicopter--Simplified Flight Controls
Airman Certification Standards, will be listed as new Sec.
61.14(b)(17).
\161\ FAA notes one conforming amendment in both sections;
currently, each section only lists ``Practical Test Standards'' as
applicable to sport pilots; because this final rule adopts two
Airman Certification Standards, this final rule revises each
paragraph to specify the ``applicable Practical Test Standard or
Airman Certification Standard.''
\162\ 5 U.S.C. 552(a), which states, ``except to the extent that
a person has actual or timely notice of the terms thereof, a person
may not in any manner be required to resort to, or be adversely
affected by, a matter required to be published in the Federal
Register and not so published. For the purpose of this paragraph,
matter reasonably available to the class of persons affected thereby
is deemed published in the Federal Register when incorporated by
reference therein with the approval of the Director of the Federal
Register.''
\163\ 5 U.S.C. 552(a) requires that matter incorporated by
reference be ``reasonably available'' as a condition of its
eligibility. Further, 1 CFR 51.5(a)(2) requires that agencies
seeking to incorporate material by reference discuss in the preamble
of the proposed rule the ways that the material it proposes to
incorporate by reference is reasonably available to interested
parties and how interested parties can obtain the material.
\164\ FAA-S-8081-29A, FAA-S-8081-30A, and FAA-S-8081-31A.
\165\ 14 CFR 61.321. Under Sec. 61.321, the person must also
receive a logbook endorsement validating they received training on
certain aeronautical knowledge and flight proficiency requirements,
receive an endorsement certifying they are proficient in the
applicable areas of operation and aeronautical knowledge areas, and
complete an application. 14 CFR 61.419 contains mirrored
requirements for a certificated flight instructor seeking to provide
training in an additional category or class of aircraft.
\166\ FAA notes, however, that to obtain the initial sport pilot
certificate or flight instructor certificate with a sport pilot
rating, a person must pass a practical test with an examiner in the
category and class of aircraft for the initial privileges for that
certificate.
\167\ See 88 FR 47691 (Jul. 24, 2023).
\168\ See FAA-S-8081-29A, Sport Pilot and Sport Pilot Flight
Instructor Rating Practical Test Standards for Airplane Category,
Gyroplane Category and Glider Category, November 2003 (stating that
``[t]he FAA requires that all sport pilot and sport pilot flight
instructor practical tests and proficiency checks be conducted in
accordance with the appropriate sport pilot practical test standards
and the policies set forth in this INTRODUCTION. Applicants must be
evaluated in ALL TASKs included in each AREA OF OPERATION of the
appropriate practical test standard, unless otherwise noted.'').
\169\ One commenter explained the number of weight shift control
DPEs is limited and that removing that process would make it
difficult to obtain a weight shift control privilege. FAA notes that
using a proficiency check to add a weight shift control privilege to
an existing sport pilot certificate is still permitted under 14 CFR
61.321.
\170\ FAA notes one nonsubstantive amendment in 14 CFR 61.307
adopted in this final rule. 14 CFR 61.307(b) requires a logbook
endorsement from the authorized instructor who provided flight
training on the areas of operation specified in 14 CFR 61.309 and
61.311 in preparation for the practical test, later describing the
endorsement as certification that a person meets the applicable
aeronautical knowledge and experience requirements. While 14 CFR
61.309 sets forth aeronautical knowledge requirements (as
referenced),14 CFR 61.311 sets forth flight proficiency
requirements, not aeronautical experience. Therefore, this final
rule revises 14 CFR 61.307(b) to correctly reference aeronautical
knowledge and flight proficiency, aligning with and accurately
describing the cross-referenced sections.
\171\ See ARAC DPEWG Final Recommendation Report (June 2021),
https://www.faa.gov/regulations_policies/rulemaking/committees/documents/media/ARAC%20DPEWG%20Final%20Recommendation%20Report%20June%202021.pdf.
\172\ FAA Order 8000.95 (as amended) contains DPE policy,
including initial qualification requirements.
\173\ NPRM, Certification of Aircraft and Airmen for the
Operation of Light-Sport Aircraft, 67 FR 5368 (Feb. 5, 2002). The
NPRM to the 2004 Final Rule explained that the sport pilot
certificate would not list aircraft category and class ratings. FAA
also noted logbook endorsements that provide sport pilots with
additional category and class privileges do not constitute category
and class ratings under part 61.
\174\ Flight simulation training device includes flight training
devices (FTD level 4-7) and full flight simulators (level A-D) as
identified under part 60.
\175\ 14 CFR 60.7.
\176\ 69 FR 44820 (Jul. 27, 2004).
\177\ FAA notes that this final rule separates light-sport
aircraft certification from sport pilot certification requirements
and privileges. In addition, this final rule does modify sport pilot
privileges by allowing operation of certain expanded aircraft design
and performance characteristics. However, the expanded aircraft
characteristics do not inherently make the aircraft permitted under
the rule more complex than what is allowed under the current rule
such that a sweeping increase to training hours is required. This
final rule accounts for aircraft that may be more advanced by
requiring additional training and endorsements when necessary (e.g.,
night operations). The additional training and endorsements
supplement the checks that are already in place on the minimum
experience requirements for a sport pilot. Therefore, FAA determined
that changes to the baseline minimum experience requirements are
unnecessary.
\178\ 14 CFR 61.315(c)(19).
\179\ For purposes of providing training for a solo cross-
country endorsement under 14 CFR 61.93 of this chapter, a safety
pilot may possess a flight instructor certificate with an
appropriate sport pilot rating and meet the requirements of 14 CFR
61.412 of this chapter. See 14 CFR 91.109(c)(1)(ii).
\180\ The Integration of Powered-Lift final rule also adopted
the requirement for a person who acts as PIC to hold a type rating
for that powered-lift. 14 CFR 61.31(a)(3). Final rule, Integration
of Powered-Lift: Pilot Certification and Operations; Miscellaneous
Amendments Related to Rotorcraft and Airplanes, 89 FR 92296 (Nov.
21, 2024).
\181\ A discussion related to recreational pilot certificates
and helicopters can be found in section IV.H.4.
\182\ See 14 CFR 11.63 for information on petitions for
rulemaking.
\183\ 14 CFR 61.31(a)(2).
\184\ NPRM, Pilot Rating Requirements, 29 FR 13038 (Sept. 17,
1964). Final rule, Pilot Rating Requirements, 30 FR 11903 (Sep. 17,
1965).
\185\ See IV.F.7, Maximum Airspeed at Maximum Continuous Power
(VH), in this final rule for discussion on light-sport
category aircraft eligibility criteria in 14 CFR 22.100.
\186\ Given that the vast majority of light-sport category
aircraft operations would occur below 10,000 feet MSL, where 14 CFR
91.117(a) limits airspeed below 250 knots indicated airspeed, the
maximum 250 knot CAS limitation is appropriate for the light-sport
category and for operation by sport pilots.
\187\ For additional discussion, FAA has issued multiple legal
interpretations on what constitutes compensation. These legal
interpretations are available by searching the legal interpretations
database in the FAA Dynamic Regulatory System at https://drs.faa.gov/browse/LEGAL_INTERPRETATIONS/doctypeDetails.
\188\ See 14 CFR 61.51(f), Pilot Logbooks. Logging second-in-
command flight time.
\189\ See 14 CFR 61.99(b) & 61.109(l).
\190\ 88 FR 43693.
\191\ See section IV.I.3 of this preamble for discussion on the
removal of the 14 CFR 1.1 definition of light-sport aircraft.
\192\ https://amsrvs.registry.faa.gov/amsrvs/.
\193\ As used with respect to certification of airman,
``category'' examples include:

[[Page 35201]]

airplane, rotorcraft, glider, and lighter-than-air. See 14 CFR 1.1.
\194\ As used with respect to certification of airman, ``class''
examples include: single engine; multiengine; land; water;
gyroplane; helicopter; airship; and free balloon. See 14 CFR 1.1.
\195\ See NPRM, 88 FR 47964 for a chart cataloging ''class'' and
''category'' changes.
\196\ See 88 FR 47695 (Jul. 24, 2023).
\197\ See 14 CFR 65.71 for mechanic eligibility requirements.
\198\ It is incumbent upon the repairman certificate (light-
sport) holders who are not citizens of the U.S. to ensure they
remain in compliance with all applicable employment, immigration, or
related laws necessary to work in the United States.
\199\ FAA Order 8900.1, Volume 5, Chapter 5, Section 6.
\200\ 14 CFR 65.107(a)(2)(ii) and 65.107(a)(3)(ii).
\201\ Proposed as 14 CFR 65.107(b)(5).
\202\ See Advisory Circular 65-32A, Certification of Repairmen
(Light Sport Aircraft), Sec. 2, Para. 113.f, on guidance on course
test; see also FAA Order 8000.84B, paragraphs 7 and 8 for guidance
for accepting training courses prior to this final rule.
\203\ FAA requires documentary evidence to allow applicants the
ability to provide documents other than a course completion
certificate to demonstrate completing the training course and
passing the written exam, in the event the course completion
certificate is lost or not otherwise available for presentation.
Documentary evidence should include the required information in 14
CFR 65.107(e)(3).
\204\ Gyroplane privileges are an exception; Refer to section
IV.I.8.
\205\ 88 FR 47693 (Jul. 24, 2023).
\206\ See 88 FR 47650, 47693 (Jul. 24, 2023).
\207\ Incorporated by reference in 14 CFR 65.23(a)(3).
\208\ The FAA interprets the commenters use of ``type of
aircraft'' to mean category or class of aircraft.
\209\ Final rule, Certification of Aircraft and Airman for the
Operation of Light-Sport Aircraft, 69 FR 44772, 44849 (Jul. 27,
2004).
\210\ At the time of this final rule, only the Rotorcraft and
Lighter-than-Air categories include classes within the category.
\211\ Credit for prior training is discussed in AC 65-32B,
Chapter 3.
\212\ See 14 CFR 65.95(a).
\213\ In accordance with 14 CFR 91.409(c), annual inspections do
not apply to all aircraft holding a standard airworthiness
certificate.
\214\ Current 14 CFR 65.107(a)(3)(ii) requires: (A) 120 hours
for airplane privileges, (B) 104 hours for weight-shift-control
privileges, (C) 104 hours for powered parachute privileges, (D) 80
hours for lighter than air privileges, and (E) 80 hours for glider
privileges.
\215\ 14 CFR 65.109(b), as adopted in this final rule defines
the privileges of the maintenance rating, which include performing
the annual condition inspection on experimental aircraft issued an
airworthiness certificate in accordance with 14 CFR 21.191(g), (i),
(k), or (l). Section IV.I.10.b. further discusses the adoption (and
expansion) of these privileges.
\216\ FAA notes that part 65 designation of category aligns with
the aircraft category and classes as defined in 14 CFR 1.1 as
applicable to airman certification.
\217\ Further discussion regarding replacing the maintenance
rating prescriptive hours-based training course with a performance-
based training standard using the Mechanic ACS is found in 88 FR
47650, 47693 (Jul. 24, 2023).
\218\ Aviation Maintenance Technician Schools, Interim Final
Rule, 87 FR 31391 (May 24, 2022).
\219\ See references to course content in 14 CFR 65.107(b)(4),
65.107(c), (d), and (e).
\220\ See 88 FR 7650, 47696 (Jul. 24, 2023).
\221\ Draft AC 65-32 found in docket, document ID FAA-2023-1377-
0002.
\222\ 67 FR 5368 (Feb. 5, 2002).
\223\ See Aviation Maintenance Technician Schools, 87 FR 31391,
(May 24, 2022).
\224\ See Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2021, Sec. 135,
``Promoting Aviation Regulations for Technical Training'' Public Law
116-260, 134 Stat. 1182. (Dec. 27, 2020).
\225\ As evidenced by pilot, mechanic, and dispatcher practical
test standards (PTS) and airman certification standards (ACS)
historically and currently used to define knowledge and skills
necessary to be issued one of these certificates.
\226\ ``Certificated repairmen (light-sport aircraft) would--(1)
Meet minimum training and testing requirements, which would ensure
that repairmen have the necessary skills to inspect (or maintain)
light-sport aircraft and certify that they are safe to fly . . .,''
67 FR 5368, 5374 (Feb. 5, 2002).
\227\ ``Draft AC 65-32 for MOSAIC NPRM Docket_06-26-23'' found
in Docket FAA-2023-1377, document folder with Document ID: FAA-2023-
1377-0002. No comments were received on the draft AC. AC 65-32B is
revised to reflect the final rule and is available at: https://www.faa.gov/regulations_policies/advisory_circulars/, as well as in
the rulemaking docket.
\228\ AC 65-32B, appendix B, Maintenance Rating Training Course
Content.
\229\ Advisory Circulars provide a method, but not the only
method, of compliance a training course provider could use to meet
the regulation.
\230\ Guidelines and further guidance pertaining to determining
``appropriate'' training course content may be found in AC 65-32B,
Chapter 3.
\231\ See section IV.I.7.a of this preamble for further
discussion specific to use of ``accepted by the FAA.''
\232\ FAA Order 8000.84, Procedures to Accept Industry-Developed
Training for Light-Sport Repairmen.
\233\ 5 U.S.C. 552, 553.
\234\ See Aviation Maintenance Technician Schools, 87 FR 31391
(May 24, 2022).
\235\ See section IV.I.4.a of this preamble for additional
discussion on ``appropriate'' content.
\236\ Glider category training courses must be updated to
include content on both unpowered and powered gliders. Refer to
adopted 14 CFR 65.107(g) Delayed Compliance, and related discussion
in section IV.I.5 of this preamble.
\237\ 88 FR 47650, 47695 (Jul. 24, 2023).
\238\ See 14 CFR 65.85.
\239\ See 14 CFR 65.109(c).
\240\ The 14 CFR regulations for operation (e.g. part 91),
maintenance/inspection (e.g., parts 43 and 91), and airman
certification (e.g. part 65), together, provide additional risk
mitigation. For example, a light-sport category aircraft may only be
operated if inspected at prescribed intervals (per 14 CFR 91.327)
and discrepancies repaired (per 14 CFR 91.409). These aircraft must
be maintained in accordance with 14 CFR 43.13, and meet additional
requirements for inspections, repairs, and alterations (required by
14 CFR 91.327). That work may only be approved for return to service
by certificated personnel under part 65, who are able to perform
that work properly (per 14 CFR 65.81 or 14 CFR 65.109(c)).
\241\ Parts 23, 25, 27, and 29 are examples of regulations that
set forth design standards for various categories of aircraft. Part
23 permits using a consensus standard as a means of compliance for
meeting the requirements of the part, in Sec. 23.2010.
\242\ In comparison, 14 CFR 65.81(a) and (b) contain limitations
for mechanic certificate holders that are almost identical to the
Sec. 65.109(c) limitations. FAA has no evidence to suggest that
these regulations are not producing the intended outcome that
certificate holders have the knowledge and skill necessary to
satisfactorily perform and approve for return to service work on an
aircraft.
\243\ Appendix B of AC 65-32 provides an example of using a
module system to deliver the maintenance rating training courses.
\244\ As an example, a training course provider could offer an
independent course on ballistic parachute systems; if the training
provided actual work experience (i.e., not just theory), a
certificated repairman could complete the additional training
offered and, in doing the work satisfactorily, would meet the
requirements for adopted Sec. 65.109 and could approve for return
to service a ballistic parachute system after performing the
specific work.
\245\ In reference to how the proposed rule would create pre-
and post-final rule training courses, one commenter stated the final
rule should explicitly state that training courses approved prior to
this rulemaking continue to be sufficient for obtaining a light-
sport repairman certificate, and two commenters opined that more
than 6 months should be provided for effectivity. FAA trusts this
discussion responds to the commenter, as FAA has determined that all
pre-final rule training courses, except for glider courses, already
meet 14 CFR 65.107(d), as adopted, and no longer need a 6-month
delayed effectivity.
\246\ Though not considered under the proposed delayed
compliance provision, FAA's review of all repairman (light-sport)
training courses found the glider-specific inspection rating course
also needed a delayed compliance period to update course content to
include both powered and unpowered gliders.
\247\ While no powered-glider courses exist, FAA found course
content separation for glider powerplants was based on a note in
guidance materials. FAA is reviewing related guidance materials and
intends to update guidance as necessary to align with the
regulations adopted in this rulemaking.

[[Page 35202]]

\248\ See 14 CFR 1.1 definition of class, as applicable to
airman certification.
\249\ Glider training courses must include content on both
unpowered and powered gliders because powerplants are applicable
content, consistent with Mechanic ACS Subject Area III., Powerplant.
\250\ Upon review of FAA guidance materials, FAA found
directions to add an expiration date on training courses accepted by
the FAA. Expiration dates for courses are not regulatorily supported
and therefore are not enforceable and no longer will be added to
course acceptances. FAA will review guidance materials and consider
amending guidance to address this issue. As such, FAA considers FAA-
acceptance of courses to be effective until the course is superseded
or otherwise revised.
\251\ FAA notes, holders of a repairman (light-sport)
certificate with an inspection rating and glider category privileges
must still comply with the operating limitations of the glider,
issued in accordance with 14 CFR 91.319. These operating limitations
require inspections to be performed per the scope and detail of part
43 appendix D, which would include inspecting the powerplants of
powered gliders. Similarly, the holder of a repairman certificate
(light-sport) with a maintenance rating and glider category
privileges must perform inspections in accordance with inspection
procedures developed by the manufacturer or a person acceptable to
the FAA, per 14 CFR 91.327(b)(2) and 91.327(c), which would include
inspecting and maintaining the powerplants of powered gliders.
\252\ FAA Order 8000.84.
\253\ The FAA assumes the commenter is referring to exams such
as the FAA-administered oral and practical exams required to be
taken by applicants for a mechanic certificate under 14 CFR 65.75
and 65.79.
\254\ See 88 FR 47653 (Jul 24, 2023).
\255\ 14 CFR 65.77.
\256\ 14 CFR 65.75.
\257\ 14 CFR 65.79.
\258\ That Notice explained that where the term ``accepted by
the FAA'' is used, it means the item at issue must be submitted to
the FAA for review and acceptance before use. Where the term
``acceptable to the FAA'' is used, it means the item is not normally
privy to the FAA's active review and acceptance before its use,
though the FAA will exercise its oversight responsibilities.
\259\ FAA interprets ``appropriate'' facilities, equipment, and
materials to mean those elements are sufficiently suited to instruct
in the content the training course offered. In NPRM footnote 104, an
illustration of appropriate equipment is provided.
\260\ FAA interprets ``appropriately qualified'' instructors to
mean an instructor is demonstrably qualified to teach the course
content. This demonstration may include educational credentials,
certifications, or practical experience that aligns with the subject
matter that the instructor teaches.
\261\ See NPRM, 88 FR 47697.
\262\ 69 FR 44799. Prior to this final rule, 14 CFR 21.190
specifically excluded gyroplanes; therefore, 14 CFR 65.107 excluded
gyroplane training course facilitation as unnecessary.
\263\ 88 FR 47650, 47697-98. (Jul. 24, 2023).
\264\ FAA maintains a list of FAA-accepted or -approved
consensus standards at: https://www.faa.gov/aircraft/gen_av/light_sport.
\265\ As stated in the Integration of Powered-Lift Final Rule,
FAA found it was infeasible to create classes of powered-lift at
that time, but did not foreclose the possibility in the future
(i.e., after the 10 year period of the SFAR) when industry and the
FAA could discern groups of similar operating characteristics. See
89 FR 92296.
\266\ See 88 FR 47650, 47698 (Jul. 24, 2023).
\267\ See Repairman Certificate Portability Working Group
Preliminary Recommendation Report, https://www.faa.gov/media/73451.
\268\ See Repairman Certificate Portability Working Group
Recommendation Report, Preliminary Recommendations.
\269\ See 88 FR 47650, 47698 (Jul. 24, 2023).
\270\ Experimental airworthiness certificate issued with the
purpose of ``operating amateur-built aircraft.''
\271\ 14 CFR 65.107(c).
\272\ 14 CFR 65.107(d).
\273\ Final rule, Exhibition, Air-Racing, and Amateur-Built
Aircraft; Airworthiness Certificate and Repairman Certification (44
FR 46778, Aug. 9, 1979).
\274\ The Administrator may prescribe additional limitations
that the Administrator considers necessary, including limitations on
the persons that may be carried in the aircraft.
\275\ Except large aircraft with a 12,500 pounds or more gross
takeoff weight, turbine powered airplanes or rotorcraft or powered-
lift aircraft.
\276\ Refer to FAA Order 8130.2, Table D-1.
\277\ For example, aircraft issued an experimental airworthiness
certificate in accordance with former 14 CFR 21.191 (i)(2) (new 14
CFR 21.191(k)) and former 14 CFR 21.191(i)(3) (new 14 CFR
21.191(l)).
\278\ Aircraft issued an experimental airworthiness certificate
in accordance with former 14 CFR 21.191(i)(1) (amended 14 CFR
21.191(i)).
\279\ An individual who shows to FAA evidence of building the
major portion of an aircraft are eligible to obtain a repairman
certificate (experimental aircraft builder), with privileges limited
to the aircraft that person has built. FAA considers these
individuals to have demonstrated acceptable knowledge of the
aircraft and able to perform a condition inspection because the
individual built the major portion of an aircraft that was found
safe for flight by FAA and subsequently issued an airworthiness
certificate.
\280\ 14 CFR 65.107(b)(5) requires that the applicant have the
requisite sill to determine whether an aircraft is in a condition
for safe operation, i.e., perform a condition inspection.
\281\ Final rule, Exhibition, Air-Racing, and Amateur-Built
Aircraft; Airworthiness Certificate and Repairman Certification, 44
FR 46778 (Aug. 9, 1979).
\282\ FAA-certificated mechanics and repair stations are also
permitted, in accordance with part 65 subpart D and part 145,
respectively, to conduct a condition inspection on an experimental
amateur-built aircraft.
\283\ This final rule removes the definition of a light-sport
aircraft in 14 CFR 1.1 and adopts, new 14 CFR 61.316, which
describes the performance limits and design requirements for
aircraft that a sport pilot may operate.
\284\ 88 FR 47698 (Jul. 24, 2023).
\285\ While new 14 CFR 65.109(c), in pertinent part, states that
if that person has not previously performed work as described in
that paragraph, the person may show the ability to do the work by
performing it to the satisfaction of the FAA, or by performing it
under the direct supervision of a certificated and appropriately
rated mechanic, or a certificated repairman, who has had previous
experience in the specific operation concerned, that paragraph is
simply redesignated (with only editorial revision) from 14 CFR
65.107(d).
\286\ 14 CFR 65.107(c) was 14 CFR 65.107(d) prior to October 22,
2025.
\287\ National Archives Document Drafting Handbook, 2018
Edition, Paragraph 2.15 Asterisks. https://www.archives.gov/federal-register/write/ddh.
\288\ The NPRM, as the notice to the public, contained the
nature of the rulemaking proceedings, the authority under which the
rule was proposed, and the terms and substance of the proposed rule,
with a description of the subjects and issues involved, as required
by 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(1)-(3).
\289\ 14 CFR 65.77(b)(1) requires practical experience with the
procedures, practices, materials, tools, machine tools, and
equipment generally used in constructing, maintaining, or altering
airframes or powerplants.
\290\ FAA Order 8110.107, Monitor Safety/Analyze Data.
\291\ Additional discussion regarding how FAA determines
mandatory overhaul or maintenance intervals can be found in FAA
Order 8900.1, Volume 3, Chapter 15, Section 1, The Elements of
Maintenance, and Section 2, Common Areas of Confusion in
Maintenance.
\292\ This is referring to the statement of compliance submitted
in accordance with 14 CFR 21.190(c)(1).
\293\ F2483-18e1, Standard Practice for Maintenance and the
Development of Maintenance Manuals for Light Sport Aircraft.
Paragraphs 3.1.10. and 3.1.12 state that a major repair, alteration,
or maintenance is ``any repair, alteration, or maintenance for which
instructions to complete the task excluded from the maintenance
manual(s) supplied to the consumer are considered major'', and that
a minor repair, alteration, or maintenance is ``any repair,
alteration, or maintenance for which instructions provided for in
the maintenance manual(s) supplied to the consumer of the product
are considered minor.
\294\ In discussing the removal of ``to an aircraft product
produced under a consensus standard'' from 14 CFR 91.327(b)(6), the
NPRM accidentally omitted the word ``product'' in the preamble
discussion of what language is being removed, but the NPRM proposed
regulatory text or reflected the correct revision for 14 CFR
91.327(b)(6).

[[Page 35203]]

\295\ In the NPRM and final rule, FAA reworded language to
separate the requirement to authorize the major repair or alteration
from the performance and inspection requirement. Previous wording
implied that the authorization was done in accordance with the
maintenance and inspection procedures, which is not accurate. The
maintenance and inspection procedures must only address performance
and inspection of the major repair or major alteration, not the
authorization of such work on an aircraft. No comments were received
on the proposed language change therefore, it was adopted in the
final rule language.
\296\ Refer to section IV.J.3 for additional discussion on 14
CFR 1.1. definitions for major alterations and major repairs.
\297\ This definition comports with the description in the 2004
final rule, which stated a third-party modifier included a licensee
who built a product or part that was not part of the original
design.
\298\ 69 FR 44854 (Jul. 27, 2004).
\299\ Minor repairs and minor alterations are not subject to the
additional requirements of 14 CFR 91.327(b)(5) of this final rule;
however, the requirements of 14 CFR 91.327(b)(1) (i.e., maintain the
aircraft in accordance with the applicable provisions of part 43)
continue to apply.
\300\ FAA-S-ACS-6C, Private Pilot for Airplane Category Airman
Certification Standards; dated November 2023; https://www.faa.gov/training_testing/testing/acs/private_airplane_acs_6.pdf.
\301\ FAA-S-8081-29A, Sport Pilot and Sport Pilot Flight
Instructor Rating Practical Test Standards for Airplane Category,
Gyroplane Category, and Glider Category, dated November 2023;
https://www.faa.gov/training_testing/testing/acs/sport_airplane_pts_29.pdf.
\302\ 69 FR 44804 (Jul. 27, 2004).
\303\ Holding a standard category airworthiness certificate
subsequently requires these aircraft to have an annual inspection
performed by, at least, a certificated mechanic holding an
inspection authorization. In contrast, a condition inspection on an
aircraft with an experimental airworthiness certificate can be
performed by a mechanic that does not hold an inspection
authorization or by the holder of a repairman certificate.
\304\ AC 20-62, Eligibility, Quality, and Identification of
Aeronautical Replacement Parts; AC 23-27, Parts and Materials
Substitutions for Vintage Aircrafts, and Work Instruction (WI)
Vintage Aircraft Replacements and Modification Article (VARMA) WI-
51822.
\305\ See, e.g., Interpretation to James Richards (November 20,
2018) (stating ``the FAA interprets Sec. 119.1(e)(4) as containing
only a partial list of examples of the exceptions meeting the
definition of aerial work operations.''); Interpretation to Angelina
Shamborska (Feb. 5, 2010) (``While the regulation cites certain
examples of aerial work operations, those examples are not all-
inclusive.'').
\306\ See Interpretation to James Richards (November 20, 2018)
(``The FAA has consistently interpreted the term `aerial work' to
mean work done from the air with the same departure and destination
points, while no property of another is carried on the aircraft, and
only persons essential to the operation are carried onboard the
aircraft.''); Interpretation to Jeffrey Hill (March 10, 2011)
(stating ``the aerial work provision of Sec. 119.1(e)(4)(iii) is
inapplicable if property ``of another'' is carried on the aircraft;
the operation does not begin and end at the same location; or if
passengers who are not essential to the operation are carried on
board the airplane'').
\307\ See, e.g., Interpretation to Tanabe (May 21, 2010)
(explaining that to qualify for the aerial work exception, ``each
person on board the aircraft must be necessary to perform the
operation'' and opining that the carriage of passengers on board who
are ``not required for dispersal of remains'' would disqualify the
flight from the aerial work exception).
\308\ See, e.g., Interpretation to Double Eagle Aviation, May 5,
2015 (``We further note that the exception in Sec. 119.1(e)(4) for
certain `aerial work operations,' such as banner towing, aerial
photography or survey, and powerline or pipeline patrol, does not
extend to air tour operations in which the primary purpose is
sightseeing.'').
\309\ See IV.E.5.c. in this final rule.
\310\ ``Pattern work'' is a term of art that generally refers to
traffic pattern practice for proficiency, training, and competency.
\311\ See, e.g., Interpretation to Melvin O. Cintron (Aug. 18,
2012) (``Although these terms are not defined by regulation, there
has been a long history stretching back over 40 years of using a
case-by-case approach in determining how to apply those terms and
how they relate to one another. This approach `is well documented
and supported by many legal opinions issued by the FAA, the National
Transportation Board (NTSB) and federal courts.''').
\312\ See section IV.M. of this rule for a discussion of the
codification of special purpose operations for restricted category
aircraft.
\313\ As explained in the safety continuum discussion in this
document, restricted category civil aircraft have traditionally been
placed above aircraft with experimental airworthiness certificates
on the safety continuum because they are required to be maintained
continuously to meet standards prescribed in a type certificate data
sheet (TCDS).
\314\ 89 FR 92296 (Nov. 21, 2024).
\315\ International Civil Aviation Organization. Unmanned
Aircraft Systems (UAS). ICAO Cir 328, 2011, p.15.
\316\ 69 FR 44880 (Jul. 27, 2004).
\317\ Civil Air Regulations, Part 8, Aircraft Airworthiness
Restricted Category, Sec. 8.10(2), effective October 11, 1950.
\318\ The NPRM provided the opportunity to submit proprietary or
confidential business information in a way so that FAA will not
place it on the public docket and will treat it as confidential
under the Freedom of Information Act (5 U.S.C. 552).
\319\ Proposal for a New Special Purpose Operation in the
Restricted Category Under FAR 21.25(b)(7)--Space Vehicle Launching
59 FR 2901 (Jan. 19, 1994).
\320\ See Civil Aeronautics Manual, Sec. 8.21 Multiple
airworthiness certification, which limited eligibility for this
provision to normal, utility, acrobatic, transport, and limited
categories.
\321\ A ``Means of Compliance'' is a detailed design standard
that, if met, accomplishes the intent of the regulation and is used
by an applicant to show compliance with the broad requirements of 14
CFR. A means of compliance is one method, but not the only method,
to show compliance with a regulatory requirement. A ``Method of
Compliance'' is a description of how compliance will be shown (e.g.,
ground test, flight test, analysis, similarity, etc.). The
description of the method of compliance should be sufficient to
determine that all necessary compliance-related data will be
collected, and all findings can be made.
\322\ 88 FR 47729 (Jul. 24, 2023).
\323\ https://www.regulations.gov/docket/FAA-2023-0855/comments.
\324\ The fundamental difference between these two
classifications of airworthiness certification is that the standard
airworthiness certificate includes a finding of compliance to
International Civil Aviation Organization airworthiness standards,
enabling international air navigation without having to obtain
permission before entering another country.
\325\ Johnson, Dan and Roy Beisswenger, 2018, Modernizing Rules
for Sport Pilots and Light Sport Aircraft.
\326\ The report is available online at: https://www.faa.gov/sites/faa.gov/files/aircraft/gen_av/light_sport/2021_SLSA_COS.pdf.
\327\ FAA provides a list at: FAA Accepted ASTM Consensus
Standards--LSA.
\328\ The FAA's noise certification process is entirely
performance-based; there are no noise-reduction technologies defined
in the noise regulations. Applicants are free to choose any methods
or technologies. The FAA sets the noise limits at levels that
aircraft with current technology will pass.
\329\ See https://view.officeapps.live.com/op/view.aspx?src=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.faa.gov%2Faircraft%2Fgen_av%2Flight_sport%2Fmedia%2Fslsa_directory.xlsx&wdOrigin=BROWSELINK.
\330\ Available at https://registry.faa.gov/aircraftinquiry/.
\331\ See 2023 U.S. Civil Airmen Statistics (https://www.faa.gov/data_research/aviation_data_statistics/civil_airmen_statistics), Table 16.
\332\ National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB), 2012, The
Safety of Experimental Amateur-Built Aircraft. NTSB/SS-12/01.
https://www.ntsb.gov/investigations/AccidentReports/Reports/SS1201.pdf.
\333\ U.S. Department of Transportation. 2025. https://www.transportation.gov/office-policy/transportation-policy/revised-departmental-guidance-on-valuation-of-a-statistical-life-in-economic-analysis.
\334\ U.S. Department of Transportation. 2021. Treatment of the
Value of Preventing Fatalities and Injuries in Preparing Economic
Analyses. https://www.transportation.gov/resources/value-of-a-statistical-life-guidance.
\335\ The calculations are 3.9 x $13.7 million and 3.5 x $1.4
million.
\336\ For example, 14 CFR 22.155, fire protection, requires
incorporating design features to sustain static and dynamic

[[Page 35204]]

deceleration loads without structural damage to fuel or electrical
system components or their attachments that could leak fuel to an
ignition source or allow electrical power to become an ignition
source. The consensus standard does not address low wing airplane
designs where the fuel is abeam or forward of the occupants if fuel
is in tanks built into the leading edge of the wing. 14 CFR 22.165,
emergency evacuation, requires all occupants can rapidly conduct an
emergency evacuation and to account for all conditions likely to
occur following an emergency landing. The consensus standards don't
account for all conditions, such as if the aircraft were inverted.
\337\ Estimate from an acoustic Designated Engineering
Representative.
\338\ As noted in section IV.I.5, two glider-specific training
courses will need to be updated to include content covering both
unpowered and powered gliders.
\339\ See AC 00-60B, Sec. 11(a)(1).
\340\ Id.
\341\ On June 30, 2025, FAA rescinded FAA Order 1050.1F and
issued FAA Order 1050.1G, FAA National Environmental Policy Act
Implementing Procedures, to update FAA's NEPA implementing
procedures. See Notice of Rescission of FAA Order 1050.1F,
Availability of FAA Order 1050.1G, Request for Comments, 90 FR 29615
(July 3, 2025). The revision to FAA Order 1050.1 does not change the
analysis of environmental effects for the issuance and
implementation of this rule, and it is appropriate to continue
reference to FAA Order 1050.1F in evaluating environmental effects
for this rule.
\342\ Notice of Availability of the Draft Programmatic
Environmental Assessment and Finding of No Significant Impact for
Implementation of the Modernization of Special Airworthiness
Certification Rule, 90 FR 22437 (May 27, 2025).
\343\ 65 FR 67249 (Nov. 6, 2000).
\344\ FAA Order No. 1210.20 (Jan. 28, 2004), available at
https://www.faa.gov/documentLibrary/media/1210.pdf.

List of Subjects

14 CFR Part 1

Air transportation.

14 CFR Part 21

Aircraft, Aviation safety, Exports, Imports, Reporting and
recordkeeping requirements, Voluntary standards.

14 CFR Part 22

Aircraft, Aviation safety, Voluntary standards.

14 CFR Part 36

Agriculture, Aircraft, Noise control.

14 CFR Part 43

Aircraft, Aviation safety, Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements.

14 CFR Part 45

Aircraft, Signs and symbols.

14 CFR Part 61

Aircraft, Airmen, Aviation safety, Incorporation by reference,
Recreation and recreation areas, Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements, Teachers.

14 CFR Part 65

Air traffic controllers, Aircraft, Airmen, Airports, Aviation
safety, Incorporation by reference, Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements.

14 CFR Part 91

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

14 CFR Part 119

Administrative practice and procedure, Air carriers, Aircraft,
Aviation safety, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.

14 CFR Part 147

Aircraft, Airmen, Educational facilities, Incorporation by
reference, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Schools.

The Amendment

In consideration of the forgoing, the Federal Aviation
Administration amends chapter I 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(f), 40113, 44701.

Sec. 1.1 [Amended] .

0
2. Amend Sec. 1.1 by removing the definition for ``Consensus
standard''.

0
3. Effective July 24, 2026, further amend Sec. 1.1 by:
0
a. Removing the definition for ``Light-sport aircraft;'' and
0
b. Adding the definitions for ``Space support vehicle'' and ``Space
support vehicle flight'' in alphabetical order.
The additions read as follows:

Sec. 1.1 General definitions.

* * * * *
Space support vehicle means an aircraft that is a launch vehicle,
reentry vehicle, or a component of a launch or reentry vehicle.
Space support vehicle flight means a flight in the air that is not
a launch or reentry, but is conducted by a space support vehicle.
* * * * *

PART 21--CERTIFICATION PROCEDURES FOR PRODUCTS AND ARTICLES

0
4. The authority citation for part 21 is revised to read as follows:

Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7572; 49 U.S.C. 106(f), 40105, 40113,
44701-44702, 44704, 44707, 44709, 44711, 44713, 44715, 45303; sec.
102, Pub. L. 116-260, 134 Stat. 2309 (49 U.S.C. 44701 note).

0
5. Revise Sec. 21.25 to read as follows:

Sec. 21.25 Issue of type certificate: restricted category aircraft.

(a) An applicant is entitled to a type certificate for an aircraft
in the restricted category for special purpose operations if the
applicant shows compliance with the applicable noise requirements of
part 36 of this chapter, and if the applicant shows that no feature or
characteristic of the aircraft makes it unsafe when it is operated
under the limitations prescribed for its intended use, and that
aircraft--
(1) Meets the airworthiness requirements of an aircraft category,
other than primary category or light-sport category, except those
requirements that the FAA finds inappropriate for the special purpose
operation for which the aircraft is to be used; or
(2) Is of a type that--
(i) Has been manufactured in accordance with the requirements of,
and accepted for use by, the U.S. Armed Forces;
(ii) Has a service history with the U.S. Armed Forces acceptable to
the FAA; and
(iii) Has been found capable by the FAA of performing, or has been
modified to perform, the special purpose operation for which the
aircraft is to be used.
(b) Restricted category aircraft can be approved for:
(1) Agricultural use, for one or more of the following special
purpose operations, including--
(i) Spraying, dusting, and seeding;
(ii) Livestock and predatory animal control;
(iii) Insect control;
(iv) Dust control; or
(v) Fruit drying and frost control.
(2) Forest and wildlife conservation, for one or more of the
following special purpose operations, including--
(i) Aerial dispensing of firefighting materials;
(ii) Fish spotting;
(iii) Wild animal survey; or
(iv) Oil spill response.
(3) Aerial surveying, for one or more of the following special
purpose operations, including--

[[Page 35205]]

(i) Aerial imaging and mapping;
(ii) Oil, gas, and mineral exploration;
(iii) Atmospheric survey and research;
(iv) Geophysical and electromagnetic survey;
(v) Oceanic survey; or
(vi) Airborne measurement of navigation signals.
(4) Patrolling, for one or more of the following special purpose
operations, including--
(i) Pipelines;
(ii) Powerlines;
(iii) Data transmission lines and towers;
(iv) Railroads;
(v) Canals; or
(vi) Harbors.
(5) Weather control, including the special purpose operation of
cloud seeding.
(6) Aerial advertising, for one or more of the following special
purpose operations, including--
(i) Skywriting;
(ii) Banner towing;
(iii) Displaying airborne signs; or
(iv) Public address systems.
(7) Other special purpose operations, including--
(i) Rotorcraft external-load operations conducted under part 133 of
this chapter;
(ii) Carriage of cargo incidental to the owner's or operator's
business;
(iii) Target towing;
(iv) Search and rescue operations;
(v) Glider towing;
(vi) Alaskan fuel hauling;
(vii) Alaskan fixed-wing external load operations;
(viii) Space vehicle launch; or
(ix) Any other special purpose operation specified by the FAA.

0
6. Revise Sec. 21.175 to read as follows:

Sec. 21.175 Airworthiness certificates: classification.

(a) Standard airworthiness certificates are airworthiness
certificates issued for aircraft type certificated:
(1) In the normal, utility, acrobatic, commuter, or transport
category;
(2) As manned free balloons; or
(3) As special classes of aircraft.
(b) Special airworthiness certificates are airworthiness
certificates issued for:
(1) Aircraft type-certificated in the primary, restricted,
provisional, or limited category;
(2) Aircraft certificated in the light-sport category;
(3) Aircraft operating for an experimental purpose; or
(4) Aircraft operating under a special flight permit.

0
7. Amend Sec. 21.181 by revising paragraph (a) to read as follows:

Sec. 21.181 Duration.

0
8. Effective July 24, 2026, further amend Sec. 21.181 by revising
paragraph (a) to read as follows:

Sec. 21.181 Duration.

(a) Unless sooner surrendered, suspended, revoked, or a termination
date is otherwise established by the FAA, airworthiness certificates
are effective as long as the aircraft is registered in the United
States and as follows:
(1) Standard airworthiness certificates and special airworthiness
certificates issued for aircraft certificated in the primary,
restricted, or limited category are effective as long as the
maintenance, preventive maintenance, and alterations are performed in
accordance with parts 43 and 91 of this chapter.
(2) A special flight permit is effective for the period of time
specified in the permit.
(3) A special airworthiness certificate in the light-sport category
is effective as long as all of the following conditions are met.
(i) Except as specified in paragraph (a)(3)(iv) of this section,
the aircraft meets the eligibility criteria for the issuance of an
airworthiness certificate in the light-sport category specified in
Sec. 21.190(b).
(ii) The aircraft conforms to its original or properly altered
configuration.
(iii) The aircraft has no unsafe condition and is not likely to
develop an unsafe condition.
(iv) For aircraft originally certificated prior to July 24, 2026,
the aircraft meets all of the following conditions:
(A) A maximum takeoff weight of not more than 1,320 pounds (600
kilograms) for aircraft not intended for operation on water or 1,430
pounds (650 kilograms) for an aircraft intended for operation on water.
(B) A maximum airspeed in level flight with maximum continuous
power (VH) of not more than 120 knots CAS under standard
atmospheric conditions at sea level.
(C) A maximum never-exceed speed (VNE) of not more than
120 knots CAS for a glider.
(D) A maximum stalling speed or minimum steady flight speed without
the use of lift-enhancing devices (VS1) of not more than 45
knots CAS at the aircraft's maximum certificated takeoff weight and
most critical center of gravity.
(E) A maximum seating capacity of no more than two persons,
including the pilot.
(F) A single, reciprocating engine, if powered.
(G) A fixed or ground-adjustable propeller if a powered aircraft
other than a powered glider.
(H) A fixed or feathering propeller system if a powered glider.
(I) A nonpressurized cabin, if equipped with a cabin.
(J) Fixed landing gear, except for an aircraft intended for
operation on water or a glider.
(K) Fixed or retractable landing gear, or a hull, for an aircraft
intended for operation on water.
(L) Fixed or retractable landing gear for a glider.
(4) The duration of an experimental airworthiness certificate
issued for

[[Page 35206]]

research and development, showing compliance with regulations, crew
training, or market survey is effective for 3 years from the date of
issue or renewal unless the FAA prescribes a shorter period.
(5) The duration of an experimental airworthiness certificate
issued for exhibition, air-racing, operating amateur-built aircraft,
operating primary kit-built aircraft, operating light-sport aircraft,
operating light-sport category kit-built aircraft, and operating former
light-sport category aircraft, and operating former military aircraft
is unlimited, unless the FAA establishes a specific period for good
cause.
* * * * *

0
9. Effective July 24, 2026, amend Sec. 21.182 by revising paragraphs
(a) and (b)(2) to read as follows:

Sec. 21.182 Aircraft identification.

(a) Except as provided in paragraph (b) of this section, each
applicant for an airworthiness certificate under this subpart must show
that his aircraft is identified as prescribed in Sec. 45.11 of this
chapter.
(b) * * *
(2) An experimental airworthiness certificate issued for the
purposes of research and development, showing compliance with
regulations, crew training, exhibition, air racing, market surveys, or
operating former military aircraft.
* * * * *

0
10. Amend Sec. 21.183 by:
0
a. Removing the word ``or'' at the end of paragraph (d)(2)(iii);
0
b. Removing the word ``and'' and adding ``or'' in its place at the end
of paragraph (d)(2)(iv); and
0
c. Adding paragraph (d)(2)(v).
The addition reads as follows:

Sec. 21.183 Issue of standard airworthiness certificates for normal,
utility, acrobatic, commuter, and transport category aircraft; manned
free balloons; and special classes of aircraft.

* * * * *
(d) * * *
(2) * * *
(v) A foreign maintenance organization appropriately certificated
by an exporting authority with whose country the United States has a
bilateral agreement that includes acceptance of this aircraft category
by the United States for import. An acceptable inspection must have
been completed while the aircraft was operated on the registry of the
exporting authority and within 60 days of submitting the application
for a United States airworthiness certificate;
* * * * *

0
11. Amend Sec. 21.185 by revising paragraphs (a) and (b) to read as
follows:

Sec. 21.185 Issue of airworthiness certificates for restricted
category aircraft.

(a) Aircraft manufactured under a production certificate or type
certificate. An applicant for a restricted category airworthiness
certificate for an aircraft type certificated in the restricted
category, that was not previously type certificated in any other
category, must comply with Sec. 21.183(a) or (b), as applicable. A
used aircraft must conform to its type certificate and be in a
condition for safe operation.
(b) Other aircraft. An applicant for an airworthiness certificate
in the restricted category is entitled to an airworthiness certificate
if--
(1) The aircraft is type certificated for a special purpose
operation in the restricted category;
(2) The aircraft was--
(i) Manufactured in accordance with the requirements of, and
accepted for use by, the U.S. Armed Forces and has a service history
with the U.S. Armed Forces acceptable to the FAA; or
(ii) Previously type certificated in another category; and
(3) The aircraft has been inspected by the FAA and found by him to
be in a good state of preservation and repair and in a condition for
safe operation.
* * * * *

Sec. 21.187 Issue of multiple airworthiness certifications for
restricted category aircraft.

0
12. Amend Sec. 21.187 by revising the section heading to read as
follows:

Sec. 21.187 Issue of multiple airworthiness certifications for
restricted category aircraft.

* * * * *

0
13. Effective July 24, 2026, revise Sec. 21.190 to read as follows:

Sec. 21.190 Issue of a special airworthiness certificate for a light-
sport category aircraft.

(a) Purpose. The FAA issues a special airworthiness certificate in
the light-sport category to operate an aircraft, other than an unmanned
aircraft, that meets the requirements of this section.
(b) Eligibility. To be eligible for a special airworthiness
certificate in the light-sport category, an aircraft must meet the
applicable requirements of Sec. 22.100 of this chapter.
(c) Application for special airworthiness certificate in the light-
sport category. Except as provided in paragraph (e) of this section, an
applicant for a special airworthiness certificate under this section
must provide the FAA with:
(1) The manufacturer's statement of compliance as described in
paragraph (d) of this section.
(2) A pilot's operating handbook that includes:
(i) Operating instructions and limitations to safely accommodate
all environmental conditions and normal, abnormal, and emergency
procedures likely to be encountered in the aircraft's intended
operations.
(ii) A flight training supplement to enable safe operation of the
aircraft within the intended flight envelope under all likely
conditions.
(iii) A listing of any aerial work operations that may be safely
conducted using the aircraft and any instructions and limitations that
are necessary to safely conduct those operations.
(iv) Any instructions or limitations necessary to safely conduct
towing operations.
(3) A maintenance and inspection program containing procedures
necessary to ensure continued safe operation of the aircraft.
(d) Manufacturer's statement of compliance. The manufacturer's
statement of compliance specified in paragraph (c)(1) of this section
must--
(1) Be signed by the manufacturer's authorized representative who
is certified and trained on the requirements associated with the
issuance of a statement of compliance by an organization that certifies
and trains quality assurance staff in accordance with a consensus
standard that has been accepted by the FAA;
(2) Identify the aircraft by make, model, serial number, class, and
date of manufacture;
(3) Specify towing and any aerial work operations the manufacturer
has determined may be safely conducted, and state that the aircraft has
been ground and flight tested to ensure that it can be operated to
safely conduct those operations in accordance with the instructions and
limitations provided by the manufacturer;
(4) State whether the aircraft meets the requirements of Sec.
22.180 of this chapter for simplified flight controls;
(5) Specify the consensus standards used to determine the
aircraft's compliance with subpart B of part 22 of this chapter and
state that the aircraft meets the eligibility, design, production, and
airworthiness requirements of subpart B of part 22 in accordance with
those consensus standards. The specified consensus standards must be
accepted or approved by the FAA for the airworthiness certification of
light-sport category aircraft;
(6) State that the aircraft conforms to the manufacturer's design
data, using

[[Page 35207]]

the manufacturer's quality assurance system that meets the specified
consensus standard;
(7) State that the manufacturer will make available to any
interested person the documents specified in paragraph (c) of this
section;
(8) State that the manufacturer will support the aircraft by
implementing and maintaining a documented continued operational safety
program that--
(i) Addresses monitoring and resolving in-service safety of flight
issues;
(ii) Includes provisions for the issuance of safety directives;
(iii) Includes a process for notifying the FAA and all owners of
all safety of flight issues; and
(iv) Includes a process for advance notice to the FAA and all
owners of a continued operational safety program discontinuance or
provider change;
(9) State that the manufacturer will monitor and correct safety-of-
flight issues through the issuance of safety directives and a continued
operational safety program that meets the specified consensus standard;
(10) State that at the request of the FAA, the manufacturer will
provide unrestricted access to its facilities and to all data necessary
to determine compliance with this section or other applicable
requirements of this chapter; and
(11) State that the manufacturer has established and maintains a
quality assurance system that meets the requirements of Sec. 22.185 of
this chapter.
(e) Special provisions for aircraft certificated in the light-sport
category before July 24, 2026. The owner of an aircraft issued a light-
sport category airworthiness certificate before July 24, 2026, may
submit an amended manufacturer's statement of compliance to the FAA
listing those aerial work operations that may be conducted using the
aircraft. The amended statement of compliance must--
(1) Identify the aircraft by make, model, serial number, and date
of manufacture.
(2) Be made by the original manufacturer of the aircraft.
(3) Reference and reaffirm the statements made in the original
manufacturer's statement of compliance.
(4) State that the design and construction of the aircraft provides
sufficient structural integrity to enable safe operation of the
aircraft during the performance of the specified aerial work operations
and that the aircraft is able to withstand any likely flight and ground
loads.
(5) Specify the FAA-accepted consensus standard used to make the
determination required by paragraph (e)(4) of this section.
(6) Is accompanied by revisions to the aircraft's operating
instructions to indicate those aerial work operations that may be
conducted using the aircraft, and any applicable revisions to the
aircraft's maintenance and inspection procedures, and flight training
supplement.

0
14. Amend Sec. 21.191 by:
0
a. Revising the section heading, introductory text, and paragraph (i);
and
0
b. Adding reserved paragraph (j) and paragraphs (k) and (l).
The revisions and additions read as follows:

Sec. 21.191 Issue of experimental airworthiness certificates.

Experimental airworthiness certificates are issued for the
following experimental purposes:
* * * * *
(i) Operating light-sport aircraft. Operating a light-sport
aircraft that--
(1) Has not been issued a U.S. or foreign airworthiness certificate
and does not meet the provisions of Sec. 103.1 of this chapter. An
experimental airworthiness certificate will not be issued under this
paragraph (i) for these aircraft after January 31, 2008;
(2) Has been assembled--
(i) From an aircraft kit; and
(ii) In accordance with manufacturer's assembly instructions that
meet an applicable consensus standard; and
(iii) An experimental airworthiness certificate will not be issued
under this paragraph (i)(2) for these aircraft after October 22, 2025;
or
(3) Has been previously issued a special airworthiness certificate
in the light-sport category under Sec. 21.190. An experimental
airworthiness certificate will not be issued under this paragraph for
these aircraft after October 22, 2025.
* * * * *
(k) Operating light-sport category kit-built aircraft. Operating an
aircraft of a type that has been certificated under Sec. 21.190 and
assembled from an aircraft kit in accordance with manufacturer's
assembly instructions that meet an applicable FAA-accepted consensus
standard.
(l) Operating former light-sport category aircraft. Operating an
aircraft that previously has been issued a special airworthiness
certificate in the light-sport category under Sec. 21.190.

0
15. Effective July 24, 2026, further amend Sec. 21.191 by adding
paragraph (j) to read as follows:

Sec. 21.191 Issue of experimental airworthiness certificates.

* * * * *
(j) Operating former military aircraft. Operating a former military
aircraft that meets the following requirements:
(1) The aircraft is not an unmanned aircraft.
(2) The aircraft was manufactured by, purchased by, modified by, or
on the registry of the U.S. Armed Forces or a foreign military.
(3) The aircraft is operated for one of the following purposes:
(i) Flying the aircraft to a base where repairs, alterations, or
maintenance are to be performed and for check flights following those
repairs, alterations, or maintenance;
(ii) Flying to a point of storage; or
(iii) Repositioning the aircraft for operation as a public
aircraft.

0
16. Amend Sec. 21.193 by revising the section heading and paragraph
(e) introductory text to read as follows:

Sec. 21.193 Experimental airworthiness certificates: General.

* * * * *
(e) In the case of a light-sport aircraft assembled from a kit to
be certificated in accordance with Sec. 21.191(k), an applicant must
provide the following:
* * * * *

0
17. Effective July 24, 2026, revise Sec. 21.193 to read as follows:

Sec. 21.193 Application for special airworthiness certificates issued
for experimental purposes.

An applicant for an experimental airworthiness certificate must
submit the following information in a form and manner prescribed by the
FAA:
(a) The experimental purpose for which the aircraft is to be used.
(b) Enough information to describe the operation, equipment, or
test as applicable.
(c) The estimated time or number of flights required for the
operation, for an applicant seeking issuance of an experimental
airworthiness certificate for those experimental purposes specified in
Sec. 21.191(a) through (f).
(d) The areas over which flights will be conducted.
(e) Enough data to identify the aircraft.
(f) Except for a previously type certificated aircraft without an
appreciable change in its external configuration, three-view drawings
or three-view dimensional photographs of the aircraft.
(g) Upon inspection of the aircraft, any pertinent information
found necessary by the FAA to safeguard the general public.

[[Page 35208]]

(h) In the case of a light-sport category aircraft assembled from a
kit to be certificated in accordance with Sec. 21.191(k), an applicant
must provide the following:
(1) Evidence that an aircraft of the same make and model was
manufactured and assembled by the aircraft kit manufacturer and issued
a special airworthiness certificate in the light-sport category under
Sec. 21.190.
(2) The pilot's operating handbook that includes a flight training
supplement.
(3) The aircraft's maintenance and inspection procedures.
(4) The manufacturer's statement of compliance for the aircraft kit
used in the aircraft assembly that meets the applicable requirements of
Sec. 21.190 in effect at the time the aircraft kit was manufactured,
except the statement need not indicate compliance with Sec. 22.195 of
this chapter. The statement must identify assembly instructions for the
aircraft that meet an applicable consensus standard.
(5) For an aircraft kit manufactured outside the United States,
evidence that the aircraft kit was manufactured in a country with which
the United States has a Bilateral Airworthiness Agreement concerning
airplanes or a Bilateral Aviation Safety Agreement with associated
Implementation Procedures for Airworthiness concerning airplanes, or an
equivalent airworthiness agreement.

0
18. Revise Sec. 21.195 to read as follows:

Sec. 21.195 Experimental airworthiness certificates: Aircraft to be
used for market surveys, sales demonstrations, and customer crew
training.

(a) A manufacturer of aircraft manufactured within the United
States may apply for an experimental airworthiness certificate for an
aircraft that is to be used for market surveys, sales demonstrations,
or customer crew training.
(b) A manufacturer of an aircraft engine manufactured by him within
the United States, that has altered a type certificated aircraft by
installing an engine it has manufactured, may apply for an experimental
airworthiness certificate for that aircraft to be used for market
surveys, sales demonstrations, or customer crew training, if the basic
aircraft, before alteration, was type certificated in the normal,
utility, acrobatic, commuter, transport, primary, or restricted
category.
(c) A person who has altered the design of a type certificated
aircraft may apply for an experimental airworthiness certificate for an
altered aircraft to be used for market surveys, sales demonstrations,
or customer crew training, if the basic aircraft, before alteration,
was type certificated in the normal, utility, acrobatic, commuter,
transport, primary, or restricted category.
(d) An applicant for an experimental airworthiness certificate
under paragraph (a), (b), or (c) of this section is entitled to that
certificate if, in addition to meeting the requirements of Sec.
21.193--
(1) He has established an inspection and maintenance program for
the continued airworthiness of the aircraft; and
(2) The applicant shows that the aircraft has been flown for at
least 50 hours, or for at least 5 hours if it is a type certificated
aircraft which has been altered. FAA may reduce these operational
requirements if the applicant provides adequate justification.

0
19. Revise Sec. 21.327 to read as follows:

Sec. 21.327 Application.

(a) Any owner of a U.S.-registered aircraft (or the agent of the
owner) may apply for an export certificate of airworthiness for that
aircraft.
(b) Any person may apply for an export airworthiness approval for
an aircraft engine, propeller, or article.
(c) Each applicant must apply in a form and manner prescribed by
the FAA.

0
20. Amend Sec. 21.329 by revising paragraph (a)(1) introductory text
to read as follows:

Sec. 21.329 Issuance of export certificates of airworthiness.

(a) * * *
(1) A new or used aircraft manufactured under subpart F or G of
this part meets the requirements under subpart H of this part for a--
* * * * *

0
21. Effective July 24, 2026, add part 22 to read as follows:

PART 22--DESIGN, PRODUCTION, AND AIRWORTHINESS REQUIREMENTS FOR
NON-TYPE CERTIFICATED AIRCRAFT

Sec.

Subpart A--General

22.1 Applicability.

Subpart B--Light-Sport Category Aircraft

22.100 Eligibility.
22.105 Control and maneuverability.
22.110 Structural integrity.
22.115 Powered-lift: minimum safe speed.
22.125 Environmental conditions.
22.130 Suitability and durability of materials.
22.135 Instruments and equipment.
22.140 Controls and displays.
22.145 Propulsion system.
22.150 Fuel system.
22.155 Fire protection.
22.160 Visibility.
22.165 Emergency evacuation.
22.170 Placards and markings.
22.175 [Reserved]
22.180 Special requirements for light-sport category aircraft with
simplified flight controls.
22.185 Quality assurance system.
22.190 Finding of compliance by trained compliance staff.
22.195 Ground and flight testing.

Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7572; 49 U.S.C. 106(f), 40105, 40113,
44701-44702, 44704, 44707, 44709, 44711, 44713, 44715, 45303.

Subpart A--General

Sec. 22.1 Applicability.

(a) Except as provided in paragraph (c) of this section, this part
prescribes design, production, and airworthiness requirements for the
issue of special airworthiness certificates, and changes to those
certificates, for non-type certificated aircraft.
(b) Each person who applies under part 21 of this chapter for such
a certificate or change must comply with the applicable requirements in
this part.
(c) This part does not apply to:
(1) Aircraft issued an experimental airworthiness certificate,
except for light-sport category kit-built aircraft;
(2) Aircraft operating under a special flight permit; or
(3) Unmanned aircraft.

Subpart B--Light-Sport Category Aircraft

Sec. 22.100 Eligibility.

(a) To be eligible for a special airworthiness certificate in the
light-sport category issued under Sec. 21.190 of this chapter, an
aircraft must--
(1) Except for an airplane, have a maximum seating capacity of not
more than two persons, including the pilot.
(2) For an airplane, have a maximum seating capacity of not more
than four persons, including the pilot.
(3) Have a maximum stalling speed or minimum steady flight speed at
the aircraft's maximum takeoff weight and most critical center of
gravity of 61 knots CAS VS0 for an airplane, 45 knots CAS
VS0 for a glider, or 45 knots CAS without the use of lift-
enhancing devices, VS1, for a weight-shift-control aircraft.
(4) Have a maximum speed of 250 knots CAS in level flight with
maximum continuous power (VH) under standard atmospheric
conditions at sea level.
(5) Have a non-pressurized cabin, if equipped with a cabin.

[[Page 35209]]

(6) Not have been previously issued a standard, primary,
restricted, limited, or provisional airworthiness certificate, or an
equivalent airworthiness certificate by a foreign civil aviation
authority.
(7) Meet the design, production, and airworthiness requirements
specified in this subpart using a means of compliance consisting of
consensus standards accepted or approved by the Federal Aviation
Administration (FAA).
(8) Be inspected by the FAA and found to be in a condition for safe
operation.
(b) For aircraft manufactured outside the United States, an
applicant must also provide the FAA evidence that--
(1) The aircraft was manufactured in a country with which the
United States has a Bilateral Airworthiness Agreement concerning
airplanes or Bilateral Aviation Safety Agreement with associated
Implementation Procedures for Airworthiness concerning airplanes, or an
equivalent airworthiness agreement; and
(2) The aircraft is eligible for an airworthiness certificate,
flight authorization, or other similar certification in its country of
manufacture.

Sec. 22.105 Control and maneuverability.

A light-sport category aircraft must--
(a) Be consistently and predictably controllable and maneuverable
at all loading conditions during all phases of flight; and,
(b) Not have a tendency to inadvertently depart controlled flight
or require exceptional piloting skill, alertness, or strength.

Sec. 22.110 Structural integrity.

(a) The design and construction of the aircraft must provide
sufficient structural integrity to enable safe operations within the
aircraft's flight envelope throughout the aircraft's intended life
cycle; and
(b) The aircraft must be able to withstand all likely flight and
ground loads, including towing and any aerial work operation, when
operated within its operational limits.

Sec. 22.115 Powered-lift: minimum safe speed.

To be certificated in the light-sport category, powered-lift must
have a known minimum safe speed for each flight condition encountered
in normal operations, including applicable sources of lift and phases
of flight, to maintain controlled safe flight. The minimum safe speed
determination must account for the most adverse conditions for each
configuration.

Sec. 22.125 Environmental conditions.

The aircraft must have design characteristics to safely accommodate
all environmental conditions likely to be encountered during its
intended operations.

Sec. 22.130 Suitability and durability of materials.

The suitability and durability of materials used for products and
articles must account for the likely environmental conditions expected
in service, the failure of which could prevent continued safe flight
and landing.

Sec. 22.135 Instruments and equipment.

(a) The aircraft must have all instruments and equipment necessary
for safe flight, to include those instruments necessary for systems
control and management.
(b) The aircraft must include all instruments and equipment
required for the kinds of operations for which it is authorized.
(c) The aircraft's, instruments, equipment, and systems must
perform their intended functions under all operating conditions
specified in the pilot's operating handbook. Likely failure or
malfunction of equipment or a system must not cause loss of control of
the aircraft. Equipment and systems must be considered separately and
in relation to each other.

Sec. 22.140 Controls and displays.

The aircraft must be designed and constructed so that the pilot has
the ability to reach controls and displays in a manner that provides
for smooth and positive operation of the aircraft.

Sec. 22.145 Propulsion system.

The aircraft propulsion system must--
(a) Have controls that are simple, intuitive, and not confusing;
(b) Be designed so that the failure of any product or article does
not prevent continued safe flight and landing or, if continued safe
flight and landing cannot be ensured, the hazard has been minimized;
(c) Not exceed safe operating limits under normal operating
conditions; and
(d) Have the necessary reliability, durability, and endurance for
safe flight without failure, malfunction, excessive wear, or other
anomalies.

Sec. 22.150 Fuel system.

The aircraft fuel system must--
(a) Provide a means to safely remove or isolate the fuel stored in
the system from the aircraft; and
(b) Be designed to retain fuel under all likely operating
conditions.

Sec. 22.155 Fire protection.

The hazards of fuel or electrical fires following a survivable
emergency landing must be minimized by incorporating design features to
sustain static and dynamic deceleration loads without structural damage
to fuel or electrical system components or their attachments that would
leak fuel to an ignition source or allow electrical power to become an
ignition source.

Sec. 22.160 Visibility.

The aircraft must be designed and constructed so that the pilot
has--
(a) Sufficient visibility of controls, instruments, equipment, and
placards; and
(b) Sufficient visibility outside the aircraft necessary to conduct
safe aircraft operations.

Sec. 22.165 Emergency evacuation.

(a) The aircraft must be designed and constructed--
(1) So that all occupants have the ability to rapidly conduct an
emergency evacuation; and
(2) Except as provided in paragraph (b) of this section, to account
for conditions likely to occur following an emergency landing.
(b) Aircraft not intended for operation on water are not required
to account for ditching in an emergency landing.

Sec. 22.170 Placards and markings.

The aircraft must display all placards and instrument markings
necessary for safe operation and occupant warning. Markings or graphics
must clearly indicate the function of each control, other than primary
flight controls.

Sec. 22.175 [Reserved]

Sec. 22.180 Special requirements for light-sport category aircraft
with simplified flight controls.

An aircraft that meets the following requirements may be designated
by the manufacturer as having simplified flight controls--
(a) The aircraft's flight path and available power are automated,
allowing the pilot to only intervene without the availability of
primary flight controls;
(b) The aircraft is designed to inherently prevent loss of control
under likely circumstances, regardless of pilot input; and
(c) The aircraft has a means to enable the pilot to quickly and
safely discontinue or alter the flight and prevent any inadvertent
activation of these functions.

Sec. 22.185 Quality assurance system.

The aircraft must have been designed, produced, and tested under a

[[Page 35210]]

documented quality assurance system to ensure each product and article
conforms to its design and is in a condition for safe operation.

Sec. 22.190 Finding of compliance by trained compliance staff.

The aircraft must have been found compliant with the provisions of
the applicable FAA-accepted or approved consensus standards by
individuals who have been trained on determining compliance with those
consensus standards.

Sec. 22.195 Ground and flight testing.

The aircraft must have been ground and flight tested under
documented production acceptance test procedures to--
(a) Verify aircraft performance data;
(b) Ensure the aircraft has no hazardous operating characteristics;
(c) Ensure the aircraft is in a condition for safe operation; and
(d) Ensure the aircraft can safely conduct towing and any aerial
work operation designated by the manufacturer.

PART 36--NOISE STANDARDS: AIRCRAFT TYPE AND AIRWORTHINESS
CERTIFICATION

0
22. The authority citation for part 36 is revised to read as follows:

Authority: 42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.; 49 U.S.C. 106(f), 40113,
44701-44702, 44704, 44715; sec. 305, Pub. L. 96-193, 94 Stat. 50,
57; E.O.11514, 35 FR 4247, 3 CFR, 1966-1970 Comp., p. 902.

0
23. Effective July 24, 2026, add Sec. 36.0 to read as follows:

Sec. 36.0 Applicability and statements of compliance for aircraft
that do not conform to a type certificate.

(a) General applicability. This part may be used by persons seeking
to show compliance with noise standards for aircraft described in Sec.
21.190, Sec. 21.191(k), or Sec. 21.191(l) of this chapter that do not
conform to a type certificate.
(b) Compliance requirements. A person seeking to comply with this
part for an aircraft described in paragraph (a) of this section must
meet one of the following requirements.
(1) Use of a noise consensus standard. An aircraft described in
paragraph (a) of this section may demonstrate compliance using a noise
consensus standard that meets the following conditions:
(i) The noise consensus standard has been approved by the FAA; and
(ii) The noise consensus standard has been determined by the FAA to
be appropriate for the aircraft.
(2) Use of noise procedures available for type certificated
aircraft. An aircraft described in paragraph (a) of this section may
demonstrate compliance through the procedures available for type
certificated aircraft, including:
(i) A demonstration that the applicable noise limits specified in
this part are not exceeded for any configuration, flight profile, or
reference condition required for an aircraft to demonstrate compliance;
and,
(ii) When applicable, a demonstration that any test procedures and
analyses contained in a related appendix to this part have been met for
any configuration, flight profile, or reference condition required.
(3) Use of alternative means of compliance. An aircraft described
in paragraph (a) of this section may demonstrate compliance through one
of these alternative means:
(i) Aircraft similar to a type-certificated aircraft. An aircraft
that is determined by the FAA for noise purposes to be the same as or
sufficiently similar in design to a type certificated aircraft
described in Sec. 36.1 may demonstrate compliance with this part by:
(A) Using the same testing requirements as the type certificated
aircraft that FAA has determined for noise purposes is the same or
sufficiently similar in design to the aircraft for which a person seeks
to show compliance with this part; or
(B) Adopting the noise levels of the type certificated aircraft
that FAA has determined for noise purposes is the same or sufficiently
similar in design.
(ii) Aircraft with no similar type-certificated aircraft. A person
may demonstrate compliance with this part using the noise requirements
determined by the FAA to be appropriate for the aircraft.
(c) Statement of compliance. Persons seeking to show compliance
with this part must meet the requirements of paragraph (b) of this
section and must submit a statement of compliance to the agency.
(1) The statement of compliance must:
(i) State that the aircraft has demonstrated compliance with the
applicable provisions of this part;
(ii) Include the noise levels of the aircraft, and procedures,
aircraft configurations, aircraft weights, and other information
employed for obtaining the demonstrated noise levels; and
(iii) Include the following statement: ``No determination has been
made by the Federal Aviation Administration whether the noise levels of
this aircraft are or should be acceptable or unacceptable for operation
in any location.''
(2) After stating compliance with the part per paragraph (c)(1) of
this section, any subsequent alteration of the aircraft that increases
noise would render invalid any previous statement of compliance to this
part for that aircraft.

0
24. Effective July 24, 2026, amend Sec. 36.1 by:
0
a. Adding reserved paragraph (a)(6); and
0
b. Adding paragraph (a)(7).
The addition reads as follows:

Sec. 36.1 Applicability and definitions.

(a) * * *
(7) Aircraft that do not conform to a type certificate, in
accordance with Sec. 36.0.
* * * * *

0
25. Effective July 24, 2026, revise Sec. 36.3 to read as follows:

Sec. 36.3 Compatibility with airworthiness requirements.

(a) Each applicant for certification under this part must
demonstrate that:
(1) For type certificated aircraft, that the aircraft complies with
the airworthiness regulations in this chapter that constitute the type
certification basis of the aircraft under all conditions in which
compliance with this part is shown; or
(2) For aircraft without a type certificate, that the aircraft
complies with all airworthiness requirements applicable to the design
of the aircraft under all conditions in which compliance with this part
is shown.
(b) Each applicant for certification under this part must show that
any procedure used to demonstrate compliance with this part, and any
procedure and information for the flight crew developed under this
part, are consistent with the requirements of paragraph (a)(1) or (2)
of this section.

0
26. Effective July 24, 2026, amend Sec. 36.1501 by revising paragraph
(a) to read as follows:

Sec. 36.1501 Procedures, noise levels and other information.

(a) All procedures, weights, configurations, and other information
or data employed for obtaining the certified noise levels prescribed by
this part, including equivalent procedures used for flight, testing,
and analysis, must:
(1) For type certificated aircraft, be developed by the applicant
and approved by the FAA. Noise levels achieved during type
certification must be included in the aircraft's approved flight
manual.

[[Page 35211]]

(2) For aircraft without a type certificate, be provided by the
applicant to the FAA.
* * * * *

PART 43--MAINTENANCE, PREVENTIVE MAINTENANCE, REBUILDING, AND
ALTERATION

0
27. The authority citation for part 43 continues to read as follows:

Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7572; 49 U.S.C. 106(f), 106(g), 40105,
40113, 44701-44702, 44704, 44707, 44709, 44711, 44713, 44715, 45303.

0
28. Amend Sec. 43.1 by revising paragraph (b)(1) and (2) to read as
follows:

Sec. 43.1 Applicability.

* * * * *
(b) * * *
(1) Any aircraft for which the FAA has issued an experimental
airworthiness certificate, unless the FAA has previously issued a
different kind of airworthiness certificate for that aircraft;
(2) Any aircraft for which the FAA has issued an experimental
airworthiness certificate under the provisions of Sec. 21.191(i)(3) or
(l) of this chapter, and the aircraft was previously issued a special
airworthiness certificate in the light-sport category under the
provisions of Sec. 21.190 of this chapter; or
* * * * *

0
29. Amend Sec. 43.13 by revising paragraphs (a) and (c) to read as
follows:

Sec. 43.13 Performance rules (general).

(a) Each person performing maintenance, alteration, or preventive
maintenance on an aircraft, engine, propeller, or appliance shall use
the methods, techniques, and practices prescribed in the current
manufacturer's maintenance manual or Instructions for Continued
Airworthiness prepared by its manufacturer, or other methods,
techniques, and practices acceptable to the Administrator, except as
noted in Sec. 43.16. That person shall use the tools, equipment, and
test apparatus necessary to assure completion of the work in accordance
with accepted industry practices. If special equipment or test
apparatus is recommended by the manufacturer involved, that person must
use that equipment or apparatus or its equivalent acceptable to the
Administrator.
* * * * *
(c) Unless otherwise notified by the Administrator, the methods,
techniques, and practices contained in the maintenance manual or the
maintenance part of the manual of the holder of an air carrier
operating certificate or an operating certificate under part 121 or 135
of this chapter and operators under part 129 of this chapter holding
operations specifications (that is required by its operating
specifications to provide a continuous airworthiness maintenance and
inspection program) constitute acceptable means of compliance with this
section.

PART 45--IDENTIFICATION AND REGISTRATION MARKING

0
30. The authority citation for part 45 continues to read as follows:

Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(f), 106(g), 40103, 40113-40114, 44101-
44105, 44107-44111, 44504, 44701, 44708-44709, 44711-44713, 44725,
45302-45303, 46104, 46304, 46306, 47122.

0
31. Amend Sec. 45.23 by revising paragraph (b) to read as follows:

Sec. 45.23 Display of marks; general.

* * * * *
(b) Except for unmanned aircraft, when marks include only the Roman
capital letter ``N'' and the registration number is displayed on
limited, restricted, experimental, or provisionally certificated
aircraft, the operator must also display on that aircraft near each
entrance to the cabin, cockpit, or pilot station, in letters not less
than 2 inches nor more than 6 inches high, the words ``limited,''
``restricted,'' ``experimental,'' or ``provisional,'' as applicable.

0
32. Amend Sec. 45.29 by revising paragraph (b)(1)(iii) to read as
follows:

Sec. 45.29 Size of marks.

* * * * *
(b) * * *
(1) * * *
(iii) Marks at least 3 inches high may be displayed on an aircraft
for which the FAA has issued an experimental airworthiness certificate
under Sec. 21.191(d), (g), (i), (k), or (l) of this chapter to operate
as an exhibition aircraft, an amateur-built aircraft, or a former or
kit-built light-sport category aircraft when the maximum cruising speed
of the aircraft does not exceed 180 knots CAS; and
* * * * *

PART 61--CERTIFICATION: PILOTS, FLIGHT INSTRUCTORS, AND GROUND
INSTRUCTORS

0
33. The authority citation for part 61 continues to read as follows:

Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(f), 40113, 44701-44703, 44707, 44709-
44711, 44729, 44903, 45102-45103, 45301-45302; Sec. 2307 Pub. L.
114-190, 130 Stat. 615 (49 U.S.C. 44703 note); sec. 318, Pub. L.
115-254, 132 Stat. 3186 (49 U.S.C. 44703 note); sec. 820, Pub. L.
118-63, 138 Stat. 1330 (49 U.S.C. 44939 note); secs. 815 and 828,
Pub. L. 118-63, 138 Stat. 1328, 1336 (49 U.S.C. 44703 note).

0
34. Amend Sec. 61.3 by revising the section heading and adding
paragraph (m) to read as follows:

Sec. 61.3 Requirement for certificates, ratings, privileges, and
authorizations.

* * * * *
(m) For a person who possesses a sport pilot certificate. No person
may exercise sport pilot privileges under Sec. 61.313 unless that
person receives a qualifying logbook endorsement under Sec. 61.317 or
Sec. 61.321 of this part for the appropriate category and class
privilege. The requirement in this paragraph (m) does not apply to a
person who already holds the appropriate category and class rating on
their pilot certificate.

0
35. Add Sec. 61.9 to read as follows:

Sec. 61.9 Inapplicability of simplified flight controls aircraft
experience credit.

Notwithstanding the requirements specified in Sec. 61.51(c), any
pilot time acquired while operating an airplane or helicopter with a
simplified flight controls designation may not be used to satisfy the
following aeronautical experience requirements for a private,
commercial, or airline transport pilot certificate, except for private
pilot applicants who present an aircraft with the simplified flight
controls designation to conduct the practical test--
(a) The solo flight time requirements in Sec. 61.109(a)(5) or
(c)(4);
(b) The PIC flight time requirements in Sec. 61.129(a)(2)(i) and
(c)(2)(i);
(c) The PIC flight time requirements in Sec. 61.159(a)(5); and
(d) The PIC flight time requirements in Sec. 61.161(a)(3).

0
36. Amend Sec. 61.14 by:
0
a. Redesignating paragraphs (b)(13) through (b)(15) as paragraphs
(b)(14) through (b)(16);
0
b. Adding new paragraphs (b)(13) and (b)(17).
The additions read as follows:

Sec. 61.14 Incorporation by Reference.

* * * * *
(b) * * *
(13) FAA-S-ACS-26, Sport Pilot for Rotorcraft Category Helicopter--
Simplified Flight Controls Privilege Airman Certification Standards,
July 2025, IBR approved for Sec. Sec. 61.43, 61.321, and appendix A to
this part.
* * * * *
(17) FAA-S-ACS-31, Flight Instructor with a Sport Pilot Rating for
Rotorcraft Category Helicopter--

[[Page 35212]]

Simplified Flight Controls Privilege Airman Certification Standards,
July 2025, IBR approved for Sec. Sec. 61.43, 61.419, and appendix A to
this part.

0
37. Amend Sec. 61.23 by redesignating paragraphs (c)(1)(vi) and (vii)
as (c)(1)(vii) and (viii) and adding new paragraph (c)(1)(vi) to read
as follows:

Sec. 61.23 Medical certificates: Requirement and duration.

* * * * *
(c)(1)(vi) Notwithstanding paragraphs (b)(1), (b)(2), and (b)(6) of
this section, exercising the privileges of sport pilot certificate at
night under the conditions and limitations set forth in Sec.
61.113(i);
* * * * *

0
38. Amend Sec. 61.31 by
0
a. Redesignating paragraph (l) as paragraph (m);
0
b. Adding new paragraph (l); and
0
c. Revising newly redesignated paragraph (m)(2)(vi).
The addition and revision read as follows:

Sec. 61.31 Type rating requirements, additional training, and
authorization requirements.

* * * * *
(l) Additional aircraft model-specific flight training. No person
may act as pilot in command of an aircraft with a simplified flight
controls designation unless that person has--
(1) Received and logged model-specific flight training from an
authorized instructor in that aircraft, or in a full flight simulator
or flight training device that is representative of that model-specific
aircraft with the simplified flight controls designation; and
(2) Received a logbook endorsement from an authorized instructor
who has found the person proficient in the safe operation of that
model-specific aircraft and the associated simplified flight controls.
(m) * * *
(2) * * *
(vi) The holder of a sport pilot certificate when operating an
aircraft meeting the performance limits and design requirements of
Sec. 61.316.

0
39. Amend Sec. 61.45 by:
0
a. Revising paragraphs (f) introductory text and paragraph (f)(3); and
0
b. Adding paragraphs (g) and (h).
The revisions and additions read as follows:

Sec. 61.45 Practical tests: Required aircraft and equipment.

* * *
(f) Conduct of a sport pilot practical test in an aircraft with a
single seat. A practical test for a sport pilot certificate may be
conducted in an aircraft having a single seat provided that the--
* * * * *
(3) Pilot certificate of an applicant successfully passing the test
is issued with a limitation ``No passenger carriage and flight in a
single-seat aircraft only.''
(g) Aircraft with a simplified flight controls designation. An
applicant for a pilot certificate, rating, or privilege may use an
aircraft with a simplified flight controls designation for a practical
test if--
(1) The examiner agrees to conduct the test;
(2) The examiner holds the appropriate category and class rating or
privilege, the simplified flight controls model-specific aircraft
endorsement, and an appropriate FAA designation to conduct the test;
(3) The examiner is able to assume control of the aircraft at any
time, except if paragraph (f) of this section applies; and
(4) Upon successful completion of the practical test, the applicant
is issued one of the following:
(i) A pilot certificate with the appropriate category, class, and
specific make and model limitation in which the pilot is authorized to
act as pilot in command; or
(ii) A sport pilot certificate with a logbook endorsement for the
category and class of aircraft and a model specific limitation in which
the pilot is authorized to act as pilot in command.
(h) Simplified flight controls limitation. A person who receives a
category and class rating or privilege with a simplified flight
controls limitation may operate only the specified make and model of
aircraft set forth by the limitation unless the person satisfies the
following requirements, as applicable:
(1) If seeking to operate another make and model of aircraft with a
simplified flight controls designation in the same category and class,
the person must receive training and an endorsement in accordance with
Sec. 61.31(l).
(2) Except as provided in Sec. 61.321(a), if seeking to operate a
different category and class of aircraft with a simplified flight
controls designation as an initial applicant for that category and
class rating or any aircraft without a simplified flight controls
designation, the person must successfully complete a practical test for
that category and class of aircraft.

0
40. Amend Sec. 61.195 by adding paragraphs (m) and (n) to read as
follows:

Sec. 61.195 Flight instructor limitations and qualifications.

* * * * *
(m) Training in an aircraft with a simplified flight controls
designation. A flight instructor may not conduct instruction in a
simplified flight control designation aircraft unless they hold the
appropriate category and class rating prior to adding the make and
model endorsement required by Sec. 61.31(l).
(n) Initial cadre training in an aircraft with a simplified flight
controls designation. (1) For purposes of this paragraph (n),
instructor pilot means a pilot employed or used by a manufacturer of an
aircraft with a simplified flight controls designation to conduct
operations of that aircraft for the purpose of providing crew training.
(2) A flight instructor may conduct flight training in an aircraft
with a simplified flight controls designation without satisfying the
training and endorsement requirements under Sec. 61.31(l), provided
the flight instructor--
(i) Holds a flight instructor certificate with the appropriate
aircraft category and class, (if a class is required);
(ii) Has received and logged model-specific training in that
aircraft from an instructor pilot for the manufacturer of the aircraft;
and
(iii) Has received a logbook or training record endorsement from
the instructor pilot certifying that the flight instructor is
proficient in the safe operation of that model-specific aircraft and
the associated simplified flight controls.
(3) Notwithstanding the requirements in Sec. 61.3(d)(2)(ii), an
instructor pilot may provide the training and endorsement specified in
paragraph (n)(2) of this section in lieu of an authorized instructor.

0
41. Amend Sec. 61.303 by revising the section heading and paragraphs
(a) and (b)(4) to read as follows:

Sec. 61.303 If I want to operate an aircraft that satisfies the
limitations identified in Sec. 61.316, what operating limits and
endorsement requirements in this subpart must I comply with?

(a) Use the following table to determine what operating limits and
endorsement requirements in this subpart, if any, apply to you when you
operate an aircraft that satisfies the limitations identified in Sec.
61.316. The medical certificate specified in this table must be in
compliance with Sec. 61.2 in regard to currency and validity. If you
hold a recreational pilot certificate, but not a medical certificate,
you must comply with cross country requirements in Sec. 61.101(c),
even if your flight does not exceed 50 nautical miles from your

[[Page 35213]]

departure airport. You must also comply with requirements in other
subparts of this part that apply to your certificate and the operation
you conduct. In the following table, when the word ``aircraft'' is
used, it refers to aircraft that satisfy the limitations identified in
Sec. 61.316.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Then you may operate .
If you hold . . . And you hold . . . . . And . . .
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(1) A medical certificate......... (i) A sport pilot Any aircraft for which You must hold any other
certificate,. you hold the endorsements required by
endorsements required this subpart, and comply
for its category and with the limitations in
class, Sec. 61.315.
(ii) At least a Any aircraft in that You do not have to hold
recreational pilot category and class,. any of the endorsements
certificate with a required by this
category and class subpart, nor do you have
rating, to comply with the
limitations in Sec.
61.315.
(iii) At least a That aircraft, only if You must comply with the
recreational pilot you hold the limitations in Sec.
certificate but not a endorsements required 61.315, except Sec.
rating for the category for Sec. 61.321 for 61.315(c)(14) and, if a
and class of the its category and private pilot or higher,
aircraft you operate, class, Sec. 61.315(c)(7).
(2) Only a U.S. driver's license.. (i) A sport pilot Any aircraft for which You must hold any other
certificate,. you hold the endorsements required by
endorsements required this subpart, and comply
for its category and with the limitations in
class, Sec. 61.315.
(ii) At least a Any aircraft in that You do not have to hold
recreational pilot category and class,. any of the endorsements
certificate with a required by this
category and class subpart, but you must
rating, comply with the
limitations in Sec.
61.315.
(iii) At least a That aircraft, only if You must comply with the
recreational pilot you hold the limitations in Sec.
certificate but not a endorsements required 61.315, except Sec.
rating for the category in Sec. 61.321 for 61.315(c)(14) and, if a
and class of aircraft its category and private pilot or higher,
you operate, class, Sec. 61.315(c)(7).
(3) Neither a medical certificate (i) A sport pilot Any glider or balloon You must hold any other
nor a U.S. driver's license. certificate,. for which you hold the endorsements required by
endorsements required this subpart, and comply
for its category and with the limitations in
class, Sec. 61.315.
(ii) At least a private Any glider or balloon You do not have to hold
pilot certificate with in that category and any of the endorsements
a category and class class. required by this
rating for glider or subpart, nor do you have
balloon, to comply with the
limitations in Sec.
61.315.
(iii) At least a private Any glider or balloon, You must comply with the
pilot certificate but only if you hold the limitations in Sec.
not a rating for glider endorsements required 61.315, except Sec.
or balloon, in Sec. 61.321 for 61.315(c)(14) and, if a
its category and private pilot or higher,
class. Sec. 61.315(c)(7).
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

(b) * * *
(4) Not know or have reason to know of any medical condition that
would make that person unable to operate an aircraft in a safe manner.

0
42. Revise Sec. 61.305 to read as follows:

Sec. 61.305 What are the age and language requirements for a sport
pilot certificate?

To be eligible for a sport pilot certificate you must:
(a) Be at least 17 years old (or 16 years old if you are applying
to operate a glider or balloon).
(b) Be able to read, speak, write, and understand English. If you
cannot read, speak, write, and understand English because of medical
reasons, the FAA may place limits on your certificate as are necessary
for the safe operation of an aircraft.

0
43. Amend Sec. 61.307 by revising paragraph (b) to read as follows:

Sec. 61.307 What tests do I have to take to obtain a sport pilot
certificate?

* * * * *
(b) Practical test. You must pass a practical test on the
applicable areas of operation listed in Sec. Sec. 61.309 and 61.311.
Before you may take the practical test for a sport pilot certificate,
you must receive a logbook endorsement from the authorized instructor
who provided you with flight training on the areas of operation
specified in Sec. Sec. 61.309 and 61.311 in preparation for the
practical test. This endorsement certifies that you meet the applicable
aeronautical knowledge and flight proficiency requirements and are
prepared for the practical test.

0
44. Revise Sec. 61.311 to read as follows:

Sec. 61.311 What flight proficiency requirements must I meet to apply
for a sport pilot certificate?

To apply for a sport pilot certificate, you must receive and log
ground and flight training from an authorized instructor on the
following areas of operation, as appropriate, for airplane single-
engine land or sea, glider, gyroplane, helicopter, airship, balloon,
powered parachute land or sea, weight-shift-control aircraft land or
sea privileges:
(a) Preflight preparation.
(b) Preflight procedures.
(c) Airport, heliport, seaplane base, and gliderport operations, as
applicable.
(d) Hovering maneuvers (applicable only to helicopters).
(e) Takeoffs (or launches), landings, and go-arounds.
(f) Performance maneuvers and, for gliders, performance speeds.
(g) Ground reference maneuvers (not applicable to gliders,
helicopters, and balloons).
(h) Soaring techniques (applicable only to gliders).
(i) Navigation.
(j) Slow flight (not applicable to lighter-than-air aircraft,
helicopters, and powered parachutes).
(k) Stalls (not applicable to lighter-than-air aircraft,
gyroplanes, helicopters, and powered parachutes).
(l) Emergency operations.
(m) Post-flight procedures.

0
45. Revise Sec. 61.313 to read as follows:

Sec. 61.313 What aeronautical experience must I have to apply for a
sport pilot certificate?

(a) Aeronautical experience. Use the following table to determine
the aeronautical experience you must have to apply for a sport pilot
certificate:

[[Page 35214]]

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
If you are applying for a sport pilot
certificate with . . . Then you must log at least . . . Which must include at least . . .
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(1) Airplane category and single-engine 20 hours of flight time, including at least 15 hours of (i) 2 hours of cross-country flight training;
land or sea class privileges, flight training from an authorized instructor in a single- (ii) 10 takeoffs and landings to a full stop
engine airplane and at least 5 hours of solo flight (with each landing involving a flight in the
training in the areas of operation listed in Sec. traffic pattern) at an airport;
61.311, (iii) One solo cross-country flight of at least
75 nautical miles total distance, with a full-
stop landing at a minimum of two points and one
segment of the flight consisting of a straight-
line distance of at least 25 nautical miles
between the takeoff and landing locations; and
(iv) 2 hours of flight training with an
authorized instructor on those areas of
operation specified in Sec. 61.311 in
preparation for the practical test within the
preceding 2 calendar months from the month of
the test.
(2) Glider category privileges, and you 10 hours of flight time in a glider, including 10 flights (i) Five solo launches and landings; and
have not logged at least 20 hours of in a glider receiving flight training from an authorized (ii) at least 3 training flights with an
flight time in a heavier-than-air instructor and at least 2 hours of solo flight training authorized instructor on those areas of
aircraft, in the areas of operation listed in Sec. 61.311, operation specified in Sec. 61.311 in
preparation for the practical test within the
preceding 2 calendar months from the month of
the test.
(3) Glider category privileges, and you 3 hours of flight time in a glider, including five flights (i) Three solo launches and landings; and
have logged at least 20 hours of flight in a glider while receiving flight training from an (ii) at least 3 training flights with an
time in a heavier-than-air aircraft, authorized instructor and at least 1 hour of solo flight authorized instructor on those areas of
training in the areas of operation listed in Sec. operation specified in Sec. 61.311 in
61.311, preparation for the practical test within the
preceding 2 calendar months from the month of
the test.
(4) Rotorcraft category and gyroplane 20 hours of flight time, including 15 hours of flight (i) 2 hours of cross-country flight training;
class privileges, training from an authorized instructor in a gyroplane and (ii) 10 takeoffs and landings to a full stop
at least 5 hours of solo flight training in the areas of (with each landing involving a flight in the
operation listed in Sec. 61.311, traffic pattern) at an airport;
(iii) One solo cross-country flight of at least
50 nautical miles total distance, with a full-
stop landing at a minimum of two points, and
one segment of the flight consisting of a
straight-line distance of at least 25 nautical
miles between the takeoff and landing
locations; and
(iv) 2 hours of flight training with an
authorized instructor on those areas of
operation specified in Sec. 61.311 in
preparation for the practical test within the
preceding 2 calendar months from the month of
the test.
(5) Lighter-than-air category and airship 20 hours of flight time, including 15 hours of flight (i) 2 hours of cross-country flight training;
class privileges, training from an authorized instructor in an airship and (ii) Three takeoffs and landings to a full stop
at least 3 hours performing the duties of pilot in (with each landing involving a flight in the
command in an airship with an authorized instructor in traffic pattern) at an airport;
the areas of operation listed in Sec. 61.311, (iii) One cross-country flight of at least 25
nautical miles between the takeoff and landing
locations; and
(iv) 2 hours of flight training with an
authorized instructor on those areas of
operation specified in Sec. 61.311 in
preparation for the practical test within the
preceding 2 calendar months from the month of
the test.
(6) Lighter-than-air category and balloon 7 hours of flight time in a balloon, including three (i) 2 hours of cross-country flight training;
class privileges, flights with an authorized instructor and one flight and
performing the duties of pilot in command in a balloon (ii) 1 hour of flight training with an
with an authorized instructor in the areas of operation authorized instructor on those areas of
listed in Sec. 61.311, operation specified in Sec. 61.311 in
preparation for the practical test within the
preceding 2 calendar months from the month of
the test.
(7) Powered parachute category land or sea 12 hours of flight time in a powered parachute, including (i) 1 hour of cross-country flight training;
class privileges, 10 hours of flight training from an authorized instructor (ii) 20 takeoffs and landings to a full stop in
in a powered parachute, and at least 2 hours of solo a powered parachute with each landing involving
flight training in the areas of operation listed in Sec. flight in the traffic pattern at an airport;
61.311, (iii) 10 solo takeoffs and landings to a full
stop (with each landing involving a flight in
the traffic pattern) at an airport;
(iv) One solo flight with a landing at a
different airport and one segment of the flight
consisting of a straight-line distance of at
least 10 nautical miles between takeoff and
landing locations; and
(v) 1 hour of flight training with an authorized
instructor on those areas of operation
specified in Sec. 61.311 in preparation for
the practical test within the preceding 2
calendar months from the month of the test.
(8) Weight-shift-control aircraft category 20 hours of flight time, including 15 hours of flight (i) 2 hours of cross-country flight training;
land or sea class privileges, training from an authorized instructor in a weight-shift- (ii) 10 takeoffs and landings to a full stop
control aircraft and at least 5 hours of solo flight (with each landing involving a flight in the
training in the areas of operation listed in Sec. traffic pattern) at an airport;
61.311, (iii) One solo cross-country flight of at least
50 nautical miles total distance, with a full-
stop landing at a minimum of two points, and
one segment of the flight consisting of a
straight-line distance of at least 25 nautical
miles between takeoff and landing locations;
and
(iv) 2 hours of flight training with an
authorized instructor on those areas of
operation specified in Sec. 61.311 in
preparation for the practical test within the
preceding 2 calendar months from the month of
the test.
(9) Rotorcraft category and helicopter 30 hours of helicopter flight time, including at least 15 (i) 2 hours of cross-country flight training;
class, only if that helicopter is hours of flight training from an authorized instructor in (ii) 10 takeoffs and landings to a full stop
certificated under Sec. 21.190 and a helicopter, and at least 5 hours of solo flight (with each landing involving a flight in the
obtains the simplified flight controls training in the areas of operation listed in Sec. traffic pattern) at an airport;
designation, 61.311, as appropriate, (iii) One solo cross-country flight of at least
50 nautical miles total distance, with a full-
stop landing at a minimum of two points, and
one segment of the flight consisting of a
straight-line distance of at least 25 nautical
miles between the takeoff and landing
locations; and
(iv) 2 hours of flight training with an
authorized instructor on those areas of
operation specified in Sec. 61.311 in
preparation for the practical test within the
preceding 2 calendar months from the month of
the test.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[[Page 35215]]

(b) Flight simulation training device and aviation training device
credit. (1) Sport pilot applicants can use up to 2.5 hours of training
credit in a qualified flight simulation training device and aviation
training device representing the appropriate category and class of
aircraft to meet the experience requirements of this part.
(2) The training must be provided by an authorized instructor who
possesses the appropriate aircraft rating or privilege sought by the
applicant.

0
46. Amend Sec. 61.315 by revising paragraphs (a), (c) introductory
text, and (c)(5), and adding paragraph (c)(20) to read as follows:

Sec. 61.315 What are the privileges and limits of my sport pilot
certificate?

(a) If you hold a sport pilot certificate you may act as pilot in
command of an aircraft that meets the provisions of Sec. 61.316,
except as specified in paragraph (c) of this section.
* * * * *
(c) You may not act as pilot in command of an aircraft:
* * * * *
(5) At night, except as provided in Sec. 61.329.
* * * * *
(20) If the aircraft--
(i) Has retractable landing gear, unless you have met the
requirements of Sec. 61.331(a); or
(ii) Is an airplane with a manual controllable pitch propeller,
unless you have met the requirements of Sec. 61.331(b).
(21) That requires a pilot to hold a type rating in accordance with
Sec. 61.31(a).

0
47. Add Sec. 61.316 to read as follows:

Sec. 61.316 What are the performance limits and design requirements
for the aircraft that a sport pilot may operate?

(a) If you hold a sport pilot certificate, you may act as pilot in
command of an aircraft that, since its original certification, meets
the following requirements:
(1) A maximum stalling speed or minimum steady flight speed without
the use of lift-enhancing devices (VS1) of not more than 45
knots CAS, except for airplanes, which must have a VS1 speed
of not more than 59 knots CAS at the aircraft's maximum certificated
takeoff weight and most critical center of gravity.
(2) A maximum seating capacity of two persons, except for
airplanes, which may have a maximum seating capacity of four persons.
(3) A non-pressurized cabin, if equipped with a cabin.
(4) For gyroplanes, a fixed-pitch, semi-rigid, teetering, two-blade
rotor system.
(5) For powered aircraft other than balloons or airships, the loss
of partial power would not adversely affect directional control of the
aircraft and the aircraft design must allow the pilot the capability of
establishing a controlled descent in the event of a partial or total
powerplant failure.
(6) For helicopters, they must be certificated with the simplified
flight controls designation.
(7) For gliders, fixed or retractable landing gear.
(8) For powered-aircraft other than a glider, fixed landing gear
except as provided in paragraph (b) of this section.
(9) For powered-aircraft other than a glider, a fixed, ground-
adjustable, or an automated controllable pitch propeller except as
provided in paragraph (b) of this section.
(b) If you hold a sport pilot certificate, you may act as pilot in
command of an aircraft that has retractable landing gear or an airplane
with a manual controllable pitch propeller if you have met the training
and endorsement requirements specified in Sec. 61.331.

0
48. Revise Sec. 61.321 to read as follows:

Sec. 61.321 How do I obtain privileges to operate an additional
category or class of aircraft?

(a) If you hold a sport pilot or higher grade certificate and seek
to operate an additional category or class of aircraft meeting the
performance limits and design requirements of Sec. 61.316 under this
subpart, other than an airplane single-engine land or sea or a
rotorcraft-helicopter, you must--
(1) Receive a logbook endorsement from the authorized instructor
who trained you on the applicable aeronautical knowledge areas
specified in Sec. 61.309 and areas of operation specified in Sec.
61.311. The endorsement certifies you have met the aeronautical
knowledge and flight proficiency requirements for the additional
aircraft privilege you seek;
(2) Successfully complete a proficiency check from an authorized
instructor, other than the instructor who trained you, consisting of
the tasks in the appropriate areas of operation contained in the
applicable Practical Test Standards or Airman Certification Standards
(incorporated by reference, see Sec. 61.14) as listed in appendix A of
this part for the additional sport pilot privilege you seek;
(3) Complete an application for those privileges on a form and in a
manner acceptable to the FAA and present this application to the
authorized instructor who conducted the proficiency check specified in
paragraph (a)(2) of this section; and
(4) Receive a logbook endorsement from the authorized instructor
who conducted the proficiency check specified in paragraph (a)(2) of
this section certifying you are proficient in the applicable areas of
operation and aeronautical knowledge areas, and that you are authorized
for the additional category and class aircraft privilege.
(b) If you hold a sport pilot or higher grade certificate and seek
to operate an airplane single-engine land or sea or a rotorcraft-
helicopter meeting the performance limits and design requirements of
Sec. 61.316, you must successfully accomplish a practical test for
that category and class privilege as specified in Sec. 61.307(b).

0
49. Add Sec. Sec. 61.329 and 61.331 to subpart J to read as follows:

Sec. 61.329 How do I obtain privileges to operate an aircraft at
night?

You may act as pilot in command with a sport pilot certificate
during night operations if you:
(a) Receive 3 hours of night flight training in the specific
category and class from an authorized instructor that includes--
(1) Conduct at least one cross-country flight during the flight
training under paragraph (a) of this section at night, with a landing
at an airport of at least 25 nautical miles from the departure airport,
except for powered parachutes; and
(2) Accomplish at least 10 takeoffs and 10 landings to a full stop
at night;
(b) Either hold a medical certificate issued under part 67 of this
chapter or meet the conditions of Sec. 61.113(i) and the operation is
conducted consistent with this section. Where the requirements of Sec.
61.316 conflict with Sec. 61.113(i), a sport pilot must comply with
Sec. 61.316; and
(c) Receive a logbook endorsement from an authorized instructor
certifying that you meet the training requirements in paragraph (a) of
this section and are proficient in the operation of the aircraft at
night in the category and class which the sport pilot seeks privileges.

Sec. 61.331 How do I obtain privileges to operate an aircraft with
retractable landing gear or an airplane with a manual controllable
pitch propeller?

(a) If you hold a sport pilot certificate and seek privileges to
operate an aircraft with retractable landing gear, you must either--
(1) Satisfy the training and endorsement requirements specified in
Sec. 61.31(e), or

[[Page 35216]]

(2) Receive and log ground and flight training from an authorized
instructor in an aircraft that has retractable landing gear and receive
an endorsement from the instructor certifying that you are proficient
to operate the aircraft.
(b) If you hold a sport pilot certificate and seek privileges to
operate an airplane with a manual controllable pitch propeller, you
must either--
(1) Satisfy the training and endorsement requirements specified in
Sec. 61.31(e), or
(2) Receive and log ground and flight training from an authorized
instructor in an airplane that has a manual controllable pitch
propeller and receive an endorsement from the instructor certifying
that you are proficient to operate the airplane.
(c) The training and endorsement required by paragraph (a) of this
section is not required for pilots seeking to operate aircraft intended
for operation on water with retractable landing gear if the person
logged pilot-in-command time in such an aircraft before October 22,
2025.

0
50. Revise Sec. 61.409 to read as follows:

Sec. 61.409 What flight proficiency requirements must I meet to apply
for a flight instructor certificate with a sport pilot rating?

You must receive and log ground and flight training from an
authorized instructor on the following areas of operation for the
aircraft category and class in which you seek flight instructor
privileges:
(a) Technical subject areas.
(b) Preflight preparation.
(c) Preflight lesson on a maneuver to be performed in flight.
(d) Preflight procedures.
(e) Airport, heliport, seaplane base, and gliderport operations, as
applicable.
(f) Hovering maneuvers (applicable only to helicopters).
(g) Takeoffs (or launches), landings, and go-arounds.
(h) Fundamentals of flight.
(i) Performance maneuvers and, for gliders, performance speeds.
(j) Ground reference maneuvers (except for gliders, helicopters,
and lighter-than-air).
(k) Soaring techniques (gliders only).
(l) Slow flight (not applicable to lighter-than-air, helicopters,
and powered parachutes).
(m) Stalls (not applicable to lighter-than-air, powered parachutes,
helicopters, and gyroplanes).
(n) Spins (applicable to airplanes and gliders).
(o) Emergency operations.
(p) Tumble entry and avoidance techniques (applicable to weight-
shift-control aircraft).
(q) Special operations (helicopter only).
(r) Post-flight procedures.

0
51. Amend Sec. 61.411 by adding paragraph (h) to read as follows:

Sec. 61.411 What aeronautical experience must I have to apply for a
flight instructor certificate with a sport pilot rating?

* * * * *

------------------------------------------------------------------------
If you are applying for a flight Then you must
instructor certificate with a log at least . Which must include
sport pilot rating for . . . . . at least . . .
------------------------------------------------------------------------

* * * * * * *
(h) Rotorcraft category and (1) 150 hours (i) 100 hours of
helicopter class, only if that of flight time flight time as
helicopter is certificated under as a pilot,. pilot in command in
Sec. 21.190 and obtains the powered aircraft;
simplified flight controls (ii) 50 hours of
designation, flight time in a
helicopter;
(iii) 25 hours of
cross-country
flight time;
(iv) 10 hours of
cross-country
flight time in a
helicopter; and
(v) 15 hours of
flight time as
pilot in command in
a helicopter.
(2) [Reserved].
------------------------------------------------------------------------

0
52. Amend Sec. 61.413 by adding paragraph (d) to read as follows:

Sec. 61.413 What are the privileges of my flight instructor
certificate with a sport pilot rating?

* * * * *
(d) Notwithstanding Sec. 61.315(c)(2) and (3), a person who holds
a flight instructor certificate issued under this subpart K of this
part may receive compensation for providing flight training in
accordance with this subpart.

0
53. Amend Sec. 61.415 by adding paragraphs (k) through (n) to read as
follows:

Sec. 61.415 What are the limits of a flight instructor certificate
with a sport pilot rating?

If you hold a flight instructor certificate with a sport pilot
rating, you may only provide flight training in an aircraft meeting the
performance limits and design requirements of Sec. 61.316 and are
subject to the following limits:
* * * * *
(k) You cannot carry more than one person.
(l) You may not provide training in an airplane with a manual
controllable pitch propeller or an aircraft with a retractable landing
gear unless you have received training and an instructor endorsement
validating proficiency in the safe operation of these types of
aircraft.
(m) You may not provide training in an aircraft that has the
simplified flight controls designation unless you have received the
model-specific flight training and an endorsement from an authorized
instructor validating proficiency in the safe operation of these
aircraft.
(n) You may not provide training in an aircraft at night unless you
have completed the night experience and instructor endorsement
requirements listed in Sec. 61.329 for the category and class you seek
to provide training in.

0
54. Amend Sec. 61.419 by:
0
a. Revising the section heading, introductory text, and paragraph (b);
and
0
b. Adding paragraph (e).
The revisions and addition read as follows:

Sec. 61.419 How do I obtain privileges to provide training in an
additional category or class of aircraft?

If you hold a flight instructor certificate issued under subpart H
of this part or a flight instructor certificate with a sport pilot
rating and seek privileges to provide training under subpart K in an
additional category or class of aircraft meeting the performance limits
and design requirements of Sec. 61.316, you must--
* * * * *
(b) Except as provided in paragraph (e) of this section,
successfully complete a proficiency check from an authorized

[[Page 35217]]

instructor, other than the instructor who trained you, consisting of
the tasks in the appropriate areas of operation contained in the
applicable Practical Test Standards or Airman Certification Standards
(incorporated by reference, see Sec. 61.14) as listed in appendix A of
this part for the additional category and class flight instructor
privilege you seek;
* * * * *
(e) If you are seeking to add an airplane single-engine land or sea
or a rotorcraft-helicopter with simplified flight controls designation
privilege to your flight instructor certificate, successfully
accomplish a practical test for that category and class privilege as
specified in Sec. 61.405.

0
55. Amend Sec. 61.429 by revising paragraph (c) and adding paragraph
(d) to read as follows:

Sec. 61.429 May I exercise the privileges of a flight instructor
certificate with a sport pilot rating if I hold a flight instructor
certificate with another rating?

* * * * *
(c) If you want to exercise the privileges of your flight
instructor certificate in a category or class of aircraft for which you
are not currently rated, you must meet all applicable requirements to
provide training in an additional category or class of aircraft
specified in Sec. 61.419.
(d) If you want to exercise the privileges of your flight
instructor certificate in a model-specific aircraft that has a
simplified flight controls designation, you must meet the training and
endorsement requirements specified in Sec. 61.31(l) prior to providing
any flight training in that aircraft.

0
56. Revise appendix A to read as follows:

Appendix A to Part 61--Airman Certification Standards and Practical
Test Standards

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
If you are seeking this certificate, rating, and/or Then this ACS/PTS (incorporated by reference, see Sec.
privilege . . . 61.14) is applicable:
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Airline Transport Pilot Certificate; Airplane Category-- FAA-S-ACS-11A, Airline Transport Pilot and Type Rating
Single-Engine Land Rating, Airplane Category--Single- for Airplane Category Airman Certification Standards,
Engine Sea Rating, Airplane Category--Multiengine Land November 2023.
Rating, Airplane Category--Multiengine Sea Rating.
Airline Transport Pilot Certificate; Rotorcraft FAA-S-8081-20A, Airline Transport Pilot and Aircraft
Category--Helicopter Rating. Type Rating Practical Test Standards for Rotorcraft
Category Helicopter Rating, November 2023.
Airline Transport Pilot Certificate; Powered-Lift FAA-S-ACS-17, Airline Transport Pilot and Type Rating
Category. for Powered-Lift Category Airman Certification
Standards, November 2023.
Commercial Pilot Certificate; Airplane Category--Single- FAA-S-ACS-7B, Commercial Pilot for Airplane Category
Engine Land Rating, Airplane Category--Single-Engine Airman Certification Standards, November 2023.
Sea Rating, Airplane Category--Multiengine Land
Rating, Airplane Category--Multiengine Sea Rating.
Commercial Pilot Certificate; Rotorcraft Category-- FAA-S-ACS-16, Commercial Pilot for Rotorcraft Category
Helicopter Rating. Helicopter Rating Airman Certification Standards,
November 2023.
Commercial Pilot Certificate; Rotorcraft Category-- FAA-S-8081-16C, Commercial Pilot Practical Test
Gyroplane Rating. Standards for Rotorcraft Category Gyroplane Rating,
November 2023.
Commercial Pilot Certificate; Powered-Lift Category.... FAA-S-ACS-2, Commercial Pilot for Powered-Lift Category
Airman Certification Standards, November 2023.
Commercial Pilot Certificate; Glider Category.......... FAA-S-8081-23B, Commercial Pilot Practical Test
Standards for Glider Category, November 2023.
Commercial Pilot Certificate; Lighter-Than-Air FAA-S-8081-18A, Commercial Pilot Practical Test
Category--Airship Rating, Lighter-Than-Air Category-- Standards for Lighter-Than-Air Category, November
Balloon Rating. 2023.
Private Pilot Certificate; Airplane Category--Single- FAA-S-ACS-6C, Private Pilot for Airplane Category
Engine Land Rating, Airplane Category--Single-Engine Airman Certification Standards, November 2023.
Sea Rating, Airplane Category--Multiengine Land
Rating, Airplane Category--Multiengine Sea Rating.
Private Pilot Certificate; Rotorcraft Category-- FAA-S-ACS-15, Private Pilot for Rotorcraft Category
Helicopter Rating. Helicopter Rating Airman Certification Standards,
November 2023.
Private Pilot Certificate; Rotorcraft Category-- FAA-S-8081-15B, Private Pilot Practical Test Standards
Gyroplane Rating. for Rotorcraft Category Gyroplane Rating, November
2023.
Private Pilot Certificate; Powered-Lift Category....... FAA-S-ACS-13, Private Pilot for Powered-Lift Category
Airman Certification Standards, November 2023.
Private Pilot Certificate; Glider Category............. FAA-S-8081-22A, Private Pilot Practical Test Standards
for Glider Category, November 2023.
Private Pilot Certificate; Lighter-Than-Air Category-- FAA-S-8081-17A, Private Pilot Practical Test Standards
Airship Rating, Lighter-Than-Air Category--Balloon for Lighter-Than-Air Category, November 2023.
Rating.
Private Pilot Certificate; Powered Parachute Category-- FAA-S-8081-32A, Private Pilot Practical Test Standards
Land Rating, Powered Parachute Category--Sea Rating, for Powered Parachute Category and Weight-Shift-
Weight-Shift-Control Aircraft Category--Land Rating, Control Category, November 2023.
Weight-Shift-Control Aircraft Category--Sea Rating.
Recreational Pilot Certificate; Airplane Category-- FAA-S-8081-3B, Recreational Pilot Practical Test
Single-Engine Land Rating, Airplane Category--Single- Standards for Airplane Category and Rotorcraft
Engine Sea Rating, Rotorcraft Category--Helicopter Category, November 2023.
Rating, Rotorcraft Category--Gyroplane Rating.
Sport Pilot Certificate; Airplane Category--Single- FAA-S-8081-29A, Sport Pilot and Sport Pilot Flight
Engine Land Privileges, Airplane Category--Single- Instructor Rating Practical Test Standards for
Engine Sea Privileges, Rotorcraft Category--Gyroplane Airplane Category, Rotorcraft Category, and Glider
Privileges, Glider Category. Category, November 2023.
Flight Instructor Certificate with a Sport Pilot
Rating; Airplane Category--Single-Engine Privileges,
Rotorcraft Category--Gyroplane Privileges, Glider
Category.
Sport Pilot Certificate; Rotorcraft Category-- FAA-S-ACS-26, Sport Pilot for Rotorcraft Category
Helicopter Privilege--Simplified Flight Controls. Helicopter--Simplified Flight Controls Privilege
Airman Certification Standards, July 2025.
Flight Instructor Certificate with a Sport Pilot FAA-S-ACS-31, Flight Instructor with a Sport Pilot
Rating; Rotorcraft Helicopter--Simplified Flight Rating for Rotorcraft Category Helicopter--Simplified
Controls. Flight Controls Privilege Airman Certification
Standards, July 2025.
Sport Pilot Certificate; Lighter-Than-Air Category-- FAA-S-8081-30A, Sport Pilot and Sport Pilot Flight
Airship Privileges, Lighter-Than-Air Category--Balloon Instructor Rating Practical Test Standards for Lighter-
Privileges. Than-Air Category, November 2023.
Flight Instructor Certificate with a Sport Pilot .......................................................
Rating; Lighter-Than-Air Category--Airship Privileges,
Lighter-Than-Air Category--Balloon Privileges.
Sport Pilot Certificate; Powered Parachute Category-- FAA-S-8081-31A, Sport Pilot and Sport Pilot Flight
Land Privileges, Powered Parachute Category--Sea Instructor Rating Practical Test Standards for Powered
Privileges, Weight-Shift-Control Aircraft Category-- Parachute Category and Weight-Shift-Control Category,
Land Privileges, Weight-Shift-Control Aircraft November 2023.
Category--Sea Privileges.
Flight Instructor Certificate with a Sport Pilot .......................................................
Rating; Powered Parachute Category Privileges, Weight-
Shift-Control Aircraft Category Privileges..
Instrument Rating--Airplane Instrument Proficiency FAA-S-ACS-8C, Instrument Rating--Airplane Airman
Check--Airplane. Certification Standards, November 2023.
Instrument Rating--Helicopter Instrument Proficiency FAA-S-ACS-14, Instrument Rating--Helicopter Airman
Check--Helicopter. Certification Standards, November 2023.

[[Page 35218]]

Instrument Rating--Powered-Lift Instrument Proficiency FAA-S-ACS-3, Instrument Rating--Powered-Lift Airman
Check--Powered-Lift. Certification Standards, November 2023.
Flight Instructor Certificate; Airplane Category-- FAA-S-ACS-25, Flight Instructor for Airplane Category
Single Engine Rating Airplane Category--Multiengine Airman Certification Standards, November 2023.
Rating.
Flight Instructor Certificate; Rotorcraft Category-- FAA-S-ACS-29, Flight Instructor for Rotorcraft Category
Helicopter Rating. Helicopter Rating Airman Certification Standards,
November 2023.
Flight Instructor Certificate; Rotorcraft Category-- FAA-S-8081-7C, Flight Instructor Practical Test
Gyroplane Rating. Standards for Rotorcraft Category Gyroplane Rating,
November 2023.
Flight Instructor Certificate; Powered-lift Category... FAA-S-ACS-27, Flight Instructor for Powered-Lift
Category Airman Certification Standards, November
2023.
Flight Instructor Certificate; Glider Category......... FAA-S-8081-8C, Flight Instructor Practical Test
Standards for Glider Category, November 2023.
Flight Instructor Certificate; Instrument--Airplane FAA-S-8081-9E, Flight Instructor Instrument Practical
Rating, Instrument--Helicopter Rating. Test Standards for Airplane Rating and Helicopter
Rating, November 2023.
Flight Instructor Certificate; Instrument--Powered-Lift FAA-S-ACS-28, Flight Instructor--Instrument Rating
Rating. Powered-Lift Airman Certification Standards, November
2023.
Aircraft Type Rating--Airplane......................... FAA-S-ACS-11A, Airline Transport Pilot and Type Rating
for Airplane Category Airman Certification Standards,
November 2023.
Aircraft Type Rating--Helicopter....................... FAA-S-8081-20A, Airline Transport Pilot and Aircraft
Type Rating Practical Test Standards for Rotorcraft
Category Helicopter Rating, November 2023.
Aircraft Type Rating--Powered-Lift..................... FAA-S-ACS-17, Airline Transport Pilot and Type Rating
for Powered-Lift Category Airman Certification
Standards, November 2023.
Pilot-in-Command Proficiency Check--Airplane........... FAA-S-ACS-11A, Airline Transport Pilot and Type Rating
for Airplane Category Airman Certification Standards;
November 2023.
Pilot-in-Command Proficiency Check--Helicopter......... FAA-S-8081-20A, Airline Transport Pilot and Aircraft
Type Rating Practical Test Standards for Rotorcraft
Category Helicopter Rating, November 2023.
Pilot-in-Command Proficiency Check--Powered-Lift....... FAA-S-ACS-17, Airline Transport Pilot and Type Rating
for Powered-Lift Category Airman Certification
Standards, November 2023.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

0
57. In addition to the preceding, amend part 61 by using the following
table and, for each section in the left column, removing the text in
the middle column wherever it appears, and adding in its place, the
text in the right column:

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
14 CFR Remove Replace
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
a. Sec. 61.1(b) Student pilot seeking a ``a light sport aircraft''.............. ``an aircraft''.
sport pilot certificate (ii); b. Sec.
61.89(c)(5); c. Sec. 61.113(h)
introductory text; d. Sec. 61.327
section heading; e. Sec. 61.412 section
heading; f. Sec. 61.415(e); g. Sec.
61.415(f); h. Sec. 61.415(g); i. Sec.
61.423(a)(2)(iii)(C); and j. Sec.
61.423(a)(2)(iii)(D); and
a. Sec. 61.23(c)(1)(i) through (iv); b. ``a light-sport aircraft''.............. ``an aircraft meeting the
Sec. 61.23(c)(2)(iv); c. Sec. performance limits and
61.89(c)(1); d. Sec. 61.325 introductory design requirements of
text; e. Sec. 61.327(a) introductory Sec. 61.316''.
text and (b) introductory text; and f.
Sec. 61.411(a)(1)(v), (b)(1), (c)(1)(v),
(d)(1)(v), (e)(1)(iii), (f)(1)(v) and
(g)(1)(v); and
a. Sec. 61.317; b. Sec. 61.325 section ``light-sport''.........................
heading; c. Sec. 61.327(a)(2) and
(b)(2); d. Sec. 61.403(b); e. 61.417;
and f. Sec. 61.423(a)(2)(iii)(A),
(a)(2)(iv), and (b).
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

PART 65--CERTIFICATION: AIRMEN OTHER THAN FLIGHT CREWMEMBERS

0
58. The authority citation for part 65 continues to read as follows:

Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(f), 40113, 44701-44703, 44707, 44709-
44711, 45102-45103, 45301-45302.

0
59. Amend Sec. 65.15 by revising paragraphs (a), (b), and (d) to read
as follows:

Sec. 65.15 Duration of certificates.

(a) Except for repairman certificates issued in accordance with
Sec. 65.101, a certificate or rating issued under this part is
effective until it is surrendered, suspended, or revoked.
(b) Unless it is sooner surrendered, suspended, or revoked, a
repairman certificate issued in accordance with Sec. 65.101 is
effective until the holder is relieved from the duties for which the
holder was employed and certificated.
* * * * *
(d) Except for temporary certificates issued under Sec. 65.13, the
holder of a paper certificate issued under this part may not exercise
the privileges of that certificate.

0
60. Amend Sec. 65.23 by revising the introductory text and paragraph
(a)(3) to read as follows:

Sec. 65.23 Incorporation by reference.

Certain material is incorporated by reference into this part with
the approval of the Director of the Federal Register under 5 U.S.C.
552(a) and 1 CFR part 51. This material is available for inspection at
the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) and at the National Archives
and Records Administration (NARA). Contact FAA, Training and
Certification Group, 202-267-1100, ACSPTSinquiries@faa.gov. For
information on the availability of this material at NARA, email
[email protected], or go to www.archives.gov/federal-register/cfr/ibr-locations. The material may be obtained from the source in the
following paragraph of this section.
(a) * * *
(3) FAA-S-ACS-1, Aviation Mechanic General, Airframe, and
Powerplant Airman Certification Standards, November 1, 2021; IBR
approved for Sec. Sec. 65.75, 65.79, and 65.107.
* * * * *

0
61. Revise Sec. 65.81 to read as follows:

Sec. 65.81 General privileges and limitations.

(a) A certificated mechanic may perform or supervise the
maintenance, preventive maintenance or alteration of an aircraft or
appliance, or a part thereof, for which that person is rated (but
excluding major repairs to, and major alterations of, propellers, and
any repair to, or alteration of, instruments),

[[Page 35219]]

and may perform additional duties in accordance with Sec. Sec. 65.85,
65.87, and 65.95. However, a certificated mechanic may not supervise
the maintenance, preventive maintenance, or alteration of, or approve
for return to service, any aircraft or appliance, or part thereof, for
which that person is rated unless that person has satisfactorily
performed the work concerned at an earlier date. If that person has not
so performed that work at an earlier date, that person may show the
ability to do it by performing it to the satisfaction of the
Administrator or under the direct supervision of a certificated and
appropriately rated mechanic, or a certificated repairman, who has had
previous experience in the specific operation concerned.
(b) A certificated mechanic may not exercise the privileges of that
person's certificate and rating unless that person understands the
current instructions of the manufacturer, and the maintenance manuals,
for the specific operation concerned.

0
62. Revise Sec. 65.85 to read as follows:

Sec. 65.85 Airframe rating; additional privileges.

(a) Except as provided in paragraph (b) of this section, a
certificated mechanic with an airframe rating may approve for return to
service an airframe, or any related part or appliance, after that
person has performed, supervised, or inspected its maintenance or
alteration (excluding major repairs and major alterations). In
addition, a certificated mechanic with an airframe rating may perform
the 100-hour inspection required by part 91 of this chapter on an
airframe, or any related part or appliance, and approve for return to
service.
(b) A certificated mechanic with an airframe rating can approve for
return to service an airframe, or any related part or appliance, of an
aircraft with a special airworthiness certificate in the light-sport
category after performing and inspecting a major repair or major
alteration for products that are not produced under an FAA approval
provided the major repair or major alteration was authorized by, and
performed in accordance with instructions developed by, the
manufacturer or a person acceptable to the FAA.

0
63. Revise Sec. 65.87 to read as follows:

Sec. 65.87 Powerplant rating; additional privileges.

(a) Except as provided in paragraph (b) of this section, a
certificated mechanic with a powerplant rating may approve for return
to service a powerplant or propeller or any related part or appliance,
after that person has performed, supervised, or inspected its
maintenance or alteration (excluding major repairs and major
alterations). In addition, a certificated mechanic with a powerplant
rating may perform the 100-hour inspection required by part 91 of this
chapter on a powerplant or propeller, or any part thereof, and approve
for return to service.
(b) A certificated mechanic with a powerplant rating can approve
for return to service a powerplant or propeller, or any related part or
appliance, of an aircraft with a special airworthiness certificate in
the light-sport category after performing and inspecting a major repair
or major alteration for products that are not produced under an FAA
approval, provided the major repair or major alteration was authorized
by, and performed in accordance with instructions developed by, the
manufacturer or a person acceptable to the FAA.

0
64. Amend Sec. 65.103 by revising paragraph (c) to read as follows:

Sec. 65.103 Repairman certificate: Privileges and limitations.

* * * * *
(c) This section does not apply to the holder of a repairman
certificate (experimental aircraft builder) issued in accordance with
Sec. 65.104 or to the holder of a repairman certificate (light-sport)
issued in accordance with Sec. 65.107, while that repairman is
performing work under that certificate.

0
65. Revise Sec. 65.107 to read as follows:

Sec. 65.107 Repairman certificate (light-sport): Eligibility and
training courses.

(a) Ratings. The following ratings may be issued on a repairman
certificate (light-sport) under this section:
(1) Inspection rating.
(2) Maintenance rating.
(b) Eligibility requirements: General. To be eligible for a
repairman certificate (light-sport), a person must:
(1) Be at least 18 years old;
(2) Be able to read, speak, write, and understand English;
(3) Complete a training course pursuant to paragraph (c) or (d) of
this section, as applicable to the rating sought;
(4) Pass a written test administered by the training course
provider that covers the contents of the course pursuant to paragraph
(c) or (d) of this section, as applicable to the rating sought; and
(5) Present documentary evidence of completion of the FAA-accepted
training course required by paragraph (b)(3) of this section and
passage of the written test required by paragraph (b)(4) of this
section, to the Administrator.
(c) Inspection rating training course. To obtain an inspection
rating on a repairman certificate (light-sport), a person must complete
a 16-hour training course accepted by the Administrator on inspecting
the category, and class as applicable, of experimental aircraft for
which the person intends to exercise the privileges of the rating.
(d) Maintenance rating training course. To obtain a maintenance
rating on a repairman certificate (light-sport), a person must complete
a training course accepted by the Administrator that includes content
on, at a minimum, the knowledge, risk management, and skill elements
for each subject contained in the Aviation Mechanic General, Airframe,
and Powerplant Airman Certification Standards (incorporated by
reference, see Sec. 65.23), that are appropriate to the category, and
class as applicable, of aircraft for which the person intends to
exercise the privileges of the rating.
(e) Training course providers. Training course providers must:
(1) Deliver the training course described in paragraphs (c) and (d)
of this section using facilities, equipment, and materials appropriate
to the training course content taught;
(2) Use instructors that are appropriately qualified to teach the
course content; and
(3) After a student completes the training course as required by
paragraph (b)(3) of this section and passes the written test as
required by paragraph (b)(4) of this section, provide a certificate of
completion to the student indicating the:
(i) Name of the training provider;
(ii) FAA course acceptance number;
(iii) Rating applicable to the training course;
(iv) Aircraft category, and class as applicable, the training was
based on; and
(v) Date of training completion.
(f) Certificate issuance and equivalency. (1) A repairman
certificate (light-sport) will be issued with category privileges, and
may be issued with class limitations within the category sought
pursuant to the completed training required by paragraph (b)(3) of this
section.
(2) A repairman certificate (light-sport aircraft) that was issued
before and was valid on October 22, 2025 is equivalent to a repairman
certificate (light-sport) with the same ratings.
(3) Aircraft class privileges issued on a repairman certificate
(light-sport aircraft) before and valid on October 22, 2025 are
equivalent to aircraft category

[[Page 35220]]

privileges, except as provided in paragraph (f)(4) of this section.
(4) A repairman certificate (light-sport aircraft) with an
inspection rating and gyroplane class privileges issued before and
valid on October 22, 2025 is equivalent to a repairman (light-sport)
certificate with an inspection rating and rotorcraft category
privileges limited to the gyroplane class.
(g) Delayed compliance. Inspection and maintenance rating training
courses designed for glider class privileges and accepted prior to
October 22, 2025 may not be offered by a training course provider after
July 24, 2026.

0
66. Add Sec. 65.109 to subpart E to read as follows:

Sec. 65.109 Repairman certificate (light-sport): Privileges and
limitations.

(a) The holder of a repairman certificate (light-sport) with an
inspection rating may perform the annual condition inspection on an
aircraft:
(1) That is owned by the holder;
(2) That has an experimental airworthiness certificate issued in
accordance with Sec. 21.191(g), (i), (k), or (l) of this chapter; and
(3) That is in the same category, and class as applicable, of
aircraft for which the holder has completed the training course
specified in Sec. 65.107(c).
(b) The holder of a repairman certificate (light-sport) with a
maintenance rating may--
(1) Approve for return to service an aircraft that has a special
airworthiness certificate in the light-sport category under Sec.
21.190 of this chapter, or any part thereof, after performing or
inspecting maintenance (to include the annual condition inspection and
the 100-hour inspection required by Sec. 91.327 of this chapter),
preventive maintenance, or an alteration (excluding a major repair or a
major alteration on a product produced under an FAA approval);
(2) Perform the annual condition inspection on an aircraft that has
an experimental airworthiness certificate issued in accordance with
Sec. 21.191(g), (i), (k), or (l) of this chapter; and
(3) Only perform maintenance, preventive maintenance, and an
alteration on an aircraft that is in the same category, and class as
applicable, of aircraft for which the holder has completed the training
specified in Sec. 65.107(d). Before performing a major repair, the
holder must complete additional training acceptable to the FAA and
appropriate to the repair performed.
(c) The holder of a repairman certificate (light-sport) with a
maintenance rating may not approve for return to service any aircraft
or part thereof unless that person has previously performed the work
concerned satisfactorily. If that person has not previously performed
that work, the person may show the ability to do the work by performing
it to the satisfaction of the FAA, or by performing it under the direct
supervision of a certificated and appropriately rated mechanic, or a
certificated repairman, who has had previous experience in the specific
operation concerned. The repairman may not exercise the privileges of
the certificate unless the repairman understands the current
instructions of the manufacturer and the maintenance manuals for the
specific operation concerned.

PART 91--GENERAL OPERATING AND FLIGHT RULES

0
67. The authority citation for part 91 is revised to read as follows:

Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(f), 40101, 40103, 40105, 40113, 40120,
44101, 44111, 44701, 44704, 44709, 44711, 44712, 44715,44716, 44717,
44722, 44740, 46306, 46315, 46316, 46504, 46506-46507, 47122,
47508,47528-47531, 47534; Pub. L. 112-95, 126 Stat. 11; Pub. L. 114-
190, 130 Stat. 615 (49 U.S.C. 44703 note); sec. 828, Pub. L. 118-63,
138 Stat. 1330 (49 U.S.C. 44703 note); articles 12 and 29 of the
Convention on International Civil Aviation, 61 Stat. 1180.

0
68. Amend Sec. 91.113 by revising paragraphs (d)(2) through (4) to
read as follows:

Sec. 91.113 Right-of-way rules: Except water operations.

* * * * *
(d) * * *
(2) A glider has the right-of-way over powered aircraft.
(3) An airship has the right-of-way over all other powered
aircraft, except for an aircraft towing or refueling other aircraft.
(4) An aircraft towing or refueling other aircraft has the right-
of-way over all other powered aircraft.
* * * * *

0
69. Amend Sec. 91.126 by revising paragraphs (b)(1) and (2) to read as
follows:

Sec. 91.126 Operating on or in the vicinity of an airport in Class G
airspace.

* * * * *
(b) * * *
(1) Each pilot of a powered fixed-wing aircraft must make all turns
to the left unless the airport displays approved light signals or
visual markings indicating that turns should be made to the right, in
which case the pilot must make all turns to the right; and
(2) Each pilot of any other powered aircraft must avoid the flow of
the aircraft specified in paragraph (b)(1) of this section.
* * * * *

0
70. Amend Sec. 91.309 by revising paragraph (a)(2) to read as follows:

Sec. 91.309 Towing: Gliders and unpowered ultralight vehicles.

(a) * * *
(2) The towing aircraft has:
(i) A standard airworthiness certificate and is equipped with a
tow-hitch of a kind, and installed in a manner, that is approved by the
Administrator;
(ii) A special airworthiness certificate for which a type
certificate has been issued, and is equipped with a tow-hitch of a
kind, and installed in a manner, that is approved or otherwise
authorized by the Administrator; or
(iii) A special airworthiness certificate, for which the aircraft
has not been previously issued a type certificate, and is equipped with
a tow-hitch of a kind that is approved or otherwise acceptable to, and
is installed in a manner acceptable to, the Administrator;
* * * * *

0
71. Effective July 24, 2026, amend Sec. 91.313 by revising paragraphs
(b)(3) and (e) introductory text to read as follows:

Sec. 91.313 Restricted category civil aircraft: Operating
limitations.

* * * * *
(b) * * *
(3) Flights conducted to relocate the aircraft for delivery,
repositioning, maintenance, or exhibition.
* * * * *
(e) Except when operating in accordance with the terms and
conditions of a certificate of waiver or unless otherwise authorized by
the Administrator in operating limitations, no person may operate a
restricted category civil aircraft within the United States--
* * * * *

0
72. Effective July 24, 2026, amend Sec. 91.319 by revising paragraphs
(a) introductory text, (b) introductory text, (c), (d) introductory
text, (e), (f) introductory text, and (j), and adding paragraph (k) to
read as follows:

Sec. 91.319 Aircraft having experimental airworthiness certificates:
Operating limitations.

(a) Except as provided in paragraph (k) of this section and Sec.
91.326, no

[[Page 35221]]

person may operate an aircraft that has an experimental airworthiness
certificate--
* * * * *
(b) No person may operate an aircraft that has an experimental
airworthiness certificate outside of an area assigned by the
Administrator until it is shown that--
* * * * *
(c) Unless otherwise authorized by the Administrator in operating
limitations, no person may operate an aircraft that has an experimental
airworthiness certificate issued under Sec. 21.191 of this chapter
over a densely populated area or in a congested airway.
(d) Each person operating an aircraft that has an experimental
airworthiness certificate shall--
* * * * *
(e) No person may operate an aircraft that is issued an
experimental airworthiness certificate under Sec. 21.191(i), (k), or
(l) of this chapter for compensation or hire, except:
(1) A person may operate an aircraft issued an experimental
airworthiness certificate under Sec. 21.191(i)(1) of this chapter to
tow a glider that is a light-sport category aircraft or unpowered
ultralight vehicle in accordance with Sec. 91.309; or
(2) A person may operate an aircraft issued an experimental
airworthiness certificate under Sec. 21.191(i), (k), or (l) of this
chapter to conduct operations authorized under Sec. 91.326.
(f) No person may lease an aircraft that is issued an experimental
airworthiness certificate under Sec. 21.191(i), (k), or (l) of this
chapter, except--
* * * * *
(j) No person may operate an aircraft that has an experimental
airworthiness certificate under Sec. 61.113(i) of this chapter unless
the aircraft is carrying not more than 7 occupants.
(k) A person may operate an aircraft issued an experimental
airworthiness certificate to conduct a space support vehicle flight
carrying persons or property for compensation or hire provided the
operation is conducted in accordance with Sec. 91.331.

0
73. Amend Sec. 91.319 by revising paragraph (g) to read as follows:

Sec. 91.319 Aircraft having experimental airworthiness certificates:
Operating limitations.

* * * * *
(g) No person may operate an aircraft issued an experimental
airworthiness certificate under Sec. 21.191(i)(1) of this chapter to
tow a glider that is a light-sport category aircraft or unpowered
ultralight vehicle for compensation or hire or to conduct flight
training for compensation or hire in an aircraft which that person
provides unless within the preceding 100 hours of time in service the
aircraft has--
(1) Been inspected by a certificated repairman (light-sport) with a
maintenance rating, an appropriately rated mechanic, or an
appropriately rated repair station in accordance with inspection
procedures developed by the aircraft manufacturer or a person
acceptable to the FAA; or
(2) Received an inspection for the issuance of an airworthiness
certificate in accordance with part 21 of this chapter.
* * * * *

0
74. Amend Sec. 91.327 by revising the section heading and paragraphs
(b), (c) introductory text, and (c)(1) to read as follows:

Sec. 91.327 Aircraft issued a special airworthiness certificate in
the light-sport category: Operating limitations.

* * * * *
(b) No person may operate an aircraft that has a special
airworthiness certificate in the light-sport category unless--
(1) The aircraft is maintained by a certificated repairman (light-
sport) with a maintenance rating, an appropriately rated mechanic, or
an appropriately rated repair station in accordance with the applicable
provisions of part 43 of this chapter and maintenance and inspection
procedures developed by the aircraft manufacturer or a person
acceptable to the FAA;
(2) A condition inspection is performed once every 12 calendar
months by a certificated repairman (light-sport) with a maintenance
rating, an appropriately rated mechanic, or an appropriately rated
repair station in accordance with inspection procedures developed by
the aircraft manufacturer or a person acceptable to the FAA;
(3) The owner or operator complies with all applicable
airworthiness directives;
(4) Each repair or alteration to an aircraft meets the applicable
and current FAA-accepted or approved consensus standards specified in
the statement of compliance submitted to the FAA for the aircraft.
(5) Each major repair or major alteration to an aircraft product
produced under a consensus standard is authorized by the manufacturer
or a person acceptable to the FAA, and is performed and inspected in
accordance with maintenance and inspection procedures developed by the
manufacturer or a person acceptable to the FAA; and
(6) The owner or operator complies with the requirements for the
recording of major repairs and major alterations performed on type-
certificated products in accordance with Sec. 43.9(d) of this chapter,
and with the retention requirements in Sec. 91.417.
(c) No person may operate an aircraft issued a special
airworthiness certificate in the light-sport category to tow a glider
or unpowered ultralight vehicle for compensation or hire or conduct
flight training for compensation or hire in an aircraft which that
person provides unless within the preceding 100 hours of time in
service the aircraft has--
(1) Been inspected by a certificated repairman (light-sport) with a
maintenance rating, an appropriately rated mechanic, or an
appropriately rated repair station in accordance with inspection
procedures developed by the aircraft manufacturer or maintenance and
inspection procedures acceptable to the FAA and been approved for
return to service in accordance with part 43 of this chapter; or
* * * * *

0
75. Effective July 24, 2026, amend Sec. 91.327 by:
0
a. Revising paragraph (a);
0
b. Redesignating paragraph (f) as paragraph (g); and
0
c. Adding new paragraph (f).
The revision and addition reads as follows:

Sec. 91.327 Aircraft issued a special airworthiness certificate in
the light-sport category: Operating limitations.

(a) No person may operate an aircraft that has a special
airworthiness certificate in the light-sport category for compensation
or hire except--
(1) To conduct any glider or an unpowered ultralight vehicle towing
operations in accordance with Sec. 91.309, that are specified in the
aircraft's pilot operating handbook or operating limitations, as
applicable, and specified in the manufacturer's statement of compliance
for the aircraft, in accordance with Sec. 21.190 of this chapter;
(2) To conduct flight training, checking, and testing; or
(3) To conduct any aerial work operations specified in the
aircraft's pilot operating handbook or operating limitations, as
applicable, and specified in the manufacturer's statement of compliance
for the aircraft, in accordance with Sec. 21.190 of this chapter.
* * * * *

[[Page 35222]]

(f) No person may operate an aircraft issued a special
airworthiness certificate in the light-sport category to carry--
(1) More than four occupants, including the pilot, if the aircraft
is an airplane; or
(2) More than two occupants, including the pilot, if the aircraft
is other than an airplane.
* * * * *

0
76. Effective July 24, 2026, add Sec. 91.331 to subpart D to read as
follows:

Sec. 91.331 Space support vehicle flights: Operating limitations.

(a) A person may operate an aircraft to conduct a space support
vehicle flight carrying persons or property for compensation or hire
provided--
(1) The aircraft has a special airworthiness certificate issued
under Sec. 21.191 of this chapter.
(2) The aircraft conducting the space support vehicle flight--
(i) Takes flight and lands at a single launch or reentry site that
is operated by an entity licensed to operate the launch or reentry site
under 51 U.S.C. chapter 509;
(ii) Is owned or operated by a launch or reentry vehicle operator
licensed under 51 U.S.C. chapter 509, or on behalf of a launch or
reentry vehicle operator licensed under 51 U.S.C. chapter 509;
(iii) Is a launch vehicle, a reentry vehicle, or a component of a
launch or reentry vehicle licensed for operations pursuant to 51 U.S.C.
chapter 509; and
(iv) Is used only to simulate space flight conditions in support
of--
(A) Training for potential space flight participants, government
astronauts, or crew (as those terms are defined in 51 U.S.C. chapter
509);
(B) The testing of hardware to be used in space flight; or
(C) Research and development tasks, which require the unique
capabilities of the aircraft conducting the flight.
(b) The Administrator may prescribe additional operating
limitations that the Administrator considers necessary in the interest
of safety.

0
77. Amend Sec. 91.409 by revising paragraph (c)(1) to read as follows:

Sec. 91.409 Inspections

* * * * *
(c) * * *
(1) An aircraft that carries a special flight permit, a current
experimental airworthiness certificate, a special airworthiness
certificate in the light-sport category, or provisional airworthiness
certificate;
* * * * *

0
78. Amend Sec. 91.417 by revising paragraph (a)(2)(v) to read as
follows:

Sec. 91.417 Maintenance records.

(a) * * *
(2) * * *
(v) The current status of applicable airworthiness directives (AD)
including, for each, the method of compliance, the AD number and
revision date. If the AD involves recurring action, the time and date
when the next action is required.
* * * * *

PART 119--CERTIFICATION: AIR CARRIERS AND COMMERCIAL OPERATIONS

0
79. The authority citation for part 119 is revised to read as follows:

Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(f), 40101, 40102, 40103, 40113, 44105,
44106, 44111, 44701-44717, 44722, 44901, 44903, 44904, 44906, 44912,
44914, 44936, 44938, 46103, 46105; sec. 215, Pub. L. 111-216, 124
Stat. 2348.

0
80. Effective July 24, 2026, amend Sec. 119.1 by:
0
a. Removing the word ``or'' at the end of paragraph (e)(10);
0
b. Removing the period at the end of paragraph (e)(11) and adding ``;
or'' in its place; and
0
c. Adding paragraph (e)(12).
The addition reads as follows:

Sec. 119.1 Applicability.

* * * * *
(e) * * *
(12) Space support vehicle flights conducted under the provisions
of Sec. 91.331 of this chapter.

PART 147--AVIATION MAINTENANCE TECHNICIAN SCHOOLS

0
81. The authority citation for part 147 is revised to read as follows:

Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(f), 40113, 44701-44702, 44707-44709;
sec. 135, Pub. L. 116-120, 134 Stat. 1182.

0
82. Amend Sec. 147.17 by revising paragraph (b) to read as follows:

Sec. 147.17 Training requirements.

* * * * *
(b) FAA-S-ACS-1, Aviation Mechanic General, Airframe, and
Powerplant Airman Certification Standards, November 1, 2021, is
incorporated by reference into this section with the approval of the
Director of the Federal Register under 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR part
51. This material is available for inspection at the Federal Aviation
Administration (FAA) and the National Archives and Records
Administration (NARA). For information on the availability of this
material at FAA, contact Training and Certification Group, 202-267-
1100, ACSPTSinquiries@faa.gov. For information on the availability of
this material at NARA, email: [email protected], or go to
www.archives.gov/federal-register/cfr/ibr-locations. This material may
be obtained from FAA, 800 Independence Avenue SW, Washington, DC 20591,
866-835-5322, www.faa.gov/training_testing.

Issued under authority provided by 49 U.S.C. 106(f), 44701(a),
and 44703 in Washington, DC.
Bryan K. Bedford,
Administrator.
[FR Doc. 2025-13972 Filed 7-23-25; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P