[4910-13]

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

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

[Docket No.  FAA–2001–11133; Amendment No. 1-53; 21-85; 43-39;
45-24; 61-110; 65-45; 91-282]

RIN 2120–AH19

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

AGENCY:  Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION:  Final rule.

SUMMARY:  The FAA is creating a new rule for the manufacture,
certification, operation, and maintenance of light-sport aircraft.
Light-sport aircraft weigh less than 1,320 pounds (1,430 pounds for
aircraft intended for operation on water) and are heavier and faster
than ultralight vehicles and include airplanes, gliders, balloons,
powered parachutes, weight-shift-control aircraft, and gyroplanes.  This
action is necessary to address advances in sport and recreational
aviation technology, lack of appropriate regulations for existing
aircraft, several petitions for rulemaking, and petitions for exemptions
from existing regulations.  The intended effect of this action is to
provide for the manufacture of safe and economical certificated aircraft
that exceed the limits currently allowed by ultralight regulation, and
to allow operation of these aircraft by certificated pilots for sport
and recreation, to carry a passenger, and to conduct flight training and
towing in a safe manner.

DATES:  Effective September 1, 2004.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:  For questions on airman certification
and operational issues (parts 1, 61, and 91 of title 14, Code of
Federal Regulations (14 CFR)), contact Susan Gardner, Flight Standards
Service, General Aviation and Commercial Division (AFS–800), Federal
Aviation Administration, 800 Independence Ave., SW., Washington, DC
20591; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER> or<PHONE_NUMBER>.  .

For questions on aircraft certification and identification (14 CFR parts
21 and 45), contact Scott Sedgwick, Aircraft Certification Service,
Small Airplane Directorate (ACE-100), Federal Aviation Administration,
901 Locust Street, Kansas City, MO 64106; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax
816-329-4090; e-mail<EMAIL_ADDRESS>

	For questions on aircraft maintenance and repairman certification (14
CFR parts 43 and 65), contact Bill O’Brien, Aircraft Maintenance
Division (AFS-305), Federal Aviation Administration, 800 Independence
Ave., SW., Washington, DC 20591; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>.

In addition, information on the implementation of this rule is available
on http://AFS600.faa.gov.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Availability of Rulemaking Documents

You can get an electronic copy using the Internet by—

(1)  Searching the Department of Transportation’s (DOT) electronic
Docket Management System (DMS) Web page (http://dms.dot.gov/search).

(2)  Visiting the FAA Office of Rulemaking’s Web page at
http://www.faa.gov/avr/arm/index.cfn.

(3)  Accessing the Government Printing Office’s Web page at
http://www.access.gpo.gov/su_docs/aces/aces140.html.

You can also get a copy by submitting a request to the Federal Aviation
Administration, Office of Rulemaking, ARM–1, 800 Independence Avenue
SW., Washington, DC 20591, or by calling (202) 267–9680.  Identify
the amendment number or docket number of this rulemaking.

You may search the electronic form of all comments received into any of
our dockets by the name of the individual submitting the comment (or
signing the comment, if submitted on behalf of an association, business,
or labor union, etc.).  You may review DOT’s complete Privacy Act
statement in the April 11, 2000 Federal Register (65 FR 19477) or at
HYPERLINK "http://dms.dot.gov"  http://dms.dot.gov .

Implementation Information

The FAA spent a considerable amount of time determining the effective
date of the final rule. Based on a review of the planning and scheduling
of the tasks necessary to support the development of the infrastructure
to implement the final rule, the agency believes that it had two options
in determining this date. The first option was to establish the
effective date of the rule after all of the guidance, policy, and
infrastructure was in place to implement the rule. The FAA considered
the economic impact of delaying the implementation of the rule while
waiting for all of this material to be completed and believes that such
action would not be in the best interest of those persons affected by
the rule.  Additionally, the complexity of the rule and the
interrelationship among many of its new provisions makes the use of more
than a single effective date for the rule difficult to implement.  The
second option was to select an effective date shortly after publication
of the rule in the Federal Register.   The FAA could then provide the
public with many of the benefits of the rule while concurrently carrying
out a plan for implementing other portions of the rule. The plan will
contain milestones for completion of the specific guidance, policy, and
infrastructure necessary for the public to conduct operations and seek
certification under the new regulations. Selection of this option, for
example, will permit currently certificated pilots to take advantage of
many of the benefits of the new rule, such as those provisions relating
to the exercise of sport pilot privileges without the necessity of
holding an airman medical certificate. The infrastructure to implement
other provisions of the rule can be developed during this period.

Due to the agency’s intent to provide the public with as many of the
benefits of the rule as soon as possible, the agency has established a
single effective date of September 1, 2004 for the final rule.  Shortly
after publication of this rule, the FAA will post an implementation plan
for the rule on the FAA Sport Pilot and Light-Sport Aircraft Website,
http://www.faa.gov/avr/afs/ sportpilot or http://AFS600.faa.gov.  The
FAA recognizes that persons seeking certification as airmen under the
rule or seeking the certification of light-sport aircraft under the rule
will not be able to obtain such certification immediately after the
rule’s effective date. The FAA, however, will work closely with the
sport aviation community and those organizations that support its
members to ensure that each milestone on the FAA's implementation plan
is met and that information regarding implementation of the rule is made
available in a timely manner.

The FAA has also reissued exemptions to the Experimental Aircraft
Association (EAA), the United States Ultralight Organization (USUA), and
Aero Sports Connection (ASC) that address flight training in ultralight
vehicles. These revised exemptions from certain provisions of 14 CFR
part 103 contain an expiration date of January 31, 2008.  This date
coincides with the date established to transition existing ultralight
training vehicles, single and two-place ultralight-like aircraft, and
ultralight operators and instructors to the provisions of the final
rule.

Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act

The Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act (SBREFA) of 1996
requires the FAA to comply with small entity requests for information or
advice about compliance with statutes and regulations within its
jurisdiction.  Therefore, any small entity that has a question regarding
this document may contact its local FAA official, or the person listed
under “FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT” above.  You can find out
more about SBREFA on the Internet at   HYPERLINK
http://www.faa.gov/avr/arm/sbrefa.htm
http://www.faa.gov/avr/arm/sbrefa.htm .

Guide to Terms and Acronyms Frequently Used in This Document

AD—Airworthiness Directive

AGL—Above ground level

AME—Aviation Medical Examiner

ARAC—Aviation Rulemaking Advisory Committee

ASC-- Aero Sports Connection

ATC—Air traffic control

BAA-- Bilateral Airworthiness Agreement

BASA-- Bilateral Aviation Safety Agreement

CAS—Calibrated airspeed

DAR—Designated Airworthiness Representative

DPE—Designated pilot examiner

EAA—Experimental Aircraft Association

Experimental light-sport aircraft—Aircraft issued an experimental

certificate under §21.191 (i)

IFR—Instrument flight rules

LTA—Lighter-than-air

MSL—Mean sea level

NAS—National Airspace System

NM—Nautical mile

NTSB—National Transportation Safety Board

PMA—Parts Manufacturer Approval

SFAR—Special Federal Aviation Regulation

Special light-sport aircraft—Aircraft issued a special

airworthiness certificate in the light-sport category (or, aircraft

issued a special airworthiness certificate under §21.190)

STC—Supplemental type certificate

TC—Type certificate

TSO—Technical Standard Order

Ultralight-like aircraft—An unregistered aircraft that exceeds the
parameters of part 103

	and meets the definition of “light-sport aircraft”

USUA—United States Ultralight Association

VH—Maximum airspeed in level flight with maximum continuous power

VNE—Maximum never-exceed speed

VS0—Maximum stalling speed or minimum steady flight speed in landing
configuration

VS1—Maximum stalling speed or minimum steady flight speed without the
use of

lift-enhancing devices

Outline of This Document

I.  The Proposed Rule

	I.1.  NPRM and On-Line Public Forum

	I.2.  Public Comment Period

	I.3.  Ex Parte Communications

II.  Purpose of This Final Rule

III.  General Discussion of Changes in the Final Rule

III.1.  FAA Judgment and Discretion

III.2.  Summary of Significant Issues Raised By Commenters

III.3.  Security Concerns Related to Pilot Identification and
Certification

III.4.  SFAR No. 89

III.5.A.  Comments on Ultralight Vehicles

III.5.B.  Future Rulemaking on Ultralight Vehicles

IV.  Comparative Tables

V.  Section–by-Section Discussion of Comments and Changes Incorporated
Into the Final

Rule

V.1. Part 1

V.2. Part 21

V.3. Part 43

	V.3.A. Part 43--General Issues

	V.3.B. Part 43--Section-by-Section Discussion

V.4. Part 45

V.5. Part 61

	V.5.A.  Part 61--General Issues

		V.5.A.i.  SFAR No. 89 Conversion Table

		V.5.A.ii. Medical Provisions

			V.5.A.iii. Flight Training and Proficiency Requirements

V.5.A.iv. Make and Model Logbook Endorsements, and Sets

of Aircraft

			V.5.A.v. Changes to Airspace Restrictions

			V.5.A.vi. Changes to Altitude Limitations

			V.5.A.vii. Gyroplanes

			V.5.A.viii. Demonstration of Aircraft to Perspective Buyers

			V.5.A.ix. Category and Class Discussion: FAA Form 8710-11

Submission

		V.5.B. Part 61 Section-by-Section Discussion

	V.6. Part 65

	V.7. Part 91

V.7.A. Part 91--General Issues

		V.7.B.  Part 91--Section-by-Section Discussion

VI.  Plain Language

VII.  Paperwork Reduction Act

VIII.  International Compatibility

IX.  Economic Assessment

X.  Regulatory Flexibility Determination

XI.  Trade Impact Analysis

XII.  Unfunded Mandates Assessment

XIII. Executive Order 3132, Federalism

XIV.  Environmental Analysis

XV.  Energy Impact

XVI.  List of Subjects

I.  The Proposed Rule

I.1.  NPRM and On-Line Public Forum

On February 5, 2002 the FAA published the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking
(NPRM), “Certification of Aircraft and Airmen for the Operation of
Light-Sport Aircraft” (67 FR 5368; Feb. 5, 2002), and requested
comments by May 6, 2002.  In addition, the FAA held an on-line public
forum from April 1, 2002, until April 19, 2002, during which time the
FAA posed 15 questions on the Internet.  For a description of the
on-line public forum and a list of the 15 questions, see the FAA’s
announcement published in the Federal Register on March 19, 2002 (67 FR
12826; March 19, 2002).  The NPRM and the announcement of the on-line
public forum are in the public docket for this rulemaking.

I.2. Public Comment Period

The FAA received over 4,700 comments to the NPRM.  Of those, 2,913 were
in response to the publication of the NPRM in the Federal Register, and
approximately 1,800 additional comments came through the on-line forum.
To read the on-line forum comments, go to the electronic docket address
given above in the section entitled “Availability of Rulemaking
Documents” and view item number 2676 in Docket
No. FAA–2001–11133.  A detailed discussion of the public’s
comments and the FAA’s responses are in “V. Section-by-Section
Discussion of Comments and Changes Incorporated Into the Final Rule.”

Most commenters expressed fundamental agreement with the FAA’s intent
in proposing the rule.  While there were many comments containing
specific criticisms of the proposed rule and suggestions for how the
rule could be improved, few of the commenters expressed a complete
disagreement with the FAA’s goal of providing for the manufacture of
safe and economical aircraft and to allow operation of these aircraft by
the public in a safe manner.  Some comments contained numerous specific
suggestions and criticisms, yet were prefaced by a statement of support
for the FAA’s efforts to make aviation more accessible to the general
public.  It should be noted that, while not substantial in number,
several commenters expressed a fundamental disagreement with the FAA’s
proposed action, based upon a lack of confidence in the ultralight
community.  The commenters did not support these concerns with
accompanying data.

I.3.  Ex Parte Communications

The FAA worked closely with industry associations on this rulemaking in
a number of ways.  FAA staff conducted informational sessions with
interested groups to determine how these rules, if adopted, should best
be implemented.  The FAA also assisted manufacturers in the development
of consensus standards for light-sport aircraft.  The Experimental
Aircraft Association (EAA) and others met with the FAA repeatedly to
urge the completion of this rulemaking as quickly as possible so as to
meet the public need for authority to engage in activities permitted
under this rule.

On occasion, FAA personnel met with interested organizations to discuss
specific aspects of the NPRM and to determine, based on information
received from these groups, how the NPRM should be modified.  The issues
discussed, however, were also set out in numerous comments to the public
docket.  These discussions, while of an ex parte nature, have helped to
develop a final rule that is responsive to the comments.  The revisions
to the NPRM, as adopted in this final rule, respond to written and oral
concerns raised by individuals and organizations.  This final rule
reflects the FAA’s independent judgment as to the appropriate level of
safety for the manufacture and operation of light-sport aircraft.

II.  Purpose of This Rule

The FAA intends this rule to--

Increase safety in the light-sport aircraft community by closing the
gaps in existing regulations and by accommodating new advances in
technology.

Provide for the manufacture of light-sport aircraft that are safe for
their intended operations.

Allow operation of light-sport aircraft exceeding the limits of
ultralight vehicles operated under 14 CFR part 103, with a passenger and
for flight training, rental, and towing.

Establish training and certification requirements for repairman
(light-sport aircraft) to maintain and inspect light-sport aircraft.

The rule is designed to allow individuals to experience sport and
recreational aviation in a manner that is safe for the intended
operations, but not overly burdensome.  By bringing these individuals
under a new regulatory framework, the FAA believes this rule lays the
groundwork for enhancing safety in the light-sport aircraft category.

This rule does not change existing aircraft certification or maintenance
regulations for aircraft already issued an airworthiness certificate,
such as a standard, primary, or special certificate (e.g., experimental
amateur-built and experimental exhibition aircraft).  However, as
discussed in the section-by-section preamble discussion for §1.1,
Definition of Light-Sport Aircraft, a sport pilot can operate an
aircraft meeting the light-sport aircraft definition in §1.1,
regardless of the airworthiness certificate issued.  In addition, this
rule does not change existing part 103 requirements.

A more detailed discussion and justification for the rule can be found
in the preamble to the NPRM published in the Federal Register on
February 5, 2002.  On page 5370 of that Federal Register publication, is
a section entitled “Effects of the Proposal on the Public and
Industry” that gives answers to frequently asked questions (FAQs).
These questions and answers have been updated on the FAA’s website
(http://faa.gov/avr/afs/sportpilot and click on FAQs) to reflect the
changes being adopted in this final rule.

III.  General Discussion of Changes in the Final Rule

III.1.  FAA Judgment and Discretion

	As the following summary reflects, commenters provided a variety of
suggestions for the rule.  As discussed more completely in the
section-by-section discussions that follow, the FAA carefully considered
the comments.  Besides the specific issues in the comments, the FAA
weighed two factors in adopting, modifying, or rejecting the comments.

First, the FAA is making decisions in a new area for regulation.
Although some experience exists in similar aircraft, the rule
anticipates growth and change in the industry.  There are areas where
only time and experience will determine whether these regulatory
provisions meet the FAA’s expectations or require modification.  There
is room for debate and disagreement, and the FAA is prepared to make
changes when appropriate.  But in the FAA’s judgment, these standards
strike a balance in favor of safety while allowing freedom to operate.

Second, there are situations where a line must be drawn.  For example,
the case can be made that the maximum weight or speed could be somewhat
higher or lower than what is being adopted.  In these situations, the
FAA is not establishing this rule with the intent of including or
excluding specific aircraft.  Instead, the FAA is trying to objectively
determine where the line should be drawn while considering the
appropriate level of safety and the complexity of the operation.

III.2.  Summary of Significant Issues Raised By Commenters

While most commenters expressed a desire to see some aspect of the
proposed rule revised, they either agreed with the proposed regulation
overall or agreed with the intent of the proposal.  Most commenters
believed the proposal would succeed if revised to address the issues
they identified.

	Significant issues raised by commenters are listed below, with
reference to the corresponding proposal.  These issues account for
approximately 80 percent of the comments.  They, and other comments on
the NPRM, are discussed in detail under “V. Section-by-Section
Discussion of Comments and Changes Incorporated Into the Final Rule.”

Towing: 1,298 comments

a.	Prohibition of towing of hangliders and paragliders by ultralight
pilots; part 103--691 comments

b.	Prohibition of towing of hangliders and paragliders by light-sport
aircraft; SFAR No. 89 section 73(b)(12)--607 comments

Section 1.1 definition of “light-sport aircraft”--122 comments

Maximum weight limits for light-sport aircraft; §1.1 definition of
“light-sport aircraft” paragraph (1)--489 comments

Maximum speed in level flight under maximum continuous power for
light-sport aircraft; §1.1 definition of “light-sport aircraft”
paragraph (2)--141 comments

Maximum stall speed limits for light-sport aircraft; §1.1 definition of
“light-sport aircraft” paragraph (4)--62 comments

Fixed or ground-adjustable propellers and repositionable landing gear on
light-sport aircraft; §1.1 definition of “light-sport aircraft”
paragraphs (8) and (11)--116 comments

Sport pilot certification (general comments on SFAR No. 89)--653
comments

Maximum speed limit on student pilot operation of light-sport aircraft;
SFAR No. 89 section 35(e)--57 comments

Altitude limits on operation of light-sport aircraft; SFAR No. 89
section 73(b)(6)--55 comments

Logbook endorsement requirement for each make and model of light-sport
aircraft; SFAR No. 89 section 61--129 comments.

Repairman certification; §65.107--159 comments

Existing exemptions for two-seat ultralight vehicles; part 103--288
comments.

Operation of ultralights that would be issued an experimental
certificate;

§21.191 (i)--116 comments

Use of a U.S. driver’s license to establish medical eligibility; SFAR
89,

sections 15 and 111--230 comments

III.3. Security Concerns Related to Pilot Identification and
Certification

One State’s Department of Transportation’s aeronautical division
expressed concern that allowing persons with a driver’s license as a
sole form of identification to have access to airports and the airspace
system would reduce pilot identification standards and would lead to
reduced security.  The commenter said that since the terrorist attacks
of September 11, 2001, airport security identification, as well as pilot
identification, are under greater scrutiny, and that higher standards
must be established to prevent unauthorized access to airports and
aircraft.  The commenter went on to say that additional scrutiny
provided by the process of obtaining a pilot certificate, an airman
medical certificate, and passing an FAA practical test is a welcome
safety enhancement at this time and must not be eliminated.

The FAA agrees that the additional scrutiny provided by the process of
obtaining a pilot certificate, an airman medical certificate, and
passing an FAA practical test enhances safety.  The FAA is not
eliminating any of these certificate or testing requirements for holders
of currently issued pilot certificates.  All persons operating an
aircraft are required to possess a pilot certificate and pass a
practical test.  All persons issued at least a recreational pilot
certificate (except those operating gliders and balloons) are also
required to possess an airman medical certificate.   This rulemaking
action will bring persons who were formerly operating as ultralight
pilots into an existing certification system that will provide further
scrutiny of these individuals.  These ultralight pilots have not been
required to have pilot certificates, possess airman medical certificates
or driver’s licenses, or been required to take practical tests.
Therefore, they have not been subject to any level of government
scrutiny.  Only sport pilots, or those seeking to exercise sport pilot
privileges will be afforded the opportunity to exercise certificate
privileges with either an airman medical certificate or a U.S.
driver’s license.  These persons will be required to possess a pilot
certificate and pass a practical test.

Sport pilots, like all pilots, will have to hold and possess their sport
or student pilot certificates at all times when operating light-sport
aircraft.  Recent FAA rulemaking requires all pilots to carry photo
identification when exercising the privileges of a pilot certificate and
to present it, if requested by the FAA, an authorized representative of
the National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB), the Transportation
Security Administration (TSA), or a law enforcement officer (67 FR
65858; Oct. 28, 2002).  That rule will apply to all sport pilots.

Additionally, the FAA is creating FAA Form 8710-11 “Sport Pilot
Certificate and/or Rating Application.”  Information from the
applicant’s U.S. driver’s license or airman medical certificate will
be recorded on the form.

As a result of this new regulatory action, an estimated 15,000 persons
operating ultralight-like aircraft now will be required to hold pilot
certificates.  In addition, persons performing work on light-sport
aircraft will be required to hold repairman (light-sport aircraft)
certificates.  According to new security procedures, their names will be
entered into the FAA airman registry.  In addition, all existing
unregistered ultralight-like aircraft and two-place utralight training
vehicles will now, as certificated aircraft, be required to display an
“N” registration number.  These numbers will also be entered into
the FAA aircraft registry.  This will enable the TSA to conduct any
necessary security screening for certificated airmen and registered
aircraft operating in the National Airspace System (NAS).

These new sport pilots will now be required to make themselves aware of
safety- and security-related information contained in notices to airmen
(NOTAMs). Currently, operators of ultralight vehicles are not required
to review these NOTAMs; although those who receive voluntary training
and participate in industry-provided ultralight programs are encouraged
to access this information that is made available through their
organizations.

III.4.  SFAR No. 89

The FAA proposed most of the sport pilot certification requirements as a
Special Federal Aviation Regulation (SFAR).  After further
consideration, the FAA decided not to use the SFAR, but to codify most
of the requirements as new subparts J and K of part 61, and the
remainder in the existing structure of part 61.  The SFAR format is
appropriate to regulate operations in a very narrow set of
circumstances, to address a temporary situation, or both.  However,
light-sport aircraft and their operation will be a significant segment
of aviation and will require long-term regulatory oversight.

For the convenience of the user, a table showing how the sections of
SFAR No. 89 were incorporated into part 61 is provided under “V.
Section-by-Section Discussion of Comments and Changes Incorporated Into
the Final Rule.”

III.5.A. Comments on Ultralight Vehicles

The comments regarding ultralight vehicles were so significant, that,
except for towing issues, a response is presented here, rather than in
the section-by-section analysis below.  A total of 1,586 comments were
related to the operation of ultralights under the proposed rule.  Of
those, 1,298 comments addressed ultralight towing, specifically—

The prohibition on towing hangliders and paragliders by ultralight
pilots; part 103--691 comments; and

The prohibition on towing hangliders and paragliders by light-sport
aircraft; SFAR No. 89 section 73 (b)(12)--607 comments.

Towing issues are discussed in the section-by-section analysis for
§61.69.

Four hundred and four comments addressed--(1) eliminating existing
exemptions from part 103 (288 comments) and (2) reclassifying aircraft
operating under exemptions to part 103 as light-sport aircraft under
§21.191 (i) (116 comments).  The commenters were nearly uniform in
their opposition to eliminating existing exemptions from part 103 and
codifying the exemptions into parts 21 and 61.  The majority of
commenters opposed including ultralights in the proposed regulation.
Almost all commenters suggested keeping ultralight regulation as it is,
but incorporating existing exemptions from part 103 into that part.

Part 103 defines an ultralight vehicle and prescribes the operating
rules for these vehicles. An ultralight vehicle is either an unpowered
or powered vehicle with certain weight, speed, and other limits, as
prescribed in §103.1.  An ultralight vehicle can carry only
one occupant and be used for sport and recreational purposes.  The
ultralight industry has established voluntary training programs and
recommended maintenance practices.  In an effort to encourage the use of
these voluntary training programs, the FAA has granted exemptions to
part 103 that allow—

Training and proficiency flights to be conducted in a two-place
ultralight vehicle operated by an ultralight flight instructor or
ultralight student.

Tandem training operations for hang gliders and powered paragliders
conducted by an ultralight flight instructor or ultralight student.

Towing operations in a single-seat and two-seat ultralight-like aircraft
to facilitate operations and training in an ultralight vehicle that is a
hang glider, glider, or paraglider.

The FAA has granted these exemptions to part 103 to gather data and to
temporarily meet the training needs for persons operating ultralight
vehicles and to resolve operational issues such as towing.

Commenters contended that eliminating existing training exemptions from
part 103 would--

Force unregistered two-place training ultralights to be classified as
experimental light-sport aircraft, which would prevent their use for
compensation or hire and increase the operating costs of these aircraft;
and

Place unregistered single-place and two-place ultralight-like aircraft
and standard category aircraft under the same regulation.

Many of these commenters specifically referred to the United States
Ultralight Association (USUA)’s comprehensive suggestion for a
two-tiered approach for the regulation of ultralight vehicles and
light-sport aircraft.  USUA recommended that the FAA not only retain the
proposed regulations for light-sport aircraft, but also adopt additional
regulations codifying long-standing FAA exemptions for two-place
ultralight training.  One set of regulations (Tier I) would address
single- and two-place ultralight-like aircraft.  Single-place aircraft
would be limited to 360 pounds empty weight (662 pounds maximum gross
weight), 10 gallons maximum fuel capacity, 32 knots maximum power-off
stall speed, and 72 knots VH.  Two-place aircraft under Tier I would be
limited to 496 pounds empty weight (992 pounds maximum gross weight), 10
gallons maximum fuel capacity, 35 knots maximum power-off stall speed,
and 75 knots VH.  Another set of regulations (Tier II) would address
light-sport airplanes, using the weight and performance limits as
proposed in the NPRM.

USUA’s suggested regulations for ultralight vehicles would accommodate
both “fat single- and two-place ultralight aircraft.”  USUA stated
that this regulation could require registration of these aircraft.  This
action would enable the FAA to provide safety information to the owners
and permit training for compensation, as permitted under current
exemptions.  USUA noted that these ultralight vehicles would have more
restrictions than light-sport aircraft.  For example, they would not be
permitted to operate over congested areas, and would require prior air
traffic control (ATC) permission for flight in controlled airspace.

USUA was unequivocal in its comments on the proposed rule, stating that
the FAA must update ultralight regulations to better reflect the manner
in which ultralights are currently flown in the United States.  USUA
stated that two-place ultralights have become heavier since part 103
was established in 1980, and that two-seat ultralight training has
become common as a result of the training exemptions.  The USUA stated
that its suggested regulatory approach would include two-seat and
single-seat unregistered ultralight-like aircraft, allowing for a
permanent solution to the ongoing problem of how to regulate ultralights
that do not comply with part 103.

USUA clearly stated that ultralight pilots want the part 103 training
exemption provisions used by USUA and other ultralight associations
incorporated in the regulations.  USUA noted that its recommendation to
expand the parameters of ultralight vehicles currently regulated by part
103 has an international precedent in Europe.  USUA also noted that the
Federation Aeronautique Internationale (FAI), the world governing body
of air sports activities, has defined microlights as weighing up to 450
kg (992 pounds) gross weight, with a stall speed no greater than 65
kilometers per hour (kph) (35 knots), and the Joint Aviation
Authorities (JAA) have accepted this definition.

Regarding airspeed, the rule allows a sport pilot to fly only a
light-sport aircraft that has a maximum airspeed in level flight with
maximum continuous power (VH) of 87 knots CAS or less, unless he or she
receives additional training and a one-time endorsement to operate a
light-sport aircraft with a VH up to 120 knots CAS.

On the weight criterion, the FAA proposed a weight limit of 1,232
pounds, which is increased to 1,320 pounds in the final rule for
aircraft not intended for operation on water.  This weight is maximum
gross takeoff weight and is essentially equivalent to the empty weight
suggested by USUA.  The gross takeoff weight includes the added weight
of two passengers, ten or more gallons of fuel, one or more pieces of
luggage, and a ballistic parachute carried on an aircraft.  This weight
allows the aircraft to be constructed with stronger materials, to use
stronger landing gear, and to use a heavier and more powerful
four-stroke engine.  All of these items were specifically requested by
industry and other commenters, most often in the interest of safety.
The consensus standards will address a minimum weight for design
standards for a single-place light-sport aircraft.

USUA’s recommendation was influential on the ultralight community.
Most commenters addressing the subject of ultralights simply recommended
that the FAA adopt the USUA’s two-tiered approach; however, many of
these commenters did not supply any analysis to support their
recommendation.

Concerning the aircraft certification component of the USUA’s proposed
two-tiered concept, the FAA believes that the use of consensus standards
is appropriate for aircraft that exceed the parameters of ultralight
vehicles as specified in part 103, yet do not exceed the parameters of a
light-sport aircraft.  The FAA believes that the operating
characteristics of these aircraft necessitate their certification.
However, their characteristics and the operations that they will be used
to conduct do not warrant the more extensive certification standards
applied to primary or standard category aircraft.  The FAA believes that
the use of consensus standards provides a level of safety appropriate
for the operation of the aircraft.

Concerning the regulation of airmen and flight operations, FAA does not
completely agree with USUA’s proposal.  The FAA does not agree that
the part 103 operating environment is appropriate for the larger,
heavier, higher performance aircraft USUA’s proposal identifies as
“Tier 1– Ultralight Aircraft.”  The FAA acknowledges the safety
benefits for aircraft design and manufacturing and airman training that
have resulted from the exemption process; however, the FAA believes that
the operational characteristics of these aircraft are of such a degree
that a more comprehensive regulatory structure should be applicable to
their operation.

Like USUA, most commenters who are ultralight pilots stated that
ultralights fundamentally differ from standard category aircraft, and
that the FAA should continue to regulate ultralights, regardless of
their size, under part 103.  For two reasons, the FAA disagrees with the
suggestion that all ultralight-like aircraft should be regulated under
part 103, either with incorporations of the existing training exemptions
or with a continuation of the current exemptions.

First, that approach would not provide the solution recommended
specifically by the Aviation Rulemaking Advisory Committee (ARAC).  USUA
chaired the ARAC working group that addressed the regulation of
ultralight vehicles.  That working group of the committee was made up of
members of the ultralight industry and produced a comprehensive
recommendation to the FAA regarding ultralight regulation.  The FAA
notes that the ARAC recommendation did not include USUA’s proposal to
expand part 103 to include larger aircraft.  The ARAC recommendation
did, however, include the USUA’s position as a dissenting opinion.
ARAC’s recommendation to focus on appropriate training for sport
pilots served as the basis for the FAA’s proposed rule.  ARAC’s
recommendation did not propose either the continuation of existing part
103 exemptions, or the codification of those exemptions into part 103.
See the discussion in the preamble of the NPRM, “Section V.  The
Aviation Rulemaking Advisory Committee (ARAC).”

Second, the FAA issued exemptions to temporarily resolve training issues
and operational issues such as towing.  In the preamble to the rule
establishing part 103 (47 FR 38776; Sept. 2, 1982), the FAA explained
its rationale for permitting no more than a single occupant in an
ultralight vehicle.  The FAA noted that the general public might
incorrectly assume that an ultralight operator possesses certain minimum
qualifications and has met specific requirements resulting in the
issuance of a pilot certificate.  The public would be unaware of the
risks that an ultralight pilot assumes with the operation of an
uncertificated ultralight vehicle.  The FAA still believes that it would
be inappropriate to permit the operation of larger and more capable
ultralight-like aircraft without the benefits afforded by the
certification of these aircraft and their pilots.  In addition,
extending current training exemptions on a long-term basis would be an
inappropriate use of the exemption process.  It would not allow the FAA
to address the many other regulatory changes contemplated in this
rulemaking.

This rule is intended to provide a comprehensive regulatory approach
that extends beyond the ultralight community.  A significant purpose of
the rule is to certificate those two-seat ultralight-like aircraft
previously operated under part 103 training exemptions and those
two-seat and single-seat unregistered ultralight-like aircraft operating
outside of the regulations.

Several commenters noted that the speed differential between ultralights
and standard category aircraft makes their operation in the same
airspace dangerous.  However, USUA recommended a continuation of the
current practice allowed under part 103, which permits flights in
controlled airspace (Class A, B, C, D, and surface-based Class E) with
prior ATC permission.  These flights may occur at any altitude, with no
equipment requirements for communication, navigation, or identification,
and with no required pilot training.

The FAA has considered the comments on the issue of speed differentials
and operations in controlled airspace.  As adopted, a sport pilot
operating a light-sport aircraft will be prohibited from operating in
Class A airspace and from operating above 10,000 feet mean sea level
(MSL).  A sport pilot is authorized to operate in Class G and E
airspace.  With training on airspace requirements and communications
equivalent to the training requirements for a private pilot, and a
one-time endorsement from an authorized instructor, a sport pilot can
operate in Class B, C, and D airspace and to, from, through, or at an
airport having an operational control tower.  A sport pilot can only do
so, however, if the light-sport aircraft he or she is operating is
properly equipped and authorized for that operation.  The FAA is also
providing that, like a student pilot, a sport pilot will not be
authorized to take off or land at any of the airports listed in part 91,
appendix D, section 4.  For a complete discussion, see “V.5.A.v.
Changes to Airspace Restrictions” and the discussion of §91.131
below.

The FAA notes that many of USUA’s suggestions were incorporated in the
FAA’s proposal.  The FAA agreed with the recommendation that it not
permit flight at night.  However, the rule will permit special
light-sport aircraft to fly over cities.  The use of light-sport
aircraft engines that meet consensus standards for powerplant
performance and reliability will make any prohibition of flight over
cities unnecessary.  Experimental light-sport aircraft (the existing
fleet of ultralight-like aircraft) will continue to be restricted to
flight over uncongested areas.  The rule provides more privileges than
the two-tier system suggested by USUA.  The rule allows the carriage of
a passenger for purposes other than flight training, which has never
been allowed under part 103 or the part 103 training exemptions.  The
rule establishes new categories of airman ratings and two new classes of
aircraft—(1) weight-shift-control, and (2) powered parachute.  The
rule allows a special light-sport aircraft owner to accept compensation
for the use of the aircraft for flight training or towing a glider or
unpowered ultralight vehicle.  It also allows a light-sport aircraft
owner to accept compensation for rental of the aircraft.  Neither of
these privileges had been allowed under the part 103 exemptions.  The
rule establishes the requirements for repairmen (light-sport aircraft)
to maintain and inspect the newly certificated experimental and special
light-sport aircraft.  Finally, the final rule addresses the concern
that it will limit or prevent the use of currently unregistered
ultralight-like aircraft.  The FAA revised the final rule to assist
those who have been operating two-seat ultralight-like aircraft under
the part 103 training exemptions.  The rule provides a 5-year period
during which persons may continue to operate their two-place
ultralight-like aircraft and receive compensation for flight training,
provided those aircraft are certificated as experimental light-sport
aircraft.  The FAA expects that in the long term, instructors operating
light-sport aircraft previously classified as two-seat ultralight-like
aircraft will provide instruction at a lower cost and with greater
safety.

In some cases, the rule is more restrictive than USUA’s
recommendation, but the FAA is using a building-block approach in
extending privileges to sport pilots.  The rule permits a sport pilot to
obtain additional training to permit the exercise of additional
privileges at a later time.  In the proposed rule, the FAA stated that
there would be many safety benefits to certificating sport pilots,
light-sport aircraft, and the repairman who would maintain these
aircraft that would not be realized under the USUA proposal.  For a
complete discussion of these safety benefits and alternatives refer to
the discussion in the preamble of the NPRM, “IV. Background--B. The
FAA’s Reason for This Proposal.”

III.5.B. Future Rulemaking on Ultralight Vehicles

The NPRM did not address, nor does the final rule address, the use of
hangliders, paragliders and powered paragliders in tandem operations and
training.  There is a need to address these issues, but the FAA did not
examine questions in this area for this rule.  Rather than delay this
rule to include these issues, the FAA intends to initiate a separate
rulemaking action.  Until that can be completed, the FAA intends to
maintain the status quo for these operations by continuing or reissuing
training exemptions as necessary.

IV.  Comparative Tables

The following tables provide a quick comparison of regulations governing
light-sport aircraft and other aircraft.

Abbreviations Used In Tables

A&P—Airframe and powerplant

CFI—Certificated flight instructor

CTD—Computer Testing Designee

DPE—Designated Pilot Examiner

ELSA--Experimental light-sport aircraft

EW—Empty weight

IFR—Instrument flight rules

LS-I—Light-sport—Inspection

LS-M—Light-sport—Maintenance

M/M—Make and model

MTOW—Maximum takeoff weight

PIC—Pilot in command

PMA—Parts Manufacturer Approval

SLSA—Special light-sport aircraft

SP—Sport pilot

STC—Supplemental Type Certificate

TC—Type Certificate

TSO—Technical Standard Order

VFR—Visual flight rules

Light-Sport Aircraft Maintenance and Certification Requirements

	Ultralights, part

103--254 pounds EW

	ELSA under §21.191 (i)-- 1,320 pounds MTOW	SLSA under  §21.190--1,320
pounds MTOW	Amateur-built under §21.191 (g)--No MTOW	Primary aircraft
under §21.24--2,700 pounds MTOW	Standard aircraft under §21.21--No
MTOW

Regist-ration “N” number

	None	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes

Airworth-iness

Certificate	None	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes

Operating

privileges and limits (may be restricted by pilot certificate or
aircraft operating limitations)	Day

VFR

Uncong-ested areas only

Class A, B, C, D, and surface-based E airspace; ATC permission required
(no equipment required)

Class E and G airspace

No passengers

Flight training (under part 103 two-place training exemption)

Towing (under part 103 towing exemption) 	Day/night

VFR/IFR

Congested and uncongested areas

Class A, B, C, D, E and G airspace; (with part 91 equipment)

One passenger

Limited flight training (5 years under §91.319 (e)(2))

Towing existing fleet (under §91.319 (e)(1)) 	Day/night

VFR/IFR

Congested and uncongested areas

Class A, B, C, D, E and G airspace;  (with part 91 equipment)

One passenger

Flight training and rental

Towing

	Day/night

VFR/IFR

Congested and uncongested areas

Class A, B, C, D, E and G airspace;  (with part 91 equipment)	Day/night

VFR/IFR

Congested and uncongested areas

Class A, B, C, D, E and G airspace;  (with part 91 equipment)

Flight training and rental

Towing	Day/night

VFR/IFR

Congested and uncongested areas

Class A, B, C, D, E and G airspace;  (with part 91 equipment)

Flight training and rental

Com-

mercial operations

Mainten-ance	None	Owner- maintained	Maintenance--

Repairman (LS-M)

Mechanic (A&P)

Part 145 Repair station

Preventive maintenance--

Sport pilot or higher	Owner-maintained

	Maintenance--

Mechanic (A & P)

Part 145 Repair station

Preventive maintenance--

Recreation-al pilot or higher  	Maintenance --

Mechanic (A & P)

Part 145 Repair station

Preventive maintenance –

Recreation-al pilot or higher

Inspect-ions	None (1)	Annual con-

dition--

Repairman LS –I and LS-M

Mechanic

(A & P)

Part 145 Repair station

100-hour condition (2)--

Repairman LS-M

Mechanic

(A & P)

Part 145 Repair station

	Annual condition--

Repairman LS - M

Mechanic (A & P)

Part 145 Repair station

100-hour condition (3)--

Repairman LS-M

Mechanic (A & P)

Part 145 Repair station

	Annual condition--

Repairman (experimental aircraft builder)

Mechanic (A & P)

Part 145 repair station

	Annual condition--

Mechanic (A & P)

Part 145 repair station

100-hour condition (4)--

Mechanic (A & P)

Part 145 Repair station	Annual condition--

Mechanic (A & P)

Part 145 Repair station

100-hour condition (4)--

Mechanic (A & P)

Part 145 repair station

Airworth-iness

Directives	None	None issued against ELSA 	Yes – Type certificated
TC/STC/PMA/TSO-approved products, if installed	None issued against
amateur-built aircraft	Yes	Yes

Safety Directives	None	None	Yes	None	None	None

FAA Type or Product-ion

Certificate	No	No 	No 	No 	Yes	Yes

Consensus Standard	No	No (5)	Yes	No	No	No

For two-place ultralight training vehicles operating under an exemption
and registered with an FAA-recognized ultralight organization –
100-hour condition inspection done by ultralight instructor registered
with an FAA-recognized ultralight organization.

Applies to training aircraft used for compensation until January 31,
2010 , and tow aircraft used for compensation

Applies to aircraft used for flight training or towing for compensation

Applies to aircraft used for flight instruction for hire – §91.409

ELSA – Kit-built (§21.191(i)(2)(ii)) or aircraft that have been
previously issued a special airworthiness certificate in the light-sport
category (§21.191 (i)(3)) meet consensus standards

Aircraft Authorized That May Be Operated By Pilots

	Part 103 Ultralight

Weight:

(254 EW)

(496 EW–2-place trainer operating under part 103 exemption)

Aircraft Certification:

None - Ultralight Vehicle	Light-Sport Aircraft

Weight:

(1,320/1,430 Floats and amphibious MTOW)

Aircraft Certification:

ELSA, SLSA, Limited, Restricted, Primary, Standard	Small Aircraft

Weight:

(< 12, 500 MTOW)

Aircraft Certification:

ELSA, SLSA, Limited, Restricted, Primary, Standard

Ultralight pilot

Ultralight instructor

	Yes	No	No

Sport Pilot	Yes	Yes	Yes, if aircraft meets the definition of
“light-sport aircraft” in §1.1

Recreational Pilot	Yes	Yes	Yes – 4-place/2 passengers;

180 horsepower, single-engine, non-complex

rotorcraft/airplane

Private Pilot	Yes	Yes	Yes

CFI – Sport Pilot	Yes	Yes	Yes, if aircraft meets the definition of
“light-sport aircraft” in §1.1

CFI 	Yes	Yes	Yes

Pilot Certification Eligibility, Training and Testing Requirements

	Medical Eligibility	Training Requirements	Testing Requirements	Add-On
Privileges or Ratings

Ultralight Pilot

	None	None	None	No

Ultralight Instructor	None	None	None	None

Sport Pilot	Current and valid U.S. driver’s license unless §61.303(b)
applies

Or

Valid medical certificate issued under part 67

Gliders and balloons—Airman medical certificate not required
Airplane, Gyro, weight-shift-control,

and airships

20 Hours – Total

15 Hours – Flight training

5 Hours – Solo

2 Hours – Dual Cross Country

1 Solo Cross Country

3 Hours – Prep

(Registered ultralight pilots with FAA-recognized ultralight

organizations may be given credit until January 31, 2007

Other requirements for powered parachutes, gliders, balloons	CFI or
CFI-SP Recommendation –

Knowledge test

Practical test

	Cat/Class Privileges–

Training – CFI or CFI-SP

Recommendation –CFI or CFI-SP

Proficiency Check –Different CFI or CFI-SP

Endorsement/Form 8710-11

Make and model (to operate aircraft within a set of aircraft)

Class B, C, D–

VH> 87 Knots CAS--

Training –CFI or CFI-SP

Endorsement - CFI or CFI-SP

Recreational Pilot	Third-class medical certificate issued under part 67

Except for gliders and balloons  - Medical eligibility not required
Airplane and Rotorcraft

30 Hours – Total

15 Hours – Flight training

3 Hours – Solo

2 Hours – Flight training cross country-(limited 50 NM range from
departure airport, permitted with additional training (see §61.101 (c))

3 Hours – Prep	CFI Recommendation -

Knowledge test

Practical test

	Cat/Class Rating –

Training – CFI

Recommendation – CFI

Practical test -

Cat/class rating Issued

(Make and model – training recommended)

Class B, C, D

Training – CFI

Endorsement - CFI

Private Pilot	Third-class medical issued under part 67

Except for gliders and balloons -- Medical eligibility not required	For
airplanes:

40 Hours – Total

20 Hours – Flight training

10 Hours – Solo

3 Hours – Flight training cross country

5 Hours – Solo cross country

3 Hours – Prep

3 Hours—Night

3 Hours—Instrument training	CFI Recommendation –

Knowledge test –

Practical Test –

	Cat/Class Rating –

Training – CFI

Recommendation – CFI

Practical Test

Commercial Pilot	Second-class Medical certificate Issued under part 67

Except for gliders and balloons --Medical eligibility not required	For
airplanes:

250 Hours – Total

Additional flight training requirements for each category and class

	CFI Recommendation –

Knowledge test –

Practical Test –

	Cat/Class Rating –

Training – CFI

Recommendation – CFI

Practical Test

CFI – Sport Pilot	Current and valid U.S. driver’s license unless
§61.303(b) applies

 Or

Valid airman medical certificate issued under part 67---Only required
when acting as pilot in command

Gliders and balloons—Airman medical certificate not required

	150 Hours – Total

Additional flight training requirements for each category and class

Sport Pilot certificate or higher

Category and class privileges or rating

	CFI Recommendation –

Knowledge test –

Practical test –

	Cat/Class Privilege–

Training –CFI or CFI-SP

Recommendation –CFI or CFI-SP

Proficiency check – Different -CFI or CFI-SP

Endorsement/Form 8710-11

Make and model

  5 hours PIC

Endorsements—Must have those endorsements required to exercise pilot
privileges in the aircraft

CFI 	Valid airman medical certificate issued under part 67--Only
required when acting as pilot in command

Gliders and balloons—Airman medical certificate not required

	ATP or Commercial certificate

(with Instrument Rating if appropriate)

Category/Class Rating

Additional flight training requirements for each category and class	CFI
Recommendation –

Knowledge test –

Practical test –

	Cat/Class Rating –

Training – CFI

Recommendation – CFI

Practical Test

Airman Certification – Operating Privileges and Limitations

	Ultralight

Pilot

	Sport Pilot	Recreational Pilot	Private Pilot	CFI – Sport Pilot	CFI

Day

	Yes 	Yes 	Yes 	Yes 	Yes 	Yes

Night	No 	No 	No 	Yes	No if exercising sport or recreational pilot
privileges	Yes

VFR—visibility 3 miles or more	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes

VFR—visibility less than 3 miles	Yes	No	No	Yes	No if exercising sport
or recreational pilot privileges	Yes

IFR	No	No	No	Yes with instrument rating 	No without an instrument rating
Yes with instrument rating

Passenger carriage	No	Yes – One Passenger	Yes – One Passenger	Yes
Yes	Yes

Compensation	No	No	No	Limited 	Limited if exercising sport or
recreational pilot privileges; Yes otherwise	Yes

Class A airspace	Yes with ATC authorization	No	No	Yes with instrument
rating	No if exercising sport or recreational pilot privileges; Yes
otherwise	Yes with instrument rating

Class B, C, D airspace	Yes with ATC authorization	Yes with training 	Yes
with training 	Yes	Yes (additional training may be required)	Yes

Class E, G airspace	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes 	Yes

> 10, 000 MSL	Yes	No	No	Yes	No if exercising sport or recreational pilot
privileges. Yes otherwise 	Yes

< 10, 000 MSL	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes

Cross country	Yes	Yes	Yes with training 	Yes	Yes (for recreational pilot
additional training is required)	Yes

> 120 knots CAS	No	No 	Yes	Yes	No if exercising sport pilot privileges.
Yes otherwise 	Yes

<  87 knots CAS	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes 	Yes

>  87 knots CAS	Yes	Yes with training	Yes	Yes	Yes (additional training
may be required)	Yes

Airman Certification—Privileges for Which Additional Training Is
Required

	Ultralight

Pilot

	Sport Pilot	Recreational Pilot	Private Pilot	CFI – Sport Pilot	CFI

Added Cat/Class Privilege	N/A	Yes	N/A	N/A	N/A	N/A

Make and Model

Privilege	N/A	Yes	N/A	N/A	N/A	N/A

Added Cat/Class Rating	N/A	N/A	Yes	Yes	N/A	Yes

Class B, C, and D	No	Yes	Yes	No	Yes if exercising sport or recreational
pilot privileges	No

> 87 knots CAS	No	Yes	No	No	Yes if exercising sport or recreational
pilot privileges	No

Cross country	No	No	Yes	No	Yes if exercising recreational pilot
privileges 	No

IFR	N/A	N/A	N/A	Yes	N/A	Yes

Tail wheel 	No	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes

High- Performance	N/A	N/A	N/A	Yes	N/A	Yes

Complex	No	N/A	Yes	Yes	N/A	Yes

High Altitude	No	N/A	N/A	Yes	N/A	Yes

Type	N/A	N/A	N/A	Yes	N/A	Yes

Towing	No (additional training required if operating under Part 103
exemption)	N/A	N/A	Yes (additional experience required)	N/A	N/A

Sales demo	No	No (N/A if aircraft salesman)	No (N/A if aircraft
salesman)	Yes (additional experience required)	N/A	N/A

Agricultural (non-commercial)	N/A	No	No	No	N/A	N/A

Charitable Flights	N/A	N/A	N/A	Yes (additional experience required)	N/A
N/A

Provide Flight Training	No (additional training required if operating
under part 103 exemption)	N/A	N/A	N/A	Yes	Yes

V.  Section–by-Section Discussion of Comments and Changes Incorporated
Into Final Rule

The following is a summary of comments for each section of rule text,
with a description of any changes the FAA is making to the final rule.
Because of the large number of comments received on the proposed rule,
it is not possible to discuss each commenter’s remarks individually.
Some of the changes are being made as the result of public comments, and
others are being made after further review within the FAA.  As discussed
previously in this preamble, the requirements proposed as SFAR No. 89
are being moved into part 61, and a conversion table is included for the
reader’s convenience in the discussion of comments to part 61.  All
comments to proposed SFAR No. 89 therefore are located under the
discussion of changes to part 61.

V.1. Part 1—Definitions And Abbreviations

Section 1.1 General definitions

Definition of “consensus standard”

The FAA received numerous comments on the topic of consensus standards.
Most commenters expressed support for the concept of airworthiness
standards developed by a consensus of industry and the FAA.  However,
some commenters expressed concern that they could not review any actual
consensus standards, as the standards were nonexistent at the time of
the NPRM comment period.  These standards would be developed either
concurrent with, or subsequent to, the adoption of the rule.  The FAA
understands the commenters’ concern, but notes that the consensus
standards development process will include adequate opportunity for
public participation and comment.  The FAA further notes that the
consensus standards process will not replace, but rather will
supplement, existing design, manufacturing, and airworthiness
certification procedures, and that alternative consensus standards may
be found acceptable.

Since the publication of the proposal, a number of aviation
organizations have chosen to work with ASTM International to develop
light-sport aircraft consensus standards.  ASTM International has
established Committee F37 – Light-Sport Aircraft for this standards
development task.  Anyone who desires to comment on the consensus
standards may participate in their development by ASTM International.
Also, when an acceptable standard is developed, the FAA will publish a
Notice of Availability in the Federal Register.   This notification will
include a statement that the FAA has found the standard acceptable for
certification of the specified aircraft under the provisions of this
rule.  This statement will assert that:

The FAA has participated in the development process for this consensus
standard;

The FAA has reviewed the standard for compliance with the regulatory
requirements of the rule; and

 Any light-sport aircraft designed, manufactured, and operated in
accordance with that consensus standard provides the public with an
appropriate level of safety.

If comments from the public are received as a result of the Notice of
Availability, the FAA will address them during its recurring review of
the consensus standards and participation in the consensus standards
revision process.  Refer to the comment below from NTSB concerning FAA
participation in the revision of consensus standards.

Several commenters recommended delaying the effective date of the rule
until the consensus standards were issued.  The FAA recognizes that
consensus standards may not be completed by the effective date of the
rule, and has therefore revised the rule to permit existing two-seat
ultralights to be used for many of the operations that are intended for
aircraft manufactured to a consensus standard.

Some commenters were concerned that the consensus standards process
would only represent viewpoints of particular manufacturers, and would
not assure adequate representation of small manufacturers or aircraft
operators.  Other commenters believed the consensus standards should not
be set only by the aircraft manufacturers and ASTM International.
Another proposed that a committee of pilots, aircraft owners,
manufacturers, standards organizations, and regulators should formulate
the consensus standards.  The FAA agrees that broad representation of
all affected parties is necessary for the FAA to accept a consensus
standard.  Any and all interested parties can participate in the
development of consensus standards.  In fact, OMB Circular A-119
requires balanced participation and voting.  The FAA believes that the
ASTM process balances the representation of product manufacturers,
product users, and the interests of other affected persons.  The FAA
notes that the current ASTM consensus standard committees are comprised
of individuals representing all the perspectives recommended by the
commenter.  The FAA believes that the ASTM standards development
procedures satisfy the other attributes (openness, due process, and
appeals process) set forth in OMB Circular A-119 for an acceptable
consensus standard body.  The OMB Circular permits FAA to make this
determination.  If necessary, the FAA will participate with other
standards development organizations in the development of alternative
consensus standards.  The FAA would refer to paragraphs 2, 6.e. and f.
of OMB Circular A-119 in making this determination.  These paragraphs
describe the goals of the government in using consensus standards and
the considerations the FAA should make when considering the use of a
consensus standard.

The FAA received a comment from the NTSB saying that the NPRM lacked
sufficient information for it to determine to what extent the FAA will
be involved in the review of consensus standards after they have been
issued.  As stated in the NPRM, the FAA will participate in the
development of and any revision to the consensus standards, in
accordance with OMB Circular A-119.  In the preamble of the NPRM, the
FAA stated that it expected a suitable consensus standard to be reviewed
every two years.  As a member of the consensus standard body, the FAA
can call for revisions to the consensus standard when the agency
determines such revisions are necessary.  The FAA, as all other
participants, may propose changes to amend the consensus standard to
address new technology, applications, or deficiencies.  As part of the
FAA’s participation in the consensus standards development, the FAA
will review proposed consensus standards prior to the issuance of a
Notice of Availability.  The FAA will not issue a Notice of Availability
for a consensus standard it considers unacceptable.  The FAA will notify
the public, through a Notice of Availability, of its acceptance of a
consensus standard or any revision to a consensus standard.  The FAA
will continue to participate in revising the consensus standard at an
interval no longer than every 2 years.  The FAA will respond to comments
on the consensus standards in this revision process.

One commenter proposed that the term “industry developed consensus
airworthiness standard” be changed to “industry developed
airworthiness standard.”  The FAA prefers that the word
“consensus” be included to emphasize that these standards are
developed in accordance OMB A-119.  Use of the term “consensus” will
also distinguish consensus standards from airworthiness standards that
are developed by the FAA through the normal rulemaking process and are
specifically contained in other parts of 14 CFR subchapter C.  Within
the definition, the FAA is removing the modifier “airworthiness”
from the phrase “industry developed consensus airworthiness
standard.”  This change is to permit the consensus standards body to
develop light-sport aircraft and sport pilot safety standards that may
encompass more standards than those affecting airworthiness.

A commenter stated that FAA involvement in developing the criteria for
certificating light-sport aircraft should be minimal to keep aircraft
design and manufacturing costs down.  As noted above, the FAA has chosen
to use consensus standards developed in accordance with the criteria in
OMB Circular A-119 for these aircraft.  The use of the consensus
standard process assures government and industry discussion and
agreement on appropriate standards for the required level of safety.
The FAA believes that the consensus standards process will minimize
costs while meeting the level of safety appropriate for these aircraft.

Several commenters expressed concern that the consensus standards would
result in excessive increases to the price of light-sport aircraft.  A
commenter expressed concern over insurance costs for light-sport
aircraft, and expressed the opinion that general aviation revitalization
depends on the availability of factory-built aircraft priced under
$40,000.  The FAA has discussed the certification process for these
aircraft in both the NPRM and this final rule.  How the public will
interact with insurance companies and legal professionals, as well as
the pricing of these aircraft are matters of commercial interest.  The
FAA, however, believes that this rule may significantly decrease the
cost of purchasing and operating light-sport aircraft.  See the full
economic analysis in the public docket for this rulemaking.

Consensus Standards Topics

In the notice, the FAA proposed that consensus standards address
airworthiness certification and continued airworthiness.  In the NPRM,
the proposed definition for consensus standard specified that the
standard address “… aircraft design and performance, quality
assurance system requirements, production acceptance test
specifications, and continued operational safety monitoring system
characteristics.”  Based on comments received from the public on the
proposed rule and as a result of FAA review of the NPRM, the FAA has
determined that the consensus standard definition should be expanded to
include additional topics.  These additional topics are related to
aircraft maintenance and operations, or subjects that should be more
appropriately addressed as separate topics rather than as subsections
within the four topics listed in the FAA’s proposed definition.

In view of this consideration, the consensus standards definition is
being revised to specifically require the consensus standards to address
topics other than the four specified in the proposed rule.  The revised
definition sets forth a broader approach. It generally specifies that
the consensus standards must address the three subjects of aircraft
design, production and airworthiness.  Additional specific topics the
consensus standards must address are set forth in the revised
definition.  Consensus standards may address additional topics, as
determined by the consensus standards body.  As a result of FAA’s
review of questions from commenters to the NPRM, and as a result of
FAA’s participation in the ongoing development of consensus standards,
the FAA has determined that the consensus standards must address the
following topics so that appropriate information and procedures are
provided for manufacturers and operators of light-sport aircraft.

Design and Performance:  The consensus standard includes a design and
performance section, which should address the following:

(1)  Methodology for determining parameters associated with the
definition of light-sport aircraft.  The consensus standard should
provide methodologies for determining definition parameters such as:
maximum takeoff weight; maximum airspeed in level flight with maximum
continuous power (VH); maximum never-exceed speed (VNE) for gliders;
maximum stalling speed or minimum steady flight speed without the use of
lift-enhancing devices (VS1).

(2)  Methodology for distinguishing different make and model aircraft
from the same manufacturer and for updating and recording information
that may change during the course of the production of the make and
model aircraft.

Required Equipment:  The FAA did not expressly propose to require the
consensus standard to address or include minimum equipment in the NPRM.
However, the FAA notes that certain aircraft equipment is required by
part 91 to operate in the NAS.  The FAA notes that, because the
requirements of §91.205 do not apply to these aircraft, the FAA has
revised the definition of consensus standard to specifically indicate
that a consensus standard must address required equipment. The design
and performance portion of the consensus standard, therefore, should
indicate standards for performance for equipment that is required for
specific authorized operations.  The FAA recognizes that the operator of
a light-sport aircraft may have a variety of privileges based on
differing certificate privileges or individual logbook endorsements.
However, a person may not exercise those privileges, unless the aircraft
is appropriately equipped.

Quality Assurance:  Commenters recommended that instructors functioning
also as dealers, be allowed to continue to assemble weight-shift-control
and powered parachutes kits for their clients.  They did not believe
that this privilege should be limited to the factory (manufacturer).
The commenters also expressed an interest in assembling, demonstrating,
and selling the aircraft.  They cite that they were already providing
these distributor-type services.  They further stated that costs to ship
a completed aircraft are much more than shipping a kit-built aircraft
that can be assembled at the final destination.  The FAA agrees that
persons other than the manufacturer may complete the assembly of
light-sport aircraft subject to this rule.  This may be permitted
provided the consensus standard addresses how the manufacturer will
control these outside entities under its quality assurance system.  The
consensus standard should address how the manufacturer maintains
oversight of the persons and the processes of assembly, and, if the
aircraft is delivered to a dealer for assembly, procedures for the
dealer to issue a statement of compliance on behalf of the manufacturer.
 The manufacturer that issues the statement of compliance is responsible
for the quality of the end product, and this includes material supplied
by, or assembly work performed by, a person or other entity.

In the proposed definition, the term “quality assurance system
requirements” has been revised to read “manufacturer quality
assurance systems” to emphasize that the aircraft manufacturer has the
overall responsibility to assure that safe aircraft are delivered to its
customers.

Production Acceptance Tests:  The production acceptance tests should
include all tests needed to prove the aircraft’s reliability and
functionality.  These tests may be accomplished at different stages of
assembly and at final completion.  The tests verify the aircraft’s
proper function on the ground and in the air, as required by §21.190
(c)(7).  The consensus standard should include tests that demonstrate
that the aircraft is in a condition for safe operation.  As a minimum,
these ground and flight tests show that the aircraft--

Has been assembled in accordance with the manufacturer’s criteria and
specifications.

Can be operated normally throughout all ranges of capability, as defined
in the consensus standard.

In the proposed definition, the term “production acceptance test
specifications” has been revised to read “production acceptance test
procedures.”  The FAA believes that use of the word
“specifications” is not consistent with performance-based standards,
which are preferable to prescriptive standards for aircraft built to
consensus standards.

Aircraft Operating Instructions:  In the proposal, the FAA stated that
the consensus standards must address aircraft design and performance.
The proposal did not include a specific requirement for the consensus
standards to address aircraft operating instructions.  Proposed
§21.186, however, required the manufacturer to identify, and the
applicant to present, the applicable “Pilot Operating Handbook.”

In the final rule the FAA is revising the consensus standard definition
to specifically address aircraft operating instructions.  Although the
FAA believed that the proposed consensus standards definition would
require aircraft operating instructions to be addressed in the standards
for aircraft design and performance, the FAA has determined that
standards for aircraft operating instructions should be developed
specifically as part of the consensus standards process.

The FAA also notes that rather than using the term “Pilot Operating
Handbook” in the definition of consensus standards it is using the
term “Aircraft Operating Instructions.”  The term “Pilot Operating
Handbook” is normally associated with type- certificated general
aviation aircraft and may include information approved by the FAA.
“Aircraft Operating Instructions,” however, will not require FAA
approval.  “Aircraft Operating Instructions” provide methods and
procedures to safely operate the aircraft. Additionally, the aircraft
operating instructions specify those parameters (e.g. weight, stall
speed, maximum speed) that show the aircraft make and model meets the
light-sport aircraft definition.

Maintenance and Inspection Procedures:  The proposal did not include a
specific requirement for the consensus standards to address maintenance
and inspection procedures.  Proposed §21.186, however, required the
manufacturer to identify, and the applicant to present, the applicable
maintenance and inspection procedures.  In the final rule the FAA is
revising the consensus standard definition to specifically address
maintenance and inspection procedures.  The FAA has determined that
standards for maintenance and inspection procedures should be developed
specifically as part of the consensus standards process.

Through the consensus standards process the rule requires the
development of maintenance and inspection procedures for the entire
aircraft.  This includes the engine, propeller, and accessories, such as
ballistic parachutes, floats, and skis.  These maintenance and
inspection procedures can be developed solely by the airframe
manufacturer or with other manufacturers that supply engines,
propellers, or other products for the aircraft.  The purpose of
requiring maintenance and inspection procedures is to ensure the
continued airworthiness of the aircraft throughout its useful life.
Maintenance and inspection procedures should contain at least two parts,
one part for inspection and one for maintenance.

The inspection section should include inspection requirements and a
checklist for conducting the annual condition inspection, the 100-hour
inspection, or any other inspection, as needed.  The inspection section
should also identify any checks needed to verify adequate limits for
items subject to wear or replacement due to age or time in use.

The maintenance section should specifically address major aircraft
systems and components such as the engine, propeller, fuel system,
flight controls, lubrication system, instrumentation, airframe, and
landing gear.  Each part of this maintenance section should identify the
maintenance that a certificated repairman, mechanic, or repair station
can perform, and those preventive maintenance tasks that a pilot can
perform.  For each major system, instructions should be provided that
detail the service and maintenance requirements for that system,
including removal and replacement instructions for components, repair
and overhaul instructions for those products that can be repaired and
overhauled, and how Airworthiness Directives (ADs) and Safety Directives
should be addressed.

The maintenance and inspection procedures also should include a section
that addresses major repairs and major alterations.  This section should
include the training requirements for a person to perform a major repair
for each aircraft system (e.g., overhaul an engine), what data should be
used to perform a major repair or major alteration, and describe the
process used to notify the manufacturer that a major repair or major
alteration has been accomplished on its product.  While a parts manual
is not required to be developed as part of the required maintenance and
inspection procedures, the FAA recommends that manufacturers develop
these manuals to ensure the proper parts are installed.

Identification and Recording of Major Repairs and Major Alterations:
The proposal did not include a specific requirement for the consensus
standards to address major repairs and major alterations, and procedures
to record them, for each class of light-sport aircraft.  The FAA has
revised the proposal to require maintenance on special light-sport
aircraft to be performed in accordance with part 43, except for those
requirements that apply to the performance and recording of major
repairs and major alterations.  In the final rule, therefore, the FAA is
revising the consensus standard definition to specifically address major
repairs and major alterations.  The FAA has determined that standards
for defining, performing, and recording major repairs and major
alterations should be developed specifically as part of the consensus
standards process.  The consensus standard also should address the level
of training a person must have before performing a major repair.  Refer
to the discussions of part 43 and §91.327 for more explanation of this
topic.

Continued Airworthiness:

The FAA specifically requested comments from the public on its proposal
that the consensus standards include provisions for defining minimum
characteristics for a manufacturer’s continued operational safety
monitoring system.  The FAA received comments both for and against the
use of the FAA’s existing AD process for correcting unsafe conditions
in light-sport aircraft.  These comments are addressed in item (2)
below.  The FAA discussed the expectations for a continued airworthiness
system in the section-by-section analysis of the NPRM under
“Definition of ‘Consensus Standard’” under §1.1, and also in
§21.186 (c)(6).  In response to comments received concerning continued
airworthiness, the following clarifies the processes that should be
followed for the continued airworthiness of special light-sport
aircraft.

The consensus standard should address the following:

(1)  The types of occurrences or events or incidents that the aircraft
owner is to report back to the manufacturer.

(2)  How the manufacturer will issue Safety Directives to correct unsafe
conditions, including a process for how the determination of an unsafe
condition will be made.  Examples of unsafe conditions include, but may
not be limited to:

(a)  Structural failures that reduce the aircraft ability to carry
flight or ground loads;

(b)  Structural failures affecting the attachment of high mass items to
the aircraft;

(c)  Structural failures affecting flight or powerplant control systems;
or

(d)  Failures that might result in occurrence of a fire in flight.

A commenter stated that for light-sport aircraft, the AD system should
be used because the aviation community is familiar with it, and it helps
to assure that the owners of light-sport aircraft can be found
regardless of changes of ownership of the aircraft manufacturer.  A
different commenter questioned if Safety Directives issued by the
aircraft manufacturer would be any better quality than ADs, which the
commenter believes are sometimes issued in haste and may be ineffective
or burdensome.  Another commenter agreed with not using the AD system,
believing that the AD system can be used in the event that a
manufacturer no longer exists or is no longer able to issue
safety-of-flight information.

The FAA maintains the position it took in the proposed rule.  The FAA
does not intend to issue ADs on the special light-sport aircraft, but
will issue them on type-certificated products incorporated into special
light-sport aircraft, and may, if necessary, issue them on products
having other forms of FAA approval.  Therefore, as proposed, the final
rule requires development of corrective actions for unsafe conditions in
special light-sport aircraft by the aircraft manufacturer, or a group or
individual that has assumed that responsibility.  As described in the
discussion of proposed §21.186 (c)(6), the FAA intended for the rule to
provide for persons other than the manufacturer to assume continued
airworthiness responsibilities in the event that the special light-sport
aircraft manufacturer would cease to exist, or cease to provide
safety-of-flight information.

The FAA, in discussing the intended advantages of the proposed rule,
referred to the safety benefits of “…safety-of-flight bulletins,
similar to airworthiness directives and service bulletins…” that
would be issued by the manufacturer to correct problems that might exist
on aircraft in service.  A commenter recommended that the FAA change the
term “safety-of-flight” to a different term such as “safety
directive,” since the military already uses the term
“safety-of-flight” and this may cause confusion.  The FAA agrees and
has revised the term to  “Safety Directive” in the final rule.  The
FAA uses the term “Safety Directive” to identify the documents that
a special light-sport aircraft manufacturer issues to make changes that
are needed to correct conditions that may adversely affect safety of
flight for aircraft that are in service.

One commenter recommended that proposed corrective actions by individual
manufacturers should be subject to industry review and acceptance within
a two- or three-month time period.  The FAA recognizes that this
proposal would provide for a balance of manufacturer and operator
interests in assuring effective continued airworthiness support of
special light-sport aircraft.  As the consensus standards process
develops procedures for continued airworthiness, the FAA will present
the commenter’s proposal to the appropriate technical committee for
consideration.

(3)  Operator actions that will be addressed by a service publication
other than a Safety Directive.  This discussion addresses a comment
expressing concern that manufacturers might issue mandatory part
replacement or maintenance instructions that would be not be justified
by any corresponding safety concern.  The consensus standard should
identify those situations for which the manufacturer’s Safety
Directives should not be issued.  Those situations include, but are not
limited to, circumstances in which service publications are issued to
improve or enhance the following:

(a)  Spare part sales;

(b)  Aircraft performance, capability, or efficiency, unless the change
is needed for the aircraft to meet the minimum design and performance
standards identified in the consensus standard and the manufacturer’s
statement of compliance;

(c)  Aircraft appearance;

(d)  Aircraft maintainability; or

(e)  Any other aircraft characteristic when the action called for does
not remedy an unsafe condition, including those related to reliability
which do not have an impact on safety of flight.

(4)  A process for responding to requests for methods of correcting
unsafe conditions that differ from those prescribed in Safety
Directives.  This section addresses comments recommending that the owner
of a special light-sport aircraft be able to correct an unsafe condition
using methods other than specified by a Safety Directive.  Refer also to
the discussion in §91.327, “Safety-of-Flight Issues.”  The FAA
notes that owner-developed alterations and repairs are permitted for
experimental light-sport aircraft where compliance with Safety
Directives is not mandatory.

(5)  A process for permitting successor organizations to assume
responsibility for providing continued airworthiness support.  Adding
this section to the consensus standard addresses comments recommending
the consensus standard contain provisions for assuming or transferring
continued airworthiness responsibilities if the original manufacturer of
a light-sport aircraft goes out of business.  The FAA, in the NPRM,
intended to allow for this.  This was discussed in the proposal in
§§21.186 (b)(1)(iv), (b)(1)(v), and (c)(6), in which the FAA allowed
for a person other than the original aircraft manufacturer to assume
continued airworthiness responsibilities for in-service aircraft.  (The
phrase “manufacturer or a person acceptable to the FAA” in proposed
§21.186 (b)(1)(iv) and (v) allowed for this possibility.)  A person
acceptable to the FAA may include persons other than the original
manufacturer, such as a licensee, designee, successor, or a person other
than the manufacturer or licensee who built a product or part that was
not part of the original design, (i.e., a third-party modifier).  In the
current rule, these provisions are in §91.327 (b), since continued
airworthiness of light-sport aircraft will be controlled by the
operating limitations of the aircraft airworthiness certificate.

(6)  An process for qualification of third-party alterations or
replacement parts, if a manufacturer chooses to permit this.  In the
proposed rule, alterations, repairs, design modifications, or
replacement parts manufactured by third parties (distinct from the
manufacturer or the airplane owner) were not addressed.  The FAA’s
assumption at the time of the NPRM was that each manufacturer would
determine if it intended to permit third-party aircraft support, such as
the manufacture of replacement parts, or the alteration of aircraft in
service.  If a manufacturer chooses to permit this, the standard should
address how oversight and control of the third parties performing this
service will be accomplished by the manufacturer.

The FAA also notes that the operating limitations for aircraft having
the special light-sport aircraft airworthiness certificate require that
all changes to an aircraft after its original manufacture be authorized
by the manufacturer or other acceptable person.  Aircraft modifiers,
manufacturers of replacement parts for light-sport aircraft, and
manufacturers of products used to modify light-sport aircraft also must
comply with the provisions of the applicable consensus standard in order
to be considered a person acceptable to the FAA.

(7)  A process for responding to an aircraft owner’s assertion that a
Safety Directive was issued for reasons other than to correct an unsafe
condition.   Providing this process also responds to the previously
stated concern that manufacturers might require the operator to purchase
expensive parts and make changes to the aircraft that do not correct an
unsafe condition.  By developing guidelines through an appropriate
consensus standard, the balanced representation of interests will help
to minimize the possibility of a manufacturer issuing a safety directive
for an inappropriate reason.  If an aircraft owner believes a Safety
Directive was issued for reasons other than to correct an unsafe
condition, the owner should raise this issue to the manufacturer.  The
consensus standard process should address how the manufacturer reviews
the request, and how it responds to the aircraft owner by justifying its
position that the Safety Directive addresses an existing unsafe
condition affecting the aircraft.  The FAA notes that a manufacturer may
permit an alternative means of compliance to the Safety Directive.  In
the event that the aircraft owner does not accept the manufacturer’s
response and chooses not to correct the condition in a manner permitted
by the manufacturer, the aircraft owner may request a waiver from the
FAA to operate his or her aircraft without following the Safety
Directive.  See the discussion of the “waiver” process under
§91.327, “Safety-of-flight issues.”

(8)  A process for reviewing ADs issued on FAA-approved products used in
special light-sport aircraft.  Upon further internal review, the FAA
recognized that special light-sport aircraft may embody equipment that
has its own FAA approval (e.g., engines, propellers, communications
equipment, instruments).  Owners of special light-sport aircraft will be
required to comply with applicable ADs issued against FAA-approved
products installed on special light-sport aircraft.  For details, see
the discussion under §91.327 “Safety-of-flight issues.”

In addition, the FAA believes that the consensus standards should also
address —

Manufacturer’s Assembly Instructions.  In proposed §21.193 (e)(5),
the FAA stated an expectation that kit-built experimental light-sport
aircraft would be assembled following detailed instructions provided by
the manufacturer.  This was stated in the section-by-section analysis of
the NPRM.  However, the FAA did not establish any requirements with
regard to the quality of those assembly instructions.  In the final
rule, a requirement is being added to §21.193 (e)(4) for the assembly
instructions to meet the consensus standard.  Also, there is a change to
§21.191 (i)(2) requiring that the assembler provide evidence that he or
she assembled the aircraft according to the manufacturer’s
instructions.

The manufacturer should prescribe the details of an individual aircraft
assembly process.  The objective is for the assembly instructions to
provide the detailed instructions to build and safely flight test the
product.  Any necessary mechanical skills or training should be defined.
 The instructions should prescribe the tooling, fixtures, inspections,
measurements, and other pertinent items that must be recorded by the
assembler and presented to the FAA or the FAA representative, such as,
the Designated Airworthiness Representative (DAR), as evidence that the
manufacturer’s assembly instructions were followed.

In the proposed definition, the term “continued operational safety
monitoring system characteristics” is revised to read “continued
airworthiness.”  The changed language requires the consensus standard
to address continued airworthiness subjects that may be considered
outside the scope of a continued operational safety monitoring system.

Changes

	The definition of “consensus standard” is changed in the final rule
as follows:

The words “consensus airworthiness standard” are changed to
“consensus standard.”

The word “governs” is changed to “applies to.”

The words “aircraft design and performance” are changed to
“aircraft design, production, and airworthiness.”

The four topics that a consensus standard would govern have been revised
and additional specific items have been added to the list of items that
a consensus standard must address.

The definition now lists the items that a consensus standard “includes
but is not limited to.  The topics specified in the definition now
include “standards for aircraft design and performance, required
equipment, manufacturer quality assurance systems, production acceptance
test procedures, operating instructions, maintenance and inspection
procedures, identification and recording of major repairs and major
alterations, and continued airworthiness.”

Definition of “Light-sport aircraft”

Overview

	The FAA believes that there might be confusion concerning what
airworthiness certificates apply to light-sport aircraft.  Therefore,
the FAA is clarifying this issue.  A sport pilot may operate any
aircraft that meets the definition in §1.1 of a light-sport aircraft,
regardless of the airworthiness certificate issued for the aircraft.  An
aircraft that meets the light-sport aircraft definition may have any
airworthiness certificate that may be issued for an aircraft, such as
standard, special, primary, or experimental amateur-built aircraft.  An
aircraft that meets the light-sport aircraft definition and holds a
standard airworthiness certificate must be operated and maintained in
accordance with the limitations of that airworthiness certificate.  For
example, the sport pilot must operate the aircraft within the limits of
the aircraft’s flight manual and type certificate data sheet.  Also,
maintenance will still need to be done in accordance with part 43 by an
appropriately rated mechanic, repairman, or repair station.  A repairman
(light-sport aircraft) is not authorized to conduct any maintenance on
an aircraft issued a standard airworthiness certificate or a special
airworthiness certificate in a category other than light-sport.

Numerous commenters raised issues pertaining to the design attributes
associated with the definition of light-sport aircraft.  A majority
recommended expanding the design attributes in one or more areas, such
as maximum weight, stall speed, or cruise speed.  The design attributes
associated with the definition are discussed individually later in this
section.

As stated in the proposal, the FAA intended to limit the definition of
light-sport aircraft to primarily address the population of
ultralight-like aircraft that are being operated under exemptions to
part 103 to conduct flight training.  The rule was not primarily
intended to address type-certificated and vintage aircraft where there
were not significant regulatory, certification, or operational issues.
The FAA recognizes that any aircraft that meets the light-sport aircraft
definition may be operated by a sport pilot.  However, it is necessary
for the FAA to use its judgment and discretion in setting limits on
aircraft to be flown by sport pilots.

The most frequently cited justification to increasing one or more design
attributes associated with the light-sport aircraft definition was to
enable existing aircraft designs to be operated as light-sport aircraft.
 A majority of these comments contended that the light-sport aircraft
definition should be expanded to accept these additional aircraft simply
because these larger or higher performance aircraft could be safely
operated as light-sport aircraft.

While some changes were made to the design attributes of the definition,
there was only one change made to the definition as a result of comments
pertaining to operating type-certificated aircraft as light-sport
aircraft.  The change prohibits aircraft modified to meet the parameters
of the definition from being operated as light-sport aircraft.  The
reasoning for this change is explained below.

One commenter noted that the FAA’s proposal is unique in attempting to
address aircraft for used for recreation rather than transportation
purposes.  Some commenters expressed concern that the light-sport
aircraft definition did not describe how a given constraint would be
shown to be satisfied.  Neither a §1.1 definition nor an operating rule
definition is normally so complete as to establish how compliance with
the definition is determined.

Another commenter noted that the definition of an aircraft category is
usually established in the applicability section of the appropriate
airworthiness standard, rather than in §1.1.  The FAA agrees with this
observation.  However, there will not be airworthiness standards set
forth in specific parts of the Code of Federal Regulations, and the
definition of light-sport aircraft will be applicable to a variety of
different kinds of aircraft.  Also, the definition is significant both
for aircraft and airman certification purposes.  For these reasons, it
is appropriate for the FAA to establish these limits for the light-sport
aircraft in the general definitions section of part 1.

Many commenters wanted various existing airplanes to be included in the
light-sport aircraft definition.  Many of these commenters believe that
the existing service record of these airplanes makes them safe and more
affordable than a new airplane.  The FAA recognizes that certain
aircraft that do not meet the definition of light-sport aircraft may
have operating characteristics that are similar to aircraft that meet
the definition.  The FAA determined that the values used in the
definition strike an appropriate balance between safety and public
interest.  Refer to the discussion under “III.1. FAA Judgment and
Discretion.”  The FAA has revised the light-sport aircraft definition
without the intent to include or exclude specific aircraft.

General Comments on the Design Attributes in the Light-Sport Aircraft
Definition

There was considerable interest in changing the design attributes that
control the definition of light-sport aircraft.  The FAA received
numerous general questions and comments on aircraft currently
certificated.  Some commenters operating aircraft with a standard or an
experimental certificate stated that their aircraft nearly met the
definition of light-sport aircraft.  Many of these commenters expressed
their desire that the light-sport aircraft definition be changed to
include their aircraft, whether it be an airplane with a standard
airworthiness certificate, an amateur-built aircraft, or a vintage
aircraft with a standard airworthiness certificate.  Several commenters
stated a desire that the FAA revise the light-sport aircraft definition
to permit them to obtain the perceived advantages of the sport pilot
certificate’s medical provisions when operating their aircraft.

Commenters also requested clarification as to how compliance with some
of the parameters used to define light-sport aircraft will be
determined.  The most frequently cited parameters were maximum takeoff
weight, maximum airspeed in level flight with maximum continuous power
VH, and stall speeds VS1 (without lift enhancing devices) and VS0
(landing configuration).  As discussed under §1.1, the consensus
standards will address details on methods of demonstrating compliance.

A commenter stated that the light-sport aircraft definition should
require ballistic parachute recovery systems as protection in case of
inadvertent encounter of instrument flight rule (IFR) weather
conditions.  The FAA disagrees.  This rule does not directly prescribe
design or equipment standards, those are contained in the consensus
standards.

Modifications of Aircraft to Meet the Light-Sport Aircraft Definition

Some commenters stated that aircraft with quite high payload and
performance characteristics that far exceed the stated definition of
light-sport aircraft could be modified to meet the definition of
light-sport aircraft.  The FAA has revised the definition of light-sport
aircraft in the rule to prevent these modifications.  The FAA notes that
these types of modified aircraft are outside the stated purpose of the
proposal.  The proposal identified light-sport aircraft as aircraft that
exceed the limits set in §103.1, and are compatible with the skills and
training required to obtain a sport pilot certificate.  Light-sport
aircraft are simple low-performance aircraft that are distinct from
small aircraft that can be designed and built to existing airworthiness
standards.  In the proposal, the FAA permitted sport pilots to fly any
aircraft that meets the light-sport aircraft definition.   In
prohibiting modifications to aircraft to meet the light-sport aircraft
definition, the FAA seeks to ensure that the light-sport aircraft
operating characteristics are consistent with the skills and training
for the sport pilot.  The FAA is concerned that modifications to an
aircraft to meet the light-sport aircraft definition may increase its
complexity to a level that is inappropriate for the capabilities of the
sport pilot.   This is the FAA’s rationale for excluding these
modified aircraft from the light-sport aircraft definition.

The FAA notes that compliance with light-sport aircraft parameters can
be more readily verified for type-certificated aircraft than for
amateur-built aircraft certificated under existing §21.191 (g).
Amateur-built aircraft do not have a TC, a flight manual, or a type
certificate data sheet.  Because of this, it may be difficult to
determine if aircraft with other than a standard airworthiness
certificate meet the limits listed for a light-sport aircraft and can be
operated by a sport pilot.  The FAA anticipates that the aircraft design
consensus standard will include methodologies that will readily enable a
determination that an aircraft design meets the light-sport aircraft
definition.

Requests for Light-Sport Aircraft Definition to Include Additional Kinds
of Aircraft

A number of commenters wanted “light” helicopters and gyroplanes to
be included in the definition of light-sport aircraft.  They believed
that these aircraft are suited for the sport and recreation that the
proposed rule addresses.

As stated in the proposal, the FAA did not include helicopters because
their complex design, manufacture, and operation is beyond what the FAA
envisioned for light-sport aircraft.  The FAA included gyroplanes in the
light-sport aircraft definition, but does not intend to issue the
special airworthiness certificate in the light-sport category for
gyroplanes.  See the discussion of paragraph (9) of the definition of
light-sport aircraft below.

Several comments recommended that the light-sport aircraft definition
include individual unique aircraft designs, such as flying platforms or
tandem wing aircraft.  The FAA disagrees.  The light-sport aircraft
definition does not need to address every possible variation of
aircraft.  The FAA believes that the unique nature of these aircraft
precludes the development of consensus standards for these aircraft at
this time.  However, these aircraft remain eligible for the experimental
certificate for operating amateur-built aircraft, under existing
§21.191 (g).  A few commenters requested that aircraft with standard
airworthiness certificates not be included in the sport pilot program.
As stated in the proposed rule, a sport pilot may fly an aircraft with a
standard airworthiness certificate, if it meets the definition of
light-sport aircraft.  See also §21.175 discussion on airworthiness
certificates.  As stated above in the section titled “Modifications of
Aircraft to Meet the Light-Sport Aircraft Definition,” a sport pilot
may not fly an aircraft with a standard airworthiness certificate that
has been modified to meet the light-sport aircraft definition.

Comments Concerning the Limits Established by the Light-Sport Aircraft
Definition

Many commenters suggested alternatives to the maximum speed as limiting
factors for the light-sport aircraft definition.  The alternatives
proposed included wing loading (airplane weight divided by airplane wing
area); horsepower (ranging from 80 to 180 horsepower); fuel capacity;
aircraft payload; kinetic energy of the airplane at cruise speed; weight
of the drive train package.  One commenter proposed to base the
light-sport aircraft definition on the weights and aerodynamic
performance of the J-3 Cub airplane.  The FAA disagrees that the
light-sport aircraft definition should be changed to replace the maximum
speed limit with a different limiting design condition.  The FAA does
not believe that any of the alternatives suggested will be a better,
more readily determined method of assuring that light-sport aircraft are
simple, low performance aircraft.  The FAA has not eliminated a maximum
speed in the light-sport aircraft definition.  However, the light-sport
aircraft definition has been revised to increase the maximum speed
limit.  The FAA has not adopted an alternative approach to setting an
upper limit to the power or performance of a light-sport aircraft.
However the FAA decided that the light-sport aircraft definition should
set an upper limit for aircraft power to assure that the aircraft is
suitable for the sport pilot.  The FAA believes that the maximum
airspeed limit, combined with a maximum takeoff weight, acceptably
serves this purpose, for the reasons originally stated in the proposed
rule.  The FAA discusses each of the attributes of the light-sport
aircraft definition elsewhere in this section.

Some commenters believed that the limits in the FAA’s definition of
light-sport aircraft would limit innovation, or lead to the development
of unsafe aircraft.  The FAA disagrees with this opinion, and believes
that the consensus standards process and the FAA’s participation in
that process will lead to an acceptable balance between innovation and
safety.

A few commenters requested that the FAA use the definition of microlight
aircraft established by the International Aeronautical Federation (FAI).
 The FAA did consider this definition in developing its proposal.  The
microlight aircraft definition primarily addresses weight, seating
capacity, and stall speed.  The FAA notes that the light-sport aircraft
definition addresses significantly more parameters than the definition
of microlight aircraft.  The FAA developed this definition to provide
for the development of an aircraft that matches the capabilities of the
sport pilot.

A few commenters believed that the FAA’s definition of light-sport
aircraft was too broad.  Alternatives suggested included three different
weight limits for light sport-aircraft, and the two-tiered system
proposed by USUA and discussed in detail under “III.5.A. Comments on
Ultralight Vehicles.”  The FAA disagrees that the light-sport aircraft
definition should be changed to address different weight limits for
different kinds of light-sport aircraft.  The FAA believes that the use
of a broad definition for light-sport aircraft, along with the
development of consensus standards appropriate for each class of
aircraft, will result in safe and economical aircraft for the wide range
of products in recreational aviation.

One commenter suggested eliminating the word “light” from the
definition, to prevent the implication that there might be medium- and
heavy- sport aircraft to follow.  Another commenter suggested “Class
III aircraft” as an alternative, stating that the public might form an
impression that light-sport aircraft “…are frivolous toys.”  The
FAA disagrees with these opinions and believes that the words used to
describe “light-sport aircraft” are adequate to distinguish this
category of aircraft.

Several commenters stated that the cost of new aircraft would be
prohibitive with the goals of the proposed rule.  The FAA disagrees.
The aircraft certification process that uses industry consensus
standards and a manufacturer’s statement of compliance is a lower-cost
approach than type and production certification.  Refer to the full
regulatory evaluation that is in the rulemaking docket for a detailed
discussion on the estimated cost to the end user.

A commenter suggested that light-sport aircraft should have a maximum
noise limit established and verified by a simple protocol to be defined
in the consensus standard for aircraft performance.  The commenter
believed that including a noise limit would prevent adverse public
impressions of light-sport aircraft.  Current amateur-built aircraft do
not require compliance with a maximum noise limit.  Presently, part 36
noise standards are applicable only to aircraft with a type certificate
or a standard airworthiness certificate.  See “XIV. Environmental
Analysis” below.

Paragraph (1) Maximum certificated takeoff weight

Some commenters stated that lacking a definition of maximum takeoff
weight, aircraft with fairly high performance characteristics could meet
the definition of light-sport aircraft by limiting the approved weight
and payload of the airplane.  The FAA considers this a valid concern and
has provided some additional constraints on the weight as detailed
below.  The maximum weight of a light-sport aircraft is the sum of:

(1)  Aircraft empty weight;

(2)  Weight of the passenger for each seat installed;

(3)  Baggage allowance for each passenger; and

(4)  Full fuel, including a minimum of the half-hour fuel reserve
required for day visual flight rules in §91.151 (a)(1).

Some commenters wanted the weight increased to permit stronger aircraft
structures, use of four-stroke or type-certificated engines, electrical
systems for avionics, starters for engines, or ballistic recovery
systems.  The FAA is increasing the weight limitation of the light-sport
aircraft from the proposed 1,232 pounds (560 kilograms) to 1,320 pounds
(600 kilograms).  The originally proposed weight limitation was based on
the 1,200-pound weight limitation proposed by the ARAC’s light-sport
aircraft working group.  The FAA agrees that there may be a safety
benefit to light-sport aircraft designs to include provisions for
currently produced type-certificated four-stroke engines and ballistic
parachute recovery systems.  Commenters submitted data that indicated
that an additional 60 to 70 pounds would accommodate four-stroke
aviation powerplants, and that an additional 30 to 40 pounds would
accommodate the ballistic parachute recovery systems.  For these
reasons, the FAA has revised its proposed maximum takeoff weight
limitation to 1,320 pounds (600 kilograms) for aircraft designed for
operation on land.

In addition, many commenters requested that the proposed weight
limitation be increased to accommodate flying boats, amphibious or float
plane aircraft designs.  The FAA originally envisioned these kinds of
aircraft in its proposed light-sport aircraft definition.
Recommendations from these commenters indicated weights ranging from 100
pounds to 250 pounds to allow for amphibious or float plane capability.
The rule provides for a maximum take-off weight of 1,430 pounds for
light-sport aircraft designed for operation on water.  The 110-pound
weight increase compared to an aircraft not designed for operation on
water is consistent with data submitted regarding weight of floats for
microlight type aircraft.

Some commenters objected to setting a weight limit that becomes a
specific number of pounds based on conversion of kilograms to pounds,
assuming that the FAA is relying solely upon foreign airworthiness
standards in establishing the light-sport aircraft category.  The FAA
stated weight limitations are different from those used by other
airworthiness authorities for the reasons stated in the two preceding
paragraphs.

	Many commenters proposed alternative weight limits, ranging from 1,250
to 2,650 pounds, to encompass a number of existing general aviation or
classic aircraft.  In the FAA’s judgment, the weight limit in the rule
is appropriate for the light-sport aircraft to be compatible with the
skills and training of the sport pilot.

Some commenters wanted the weight increased, stating that a passenger
weight of 170 pounds is not realistic today.  The FAA notes that the
maximum take-off weight includes the weight of the occupants.  The
manufacturer may want to consider this in their design and communicate
any weight limits to the customer. A few commenters stated that the FAA
should use weight other than maximum takeoff weight as a limiting
condition.  Alternatives suggested by commenters included aircraft empty
weight, or maximum payload.  The FAA believes that the maximum take-off
weight is an appropriate limiting parameter for light-sport aircraft,
because it is an objective measure that can easily be determined when
the aircraft configuration is specified.

A few commenters agreed with the FAA’s originally proposed weight
limit of 1,232 pounds for aircraft that are not lighter-than-air (LTA)
aircraft.  Some commenters questioned the rationale for the FAA’s
originally proposed weight limit.  As stated above, the weight limit
originally proposed by the FAA for other than LTA was a balance between
the original ARAC recommendation for light-sport aircraft, and existing
foreign airworthiness requirements for sport aircraft, such as
microlights and aircraft certificated under the Joint Airworthiness
Requirements for Very Light Aircraft (JAR-VLA).

Some commenters objected to the FAA’s proposed weight limit of 660
pounds (300 kilograms) for an LTA aircraft, stating that the weight
limit is too low for a two-passenger hot air balloon.  One comment asked
if the weight limit was intended to refer to an uninflated mass.  The
FAA intended for the LTA weight limit to be comparable to the weight
limit for the other light-sport aircraft designs, that is, a maximum
mass for the aircraft.  The FAA intended for the weight limit to include
the aircraft with passengers and fuel, and the weight of the lifting gas
(the product of lifting gas volume and density) added to the weight of
the uninflated mass.  For airships, the FAA intended the defined weight
limit to include the empty weight of the airship, the weight of pilot
and passenger, fuel, and lifting gas (FAA-P-8110-2, “Airship Design
Criteria,” paragraph 2-4).  One commenter provided a weight statement
for a two-passenger hot air balloon, saying that 800 to 1,000 pounds
would be appropriate in that it would allow for two 15-gallon fuel
tanks, or 230 pounds of fuel.  The FAA disagrees.  The FAA’s
originally proposed weight limit for LTA aircraft was based on a review
of the weights of type-certificated manned free balloons.  The FAA
believed that the maximum weight permitted for a LTA light-sport
aircraft should not be greater than the maximum weight of currently
existing type-certificated manned free balloons.  The FAA believes the
requirements in part 21 and part 31 are appropriate for the manufacture
and design of hot air balloons larger than proposed by the FAA.

Additionally, one commenter stated that 2,200 pounds would be an
appropriate weight limit for airships in the light-sport aircraft
category because the low speeds for takeoff or approach to landing would
result in low kinetic energy.  The commenter also expressed concern that
existing very light hot air airships are robust enough to accommodate
two large persons plus the systems and structures for a powered LTA
aircraft.  The commenter did not provide any data to support the
position that the weight limit in the FAA’s proposal or the existing
airship design certification criteria for small airships used for sport
and personal recreation are unnecessarily burdensome.  The FAA believes
that the requirements of part 21 and the guidance contained in FAA
publication FAA-P-8110-2, “Airship Design Criteria” are appropriate
for the manufacture and design of airships as large as that proposed by
the commenter.

Several commenters stated that the FAA’s proposed weight limit for the
light-sport aircraft definition had the effect of eliminating some
existing certificated aircraft that they believed were ideally suited
for the sport pilot rule.  One commenter’s opinion was that the FAA
strategically established the weight limit to favor the sale of new,
more expensive light-sport aircraft.  The FAA did not have such a
purpose in mind when it established its proposed light-sport aircraft
weight limit.  Also, in establishing the light-sport aircraft, FAA did
not intend to promote existing certificated aircraft.  When the FAA
initially set the proposed limits for the light-sport aircraft
definition, the FAA did not look at currently built aircraft, either
with type certificate approval or in the amateur-built aircraft
marketplace.  The FAA’s proposed definition was to address aircraft to
be designed and built for the sport pilot, rather than addressing
existing aircraft for currently certificated pilots.

A commenter stated that the proposed weight limit eliminates the
eligibility of many production aircraft, and seems to cater to homebuilt
aircraft.  The FAA disagrees with this opinion.  The reasons for the
weight limit were discussed in the proposal and were intended to
accommodate a wide variety of simple, low performance aircraft that have
no more than two occupants.  The FAA has explained elsewhere in this
section the reasons for its changes to the proposed weight limit in the
light-sport aircraft definition.  A few commenters noted that the
FAA’s originally proposed weight limit would result in some models in
a particular classic aircraft line being eligible for the light-sport
aircraft category, while other models in the same line would not be
eligible.  The FAA believes that this is evidence that the weight limit
for light-sport aircraft was not drawn with the intent of including or
excluding specific aircraft.

A commenter proposed that the FAA establish different weight limits for
single- and two-seat aircraft.  This would add an additional limiting
condition to the definition of light-sport aircraft.  The FAA disagrees.
 The weight is only one component of the definition.  The FAA believes
that its weight limit is appropriate for a two-seat aircraft.  One of
the main purposes of the light-sport aircraft definition is to provide
appropriate flight training aircraft for sport pilots.  The weight limit
proposed by the FAA is intended to accommodate aircraft designed for two
occupants.  The FAA does not have data that would support establishing a
reduced weight limit for single occupant aircraft.  The FAA notes,
however, that a manufacturer may choose to produce a single place
aircraft with a weight less than the maximum permitted by the rule.  A
commenter stated that the weight limit will preclude tricycle landing
gear on light-sport aircraft, and that will make light-sport aircraft
more difficult to operate by low-time pilots.  The FAA does not agree
that the weight limit will preclude tricycle gear light-sport aircraft.
The FAA is aware of tricycle-gear aircraft that meet the light-sport
aircraft weight limit.

A commenter proposed that the FAA’s weight limit should only apply to
powered parachutes and weight-shift-control aircraft, and that higher
weights should be permitted for airplanes in the light-sport aircraft
category.  The FAA disagrees that different weight limits should be
established for powered parachutes, weight-shift-control aircraft, and
airplanes.  However, the FAA agrees that the weight limit for
light-sport aircraft should be raised and has done so in the final rule.
 The FAA believes that the maximum weight limits established in the
light-sport aircraft definition will permit the design and manufacture
of two-seat airplanes suitable for operation by sport pilots.
Manufacturers of powered parachutes and weight-shift control aircraft
may manufacture aircraft that weigh less than the maximum weight limit
permitted by the light-sport aircraft definition.

Some commenters stated that low stall speed is more important than
aircraft weight.  The FAA agrees that low stall speed is important;
however, the FAA does not believe that the light-sport aircraft
definition should identify any one attribute of the definition as more
important than another.

Commenters recommended that sport pilots be permitted to fly aircraft
heavier than the FAA’s proposed weight limits with a logbook
endorsement.  Another commenter proposed that sport pilots with higher
experience levels be permitted to fly aircraft heavier than the FAA’s
proposed weight limits.  A different commenter said that for 5 years
following the adoption of the FAA’s proposal, sport pilots should be
permitted to fly existing general aviation training aircraft that are
within 120 percent of the limits established in the light-sport aircraft
definition.  The FAA disagrees that sport pilots should be permitted to
fly aircraft heavier than the weight limits for light-sport aircraft.
The FAA believes that a pilot operating aircraft above these weights
should have at least a private or recreational pilot’s certificate.
For further discussion on sport pilot training limits reference the
discussion titled “Flight Training and Proficiency Requirements” in
the section on Part 61 general issues.

Paragraph (2) Maximum airspeed in level flight with maximum continuous
power (VH)

	As discussed in more detail later in this section, the FAA always
intended that the light-sport aircraft definition would establish an
appropriate limiting maximum airspeed.  During the preliminary
discussions to set the design attributes proposed in the NPRM, the FAA
considered a range of limiting airspeeds.  When setting an appropriate
limiting maximum airspeed, the FAA took into account that:  (1) Training
requirements for the sport pilot certificate are based on the simplicity
of the aircraft’s operating characteristics; and (2) aircraft
certification requirements are based on a performance envelope
appropriate for a light-sport aircraft.

In constructing the light-sport aircraft definition, the FAA also took
into consideration three groups of aircraft that will be addressed by
this rule:  (1) Two-place ultralight-like aircraft that have been
operating under an exemption to part 103; (2) new light-sport aircraft
to be designed, manufactured and operated under this rule; and (3)
existing aircraft whose low performance capabilities would meet the
light-sport aircraft definition.  In the proposed rule, the FAA believed
that the 115 knots CAS VH limit met the two considerations in the
preceding paragraph and covered the range of aircraft described in this
paragraph.

Additionally, the FAA specifically requested additional input through
the light-sport aircraft online forum on methods to establish upper
limits for the light-sport aircraft definition.  To read the online
forum comments, go to the electronic docket address given above in the
section titled “Availability of Rulemaking Documents” and view item
number 2676 in Docket No. FAA-2001-11133.

	The FAA still believes that establishing a maximum airspeed in level
flight at maximum continuous power (VH) is the best way to limit
“high-end” capability of the powered light-sport aircraft.  With the
change to the light-sport aircraft definition permitting increased
weight, which may provide for the use of higher-powered engines, the FAA
is also increasing VH to 120 knots.  The FAA believes that this small
increase is appropriate for the revised light-sport aircraft definition
and remains consistent with the purpose that was the basis for the
originally proposed 115-knot CAS (VH) limit.  The FAA believes that the
training required for sport pilots operating light-sport aircraft over
87 knots (VH) addresses any training concerns and that the change in the
VH airspeed limit from 115 to 120 knots does not require any additional
training beyond what is established in the rule.

Some commenters believed that the proposed airspeed limitation, VH,
should be eliminated and some commenters state that unlimited maximum
speeds would not jeopardize safety.  A commenter said that the FAA
should impose other design limits or flight characteristics instead of a
maximum speed limit for light-sport airplanes.  One commenter
specifically asked why the FAA cares how fast the airplane can fly.  The
FAA disagrees that a maximum speed limit is unnecessary for light-sport
aircraft.  As stated in the NPRM, the FAA believes that a maximum speed
limit is appropriate for aircraft designed for operation by persons with
the minimum training and experience of a sport pilot.  Some commenters
state that the maximum speed limitation is essentially unenforceable.
For the purpose of issuing the special light-sport aircraft
airworthiness certificate, the FAA believes that the consensus standards
will identify an easily repeatable demonstration for the manufacturer to
prove that the aircraft meets the light-sport aircraft definition.  The
manufacturer will perform this test in support of its statement of
compliance.

One commenter stated that aircraft speeds vary with altitude, and the
light-sport aircraft definition did not state any FAA expectation
concerning this.  The FAA agrees with the comment, and is specifying in
the light-sport aircraft definition that performance limitations are
expected to be met for standard atmospheric conditions at sea level.

Commenters stated that the FAA’s proposed limit of 115 knots maximum
airspeed in level flight with maximum continuous power is unnecessary or
redundant because the aircraft weight and stall speed establish power
and wing loading, which effectively set drag that limits maximum speed.
One commenter proposed that a weight limit of 750 pounds for a
single-seat light-sport airplane would limit power and airspeed without
requiring a design constraint.  Alternatively, some commenters proposed
that the sport pilot accept an operating limitation to not operate at
speeds in excess of the FAA’s desired limit.  A commenter proposed
that a sport pilot operating limitation of 100 knots CAS in the airport
traffic pattern should be an alternative to the proposed light-sport
aircraft maximum airspeed limit.  The FAA believes that because of the
wide variety of aircraft to be included in the light-sport aircraft
definition, the use of airplane-based parameters is not adequate to
eliminate an upper limit on light-sport aircraft speed.  The FAA
requires a maximum speed limit to assure a light-sport aircraft design
that is compatible with the capabilities of a sport pilot.  However the
FAA disagrees with the use of operating limitations to prescribe
limitations on the aircraft definition.  Using operating limitations
instead of aircraft design limits may permit sport pilots to use
aircraft that exceed the parameters of the light-sport aircraft
definition.

Commenters requested that the FAA consider alternative maximum speed
limits, ranging from 120 to 187 knots CAS.  One commenter proposed that
the maximum airspeed limit should be 120 knots, so that 2 nautical miles
(NM) per minute would simplify navigation by pilotage.  The FAA
disagrees that simplifying navigation by pilotage would be an
appropriate justification; however, the FAA is increasing the maximum
speed value to 120 knots CAS from the 115 knots CAS originally proposed.
 As previously stated, the FAA believes this small increase is
appropriate for the revised definition of “light-sport aircraft,”
and it remains consistent with the original proposal.  The FAA does not
believe that this change will materially affect the population of
aircraft that are eligible to meet the definition of light-sport
aircraft.

Commenters stated that the proposed limit is unenforceable, because a
propeller pitch change can increase or decrease the airplane speed at
maximum power.  Some commenters asked if flat pitch propellers or engine
governors would be permitted as a way for an airplane to satisfy the
maximum airspeed constraint.  The FAA agrees that the manufacturer may
use flat pitch propellers or engine governors as part of the aircraft
design to demonstrate compliance with the light-sport aircraft
definition.  If an aircraft propeller or engine configuration causes the
aircraft to exceed the prescribed limitations, the aircraft will not be
considered to meet the definition of light-sport aircraft.  The FAA
notes that although it is not permitting variable pitch propellers, the
use of ground adjustable propellers is permitted.  The FAA expects the
airplane manufacturer to define the airplane configuration, using
critical parameters, when determining compliance with the light-sport
aircraft definition.  The FAA expects that the sport pilot will operate
the aircraft in the configuration that the manufacturer used to
demonstrate compliance with the light-sport aircraft definition.

Commenters stated that the proposed limit is impractical, because when
the airplane nose drops, it will accelerate and possibly exceed the
limit set by the light-sport aircraft definition.  The FAA disagrees
that the limit is impractical.  The proposed limit is for straight and
level flight only and should not be confused with a maximum operating
speed or a maximum dive speed.  The consensus standard for airplane
design and performance will assure that the aircraft structure has
adequate margins to be operated within its allowable speed range.

Several commenters stated that the same flying skills are needed for a
slower or a faster airplane.  The FAA disagrees and notes that the
skills necessary to operate an aircraft that exceeds 120 knots differ
from those skills necessary to operate a light-sport aircraft.  In
addition, the FAA requires a sport pilot to obtain additional training
to operate an aircraft with VH greater than 87 knots and less than 120
knots because different skills are necessary to operate these
light-sport aircraft with higher performance capabilities.  For further
discussion on training requirements reference “V.5.A.iii. Flight
Training and Proficiency Requirements” in the discussion of Part 61
general issues.

A commenter proposed that a different light-sport airplane category
permit faster airplanes, or that a sport pilot be permitted to operate
faster airplanes with a logbook endorsement.  The FAA disagrees that
sport pilots should be permitted to fly faster aircraft heavier than
permitted by the definition of light-sport aircraft.  The FAA believes
that a pilot operating aircraft above the speed in the definition should
have at least a private or recreational pilot’s certificate because
the FAA believes it would not be appropriate or safe for persons with
the minimum training and experience of a sport pilot to operate faster
or heavier aircraft.

A commenter stated that cruise speed has little to do with aircraft
energy when the aircraft is out of control.  The FAA notes that the
purpose of the limitation on speed is to make it easier for the sport
pilot to maintain aircraft control.  The FAA believes that, at higher