helicopter would be able to enter the light-sport market in greater
numbers,\108\ and there would be a corresponding demand for the ability
to safely maintain and inspect these aircraft. Therefore, the FAA
proposes to permit the issuance of maintenance ratings to the
rotorcraft category (i.e., gyroplane and helicopter classes).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \108\ Refer to preamble section IV.C. for discussion on the
expansion of eligibility requirements (proposed Sec.  22.100)
providing for the certification of additional classes of aircraft.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The FAA has determined that a rotorcraft category training course
is sufficient, rather than establishing mutually exclusive helicopter
and gyroplane courses. From a maintenance perspective, there is not a
substantial difference in systems on gyroplanes and helicopters. For
example, both gyroplanes and helicopters utilize an aircraft engine and
main rotor system which, from a maintenance perspective, are of similar
design and operation. Although there are other differences in operation
and in design, such as use of a tail rotor or propeller, the FAA
believes these differences can be covered in a single training course
that includes both types of aircraft. Additionally, because these
training courses require FAA acceptance, the FAA would verify in its
review process that the training includes the class-specific
differences within the rotorcraft category. Therefore, all persons
seeking repairman certificates (light-sport) with a maintenance rating
for rotorcraft category privileges (i.e., gyroplane or helicopter)
would be trained on both classes within the category.
    Additionally, given the proposed change, as subsequently discussed,
to differentiate between categories of light-sport category aircraft,
the FAA proposes to permit the issuance of inspection ratings to the
rotorcraft category (i.e., gyroplane, which could already be issued,
and helicopter). The FAA has determined existing holders of a gyroplane
inspection rating would already have the knowledge and skills for
performing the annual condition inspection on aircraft in the
rotorcraft category due to the aforementioned similarities and limited
scope of privileges with the inspection rating. The FAA notes that
current holders of a repairman certificate (light-sport aircraft) with
an inspection rating with gyroplane class privileges would not need to
be reissued a certificate. However, if the airman requested either a
replacement certificate, or additional aircraft category privileges for
the same certificate, the FAA would amend the ``gyroplane'' class
privilege to a ``rotorcraft'' category privilege at the time the
permanent certificate is issued.
7. Inspection Ratings Privileges and Limitations
    Existing Sec.  65.107(b)(2) establishes the privileges for
repairman certificates (light-sport aircraft) with an inspection
rating. Specifically, under Sec.  65.107(b)(2), a person may perform
the annual condition inspection if the aircraft has been issued an
experimental certificate under Sec.  21.191(i), with certain
conditions.\109\ Should this proposal be adopted as a final rule, the
FAA finds that the language in Sec.  65.107(b)(2) could result in a
situation where an individual was issued a repairman certificate
(light-sport aircraft) with an inspection rating specific for a former
light-sport category aircraft (experimental purpose under proposed
Sec.  21.191(i)), and the aircraft could later be re-certificated as a
light-sport category aircraft (special airworthiness certificate under
Sec.  21.190). In this scenario, if the aircraft was later re-
certificated in accordance with Sec.  21.190, that repairman's
certificate, which states the aircraft N-number and serial number could
allow the repairman to continue to conduct the annual condition
inspection on that aircraft. The FAA did not intend to allow for
repairman with an inspection rating to conduct an annual condition
inspection on aircraft certificated under Sec.  21.190.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \109\ The aircraft must also be owned by the holder and must be
in the same class of light-sport aircraft for which the holder
completed the requisite training.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Therefore, the FAA proposes to remove the phrase ``been issued'' to
clarify that to perform the annual condition inspection on an aircraft
it must currently have an experimental certificate for the certain
operating purposes, as set forth in Sec.  65.109(a)(2) (pursuant to the
proposed reorganization of Sec. Sec.  65.107 and 65.109, as previously
discussed). This change would require that to exercise the privileges
of the repairman certificate (light-sport) inspection rating, the
aircraft must have the appropriate experimental certificate.
8. Duration of Repairman Certificates
    Section 65.15 prescribes the duration of effectivity of
certificates issued under part 65. Specifically, pursuant to Sec.
65.15(a), a certificate or rating under part 65 is effective until
surrendered, suspended, or revoked, but excludes repairman certificates
from these duration parameters. Section 65.15(b) provides the duration
for repairman certificates, which includes those issued in accordance
with Sec. Sec.  65.101, 65.104, and 65.107. Those certificates are
effective, unless sooner surrendered, suspended, or revoked, until the
holder is relieved from the duties for which the holder was employed
and certificated.
    Employment is a requirement specific to repairman certificates
issued in accordance with Sec.  65.101. Specifically, Sec.  65.101(a)
requires an applicant be employed for a specific job, and Sec.
65.103(a) limits a repairman to conducting work only in connection with
duties for the certificate holder by whom the repairman was employed
and recommended. Different durations apply to certificates issued under
Sec.  65.104, repairman certificates (experimental aircraft builder),
and under Sec.  65.107, repairman certificates (light-sport aircraft).
Section 65.101(b) excepts those certificates from the general
eligibility requirements of Sec.  65.101, which includes the employment
requirement. In other words, there is no employment requirement for
those certificates. Therefore, Sec.  65.15(b) cannot be applied with
respect to the aforementioned repairman certificates because
eligibility, privileges, and limitations of these two types of
repairman certificate do not have any association with an employer.
    The FAA proposes to revise Sec.  65.15(a) and (b) to distinguish
the effective period of repairman certificates issued under Sec.
65.101 from that of certificates issued under Sec. Sec.  65.104 and
65.107. Specifically, proposed Sec.  65.15(a) would except only those
repairman certificates issued in accordance with Sec.  65.101 from the
stated duration. In other words, repairman certificates issued in
accordance with Sec. Sec.  65.104 and 65.107 would be effective until
the certificate is surrendered, suspended, or revoked. Additionally,
Sec.  65.15(b) would specify the duration of repairman certificates

issued in accordance with Sec.  65.101 to be the effective until the
repairman is relieved from the duties for which the repairman was
employed and certificated (unless the certificate is sooner
surrendered, suspended, or revoked).
    The FAA also proposes to remove the reference to March 31, 2013, in
Sec.  65.15. That date referenced a compliance date that has since
passed and, as such, is no longer necessary. In July 2003, the FAA
discontinued issuing paper airman certificates and began issuing
counterfeit-resistant plastic permanent airman certificates. In 2008,
the FAA issued a final rule that restricted airmen other than flight
crewmembers (regulated under 14 CFR part 65) from exercising the
privileges of a paper certificate five years from the effective date of
the final rule.\110\ After the five-year period (i.e., March 31, 2013),
only an FAA-issued plastic airmen certificate could be used to exercise
these privileges. Since March 31, 2013, has passed, the FAA is removing
this grace period from the regulations as superfluous. Therefore,
except for temporary certificates issued under Sec.  65.13, the holder
of a paper certificate issued under part 65 may not exercise the
privileges of that certificate. Removing the March 31, 2013, date from
the regulation simplifies the regulation and removes a date that no
longer has significance; in other words, this is a non-substantive
revision in nature with no practical repercussions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \110\ Drug Enforcement Assistance, Final Rule, 73 FR 10662,
(Feb. 28, 2008).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

9. Repairman Certificate: Privileges and Limitations
    Section 65.103 provides the privileges and limitations for a
repairman certificate issued under Sec.  65.101. Currently, Sec.
65.103(c) excepts holders of a repairman certificate (light-sport
aircraft) from this requirement while that repairman is performing work
under that certificate. Section 65.103(a) provides certificate
privileges appropriate to the job for which the repairman was employed
and certificated, limiting that repairman to duties only in connection
with the certificate holder who employed and recommended the repairman.
Section 65.103(b) further limits the repairman to only performing or
supervising duties for which the repairman understands the current
instructions of the certificate holder by whom the repairman is
employed. This language indicates that paragraphs (a) and (b) are only
applicable to repairman certificates issued in accordance with Sec.
65.101, which is the only repairman certificate type that has
requirements relating to employment.\111\ However, the FAA notes that
Sec.  65.103 also does not apply to a repairman certificate issued in
accordance with Sec.  65.104 (experimental aircraft builder repairman).
Accordingly, the FAA is proposing to amend Sec.  65.103(c) to state
that Sec.  65.103 does not apply to the holder of a repairman
certificate issued in accordance with either Sec.  65.104 (experimental
aircraft builder) or Sec.  65.107 (light-sport).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \111\ See Sec.  65.101(a)(2).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

G. Maintenance

    Currently, light-sport aircraft are subject to the maintenance
requirements of Sec.  91.327. This rule would revise the maintenance
requirements for light-sport category aircraft in Sec.  91.327
regarding safety directives and major and minor repairs and
alterations, as described in the subsequently discussed proposals.
Additionally, the FAA is proposing conforming changes to Sec. Sec.
91.417, 65.85, and 65.87.
1. Safety Directives
    Section 91.327(b)(4) states no person may operate an aircraft that
has a special airworthiness certificate in the light-sport category
unless the owner or operator complies with each safety directive
applicable to the aircraft that corrects an existing safety-of-flight
condition. The FAA considers that a separate regulatory requirement to
comply with safety directives issued by the aircraft manufacturer is
unnecessary, therefore the FAA proposes to remove this requirement. The
FAA expects that manufacturers would still issue safety directives when
necessary to correct a safety-of-flight condition because the
applicable FAA-accepted consensus standards would continue to direct
the aircraft manufacturer to issue safety directives to correct safety-
of-flight conditions. Additionally, Sec.  91.7 prohibits any person
from operating a civil aircraft unless it is in an airworthy
condition.\112\ The FAA considers that where a manufacturer has issued
a safety directive to correct a safety-of-flight condition, the
condition would need to be corrected before the aircraft could be
considered in airworthy condition. Similarly, if there is a safety-of-
flight condition that has not been corrected, the aircraft cannot pass
its annual condition inspection required by Sec.  91.327(b)(2).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \112\ For example, see F3198-18--Standard Specification for
Light Sport Aircraft Manufacturer's Continued Operational Safety
(COS) Program and F2483-18e1 Standard Practice for Maintenance and
the Development of Maintenance Manuals for Light Sport Aircraft and
F2483-18e1--Standard Practice for Maintenance and the Development of
Maintenance Manuals for Light Sport Aircraft.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Because this proposal removes Sec.  91.327(b)(4) requiring
compliance with safety directives, the FAA is proposing to remove the
corresponding record keeping requirement for safety directives in Sec.
91.417(a)(2)(v). Current Sec.  91.417 specifies the records that must
be kept by each registered owner or operator of an aircraft.
Specifically, Sec.  91.417(a)(2)(v) requires that records contain the
current status of applicable safety directives, including, for each,
the method of compliance, the safety directive number and revision
date. If the safety directive involves recurring action, the record
must also state the time and date when the next action is required. The
safety directive record keeping requirement in Sec.  91.417(a)(2)(v)
exists because Sec.  91.327(b)(4) currently requires owners and
operators to comply with safety directives. Therefore, the FAA proposes
to remove the record-keeping requirement to maintain records of safety
directives. The FAA considers that a regulatory requirement under Sec.
91.417 to document safety directives is unnecessary because maintenance
performed on aircraft under Sec.  43.9 or Sec.  43.11 would still have
record-keeping requirements.
2. Minor Repairs and Minor Alterations
    Section 91.327(b)(5) currently requires that each alteration
accomplished after the aircraft's date of manufacture meets the
applicable and current consensus standard and has been authorized by
either the manufacturer or a person acceptable to the FAA.\113\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \113\ 69 FR 44854. As discussed in the 2004 final rule, the FAA
stated, for the purpose of Sec.  91.327, ``a person acceptable to
the FAA'' includes: (1) the manufacturer that issued the statement
of compliance, (2) any person who has assumed, and is properly
exercising, the original manufacturer's responsibility for carrying
out the continued airworthiness procedures described in the
consensus standard, (3) The holder of an FAA-approved technical
standard order (TSO) authorization, parts manufacturer approval
(PMA), type certificate (TC), or supplemental type certificate (STC)
for a product or part installed on the aircraft, and (4) Any person
authorized by the manufacturer to produce modification or
replacement parts in accordance with the applicable consensus
standard addressing ``qualification of third-party modification or
replacement parts.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The FAA has determined that the language in Sec.  91.327(b)(5) does
not allow for a certificated repairman (light-sport), an appropriately-
rated mechanic, or an appropriately-rated part 145 certificated repair
station to perform

minor alterations as otherwise permitted in Sec.  91.327(b)(1) without
the authorization of the manufacturer or person acceptable to the FAA.
Certificated persons who are already authorized under Sec.
91.327(b)(1) and part 43 to perform minor alterations, may be prevented
from doing so because of the language in Sec.  91.327(b)(5).
    The FAA proposes to revise Sec.  91.327(b)(5) to require that minor
repairs and minor alterations meet the applicable design and
performance requirements, and allow the persons listed in Sec.
91.327(b)(1) to perform minor repairs and minor alterations without
obtaining authorization from the manufacturer or a person acceptable to
the FAA.
    This proposed change is consistent with part 43 governing minor
repairs or minor alterations. For example, 14 CFR part 43 prescribes
rules governing the maintenance, preventive maintenance, rebuilding,
and alterations performed on aircraft and is applicable to any light-
sport category aircraft. Under this proposal, minor repairs and minor
alterations would not require specific authorization of the
manufacturer or other person acceptable to the FAA, but rather must
meet the performance requirements of part 43, including Sec.  43.13.
Additionally, since minor repairs and minor alterations must already be
performed in accordance with the Sec.  91.327(b)(1) requirement to use
maintenance and inspection procedures developed by the aircraft
manufacturer or a person acceptable to the FAA, the FAA considers it
unnecessary to require additional authorization before minor repairs or
minor alterations can be performed. Finally, this proposal provides
some relief to aircraft owners and operators because they would not
have to receive authorization from the aircraft manufacturer, or
another person acceptable to the FAA to perform a minor repair or minor
alteration.
    The proposed Sec.  91.327(b)(5) would also require that each minor
repair and minor alteration meet the applicable consensus standards
specified in the statement of compliance submitted to the FAA for the
aircraft. Part 43 prescribes performance rules for these aircraft.
Specifically, Sec.  43.13(b) requires work to be performed in such a
manner and use materials of such a quality, that the condition of the
aircraft, airframe, aircraft engine, propeller, or appliance worked on
will be at least equal to its original or properly altered condition
(regarding aerodynamic function, structural strength, resistance to
vibration and deterioration, and other qualities affecting
airworthiness). Requiring the aircraft meet the applicable and current
consensus standards listed on the aircraft's statement of compliance
after either a minor repair or a minor alteration would be consistent
with Sec.  43.13(b). Finally, the FAA proposes that Sec.  91.327(b)(5)
would no longer contain language concerning alterations being
``accomplished after the aircraft's date of manufacture.'' By
definition, an aircraft could only be operated after it has been
manufactured. As such, including the phrase ``accomplished after the
aircraft's date of manufacture'' is not necessary and could
unintentionally cause confusion.
    The FAA notes that this rule also proposes two changes to Sec.
43.13. First, the FAA proposes to eliminate the use of gender-specific
terminology that exists in Sec.  43.13(a). Second, the FAA proposes to
remove the paragraph heading that exists in current Sec.  43.13(c) to
ensure consistency with Sec.  43.13(a) and (b), which do not use
headings. The FAA also proposes minor editorial changes to Sec.
43.13(c). These proposed changes would not alter the substantive
requirements that are contained in Sec.  43.13.
3. Major Repairs and Major Alterations
    Section 91.327(b)(6) currently requires that each major alteration
to an aircraft product produced under a consensus standard is
authorized, performed and inspected in accordance with maintenance and
inspection procedures developed by the manufacturer or a person
acceptable to the FAA. The FAA is proposing to revise this section by
adding the term ``major repair,'' removing the statement ``to an
aircraft produced under a consensus standard,'' and adding language to
clarify that the required authorization to perform a major repair or
major alteration must be provided by the manufacturer or a person
acceptable to the FAA.
    The proposed Sec.  91.327(b)(6) text will require that each major
repair or major alteration is authorized by the manufacturer or a
person acceptable to the FAA. It will retain the existing requirement
that each major alteration be performed and inspected in accordance
with maintenance and inspection procedures developed by the
manufacturer or a person acceptable to the FAA. The proposal will add
that same requirement to major repairs. The following discussion
explains these changes in more detail.
    First, Sec.  91.327(b)(6) establishes requirements for major
alterations but is silent on major repairs. The FAA is proposing to add
``major repairs'' to this provision to require major repairs also be
authorized by the manufacturer or a person acceptable to the FAA. The
proposed rule would also require that major repairs be performed and
inspected in accordance with maintenance and inspection procedures
developed by the manufacturer or a person acceptable to the FAA. The
proposal is consistent with how major repairs are applied to type-
certificated aircraft with one difference. Although a major repair on a
type-certificated aircraft must be done in accordance with technical
data approved by the Administrator (Sec.  65.95(a)(1)), such
Administrator approved data does not exist for a light-sport category
aircraft and so a major repair on a light-sport category aircraft built
to a consensus standard that meets the requirements of part 22 should
be done only after authorization from the manufacturer. Therefore, the
proposal requires the major repair must be authorized by the
manufacturer and performed and inspected in accordance with maintenance
and inspection procedures developed by the manufacturer, or a person
acceptable to the FAA. Additionally, related provisions in part 65,
specifically Sec. Sec.  65.85 and 65.87, reference both major
alterations and major repairs.
    Second, the FAA proposes to remove the language ``to any aircraft
produced under a consensus standard'' from Sec.  91.327(b)(6) as
unnecessary. Section 91.327 applies to the operating requirements of
aircraft that have a special airworthiness certificate in the light-
sport category. Separately, pursuant to proposed Sec.  21.190(d)(6)
manufacturers must state that these aircraft are built to a consensus
standard. Therefore, reading Sec.  91.327(b)(6) and the proposed Sec.
21.190 together, it is clear that aircraft in the light-sport category
must be built to a consensus standard. As a result, the language
referencing consensus standards is unnecessary because all aircraft
subject to Sec.  91.327(b)(6) would have to be produced under a
consensus standard. Therefore, the FAA proposes to remove this language
from Sec.  91.327(b)(6).
    Third, regarding the manufacturer authorizing major alterations,
the FAA finds that current language could be clearer. Read strictly,
the current Sec.  91.327(b)(6) requires that each major alteration to
an aircraft is authorized in accordance with maintenance and inspection
procedures developed by the manufacturer or a person acceptable to the
FAA. However, such a reading points to authorizations being in
accordance with maintenance and

inspection procedures. A major repair or major alteration must be
authorized by the manufacturer or a person acceptable to the FAA
because the aircraft is built to a consensus standard that meets the
requirements of part 22. The manufacturer is best suited to determine
if the aircraft will continue to meet the means of compliance with the
consensus standard following a major repair or major alteration.
Additionally, a major repair or major alteration must be performed and
inspected in accordance with maintenance and inspection procedures
developed by the manufacturer or a person acceptable to the FAA.
4. Changes to Certificated Mechanic Privileges
    Currently, Sec.  65.85(b) allows a certificated mechanic with an
airframe rating to approve for return to service an airframe (or
related part or appliance) of an aircraft with a special airworthiness
certificate in the light-sport category, after a major repair or major
alteration, provided the work done was performed in accordance with
instructions developed by the manufacturer or a person acceptable to
the FAA.\114\ Similarly, under Sec.  65.87(b), the same privileges
apply to a certificated mechanic with a powerplant rating for return to
service a powerplant or propeller (or related part or appliance).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \114\ 69 FR 44847. This rule change gives the airframe or
powerplant-rated mechanic the same privilege to perform and inspect
major repairs and major alterations on special light-sport aircraft
that this rule grants a repairman (light-sport aircraft) with a
maintenance rating.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Under proposed Sec.  91.327(b)(6), no person may operate an
aircraft that has a special airworthiness certificate in the light-
sport category unless each major repair or major alteration is
authorized by the manufacturer or a person acceptable to the FAA and is
performed and inspected in accordance with maintenance and inspection
procedures developed by the manufacturer or a person acceptable to the
FAA. Sections 65.85(b) and 65.87(b) currently do not align with the
proposed Sec.  91.327(b)(6) in a way that would require that a mechanic
does not approve an airframe or powerplant for return to service with
an unauthorized major repair or alteration. Performing the major repair
or major alteration in accordance with instructions developed by the
manufacturer or a person acceptable to the FAA may not sufficiently
verify the aircraft or engine meet the proposed Sec.  91.327(b)(6)
requirement. Therefore, the FAA is proposing to add language to
Sec. Sec.  65.85(b) and 65.87(b) that requires, in addition to the
existing requirement regarding instructions, the mechanic determine the
major repair or major alteration is authorized by the manufacturer or a
person acceptable to the FAA.\115\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \115\ See section V.F.1 for additional changes, technical in
nature, proposed to Sec. Sec.  65.85 and 65.87.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

H. Operations

1. Aircraft Holding a Special Airworthiness Certificate in the Light-
Sport Category
    In general, Sec.  91.327 does not currently allow a person to
operate an aircraft with a special airworthiness certificate in the
light-sport category for compensation or hire. However, Sec.  91.327(a)
does include two exceptions to this general prohibition against
operations for compensation and hire: conducting flight training and
towing a glider or an unpowered ultralight vehicle in accordance with
Sec.  91.309 are both permissible.
    The FAA has received several petitions for exemptions and numerous
industry requests related to increased opportunities for using light-
sport category aircraft for compensation or hire.\116\ These requests
demonstrate significant public interest in expanding the use of light-
sport category aircraft for compensation or hire.\117\ Industry groups
argue that light-sport category aircraft for certain aerial work for
compensation and hire would be in the interest of public safety. For
example, industry groups state that some of the public safety interests
involve the safety of people and structures on the ground due to light-
sport category aircraft being generally quieter, slower, and more agile
than aircraft with standard airworthiness certificates. The FAA has
considered industry requests, as well as the use of FAA-accepted
consensus standards that can provide an appropriate level of safety,
and the FAA agrees that limited expansion of the use of light-sport
category aircraft for compensation and hire is in the public interest.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \116\ See Exemption granted to Operation Migration from 14 CFR
61.113(a), 91.319(e), and 91.327(a), April 30, 2014, Exemption No.
10984, Docket No. FAA-2013-1075, available online at https://www.regulations.gov/document/FAA-2013-1075-0004.
    \117\ Dan Johnson & Roy Beisswenger. Modernizing Rules for Sport
Pilots and Light Sport Aircraft:1.0 Aerial Work for Light-sport
Aircraft, (June 2018), Retrieved from LAMA Report Modernizing
LSA.pdf.
    Dan Pimentel, ``Will MOSAIC Allow LSAs To Do More: The industry
has lobbied the FAA to allow light sport aircraft to perform more
aerial work tasks,'' Flying Magazine, (May 20, 2022), https://www.flyingmag.com/will-mosaic-allow-lsas-to-do-more/.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As previously stated, the FAA does not explicitly define aerial
work. The FAA broadly interprets the term to mean work done from the
air for compensation that does not involve the carriage of persons or
property.\118\ The FAA proposes to add a new paragraph in Sec.  91.327
to allow for operation of light-sport category aircraft for aerial work
for compensation or hire. The proposed amendment will allow light-sport
category aircraft to conduct limited aerial work operations.
Additionally, the proposed changes to the rule would not waive or
provide exception from any of the provisions required by 14 CFR part
119 or any other rule requiring an air operator certificate. To be
allowed to operate under the proposed amendment, light-sport category
aircraft would be required to meet applicable requirements under Sec.
21.190 concerning aerial work.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \118\ See supra note 25 and accompanying text.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The FAA proposes amending Sec.  21.190 to address aerial work
operations, which would be designated by the manufacturer in the
consensus standards accepted by the Administrator for airworthiness
certification of light-sport category aircraft. The FAA proposes the
addition of Sec.  21.190(c)(3), which requires the manufacturer to
include a list in the pilot's operating handbook of any aerial work
operations that may be safely conducted using the aircraft. The
proposed Sec.  21.190(c)(3) requires the aforementioned list to also be
included in the manufacturer's statement of compliance. The proposed
amendments applicable to light-sport category aircraft will result in
aircraft that must meet consensus standards for aerial work operations.
When a light-sport category aircraft meets an FAA-accepted consensus
standard, including one specific to aerial work, a light-sport category
aircraft should provide an equivalent level of safety in comparison to
aircraft that undergo the type-certification processes that are
currently allowed to conduct aerial work. As such, this proposed change
will allow aerial work to be conducted in parallel with the proposed
changes applicable to airworthiness certification of Sec.  21.190
aircraft.
    The FAA recognizes that this is an ever-evolving field and seeks to
not inhibit future innovation. As such, the proposed approach would not
prescribe types of aerial work but would rather provide a path for a
proven risk-based assessment of current and future aerial tasks. The
agency does not propose relaxation of any of the existing regulatory
safeguards that relate to aerial work operations, such as the minimum
safe altitude, minimum safe distance,

and minimum safe speed restrictions in part 91 and restrictions
surrounding dispensing of chemicals in part 137. If an operator seeks
to conduct aerial work operations that exceed existing rules, operators
must obtain regulatory relief in the form of a Certificate of Waiver,
Letter of Authorization, or an exemption.
    The FAA anticipates that the proposed expansion of aerial work,
along with the proposed amendments applicable to light-sport category
aircraft, could lead to an increased interest in aerial work that
involves carrying higher numbers of occupants. The FAA is proposing the
addition of Sec.  91.327(f)(1) and (2) to address these concerns. The
proposed language states that no person may operate an airplane
certificated as a light-sport category aircraft when carrying more than
four occupants, including the pilot. Additionally, the proposed
language states that no person may operate a light-sport category
aircraft other than an airplane when carrying more than two occupants,
including the pilot. The FAA does not have sufficient data for
expanding the number of persons onboard an aircraft other than an
airplane. The proposed addition of Sec.  91.327(f)(1) and (2) does not
change the restriction on certificated sport pilots not carrying more
than two persons, including the pilot. Pilots with higher grades of
certification will be able to operate light-sport category aircraft
with the higher number of occupants allowed under the proposed Sec.
91.327(f)(1) and (2).
    The current definition of light-sport aircraft in 14 CFR 1.1 limits
the seating capacity to no more than two persons, including the pilot.
The proposed rules would expand this to a four-person occupancy limit
for airplanes certificated as light-sport category aircraft and a two-
person occupancy for light-sport category aircraft other than
airplanes. The proposed rules are expected to lead to larger light-
sport category aircraft. The larger size, along with the proposed
expansion of aerial work, could result in situations where there are
occupants who do not require a seat. The FAA has decided that a
measured approach that limits the number of occupants on an aircraft is
safest in the near term, as it will prevent situations where operators
attempt to carry as many passengers that will physically fit in the
aircraft. In light of the safety continuum, as discussed in section
IV.C.5, the FAA has proposed a limit of four-person occupancy for
light-sport category airplanes and two-person occupancy for light-sport
category aircraft other than airplanes because that is consistent with
the maximum seating capacity in proposed Sec.  22.100(a)(1) and (2).
This is not a prohibition of persons being carried who are not in
seats, but rather a limitation on the total number of occupants,
including both those who are in seats and those who are otherwise
restrained.
2. Aircraft Holding Experimental Airworthiness Certificates
    Section 91.319(c) currently authorizes the Administrator to issue
special operating limitations for particular aircraft holding
experimental airworthiness certificates to conduct takeoffs and
landings over densely populated areas or in congested airways. The
terms and conditions specified in the authorization must be in the
interest of safety in air commerce. The regulation only applies to
takeoffs and landings; it does not currently authorize operating
limitations to cover other flight segments. The current regulation
presents difficulties for operators, as they can obtain special
operating limitations for takeoff and landing, but not for any
operations between takeoff and landing. Due to urban sprawl, it has
become increasingly difficult for operators to avoid operating over
densely populated areas.
    To address inconsistencies and possible operator difficulties in
the continuation of all flight segments, the FAA proposes to amend
Sec.  91.319(c) to allow the Administrator to grant operating
limitations to certain aircraft with experimental certificates to
conduct operations over densely populated areas or in congested
airways, including, but not limited to, takeoffs and landings. This
proposed amendment will allow the Administrator to issue special
operating limitations that allow all phases of flight and expands the
types of operations over densely populated areas or in congested
airways.\119\ The FAA anticipates such operating limitations will only
be issued in certain circumstances, as described in subsequent
paragraphs. The general prohibition against experimental aircraft
operating over densely populated areas or in congested airways will
continue to apply under the proposed amendment to all aircraft that do
not hold these special authorized operating limitations. When issuing
such operating limitations, the FAA will consider several factors
(discussed in subsequent paragraphs), including whether the aircraft in
question is one of proven design and has records for continued
operational safety.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \119\ 49 U.S.C. 44701 et seq.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    With consideration of the continual safety trend of aircraft
holding experimental certificates, there are several reasons why an
operator may seek special operating limitations for their aircraft to
conduct operations over densely populated areas or in congested
airways, including, but not limited to, takeoffs and landings. One
example involves operators conducting flights and other operations to
show compliance with airworthiness regulations under Sec.  21.191(b).
An operator may need to takeoff, land, and operate over densely
populated areas or in congested airways to show compliance for the
issuance of type and supplemental type certificates and to show
compliance with the function and reliability requirements of the
airworthiness regulations. Other examples of when operators may seek
these operating limitations over densely populated areas or in
congested airways is to conduct market surveys, sales demonstrations,
or customer crew training for U.S. manufacturers of aircraft or
engines. Lastly, operators conducting research and development of new
equipment installations, operating techniques, or aircraft uses may
seek special operating limitations to conduct those operations over
densely populated areas or in congested airways.
    The Administrator will consider many factors when determining which
aircraft, certificated under Sec.  21.191, may be issued the operating
limitations to operate over a densely populated area or in congested
airways. The Administrator may grant operating limitations to certain
aircraft with experimental certificates that demonstrate significant
safety attributes and records for continued operational safety, which
enable them to operate over densely populated areas. Even though there
is a broad variety of experimental aircraft with differing levels of
safety and risk, the process of issuing experimental aircraft
airworthiness certificates is an established process for all
experimental aircraft. Not all aircraft that hold experimental
certificates are true ``experiments,'' as that term is commonly
understood. While the term ``experimental'' is used to describe these
aircraft, that does not automatically mean they lack evidence of
continued operational safety or a strong safety record. A significant
number of aircraft hold experimental airworthiness certificates and,
while some of these aircraft lack sufficient evidence of safety to be
issued the proposed operating

limitations, many aircraft holding experimental certificates have
consistently demonstrated safe operational records. For instance, there
are large manufacturing companies performing market survey operations,
in accordance with FAA certification processes and significant
operating oversight.
    The FAA recognizes that some aircraft holding experimental
airworthiness certificates pose overly significant risk to the general
public and will not consider extending the proposed operating
limitations to those aircraft. At a minimum, the FAA expects that all
aircraft who are issued the proposed operating limitations, including
any attached appliances, will conform to airworthiness requirements and
any applicable airworthiness directives. Additionally, the FAA
anticipates that the proposed operating limitations would not be issued
to experimental aircraft that have had alterations or appliances that
have not been adequately tested by the original manufacturer. In order
to determine whether an aircraft with alterations or appliances would
be able to obtain this operating limitation, the FAA would consider all
facts presented by the operator, as well as procedures described in FAA
guidance, including FAA Order 8130.2. This is similar to the process
used for issuing operating limitations currently. Such procedures would
be developed following this rulemaking and would be made available for
public comment prior to adoption.
    Some amateur and kit-built aircraft may be able to obtain the
proposed operating limitations to operate over densely populated areas
or in congested airways, although the FAA currently has no intention of
considering original or plans-built designs for issuance of these
operating limitations. Depending upon the type of kit and the
aircraft's similarity to its kit model, the FAA may consider granting
these operating limitations to certain kit-built aircraft because of
the high level of consistency among kit-built aircraft.
    There are specific aircraft features that the FAA may consider
before issuing operating limitations to operate over densely populated
areas or in congested airways. First, the FAA is concerned about the
increased risk that results from an aircraft that has a single point of
failure. When an experimental aircraft has a single point of failure,
such as the loss of a single hydraulic in an aircraft that uses that
system for flight controls, flight will become unrecoverable. Such
aircraft will not be eligible for the proposed operating limitations,
as they have a higher risk to persons and property on the ground.
Having redundant systems increases safety for persons and property on
the ground. Second, the FAA is concerned about the increased risk from
allowing aircraft with ejection seats or detachable external stores to
operate over densely populated areas. If an aircraft is equipped with
an ejection seat, deployment of that seat over a densely populated area
would significantly increase risk to persons on the ground. Similarly,
if a detachable external store fails and detaches from the aircraft
while operating over densely populated areas, there would be
significant risk to persons on the ground. The aforementioned examples
are some attributes that would cause the FAA to consider not issuing
the proposed operating limitations, but the examples are not an
exhaustive list.
    Beyond the aircraft conforming to original airworthiness
requirements and having adequately tested alterations and appliances,
the FAA may also consider actions taken by the operator to decrease
risk. For example, the FAA views an aircraft that has completed a
structured, task-based phase I testing process as potentially posing a
lower risk over densely populated areas and in congested areas.
Therefore, these aircraft could be recipients of the proposed operating
limitations. Phase I flight testing is the initial flight-testing
period for a newly assembled aircraft. All experimental aircraft
seeking an airworthiness certificate must complete initial flight
testing. Structured ``task-based'' testing provides the operator and
the agency with consistent and reliable data for these aircraft.
Several methods of phase I testing are available. One method is to
develop and execute a ``task-based'' phase I flight test plan to obtain
an airworthiness certificate. Completing a successful task-based phase
I flight test plan process results in a document specific to the
aircraft, as compared to an aircraft that has not completed a
structured phase I flight test plan process and has only completed the
minimum required flight time option and maintenance record entry.
Additionally, the completion of a task-based phase I flight test plan
is one action the operator can take that may decrease risk to persons
and property on the ground during operations over densely populated
areas.\120\ The FAA anticipates that aircraft granted the proposed
operating limitations may be subject to additional requirements, such
as increased maintenance requirements, in order to establish an
equivalent level of safety.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \120\ See FAA Order 8130.2J, Airworthiness Certification of
Aircraft, Appendix D, Table D-1, Operating Limitations (July 21,
2017).
     See FAA Advisory Circular 90-89C, Amateur-Built Aircraft and
Ultralight Flight Testing Handbook. (February 14, 2023).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

3. Space Support Vehicles
    This rule would implement language in Section 581 of the FAA
Reauthorization Act of 2018 (the Act), which authorizes certain
aircraft holding experimental certificates to conduct space support
vehicle flights. The Act provides definitions for ``space support
vehicle'' and ``space support vehicle flight.'' The Act also adopted 49
U.S.C. 44737, which provides the rules for space support vehicle
flights. To maintain consistency with the congressional language, the
FAA proposes to adopt the same language used in section 44737. The FAA
is also proposing regulatory amendments necessary to integrate the
statutory language into 14 CFR.
    As defined in the Act, a space support vehicle is an aircraft that
is a launch vehicle, a reentry vehicle, or a component of a launch or
reentry vehicle. As stated in the statute, only aircraft holding
experimental certificates that are also a launch vehicle, a reentry
vehicle, or a component of a launch or reentry vehicle can be
considered space support vehicles. Under this proposed rule, the
definitions from the statute will be added to 14 CFR part 1 to
facilitate implementation of that law. The FAA does not intend to
create a new experimental purpose for space support vehicles to operate
under in this rule. Instead, space support vehicles would conduct space
support vehicle flights under an existing Sec.  21.191 experimental
purpose, such as research and development or crew training.
Additionally, the Act requires that space support vehicles must be
owned by or operated on behalf of a licensed launch or reentry vehicle
operator.
    Space support vehicle flights are distinct from licensed launch or
reentry operations. Per the Act, an operator may conduct space support
vehicle flights only to simulate space flight conditions in support of
training for potential space flight participants, government
astronauts, or crew; the testing of hardware to be used in space
flight; or research and development tasks, which require the unique
capabilities of the aircraft conducting the flight. Additionally, the
aircraft conducting the space support vehicle flight is required to
take off and land at a single site that is licensed for operation under
51 U.S.C. chapter 509.

    Per the Act, the operator of an aircraft may conduct space support
vehicle flights under an experimental airworthiness certificate
carrying persons or property for compensation or hire. These flights
may include carriage of persons or property for compensation or hire
without obtaining an exemption to operating rules or a certificate to
conduct air carrier or commercial operations. In contrast, operators
seeking to conduct such activities for other experimental purposes must
obtain an exemption to operating rules or a certificate to conduct air
carrier or commercial operations.
    The FAA proposes to amend Sec.  91.319 in two ways in order to
integrate space support vehicle flights into the operations regulations
for aircraft holding experimental certificates. First, to implement the
statutory authorization for space support vehicles, the FAA proposes
the addition of Sec.  91.319(k). This proposed addition will allow the
operator of an aircraft with an experimental airworthiness certificate
to operate the aircraft for the purpose of conducting a space support
vehicle flight. Second, the FAA proposes to amend Sec.  91.319(a) to
reflect the addition of paragraph (k).
    To implement the statutory mandate in the Act, the FAA also
proposes the addition of a new section addressing operating limitations
for space support vehicle flights. This proposed new section, Sec.
91.331, provides general operating requirements applicable to aircraft
holding experimental certificates that will conduct space support
vehicle flights. Section 91.331 would establish the same operating
requirements as provided in the Act, which includes the requirements
related to where takeoff and landing are to occur; who can conduct the
operation; which vehicle can be used; and the purposes for which the
vehicles can be used for. There will be only one change, as section
44740(b)(1)(A) refers to ``a single site that is operated by an entity
licensed for operation under chapter 509 of title 51.'' Since the only
sites licensed by the FAA under title 51 of the United States Code are
launch and reentry sites, proposed Sec.  91.331(a)(2)(1) would instead
refer to ``a single launch or reentry site that is operated by an
entity licensed to operate the launch or reentry site under 51 U.S.C.
chapter 509.''
    Upon receipt of a request for an operating limitation to conduct a
space support vehicle flight, the FAA would consider whether the
requirements of proposed Sec.  91.331 are met. While it would be
relatively easy to determine if certain elements of proposed Sec.
91.331 are met (such as whether the location of takeoff and landing is
a qualifying launch or reentry site), others would require a more
intensive, fact-specific approach. For example, if the operator wants
to conduct space support vehicle flights for the purpose of research
and development tasks, the FAA will analyze the specific facts
proffered by the operator to determine whether the research and
development tasks require the unique capabilities of the aircraft
conducting the flight, as required by the proposed Sec.  91.331. If the
operator wants to conduct a space support vehicle flight for the
purpose of training potential space flight participants, government
astronauts, or crew, the operator would need to demonstrate that such
persons have taken sufficient steps towards becoming space flight
participants, government astronauts, or crew. The FAA would develop
guidance to assist operators in developing their space support vehicle
flight proposals, such as guidance related to what constitutes a unique
capability of the aircraft and what documentation should be provided to
support the status of a space flight participant, government astronaut,
or crew. The FAA also proposes to amend Sec.  119.1(e) by adding a new
paragraph, paragraph (e)(12), to allow for the operation of such
aircraft for the purpose of conducting a space support vehicle flight
under the requirements of the proposed Sec.  91.331. The proposed
addition of Sec.  119.1(e)(12) would add language to exclude space
support vehicle flights from the requirements of part 119 relating to
air carrier certificates. The addition of Sec.  119.1(e)(12) is
necessary in order to implement section 581 of the Act in the
regulations.
4. Right-of-Way Rules
    Section 91.113 provides the right-of-way rules for operations other
than those conducted on water. The right-of-way rules instruct pilots
on how they must respond to other aircraft they encounter and are based
on the category of aircraft or the operational scenario. Pilots must be
vigilant to see and avoid other aircraft; and as always, aircraft in
distress have the right-of-way over all other air traffic. The current
regulation outlines specific categories of aircraft that a balloon, a
glider, or an airship have right-of-way over when converging at
approximately the same altitude (except head-on, or nearly so). By
explicitly naming specific categories of aircraft, the current Sec.
91.113(d)(2) and (3) do not provide information for how operators of
other categories of aircraft not listed in Sec.  91.113 are expected to
comply with the intent of the rule. This may lead to confusion,
especially for those operators of aircraft that are not explicitly
included in the current Sec.  91.113.
    The FAA proposes to amend Sec.  91.113(d)(2) and (3) to update the
language by replacing the lists of aircraft in paragraphs (d)(2) and
(3) with the broader term ``powered aircraft.'' These proposed
amendments remove specific categories to include other powered aircraft
not included in the existing rule, as the current rule is too narrow.
The new language uses the term ``powered aircraft'' to include those
categories. These amendments clarify the language in Sec.  91.113(d)
where aircraft are categorized for the purpose of describing which
aircraft has the right-of-way when approaching another aircraft on a
converging course. Right-of-way rules maintain the privilege of less
maneuverable aircraft to safely proceed with priority over more
maneuverable aircraft in the NAS. The proposed Sec.  91.113(d)(2)
continues to give gliders right-of-way over powered aircraft.
Additionally, the proposed Sec.  91.113(d)(3) continues to give
airships right-of-way over all other powered aircraft, except for those
powered aircraft that are towing or refueling another aircraft.
Balloons will continue to have the right-of-way over any other aircraft
category.
    Finally, for consistency and clarity, the proposed language updates
the previous language of the paragraph describing engine-driven
aircraft to ``powered aircraft.'' The FAA chooses the term ``powered
aircraft'' instead of ``engine driven'' to better convey the inclusion
of aircraft that may have non-traditional forms of propulsion,
including electric propulsion.
5. Operations at Airports in Class G Airspace
    Section 91.126 provides requirements for operations on or in the
vicinity of an airport in Class G airspace, including the direction of
turns when approaching the airport, flap settings, and communications
with air traffic control towers. Currently, Sec.  91.126(b) requires
that, when approaching to land at an airport without an operating
control tower in Class G airspace, each pilot of a helicopter or a
powered parachute must avoid the flow of fixed-wing aircraft. This
requirement only addresses helicopters and powered parachutes. It does
not currently consider other types of aircraft that may require access
to these airports. Since its adoption, the current regulation has
become inadequate in this regard, as it only addresses specific
aircraft and does

not consider emerging aircraft technologies, such as powered-lift.
    To address all other aircraft under these requirements, the FAA
proposes to amend Sec.  91.126(b)(1) to state that each pilot of a
powered fixed-wing aircraft and powered-lift aircraft operating in
wing-borne flight mode must make all turns of that aircraft to the left
unless the airport displays approved light signals or visual markings
indicating that turns should be made to the right, in which case the
pilot must make all turns to the right. The FAA is also proposing to
amend Sec.  91.126(b)(2) to require that each pilot of any other
aircraft must avoid the flow of the types of aircraft listed in
proposed Sec.  91.126(b)(1), specifically powered fixed-wing aircraft
and powered-lift aircraft operating in wing-borne flight mode. The term
``any other aircraft'' in proposed Sec.  91.126(b)(2) would include,
but would not be limited to, weight-shift aircraft, helicopters, and
powered parachutes. When powered-lift aircraft are operating in wing-
borne flight mode, they have similar flight characteristics as fixed-
wing aircraft. As such, the proposed language explicitly treats
powered-lift aircraft operating in wing-borne flight mode as fixed-wing
aircraft. However, powered-lift aircraft operating in vertical-lift
flight mode are not equivalent to fixed-wing aircraft and will
therefore not be treated the same. The purpose of this proposed
amendment is to address all aircraft that could be involved in
operations on or in the vicinity of an airport in Class G airspace.
    The proposed change would improve aircraft separation in the
interest of safety by considering operational needs, aircraft
configurations, and speeds to enhance avoidance of dissimilar aircraft.
While there are many kinds of aircraft that are now grouped together
under the proposed rule, those aircraft have similar flight and
maneuvering characteristics and therefore should be kept separate from
powered fixed-wing aircraft. Currently, non-powered, non-fixed-wing
aircraft (other than powered parachutes and helicopters, which are kept
separate under the current rule) are expected to operate in the same
traffic pattern as powered fixed-wing aircraft. By separating powered
fixed-wing aircraft from all other aircraft, this proposal intends to
reduce risk to all aircraft by limiting all non-powered, non-fixed-wing
aircraft from operating in the same traffic pattern as powered fixed-
wing aircraft.
6. Towing
    Section 91.309(a)(2) currently prohibits civil aircraft from towing
a glider or unpowered ultralight vehicle unless it is equipped with a
tow-hitch of a kind, and installed in a manner, which is approved by
the Administrator. When the FAA issued the 2004 final rule, the FAA
stated in the preamble that towing operations by light-sport aircraft
would be allowed. However, the 2004 final rule failed to actually amend
the regulation to address such operations. The FAA is proposing to
amend Sec.  91.309(a)(2) to clarify the addition of light-sport
category aircraft for towing operations and remedy the oversight in the
2004 final rule.
    The proposed language creates three paragraphs, each addressing a
separate combination of the category of airworthiness certificate
issued to an aircraft and whether that aircraft was issued a type
certificate. Additionally, each paragraph of the proposed regulations
addresses the certification requirements of the tow-hitch, as a
product/article to be installed on an aircraft, as well as the manner
of installation of the tow-hitch. The FAA uses the terms ``approved by
the Administrator,'' ``authorized by the Administrator,'' and
``acceptable to the Administrator'' in the following paragraphs. Table
3 summarizes the differences among the terms used in Sec.
91.309(a)(2).

                Table 3--Sec.   91.309(a)(2) Terminology
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Where Sec.   91.309(a)(2) uses . .
                 .                        The Proposal means . . .
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Approved by the Administrator       Part/article approval may be done
 (i.e., FAA-approved).               during the type-certification
                                     process under part 21, subpart B,
                                     the Supplemental Type Certificate
                                     (STC) process under part 21,
                                     subpart E, or the Parts Manufacture
                                     Approval (PMA) process under part
                                     21, subpart K.
                                    Installation approval may be done
                                     during the type-certification
                                     process under part 21, subpart B,
                                     the Supplemental Type Certificate
                                     (STC) process under part 21,
                                     subpart E, or the FAA's field
                                     approval process.
Authorized by the Administrator...  While there may be other methods of
                                     authorization, the FAA can
                                     authorize the installation of the
                                     tow-hitch in the operating
                                     limitations issued to the aircraft
                                     or using the FAA's field approval
                                     process.
Acceptable to the FAA.............  This term means the tow-hitch or
                                     installation is not necessarily
                                     privy to the FAA's review before
                                     its installation or use.
                                    FAA Advisory Circular (AC) 43.13-2B,
                                     Acceptable Methods, Techniques, and
                                     Practices--Aircraft Alterations
                                     contains acceptable methods for tow-
                                     hitch installations in Chapter 8.
                                     Consensus standards and
                                     manufacturers' maintenance manuals
                                     are also acceptable to the FAA.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    First, for those aircraft that hold a standard airworthiness
certificate, the proposed language requires that the tow-hitch is
approved by the Administrator. Additionally, the tow-hitch is required
to be installed in a manner approved by the Administrator. The proposed
language maintains the current requirement for aircraft holding
standard airworthiness certificates.
    Second, for those type-certificated aircraft that hold a special
airworthiness certificate, and for which the aircraft has been
previously issued a type certificate,\121\ the proposed language would
require the tow-hitch be of a kind that is approved or otherwise
authorized by the Administrator. Although these aircraft may have been
issued a special airworthiness certificate, the fact that the aircraft
was issued a type certificate means that the aircraft must continue to
meet its type design after an alteration to install a tow-hitch. A tow-
hitch installation for an aircraft issued a type certificate may be
done after the installation is FAA approved. This is the same
requirement that is currently imposed on aircraft with a standard
airworthiness certificate engaged in towing gliders or unpowered
ultralight vehicles. However, because these aircraft hold a special
airworthiness

certificate and are issued associated operating limitations, the FAA is
proposing an alternative to the tow-hitch and/or the installations
having FAA approval. Under the proposal, these aircraft may have a tow-
hitch and/or installation that is authorized by the Administrator using
some other manner, such as in the operating limitations issued to the
aircraft.\122\ In these instances, the FAA will verify that there will
be an equivalent level of safety when the Administrator authorizes a
tow-hitch or installation method.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \121\ For example, this could include aircraft in the limited,
primary, restricted, or provisional category, or aircraft issued an
experimental certificate for a purpose under Sec.  21.191(a) through
(f), when that aircraft has been previously issued a type
certificate.
    \122\ For example, if a person were using an aircraft that had
been issued a TC to test a tow-hitch design, the aircraft could be
issued an experimental certificate for the purpose of showing
compliance with the regulations. The FAA would authorize the
installation of the tow-hitch in the operating limitations issued to
the aircraft.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Third, for those aircraft that hold a special airworthiness
certificate, for which the aircraft has not been previously issued a
type certificate, the proposed language would allow for a tow-hitch of
a kind that is FAA approved. As an alternative to installing an FAA-
approved tow-hitch, the tow-hitch may instead be one that is acceptable
to the FAA. However, regardless of whether the tow-hitch is approved by
or acceptable to the FAA, the tow-hitch must be installed in a manner
acceptable to the FAA. As noted in the 2004 final rule, there is
historical precedent for towing operations by light-sport aircraft. The
FAA has determined that such operations can be conducted safely when
using a tow-hitch approved by the Administrator, so long as the tow-
hitch is installed in a manner acceptable to the Administrator. The
proposed language allows the option to install a tow-hitch that does
not have FAA approval because the aircraft itself was never subject to
an FAA approval process, as were those aircraft that were issued a type
certificate. Table 4 provides clarity of the proposed tow-hitch and
tow-hitch installation requirements in Sec.  91.309(a)(2).

  Table 4--Sec.   91.309(a)(2) Tow-Hitch and Installation Requirements
------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Aircraft in proposed Sec.          Tow-hitch       Tow-hitch manner
          91.309(a)(2)               certification      of installation
------------------------------------------------------------------------
(i) Aircraft holds a standard     FAA-approved......  Approved by the
 airworthiness certificate.                            Administrator.
(ii) Aircraft holds a special     FAA-approved or     FAA-approved; or
 airworthiness certificate; and    Otherwise           Otherwise
 The aircraft design was issued    Authorized by the   Authorized by the
 a type certificate.               Administrator.      Administrator.
(iii) Aircraft holds a special    FAA-approved; or    Acceptable to the
 airworthiness certificate; and    Acceptable to the   FAA.
 The aircraft design was not       FAA.
 issued a type certificate.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

7. Section 91.409 Clarifying Amendment
    Section 91.409 provides inspection requirements for aircraft
operation. The language under Sec.  91.409(c)(1) provides operational
inspection exceptions for specific aircraft airworthiness certificates
under Sec.  91.409. The FAA proposes to amend Sec.  91.409(c)(1) by
removing the first ``or'' and adding the words ``airworthiness
certificate'' following the word ``light-sport'' within the list of
special airworthiness certificates. The proposed Sec.  91.409(c)(1)
states that an aircraft that carries a special flight permit, a current
experimental certificate, a light-sport airworthiness certificate, or
provisional airworthiness certificate. This amendment would provide
better clarity, readability, and understanding for the operator for
proper use of the exception.

I. Experimental Airworthiness Certificates

1. Duration of Light-Sport Category Airworthiness Certificates
    Currently, Sec.  21.181(a)(3) states that a special airworthiness
certificate in the light-sport category will remain effective as long
as the aircraft meets the definition of a light-sport aircraft and the
aircraft conforms to its original configuration, except for those
alterations performed in accordance with an applicable consensus
standard and authorized by the aircraft's manufacturer or a person
acceptable to the FAA. Additionally, the aircraft must not have any
unsafe condition and not be likely to develop an unsafe condition. It
also must be registered in the United States.
    Under proposed Sec.  21.181(a)(3)(i), an aircraft issued an
airworthiness certificate in the light-sport category would have to
meet the eligibility criteria specified in proposed Sec.  21.190(b) for
its airworthiness certificate to remain effective. The specific
eligibility requirements would reflect the expanded scope and
performance of aircraft that could be certificated in the light-sport
category and are discussed in detail in sections IV.C. and IV.D. of
this preamble.
    Aircraft issued airworthiness certificates in the light-sport
category before the effective date of the final rule may not be able to
meet the requirements in proposed Sec.  21.190(b), as these aircraft
would have been designed and produced before the enactment of the
proposed requirements. Accordingly, proposed Sec.  21.181(a)(3)(iv)
would allow these aircraft to maintain their special airworthiness
certificates. The duration of airworthiness certificates issued for
these aircraft would remain unaffected provided the aircraft still meet
the parameters of the definition of light-sport aircraft found in
current Sec.  1.1 and the other applicable requirements discussed in
this section. The parameters that these aircraft would be required to
meet would be specifically listed in the proposed paragraphs
(a)(3)(iv)(A) through (M) and are identical to those contained in the
current definition of light-sport aircraft found in Sec.  1.1. They
would be specifically listed in the proposed regulation since the
current definition of light-sport aircraft containing those parameters
would be removed from Sec.  1.1.
    Proposed Sec.  21.181(a)(3)(ii) would revise the current
requirement specifying that for an airworthiness certificate in the
light-sport category to be effective the aircraft must conform to its
original configuration, except for those alterations performed in
accordance with an applicable consensus standard and authorized by the
aircraft's manufacturer or a person acceptable to the FAA. This
requirement would be revised to specify the aircraft must conform to
its original or properly altered configuration. The proposed revision
would conform the provisions of proposed Sec.  21.181(a)(3)(ii) to
another proposal in this NPRM which would revise Sec.  91.327 to no
longer require that the performance of minor alterations be authorized
by the manufacturer or a

person acceptable to the FAA. Accordingly, minor repairs and minor
alterations performed in accordance with acceptable methods, techniques
and practices that meet the provisions of the applicable consensus
standards and part 43 would result in an aircraft that would conform to
a properly altered configuration. Any minor repair or minor alteration
not performed in accordance with applicable consensus standards would
result in the aircraft not conforming to a properly altered condition.
    The proposal would also retain current provision in Sec.
21.181(a)(3)(iii) specifying that for the airworthiness certificates of
aircraft certificated in the light-sport category to remain effective
the aircraft must have no unsafe condition and not be likely to develop
an unsafe condition. The current requirement in Sec.  21.181(a)(3)(iv)
that these aircraft be registered in the United States for their
airworthiness certificates to remain effective would also continue to
remain applicable; however, since that requirement applies to all
aircraft issued airworthiness certificates, the FAA proposes that the
requirement is better placed in Sec.  21.181(a), where it would be
applicable to all airworthiness certificates.
2. Issue of Experimental Airworthiness Certificates
    In this proposed rule, the regulatory wording of Sec.  21.191 would
be revised from ``Experimental certificates are issued for the
following purposes:'' to ``Experimental airworthiness certificates are
issued for the following experimental purposes.'' ``Experimental
certificates'' would be changed to ``Experimental airworthiness
certificates'' to clarify that experimental certificates are
airworthiness certificates and that they are issued for the
experimental purposes listed in Sec.  21.191. The term ``purposes''
would be revised to ``experimental purposes'' to clarify that the
purposes in Sec.  21.191 are experimental. These changes are also being
proposed to align with a change in Sec.  21.175, which proposes to
clarify that special airworthiness certificates are issued for aircraft
operating for an experimental purpose.
    This rule proposes to retain Sec.  21.191(a) through (h), revise
Sec.  21.191(i), and add Sec.  21.191(j) and (k).
3. Operating Former Light-Sport Category Aircraft
    Currently Sec.  21.191(i), Operating light-sport aircraft, consists
of three sections. Each section was created for a particular type of
aircraft. The first section, identified in Sec.  21.191(i)(1), applies
to aircraft that have not been issued a U.S. or foreign airworthiness
certificate and do not meet the provisions of 14 CFR 103.1. These
aircraft are commonly referred to as ``fat ultralights.'' As provided
in Sec.  21.191(i)(1), an experimental certificate will not be issued
under this paragraph for these aircraft after January 31, 2008. As
such, the FAA is proposing to delete this requirement. The second
section, identified in Sec.  21.191(i)(2), applies to light-sport
aircraft that have been assembled from a kit in accordance with
manufacturer's assembly instructions that meet an applicable consensus
standard. The FAA is proposing to move this requirement to Sec.
21.191(j) as discussed in section IV.I.3. The third section, identified
in Sec.  21.191(i)(3), applies to aircraft previously issued an
airworthiness certificate in the light-sport category. This last
section would be retained in Sec.  21.191(i).
    This rule proposes to revise the heading of Sec.  21.191(i) from
``Operating light-sport aircraft'' to ``Operating former light-sport
category aircraft.'' This section would contain the same experimental
purpose as the current Sec.  21.191(i)(3), which includes aircraft that
have previously been issued a special airworthiness certificate in the
light-sport category under Sec.  21.190. Aside from the relocation from
Sec.  21.191(i)(3) to Sec.  21.191(i) and the revision of the heading,
this proposal would not further materially change this section.
    This rule would eliminate Sec.  21.191(i)(1) that allows for
airworthiness certification of ``fat ultralights.'' These aircraft have
not been issued a U.S. or foreign airworthiness certificate and do not
meet the provisions of 14 CFR 103.1. These aircraft were provided a
small timeframe in which they could be issued an airworthiness
certificate under this experimental purpose and that timeframe closed
on January 31, 2008, pursuant to Sec.  21.191(i)(1). As such, this
paragraph would be eliminated from this revised rule since these
aircraft can no longer be issued an airworthiness certificate under
this section.
4. Operating Light-Sport Category Kit-Built Aircraft
    This rule would create a new experimental purpose, ``Operating
light-sport category kit-built aircraft'' in Sec.  21.191(j),
specifically for light-sport category kit-built aircraft that are
currently being certificated under Sec.  21.191(i)(2). Aircraft
certificated under this experimental purpose would continue to include
those that have been certificated under Sec.  21.190 and assembled from
an aircraft kit in accordance with the manufacturer's assembly
instructions that meet an applicable consensus standard.
    The items the applicant must provide to apply for an experimental
airworthiness certificate for a light-sport category kit-built aircraft
currently exist in Sec.  21.193(e). This rule would relocate these
application items for light-sport category kit-built aircraft from
Sec.  21.193(e) to Sec.  21.191(j) with minor changes. Section
21.193(e)(1) requires evidence that an aircraft of the same make and
model was manufactured and assembled by the aircraft kit manufacturer
and issued a special airworthiness certificate in the light-sport
category. This proposed rule, in Sec.  21.191(j)(1), would clarify that
the issuance of a special airworthiness certificate in the light-sport
category would occur under Sec.  21.190.
    Section 21.193(e)(2) requires the applicant to provide a copy of
the aircraft's operating instructions and Sec.  21.193(e)(5) requires
the applicant to provide a copy of the aircraft's flight training
supplement. These requirements would be relocated to Sec.  21.191(j)(2)
in this rule and would change ``the aircraft's operating instructions''
and ``the aircraft's flight training supplement'' to ``the pilot's
operating handbook that includes a flight training supplement,'' to
standardize with terminology proposed for use throughout Sec.  21.190
and part 22 of this proposal.
    Section 21.193(e)(3) requires the applicant to provide a copy of
the aircraft's maintenance and inspection procedures. This requirement
would be moved to Sec.  21.191(j)(3) in this rule.
    Section 21.193(e)(4) requires the applicant to provide the
manufacturer's statement of compliance for the aircraft kit used in the
aircraft assembly that meets Sec.  21.190(c), except that instead of
meeting Sec.  21.190(c)(7), the statement must identify assembly
instructions for the aircraft that meet an applicable consensus
standard. This proposed rule would move this requirement to Sec.
21.191(j)(4) and clarify that the aircraft kit must comply with the
applicable requirements of Sec.  21.190 and part 22 in effect at the
time the aircraft kit was manufactured, except the statement of
compliance need not indicate compliance with Sec.  22.100 for flight
and ground testing in accordance with a production acceptance test
procedure. This change is necessary because this rule would contain the
applicable requirements throughout Sec.  21.190 that an applicant would
have to comply with in addition to the manufacturer's

statement of compliance. Additionally, design, production, and
airworthiness requirements that must be complied with would be in part
22 of this proposed rule.
    Finally, current Sec.  21.193(e)(6) requires an applicant for an
aircraft kit manufactured outside the United States to show evidence
that the aircraft kit was manufactured in a country with which the
United States has a Bilateral Airworthiness Agreement concerning
airplanes or a Bilateral Aviation Safety Agreement with associated
Implementation Procedures for Airworthiness concerning airplanes, or an
equivalent airworthiness agreement. This requirement would remain
unchanged in the proposed rule and relocated to Sec.  21.191(j)(5).

   Table 5--Proposed Changes to Sec.   21.191(i) Operating Light-Sport
                                Aircraft
------------------------------------------------------------------------
         Current purpose:                     Proposed purpose:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sec.   21.191(i)(1) (``fat-         Removed from Sec.   21.191;
 ultralights'').                     timeframe closed on January 31,
                                     2008.
Sec.   21.191(i)(2) (light-sport    Sec.   21.191(j) Operating light-
 kit).                               sport category kit-built aircraft;
                                     would include provisions from
                                     current Sec.   21.193(e).
Sec.   21.191(i)(3) (former Sec.    Sec.   21.191(i) Operating former
 21.190).                            light-sport category aircraft.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

5. Operating Former Military Aircraft
    This rule would create a new experimental purpose for former
military aircraft to be added as Sec.  21.191(k). To be eligible for an
experimental airworthiness certificate under the proposed rule,
aircraft would have to be manufactured, purchased, or modified under
contract by the U.S. Armed Forces or a foreign military. This proposed
requirement would establish the military history of the aircraft as a
prerequisite for eligibility under this section. The aircraft would
have to have been a military aircraft before the FAA would consider the
aircraft a former military aircraft. Under the proposed rule, unmanned
aircraft (UA) would be excluded from eligibility for an airworthiness
certificate under this purpose.
    This additional purpose is necessary to allow for flights conducted
by these aircraft between their public aircraft operations performed on
behalf of the Department of Defense (DOD). Since fiscal year 2015, the
DOD components have increased the use of air support contracts,
including contracting for more flying hours and expanding the number of
training locations, to address training requirements. DOD components
awarded almost $8.4 billion for air support contracts in fiscal years
2015 through 2021.\123\ These contracts provide non-military aircraft
and personnel to replicate the role of combat aircraft for various
training activities. DOD has used contracts to meet training needs,
address shortages in available military aircraft and crew members, and
manage costs.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \123\ Government Accountability Office, Report to the Committee
on Armed Services of the United States House of Representatives
(Dec. 2021), https://www.gao.gov/assets/gao-22-104475.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Many of these DOD operations involve contract air support
operations that use civilian contractor aircraft and personnel. Some
examples of contract air support operations are ordinance delivery,
target towing, aerial refueling, and aggressor training, in which
military pilots are provided with simulated adversaries to replicate
combat activities. Although contract air support aircraft have been
issued experimental airworthiness certificates for the purpose of
exhibition and crew training, there currently is no experimental
purpose available that adequately addresses the DOD's needs with regard
to contract air support. Although the operations conducted under the
contract with DOD may be conducted as public aircraft operations, any
operations the aircraft may perform that do not meet the statutory
requirements for public aircraft operations would be a civil aircraft
operation subject to FAA airworthiness requirements.
    Existing airworthiness requirements for experimental aircraft such
as exhibition and crew training also may not include the mitigations
appropriate to the operation of these aircraft. To date, former-
military aircraft seeking to conduct contract air support operations
typically have sought experimental airworthiness certificates for the
purposes of exhibition and crew training which the FAA has issued
accompanied by specific operating limitations developed for each
purpose in accordance with Sec.  91.319(i) and FAA Order 8130.2.\124\
As the DOD has increased its use of contract air support operations
over time, the FAA has become aware that issuing experimental
airworthiness certificates under the current available purposes may
result in a misalignment of the issued experimental purpose and the
operations being conducted. The proposed experimental purpose will
align the civil operations to be conducted and the purpose for which
these certificates are sought.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \124\ FAA Order 8130.2J, Airworthiness Certification of Aircraft
(July 21, 2017).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    To better allow these aircraft to operate as civil aircraft, the
FAA proposes to establish a new experimental purpose for former
military aircraft that would allow for three types of civil operation.
First, aircraft with this purpose would be able to fly the aircraft to
a base where repairs, alterations, or maintenance would be performed.
Aircraft often need to be taken to specific locations to have requisite
repairs, alterations, and maintenance, whether scheduled or
unscheduled. Second, aircraft with this purpose would be able to fly
the aircraft to a point of storage. When not being used for contract
air support operations, these aircraft are typically not housed on
military property and need to be kept in storage facilities that meet
certain security, size, and environmental requirements. As such,
allowing for flight between the contract air support operations and
where the aircraft are housed is necessary. Third, aircraft with this
purpose would be able to be repositioned for use under contract with
the DOD. Contract air support operations occur at various DOD
installations and within special use airspace, with the same aircraft
often being used for contract air support operations at different
locations. As the flight between the two locations would not be
considered a public aircraft operation, this purpose will cover the
relocation flight necessary for the aircraft to fulfill contractual
requirements. These purposes are also aligned with the types of
operations generally allowed under a special flight permit. Unlike a
special flight permit, however, this rule would allow these aircraft to
seek an experimental airworthiness certificate rather than get specific
permission for each such operation. The proposed experimental purpose
would enable the DOD to use contract air services more effectively and
enable the FAA to oversee the civil use of these aircraft more
efficiently. Such civil air support operations are

critical to the defense readiness of the United States. The three
authorizations proposed by the FAA provide a pathway for the DOD
contractors to conduct limited civil operations.
6. Application for Special Airworthiness Certificates Issued for
Experimental Purposes
    With the documentation requirements for light-sport category kit-
built aircraft proposed for relocation from Sec.  21.193(e) to Sec.
21.191(j), the remaining requirements in Sec.  21.193(a) through (d)
are those necessary for the application for an airworthiness
certificate for an experimental purpose. In accordance with these
proposed revisions, the heading of this section would be changed from
``Experimental certificates: general'' to ``Application for special
airworthiness certificates issued for experimental purposes.''
    Section 21.193(a) requires a statement, in a form and manner
prescribed by the FAA setting forth the purpose for which the aircraft
is to be used. This rule would omit the first half of this requirement:
``A statement, in a form and manner prescribed by the FAA . . .'' In
this proposed rule, Sec.  21.193(a) would require an applicant to
submit the experimental purpose for which the aircraft would be used
and Sec.  21.193(b) would require an applicant to submit enough
information to describe the planned operation, equipment, or test, as
applicable. Combined, these two requirements would necessitate more
than a ``statement'' from the applicant, as currently required by Sec.
21.193(a). The applicant would be required to provide the Sec.  21.191
purpose(s) for which application is being made as well as provide
enough data for the FAA to understand the scope, risks, and hazards of
the planned operations, equipment, or test, as applicable.
    Section 21.193(b) requires enough data (such as photographs) to
identify the aircraft when making application for an airworthiness
certificate for an experimental purpose. This proposed rule, in Sec.
21.193(e), would change this requirement by removing the phrase ``such
as photographs'' to clarify that other means of identification are
permitted.
    The FAA is not changing the requirement in Sec.  21.193(c) stating
that, upon inspection of the aircraft, any pertinent information found
necessary by the FAA to safeguard the general public must be submitted
by the applicant. In this proposal, this requirement would simply be
moved to Sec.  21.193(g).
    Section 21.193(d)(2) requires the applicant to submit the estimated
time or number of flights required for the experiment. This proposed
rule would keep this requirement in Sec.  21.193(c) but would make it
applicable only for an applicant seeking issuance of an experimental
airworthiness certificate for those experimental purposes specified in
Sec.  21.191(a) through (f). This change is necessary because the other
experimental purposes (i.e., operating amateur-built aircraft,
operating former light-sport-category aircraft, and operating light-
sport category kit-built aircraft) are not dependent upon time or
accomplishing a specific number of flights to validate their
experimental purpose. The experimental purposes of research and
development, showing compliance with regulations, crew training, and
market survey would all be subject to a certificate duration of three
years or less under this rule, or they could indicate the number of
flights it will take to complete their experiment or operation.
Applicants for the exhibition and air racing experimental purposes
would identify the number of flights, typically planned at events such
as airshows, movie or television productions, or air races. In this
section, the word ``experiment'' in Sec.  21.193(d)(2) would be changed
to ``operation'' in Sec.  21.193(c) of this rule to reflect that not
all the experimental purposes in Sec.  21.191(a) through (f) involve
experiments. Replacing ``experiment'' with ``operation'' more
accurately describes the flight operations of these experimental
purposes.
    The current requirement in Sec.  21.193(d)(3) for applicants to
submit the areas over which the experiment will be conducted when
applying for an airworthiness certificate for an experimental purpose
would move to Sec.  21.193(d) in this proposed rule. Consistent with
other requirements in this section in this proposed rule, the word
``experiment'' would be changed to ``flight'' to show that not all
experimental purposes involve experiments.
    Finally, current Sec.  21.193(d)(4) requires applicants for an
airworthiness certificate for an experimental purpose to provide three-
view drawings or three-view dimensioned photographs of the aircraft,
except for aircraft converted from a previously certificated type
without appreciable change in the external configuration. This proposed
rule, in Sec.  21.193(f), would omit the words ``aircraft converted
from'' to clarify that any previously type-certificated aircraft would
be excepted from this requirement if there was no appreciable change in
the external configuration.
    Proposed Sec.  21.193(h) would require applicants for an
experimental certificate under Sec.  21.191(i) operating former light-
sport category aircraft, and Sec.  21.191(j) operating light-sport
category kit-built aircraft, to demonstrate compliance with the
aircraft noise limits in 14 CFR part 36. If compliance cannot be
demonstrated using analytical data (i.e., the aircraft needs to be
flight tested), an applicant for either of these experimental purposes
would need to obtain an experimental airworthiness certificate for the
purpose of showing compliance with regulations to complete noise
testing before receiving airworthiness certification under the proposed
Sec.  21.191(i) or (j). Options for noise compliance are discussed in
section IV.K.
7. Changes to the Experimental Purpose of Market Survey
    Section 21.195(b) applies to manufacturers of aircraft engines and
Sec.  21.195(c) applies to persons who have altered the design of a
type-certificated aircraft. Both Sec.  21.195(b) and (c) have the
requirement for an aircraft, before alteration, to have been type
certificated in the normal, utility, acrobatic, commuter, or transport
category. This proposed rule would add aircraft type certificated in
the primary and restricted categories. This change would allow, for
example, a manufacturer or person to alter an aircraft, such as by
adding a new crop sprayer and install it in an aircraft that had been,
before alteration, type certificated in the restricted category for the
special purpose operation of crop spraying. This manufacturer or person
could demonstrate the new crop sprayer on a restricted category
aircraft to potential customers under the experimental purpose of
market survey. Currently, Sec.  21.195 does not contain requirements
applicable to these types of demonstrations in the primary and
restricted categories.
    Section 21.195(d) states that an applicant for an experimental
certificate under this section is entitled to that certificate if, in
addition to meeting the requirements of Sec.  21.193, the applicant has
established an inspection and maintenance program for the continued
airworthiness of the aircraft and showed that the aircraft has been
flown for at least 50 hours, or for at least 5 hours if it is a type-
certificated aircraft which has been modified. The FAA may reduce these
operational requirements if the applicant provides adequate
justification. This proposed rule would clarify that Sec.  21.195(a),
(b), or (c) determine the eligibility for the application of an
airworthiness

certificate for the experimental purpose of market survey and that
Sec.  21.195(d) is not a stand-alone eligibility criterion. To remedy
this common misconception, this rule would clarify that Sec.  21.195(d)
only applies when an applicant meets the requirements of Sec.  21.193
and any of the three criteria in Sec.  21.195(a), (b), or (c).
    In addition to the changes previously discussed, this rule proposes
to eliminate the use of gender-specific terminology that exists in this
section.
8. Noise Requirements
a. New Experimental Light-Sport Category Aircraft and Acoustic Changes
to Existing Experimental Light-Sport Aircraft
    This rule proposes that new experimental light-sport aircraft and
existing experimental light-sport aircraft that are altered in a manner
that changes their noise generation would be required to demonstrate
compliance with part 36. While the noise limits listed in the
appendices to part 36 would apply, the FAA is proposing different
methods of compliance depending on the complexity of the aircraft and
the availability of noise consensus standards. A more comprehensive
discussion of the need for this requirement and the options available
for airworthiness certification is presented in section IV.K.
    Aircraft certificated under current Sec.  21.191(i)(1) would be
excepted from meeting noise requirements, as discussed in section IV.K.
b. Experimental Light-Sport Category Kit-Built Aircraft
    The FAA proposes to apply the noise requirements of part 36 to
experimental light-sport aircraft kit-built aircraft when an
airworthiness certificate is applied for under Sec.  21.191(j). The
applicability and methods of compliance with part 36 are fully
discussed in section IV.K.
9. Aircraft Identification
    In Sec.  21.182(a), this rule would change the word ``his'' to
``the'' to make this sentence gender-neutral.
    When combined, the current Sec.  21.182(b) introductory text and
(b)(2) contain double-negative language that is confusing. This rule
would eliminate the double-negative language to add clarity. Section
21.182(b) currently states in part that paragraph (a) of this section
does not apply to applicants for the following: an experimental
certificate for an aircraft not issued for the purpose of operating
amateur-built aircraft, operating primary kit-built aircraft, or
operating light-sport aircraft. To apply this double-negative language
correctly, a person would have to determine the experimental purposes
not listed in Sec.  21.182(b)(2). These purposes include research and
development, showing compliance with regulations, crew training,
exhibition, air racing, and market survey. The proposed Sec.
21.182(b)(2) would instead list these applicable experimental purposes,
making comprehension much easier.
    A new experimental purpose, operating former military aircraft,
would be included under Sec.  21.182(b)(2), thereby excluding these
aircraft from compliance with the fireproof identification marking
requirements of Sec.  45.11. Former military aircraft were built under
U.S. or foreign military requirements, and it would be impractical and
extremely costly for them to have to retroactively comply with civil
fireproof identification marking requirements. Also, most former
military aircraft currently operating under FAA airworthiness
certificates are already excluded from fire-proof marking requirements
since they tend to operate under the experimental purposes of research
and development, crew training, or exhibition.

J. Restricted Category

1. General Changes to Airworthiness Certification of Restricted
Category Aircraft
    For type certification in the restricted category, Sec.
21.25(a)(1) currently requires an aircraft to meet the airworthiness
requirements of an aircraft category, except those requirements that
the FAA finds inappropriate for the special purpose for which the
aircraft is to be used. This proposed rule would specify that the
airworthiness regulations for primary or light-sport categories are not
acceptable for type certification in the restricted category. These two
categories were created after the restricted category regulations were
established and were not intended to be included for type certification
in the restricted category.
    Additionally, the airworthiness requirements for primary and light-
sport categories are not appropriate for use in restricted category
type certification. The primary category airworthiness regulations are
not designed to include all of the airworthiness standards in part 23
or 27, as applicable, while the airworthiness requirements for light-
sport category aircraft, as proposed in this rule, are based on the
design, performance, and production requirements in part 22. This
revision would preclude owners of primary category aircraft and light-
sport category aircraft from seeking certification of their aircraft in
the restricted category. Currently, the FAA is not aware of any owners
of primary category aircraft or light-sport category aircraft that have
requested their aircraft to be certificated in the restricted category.
As such, this proposed rule would result in the airworthiness
regulations for normal, utility, acrobatic, commuter, and transport
categories to be acceptable for use under the proposed restricted
category provisions in Sec.  21.25(a)(1).
    Also in this proposed rule, the term ``special purpose'' would be
replaced with ``special purpose operation'' in Sec.  21.25(a)(1) and
(2). This change would standardize the use of this terminology
throughout Sec. Sec.  21.25, 21.185, and 91.313 and FAA Order 8110.56B,
Restricted Category Type Certification, dated July 19, 2017 (``FAA
Order 8110.56B'').
    In general, Sec.  21.25(a)(2) addresses requirements for military
aircraft that could be type certificated in the restricted category.
This proposed rule would restructure Sec.  21.25(a)(2) by splitting
this section into three requirements, of which the latter two are new.
This restructuring would make this section easier to read. In this
proposed rule, the phrase, ``an Armed Force of the United States,''
would be replaced with ``the U.S. Armed Forces'' to align with
terminology used throughout 14 CFR part 21. Section 21.25(a)(2)(i)
would contain the existing requirement that the aircraft type was
manufactured in accordance with the requirements of, and accepted for
use by, the U.S. Armed Forces.
    To be eligible for restricted category type certificate under
proposed Sec.  21.25(a)(2)(ii), an aircraft type must have been
operated by a U.S. Armed Force since this provision is intended for
former aircraft types of a U.S. Armed Force. Aircraft that have only
been manufactured for and accepted by a U.S. Armed Force, but never
operated by that U.S. Armed Force, could have been manufactured and
accepted on behalf of other operators such as under foreign military
sales arrangements and, therefore, not truly be an aircraft type of a
U.S. Armed Force.
    Proposed Sec.  21.25(a)(2)(iii) would clarify that an aircraft must
be able to perform, or be modified to be able to perform, the special
purpose operation for which the aircraft is to be approved. Under the
current Sec.  21.25(a)(2), the requirements for what modifications are
permitted or required for type certification are not specified. This
has produced misconceptions that the aircraft can only be modified for
special purpose operation. Surplus military

aircraft may be type certificated to perform a special purpose
operation without any modification. Alternatively, modifications may be
made for other reasons, such as aircraft performance, reliability, or
safety enhancements.
2. Codification of Special Purpose Operations
    The existing list of special purpose operations in Sec.
21.25(b)(1) through (7) that are authorized for restricted category
aircraft have largely remained unchanged since 1964 (see 29 FR 14564,
October 24, 1964). This proposed rule would revise Sec.  21.25(b) by
codifying the special purpose operations that have been approved by the
FAA since 1964. Most of these special purpose operations have been
published in FAA Order 8110.56B.
    In this proposed rule, Sec.  21.25(b)(1) through (7) would continue
to contain the seven special purposes currently in Sec.  21.25(b)(1)
through (7) that include: agricultural, forest and wildlife
conservation, aerial surveying, patrolling, weather control, aerial
advertising, and other, as specified by the FAA. Additionally, the
associated special purpose operations for each special purpose would be
codified. For example, cloud seeding would be a special purpose
operation under the special purpose of weather control. This change
would align terminology in Sec.  21.25(b) with that used by the FAA in
the approvals for special purpose operations published in the Federal
Register. This change would also align this terminology with that used
in the certification basis section of type certificate data sheets and
supplemental type certificates, as well as with FAA policy in Order
8110.56 for restricted category aircraft.
    For Sec.  21.25(b)(1), this rule would add three agricultural
special purpose operations that have been previously approved by the
FAA: insect control, dust control, and fruit drying and frost control.
Frost control and fruit drying, also called protection of crops,
involve the use of an aircraft to circulate air over a field or orchard
to prevent frost from forming on the crops or to dry the fruit on the
orchard trees.
    For Sec.  21.25(b)(2), this rule would codify forest and wildlife
conservation special purpose operations that have been previously
approved by the FAA. These include aerial dispensing of fire-fighting
materials, fish spotting, wild animal survey, and oil spill response.
The special purpose of aerial dispensing of fire-fighting materials was
originally approved as ``aerial dispensing of liquids'' for fire-
fighting aircraft. However, this rule proposes to change the name to
aerial dispensing of fire-fighting materials to more closely align with
the regulatory language in 14 CFR 36.1.
    For Sec.  21.25(b)(3), this rule would codify aerial surveying
special purpose operations that include: aerial imaging, gas
exploration, atmospheric survey and research, geophysical and
electromagnetic surveys, oceanic surveys, and airborne measurement of
navigation signals. Gas exploration would be added as a special purpose
operation since it uses the same processes as the special purpose
operation of oil exploration, which has existed since 1964.
    Aerial imaging would replace photography as an aerial surveying
special purpose operation to clarify that specialized airborne sensing
or measuring equipment on the aircraft is a key component to perform
aerial surveying operations. Aerial imaging would permit new
technologies used to perform aerial surveying operations, such as light
detection and ranging, which is commonly known as LIDAR.
    For Sec.  21.25(b)(4), this rule would codify patrolling special
purpose operations that include: patrolling of railroads, patrolling of
harbors, and patrolling of data transmission lines and towers.
Patrolling of data transmission lines and towers is a new special
purpose operation that would be added to this rule because it involves
a similar process used for the special purpose operation of patrolling
power lines, which has existed since 1964.
    Finally, for Sec.  21.25(b)(7), this rule would codify other
special purpose operations that have been previously approved by the
FAA but are not categorized under the prior six special purposes. The
following special purpose operations would be added to Sec.
21.25(b)(7): rotorcraft external-load operations conducted under part
133, carriage of cargo incidental to the owner's or operator's
business, target towing, search and rescue operations, glider towing,
Alaskan fuel hauling, Alaskan fixed-wing external load operations, and
space vehicle launch support. This rule would move the existing
catchall, ``any other special purpose operation specified by the FAA,''
to become the last item in the list to indicate that the FAA may still
add special purpose operations in the future.
3. Corrections to Original Issuance of Restricted Category
Airworthiness Certificates
    Section 21.185(a) states that an applicant for the original issue
of a restricted category airworthiness certificate for an aircraft type
certificated in the restricted category, that was not previously type
certificated in any other category, must comply with the appropriate
provisions of Sec.  21.183. In this proposed rule, Sec.  21.185(a)
would be revised to remove ``original issue of'' because ``original''
specifies compliance with the applicable requirements of Sec.  21.183
only for the original issuance of a restricted category airworthiness
certificate. This causes confusion in situations wherein a restricted
category aircraft's airworthiness certificate has to be re-issued. For
example, a restricted category aircraft may require re-issuance of the
airworthiness certificate in situations where the airworthiness
certificate was lost or had become unreadable due to damage. This
proposed revision would account for both original and re-issuance of a
restricted category airworthiness certificate.
    Section 21.185(b) states that an applicant for a restricted
category airworthiness certificate for an aircraft type certificated in
the restricted category that was either a surplus aircraft of the Armed
Forces or previously type certificated in another category is entitled
to an airworthiness certificate if the aircraft has been inspected by
the FAA and found to be in a good state of preservation and repair and
in a condition for safe operation. Section 21.185(b), as proposed,
would be restructured to provide clarity and implement terminology
changes that align with the language used in other sections of this
chapter. For example, this section would add ``entitled to an
airworthiness certificate'' in the first sentence to align with other
sections of part 21, subpart H. Consistent with the changes previously
discussed in Sec.  21.25, terminology such as ``special purpose
operation'' and ``U.S. Armed Forces'' would be used in Sec.
21.185(b)(1) and (b)(2)(ii) respectively. Exclusion of aircraft
previously type-certificated in categories other than primary and
light-sport is proposed in Sec.  21.185(b)(2)(ii) and would be similar
to the exclusion proposed as discussed in the preamble for Sec.
21.25(a)(1).
    In addition to the changes previously discussed, this rule proposes
to eliminate the use of gender-specific terminology that exists in this
section.
4. Issuance of Multiple Airworthiness Certificates for Restricted
Category Aircraft
    This proposal would revise the heading of Sec.  21.187 by adding
``for restricted category aircraft'' to clarify that this section
applies only to restricted category aircraft.

K. Noise Certification of Aircraft That Do Not Conform to a Type
Certificate

    The FAA is proposing to amend the applicability of 14 CFR part 36
to make noise certification applicable to aircraft that do not conform
to a type certificate. Since noise certification requirements have
historically only been applied to type-certificated aircraft, this
rulemaking proposes the addition of a new Sec.  36.0 for aircraft that
do not conform to a type certificate to keep the requirements clearly
separated. Part 36 would apply on the effective date of the final rule.
Compliance would be required when a new special airworthiness
certificate is applied for, or by the continued use of a previously
issued airworthiness certificate when an alternation is made to an
aircraft that would affect the amount of noise it produces when
operating. The noise certification requirements proposed for an
aircraft that does not conform to a type certificate would not be
retroactive for any aircraft currently operating.
1. Noise Certification Background
    Pursuant to its authorizing legislation in 49 U.S.C. 44715, the FAA
has the responsibility to ``protect the public health and welfare from
aircraft noise.'' This responsibility came with broad authority to
adopt regulations and noise standards to carry out this mandate. When
promulgated in the 1970s, the FAA applied the part 36 noise
certification regulations when the agency issued type certificates.
This represented the provision in section 44715(a)(3) that acts as the
``floor'' for the FAA's duty to exercise its authority. The agency's
much broader authority over aircraft noise remains discretionary.
    Initially, the FAA determined that there was little value in
assessing the noise from aircraft that did not receive type
certificates. Those aircraft were originally found to be few in number,
and in many cases may have been a single aircraft of its kind. The
agency did not find value in requiring noise testing by single
operators, nor any value in the test data from a single model of an
aircraft that was allowed only limited operations; these were often
categorized under the general heading of experimental airworthiness
certificates.
    In the past two decades, the reality of the number of aircraft
operating that do not conform to a type certificate has overtaken those
historical presumptions. There are now tens of thousands of aircraft
that do not conform to type certificates, many of them nearly
identical, that have never been subject to noise testing or limits,
including aircraft that may be similar to or larger than aircraft with
type certificates that are already subject to the noise requirements.
The FAA did not anticipate the growth of aircraft that do not conform
to type certificates when the categories were created, and the noise
requirements did not keep pace with this growth of these categories
because they were based on historical use and expectations. The FAA can
no longer justify the exclusion of these aircraft and their noise
impact on communities under its statutory responsibility, nor can it
let the growth continue by changing the names or the categories. The
purpose of this rulemaking is to reorganize the issuance of special
airworthiness certificates to reflect the current realities of
certification, and it presents the opportunity to recognize and address
the noise created by these aircraft. This proposed expansion of the
applicability of part 36 acknowledges that noise certification is part
of the overall certification scheme for aircraft and is appropriate for
modernization as the agency modernizes its issuance of special
airworthiness certificates.
    The intent of this expansion of the applicability of part 36 is
focused on those categories and classes of aircraft that represent the
more recent expansion, rather than the aircraft that were traditionally
excepted from noise regulations. Aircraft that would remain excepted
from part 36 applicability include those traditionally determined
experimental, for example the proposed categories of research and
development, showing compliance, market survey, exhibition, air racing,
and amateur-built aircraft. Aircraft holding airworthiness
certification or seeking a new special airworthiness certificate in
these categories would not be included in part 36 applicability.
    Part 36 would not apply to light-sport category aircraft or
experimental light-sport category aircraft as long as their
airworthiness certificate was issued before the effective date of the
final rule and for as long as the aircraft remains unaltered. However,
any aircraft that would be certificated for the first time under
proposed Sec.  21.190 would be subject to noise requirements of part 36
at all weights. Part 36 would also apply to a current light-sport
category aircraft that incorporates an alteration that would routinely
be considered as requiring evaluation of the change for noise in
accordance with Sec.  21.93(b). That regulation is known as the
``acoustical change'' provision. However, because Sec.  21.93 only
applies to type-certificated aircraft the FAA finds the provision would
not be appropriate for aircraft that have no type certificate since
they have no original noise basis from which to evaluate a change. In
the proposed regulation, this type of change is referenced as an
alteration that would result in an acoustical change. In the context of
an aircraft that does not have a type certificate, such alteration
would likely be made by the airworthiness certificate holder for their
single aircraft. If an aircraft incorporates such an alteration, it
would be the responsibility of the airworthiness certificate holder to
comply with the requirements of part 36 for its aircraft, possibly for
the first time. For the purposes of discussion here, such alterations
almost always include a change in engine or propellers, a change in the
wing structure or material, significant additions to the fuselage or
fixed landing gear, increases in operating weight, and the attachment
of external equipment. Those alterations that incorporate a change that
would reduce the noise level created by the aircraft may also require a
demonstration of compliance with part 36, as it would establish a new
baseline for future changes.

       Table 6--Summary of Sec.   36.0 Applicability to Aircraft That Do Not Conform to a Type Certificate
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                    Applicable noise
     Aircraft certificated under        Aircraft applicability         regulation          Means of compliance
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
14 CFR 21.190 (through Sec.   22.175)  New aircraft or          Part 36 (Sec.   36.0)..  FAA-approved consensus
                                        Acoustic alteration of                            standard, applicable
                                        aircraft.                                         part 36 appendix, or
                                                                                other combination of
                                                                                requirements as
                                                                                approved by the FAA.

14 CFR 21.191(i) Operating former      New experimental light-  Part 36 (Sec.   36.0)..  FAA-approved consensus
 light-sport category aircraft; or      sport category                                    standard, applicable
 (j) Operating light-sport category     aircraft kits or                                  part 36 appendix or
 kit-built aircraft (through Sec.       Acoustic alteration of                            other combination of
 21.193(h)).                            experimental light-                               requirements as
                                        sport category                                    approved by the FAA.
                                        aircraft.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

2. What Noise Certification Does and Does Not Mean
    Although traditional noise certification of aircraft may evoke
impressions of burdensome testing and the potential for noise operating
limitations in certain areas, this is often not the case. Neither
comprehensive testing nor operating limitations are automatic when part
36 applies. At present, the only noise operating limitations in the
United States apply to jet aircraft.
    The primary emphasis on controlling aircraft noise is done by
assessing noise at its source, the aircraft itself, rather than
operations generally. This assessment occurs when noise is measured at
the time of type certification. Through the creation of noise limits
for various aircraft types and the development of measurement
procedures and methods that are relevant to day-to-day operation, the
FAA meets its primary statutory obligation to protect the public health
and welfare by assessing the noise profiles of aircraft as they are
developed, and by setting a defined noise limit with which an aircraft
must comply before it is given an airworthiness certificate and
permitted to operate. The limits are set based on weight, design, and
means of propulsion. There are a set of standards and limits for fixed
wing small airplanes, one for jets, one for helicopters, and one for
tiltrotors. As new aircraft types develop, the FAA gathers the
appropriate data to determine what is acceptable for noise production
by the aircraft type to fulfill the agency's statutory
responsibilities. These standards and their adoption into regulations
are how the FAA meets its obligation to protect public health and
welfare from aircraft noise is appropriately and consistently
administered.
    The noise certification requirements of part 36 are integrated into
the larger aircraft type and airworthiness certification processes that
assess safety. However, there is one significant difference between
safety and noise certification. Safety is maintained by continual
assessment of aircraft condition, and the FAA can address and require
correction of an unsafe condition by means such as an airworthiness
directive, which is a legally enforceable regulation adopted in
accordance with 14 CFR part 39. No such monitoring or correction
mechanism by the FAA exists for noise. This difference places
significant emphasis on the comprehensive evaluation of noise on a
level playing field at the one time the noise is measured at
certification. Since nothing in the regulations specifies any
particular means to control the noise of an individual aircraft, the
level playing field is maintained by specific test measurements of
aircraft noise at certification, one of demonstrating compliance and
equal enforcement of the standards. Part 36 requires that the noise
limits and reference conditions in part 36 be maintained when
demonstrating compliance, even if varied procedures are approved.
    Until now, noise certification has been required only for aircraft
that conform to a type certificate, although it is considered an
airworthiness characteristic of an individual aircraft. As discussed
earlier, the expansion of the domestic fleet to include routine
operations of aircraft that are not type certificated has caused the
FAA to re-evaluate its statutory responsibility and respond to the
increased noise burden from aircraft of all kinds. As is required by
the FAA's statutory mandate, the existing limits and procedures for
noise certification have been developed in a manner that considers the
economic reasonableness, technological practicability, and
appropriateness for the aircraft to which it would apply.\125\ These
criteria also guided the expansion of the noise certification
requirements proposed here.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \125\ 49 U.S.C. 44715(b).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Noise certification is also a different and separate process from
the FAA's assessment of the environmental impacts of noise when
operating, especially in certain localities. Such considerations are
assessed separately under different statutory and regulatory criteria
than noise certification, e.g., the National Environmental Policy Act
\126\ and other special purpose laws. While these environmental impacts
often refer to noise data gathered during part 36 noise testing, the
noise measurements themselves are made under separate FAA authority as
noted.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \126\ 42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As stated earlier, the noise certification process does not itself
create operational restrictions. Instead, each type of aircraft has a
noise limit established in part 36. Noise certification is a two-step
process used to test an individual aircraft (or model) using the
procedures of part 36. The first step is to measure the noise levels
created by an aircraft at different operating points. The second step
is to determine whether the noise levels measured during testing are
below the regulatory noise limit, demonstrating that the aircraft
complies with part 36. Since it does not require any specific
technology or equipment be installed on an aircraft, part 36 functions
as a performance standard; the test shows that as configured, an
aircraft is below or above the regulatory limit. Noise certification is
considered part of the overall airworthiness of an aircraft (Sec.
21.183), even if the noise levels of an aircraft are, in many cases,
established at the time of type certification for the convenience of
the manufacturer (e.g., Sec.  21.17). The regulations require that each
individual aircraft remains compliant with the noise standards,
indicating that noise compliance is tied to the airworthiness
certificate of an individual aircraft as it maintains compliance (see
Sec. Sec.  21.93, 21.183).
    As noted, there are no specific aircraft equipment requirements to
demonstrate compliance with part 36. An aircraft may incorporate any
equipment desired to stay below the noise limit established for that
aircraft. An aircraft that demonstrates compliance with part 36 must of
course meet the airworthiness requirements for safety as configured
when noise tested. Since aircraft noise is correlated to weight, noise
certification tests are conducted at the maximum takeoff weight (MTOW)

allowed by the airworthiness regulations for an aircraft. When an
aircraft at MTOW demonstrates that it remains below the noise limits in
part 36, that maximum weight for safe operation becomes an inherent
noise limitation (e.g., part 36, appendix B, section B36.7(b)(6)). If
an aircraft is altered in a way that it becomes louder, it results in
an acoustical change, and fairness requires that the aircraft be re-
assessed for its noise compliance because the noisiest certificated
configuration has changed (Sec.  21.93(b)).
    For large aircraft used in scheduled passenger flight operations,
the requirements for noise testing cover various operating modes such
as takeoff, flyover and approach. In essence, the noise certification
regulations become more sophisticated for aircraft that are larger,
heavier, more powerful, and more complex. But for aircraft that are
smaller and lighter, the certification criteria are likewise simpler,
such as a noise level measured at takeoff at maximum allowed weight, or
at a level overflight condition. Part 36 uses such configurations
during noise certification to represent the flight segments that
generally have the most noise impact. Historically, these measurement
points were adopted to represent aircraft flight segments that are most
noticeable by people on the ground.
    Noise certification is best viewed as a continuum, and despite that
aircraft noise is assessed according to weight and measured noise
output, the continuum has historically included only aircraft that
sought type certification. That historical application is changing. The
FAA's reassessment of its statutory obligations and the realities of
how aircraft get certificated for operation has led to the expansion of
part 36 applicability proposed here. This overall modernization of
airworthiness qualifications and categories in part 21 present a unique
opportunity for the FAA to modernize its noise responsibilities within
the framework of the various aircraft certification processes that
allow operation with or without type certificates. The FAA is aware
that type certification has long been avoided in part to skirt the
noise regulations. The FAA recognizes that its historical limitation of
noise certification to type-certificated aircraft has come to represent
a failing of the agency's duty to protect the public health and welfare
from aircraft noise as Congress intended.
    As noise certification expands to cover aircraft that do not have
type certificates, the FAA is open to consideration of different
procedures and certification paths that will both meet its statutory
obligations and allow for less burdensome and more streamlined
compliance for newly affected airworthiness certificate holders. Those
compliance mechanisms are proposed in Sec.  36.0.
    The first step in current noise certification process is the
determination of the appropriate certification basis. Typically, the
FAA determines which existing part 36 category applies to the aircraft,
depending on its design and expected operation. Once the part 36
category is determined, the next step is to determine the noise limits
and methods of compliance (reference conditions and test procedures)
from the corresponding subpart and appendices of part 36. The applicant
would then develop a noise certification test plan that includes these
methods, get the plan approved by the FAA, conduct the required noise
measurements, and submit its noise certification report for the FAA's
review and approval. Together these steps constitute the applicant's
demonstration of compliance.
    For aircraft that do not conform to a type certificate, this
proposed rule introduces more flexibility for the methods of
compliance. Nothing has changed for aircraft that apply for a type
certificate that are required to show compliance under existing
regulations. Nothing about this proposal for aircraft that do not