aircraft, other environmental airworthiness requirements are required
to be met such as for flight in icing conditions, cockpit and external
lighting for night operations, and flight in turbulent or gusty wind
conditions. Additionally, balloons manufactured in accordance with the
airworthiness requirements of part 31 must be suitably protected, as
set forth in Sec.  31.39, against deterioration or loss of strength in
service due to weathering, corrosion, or other causes.
    Proposed Sec.  22.105 would meet the level of rigor the FAA
considers appropriate for light-sport category aircraft and its place
on the safety continuum between amateur-built aircraft and normal
category aircraft. Currently accepted consensus standards for light-
sport category aircraft generally do not address design characteristics
to accommodate environmental conditions. This is largely the result of
these aircraft being limited to operating in day, visual meteorological
conditions (VMC). The single major exception can be found in ASTM
standard F2245, ``Standard Specification for Design and Performance of
a Light Sport Airplane,'' for light-sport category airplanes, which
provides for the installation of internal and external lights for the
conduct of night operations in VMC.
    As a result of the expansion in the performance and capabilities of
aircraft that would be certificated as light-sport category aircraft
under the proposal, the FAA would require light-sport category aircraft
designs, structures, and systems to account for the effects of any
environmental conditions expected to be encountered while in operation.
Examples of environmental conditions that should be accommodated in the
aircraft design include heat, cold, precipitation, sunlight, darkness,
gusty winds, and turbulence. In this proposal, performance expansions
would enable light-sport category aircraft to be equipped with engines
and systems capable of flight under instrument flight rules (IFR) in
IMC. Additionally, state-of-the-art avionics systems could be installed
in these aircraft which would require aircraft designs to provide for
the necessary heating and cooling of this electronic equipment.
Aircraft designs that fail to accommodate extreme temperature limits of
systems may lead to operations outside the environmental limits of
critical components, which could adversely affect control of the
aircraft.
    Aircraft designs must also protect occupants from experiencing
inappropriate environmental conditions within the aircraft that could
significantly affect their well-being or adversely affect pilot
performance. While the effects of heat and cold are well known, designs
should also consider other factors such as reducing the effects of
windshield glare that could impair pilot vision both inside and outside
the aircraft.
    The recommended operating instructions and limitations to safely
accommodate all environmental conditions and abnormal procedures likely
to be encountered in the aircraft's intended operations, such as gusty
winds, contaminated runways, turbulence, icing conditions, or excessive
temperatures, would be required to be specified in the pilot's
operating handbook, as proposed in Sec.  21.190(c)(2)(i) of this
proposal. These requirements are proposed for the safe operation of the
aircraft within the environmental parameters for which it is designed
to operate.
6. Suitability and Durability of Materials
    Proposed Sec.  22.130 would require that the suitability and
durability of materials used for products and articles account for
likely environmental conditions expected in service, the failure of
which could prevent continued safe flight and landing.\26\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \26\ As defined in part 21, product means an aircraft, aircraft
engine, or propeller. Article means a material, part, component,
process, or appliance. Appliance is defined in Sec.  1.1 and means
any instrument, mechanism, equipment, part, apparatus, appurtenance,
or accessory, including communications equipment, that is used or
intended to be used in operating or controlling an aircraft in
flight, is installed in or attached to the aircraft, and is not part
of an airframe, engine, or propeller.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Materials used for aircraft components and structures would need to
meet the rigors of all operations within the aircraft's flight envelope
for the life of the aircraft, or for the specified life limit of the
product or article in which the material is used. Pursuant to proposed
Sec.  22.130, aircraft would be designed and manufactured with
materials that permit its structure and components to withstand those
stresses likely to be encountered within the aircraft's flight
envelope. Such stresses could include high load factors resulting from
gusts or temperature and humidity extremes. Compliance with material
suitability and durability requirements is especially important for
critical structures and components whose failure could prevent
continued safe flight and landing.
    Manufacturer design data defines the configuration of each product
or article, its design features, and any materials and processes used
in its manufacture. In the selection of materials used for the
aircraft's manufacture, manufacturers would have to account for the
full range of conditions likely to be encountered within aircraft's
design flight envelope for compliance with the proposed Sec.  22.130.
Design data would include a determination of the suitability and
durability of materials used for the production of each product or
article for the full range of the aircraft's authorized operations.
Additionally, materials

selected for the manufacture of the aircraft's structure and components
would need to be sufficient to protect those items against
deterioration or loss of strength due to any condition likely to be
encountered in the aircraft's expected operational environment.
    Amateur-built aircraft issued experimental airworthiness
certificates have no regulatory requirement to address the suitability
and durability of materials to account for the environmental conditions
expected to be encountered within the aircraft's operational flight
envelope. In contrast, type-certificated aircraft must comply with
material suitability and durability requirements specified in the
airworthiness standards of parts 23, 25, 27, 29, and 31. In accordance
with the principles set forth in the FAA's safety continuum, the
proposed requirements have been designed to meet the level of rigor the
agency considers appropriate to address the suitability and durability
of materials used in the manufacture of aircraft intended for
certification as light-sport category aircraft.
    Currently accepted consensus standards for all classes of light-
sport category aircraft include a design and construction performance
requirement, which generally states that materials shall be suitable
and durable for the intended use.\27\ Those consensus standards specify
that design values for strength must be chosen so that no structural
part is understrength because of either material variations or load
concentration. Consensus standards for all classes of aircraft eligible
for certification as light-sport category aircraft also include
protection of the aircraft's structure.\28\ These consensus standards
generally address the protection of the structure against weathering,
corrosion, and wear, as well as provisions for suitable ventilation and
drainage. As the suitability and durability of materials used for
products and articles would be required to account for likely
environmental conditions expected in service, the FAA expects that
revisions to these consensus standards would need to be made to account
for the significant increase in the performance, capabilities, and
classes of aircraft that could be certificated under the proposal.
Accordingly, revised consensus standards would need to address aircraft
with significantly larger flight envelopes. This would result in
materials being used in the aircraft possessing the suitability and
durability to permit the safe operation of the aircraft throughout the
wider range of environmental conditions likely to be encountered.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \27\ ASTM 2245, F2564, F2317/F2317M, F2244, and F2355.
    \28\ ASTM F2245, F2564, F2317/F2317M, F2244, and F2355.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

7. Instruments and Equipment
    Proposed Sec.  22.135 would require that the aircraft have all
instruments and equipment necessary for safe flight, including those
instruments necessary for systems control and management. It would also
require that the aircraft include all instruments and equipment
required for the kinds of operations for which it is authorized. All
instruments, equipment, and systems would be required to perform their
intended functions under all operating conditions specified in the
pilot's operating handbook. The proposal would also require that a
failure or malfunction of a system or component that is likely to occur
would not cause loss of control of the aircraft. All systems and
components would be required to be considered separately and in
relation to each other.
    Aircraft certificated as light-sport category aircraft are
currently required to use a consensus standard for all required
equipment, pursuant to the definition of consensus standard in Sec.
1.1. This proposal would remove reference to equipment from the
definition of consensus standard and place that requirement in Sec.
22.135. The proposed equipment requirements are necessary so that
light-sport category aircraft would have installed equipment that
enables the pilot to accomplish tasks such as monitoring, managing,
controlling, or responding to the aircraft and its systems under all
operating conditions.
    For amateur-built aircraft issued experimental airworthiness
certificates, no regulatory requirement exists for the aircraft's
installed instruments and equipment to meet specific design
requirements. However, amateur-built aircraft must comply with
regulatory instrument and equipment requirements for operations in
certain environmental conditions and airspace as specified in their
operating limitations or as required by the applicable operating rules.
For example, amateur-built aircraft designed and equipped for flight at
night or under IFR may be issued an operating limitation stating that
the aircraft must comply with the applicable instrument and equipment
requirements of Sec.  91.205. Operating in certain airspace requires
that the aircraft meet the transponder equipage requirements specified
in Sec.  91.215 and the Automatic Dependent Surveillance-Broadcast
(ADS-B) Out requirements specified in Sec.  91.225.
    Type-certificated aircraft must meet the instrument and equipment
airworthiness standards in parts 23, 25, 27, 29, and 31 for the types
of operations for which certification is requested. Type-certificated
aircraft must also comply with the instrument and equipment
requirements in Sec. Sec.  91.205, 91.215, and 91.225 for operations at
night, in IMC, or certain airspace, as applicable.
    The level of rigor specified for the design of the instrumentation
and equipment installed in light-sport category aircraft would not be
as extensive as that required for aircraft intended for type-
certification, yet more extensive than that specified for amateur-built
aircraft. Proposed Sec.  22.135 would account for the fact that
necessary instrumentation and equipage for light-sport category
aircraft will vary by the class of aircraft and type of operation.
Specifically, Sec.  22.135, as proposed, states that aircraft must
include all instruments and equipment required for the kinds of
operations for which it is authorized. Minimum equipment generally
includes flight and navigation instruments, powerplant instruments, and
other miscellaneous equipment necessary for the operation of the
aircraft's systems. Miscellaneous equipment is usually specific to the
class of aircraft. Such equipment associated with the aircraft's
electrical system, for example, could include master switches, wiring,
and vented battery containers.
    The FAA expects that light-sport category aircraft possessing
significantly more capabilities than current designs would need to be
appropriately equipped in accordance with these increased operational
capabilities. Aircraft would be able to conduct IFR flight in IMC and
be more likely to be exposed to adverse weather conditions and
operations at night. The FAA does note, however, that flight in IMC
would have to be authorized by the manufacturer in the pilot's
operating handbook and the aircraft would be subject to an operating
limitation requiring the aircraft to be equipped to meet the equipment
and instrumentation requirements in Sec.  91.205. Additionally, light-
sport category aircraft would also be more prone to fly in airspace
requiring transponders and ADS-B equipment as aircraft designers may be
more willing to install this equipment. This equipment enhances safety
of the national airspace system by making an aircraft visible to air
traffic control and to other appropriately equipped aircraft,

promoting the separation of aircraft, and decreasing the risk of mid-
air collision.
    All classes of light-sport category aircraft would need to be
properly equipped for operations they are authorized to conduct. For
example, if an aircraft is authorized to operate at night, the
requirement to have all instruments and equipment necessary for safe
flight would necessitate the aircraft be equipped with internal cockpit
lighting that would provide the pilot with unrestricted visibility of
all required instruments. It would also be required to have external
lighting to make the aircraft visible to both operators of other
aircraft and to personnel on the ground while operating on or within
the vicinity of the airfield.
    The FAA encourages aircraft designers to incorporate new instrument
and equipment technology into their aircraft designs. The proposed rule
is intended to address both the functionality of instruments and
equipment, as well as their interface with the other instruments and
equipment installed in the aircraft. The FAA particularly encourages
the installation of advanced electronic avionics systems that can be
used by pilots to meet the aeronautical experience requirements in a
technologically advanced aircraft as specified in Sec.  61.129. As
aircraft designers would no longer be bound by the parameters contained
in the current definition of light-sport aircraft, designers would be
better able to include safety-enhancing equipment in their designs,
such as angle-of-attack indicators, envelope-protection equipment, and
moving-map displays which could assist the pilot in avoiding hazardous
conditions and enhance situational awareness. Accordingly, this
proposal would facilitate the design and production of technologically
advanced aircraft with instruments and equipment that could be used to
support both safe and more cost-effective flight training.
    The proposed requirement would also require that the equipment,
instruments, and systems function properly under all operating
conditions and that the failure or malfunction of a single equipment
item or an instrument, or the failure of a system would not cause loss
of aircraft control. Manufacturers could comply with this requirement
by identifying critical single-point failure items or systems and build
in redundancy to provide alternatives or back-up options. A specific
example of how this requirement could be met would be the installation
of a back-up attitude indicator, using a power source other than that
used for the primary attitude indicator, in an aircraft that is
authorized to fly in IMC. Attitude indicators are the primary
instrument pilots use to maintain proper aircraft attitude and bank
angles when ground references are no longer visible. A secondary
attitude indicator would prevent a loss of control situation in the
event the primary attitude indicator or its power system failed while
the aircraft was flying in IMC or without visual reference to the
ground.
    The FAA anticipates that compliance with the proposed requirements
would require analysis of the aircraft's instruments and equipment to
consider each separately and in relation to each other as failures
resulting from equipment incompatibility may result in an accident.
Manufacturers could use various methods to comply with this requirement
such as the installation of back-up systems or through testing
techniques. The integrity of the aircraft design, equipage, and
systems, and the quality of aircraft manufacturing processes is
essential for safe flight.
8. Accessibility of Controls and Displays
    Proposed Sec.  22.140 would require that the aircraft be designed
and constructed so that the pilot can reach all controls and displays
in a manner that provides for smooth and positive operation of the
aircraft.
    This proposed performance requirement is necessary to enable
ergonomic and human factors designs in light-sport category aircraft
that result in these aircraft being simple to operate. A flightdeck or
pilot station not designed to account for ergonomic and human factors
may result in controls and displays located in locations that do not
allow for their efficient and timely operation by the pilot. Aircraft
designs that do not provide the pilot with the ability to effectively
activate, operate, or otherwise interface with the aircraft's controls
and display information could significantly affect the pilot's ability
to safely operate the aircraft resulting in loss of control. The
proposal would support ergonomic designs where the activation or
operation of a control, switch, or display would not unduly distract a
pilot from maintaining proper control of the aircraft. The FAA
encourages aircraft designers to use the flexibility of this proposal
to prioritize the placement of controls and displays based on their
criticality to maintaining safe ground and flight operations.
    Amateur-built aircraft issued experimental airworthiness
certificates have no regulatory requirement to incorporate design and
construction features where the pilot must reach all controls and
displays in a manner that provides for smooth and positive operation of
the aircraft. Type-certificated, normal category airplanes must comply
with the airworthiness standards found in subpart G of part 23 that
specify flightcrew interface requirements with installed instruments
and equipment. Type-certificated, normal category rotorcraft must
comply with part 27 airworthiness standards that require cockpit
controls be located to provide convenient operation and to prevent
confusion and inadvertent operation.
    The level of rigor for the accessibility of controls and displays
in light-sport category aircraft would not be as extensive as the Sec.
25.777 cockpit control requirements for type-certificated aircraft.
Although Sec.  25.777 requires that each cockpit control be located to
provide convenient operation and to prevent confusion and inadvertent
operation, it contains further requirements for the turning direction
and effectivity of controls, prevention of interference from structures
and pilot clothing, specific locations for the controls of lifting
devices (e.g., flaps) and landing gear, and shapes and color contrast
of control knobs. The extent of requirements in Sec.  25.777 far exceed
the simpler requirement for light-sport category aircraft that its
controls and displays be reached by the pilot without disrupting smooth
and positive operation of the aircraft.
    The proposal, consistent with the FAA's safety continuum, would
establish requirements for the accessibility of controls and displays
in light-sport category aircraft that are not necessary for amateur-
built aircraft. Amateur-built aircraft have no regulatory requirements
for the pilot to reach all controls and displays so builders can design
their own instrument panel and locate controls and displays wherever
they prefer. Because light-sport category aircraft have fewer
operational restrictions and may conduct aerial work, the certification
rigor for light-sport category aircraft would be greater. Accordingly,
light-sport category aircraft would have to have controls and displays
where the pilot can reach in a manner that provides for smooth and
positive operation of the aircraft. This requirement would help prevent
distractions and loss of control accidents. Manufacturers would be able
to comply with these requirements through FAA-accepted consensus
standards.
    For light-sport category airplanes, powered parachutes, and
lighter-than-air aircraft (balloons and airships) certificated under
current rules, ASTM

standards F2245, for light-sport airplanes, F2244, ``Standard
Specification for Design and Performance Requirements for Powered
Parachute Aircraft,'' and F2355, ``Standard Specification for Design
and Performance Requirements for Lighter-Than-Air Light Sport
Aircraft,'' state that for the pilot compartment, accessibility and the
ability to reach all controls for smooth and positive operation shall
be provided. For weight-shift-control aircraft and gliders, ASTM
standards F2317/F2317M, ``Standard Specification for Design of Weight-
Shift-Control Aircraft,'' and F2564, ``Standard Specification for
Design and Performance of a Light Sport Glider,'' state that there must
be a control or means accessible to the pilot while wearing a seat belt
by which the pilot can effectively shut off the flow of fuel.
    As the proposal would expand the scope of aircraft that may be
certificated as light-sport category aircraft, revised consensus
standards submitted to the FAA for acceptance would need to address the
pilot's ability to reach all controls and displays in a manner that
provides for smooth and positive operation in a much wider range of
aircraft. Activation or manipulation of aircraft controls and displays
could not require a level of attention significant enough to cause the
pilot to shift focus, create a distraction, or otherwise interfere with
the operation of the aircraft. Such loss of attention or focus could
result in an incident or accident.
    To comply with the provisions of the proposed rule, a manufacturer
would design and install controls and displays that would permit the
pilot to readily monitor and perform defined tasks associated with the
intended functions of systems and equipment. These provisions would
reduce the potential for pilot error and minimize the risk of resulting
hazards. Accordingly, the proposed requirement would serve to prevent
inadvertent unusual attitudes and loss of control accidents due to poor
ergonomics and cockpit design. The proposed requirement would also have
the benefit of reducing pilot workload and fatigue since controls and
displays would be reached in a manner that provides for smooth and
positive operation of the aircraft. These design features would further
the conduct of safe operations by minimizing pilot distraction when a
control or display is operated.
9. Propulsion System
    Proposed Sec.  22.145 would establish requirements for light-sport
category aircraft propulsion systems. Propulsion systems would be
required to have controls that are intuitive, simple, and not confusing
and be designed so that the failure of any product or article would not
prevent continued safe flight and landing or, if continued safe flight
and landing cannot be ensured, the hazard would be minimized.
Additionally, propulsion systems would not be permitted to exceed safe
operating limits under normal operating conditions and would be
required to have the necessary reliability, durability, and endurance
for safe flight without failure, malfunction, excessive wear, or other
anomalies.
    Under this proposed requirement, light-sport category aircraft
would be equipped with propulsion systems that do not require excessive
pilot skill or training to operate. The proposal would enhance safety
in the event of any failure of the propulsion system such that safe
control of the aircraft could be readily maintained by the pilot,
aircraft automation, or their combined action. The ability to maintain
safe control of the aircraft in the event of a partial or complete
failure of the propulsion system would significantly assist in reducing
the probability of an accident or loss of aircraft control.
    The FAA considers that continued safe flight and landing means an
aircraft is capable of continued controlled flight and landing,
possibly using emergency procedures, without requiring exceptional
pilot skill or strength. For aircraft designed with simplified flight
controls, this may be accomplished through automation. Upon landing,
some aircraft damage may occur because of a failure condition.
    The proposed requirements, while intended to result in the
airworthiness of light-sport category aircraft, have also been
specifically designed to meet the level of rigor the agency considers
appropriate for the certification of these aircraft in accordance with
the FAA's safety continuum concept. When comparing the proposed
requirements for the certification of light-sport category aircraft to
the certification requirements of amateur-built aircraft, the FAA notes
that amateur-built aircraft have no regulatory requirements applicable
to the design or functionality of their propulsion systems. Amateur
builders may experiment with a wide range of propulsion system designs
and may incorporate a variety of design features for the control,
operation, reliability, durability, or endurance of their propulsion
systems into their aircraft. Comparatively, light-sport category
aircraft propulsion systems would be required to meet the Sec.  22.145
requirements because they could conduct aerial work and have fewer
operational restrictions than amateur-built aircraft. Therefore, light-
sport category aircraft would require a higher level of certification
rigor for the propulsion system. The requirements for the design of the
propulsion system would allow for easy, reliable, and consistent
operations. These qualities would allow for safe operations and
minimize hazards associated with engine failures. Compliance to the
requirements in Sec.  22.145 would be with FAA-accepted consensus
standards.
    In contrast, type-certificated aircraft must comply with the
airworthiness standards for propulsion system in parts 23, 25, 27, and
29. Type-certificated engines installed in these aircraft must comply
with the airworthiness standards for engines found in part 33, and the
fuel venting and exhaust emission requirements found in part 34, if
applicable. If propellers are installed on type-certificated aircraft,
then the airworthiness standards of part 35 must also be complied with.
The level of rigor of the standards proposed for the propulsion systems
of light-sport category aircraft would not be as extensive as that
required for aircraft intended for type-certification yet would provide
basic certification requirements currently inapplicable to amateur-
built aircraft.
    For light-sport category aircraft, specialized consensus standards
for propellers and reciprocating spark and compression ignition engines
exist in current FAA-accepted ASTM consensus standards.\29\ These
standards address data, designs, testing and manufacturing of these
products. ASTM Standard 2245 for light-sport category airplanes
specifies that powerplant installations must be shown to have
satisfactory endurance without failure, malfunction, excessive wear, or
other anomalies.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \29\ ASTM standard F2339, ``Practice for Design and Manufacture
of Reciprocating Spark Ignition Engines for Light Sport Aircraft;''
ASTM standard F2538, ``Practice for Design and Manufacture of
Reciprocating Compression Ignition Engines for Light Sport
Aircraft;'' ASTM standard F2840, ``Practice for Design and
Manufacture of Electric Propulsion Units for Light Sport Aircraft;''
and ASTM standard F2506, ``Specification for Design and Testing of
Light Sport Aircraft Propellers.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Additionally, the FAA notes that ASTM Standard F2840, ``Standard
Practice for Design and Manufacture of Electric Propulsion Units for
Light Sport Aircraft,'' provides a basis for the development of
electric propulsion units for electric-powered aircraft that currently
cannot be certificated as light-sport category aircraft. While this
proposal would allow for the use of electric propulsion in light-sport
category aircraft, this standard would need to be evaluated and revised
to

account for electric propulsion units that could be installed on
additional classes of aircraft and those aircraft with increased
performance capabilities that would be permitted to be certificated
under the proposal.
    The proposed propulsion system requirements would permit aircraft
designs to be certificated that enable the application of power to be
accomplished through simple, intuitive, and non-confusing means. Moving
a bi-directional lever forward to increase speed and backward to reduce
speed in level flight, similar to the instinctive use of a legacy power
control (throttle), is one way to achieve this. This control, as well
as all other propulsion system controls, should be ergonomically
located so that movement is achieved without considerable effort for
the pilot throughout the aircraft's flight envelope in all flight
conditions. While the FAA encourages the automation of propulsion
system controls, the continued use of non-confusing legacy propulsion
system controls, such as the blue lever for propeller control and red
lever for mixture control, would still meet the proposed requirements
and assist in maintaining standardization throughout the light-sport
category fleet.
    The proposal would also require that the propulsion system be
designed so that the failure of any product or article does not prevent
continued safe flight and landing or, if continued safe flight and
landing cannot be ensured, the hazard has been minimized. The results
of this proposed requirement would not permit a partial or complete
loss of power to adversely affect the handling qualities of an
aircraft. For single-engine aircraft, this requirement would ensure the
aircraft is controllable after the loss of engine power so that an
engine-out descent and landing could be readily accomplished. For
multi-engine or multi-motor aircraft, the proposal would enable any
power asymmetry to be compensated automatically by the aircraft or by
the pilot with no resulting adverse effect on the aircraft's handling
qualities. Power asymmetry on a multi-engine or multi-motor aircraft,
if not handled properly, can result in loss of control. Propulsion
system failures could be addressed by actions such as the aircraft
establishing a controlled descent to a landing surface, diverting to an
alternate location, or returning to the initial point of departure.
    The FAA encourages a hazard assessment, similar to that required by
Sec.  23.2410 for the certification of normal category airplanes, be
conducted. This assessment would address the likely failure of any
product or article so that it would not prevent continued safe flight
and landing or, if continued safe flight and landing cannot be ensured,
the hazard has been minimized. For example, if manufacturers install
propellers on twin engine airplanes that can be feathered in the event
of an inflight engine shutdown, this would help to minimize the hazard
of drag. In this instance, decreased drag would benefit aircraft
performance by increasing range and decreasing flight asymmetry.
    The proposal would require that the propulsion system be designed
to preclude operation outside safe operating limits under normal
operating conditions and that the system be consistently dependable for
all intended operations. Accordingly, the propulsion system would be
required to be designed with safety features to prevent the occurrence
of operations such as the operation of propellers or rotors outside
design RPM limits.
    The propulsion system would also be required to have the necessary
reliability, durability, and endurance for safe flight without failure,
malfunction, excessive wear, or other anomalies. Defects, such as
cracks or leaks that could result in the loss or malfunction of an
engine, propeller, or rotor system, would be mitigated under this
proposal. These proposed requirements for durability and endurance
address the safety of system designs and construction methods, as well
as the use of materials suited for the operational life of the
propulsion system. The proposal would permit light-sport category
aircraft designs to address these requirements using conventional,
simple propulsion system designs or advanced technologies.
10. Fuel Systems
    Proposed Sec.  22.150 would establish requirements for aircraft
fuel systems. Fuel systems would be required to provide a means to
safely remove or isolate the fuel stored in the system from the
aircraft and be designed to retain fuel under all likely operating
conditions.
    The FAA is proposing this performance requirement because aviation
fuel removal or isolation is necessary in the event fuel contamination
is known or suspected. Fuel would include both liquid aviation fuel
(e.g., avgas) and electrical energy, whether stored in batteries,
produced by electric motors, or produced by other power generation
devices. Removal or isolation of aviation fuel under such circumstances
would prevent damage to the aircraft's engine and fuel system
components used to transport fuel from the aircraft's fuel storage tank
or other storage means to the aircraft's propulsion system. The
inability to isolate or remove contaminated aviation fuel from the
aircraft's fuel system could lead to engine failure and an emergency
landing. Additionally, the ability to remove or drain aviation fuel
from fuel tanks may be necessary for aircraft maintenance or repairs.
    For aircraft with electrical energy stored in batteries or produced
by electric motors or other power generation devices, having the
ability to remove or isolate electrical current in an aircraft may help
prevent damage to electrical components or systems in the event of an
electrical malfunction. Electrical components must be able to be
isolated or removed from the electrical system to prevent overheating
and subsequent fire which could result in significant structural damage
or loss of aircraft control.
    In this proposal, fuel systems would be required to be designed and
constructed to retain fuel under all likely operating conditions, such
as during all authorized maneuvers, turbulence encounters, and aircraft
accelerations and decelerations and an emergency descent and landing.
The FAA considers that this requirement would be necessary for the safe
and continuous operation of the aircraft's propulsion system. The
proposed requirement for the aircraft to retain fuel under all likely
operating conditions is necessary for a variety of purposes. For
example, these purposes could include preventing fuel from being a
source of ignition or feeding an existing fire, maintaining the
aircraft's center of gravity within prescribed limits, providing
structural support, preventing loss of aircraft range and endurance,
preventing corrosion and equipment damage, and preventing toxic fumes
from entering occupied compartments.
    The proposed fuel retention requirement would also apply to the
storage of electrical energy. Failure to secure or retain a battery or
other electrical components powering the aircraft could result in
emergency situations that could lead to structural damage or the loss
of aircraft control. Examples include electrical or electrical-sourced
fires, corrosion that results in structural damage, loss of essential
electrical equipment such as avionics equipment providing altitude,
heading, and attitude reference information, or toxic fumes entering
occupied compartments.
    The level of rigor of the proposed requirements for the removal,
isolation, and retention of fuel for light-sport category aircraft
would not be as extensive as that required for aircraft

intended for type-certification. Type-certificated aircraft are
required to comply with extensive airworthiness standards in parts 23,
25, 27, and 29 for the removal, isolation, and retention of fuel.
    However, the FAA is proposing requirements for light-sport category
aircraft that, in accordance with the safety continuum, would not be
imposed on amateur-built aircraft. Amateur-built aircraft fuel system
design is not regulated which allows amateur-builders to experiment
with how they retain and distribute fuel from their fuel tanks to their
engine, or for electric powered aircraft, from their electric power
source to a motor. Amateur-builders may install fuel isolation and
shut-off valves, filters, pumps, drains, and fuel lines as they deem
necessary for the normal and emergency operation of their aircraft.
However, because light-sport category aircraft operate with fewer
restrictions than amateur-built aircraft, this rule would require
light-sport category aircraft fuel systems to provide a means to safely
remove or isolate the fuel stored in the system from the aircraft and
be designed to retain fuel under all likely operating conditions. These
requirements would provide for fuel removal or isolation of
contaminated fuel, irregular electrical current, or malfunctioning
equipment, which may enable continued operation of an engine or motor.
Light-sport category aircraft fuel systems would also have to retain
fuel throughout the system which would allow for the mitigation of
hazards and safe operations. Compliance with the requirements in Sec.
22.150 would be accomplished through FAA-accepted consensus standards.
    For light-sport category aircraft, the current fuel removal,
isolation, and retention provisions specified in the applicable
consensus standards vary based on the class of aircraft. For instance,
current FAA accepted consensus standards for light-sport category
airplanes, gliders, and weight-shift-control aircraft, specify that
these aircraft have at least one drain or other available method to
allow safe drainage of fuel from tanks.\30\ Consensus standards for all
light-sport category aircraft except balloons and powered parachutes
specify that the aircraft have a control to shut-off fuel as a means of
isolation.\31\ For light-sport category airplanes, gliders, and weight-
shift-control aircraft, the standards specify that the battery
installation must withstand all applicable inertia loads.\32\ Consensus
standards for light-sport category airplanes, gliders, powered
parachutes, airships, and weight-shift control aircraft specify that
their fuel tanks be able to withstand all applicable inertia loads or
prescribed load factors.\33\ The FAA anticipates that industry would
develop acceptable and appropriate consensus standards for all classes
of light-sport category aircraft to comply with the proposed
requirement for the removal, isolation, and retention of fuel.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \30\ ASTM F2245, F2564, and F2317/F2317M.
    \31\ ASTM F2245, F2564, and F2317/F2317M.
    \32\ ASTM F2245, F2564, and F2317/F2317M.
    \33\ ASTM F2245, F2564, F2317/F2317M, F2244, and F2355.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

11. Fire Protection
    Proposed Sec.  22.155 would require that the hazards of fuel or
electrical fires following a survivable emergency landing be minimized
by incorporating design features to sustain static and dynamic
deceleration loads without structural damage to fuel or electrical
system components or their attachments that could leak fuel to an
ignition source or allow electrical power to become an ignition source.
    Fuel and electrical system components need to maintain their
connectivity and structural integrity to prevent leakage, fumes, and
electrical wiring from igniting a flammable source in the event of a
survivable emergency landing. Proposed Sec.  22.155 is necessary to
minimize the risk of additional injuries due to fire and create
sufficient time for aircraft occupants to safely escape an aircraft
immediately after an accident or incident.
    Amateur-built aircraft issued experimental airworthiness
certificates have no regulatory requirement to incorporate design
features to sustain static and dynamic deceleration loads without
structural damage to fuel or electrical system components or their
attachments. The ability of an amateur-built aircraft to minimize the
hazards of fuel or electrical fires is largely dependent upon the
manufacturer's design, although amateur builders can assist by using
recommended methods, techniques, and practices when installing fuel and
electrical components and attachments. Light-sport category aircraft,
however, may be more complex and could engage in work for compensation
or hire; therefore, the FAA is proposing a heightened requirement that
fire sources be minimized. Requiring fire sources be minimized
following an impact is consistent with the location of light-sport
category aircraft on the safety continuum. Therefore, this proposed
rule would direct this through the requirements of Sec.  22.155.
Compliance with these requirements would be accomplished through FAA-
accepted consensus standards.
    Type-certificated aircraft have airworthiness standards in parts
23, 25, 27, 29, and 31 where fuel tanks, fuel lines, electrical wires,
and electrical devices must be designed, constructed, and installed, as
far as practicable, to be crash resistant. Type-certificated aircraft
must retain fuel to minimize hazards to the occupants during any
survivable emergency landing. There are multiple ways for manufacturers
to minimize the ignition of fluids and vapors. Retention methods to
minimize the probability of ignition of the fluids and vapors include,
but are not limited to, stopping the flow of fluids, shutting down
equipment, fireproof containment, or the use of extinguishing agents.
Type-certificated aircraft also undergo drop testing to demonstrate
their ability to withstand deceleration loads without structural damage
to fuel system components or their attachments.
    The FAA considers that drop testing and the more prescriptive
elements of the fire safety rules applicable to type-certificated
aircraft would not be preferable because of the lower risk and
certification rigor, and fewer operating privileges of light-sport
category aircraft. Since light-sport category aircraft subject fewer
people to risk per flight, and have fewer operating privileges when
compared to part 23 airplanes, this rule would not impose the
prescriptive elements of the fire safety rules for type-certificated
aircraft subject to part 23, 25, 27, 29, or 31. Although the FAA does
not consider it currently necessary to require light-sport category
aircraft to undergo drop testing, these aircraft would likely undergo
either drop testing or some alternate testing procedure to comply with
the fire protection requirements in this proposed rule.
    For light-sport category aircraft, the current fuel retention
methods in the FAA-accepted consensus standards vary based on the class
of aircraft. For instance, during emergency landing scenarios for
light-sport category airplanes, powered parachutes, and gliders, the
aircraft design must be strong enough to protect occupants from fuel
concentrated above or behind their seating location.\34\ Light-sport
category airplanes and gliders may mitigate the risks of fires with the
use of heat shielding, electrical isolation, or

ventilation.\35\ Likewise, light-sport category airplanes, gliders, and
weight-shift-control aircraft designs protect fuel lines by using fire
resistant lines or a fire-resistant covering on the lines.\36\ For
these three aircraft classes, battery installations must be able to
withstand all applicable inertia loads. All light-sport category
aircraft except balloons and powered parachutes have a control to shut-
off fuel as a means of isolation under the current FAA-accepted
consensus standards.\37\ Finally, for light-sport category gliders, the
FAA-accepted consensus standards specify that fuel leaking from any
system lines or fittings must not either directly hit hot surfaces or
equipment causing a fire risk, or directly contact occupants.\38\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \34\ ASTM F2245, F2564, and F2244.
    \35\ ASTM F2245 and F2564.
    \36\ ASTM F2245, F2564, and F2317/F2317M.
    \37\ ASTM F2245, F2564, F2317/F2317M, and F2355.
    \38\ ASTM F2564.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As a result of the expansion in the performance and capabilities of
aircraft that would be certificated as light-sport category aircraft
under the proposal, the FAA anticipates that industry would develop
acceptable and appropriate consensus standards for all classes of
light-sport category aircraft to comply with the proposed requirements
of Sec.  22.155. The design features must be capable of preventing the
ignition of fuel or allowing electrical power to become an ignition
source for a fire. The integrity of the fuel or electrical systems and
their storage elements, to include structures, tanks, lines, pumps,
valves, wirings, and electrical components must be accounted for in
this proposed requirement. The design must be capable of stopping or
isolating fuel, electrical power, and associated fumes to prevent
ignition and spread of fire.
12. Visibility
    Proposed Sec.  22.160 would require that the aircraft be designed
and constructed so that the pilot has sufficient visibility of
controls, instruments, equipment, and placards. Additionally, the
proposal would require that the aircraft provide the pilot with
sufficient vision outside the aircraft necessary to conduct safe
aircraft operations.
    Poorly designed pilot compartments and aircraft designs that fail
to optimize the pilot's ability to see controls, instruments, and
equipment could lead to inadvertent unusual attitudes, stalls, or loss
of control of the aircraft. Likewise, structures that block the pilot's
ability to see their surroundings, both inside and outside the
aircraft, can be a hazard for the pilot and other personnel on the
ground and in the air. Pilots need to be able to visually clear areas
around their aircraft during aircraft start-up and while conducting
ground movements, just as they need to visually assess that the
airspace in which they operate is clear of aircraft and other hazards
when operating in visual meteorological conditions. Additionally,
restrictions on the ability of pilots to see other controls, or on the
ability of both the pilot and other occupants to see required aircraft
placards, could affect the safety of the flight, as aircraft warnings
and operational limits might not be heeded and the pilot's ability to
respond to adverse flight conditions could also be significantly
impaired.
    The proposed requirement for the pilot to have sufficient
visibility of controls, instruments, equipment, and placards within the
aircraft and of the aircraft's exterior environment would meet the
level of rigor the FAA considers appropriate for light-sport category
aircraft and its place on the safety continuum between amateur-built
aircraft and normal category aircraft. For amateur-built aircraft,
there are no specific regulatory requirements addressing visibility of
controls, instruments, and equipment. As stated earlier, amateur
builders may design their own instrument panels and locate controls,
instruments, and equipment wherever they prefer. Because light-sport
category aircraft could be used for aerial work, have fewer operational
restrictions, and require a higher level of certification rigor, the
FAA is proposing the requirements in Sec.  22.160. These requirements
would include interior and exterior visibility requirements to
eliminate hazards that could lead to loss of control or loss of the
aircraft due to collision with aircraft, wildlife, or structures in the
air or on the ground. The requirement would also allow system warning
and caution lights and annunciators to be easily seen by the pilot for
a timely response to an abnormal indication or emergency. Manufacturers
would comply with the Sec.  22.160 requirements by using an FAA-
accepted consensus standard.
    However, normal category aircraft must comply with even more
stringent airworthiness standards in part 23, 25, 27, or 29 for the
pilot compartment view. In parts 25, 27, and 29, these standards
require the pilot compartment view to provide a sufficiently extensive,
clear, and undistorted view for safe operation that is free of glare
and reflection that could interfere with the pilot's view. For
airplanes certificated in accordance with part 23 requirements, the
pilot compartment, its equipment, and its arrangement, to include pilot
view, must allow the pilot to readily perform their duties and aircraft
maneuvers.
    Proposed Sec.  22.160 imposes a more stringent requirement than the
currently accepted consensus standards. Current consensus standards in
ASTM Standard F2245 for light-sport airplanes, ASTM Standard F2244 for
powered parachutes, and ASTM Standard F2355 for lighter-than-air light-
sport aircraft state that the pilot compartment needs to provide
appropriate visibility of instruments, placards, and the area outside
the aircraft. The consensus standards in ASTM Standard F2564 for a
light-sport glider state that the cockpit view must be designed so that
the pilot's vision is sufficiently extensive, clear, and undistorted
for safe operation and that rain shall not unduly impair the pilot's
view. For weight-shift control aircraft, there are no consensus
standards for the pilot compartment's internal and external views due
to the open-air design of these aircraft. The FAA anticipates that
industry would develop acceptable and appropriate consensus standards
for applicable classes of light-sport category aircraft to comply with
the proposed requirements of Sec.  22.160.
    The proposed rule would require the pilot to be able to easily see
all aircraft controls and instruments necessary to safely operate the
aircraft and its equipment and systems under all conditions and would
be applicable to all aircraft that would be eligible for certification
as light-sport category aircraft under the proposal. Pilots and other
occupants of all classes of light-sport category aircraft must be able
to readily see warning placards that would aid in identifying hazards,
prevent damage to the aircraft, and provide other relevant safety
critical information.
    The aircraft must provide pilots with sufficient visibility to
readily identify other aircraft or potential hazards such as structures
and icing conditions and aid the pilot in complying with other
regulatory requirements including Sec.  91.113, ``Right-of-way rules:
Except water operations,'' and Sec.  91.155, ``Basic VFR weather
minimums,'' while in flight. For example, aircraft that are not
designed to enable the pilot to visually detect ice accumulations on
the aircraft could result in a stall and loss of control. Improper
placement of structural supports could also result in an accident or
incident if the pilot's visibility is blocked or impeded. A pilot
should not have to make unnecessary or unusual head movements inflight
to clear for traffic and other hazards as this could lead to spatial
disorientation and unusual attitudes. Additionally, the

pilot compartment must also provide the pilot with sufficient
visibility to safely conduct ground operations by enabling the aircraft
to remain clear of other aircraft, structures, vehicles, and ground
personnel while simultaneously providing adequate visibility for the
pilot to read applicable airfield signs and markings. Sufficient
visibility is necessary to prevent situations such as runway incursions
where an aircraft enters a runway without clearance or authorization.
    Additionally, the design of the aircraft should provide the pilot
with sufficient forward, aft, and side visibility to allow the pilot to
avoid hazards both in the air and on the ground. The proposed
requirements would enable the placement of items essential to safe
aircraft operations to be visible to the pilot, provide for the
avoidance of obstacles, and allow compliance with regulatory
requirements while in flight and conducting ground operations.
13. Emergency Evacuation
    Proposed Sec.  22.165 would require that aircraft be designed and
constructed so that all occupants can rapidly conduct an emergency
evacuation. The aircraft's design would be required to account for all
conditions likely to occur following an emergency landing, excluding
ditching for aircraft not intended for operation on water.
    The proposed requirement for emergency evacuation is necessary
because aircraft designs that do not consider the ability of the pilot
and passengers to rapidly evacuate the aircraft during an emergency can
significantly increase the likelihood of serious risk of injuries or
fatalities if exiting the aircraft is impeded by a poor design. The
proposed requirement would reduce injuries and save lives by requiring
aircraft design and construction to account for, and accordingly
facilitate, rapid aircraft egress.
    The proposed requirement for emergency evacuation would be
appropriately scoped for the position of light-sport category aircraft
on the FAA's safety continuum. For amateur-built aircraft, there are no
specific regulatory requirements for emergency egress, whereas for
type-certificated aircraft, parts 23, 25, 27, and 29 contain
requirements for emergency evacuation. For example, for the type
certification of normal category rotorcraft under part 27, there are
requirements in Sec. Sec.  27.805 and 27.807 for the location and size
of emergency exits for the flight crew as well as provisions for the
exits to be unobstructed when an emergency landing occurs on water.
Requirements for the cabin emergency exits include items such as
location, number available, type, operation, and marking.
    For aircraft certificated as light-sport category aircraft,
emergency evacuation standards are currently included in certain
consensus standards and vary according to the design of the aircraft.
For some classes of light-sport category aircraft, such as weight-shift
control aircraft and powered parachutes, emergency evacuation standards
do not exist since the pilot and passenger are not situated in a fully
enclosed compartment. For light-sport airplanes, ASTM Standard F2245
contains a standard for emergency evacuation that states the pilot
compartment shall provide the ability to conduct an emergency escape.
For light-sport gliders, ASTM Standard F2564 provides standards for
emergency exit that state the cockpit must be designed so that
unimpeded and rapid escape in emergency situations is possible, and, on
closed canopies, the opening system must be designed for simple and
easy operation. The opening system must function rapidly and be
designed so that it can be operated by each occupant strapped in his
seat and from outside the cockpit.
    Proposed Sec.  22.165 could be complied with by having multiple
escape exits (doors, windows, hatches) or easily accessible mechanisms
both inside and outside the aircraft to open escape exits (which should
be marked for easy identification and use in compliance with proposed
Sec.  22.170). Multiple escape doors or hatches could also be used to
enable egress in situations where the aircraft may not be upright.
Aircraft intended for operation on water would be required to address
emergency water landings. Although the FAA would encourage consensus
standards to address ditching, the FAA would not require ditching to be
addressed in the certification of light-sport category aircraft as
imposing such a requirement would be a more extensive requirement than
that currently imposed for smaller type-certificated aircraft. For
example, Sec.  23.2315 specifically excludes a consideration of
ditching for level 1, level 2, and single engine level 3 airplanes.
    The ability to rapidly conduct an emergency evacuation is directly
related to the crashworthiness of an aircraft. Accordingly, the FAA is
not proposing to directly link or limit crashworthiness and associated
emergency evacuation requirements to aircraft stalling speed or another
fixed airspeed. Instead, the proposal would permit applicants to take
varied approaches to address aircraft crashworthiness. For example, the
FAA encourages the incorporation of advanced technology, such as
ballistic recovery systems, and innovations from other industries, such
as the automotive industry, to provide increased airframe occupant
protection.
    The FAA encourages consensus standards bodies to strive for the
highest level of occupant crash protection feasible. Comprehensive
consensus standards could facilitate the evaluation of the entirety of
a crashworthiness system, namely, the interaction of all
crashworthiness features, rather than requiring an evaluation of
discrete, individual parameters for occupant safety. An aircraft's
ability to protect occupants and facilitate an emergency exit can be
better understood by evaluating the aircraft as a complete system. The
understanding gained from a systems evaluation can be used to develop
and implement new technologies and methods to enable more rapid and
safer aircraft emergency evacuations with fewer occupant injuries. Such
an evaluation could include analysis of important survivability factors
identified by the NTSB, including occupant restraints, survivable
volume, energy absorbing seats, and seat retention. Consideration given
to these crashworthiness requirements may not necessarily prevent
accidents, but should improve occupant safety, which would lead to
decreased occupant injuries in the event of a crash and increase
survivability of accidents.
    The FAA is proposing few specific crashworthiness requirements
within part 22. The proposed performance requirement for emergency
evacuation and other proposed airworthiness requirements would allow
for the use of many varied technologies and methods for occupant safety
in the event of an emergency landing or other situations where rapid
aircraft egress is required. The proposed requirement would promote
innovation and encourage the introduction of new occupant protection
technologies such as those that have been introduced by the automotive
industry. The FAA encourages consensus standards bodies to develop
consensus standards that will promote the introduction and rapid
integration of these and other solutions into light-sport category
aircraft designs.
14. Placards and Markings
    Proposed Sec.  22.170 would require that the aircraft display all
placards and instrument markings necessary for safe operation and
occupant warning. Markings or graphics would be required to clearly
indicate the function of each

control, other than primary flight controls.
    Placards provide warnings and identify hazards to crewmembers,
occupants, aircraft maintenance and servicing personnel, and first
responders. Instrument markings provide safe operating parameters for
aircraft equipment and systems. Moreover, compliance with placards and
markings is currently required by Sec.  91.9. Not conducting aircraft
operations in accordance with installed placards and markings could
lead to equipment or system failures that could negatively impact other
systems, leading to an emergency that could put both the aircraft and
occupants at significant risk.
    The FAA contends that the proposed requirement for aircraft
certificated as light-sport category aircraft to display all placards
and instrument markings necessary for safe operation and occupant
warning would establish a clear performance-based requirement that is
in accord with the position of these aircraft within the FAA's safety
continuum. For most experimental aircraft, there are no specific
regulatory requirements for placards and instrument markings. However,
some have operating limitations requiring display of placards. Type-
certificated aircraft, which occupy the opposite end of the FAA's
safety continuum, are subject to a variety of detailed placard and
instrument marking requirements that are contained in the airworthiness
standards found in parts 23, 25, 27, 29, and 31. Placards provide
information for the safe operation of the aircraft while instrument
markings indicate operating parameters as determined by the
airworthiness standards.
    For aircraft currently certificated as light-sport category
aircraft, placarding and instrument markings are addressed in FAA-
accepted consensus standards for each class of aircraft. Because of the
various classes of light-sport category aircraft, the placarding and
instrument marking consensus standards vary according to the complexity
of the aircraft. Some of those standards apply generally, while others
address specific situations that may apply only to more complex
aircraft, such as placards for unusual design, operating, or handling
characteristics, authorized operations, and passenger warnings. ASTM
Standard F2245 contains standards for instrument markings on the
aircraft's airspeed indicator.
    The proposed placarding and instrument marking requirement would be
applicable to all classes of aircraft that could be certificated as
light-sport category aircraft under this proposal. Proposed Sec.
22.170 is necessary so that the pilot and other aircraft occupants can
clearly see any placards or instrument markings that provide necessary
warnings for their safety or for the safe operation of equipment or
systems. Markings or graphics provide a clear indication of the
function of the marked control to the pilot and aircraft occupants. The
FAA notes that primary flight controls would not be required to be
specifically marked, as their function should be intuitive to operation
of the aircraft and readily ascertainable by the pilot.
    Markings and graphics indicating the function of each control
prevent confusion and inadvertent operation of equipment and systems by
the pilot or other occupants. Improper or confusing placards, often due
to poor wording, poor contrast, or poor location, can also prevent the
timely actuation of systems or equipment necessary for safe flight or
emergency evacuation, while inadvertent operation of equipment and
systems can result in an unsafe aircraft attitude or flight condition
leading to an emergency.
    Accordingly, the proposed marking and placarding requirement is
designed to provide appropriate warnings to help prevent errors that
could lead to a loss of control or a serious accident or injury. The
proposal would ensure that these potentially hazardous situations are
properly accounted for and addressed. The FAA also notes that, for
aircraft with simplified flight controls, an FAA-accepted consensus
standard would be required to address the placarding of an aircraft
certificated in the light-sport category with simplified flight
controls as proposed in Sec.  22.180.
15. Noise
    Proposed Sec.  22.175 would require that aircraft meet the
applicable noise standards of part 36 of this chapter. The proposed
noise requirements are discussed in section IV.K.
16. Aircraft Having Simplified Flight Controls
    Proposed Sec.  22.180 would permit an aircraft that meets certain
criteria to be designated by the manufacturer as having simplified
flight controls. For an aircraft to be designated as having simplified
flight controls, it would be required to meet three criteria. First,
the pilot could only control the flight path of the aircraft or
intervene in its operation without direct manipulation of individual
aircraft control surfaces or adjustment of the available power. Second,
the aircraft would be required to be designed to prevent loss of
control, regardless of pilot input. Finally, the aircraft would need to
have a means to enable the pilot to discontinue the flight quickly and
safely. This feature would also have to be designed to prevent
inadvertent activation.
    Proposed Sec.  22.180 for aircraft designed with simplified flight
controls would only apply to those aircraft specifically designated by
the manufacturer in its statement of compliance as having simplified
flight controls.
    The FAA recognizes that rapid advances are occurring in aircraft
automation and flight control technology. Aircraft are being designed
and constructed with pilot interfaces and flight controls that no
longer resemble those found in traditional aircraft cockpits. These
aircraft have highly automated systems for controlling the flight path,
speed, and configuration of the aircraft while simultaneously providing
protection from aerodynamic hazards such as asymmetric thrust and
excessive structural loading. These aircraft also have cockpits or
pilot compartments where primary flight controls such as sticks,
control columns, throttles, and rudder pedals may have been replaced by
simpler non-traditional methods of aircraft control such as
touchscreens, switches, or other displays with push-button controls. A
joystick controller that directly manipulates individual aircraft
control surfaces would not qualify an aircraft as being designed with
simplified flight controls. However, a joystick controller that is used
to select flight commands or move a cursor on a display would be
appropriate for a simplified flight control design.
    Proposed Sec.  22.180 would facilitate the development of these
highly automated aircraft by providing a certification path that would
enable light-sport category aircraft to be specifically designated as
having simplified flight controls. As discussed later in this proposal
for Sec.  61.31, these aircraft would be permitted to be operated by
certificated pilots who may not have received the flight training or
possess the aeronautical experience necessary to operate more
traditional forms of aircraft, but nonetheless meet the specific
requirements proposed for the operation of these highly automated
aircraft.
    For aircraft having simplified flight controls, the aircraft design
would be required to inherently prevent loss of control regardless of
pilot input. The FAA considers that a design inherently prevents loss
of control if the design includes built-in features such as automation
which prevent the pilot

from inputting a flight command that would be hazardous to the aircraft
or its occupants. Additionally, the aircraft design would need to
include features so that the aircraft could only be operated within its
designated flight envelope and within its prescribed operational
limitations. These parameters would be preprogrammed and would include
boundaries such as airspeed, altitude, vertical speeds, and lateral
displacements. For aircraft equipped with multiple engines or rotor
systems, the aircraft would need to be able to safely respond, using
the aircraft's automation, to asymmetric power situations due to loss
of engine power. If used in the design, automation would have to
prevent loss of control of the aircraft under all circumstances, even
to the point of overriding erroneous or hazardous pilot inputs or only
permitting the input of certain commands in specific flight conditions.
    The aircraft design would, however, be required to include a means
to permit the pilot to discontinue or suspend the flight quickly and
safely and prevent inadvertent activation of this feature. A pilot
could choose to discontinue or suspend a flight for a variety of
reasons such as unexpected weather conditions, physiological needs, a
system malfunction, or the presence of other hazards such as a flock of
birds or an aircraft near, or intersecting, the route of flight.
Discontinuing or suspending a flight could include options such as an
immediate landing, a return flight to the aircraft's point of
departure, a diversion to an alternate landing site, a course change,
or initiation of a low altitude orbit or in-place hover until any
hazards have passed. The aircraft design must include a means to
prevent inadvertent or accidental activation of the control mechanism
for the discontinuance or suspension of flight. This would prevent the
aircraft from entering an unplanned or hazardous flight trajectory.
17. Quality Assurance System
    Proposed Sec.  22.185 would require aircraft to have been designed,
produced, and tested under a documented quality assurance system to
ensure each product and article conforms to its design and is in a
condition for safe operation.
    The 2004 final rule specifically recognized the necessity for
aircraft certificated as light-sport category aircraft to be
manufactured in accordance with a quality assurance system. The current
definition of consensus standards in Sec.  1.1 states that consensus
standards used for the certification of light-sport aircraft may
include ``manufacturer quality assurance systems.'' Proposed Sec.
22.185 would establish a clear regulatory requirement so that the
aircraft is manufactured in accordance with documented processes and
manufactured under a documented quality assurance system.
    Establishing and documenting a quality assurance system is critical
to assuring that aircraft and aircraft kits meet applicable design,
production, and airworthiness requirements and are manufactured and
tested in accordance with identified consensus standards. Meeting the
proposed quality assurance requirements using applicable FAA-accepted
consensus standards would reduce the use of obsolete design drawings or
procedures, improper materials or manufacturing techniques, and
inadequate testing procedures that could jeopardize the safe operation
of an aircraft. A quality assurance system would allow manufacturer or
third-party auditors to verify that a manufacturer is producing
aircraft in accordance with its established procedures and is
continuing to produce safe aircraft.
    Under the safety continuum, primary category kit-built aircraft
intended for certification as experimental aircraft are the only
experimental aircraft that have a regulatory requirement to be produced
under a quality assurance system. Those aircraft are based on type-
certificated designs and are required by Sec.  21.191(h) to be
manufactured by the holder of a production certificate for that kit.
Production certificate holders must establish and maintain a quality
assurance system as specified in Sec.  21.137.
    Persons currently seeking certification of experimental aircraft
built from kits that were designed in accordance with the requirements
applicable to aircraft certificated as light-sport category aircraft
must be able to provide the information required by Sec.  21.193(e).
These aircraft are certificated under the provisions of Sec.
21.191(i)(2) and the information provided will reference consensus
standards addressing the manufacturer's quality assurance system.
Additionally, aircraft built from those kits must have been assembled
in accordance with manufacturer's assembly instructions that meet an
applicable consensus standard. These aircraft are built under a quality
assurance system as specified in ASTM Standard F2972, ``Standard
Specification for Light Sport Aircraft Manufacturer's Quality Assurance
System.''
    A manufacturer of a type-certificated aircraft must establish and
describe in writing a quality system that includes the 15 elements
specified in Sec.  21.137, obtain FAA approval of its quality manual
under Sec.  21.138, and show compliance with quality system
requirements to the satisfaction of the FAA as part of applying for and
obtaining a production certificate. For light-sport category aircraft,
ASTM Standard F2972 currently addresses quality assurance systems for
light-sport category aircraft. The FAA anticipates that industry would
develop acceptable and appropriate consensus standards for light-sport
category aircraft to comply with the proposed requirement in Sec.
22.185
    The FAA would rely on a manufacturer's statement of compliance as
evidence of compliance to the requirements of Sec.  22.185 for a
production quality assurance system. The FAA retains its ability to
inspect the manufacturer's facility and quality system.
18. Finding of Compliance by Trained Compliance Staff
    Proposed Sec.  22.190 would require the aircraft to have been found
compliant with the provisions of the applicable consensus standards by
individuals who have been trained on determining compliance with those
consensus standards.
    Determining compliance with consensus standards is essential in
enabling the airworthiness of an aircraft intended for certification as
light-sport category aircraft. Accordingly, the FAA considers inclusion
of a requirement that the aircraft be found compliant by individuals
who have been appropriately trained in making those determinations to
be of critical importance.
    The FAA notes that experimental aircraft are generally not required
to meet specific design or production requirements. Accordingly, there
is no current requirement for the training of individuals who assess
the suitability of the design or production of those aircraft for their
intended operations.
    Manufacturers of aircraft produced in accordance with the
airworthiness standards set forth in part 23, 25, 27, 29, or 31,
however, are required to show compliance with each requirement
following a highly detailed and comprehensive certification plan.
Assurance of compliance is attained via extensive FAA engagement with
the manufacturer in which the manufacturer shows, and the FAA finds,
compliance with applicable airworthiness standards. A type certificate
is not issued for an aircraft design until the FAA finds compliance
with all applicable airworthiness

standards through a rigorous type-certification process involving
extensive FAA involvement and oversight. Serial production of these
aircraft is accomplished in accordance with the requirements for
production certificate holders specified in subpart G of part 21. That
subpart includes specific requirements for the certificate holder's
organization and quality system.
    Given the FAA's reliance on the manufacturer's statement of
compliance as the primary evidence of compliance with applicable
requirements, the FAA considers it critical that individuals making
these compliance findings would be trained in finding compliance to the
broad array of applicable FAA-accepted consensus standards. This would
require, for example, engineers, pilots, and maintenance experts who
make compliance findings for manufacturers to receive training on the
specific provisions of the applicable consensus standards and training
on determining compliance to those standards.
    The proposed requirement would implement a recommendation from the
previously mentioned LSAMA Final Report. The LSAMA Final Report noted
that a significant number of aircraft manufacturers could not fully
demonstrate their ability to meet certain consensus standards. As a
result, the report recommended that industry develop training so that
manufacturers fully understand FAA regulatory requirements and policies
applicable to the certification of light-sport category aircraft and
the means necessary to meet applicable requirements. In view of the
criticality of this need and the FAA's significant reliance on the
manufacturer's statement of compliance, the FAA is proposing this
requirement so that all individuals with responsibility for making
compliance findings are trained to understand how to make complete and
correct findings of compliance.
19. Ground and Flight Testing
    Proposed Sec.  22.195 would require that an aircraft intended for
certification as a light-sport category aircraft has been ground and
flight tested under documented production acceptance test procedures.
This testing would be required to validate aircraft performance data;
ensure the aircraft has no hazardous operating characteristics or
design features; ensure the aircraft is in a condition for safe
operation; and ensure the aircraft can safely conduct any aerial work
operation designated by the manufacturer. The manufacturer will ensure
each aircraft can safely conduct any aerial work operation by
conducting flight testing of the that aerial work operation. If
successful, the manufacturer would be able to provide a statement of
compliance to the FAA-accepted consensus standards that would be the
means of compliance for this proposed requirement.
    Ground and flight testing of an aircraft is critical when
establishing airworthiness. Accordingly, the FAA considers inclusion of
a ground and flight-testing requirement especially important for the
certification of light-sport category aircraft.
    Aircraft with certain experimental airworthiness certificates, such
as those issued for air racing, operating amateur-built aircraft,
operating primary kit-built aircraft, and operating light-sport
aircraft have flight testing requirements imposed by their operating
limitations, yet no specific ground testing requirements. For these
experimental aircraft, the flight testing is typically conducted for a
set time (e.g., 40 hours) to show compliance with Sec.  91.319(b). The
FAA notes that amateur-built aircraft may instead use an FAA-sourced
task-based flight test plan as a substitute for the flight hour
requirement. Aircraft issued experimental airworthiness certificates
for the purpose of research and development or showing compliance with
regulations must also undergo flight testing to determine the
suitability of the design for the issuance of a design or airworthiness
approval, as applicable.
    All aircraft manufactured in accordance with the airworthiness
standards set forth in part 23, 25, 27, 29, or 31 are subject to ground
and flight-testing requirements as part of the type-certification
process. The flight testing of aircraft intended for type certification
is much more rigorous than that of other aircraft, as the flight
testing is conducted for the aircraft to show compliance to the
airworthiness standards used in the development of the aircraft's
design. Regulatory flight-testing requirements for type-certificated
aircraft are specified in Sec.  21.35. A highly detailed and
comprehensive test plan is used to conduct ground and flight testing in
the development of a type-certificated aircraft.
    The level of rigor for the ground and flight testing of light-sport
category aircraft would not be as extensive as that required for
aircraft intended for type certification, yet more extensive than that
specified for experimental aircraft. Ground and flight testing of
light-sport category aircraft would not require that the aircraft only
be flown for a specified number of hours, as is done for certain
experimental aircraft. It would also not require the flight testing
necessary to achieve a showing of compliance with extensive
airworthiness requirements, as is required for aircraft being flown as
part of a type-certification program. It would, however, require an
evaluation of the aircraft to ensure that it meets the requirements
specified in Sec.  22.195.
    Current flight and ground testing of light-sport category aircraft
centers on verifying that the initial production aircraft meets certain
operational performance requirements that have been specified by the
manufacturer in the pilot's operating handbook (POH). ASTM Standard
F3035, ``Standard Practice for Production Acceptance in the Manufacture
of a Fixed Wing Light Sport Aircraft,'' contains standards for ground
and flight testing fixed-wing aircraft. ASTM standard F3035 addresses
several requirements in proposed Sec.  22.195 such as validating
aircraft performance data, ensuring the aircraft has no hazardous
operating characteristics, and ensuring the aircraft is in a condition
for safe operation. The FAA notes that FAA-accepted production
acceptance testing consensus standards exist for all classes of light-
sport category aircraft.\39\ Since this proposal would expand the
classes of aircraft that could be certificated as light-sport category
aircraft and include a provision to allow aerial work as designated by
the manufacturer, the FAA anticipates that industry would develop
acceptable and appropriate consensus standards to comply with the
performance-based requirements in Sec.  22.195.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \39\ ASTM F2356, Standard Specification for Production
Acceptance Testing System for Lighter-Than-Air Light Sport Aircraft;
    ASTM F2242, Standard Specification for Production Acceptance
Testing System for Powered Parachute Aircraft; and ASTM F2447,
Standard Practice for Production Acceptance Test Procedures for
Weight-Shift-Control Aircraft.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Manufacturer ground and flight testing of each aircraft intended
for certification as light-sport category aircraft would be necessary
to verify the aircraft meet the proposed regulatory requirements. Such
testing would validate expected aircraft performance data (e.g.,
airspeeds, fuel flow, fuel burn rate, range, endurance, load factors
(g-limits), engine-out (if applicable), etc.) and validate that the
design and material used in the construction of the aircraft provides
sufficient strength and durability for the conduct of all authorized
operations. Ground and flight testing using production acceptance test
procedures also would verify that each aircraft does not have any
unforeseen hazardous flight

characteristics and that the aircraft was properly constructed. This
testing ensures that the aircraft's structure is of sufficient strength
for its intended operations and that aircraft controls are not binding,
rubbing, or showing unexpected wear. Aircraft designed with simplified
flight controls must be ground and flight tested to validate compliance
with the requirements of Sec.  22.180. Aircraft that have not undergone
adequate environmental testing in a ground and flight test program may
experience unpredicted behaviors or malfunctions caused by
environmental factors, which may lead to an aircraft accident or
incident. Production acceptance test procedures allows a buyer to
receive a complete aircraft that conforms to the manufacturer's design
data and provides the manufacturer with an opportunity to detect and
fix any missing, broken, misaligned, or improperly installed components
or systems.
    The FAA also notes that if the aircraft has been authorized for the
performance of specific aerial work operations by the manufacturer,
production acceptance test procedures would verify that the aircraft
has been designed and constructed to validate that the aircraft can be
used to safely conduct those designated aerial work operations. Ground
and flight testing of the aircraft would be required to ensure that
those aerial work operations could be safely conducted. The FAA notes
that if the manufacturer's statement of compliance indicated that an
aircraft was authorized to conduct aerial work that included patrolling
operations, for example, the aircraft could be used for the patrolling
of any structure or area such as pipelines, transmission lines,
harbors, railroad tracks, farmland, forests, etc. Specific testing of
the aircraft's ability to safely patrol these structures or areas would
accordingly be required. As some patrolling using visual observation
occurs at low altitudes, a manufacturer would be required to conduct
patrolling flight testing at low altitude to verify the aircraft can
safely conduct that aerial work operation. The FAA anticipates that
industry will develop appropriate consensus standards to document
specific ground and flight testing used to validate aerial work
operations in the manufacturer's quality assurance records for each
aircraft.
    The FAA notes that some aerial work operations may place additional
stresses and loads on an aircraft if operated outside normal flight
profiles. Flight testing would validate any specific limitations
necessary to conduct those designated aerial work operations.
Additionally, it would confirm that other applicable requirements can
still be met during the conduct of those operations, such as validating
that the pilot has proper visibility from the flight compartment. The
proposed requirement would validate that the aircraft has been
demonstrated to be capable of safely performing those aerial work
operations specifically designated in the manufacturer's statement of
compliance.
20. Revision of Documentation Submission Requirements for the Issuance
of Special Airworthiness Certificates in the Light-Sport Category
    Proposed Sec.  21.190(c) would revise the list of documents that an
applicant would be required to provide to the FAA at the time of
application for an airworthiness certificate for a light-sport category
aircraft. In addition to the currently required manufacturer's
statement of compliance, the proposal would require submission of a
pilot's operating handbook, currently referred to as the aircraft's
operating instructions. The proposed rule would require that additional
information be contained in that document. The pilot's operating
handbook would be required to include recommended operating
instructions and limitations, a flight training supplement, a listing
of any authorized aerial work operations, and a statement regarding
compliance with part 36 requirements. Additionally, the current
requirement that an applicant submit maintenance and inspection
procedures would be revised to require the submission of a maintenance
and inspection program. Similar to the existing airworthiness
certification processes for light-sport category aircraft, the FAA
would not approve or accept any of the documents submitted. The
approach is aligned with the FAA's safety continuum where aircraft
higher on the safety continuum have greater privileges but also go
through more rigorous certification processes and have greater FAA
oversight.
    The proposal would provide applicants with clarification regarding
the contents of the pilot's operating handbook by specifying that it
include operating instructions and limitations to safely accommodate
all environmental conditions and abnormal procedures likely to be
encountered during the aircraft's intended operations. The operating
instructions should address normal, abnormal, and emergency operating
procedures as well as operations under all foreseeable environmental
conditions. Examples of material that should be included in these
instructions and limitations include guidance for operations in, or the
avoidance of, certain weather phenomenon such as freezing
precipitation, moderate or severe turbulence, takeoff or landing
crosswinds, and hot and cold weather conditions.
    By specifying in the proposal that the flight training supplement
enable safe operation of the aircraft within the intended flight
envelope under all foreseeable conditions, the FAA would codify its
expectation that the flight training supplement provide enhanced
guidance to pilots regarding those methods and procedures necessary to
safely operate the aircraft within its intended flight envelope under
all foreseeable conditions. The flight training supplement should also
provide aircraft operators with appropriate information to understand
the operation of the aircraft and its systems.
    Additionally, the pilot's operating handbook would be required to
contain a listing of any aerial work operations for which the
manufacturer designated the aircraft as capable of performing. This
requirement would enable information regarding those designated aerial
work operations to be readily available to the pilot. In accordance
with the proposal, the manufacturer would be required to provide any
aircraft instructions and limitations that effect the safe conduct of
any manufacturer-designated aerial work operations. Instructions and
limitations that apply to all operations would not need to be repeated
for aerial work operations.
    The pilot's operating handbook would also be required to include a
statement that the aircraft has demonstrated compliance with part 36 to
include the tested noise levels and a statement regarding the
acceptability of those noise levels for aircraft operations. Per
proposed per Sec.  21.190(c)(2)(iv), the statement would assert that,
``No determination has been made by the Federal Aviation Administration
that the noise levels of this aircraft are or should be acceptable or
unacceptable for operation in any location.'' This statement would
provide operators with awareness that they are solely responsible for
compliance with any operational noise abatement procedures and
requirements for the locations where the aircraft is operated. An
explanation of noise testing requirements and their applicability to
aircraft certificated as light-sport category aircraft is contained
section IV.K.
    Currently, an applicant must provide the FAA with the aircraft's
maintenance and inspection procedures as part of the

process for an airworthiness certificate for a light-sport category
aircraft. This proposal would require the applicant to instead provide
a maintenance and inspection program. Maintenance and inspection
procedures detail the steps involved in performing a maintenance task,
such as changing a tire, or performing an inspection, such as an annual
inspection. A maintenance and inspection program is more comprehensive.
It contains maintenance tasks as well as instructions and procedures
for the conduct of inspections, tests, and checks that includes the
airframe, engine, propeller, rotor, and appliances. It also includes a
schedule for performing the inspections that must be accomplished under
the inspection program expressed in time in service, calendar time,
number of system operations, or any combination thereof, as well as
qualifications of the person responsible for the inspections.
    Proposed Sec.  21.190(c)(4) would require an applicant for a
special airworthiness certificate under this section to provide the FAA
with evidence that its aircraft has demonstrated compliance with the
applicable requirements of part 36. Such evidence may include a
statement from the manufacturer concerning compliance with part 36, the
means of compliance used, and the resultant noise levels. Section IV.K
provides a detailed discussion of proposed noise requirements for
aircraft that do not conform to a type certificate.
a. Enhancements to the Manufacturer's Statement of Compliance
    Proposed Sec.  21.190(d) would revise the contents of the
manufacturer's statement of compliance required to be submitted by an
applicant for the issuance of an airworthiness certificate under this
section. In addition to the requirements currently specified in Sec.
21.190(c), the manufacturer's statement of compliance would be required
to include additional declarations by the aircraft's manufacturer which
would be used to better assist the FAA in determining the airworthiness
of the aircraft.
    The FAA considers the manufacturer's statement of compliance to be
a critical element in the certification of light-sport category
aircraft as it provides a definitive statement by the aircraft's
manufacturer that an aircraft complies with the applicable performance-
based regulatory standards using applicable consensus standards as a
means of compliance. It also would provide assurance that the
manufacturer would undertake certain specific actions to support the
continuing airworthiness of the aircraft.
    Because of the significant expansion in the types and performance
of aircraft that would be permitted to be certificated as light-sport
category aircraft, the FAA contends that the manufacturer's statement
of compliance would take on an even greater level of importance in
supporting the certification of light-sport category aircraft.
Accordingly, the proposal would make significant enhancements to the
statement of compliance to further strengthen its effect by requiring
the manufacturer to provide greater detail regarding the aircraft and
the processes and procedures used in its design and production. Those
proposed changes are discussed in the paragraphs that follow. The
proposed enhancements to the manufacturer's statement of compliance
would serve to improve the validity and reliability of the statement.
The proposed requirements would serve to further implement the
recommendations made in the previously discussed LSAMA Final Report.
    The FAA notes that light-sport category aircraft are not produced
pursuant to an FAA type or production certificate. The information and
data typically provided for type-certificated aircraft is not provided
to the FAA during the certification process for light-sport category
aircraft. Accordingly, the manufacturer's statement of compliance and
inspection of the aircraft assist the FAA in assessing compliance to
applicable performance requirements and determining airworthiness of
the aircraft.
    The proposed requirements of Sec.  21.191(d)(1) for training of
individuals with responsibility for making compliance statements would
adopt a recommendation from the LSAMA Final Report. The LSAMA Final
Report noted that the statement of compliance for certain aircraft may
have been made that did not meet applicable consensus standards. As a
result, the report recommended that industry develop training to enable
manufacturers to fully understand FAA regulatory requirements and
policies applicable to the certification of light-sport category
aircraft and the means necessary to meet applicable requirements. In
view of the criticality of this need and the FAA's primary reliance on
the manufacturer's statement of compliance (SOC), the FAA is proposing
this requirement to help assure that all individuals with
responsibility for making compliance statements are trained and
certified to understand how to make complete and correct statements.
    Proposed Sec.  21.190(d)(3) would require a statement as to whether
the aircraft meets the design and performance requirements specified in
proposed Sec.  61.316 for the aircraft that a sport pilot would be
permitted to operate. This proposal would significantly expand the
types of aircraft that could be certificated as light-sport category
aircraft beyond those aircraft that a sport pilot would be permitted to
operate under proposed Sec.  61.316. Accordingly, the proposed
requirement would provide persons exercising sport pilot privileges
with a readily available means to determine whether a particular
aircraft certificated as light-sport category aircraft qualifies for
operation by a sport pilot.
    Additionally, since the proposal would permit the manufacturer to
designate those types of aerial work that may be conducted using the
aircraft, the statement of compliance would be required by proposed
Sec.  21.190(d)(4) to specify any aerial work operations which the
manufacturer has designated as being able to be safely conducted using
the aircraft. Inclusion of this information in the statement of
compliance provides the owner with a readily available source to
determine which aerial work operations are authorized to be conducted
in the aircraft. The list of aerial work operations that may be safely
conducted using the aircraft should match those listed in the POH.
Proposed Sec.  21.190(d)(4) would also assist in validating that the
appropriate ground and flight testing of the aircraft has been
conducted in accordance with proposed Sec.  22.195(d) to determine that
the aircraft can safely conduct those authorized aerial work operations
in accordance with the instructions and limitations provided.
    Proposed Sec.  21.190(d)(5) would require the statement of
compliance to indicate whether the aircraft meets the requirements for
aircraft having simplified flight controls (see preamble for proposed
Sec.  22.180). This proposal would permit manufacturers to designate
aircraft certificated as light-sport category aircraft as having
simplified flight controls if the applicable requirements are met. The
proposed requirement would provide pilots with a readily available
means to determine whether a particular aircraft can be operated by a
pilot authorized to exercise privileges in an aircraft having such
controls.
    Proposed Sec.  21.190(d)(6) would retain the current requirement
that the statement of compliance specify the consensus standards used
by the manufacturer; however, it would include a reference to proposed
subpart B of part 22, which would contain the

applicable design, production, and airworthiness requirements for which
the consensus standards would serve as a means of compliance.
    A manufacturer would need to identify each consensus standard used
for the certification of the aircraft on FAA Form 8130-15, Light-Sport
Aircraft Statement of Compliance. The FAA notes that consensus
standards organizations typically publish a first issue or specific
revision to a consensus standard before acceptance by the FAA. A
consensus standard must be accepted by the FAA before it may be used
for the certification of a light-sport category aircraft. Additionally,
only those FAA-accepted consensus standards effective on the aircraft's
date of manufacture are acceptable for use in its original
airworthiness certification.
    Current Sec.  21.190(c)(4) requires the manufacturer to make
available to any interested person the following documents that meet
the identified consensus standard: the aircraft's operating
instructions, the aircraft's maintenance and inspection procedures, and
the aircraft's flight training supplement. Proposed Sec.  21.190(d)(8)
would require that the statement of compliance include a statement that
the manufacturer will make available to any interested person the
documents specified in Sec.  21.190(c) which consist of those documents
required to be provided to the FAA for certification of the aircraft.
In addition to the currently required documents, this proposal would
require the manufacturers statement of compliance, a listing of any
aerial work operations, and a statement that the aircraft has
demonstrated compliance with noise requirements in part 36.
    By proposing to revise the scope of documents that would be
provided to the FAA, the proposal would also make a wider range of
documents available to interested persons. The FAA contends that
broadening the scope of information required to be made available would
better assist current and prospective owners, operators, and
maintenance personnel in safely operating and maintaining the aircraft.
Additionally, it would be particularly beneficial to prospective
purchasers of these aircraft by enhancing their understanding of the
aircraft's operation, limitations, and maintenance and inspection
procedures before purchase.
    Proposed Sec.  21.190(d)(10) would revise the requirements found in
current Sec.  21.190(c)(5), which requires a statement that the
manufacturer will monitor and correct safety-of-flight issues through
the issuance of safety directives and a continued airworthiness system
that meets the identified consensus standard. The proposed Sec.
21.190(d)(9) would specifically require the statement of compliance to
include a statement that the manufacturer will support the aircraft by
implementing and maintaining a documented continued operational safety
program that monitors and resolves in-service safety of flight issues,
includes provisions for the issuance of safety directives, and includes
a process for notifying the FAA and all owners before discontinuance of
its continued operational safety program or any transfer to another
responsible party for that continued operational safety program.
    The FAA considers the implementation of strong continued
operational safety programs by aircraft manufacturers essential to
maintaining the safety of light-sport category aircraft. The proposed
revisions to the statement of compliance per proposed Sec.
21.190(d)(9) would serve to demonstrate the commitment of manufacturers
to establish and maintain a comprehensive continued operational safety
programs for their products. Well-documented continued operational
safety programs would permit manufacturers to effectively monitor and
resolve in-service safety of flight issues. When such issues arise,
manufacturers may take appropriate action to resolve those issues. Such
action could include, but not be limited to, the issuance of safety
directives to address unsafe conditions for their products. As
discussed later in this preamble, the FAA anticipates that
manufacturers would still issue safety directives when necessary to
resolve a safety of flight condition per Sec.  21.190(d)(9).\40\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \40\ ASTM F3198, ``Standard Specification for Light Sport
Aircraft Manufacturer's Continued Operational Safety (COS)
Program,'' directs the aircraft manufacturer to issue safety
directives to correct safety of flight conditions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Proposed Sec.  21.190(d)(9)(iii) would require a manufacturer to
promptly notify owners of aircraft it manufactured of any safety issues
so that safety-critical information can be rapidly disseminated. The
proposal would require the statement of compliance to include a
statement from the manufacturer that its continued operational safety
program would include a process for notifying the FAA and all owners of
all safety of flight issues associated with the aircraft. Notification
to both the FAA and owners would increase awareness of potential safety
issues and better enable the FAA to carry out its oversight
responsibilities, including the issuance of airworthiness directives,
of this emerging segment of the aviation industry. The proposal would
facilitate increased communication of safety of flight issues to the
community, and better enable subsequent owners and operators to become
aware of, and take appropriate corrective actions to address, safety of
flight issues.
    Similarly, this proposal would require a manufacturer to provide
notice, in advance, to the FAA and all aircraft owners of continued
operational safety program service provider changes or discontinuance.
Such changes could result from a merger, purchase, an agreement to
allow a third-party to manage the program, or the discontinuance of
manufacturing operations. Advanced notification of these changes would
provide notice to the FAA and to the owners and operators of affected
models. In the event of program cessation, this advanced notification
would alert the FAA to the increased chance for potential unsafe
conditions on the affected aircraft and the need to take prompt action
to mitigate risks should the need arise. The FAA seeks comment
regarding whether manufacturers who are discontinuing their continued
operational safety program due to discontinuance of manufacturing
operations should be required to send the design information regarding
the affected aircraft to the FAA prior to discontinuing their continued
operational safety program, so that the FAA can better issue
airworthiness directives if an unsafe condition is discovered later.
    Under proposed Sec.  21.190(d)(10), the statement of compliance
would continue to require a statement from the manufacturer that it
will monitor and correct safety of flight issues with one important
difference. The proposal would require the manufacturer to monitor and
correct safety of flight issues through safety directives and a
continued operational safety program that meets the specified consensus
standard. This would replace the current requirement that the
manufacturer monitor and correct through a continued airworthiness
system. This proposed revision of ``continued airworthiness system'' to
``continued operational safety program'' is intended to better align
regulatory terminology with the terminology used in existing FAA-
accepted consensus standards. Continued operational safety programs
established and maintained by manufacturers are designed to provide
support throughout the service lives of their products. The program
would

include, but not be limited to, processes and procedures to monitor the
airworthiness of the fleet and prevent the occurrence of safety of
flight issues, and the management and use of feedback processes to
improve a product's design and production.
    Current Sec.  21.190(c)(6) requires a statement that, at the
request of the FAA, the manufacturer will provide unrestricted access
to its facilities. The FAA might require access to conduct oversight,
audit compliance with applicable standards, take those actions
necessary to verify unsafe conditions have been properly addressed, or
respond to an aircraft accident or incident. Proposed Sec.
21.190(d)(11) would revise this requirement to include a statement by
the manufacturer that it will provide unrestricted access to all data
necessary to determine compliance with the provisions of this section
and other applicable requirements. By only specifying that a
manufacturer will provide the FAA with access to its facilities, the
current rule does not provide assurance that the FAA will be able to
obtain access to the technical data. The proposal recognizes that
obtaining access to only a manufacturer's facility may not be
sufficient for the FAA to carry out its regulatory responsibilities and
that access to data may be necessary to conduct oversight.
    Proposed Sec.  21.190(d)(12) would require the manufacturer's
statement of compliance to include a statement that the manufacturer
has established and maintains a quality assurance system that meets the
requirements of Sec.  22.185. The specific requirements that a quality
assurance system must meet and the need for aircraft certificated as
light-sport category aircraft to be produced under a production quality
assurance system are discussed in the section IV.D.16 of this proposed
rule addressing proposed Sec.  22.185. By proposing that the
manufacturer's statement of compliance contain a statement that the
manufacturer has established and maintains such a system, the proposal
further emphasizes the specific importance that the FAA attaches to
producing light-sport category aircraft under a quality assurance
system. Establishing and documenting a quality assurance system is
critical in assuring that aircraft and aircraft kits meet applicable
design, production, and airworthiness requirements and are manufactured
and tested in accordance with identified consensus standards.
b. Creation of an Amended Statement of Compliance
    A light-sport category aircraft certificated before the effective
date of this proposed rule would be able to continue to operate under
the provisions of its airworthiness certificate. However, these
aircraft would not be able to take advantage of the expanded
capabilities in this proposed rule, to include conducting aerial work.
Proposed Sec.  21.190(e) would contain special provisions for aircraft
certificated as light-sport category aircraft before the effective date
of the final rule that would enable these aircraft to conduct aerial
work operations. The proposed Sec.  21.190(e) would permit the owner of
an aircraft issued an airworthiness certificate in the light-sport
category before the effective date of the final rule to submit an
amended manufacturer's statement of compliance which would permit the
conduct of certain aerial work operations designated by the
manufacturer on the amended statement of compliance.
    To show the aircraft is eligible for an amended statement of
compliance, the statement would need to identify the aircraft by make,
model, serial number, and date of manufacture. The statement would also
be required to be made by the original aircraft manufacturer, as the
original manufacturer is the source of the design and compliance data
used to make the original statement and determine whether the
aircraft's design and construction can withstand the expected or known
loads associated with the designated aerial work operation. Unlike
type-certificated aircraft designs, the FAA does not engage in showing
and finding activities using the aircraft manufacturer's design and
compliance data for light-sport category aircraft and therefore cannot
make any determinations on the appropriateness of specific aerial work
operations, even those that may be benign in nature. If a manufacturer
is unwilling or unable to submit an amended statement of compliance or
provide the data to a third party, the aircraft will not be authorized
to conduct aerial work operations. For an amended statement of
compliance, the original manufacturer would be responsible for creating
the document and listing those authorized aerial work operations.
    A light-sport category aircraft certificated before the effective
date of this rule would not have to meet the proposed part 22
requirements to obtain an amended statement of compliance. Instead, the
statement would need to reference and reaffirm the statements made in
the original manufacturer's statement of compliance and specify the
particular consensus standards used to determine compliance. In doing
so, the manufacturer would be reaffirming that the aircraft
configuration still conforms to the manufacturer's design data and
still complies with the original consensus standards, unless the
aircraft was modified by the manufacturer or under the manufacturer's
authorization. ASTM Standard F2972 requires the manufacturer to keep a
permanent record of the documentation used to show compliance of each
approved aircraft configuration produced to all applicable consensus
standards and regulatory requirements in effect at the time of
manufacture. The manufacturer would also be reaffirming that any safety
of flight issues identified through the issuance of safety directives
or a continued airworthiness system have been corrected by the
manufacturer or in accordance with a manufacturer approved procedure.
To make these reaffirmations, the aircraft and its maintenance records
would need to be reviewed by the manufacturer so that it could
determine that the aircraft continues to meet the consensus standards
referenced in the original statement of compliance. The FAA notes that
such action may be cost prohibitive: however, without the
manufacturer's involvement in this process, any validation that the
aircraft continues to meet the standards identified in the original
manufacturer's statement of compliance would effectively not be
possible. Validation could not occur without the manufacturer's data
since the data supports compliance with the applicable consensus
standards.
    Additionally, the statement of compliance would be required to
state that the design and construction of the aircraft provides
sufficient structural integrity to enable safe operation of the
aircraft during the performance of the specified aerial work operations
and that the aircraft is able to withstand any foreseeable flight and
ground loads. The manufacturer could accomplish this task while
simultaneously evaluating the aircraft to reaffirm compliance with the
manufacturer's original statement of compliance. The FAA notes that to
comply with this provision, manufacturers would use consensus standards
for performing aerial work. The proposal would require the amended
statement of compliance to identify the consensus standards the
aircraft complies with. The FAA anticipates that industry members will

begin developing those standards after this proposal is published.
    The proposal would also require that the amended statement of
compliance be accompanied by revisions to the aircraft's operating
instructions to indicate those aerial work operations that may be
safely conducted. It would also require applicable revisions be made to
the aircraft's maintenance and inspection program and flight training
supplement necessary to accomplish any aerial work operations. These
revisions could include, for example, any necessary maintenance tasks
or inspections in preparation for, or because of, aerial work
operations. If an aerial work operation could be accomplished using
standard operational procedures, the aircraft's operating instructions
should state this for each aerial work operation for which use of those
procedures is appropriate.
21. Removal of Light-Sport Marking Requirements
    Proposed revisions to part 45 would eliminate the requirement in
Sec.  45.23(b) to mark light-sport category aircraft with ``light-
sport.'' This rule would not require owners to remove existing marks.
However, aircraft owners would be allowed to remove the marks any time
after the effective date of the final rule.
    The FAA originally imposed the ``light-sport'' marking requirement
in the 2004 final rule to clearly identify aircraft certificated in the
light-sport category. As the proposal would significantly expand the
parameters of those aircraft that could be certificated in the light-
sport category, the proposal would eliminate the ``light-sport''
marking requirement. Previously, all aircraft certificated in the
light-sport category could be operated by sport pilots and the marking
readily identified those aircraft. As certain aircraft certificated in
the light-sport category under the proposal may no longer meet the
proposed eligibility requirements for operations by persons exercising
sport pilot privileges, retaining the ``light-sport'' marking
requirement would no longer serve the purpose of identifying those
light-sport category aircraft that persons exercising sport pilot
privileges could operate. As such, the FAA is concerned that retaining
the ``light-sport'' marking requirement would be a source of confusion
for persons exercising sport pilot privileges. As with other aircraft,
a person exercising sport pilot privileges would need to evaluate an
aircraft to determine whether the aircraft meets the parameters of
those aircraft they are authorized to operate. In addition, information
related to the aircraft certification category is included on the
airworthiness certificate for each aircraft and is required per Sec.
91.203(b) to be displayed at the cabin or cockpit entrance so that it
is legible to passengers or crew.

E. Sport Pilot Certification and Privileges

    Part 61 of title 14 prescribes the requirements for pilot and
flight instructor certificates and ratings.\41\ Pursuant to part 61,
the FAA issues six grades of pilot certificates: student, sport,
recreational, private, commercial, and airline transport pilot
(ATP).\42\ These grades of pilot certificates require increasing levels
of pilot experience, testing, and associated privileges. Additionally,
the FAA issues flight instructor certificates under subpart H of part
61 and flight instructor certificates with a sport pilot rating under
subpart K of part 61.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \41\ 14 CFR 61.1(a)(1).
    \42\ 14 CFR 61.5(a)(1).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The sport pilot certificate differs from higher grades of pilot
certificates because the FAA does not issue category and class ratings
on a sport pilot certificate. Upon the successful completion of the
practical test for a sport pilot certificate, the FAA issues the
applicant a sport pilot certificate without any category and class
ratings and provides the pilot with a logbook endorsement for the
category and class of aircraft for which the pilot is authorized to act
as PIC (i.e., the category and class of aircraft in which the practical
test was conducted).\43\ To obtain privileges to operate an additional
category or class of light-sport aircraft, the sport pilot must receive
training and an endorsement from an authorized instructor for the
additional privilege, pass a proficiency check from an authorized
instructor (other than the instructor who trained them), and receive a
logbook endorsement from the instructor who conducted the proficiency
check.\44\ The logbook endorsement from the authorized instructor who
conducted the proficiency check certifies that the sport pilot is
authorized for the additional category and class light-sport aircraft
privilege.\45\An airmen application, known as FAA Form 8710-11, is also
submitted to the FAA to document the addition of that new
privilege.\46\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \43\ 14 CFR 61.317.
    \44\ 14 CFR 61.321.
    \45\ 14 CFR 61.321(d).
    \46\ FAA Form 8710-11, Airman Certificate and/or Rating
Application Supplemental Information and Instructions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The flight instructor certificate with a sport pilot rating under
subpart K differs from the flight instructor certificate issued under
subpart H because it has limited privileges compared to a subpart H
flight instructor. For example, a flight instructor with a sport pilot
rating may only provide training and endorsements that qualify
applicants for sport pilot certificates and privileges.\47\ A flight
instructor qualified under subpart H may provide training and
endorsements to persons seeking a higher-grade of pilot certificate
such as a recreational, private, or commercial pilot certificate.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \47\ 14 CFR 61.413, 61.415.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Currently, a sport pilot may only operate an aircraft that meets
the definition of light-sport aircraft in Sec.  1.1. As previously
discussed, the FAA is proposing to remove the definition of light-sport
aircraft from Sec.  1.1 and relocate the substantive requirements, with
modifications, to Sec.  21.190. As a result, the FAA is proposing to
establish a new regulation, in Sec.  61.316, that would prescribe
performance and design limitations for the aircraft sport pilots can
operate. Additionally, the FAA is proposing amendments that would
modernize the sport pilot and sport pilot instructor regulations. These
amendments would expand the types of aircraft a sport pilot may
operate, expand sport pilot operational privileges, revise some testing
requirements, and permit the use of FAA-qualified aviation training
devices (ATD) and flight simulation training devices (FSTD) for sport
pilot training credit. Additionally, the FAA proposes training and
instructor endorsement requirements for persons seeking to operate
aircraft with simplified flight control designations to ensure the safe
operation of these new aircraft. These proposals are discussed in
greater detail in the following subsections.
1. Sport Pilot Seating Limitation
    Currently, by definition in Sec.  1.1, a light-sport aircraft has a
maximum seating capacity of no more than two persons, including the
pilot. Thus, sport pilots are limited to operating aircraft with two
seats. Sport pilots are also limited under Sec.  61.315(c)(4) to
carrying one passenger. The FAA is proposing to increase the maximum
seat capacity for airplanes that a sport pilot can operate to four
seats but would retain the operational limitation for sport pilots that
limits them to carrying a single passenger.
    In considering whether to expand this two-seat limitation, the FAA
reviewed the privileges and limitations that apply to recreational
pilots, which are

contained in Sec.  61.101, because a recreational pilot certificate is
the next higher grade of pilot certificate and has very similar
operating limitations to sport pilots. Currently, Sec.  61.101(e)(1)(i)
contains a general limitation that prohibits a recreational pilot from
acting as PIC of an aircraft that is certificated for more than four
occupants. The FAA adopted this requirement in 1989.\48\ In the final
rule that adopted the four-seat limitation for recreational pilots, the
FAA determined that limiting recreational pilots to two-seat aircraft
was unnecessarily restrictive notwithstanding that a recreational
pilot, like a sport pilot, is limited to carrying a single
passenger.\49\ The FAA explained that the two-seat limitation was based
on the premise that a recreational pilot certificate is intended for
recreational purposes rather than transportation.\50\ However, there
are many basic aircraft with seating capacities of four seats and these
general aviation aircraft are often used for student training or
recreational flying.\51\ At the time of the 1989 final rule, the FAA
received overwhelming support for the four-seat occupancy limitation
for recreational pilots.\52\ Since then the NTSB has only recorded 49
accidents with a recreational pilot acting as PIC and only six of those
accidents involved a fatality over a 30-year period.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \48\ Certification of Recreational Pilots and Annual Flight
Review Requirements for Recreational Pilots and Non-Instrument-Rated
Private Pilots with Fewer than 400 Flight Hours, Final Rule, 54 FR
13028 (Mar. 29, 1989).
    \49\ 14 CFR 61.101(a)(1).
    \50\ Id.
    \51\ The FAA also recognizes that primary category aircraft
certificated under Sec.  21.24(a)(1) have a maximum seating capacity
of not more than four persons, including the pilot. These aircraft
are also purposed for personal use and recreation and use for flight
training. The aircraft certification regulations and the associated
operating limitations for primary category aircraft are similar but
more restrictive (i.e., have higher standards) than the Sec.  21.190
consensus standards certification process for light-sport aircraft.
    \52\ As stated in the 1989 final rule, approximately 100
commenters supported the proposal to expand occupancy limitations
from two-seats to four-seats. 54 FR 13031.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Additionally, like recreational pilot certificates, the two-seat
limitation for sport pilots is consistent with the premise that a sport
pilot certificate is used for recreational purposes and not for
carrying persons or property for compensation or hire. However,
airplanes with seating capacities of four seats are often used for
flight training and recreational flying while carrying only one
passenger.
    The FAA contends that the skill necessary to operate two seat
airplanes versus four seat airplanes does not appreciably differ due to
the similarity in design, weight and operational capabilities. Also, to
determine whether expanding the two-seat limitation to four seats would
adversely affect the safety of sport pilot operations, the FAA
evaluated the training and testing requirements for recreational pilot
certificates and compared those with the requirements for sport pilot
certificates. In this comparison, the FAA determined that sport pilots
are largely trained and tested to the same standards as recreational
pilots.\53\ Specifically, based on the Practical Test Standards (PTS)
for sport pilots and for recreational pilots, the FAA finds that the
knowledge and skills that a sport pilot must demonstrate on a practical
test are virtually identical to the knowledge and skills that a
recreational pilot must demonstrate on a practical test. Considering
these testing similarities and that recreational pilots have been
safely operating four-seat airplanes with only one passenger since
1989, the FAA finds that permitting sport pilots to operate airplanes
with four seats would not adversely affect safety. Furthermore, based
on an evaluation of the tasks a person must demonstrate to obtain a
sport pilot certificate and the similar aircraft characteristics of a
two-seat airplane and a four-seat airplane (e.g., design, weight, and
operational capabilities), the FAA finds that the minimum pilot skills
that are currently required for sport pilots to operate an airplane
with two seats are commensurate with the skills required to operate a
four-seat airplane.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \53\ See Sport Pilot PTS for Airplane, Gyroplane, Glider, and
Flight Instructor (FAA-S-8081-29 with Change 3) and Recreational
Pilot PTS for Airplane, Rotorcraft/Helicopter, and Rotorcraft/
Gyroplane (FAA-S-8081-3A).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The FAA recognizes that there may be airplanes that meet all
elements of proposed light-sport category aircraft certification (e.g.,
those characteristics set forth by proposed Sec.  22.100, except
proposed paragraph (a)(2)) that have a maximum seating capacity of more
than four seats. In this proposal, the FAA declines to expand sport
pilot privileges as applicable to those airplanes with more than four
seats. First, the FAA notes that part 61 provides different grades of
pilot certificate. With each higher grade of pilot certificate comes
expanded privileges. Considering this regulatory framework and the
privileges provided to recreational pilots and private pilots, the FAA
finds that it would be inappropriate to permit a sport pilot to operate
an airplane with more than four seats. Doing so would provide a sport