cruise speeds, the possibility for adverse consequences from momentary
loss of control is greater.  Commenters objected that the proposed limit
would force the design of inefficient aircraft.  The FAA disagrees with
this opinion.  Faster aircraft are not necessarily more efficient than
slower aircraft.  Maximum speed is not an indication as to whether or
not an aircraft has an efficient design.  An efficient aircraft design
(with lower drag) can provide benefits to the operator other than
increased speed.  Such benefits may permit the aircraft to use a smaller
engine, have increased range, or have increased payload capacity.

Some commenters proposed that a horsepower limit would be more suitable
than a maximum speed limit.  A commenter stated that horsepower and drag
are the factors that set airplane maximum speed.  The FAA agrees that
there are alternative methods of limiting aircraft speed, however, the
FAA has chosen to limit the speed directly rather than indirectly
through some other parameter.  Due to the variability of aircraft design
the FAA believes that limiting horsepower would not necessarily result
in consistent maximum airspeed limitations.

Some commenters stated that higher speed does not affect safety, but
insufficient power may reduce safety.  The FAA has previously discussed
how higher speed may affect safety.  With regard to simple,
low-performance aircraft, the design and performance consensus standard
will ensure that all aircraft meet a minimum performance standard and
therefore provide an acceptable level of safety.  Several commenters
stated that the maximum airspeed is dependent upon throttle position,
and that operating at 100% throttle is not a normal operation.  Although
this statement is true, the FAA has determined that it is appropriate to
impose a maximum speed limit for the reasons stated above.

Another commenter stated that many airplanes “claim” inflated top
speeds, so only a demonstrated maximum speed would be credible.  The FAA
agrees and notes that VH was selected as it is easily demonstrated.
Several commenters noted that in-service variations affecting engine or
propeller efficiency, instrument calibration, or airplane aerodynamics
could cause significant variations in actual maximum airspeed.  The FAA
agrees that some small variations in actual aircraft performance are to
be expected.  However, the FAA believes that a demonstration by the
manufacturer of the aircraft’s maximum airspeed in a specified
configuration is adequate to ensure that the airplane design is
compatible with the light-sport aircraft definition.  A commenter stated
that foreign sport airplane airworthiness standards do not impose a
maximum airspeed requirement, and this would be an unfair advantage
compared to American aircraft.  The FAA disagrees that foreign aircraft
have an unfair advantage.  Regardless of the country of manufacture, in
order to be considered a light-sport aircraft, the aircraft must meet
the parameters of the light-sport aircraft definition.

A commenter proposed that the light-sport aircraft definition should
assure structural integrity by requiring that the maximum speed in level
flight with maximum continuous power, VH, be less than or equal to the
design maneuvering speed (VA) at altitudes of 8,000 feet or less.
Because the FAA is not establishing structural limits in the definition
of light-sport aircraft, it would be inappropriate to include this
constraint in the definition.  The FAA believes that this would be an
excessive restriction for light-sport aircraft.

Paragraph (3)  Maximum never-exceed speed (VNE) for a glider

A commenter stated that the FAA’s proposed maximum speed of 115 knots
for a glider does not provide adequate protection against headwinds or
wind shear.  A commenter asked that the never-exceed speed (VNE) be
increased slightly to allow for increased safety, utility, and comfort.
Several comments recommended increased VNE for gliders.  Additional
comments expressed satisfaction with the consistency with the VH for
powered aircraft.  The FAA is aware that the two maximum speed limits
established in the light-sport aircraft definition have two different
bases.  As stated in the previous section, the FAA’s concern is that
the light-sport aircraft definition set a maximum speed limit for the
aircraft to be flown by sport pilots.  In response to the comments
reported in this section, in the final rule, VNE for gliders is
increased to 120 knots CAS.  This is done to maintain consistency
between the VH value for powered aircraft and the VNE value for gliders.

Proposed paragraph (4)  Maximum stalling speed or minimum steady flight
speed in landing configuration (VS0)

Some commenters recommended that the FAA eliminate the 39-knot stall
speed in the landing configuration.  Many comments recommended raising
the limit of 39 knots CAS in the landing configuration.  Some commenters
questioned the narrow proposed spread between the originally proposed
VS0 (proposed in paragraph (4)) of 39 knots CAS and the VS1 (proposed in
paragraph (5)) of 44 knots CAS.

The FAA agrees that the proposed spread of stall speeds in practice is
narrow, and provides a mixed message as to the limiting design
condition.  A low stall speed is desirable, but not at the expense of
forcing a simple aircraft that otherwise meets the definition to become
more complex to operate and maintain by adding flaps to a design for no
other purpose than to meet the VS0 requirement.  Light-sport aircraft
may have flaps because the safety benefit of this feature can be
achieved without the complexity inherent in retractable landing gear or
controllable-pitch propellers.  The FAA is eliminating the maximum
stalling speed in the landing configuration (VS0) restriction that was
proposed in paragraph (4) of the NPRM because the low-speed limit is
adequately addressed by the maximum “clean” stall speed (VS1).

Final rule paragraph (4)  Maximum stalling speed or minimum steady
flight speed without the use of lift-enhancing devices (VS1) (proposed
as paragraph (5))

The FAA received numerous comments concerning the two proposed maximum
stall speeds.  Some commenters agreed with the stall speeds originally
proposed by the FAA.  Many commenters proposed higher alternative values
for the light-sport aircraft stall speed limit, ranging from 45 miles
per hour (mph) (39 knots) to 63 mph (55 knots).  Typically, commenters
referred to a particular homebuilt, classic, or existing training
airplane as being appropriate for consideration under the light-sport
aircraft definition and for operation by a sport pilot.  The FAA did not
establish a maximum stall speed for light-sport aircraft based on the
parameters of particular aircraft.

Additionally, one commenter asked why the stall speeds were so low.  The
FAA’s proposed stall speeds were based on early discussions with
light-sport aircraft industry representatives.  A basic design principle
for light-sport aircraft is that the stall speed for these aircraft is
about one third of the aircraft maximum speed.  The FAA notes that when
it increased the maximum aircraft speed in the final rule it also
increased the maximum stall speed accordingly.

A commenter stated that the FAA should increase the stall speed to a
range of 50 mph to 60 mph, “…which would be above what is generally
encountered as normally high runway turbulence and would lead to safer
landings.”  The FAA believes that the stall speed established in the
light-sport aircraft definition should be adequate to address airport
surface conditions normally encountered by light-sport aircraft.
Permitting significantly increased stall speeds may have the effect of
changing the takeoff and landing characteristics of light-sport aircraft
to a degree that is inappropriate for their operation by sport pilots.

	A commenter stated that a 50-knot stall speed would be needed for
light-sport aircraft to operate in Class B, C, or D airspace.  The FAA
does not agree that operating in these airspace classes requires such a
high stall speed and notes that ultralight vehicles may operate in Class
B, C, or D airspace with ATC permission.  Additionally, other aircraft
with stall speeds below 50 knots routinely operate in these classes of
airspace.

A commenter proposed that the FAA require shoulder harnesses in
light-sport aircraft and then increase the proposed stall speed limits
by 10 percent.  The FAA disagrees that installing shoulder harnesses
should permit increased stall speeds for light-sport aircraft.  This
rule does not directly prescribe equipment standards as those are
contained in the consensus standards.

A commenter proposed that an increased stall speed would permit a higher
aircraft weight, which would permit installation of more navigation and
communication equipment on the light-sport aircraft.  As noted elsewhere
in this section, to accommodate the weight increase and maximum speed
increase from the originally proposed maximum values, the FAA is
increasing the limit stall speed without the use of lift enhancing
devices VS1 to 45 knots CAS.

Several commenters proposed that the light-sport aircraft should have a
lower stall speed limit.  One reasoned that slower flight permits a
wider choice of emergency landing fields.  Several stated that the stall
speed should be as low as possible for safety’s sake.  The FAA agrees
with these principles; however, disagrees with the need to lower the
proposed stall speed.  The FAA believes that the revised stall speed is
appropriate for aircraft that might weigh as much as the maximum weight
limit that is established in the light-sport aircraft definition.  The
FAA notes that the maximum stall speed does not prohibit a manufacturer
from producing lighter aircraft with lower stall speeds.

A commenter believed that 30 to 35 knots would be better than the value
proposed by the FAA, and recommended that the part 103 stall speed of 24
knots would be even better.  As described in detail elsewhere in this
section, the FAA believes that an increased stall speed for light-sport
aircraft is appropriate for the maximum aircraft weight permitted by the
light-sport aircraft definition.  The FAA notes that the light-sport
aircraft definition is intended to broadly encompass a wide range of
aircraft for sport pilots.  Some light-sport aircraft design parameters
significantly exceed the parameters of vehicles operating under part
103.  Therefore, it would not be appropriate to use the part 103 stall
speed limits for all light-sport aircraft.

A commenter agreed with the concern for a low stall speed, but stated
that pilot awareness should better focus on airplane angle of attack
rather than speed.  The FAA agrees that there is a need to limit the
capability of the light-sport aircraft but notes that angle of attack is
not an appropriate design parameter for these aircraft.  Pilot training
typically addresses critical aircraft attitudes, including angle of
attack.

A commenter stated that FAA should clarify that aircraft speeds are more
accurately represented by knots True Air Speed (TAS) or knots Calibrated
Air Speed (CAS), rather than knots Indicated Air Speed (IAS).  Both the
proposal and the final rule refer to speeds in knots CAS.

Commenters asked for details on how the stall speed is determined.  The
definition was changed to specify that maximum stalling speed is
determined at maximum weight, with most critical center of gravity
location, at sea level standard day conditions.  However, the actual
test method is to be defined in the consensus standard.

Final Rule Paragraph (5) Maximum seating capacity (proposed as paragraph
(6))

Several commenters stated that the FAA should permit more than two seats
for the light-sport aircraft.  Additionally, a commenter asked if
four-seat airplanes could meet the light-sport aircraft definition with
limitation of only using two seats.  Light-sport aircraft are simple,
non-complex, aircraft and adding more seats or passengers would add to
the weight and complexity of these aircraft resulting in operational
characteristics that would be inappropriate for the sport pilot.  A
commenter asked if a single-seat aircraft is eligible as a light-sport
aircraft.  The definition permits a single-seat aircraft.

A commenter asked if side-by-side seating would be permitted for flight
instruction.  Another commenter questioned the permissible arrangement
of the seats in a two-place aircraft.  Side-by-side or tandem seating is
permitted under this rule.  The definition does not define the
arrangement of the seats.

Final Rule Paragraph (6) Single, reciprocating engine (proposed as
paragraph (7))

Commenters recommended that the light-sport aircraft definition allow
for multi-engine aircraft, turbine-powered aircraft, or both.  The FAA
disagrees with this suggestion.  Multi-engine and turbine-powered
aircraft introduce a level of operational and mechanical complexity that
extends far beyond the scope of this rule.  Current pilot certification
rules require an additional rating for multi-engine operation and a type
rating for turbojet powered aircraft.  These additional pilot ratings
are not available to the holder of a sport pilot certificate.  Further,
most turbopropeller engines make use of cockpit-controllable variable
pitch propellers and many have a reverse thrust operational mode as
well.  Such devices are mechanically and operationally complex,
requiring more extensive training to operate in flight and having far
more complex maintenance requirements.  Therefore, the definition of
light-sport aircraft will continue to exclude multiengine or
turbine-powered aircraft.

Several commenters proposed that small turbine engines be permitted for
light-sport aircraft.  Reasons included simplicity of design and
operation, desire to foster innovation, and safety relative to a
propeller design.  A commenter stated that a small turbine engine
permits a simpler powerplant package for a powered glider than a
propeller engine.  The FAA does not agree that turbine engines are
appropriate for the light-sport aircraft category.  Turbine engines
possess inherent design characteristics that must be accommodated by
stringent design, maintenance, and operating criteria that are
inconsistent with the light-sport aircraft regulatory philosophy.
Specifically, turbine engine failure modes, such as disc bursts, can be
catastrophic to the aircraft.  The FAA has established engine and
airframe certification regulations to address these failure modes such
as mandatory life limits, extensive engine analyses and testing, and
airframe layout, structural and performance criteria that require
extensive FAA oversight that is beyond the scope of this rulemaking.

Many commenters stated that light-sport aircraft should have the safety
benefit of multi-engine reliability.  A commenter stated that small
multi-engine ultralight-like airplanes respond differently to a single
engine failure than relatively larger general aviation aircraft.
Another commenter stated that the light-sport aircraft performance would
assure that multi-engine operation would require a negligible difference
in pilot skills.  Another proposed to require only a single thrust line
and permit multi-engines.  Another proposed that the light-sport
aircraft definition contain suggested specific performance values and
include provisions that would result in a light-sport aircraft having
docile handling characteristics to accommodate single-engine failure in
a multi-engine layout.  A commenter proposed that multi-engines be
permitted, with a combined horsepower limit.  For the reasons stated
previously, the FAA disagrees that light-sport aircraft should be
permitted to have multiple engines because of the additional operational
complexity of these aircraft.

A commenter stated that for ultralight-like aircraft, the engines should
be considered non-essential equipment.  Another commenter stated that
because ultralight pilots are trained to stay within safe gliding
distance from an emergency landing field then engines should be
considered as non-essential equipment.  The FAA will permit the teams
developing the design consensus standards for the different classes of
light-sport aircraft to determine whether engine operation is essential
to the safe operation of these aircraft.  Neither the light-sport
aircraft definition nor the rule directly prescribes standards for
design of equipment, such as engines.  The FAA believes that in many
instances light-sport aircraft will be operated well beyond safe gliding
distances from an emergency landing field.

A commenter asked if type-certificated engines will be required for
light-sport aircraft.  The FAA notes that the rule does not require the
installation of type-certificated engines.

	The FAA notes that in the final rule the term “single non-turbine
engine” has been modified to single reciprocating non-turbine engine.
This was done to preclude light-sport aircraft powered by rocket engines
but still permit rotary and diesel engines.

Final Rule Paragraphs (7) and (8)  Propellers (proposed as paragraph
(8))

The FAA received numerous comments on the proposed definition limiting
powered light-sport aircraft to a fixed or ground-adjustable propeller.
Several commenters stated that existing electronically controlled
in-flight adjustable propellers are widely used in the ultralight
industry, and are not as complicated as hydromechanically controlled
constant-speed propellers.  A commenter stated that the light-sport
aircraft definition should not stifle innovation in developing
automatically controlled adjustable propellers.  Most of the commenters
stated that electrically driven variable-pitch propellers have been used
on ultralight vehicles, and that they are not inherently complex and
recommended changing the definition to include variable-pitch
propellers.  The FAA does not agree that the light-sport aircraft
definition should be changed to permit controllable pitch propellers.
These propellers add operational complexity to an aircraft, as well as
the potential for mechanical failure.  In addition, because of the
training requirements for sport pilots and repairmen (light-sport
aircraft), the FAA does not believe that light-sport aircraft should
have controllable pitch propellers.  The FAA further notes that a
controllable-pitch propeller is one of the characteristics of a complex
airplane as listed in §61.31 (e).  As stated in the proposed rule, the
FAA intends for light-sport aircraft to be simple, low performance
aircraft.

Commenters proposed that adjustable-pitch propellers are needed for
safety and performance benefits for powered aircraft, particularly for
seaplanes.  One commenter stated that the maximum speed limit and
additional weight for floatplanes should permit adjustable propellers
for those aircraft.  Another commenter noted that reversible propellers
are typically used by floatplanes as brakes in surface operations on the
water.  The FAA does not believe that these benefits justify permitting
controllable pitch propellers for these aircraft for the reasons stated
above.

Commenters proposed that controllable pitch propellers be permitted on
light-sport aircraft and that a sport pilot be permitted to operate that
aircraft if the pilot has the appropriate training and a corresponding
endorsement.  The FAA does not agree that the light-sport aircraft
definition should be revised to permit this because it would require a
level of training for sport pilots and repairmen (light-sport aircraft)
that is not commensurate with the privileges of those certificates.

A commenter proposed that adjustable propellers be permitted on
light-sport aircraft, but that a private pilot license be required for
these aircraft.  Light-sport aircraft are intended to be flown by
persons exercising privileges of a sport pilot.  In addition, the FAA
notes that private pilots may fly aircraft with adjustable propellers;
however those aircraft are not considered light-sport aircraft.

A commenter asked if the FAA would require operators of existing
weight-shift-control and powered parachute aircraft to remove their
in-flight electronically adjustable propellers.  If the operator wishes
the aircraft to be considered a light-sport aircraft, the aircraft may
not be equipped with an in-flight adjustable propeller.  Under the
provisions of §21.191 (i)(1), existing aircraft would have to meet the
definition of a light-sport aircraft in order to receive an experimental
certificate for the purpose of operating a light-sport aircraft.  The
operator may be able to qualify for another experimental certificate for
a different purpose such as amateur-built.

Some commenters recommended that the light-sport aircraft definition
include particular aircraft that have constant-speed propellers.  Some
commenters stated that variable-pitch propellers provide performance
benefits for smaller powerplants, and that this can be a safety benefit.
 The FAA does not agree that these potential benefits outweigh concerns
discussed previously concerning the complexity of operations and
maintenance for light-sport aircraft.

Some commenters stated that seaplanes use reversible-pitch propellers to
assist in water handling characteristics and that the definition of
light-sport aircraft be modified to permit reversible-pitch props on
seaplanes.  For the reasons stated above, the FAA disagrees and will not
permit the use of reversible pitch propellers for seaplanes.

Some commenters requested that the light-sport aircraft definition
permit powered gliders to have in-flight adjustable propellers.
According to the commenters, powered gliders use a small motor and
propeller to prolong the cruise or soaring flight.  The powerplant may
also be used for self-launching of the powered glider.  A number of
different systems exist, ranging from a windmilling propeller, to
various autofeather propeller systems, to systems that fold the
propeller and stow the motor.

The FAA notes that reduction of drag is critical to safe operation of
unpowered and powered gliders.  Powered gliders are a unique kind of
light-sport aircraft in that they use a propeller to carry the aircraft
to glide altitude, then the engine is turned off as the aircraft begins
soaring flight.  If the propeller were not stowed or faired from the
cockpit to reduce drag, the aircraft’s glide performance would be
greatly hindered.

The FAA further notes that propellers used on powered gliders are simple
and only allow the pilot to feather or retract the propeller from the
cockpit once the engine has been shut down.  In addition, potential
failure of these systems does not add to pilot workload during the more
critical flight phases of takeoff or landing.  Therefore, the FAA
believes that the use of an autofeathering propeller system is
appropriate for powered gliders.  The proposed light-sport aircraft
definition is revised in the final rule to permit autofeathering
propeller systems on powered gliders.

Paragraph (9)  Gyroplane rotor system

The definition of light-sport aircraft in proposed §1.1 included
gyroplanes.  As discussed in the NPRM, the FAA did not propose to issue
special airworthiness certificates for gyroplanes in the light-sport
category.  The FAA received numerous comments on the subject of
gyroplanes (or autogyros or gyrocopters), including a submittal from the
gyroplane trade association.  Most of the comments concerned the
availability of dual-instruction, and the effect that terminating
current training exemptions would have on the availability of training
for gyroplane pilots.  The FAA included gyroplanes in the light-sport
aircraft definition to permit a sport pilot to fly the small gyroplanes
that are currently available on the market.  The FAA believes that the
training exemptions have permitted some increased availability of
gyroplane flight instructors because the exemptions allowed for a
two-seat gyroplane to be operated as an ultralight training vehicle by a
qualified ultralight instructor.  Existing two-seat gyroplanes that had
been operated as training vehicles under the part 103 exemptions, and
which have been certificated under §21.191 (i)(1), will be permitted to
conduct similar flight training operations for five years, as provided
for in §91.319 in this rule.  The part 61 provisions of the rule will
permit an existing ultralight gyroplane flight instructor to transition
to become a flight instructor with a sport pilot rating.  The FAA
anticipates that this 5-year transition period will permit the gyroplane
flight instructor pool to continue to expand to address the concerns of
most of the commenters.

Two-seat gyroplanes that have been issued experimental certificates for
the purpose of operating amateur-built aircraft under  §21.191 (g) may
be operated in accordance with operating limitations issued under
§91.319.  Generally, they may be used for sport and recreation
operations, including carrying a passenger, and receiving personal
flight training.  Receiving personal flight training (obtaining credit
for flight instruction received in the aircraft that one owns) was a
concern for some commenters.

Many of the commenters were concerned that the consensus standards for
light-sport aircraft would add prohibitively expensive costs to
gyroplanes, and would result in fewer gyroplane flight instructors.  The
FAA notes that there are four gyroplane designs that have been type
certificated.  The FAA notes that many gyroplane designs are smaller and
lighter weight than type certificated gyroplane designs.  One commenter
stated that even with less mass, ultralight gyroplanes are not different
from existing gyroplanes and could be considered similar to gyroplanes
that have a standard airworthiness certificate.  If it is true that
existing ultralight gyroplanes are similar to gyroplanes that have a
standard airworthiness certificate, then the FAA will work with any
manufacturer who desires to obtain a type certificate for a two-seat
gyroplane that meets existing airworthiness standards.  Part 27
airworthiness standards define an internationally recognized level of
safety for small rotary wing aircraft.  A gyroplane design may also
receive a primary category type certificate, which will be issued if the
FAA finds that the aircraft complies with the applicable airworthiness
requirements approved under §21.17 (f) and has no feature or
characteristic that makes it unsafe for its intended use.

Many of the commenters who called for the special light-sport aircraft
airworthiness certificate for gyroplanes referred to the simple design
and operation of flight controls.  The FAA acknowledges that this is a
reason for permitting sport pilots to fly gyroplanes, and for that
reason the FAA included gyroplanes in the light-sport aircraft
definition.  However, the FAA does not agree that this operational
simplicity would apply to design and performance criteria for the
light-sport aircraft gyroplane design.  Complicating design factors for
gyroplanes include the location of thrust and lift lines with respect to
the center of gravity; horizontal and vertical stabilizer size and
location; and effects of turbulence.  Larger gyroplanes have greater
inertia, which makes the aircraft less sensitive to the relative effects
of these factors.  The FAA believes that the dynamics of a rotary wing
aircraft and the light weight of existing two-seat ultralight gyroplanes
require a design standard for structural integrity and aircraft
stability that may add prohibitively expensive costs to gyroplanes.  One
commenter expressed doubt that the ultralight gyroplane industry would
agree upon a design standard.

The FAA reviewed gyroplane accident statistics in the NTSB’s
electronic database.  The data show 70 fatal accidents in the years 1983
through 1994 with mechanical failures accounting for 12 of those
accidents.  Data show 20 fatal accidents in the years 1995 through 2001,
and mechanical failures accounting for two of those accidents.  This
data tends to support those commenters who state that gyroplane safety
is better served by increased availability of training rather than
different standards for design and performance of gyroplanes.  Refer to
the discussion under “VI.5.A.viii. Gyroplanes” for details on how
this rule proposes to assure better training for sport pilots seeking a
gyroplane rating.

To summarize, the FAA stated in the NPRM that, for sport pilots flying
light-sport aircraft, the continued use of exemptions would generally be
inappropriate to allow aircraft larger than the limits in part 103 to be
used for flight training.  At this time, the FAA is not participating in
developing consensus standards for gyroplanes, because the FAA believes
that, unlike other kinds of light-sport aircraft, there are significant
complex design issues for gyroplanes that are unresolved by the
industry.  The simplicity of operation of gyroplanes supports making
this aircraft available to sport pilots.  The need for dual instruction
in gyroplanes, and the scarcity of gyroplane instructors, is reason for
the FAA to issue training exemptions for the gyroplane community.
Including gyroplanes in the light-sport aircraft definition will permit
the continued construction of two-seat gyroplanes that will support
increased availability of gyroplane flight instructors.  If the
gyroplane community is successful in developing a design and performance
consensus standard, and if service experience, including accident data,
demonstrates a marked difference between ultralight gyroplanes and those
that are built to that voluntary consensus standard, then the FAA may
revise the rule to permit gyroplanes to receive the special
airworthiness certificates in the light-sport category.  Otherwise,
before the end of the 5-year period during which aircraft certificated
under §21.191(i)(1) may be used for flight training for compensation,
the FAA may consider if it will continue to keep exemptions in place to
allow flight instructors to train sport pilots in gyroplanes issued
experimental certificates.

Paragraph (10)  Nonpressurized cabin

	The FAA did not receive any comments on the proposed requirement for a
light-sport aircraft to include a nonpressurized cabin, if equipped with
a cabin, in paragraph (10).

Paragraphs (11) through (13)  Landing gear

	Numerous commenters requested that the FAA revise the proposed
definition of a light-sport aircraft to permit retractable landing gear.
 The FAA reiterates its original position that for aircraft other than
gliders, retractable landing gear is inconsistent with the simplicity of
the light-sport aircraft, and the training requirements for the sport
pilot.

The FAA received many comments requesting that the light-sport aircraft
definition allow for simple mechanical retractable landing gear.  Some
commenters requested that specific existing aircraft that have simple
mechanical retractable landing gear be eligible to be a light-sport
aircraft.  They noted these aircraft would otherwise satisfy the FAA’s
proposed definition of light-sport aircraft.  The reasons stated by
commenters for permitting light-sport aircraft to have retractable
landing gear included--the safety benefit for emergency landings on
water or rough fields; that speed limitations make the performance
restriction of a fixed gear redundant; that training and endorsement for
pilots under existing §61.31 (e) adequately prepares pilots to operate
aircraft with retractable landing gear; that the slow speed of
light-sport aircraft will naturally limit damage in event of an
inadvertent gear-up landing; that gear-up landings are not an uncommon
occurrence; and that mechanical retractable landing gear is inherently
simple compared to electrical, hydraulic, or pneumatically actuated
systems.  The FAA disagrees that aircraft other than gliders should have
simple mechanical, or any other type of, retractable landing gear for
the reasons stated above.

A commenter asked the FAA to define its safety concern for not
permitting light-sport aircraft to have retractable landing gear.  The
FAA does not expect retractable gear would improve the safety of a
light-sport aircraft.  The FAA believes that retractable landing gear
add to pilot workload, particularly during the critical takeoff and
landing phases of flight.  Further, the addition of retractable landing
gear would introduce the potential for gear failure.  Therefore, the FAA
believes that allowing the use of retractable landing gear on
light-sport aircraft other than gliders would provide no safety benefit
for powered airplanes while adding to the operational and mechanical
complexity of the aircraft.

Many of these commenters stated their position that retractable landing
gear does not add to aircraft complexity while helping to reduce drag
and increase aircraft performance.  The FAA disagrees and notes that
retractable gear adds complexity as discussed above.  The FAA notes that
retractable landing gear are designed to enhance the performance of
aircraft by reducing drag.  This performance improvement is typically
attained at operational speeds that exceed the performance limitations
for light-sport aircraft.  Several commenters proposed alternative rule
language to permit simple mechanical retractable landing gear, and to
define repositionable landing gear.  As stated above, the FAA is not
revising the light-sport aircraft definition to permit retractable
landing gear on aircraft other than gliders.  The FAA discusses
repositionable landing gear later in this section.

Some commenters proposed to permit simple mechanical retractable landing
gear for specific makes and models of aircraft, which would otherwise
satisfy the proposed light-sport aircraft definition.  Other proposed
exceptions included replica fighter aircraft, and existing classic
aircraft.  The FAA does not agree for the reasons stated elsewhere in
this section.

A commenter submitted a description of an existing aircraft mechanical
retractable landing gear, with a pneumatic gear position indicating
system.  The FAA believes that the system’s complex description
justifies the FAA’s position that it is inappropriate for the
light-sport aircraft.

Several commenters stated that it is discriminatory to permit
retractable landing gear for some kinds of light-sport aircraft but not
for others.  The FAA explains below why it is allowing retractable
landing gear for gliders.

Several commenters stated that, by including a reference to landing
gear, the FAA does not include provisions for foot-launched aircraft,
such as hang gliders and powered paragliders in the light-sport aircraft
definition.  The FAA does not consider these to be light-sport aircraft.
 As stated in the proposed rule, the FAA specifically intended to
exclude from consideration as light-sport aircraft configurations in
which the engine and/or wing is mounted on the person operating the
aircraft, rather than a fuselage.

A commenter requested a definition of repositionable landing gear that
distinguishes it from retractable landing gear.  The FAA notes that for
the purposes of light-sport aircraft, repositionable landing gear is
wheeled landing gear that allows an aircraft designed for operation on
water to take off and land from a hard surface and which may be
retracted on the ground to permit takeoff and landing on water.
Repositionable landing gear remains fixed in its position from takeoff
through landing.  For aircraft intended for operation on water,
repositionable landing gear is acceptable for light-sport aircraft
because it does not add to mechanical or operational complexity.

In the proposed rule, the FAA had permitted repositionable landing gear
for seaplanes.  The FAA had not intended to only permit repositionable
landing gear for fixed wing airplanes intended for operation on water.
Upon further consideration, the FAA has changed the term “seaplanes”
to  “aircraft designed for operation on water.”  This change in
terminology is consistent with FAA’s original intention to permit
powered parachutes and weight-shift-control aircraft to be used for
operation on water.  It also removes the restrictions on powered
parachutes and weight-shift-control aircraft designed for operation on
water implied by the use of the term “seaplanes.”  As noted
previously in the discussion of light-sport aircraft weight limits, the
FAA has also intended to permit the light-sport aircraft definition to
include flying boat aircraft.  For this reason, the FAA has added the
term “hull” to paragraph (12) of the light-sport aircraft
definition.

Several commenters saw no difference between simple retractable landing
gear, and the repositionable landing gear that the FAA’s proposal
would permit for seaplanes.  The FAA disagrees.  The FAA did not intend
to permit retractable landing gear for aircraft designed for operation
on water.  The FAA believes that the repositionable landing gear that
will be permitted for light-sport aircraft that are designed for
operation on water is consistent with the FAA’s original position that
sport pilots flying aircraft other than gliders should not have to
concern themselves with verifying the position of a light-sport
aircraft’s landing gear.

Although no comments were received on the topic, FAA did not intend for
the definition of light-sport aircraft to preclude the installation of
skis.  FAA believes that fixed skis are acceptable for light-sport
aircraft, and retractable skis are not acceptable for light-sport
aircraft.

Some commenters pointed out a need for provisions for a simple
retractable wheel for gliders that are light-sport aircraft.  The FAA
agrees that retractable landing gear is acceptable for use on
light-sport gliders.  Most of the gliders that otherwise meet the
definition of a light-sport aircraft do make use of retractable landing
gear.  Reduction of drag is of critical importance for gliders, because
they do not use power to generate airspeed and maintain lift.  Because
of these considerations, the FAA is revising the definition of a
light-sport aircraft to permit a retractable landing gear (wheel or
skid) for gliders.  The consensus standards for light-sport aircraft
gliders should assure that the retractable landing gear will be a simple
mechanically operated system.

Changes

	The words, “since its original certification has continued to meet
the following” are added to the introductory text of §1.1.  The
reasons for this are discussed in the section titled “Modification of
Type-Certificated Aircraft to Meet the Light-Sport Aircraft
Definition.”

The FAA is restructuring the maximum takeoff weight requirements in
paragraph (1) of the definition of “light-sport aircraft.”  In
addition, the FAA is changing the maximum takeoff weight from “1,232
pounds (560 kilograms)” to “not more than 1,320 pounds (600
kilograms)” and is adding “1,430 pounds (650 kilograms) for an
aircraft designed for operation on water.”

For the VH requirements in paragraph (2), “115 knots CAS under
standard atmospheric conditions” is changed in the final rule to read
“120 knots CAS under standard atmospheric conditions at sea level.”

In paragraph (3) (regarding VNE for a glider), “115 knots CAS” is
changed to “120 knots CAS.”

Proposed paragraph (4) (regarding VS0) is not adopted in the final rule.

Proposed paragraph (5) (regarding VS1) is adopted as paragraph (4) in
the final rule, with the following change.  The words “44 knots CAS”
are changed to read, “45 knots CAS at the aircraft’s maximum
certificated takeoff weight and most critical center of gravity.”

Proposed paragraph (6), prescribing a maximum seating capacity of two
seats, is renumbered as paragraph (5) in the final rule and adopted with
the addition of a non-substantive change to include the words “no more
than.”

Proposed paragraph (7), prescribing a single, non-turbine engine for
powered light-sport aircraft, is renumbered as paragraph (6) in the
final rule and modified by replacing the word “nonturbine” with
“reciprocating.”

The fixed or ground-adjustable propeller requirements for light-sport
aircraft in proposed paragraph (8) are divided into paragraphs (7) and
(8) in the final rule to distinguish between powered gliders and other
powered aircraft.  In the final rule, paragraph (7) requires a fixed or
ground-adjustable propeller for powered aircraft other than a powered
glider.  Paragraph (8) requires a fixed or autofeathering propeller
system for a powered glider.

	Paragraph (9), regarding the gyroplane rotor system, is adopted without
change.

Paragraph (10), concerning a nonpressurized cabin, is adopted without
change.

Proposed paragraph (11) contained requirements for fixed landing gear
for light-sport aircraft, with an exception permitting repositionable
landing gear for seaplanes.  In the final rule, this is modified and
divided into paragraphs (11) and (12) in the final rule for clarity.  In
the final rule, paragraph (11) requires fixed landing gear, except for
an aircraft intended for operation on water or a glider.  Paragraph (12)
requires fixed or repositionable landing gear, floats, or a hull for an
aircraft intended for operation on water.

Paragraph (13) is added to permit fixed or retractable landing gear for
gliders.

Definition of “Powered Parachute”

Several commenters requested that the powered parachute definition be
broadened to permit paragliders and paramotors, or other forms of
foot-launched aircraft.  Some commenters were opposed to identifying
these aircraft as powered parachutes.  The FAA does not intend
light-sport aircraft to include foot-launched aircraft because the
variety of these aircraft combined with the lack of an aircraft fuselage
and an aircraft geometry based on the individual characteristics of the
operator would not be consistent with the FAA’s desire for training
aircraft built to specific design and performance standards.

Commenters proposed that the rule make provisions for land- and
sea-classes for powered parachutes.  The proposed rules for aircraft
certification do not preclude this, assuming that appropriate aircraft
design consensus standards for both land and sea class powered
parachutes are developed.  Similarly, the FAA did not intend to preclude
the installation of skis on powered parachutes.  As stated previously,
the FAA believes that fixed skis are acceptable for light-sport
aircraft.  The FAA will participate in the development of the consensus
standards for powered parachute design and performance, and will
determine when these standards are completed and acceptable for use.

Some commenters proposed specific language for the definition of a
powered parachute.  The FAA agrees that the definition should make clear
that the wing of a powered parachute does not deploy unless the aircraft
is in motion, and is revising the definition to accommodate this.  Also,
the definition is being revised to characterize the powered parachute
wing as “flexible” or “semi-rigid” instead of the term
“non-rigid” that was used in the proposed rule.  This change more
closely represents current designs for powered parachutes.  In the
proposed rule, the definition described the wing as “…inflat[ing]
into a lifting surface when exposed to a wind.”  The definition is
revised to state “…the wing is not in a position for flight until
the aircraft is in motion…” to more correctly correspond to powered
parachute operational practice.  The language in the proposed definition
stated that the engine is an integral part of the aircraft.  The
definition is revised to specify that the engine is a part of the
fuselage, as was intended by the FAA.  Also, the revised definition
specifies that the seats are a part of the fuselage.  That is consistent
with current designs and was intended by the FAA.  The language in the
proposal did not address this consideration.

A commenter proposed that the definition identify different classes of
powered parachutes, including utility or commercial.  The FAA notes that
powered parachutes will not be issued type certificates.  Aircraft used
for commercial purposes typically have a type certificate based on
compliance with the airworthiness standards and certification procedural
requirements contained in 14 CFR.  The FAA intends that experimental and
special light-sport aircraft be limited to activities generally
considered to be sport and recreation.  The operating limitations for
experimental and special light-sport aircraft will generally prohibit
these aircraft from being used for commercial purposes.

The FAA received comments that the definition for powered parachute
aircraft should not be limited to aircraft with a fuselage.  The FAA
does not agree for reasons stated in the proposed rule and notes that to
remove this restriction would permit foot-launched vehicles, such as
powered paragliders, to be considered light-sport aircraft.  The FAA
retains the requirement for a fuselage in the definition.

Changes

	The proposed rule stated: “A powered parachute means a powered
aircraft that derives its lift from a non-rigid wing that inflates into
a lifting surface when exposed to a wind.”  This is changed to state:
“A powered parachute means a powered aircraft comprised of a flexible
or semi-rigid wing connected to a fuselage so that the wing is not in
position for flight until the aircraft is in motion.”

The proposed definition also stated: “A powered parachute is propelled
by an engine that is an integral part of the aircraft and is controlled
by a pilot within a fuselage that is suspended beneath the non-rigid
wing.”  The definition is changed to state: “The fuselage of a
powered parachute contains the aircraft engine, a seat for each occupant
and is attached to wheels or floats.”

Definition of “Weight-Shift-Control Aircraft”

Several commenters proposed alternative definitions for the
weight-shift-control aircraft that would permit rigid wings with
ailerons and rudder control.  One commenter noted that the consensus
standard for weight-shift-control aircraft that is being developed makes
provisions for rigid-wing aircraft.  The commenter believes that this is
a good feature.  The FAA’s definition identified “…a framed,
pivoting wing….”  A rigid wing is beyond what the FAA intended for
these aircraft.  The FAA intended for the weight-shift-control aircraft
classification to address only flex-wing aircraft.  The definition is
being revised to clarify this by specifically indicating that the
aircraft is “controllable only in pitch and roll.”

A commenter questioned the FAA’s objective in making a classification
for weight-shift-control aircraft.  The FAA believes that
weight-shift-control aircraft should be distinguished not only by their
use of flexible wings and weight shift for flight control, but also by
the aircraft response to a pilot input.  Pilot input is applied to a
control bar that is a rigid wing member.  The rigid wing member is
limited to translation in a lateral plane that is either push forward
(aircraft nose up)/pull aft (aircraft nose down), or push left (aircraft
turn right)/push right (aircraft turn left).  The former motions control
aircraft pitch; the latter motions control aircraft roll.  These motions
cause aircraft response in the opposite sense for a conventional
three-axis-control aircraft.  The training for sport pilots to operate a
weight-shift-control aircraft is based on these assumptions.

A commenter stated that the definition of a weight-shift-control
aircraft should more correctly address control by changing the direction
of wing lift, rather than changing the aircraft center of gravity
location.  The commenter also noted that if aircraft center of gravity
location is calculated with respect to a fuselage station, then the
pilot control inputs do not change the airplane center of gravity
location.  The FAA agrees with the commenter, and the
weight-shift-control aircraft definition is revised to indicate that for
flight control the center of gravity location is considered in relation
to the wing.

The FAA did receive some comments that the definition for
weight-shift-control aircraft should not be limited to aircraft with a
fuselage.  The FAA does not agree for reasons stated in the proposed
rule and notes that to remove this restriction would permit
foot-launched vehicles, such as powered or unpowered hang gliders, to be
considered light-sport aircraft.  The FAA has retained the requirement
for a fuselage.

The FAA is working with the weight-shift-control aircraft technical
committee of ASTM.  The FAA has discussed with this group that the
definition of weight-shift-control aircraft should be limited to
two-axis-control aircraft, in which the wing pitch attitude may vary,
and the wing position may be moved about the longitudinal axis of the
aircraft.  The definition of weight-shift-control aircraft precludes yaw
control by vertical surfaces, or hinged control surfaces such as a
rudder or ailerons to distinguish these aircraft from airplanes.

Changes

The proposed definition of weight-shift control aircraft stated:
“Weight-shift-control aircraft means a powered aircraft with a framed
pivoting wing and a fuselage that is controllable in pitch and roll only
by the pilot’s ability to change the aircraft’s center of
gravity.”  This is changed to state: “Weight-shift-control aircraft
means a powered aircraft with a framed pivoting wing and a fuselage
controllable only in pitch and roll by the pilot’s ability to change
the aircraft’s center of gravity with respect to the wing.”

The FAA is also adding to the definition the following sentence:
“Flight control of the aircraft depends on the wing’s ability to
flexibly deform rather than the use of control surfaces.”

V.2.  Part 21—Certification Procedures For Products And Parts

Section 21.175  Airworthiness certificates: Classification

A few commenters recommended that light-sport aircraft be issued
standard airworthiness certificates.  The FAA agrees that a light-sport
aircraft may be issued a standard airworthiness certificate if it meets
the requirements of the airworthiness standards under §21.175 (a).  But
an aircraft issued a standard airworthiness certificate requires a type
certificate for its design, and usually a production certificate to be
manufactured.  Any light-sport aircraft not manufactured under a type
certificate cannot be issued a standard airworthiness certificate.

One commenter recommended that light-sport be added as a category of
airworthiness certificate.  The FAA agrees in part, but, as proposed in
the NPRM and adopted in this final rule, determines that light-sport
aircraft will be added as a category under special airworthiness
certificate.  Aircraft may receive a special airworthiness certificate
in two separate ways.  First, an aircraft may receive a special
airworthiness certificate in the light-sport category if that aircraft
meets a consensus standard.  Second, if a light-sport aircraft does not
meet a consensus standard, the owner may obtain an experimental
certificate for it.

One commenter recommended retaining experimental as a purpose, and not
as a classification, on the special airworthiness certificate.  The FAA
disagrees.  Taking this action would not allow the FAA to distinguish
the various purposes for which experimental certificates are issued.
Also, this action was not proposed and is outside the scope of this
rulemaking.

A few other commenters recommended that light-sport aircraft be required
to have type certificates.  One purpose of this rule is to provide for
increased safety without substantially increasing the burden on the
industry.  Imposing type design requirements would add substantially to
the cost of producing aircraft.  A type certificate will not be
necessary for light-sport aircraft that are certificated as special
light-sport aircraft or experimental light-sport aircraft.  They are
issued airworthiness certificates with operating limitations that
provide an appropriate level of safety for these aircraft.  However, if
the manufacturer of a light-sport aircraft chooses to apply to the FAA
and demonstrates the appropriate level of compliance with the existing
regulations, it may obtain a type certificate for its light-sport
aircraft.

Finally, upon further review, the FAA is correcting the wording of
paragraph (b) to remove the word “categories” and the words
“experimental airworthiness certificate” are corrected to read
“experimental certificate.”  This is necessary because all of the
items in the list are not categories of special airworthiness
certificates, and the experimental certificate does not indicate the
airworthiness standards that the aircraft meets.

Changes

In paragraph (b), the word “categories” is removed, and the words
“experimental airworthiness certificate” are corrected to read
“experimental certificate.”

Section 21.181 Duration [of airworthiness certificates]

Several commenters agreed with the FAA’s position that the aircraft
owner is ultimately responsible for the airworthiness of the light-sport
aircraft.  These commenters also assumed that the FAA could take
certificate action against the holder of the airworthiness certificate
if necessary.  The FAA discussed certificate action in the NPRM, but
realizes that the proposed rule would not have provided a sufficient
regulatory means to invalidate the airworthiness certificates issued to
these aircraft.  The FAA is therefore adopting language to include
several limitations to the duration of the airworthiness certificate.

The proposed rule would have revised paragraph (a)(1) to include
requirements for special airworthiness certificates in the light-sport
category.  The FAA has decided not to amend (a)(1) but to move the
proposed requirements for maintaining a valid special airworthiness
certificate in the light-sport aircraft category to new paragraph (a)(3)
(and redesignate proposed (a)(3) as (a)(4)).  The new paragraph
clarifies that those requirements must be continuously met to maintain
the validity of the airworthiness certificate.  The paragraph indicates
that the aircraft must meet the definition of a light-sport aircraft;
conform to its original configuration, except for authorized
alterations; have no unsafe condition or be likely to develop an unsafe
condition; and be registered in the United States.  If a special
light-sport aircraft fails to meet the limitations listed under §21.181
(a)(3), the special airworthiness certificate issued under §21.190 (a)
is no longer valid.  However, the aircraft may still be eligible for an
experimental certificate issued under §21.191 (i)(3) with a duration
established by §21.181(a)(4).

Changes

	Paragraph (a)(1) is retained without change in the final rule.
Proposed paragraph (a)(3), which discusses experimental certificates, is
redesignated as (a)(4), and a new paragraph (a)(3) addressing special
airworthiness certificates is added.  New paragraph (a)(3) adds
requirements that the aircraft must meet to maintain eligibility for a
special airworthiness certificate.

Section §21.182  Aircraft identification

The FAA received no comments on this section.

Changes

	The proposal is adopted without change.

Proposed §21.186 (adopted as §21.190—see discussion below)

Proposed §21.186 is renumbered as §21.190 in the final rule.  This is
being done because §21.45, which addresses privileges of the holder or
licensee of a type certificate for a product, refers to §§21.173
through 21.189.  Since light-sport aircraft are not issued type
certificates, the FAA is moving this section on light-sport aircraft out
of that group of sections to §21.190.

Section §21.190  Issue of a special airworthiness certificate for a
light-sport category aircraft (proposed as §21.186)

Paragraph (a) Purpose:  The FAA received comments that suggested using
certification standards already acceptable in Europe and other
countries.  The FAA opted for design and performance standards developed
through the consensus standard process.  Those working on the consensus
standards are aware of the other certification standards and may adopt
all or a portion of them as deemed appropriate.  See also discussions in
§1.1 above.

The FAA received several comments stating that gyroplanes also should be
allowed to obtain special airworthiness certificates in the light-sport
category under the terms of the proposed rule and not be limited to
experimental certificates.  The commenters recommended that gyroplanes
have the same options as the other types of special light-sport aircraft
to obtain a special light-sport aircraft airworthiness certificate.  See
the discussion of gyroplanes under the definition of “light-sport
aircraft” in §1.1 above.

In addition, upon further review by the FAA, the words “for sport and
recreation,” “flight training,” and “rental” are deleted from
this paragraph because these intended operations are more appropriate
for inclusion under the operating rules of §91.327.  As discussed under
that section, special light-sport aircraft may be used for these types
of operations or purposes.

Paragraph (b) Eligibility:  Proposed paragraph (b)(1) would have
required that the registered owner of the aircraft provide the
documentation listed in paragraph (b).  Upon further review, the FAA
realized that it was inappropriate to require the registered owner,
rather than the applicant for the airworthiness certificate, to submit
this information.

In many cases, the proposal may have resulted in the registered owner
needing to resubmit the information required by paragraph (b) and the
airworthiness certificate being needlessly re-issued with a change in
ownership.  This would be an unnecessary administrative burden to the
owners, to the FAA, and to the manufacturers.  As specified in §21.179,
airworthiness certificates for all aircraft are transferred with the
aircraft.  Accordingly, the term “registered owner” in proposed
paragraph (b)(1) is changed to “applicant” in the final rule.

Proposed (b)(1)(i) would have required the submission of the applicable
pilot operating handbook.  Upon further review, the FAA is changing the
name of the document to “aircraft operating instructions.”  The name
change will distinguish it from a pilot operating handbook, which is
normally developed for small aircraft certificated under part 23.  The
content of the aircraft operating instructions will be governed by
applicable consensus standard.

	A few commenters recommended that the FAA revise paragraph (b)(1) to
allow light-sport aircraft manufacturers to apply for blocks of
registration numbers.  This is unnecessary since it can be done under 14
CFR part 47, Aircraft Registration.

Proposed paragraphs (b)(1)(iv) and (b)(1)(v) were intended to prevent
past and future modifications that deviate from the consensus standards.
 The final rule deletes the proposed requirement that the registered
owner produce statements regarding the past and future modification.
Instead, the final rule addresses this issue with a limitation on the
duration of the certificate’s effectivity under §21.181 (a)(3),
discussed above.  Also, the FAA is addressing alterations to these
aircraft in the operating limitations contained in §91.327.   The
intent of the limitation is to preclude unauthorized alterations,
repairs, and replacement parts.  For additional discussion, see §91.327
(b)(5), and (b)(6) of the operating limitations concerning alterations
and repairs for these aircraft.

Proposed paragraph (b) is also revised to require an applicant to submit
the aircraft’s flight training supplement.  The FAA proposed that the
manufacturer of an aircraft intended for certification with a special
airworthiness certificate in the light-sport category issue a statement
of compliance that identified the applicable pilot flight training
manual and state that it would be made available to any interested
person.  The FAA is changing the term “flight training manual” to
“flight training supplement.” as this document is intended to
supplement the aircraft’s operating instructions.  To ensure that all
owners of these aircraft possess appropriate flight training information
to safely operate the aircraft, the FAA is requiring an applicant for a
special airworthiness certificate in the light-sport category to submit
the aircraft’s flight training supplement when application for that
certificate is made.

Proposed paragraph (b)(2) would have prevented an aircraft having either
a standard or a primary category airworthiness certificate from
obtaining a special light-sport aircraft airworthiness certificate.
This prohibition is broadened in the final rule to include not only
aircraft issued standard or primary airworthiness certificates, but also
those issued restricted, limited, or provisional airworthiness
certificates or equivalent foreign airworthiness certificates.  In
broadening the rule’s provisions, the FAA is using the same rationale
that it used in the proposed rule.  In the preamble of the proposed
rule, the FAA stated that allowing aircraft with standard or primary
airworthiness certificates to obtain a special light-sport certificate
would be an unnecessary burden on the manufacturers, the operators, and
the FAA.  The FAA also stated that there would be little interest in
“downgrading,” as a special light-sport aircraft airworthiness
certificate would have more restrictive operating limitations.  (See
discussion of proposed §21.186 (b)(2).)  The FAA is making these
changes for the same reasons.  These provisions are not intended to
preclude a special light-sport aircraft airworthiness certificate from
being issued to an aircraft that has been previously issued an
experimental certificate.

	A few commenters also recommended that the FAA revise paragraph (b)(3)
to allow use of designated airworthiness representatives (DARs) at
factories for the purpose of performing FAA inspections.  DARs are FAA
designees and, as authorized, they may perform FAA inspections.  They
may be employed by manufacturers.  No revision is necessary to allow
DARs the authority to perform the inspections under (b)(3).  See also
the discussion on DARs under §21.191 (i)(1).

A commenter stated that requiring an individual FAA inspection before
issue of a special airworthiness certificate is unnecessary.  The FAA
disagrees.  The FAA, through an aviation safety inspector or a designee,
inspects all aircraft before issuing an airworthiness certificate.  An
inspection is necessary to establish a minimum level of safety for
special light-sport aircraft.  The inspection is a way of determining
that the aircraft complies with the applicable consensus standard.  As
discussed above, an inspection may be performed by an appropriately
authorized FAA designee.

Another commenter wanted to know if minimum equipment required under
§ 91.205 will apply to these aircraft.  Section 91.205 only applies to
powered civil aircraft with standard category U.S. airworthiness
certificates.  Instead, the appropriate minimum equipment requirements
for specific categories and classes of light-sport aircraft will be
established by the applicable consensus standard.  In addition, the
operating rules in part 91 may establish specific requirements for
particular operations.  See part 91 general issues discussion on minimum
equipment.

Another commenter recommended that the rule address alterations.  The
FAA agrees and is revising the definition of “consensus standard” in
§1.1 to permit authorized alterations.  The FAA is also adding §91.327
(b)(5) and (b)(6) to better address repairs and alterations.  See the
discussions of those sections.

A commenter questioned if §21.190 (b) requires that the FAA perform an
inspection every time a different wing is used or installed on a powered
parachute or weight-shift-control aircraft.  Owners of these types of
aircraft regularly change the wings to change the performance and
maneuverability of the aircraft.  This allows the aircraft to have
different capabilities depending on what the owner wants to do on the
particular flight.  The FAA does not consider an inspection necessary
each time a wing is installed or removed, if the different wings have
been inspected and authorized for installation on the light-sport
aircraft.  If the manufacturer has authorized the installation of the
different wings and the initial inspections have been done, the changing
of wings does not need to be inspected again for installation, except as
part of the regular aircraft maintenance.  As discussed under part 45,
the aircraft registration number must be placed on the fuselage, but is
not required on the wing.  Therefore, if the registration number is
placed on the wing, it must have the same registration number as the one
placed on the fuselage.  The FAA notes that the inspection requirement
under §21.190 (b)(3) pertains to the issuance of an airworthiness
certificate only and not to inspection after maintenance or repair
activities.

Paragraph (c) Manufacturer’s statement of compliance:  Two commenters
recommended that the FAA stop all rulemaking activity until it does a
survey of manufacturers to determine how many would retroactively issue
statements of compliance for a special airworthiness certificate.  The
FAA disagrees.  The rule permits a manufacturer to issue a statement of
compliance for any aircraft manufactured prior to the effective date of
the rule.  Therefore, each manufacturer would make a business decision
whether to issue a retroactive statement of compliance.

Several commenters recommended delaying the effective date of the rule
until the consensus standards are issued.  Several other commenters said
the proposal should be re-opened for comment when the consensus
standards are developed.  The FAA disagrees and notes that there are
adequate opportunities for the public to participate in the development
of the consensus standards.  Also, alternative consensus standards may
be developed and presented to the FAA for consideration.  Any consensus
standards accepted by the FAA will constitute one means, but not the
only means, of complying with the rule.  This is discussed under the
definition of “consensus standard” in §1.1.

In the NPRM, under paragraph (c)(4) (now (c)(3)), the FAA referred to a
“quality system.”  This was intended to be consistent with other
references to a “quality assurance system” in the NPRM.  In the
final rule, paragraph (c)(3) has been revised accordingly.

Several commenters recommended that the pilot operating handbook and
maintenance and aircraft operating instructions comply with the
consensus standard.  The FAA agrees, and the final rule, under §21.190
(c)(4), includes the requirement that both the aircraft operating
instructions and maintenance and inspection procedures comply with the
consensus standard.  As discussed under §1.1 above, the FAA is changing
the term “pilot operating handbook” to “aircraft operating
instructions.”

A few commenters recommended that the pilot flight training manual be
deleted from the list of items that need to be submitted in proposed
paragraph (c)(5) (now (c)(4)).  The FAA disagrees.  These commenters
stated that this information is normally provided by the FAA or another
third party.  The FAA agrees that a person other the manufacturer may
develop this manual.  However, the manufacturer must provide this manual
if the aircraft model is to be eligible for the special airworthiness
certificate in the light-sport category because it provides specific
training information necessary for a make and model endorsement.  In
addition, in final rule paragraph (c)(4), the term “flight training
manual” is changed to “flight training supplement.”  This is being
done to more clearly indicate that this document supplements the
aircraft operating instructions.

Several commenters suggested that the manufacturer’s system for
monitoring and correcting unsafe conditions comply with the consensus
standard.   The FAA agrees.  The FAA intended that the continued
airworthiness system meet the consensus standard, as evidenced by
including this requirement in §1.1 under the definition of “consensus
standard” in the proposed rule.  Proposed §21.186 (c)(6) would only
have required that the manufacturer identify its system for monitoring
and correcting safety-of-flight issues in the statement of compliance.
The final rule, under §21.190 (c)(5), requires that the
manufacturer’s continued airworthiness system comply with an
identified consensus standard.  Additionally, the final rule clarifies
that the process the manufacturer will use to monitor and correct
safety-of-flight issues will include the issuance of safety directives.

Some commenters recommended that there be independent third-party audits
of manufacturer compliance with consensus standards, including those
dealing with monitoring of continued operational safety.  The FAA
believes that the manufacturer’s statement of compliance is
appropriate for determining whether a light-sport aircraft meets the
consensus standards.  Past experience with construction of
non-type-certificated aircraft that meet the definition of light-sport
aircraft has not indicated a need for significant FAA oversight.  The
FAA accepts that a manufacturer can participate in a system that
includes voluntary third-party audits, but there is no requirement in
this rule for these audits.  The FAA generally will not perform
compliance evaluations of these manufacturers.  Note that manufacturers
will, however, have to comply with any audit requirements defined in the
consensus standards.

A commenter wanted the FAA to establish criteria for a third party to
use to conduct compliance audits within industry standards.  As stated
above, the FAA is not requiring third-party audits of manufacturers.
However, the consensus standards may establish criteria for audits to be
performed.

Another commenter states that FAA oversight of the consensus standards
is not clear once the FAA has accepted them.  The FAA agrees that more
clarification is needed and has added more detail on FAA participation
in consensus standards in §1.1, as discussed above.

In proposed paragraph (c)(8), the FAA proposed that the manufacturer
test its aircraft in accordance with a production acceptance test
procedure established in the consensus standard.  The FAA is modifying
the final rule (now (c)(7)) to specify that these production and
acceptance test procedures include both ground and flight tests.
Production acceptance tests are also discussed in the definition of
“consensus standard” in §1.1.

Paragraph (d) Imported light-sport aircraft:  A few commenters
recommended that manufacturers in other countries meet the same
consensus standards that the United States-manufactured aircraft must
meet.  Other commenters recommended that imported aircraft be issued a
special airworthiness certificate without meeting the consensus
standards, if the country of origin considered the aircraft airworthy.
The proposed rule would have required all aircraft, regardless of the
country of manufacture, to meet a consensus standard.  This provision is
retained in the final rule.  This ensures a uniform level of safety for
these aircraft, regardless of the country of manufacture.  The FAA may
accept a consensus standard developed in another country.

One commenter questioned whether foreign-manufactured ultralights would
be eligible for a special light-sport aircraft airworthiness
certificate, or whether they would have to be imported as experimental
aircraft.  As stated in paragraph (d), foreign-manufactured aircraft are
eligible for a special light-sport aircraft airworthiness certificate.
These aircraft must meet the same eligibility requirements as
U.S.-manufactured aircraft and an applicant seeking a special
airworthiness certificate for a light-sport category aircraft must also
submit a manufacturer’s statement of compliance.  The FAA notes that
these aircraft must not have been issued a foreign airworthiness
certificate equivalent to a U.S. standard, primary, restricted, limited,
or provisional airworthiness certificate.  A foreign-manufactured
ultralight would, therefore, not necessarily have to be imported as an
experimental aircraft.

The FAA notes that in the regulatory text of paragraph (d), references
to “imported light-sport aircraft” are changed to “light-sport
aircraft manufactured outside the United States” Since a light-sport
aircraft could be issued an airworthiness certificate in the light-sport
category long after the aircraft has been physically imported into the
United States, the FAA is revising the term “imported light-sport
aircraft” to “light-sport aircraft manufactured outside the United
States.”  This change clarifies that an applicant for an airworthiness
certificate for an aircraft manufactured outside the United States must
provide the evidence specified in paragraph (d) whenever an application
for an airworthiness certificate under §21.190 is made.  In addition,
references to “import” and “export” are removed, since the use
of these terms is redundant when referring to bilateral agreements.

Proposed paragraph (d)(1) would have required evidence that the imported
light-sport aircraft was manufactured in a country with which the United
States had an agreement for import or export of that particular product.
 The FAA has determined that the proposed rule language would unduly
limit the number of exporting countries.  To ease this restriction, the
FAA has determined that the existence of a Bilateral Airworthiness
Agreement (BAA) concerning airplanes or a Bilateral Aviation Safety
Agreement (BASA) with associated Implementation Procedures for
Airworthiness (IPA) concerning airplanes, or equivalent airworthiness
agreement, provides a suitable basis for issuing an airworthiness
certificate for aircraft manufactured outside the United States.  Any
BAA, BASA with an IPA, or equivalent airworthiness agreement concerning
airplanes between the country of export and the United States is
sufficient, even if the agreement does not address light-sport aircraft.
 These agreements establish a working history and relationship between
the countries, even though light-sport aircraft may not be specifically
addressed in the agreement.  These bilateral agreements provide a means
by which the FAA could, if necessary, seek assistance from the local
Civil Aviation Authority (CAA) on any light sport aircraft problems
dealing with production, continued airworthiness, or other matters
needing investigation or analysis.

Proposed paragraph (d)(2) would have required evidence that the make and
model of the aircraft manufactured outside of the United States is
eligible for an airworthiness certificate or flight authority in the
country of manufacture.  The final rule removes the words “make and
model.”  As the provisions of the rule address specific aircraft, the
use of the term “make and model” is redundant.  The FAA is also
adding the words “or other similar certification” to recognize
additional methods of providing evidence of airworthiness certification
in the country of manufacture.  Special light-sport aircraft imported
into the United States may meet other national certifications for which
there may not be an equivalent in the United States.

The FAA is deleting proposed paragraph (d)(3) that required that the
civil aviation authority of the country of export to determine that the
aircraft is in a condition for safe operation.  This requirement is
deleted because an inspection by a foreign CAA is redundant.  Special
light-sport aircraft will be inspected as part of the process for
issuing an airworthiness certificate under paragraph (b)(3).

Changes

Paragraph (a):  The FAA is changing the paragraph caption of paragraph
(a) to read “Purpose.”  Elsewhere in the paragraph, the words “for
sport and recreation,” “flight training,” and “rental” are
deleted.

Paragraph (b):  In paragraph (b)(1), the term “a registered owner”
is changed to “an applicant,” and the word “submit” is changed
to “provide.”

In paragraph (b)(1)(i) “applicable pilot operating handbook” is
changed to “the aircraft’s operating instructions.”

In paragraph (b)(1)(ii), “applicable maintenance and inspection
procedures” is changed to “the aircraft’s maintenance and
inspection procedures.”

The provisions of proposed paragraphs (b)(1)(iv) and (v) are not
adopted.  The intent of these provisions is now addressed in §91.327.

In the final rule, new paragraph (b)(1)(iv) states that an applicant
must provide the FAA with “the aircraft’s flight training
supplement.”

In paragraph (b)(2), “in the standard or primary category” is
revised to include aircraft with restricted, limited, or provisional
airworthiness certificates.

Paragraph (c):  The paragraph was reworded and reorganized for improved
clarity as follows:

Proposed paragraphs (c)(1) and (c)(2) are combined so that (c)(1) now
includes “the consensus standard used.”

Proposed paragraph (c)(3) is redesignated as (c)(2) and revised with no
substantive change.

Proposed paragraph (c)(4) is redesignated as (c)(3) and revised.  The
term “quality system” is changed to “quality assurance system.”

Proposed paragraph (c)(5) is redesignated as (c)(4) and reorganized.  In
addition, the term “applicable pilot operating handbook” is changed
to “aircraft operating instructions,” and “pilot flight training
manual” is changed to “aircraft flight training supplement.”

Proposed paragraph (c)(6) is redesignated as (c)(5) and is revised.
Paragraph (c)(5) now states that the manufacturer will monitor and
correct safety-of-flight issues, rather than identify a document to that
effect.  The paragraph also includes the requirement that the continued
airworthiness system comply with the consensus standard and that the
process to monitor and correct safety-of-flight issues will include the
issuance of safety directives.

Proposed paragraph (c)(7) is redesignated as (c)(6).

Proposed paragraph (c)(8) is redesignated as (c)(7) and is reorganized
and revised.  The paragraph now includes the requirement that the
manufacturer will ground and flight test the aircraft.

Paragraph (d):  The paragraph heading is changed from “Imported
light-sport aircraft” to “Light-sport aircraft manufactured outside
the United States.”

	The words “imported,” “import,” and “export” are removed in
the final rule, and the words “manufactured outside the United
States” are used.

  In the introductory text, the words “registered owner” are changed
to “applicant.”

Paragraph (d)(1) includes more specific language regarding the types of
international agreements that are required for aircraft manufactured
outside of the United States to be certificated as special light-sport
aircraft.

In paragraph (d)(2), the words “make and model” are removed; the
words “flight authority” are changed to “flight authorization;”
and the words “other similar certification” are added.

Proposed paragraph (d)(3) is deleted.

Section § 21.191 Experimental Certificates

	Paragraph (i)  Operating light-sport aircraft:  The proposed rule made
several references to “for the purpose of sport and recreation and
flight training.”  These are not purposes related to the certification
of light-sport aircraft, but are operational privileges and limitations.
 Therefore, all references to “sport and recreation” or “flight
training” are removed from this section and addressed in the
requirements for operating limitations set forth in part 91.

Proposed §21.191 (i)(1) would have permitted a light-sport aircraft
with an experimental certificate to be used for training for
compensation or hire until 36 months after the effective date of the
regulation.  Currently, two-seat ultralight vehicles are not permitted
to be operated under part 103, but can be used for flight training for
compensation or hire under exemptions to part 103.  Because these
provisions affect the operation, rather than the certification, of the
aircraft, the rule language containing these provisions has been moved
to §91.319, and all comments addressing this issue are discussed under
that section.

As discussed in the following paragraphs, there were numerous comments
on the certification of existing two-seat ultralight vehicles.  A few
commenters also expressed concern over the certification of older
unregistered ultralight-like aircraft.  One commenter suggested that
these unregistered ultralight-like aircraft be “grandfathered” into
the rule.  Paragraph (i)(1) effectively allows grandfathering if the
aircraft meets the requirements for the issuance of an experimental
certificate, and is safe for operation as a light-sport aircraft.  There
is no requirement that these aircraft meet a consensus standard.
Another commenter stated that requiring that certain documents, such as
operating instructions and inspection procedures manuals, for
certification of older unregistered ultralight-like aircraft would be a
problem.  Owners may no longer possess or be able to obtain these
documents.  Paragraph (i)(1) has no requirements that the applicant have
any manufacturer documents in order to be issued an airworthiness
certificate.

	Several commenters stated that they wanted to receive an experimental
certificate for their existing unregistered ultralight-like aircraft
without having to meet the “51%-build” requirement for amateur-built
aircraft.  The “51%-build” requirement applies only to amateur-built
aircraft certificated under §21.191 (g).  There is no “51% build”
requirement for existing unregistered ultralight-like aircraft that are
certificated under §21.191 (i)(1).

Several commenters expressed concern over the process of issuing
airworthiness certificates for unregistered ultralight-like aircraft and
recommended measures to speed the process and prevent backlogs, such as
use of DARs.  Another commenter wanted to know if the FAA would allow
representatives from private ultralight organizations to be designated
as inspectors, as in done in Great Britain.  The FAA believes that after
the effective date of this final rule, a large number of owners of
existing two-seat ultralight-like aircraft operating under training
exemptions will apply for an experimental light-sport certificate.  The
FAA believes that there are several thousand of these aircraft that have
not been registered.  The FAA intends to rely primarily on DARs to meet
the initial need for issuing airworthiness certificates on light-sport
aircraft.  The FAA is working with industry to develop procedures to
ensure that adequate numbers of DARs will be available.  The FAA will
issue advisory material to on how to apply to be a DAR to certificate
light-sport aircraft and how to get light-sport aircraft registered and
certificated.

The FAA recognizes that a number of administrative and resource
challenges will prevent the entire existing fleet of unregistered
ultralight-like aircraft from being certificated on September 1, 2004.
The FAA expects registration and certification to proceed as
expeditiously as circumstances permit once this final rule becomes
effective.

The FAA proposed that if a person sought to have an aircraft
certificated under §21.191 (i)(1) that did not meet the definition of
“ultralight vehicle” specified in part 103, that person would have
to apply to register the aircraft with the FAA not later than 24 months
after the effective date of the rule.  Under the proposal, a person
would then be required to have the aircraft inspected by the FAA (or a
designated representative of the Administrator) and have an experimental
light-sport certificate issued for the aircraft not later than 36 months
after the effective date of the final rule.

Under the final rule, the FAA is revising §21.191(i)(1) to remove
language that many believed would have allowed a person to operate an
aircraft, which exceeds the parameters of an ultralight vehicle yet
meets the definition of light-sport aircraft, without registering that
aircraft for a period of 24 months.  The FAA is also revising
§21.191(i)(1) to avoid any implication that a person can operate these
aircraft for 36 months without an airworthiness certificate.  The
revised language makes clear the original intent of the proposal, which
was that an experimental certificate will not be issued for an aircraft
under §21.191 (i)(1) after August 31, 2007.

	The FAA notes that, except as specified in §91.715, §91.203(a)
prohibits a person from operating a civil aircraft unless it has within
it an appropriate and current airworthiness certificate and a
registration certificate (or application as per §47.31(b)). Once an
aircraft registration certificate has been issued by the FAA and
received by the applicant, a two-place training vehicle operated under
an exemption to part 103 is considered an aircraft. Operation of the
aircraft without an airworthiness certificate is a violation of the
provisions of §91.203(a) and the statutory provisions of 49 USC
§44711(a)(1).  Preamble language contained in the notice may have
misled some individuals operating under an exemption to part 103 to
believe that an aircraft could be operated without both a registration
certificate and an airworthiness certificate or that an aircraft issued
a registration certificate could be operated without an airworthiness
certificate.  This impression may have been caused by using rule
language that included a compliance date based on making an application
for a registration certificate and not reiterating both the regulatory
and statutory requirement for an aircraft to be issued an airworthiness
certificate before it can be operated.  The FAA should not have stated
in the notice that if you currently operate an ultralight vehicle under
a training exemption and have applied to the FAA for an aircraft
registration, you would be allowed to continue to operate under a
training exemption until you are issued an experimental, light-sport
airworthiness certificate.  The FAA strongly encourages those persons
seeking airworthiness certificates for light-sport aircraft under
21.191(i)(1) to make the necessary arrangements to obtain airworthiness
certification to coincide with the issuance of the aircraft’s
registration. Such action will minimize the amount of time that these
aircraft cannot be legally operated.

The FAA also notes that if an ultralight-like aircraft does not meet the
definition of an ultralight vehicle specified in part 103, or is not
operated in accordance with the provisions of an exemption under part
103 to conduct flight training, the aircraft can not be operated under
part 91 until the aircraft has been registered with the FAA and an
airworthiness certificate has been issued for the aircraft.
Additionally, any person operating the aircraft must possess a current
and valid pilot certificate.

After reviewing the comments, the FAA believes it is necessary to
clarify that only aircraft that have not been previously issued U.S. or
foreign airworthiness certificates are eligible for the experimental
light-sport certificate under §21.191 (i)(1).  If an aircraft has
previously been issued any airworthiness certificate under part 21, it
is not eligible for an experimental light-sport certificate under
§21.191 (i)(1).  Language has been added to §21,191 (i)(1) in the
final rule to reflect his intent.  Also see the discussion above,
“III.5.A. Comments on Ultralight Vehicles.”

Proposed paragraph (i)(2) addressed operating a light-sport aircraft
that was assembled from an eligible kit.  Proposed §21.193 (e)(5)
stated that the assembler of an aircraft, seeking certification under
paragraph (i)(2), had to provide the instructions used to assemble the
aircraft.  There was no requirement in §21.191 (i)(2) that a person had
to assemble the aircraft in accordance with the manufacturer’s
assembly instructions.  In the final rule, therefore, §21.191 (i)(2)
now includes the requirement that the aircraft kit be assembled in
accordance with the manufacturer’s assembly instructions that meet an
applicable consensus standard.

	A commenter stated that experimental certificates should not be issued
for light-sport aircraft that are not intended for experimental use but
are intended to be mass-produced on production line.  The commenter said
that the FAA should create another status for aircraft whose
certification falls between current type-certificated aircraft and true
experimental aircraft.  The FAA believes that the special light-sport
aircraft certificate serves this purpose.  In “experimental
certificate,” the word “experimental” indicates that there is no
known standard for the design or production of the aircraft.  Therefore,
the FAA believes that experimental certificates are appropriate for
kit-built aircraft.

	The same commenter noted that proposed §21.191 (i) would allow
certification of aircraft carrying persons for compensation or hire that
have never been shown to meet any design or production airworthiness
standard.  The FAA notes that these aircraft will not be permitted to be
used for the full range of compensation or hire operations normally
carried out by aircraft with standard airworthiness certificates.
Operating limitations for these aircraft will restrict their use, as
specified in §91.319.  The commenter also stated that there is no rigid
conformity requirement for kit-built aircraft certificated under this
section.  The FAA disagrees and notes that an applicant seeking to
certificate a kit-built aircraft under §21.191 (i)(2) must also comply
with §21.193(e) and provide a statement of compliance issued by the
aircraft’s manufacturer that contains the information generally
required by §21.190 (c).  The commenter was also concerned that an
operator of a special light-sport aircraft could decide to obtain an
experimental light sport certificate when that operator no longer
intends to comply with the more stringent operating limitations of the
special light-sport aircraft.  The commenter asserts that the operator
could still engage in many of the operations permitted for special
light-sport aircraft without meeting those more stringent limitations.
The FAA disagrees.  Operating limitations specified in §91.319 for
experimental light-sport aircraft certificated under §21.191 (i)(3) are
more restrictive than the operating limitations issued to special
light-sport aircraft.

	The FAA is deleting the requirement that aircraft certificated under
§21.191 (i)(2) be assembled without the supervision and quality system
of the manufacturer.  The FAA does not want to preclude individuals
seeking certification of these aircraft under this section from
obtaining the assistance of the manufacturer.

	In paragraph (i)(3), the FAA is changing the reference to §21.190 from
§21.186.  In addition, the words “sport and recreation and flight
training” are deleted.  These limitations are addressed in operating
limitations specified in §91.319.

	  A few commenters wanted the FAA to amend §39.1 to permanently
relieve experimental aircraft from airworthiness directives.  The FAA
did not propose this action in the NPRM and considers it to be outside
the scope of this rule.

Changes

	The proposed amendment to paragraph (h) is adopted without change.

Paragraph (i) is changed by removing the words “for the purpose of
sport and recreation and flight training” throughout.

Paragraph (i)(1) is changed to state that the paragraph applies to
light-sport aircraft that have “not been issued an airworthiness
certificate under [part 21].”

In paragraph (i)(1), the references to the time a person must apply for
registration and receive an experimental certificate are removed and
replaced with the sentence, “An experimental certificate will not be
issued under this paragraph for these aircraft after August 31,
2007.”Also in paragraph (i)(1), the allowable period for which the
aircraft may be used for compensation and hire for initial flight
training was moved to §91.319.

In paragraph (i)(2), the term “eligible kit” is changed to
“aircraft kit,” and a reference to §21.193 (e) is included to
clarify what constitutes an eligible kit.  The paragraph is also changed
to specify that the aircraft must be assembled in accordance with the
manufacturer’s assembly instructions that meet applicable consensus
standards.  In addition, the requirement that the kit be assembled
without the supervision and quality system of the manufacturer is
deleted.

	In paragraph (i)(3), the FAA is changing the reference to §21.190 from
§21.186.  In addition, the words “sport and recreation and flight
training” are deleted.

Section 21.193  Experimental certificates: general

One commenter suggested that the proposal would not permit a
manufacturer to produce only kits.  The FAA disagrees.  The rule does
not contain such a limitation.  As proposed, the manufacturer is
required to manufacture and assemble at least one complete aircraft of
each make and model before an airworthiness certificate is issued for a
kit-built aircraft under §21.191 (i).  The aircraft assembled by the
manufacturer must have been issued a special light-sport airworthiness
certificate.  This provides evidence that the aircraft meets an
applicable consensus standard.

Other commenters recommended that the FAA clarify what an applicant must
provide to the FAA to show that the kit-built light-sport aircraft was
assembled in accordance with the manufacturer’s instructions.  The FAA
agrees and has made changes to the final rule in response to these
comments.  The changes to §21.191 (i)(2) mentioned above require the
applicant to provide evidence that the aircraft was assembled in
accordance with the manufacturer’s assembly instructions and that the
assembly instructions meet an applicable consensus standard.

One commenter questioned the need for the requirement that a registered
owner provide evidence that an imported aircraft kit was manufactured in
a country with which the United States had an agreement for its import
or export.  The commenter noted that kit-built aircraft would be
classified as experimental light-sport aircraft under the rule.  The FAA
disagrees.  Kit-built experimental light-sport aircraft certificated
under §21.191 (i)(2) must comply with consensus standards.  The FAA
believes that all aircraft designed to a consensus standard must be
manufactured in a country with which the United States has a BAA, BASA
with an IPA concerning airplanes, or equivalent airworthiness agreement,
regardless of whether the aircraft is a kit or a completed aircraft.
The requirement in §21.193 (e)(6) is similar to that imposed under
§21.190 (d).  The requirement specified in §21.193 (e)(6) is retained
and modified in a manner similar to §21.190 (d) to better describe the
applicable international agreements.  See discussion of §21.190 (d).

Proposed paragraph (e)(5) would have required that the assembler of a
kit aircraft provide the assembly instructions.  This requirement has
been removed; however, §21.191 (i)(2) has been changed to require that
these aircraft be assembled in accordance with the manufacturer’s
assembly instructions that meet an applicable consensus standard.  Under
that section, the FAA does not specifically require that an applicant
submit manufacturer’s assembly instructions; however, it may be
necessary for the applicant to present those instructions to show that
the kit was assembled in accordance with those instructions.

The FAA has added new §21.193 (e)(5) to the final rule to require that
the assembler of a kit aircraft provide the aircraft flight-training
supplement.  This is to assure that the assembler, who must operate and
test the aircraft according to the manufacturer’s instructions as part
of the assembly process, is aware of any flight-training requirements
that the manufacturer may specify.  This document should also identify
the set of aircraft to which the individual aircraft belongs.  This is
consistent with requirements for a ready-to-fly aircraft under §21.190
(b)(1).

A few commenters requested direct assistance from the FAA in the
assembly and certification of their specific aircraft.  This is outside
the scope of rulemaking.  The FAA does not assist persons in the
assembly of aircraft.  The FAA will, however, respond to questions
regarding the certification of aircraft.

Additionally, the FAA received comments pertaining to the construction
of kit-built light-sport aircraft and the FAA’s control of kit
manufacturers.  The FAA provides for the safety of the kit-built
aircraft through the inspection of the assembled aircraft prior to
issuing an experimental certificate.  Each kit-built aircraft is
inspected prior to certification.  An aircraft that is not in a
condition for safe operation will not be issued an experimental
certificate.

Changes

In paragraph (e), “registered owner” is changed to “applicant.”

Paragraph (e)(1) is revised for clarity with no substantive change.

In paragraph (e)(2), “applicable pilot operating handbook” is
changed to “the aircraft operating instructions.”

	In paragraph (e)(3), “applicable maintenance and inspection
procedures” is changed to “the aircraft maintenance and inspection
procedures.”

Paragraph (e)(4) is revised for clarity and to correct references to
§21.190 (which was proposed as §21.186).  Also, the paragraph is
modified to require that assembly instructions must meet an applicable
consensus standard.

The provisions of proposed paragraph (e)(5) are not adopted.  Instead,
its provisions have been revised and placed §21.191 (i)(2).

In the final rule, new paragraph (e)(5) adds the requirement to provide
the aircraft flight training supplement.

Proposed paragraph (e)(6) is revised to include more specific language
regarding the types of international agreements that are required for an
experimental light-sport aircraft to be certificated from an aircraft
kit manufactured outside the United States.

V.3. Part 43—Maintenance, Preventive Maintenance, Rebuilding, and
Alteration

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

The NPRM proposed to give repairmen (light-sport aircraft) the authority
to work on special light-sport aircraft without complying with part 43.
The proposal was based on the three factors--(1) special light-sport
aircraft would be very basic in design and construction; (2) these
aircraft, and parts installed on them, would not be FAA approved; and
(3) work could be performed on these aircraft under operating
limitations that would contain provisions similar to part 43.  The
proposal would have required maintenance on these aircraft to be
performed in accordance with operating limitations.  This parallels the
current requirement to have annual condition inspections on experimental
amateur-built aircraft performed in accordance with the aircraft’s
operating limitations.

Several commenters expressed concern that there would be a degradation
of safety by excepting special light-sport aircraft from part 43
maintenance performance standards and recording requirements.  One
commenter specifically expressed concerns that safety would be
compromised without a maintenance standard and wanted part 43 to be
required, or equivalent standards included in the aircraft operating
limitations.  The FAA agrees and is changing the rule to require
maintenance to be performed in accordance with part 43 for reasons
described below.  These requirements will apply to repairmen, repair
stations, or mechanics when performing and recording work on special
light-sport aircraft.

	After reviewing public comments on the definition of “light-sport
aircraft” in §1.1, the FAA is increasing the takeoff weight of
light-sport aircraft to allow incorporation of more reliable
FAA-approved type-certificated engines and propellers.  As a result of
that change, the FAA anticipates that type-certificated engines and
propellers will be installed on special light-sport aircraft, the
majority of which will be used for flight training and rental.

	The FAA wants to encourage the use of these of these type-certificated
products, as they will enhance safety and reliability of special
light-sport aircraft.  This change necessitates more clearly established
maintenance performance and recording procedures, in part to address
work that may be performed to satisfy ADs issued on products installed
on these aircraft.

	The need to perform and record maintenance on these aircraft in
accordance with part 43 was highlighted when, on September 3, 2002, the
FAA issued Airworthiness Directive 2002-16-07 on Bombardier-Rotax 912
and 914 series type-certificated engines.  These engines may be used on
ultralight-like aircraft used for flight training and amateur-built
aircraft, the kinds of aircraft that may fall within the weight, speed,
and two-seat occupancy parameters of light-sport aircraft.  The AD
demonstrates that it is reasonable to expect that some special
light-sport aircraft used for training and rental will be subject to
ADs.

	Generally, the changes in this rule require compliance with §§43.9,
43.12, and 43.13.  Repairmen performing maintenance and pilots
performing preventive maintenance on light-sport special aircraft will
be held to the following:

	(	The recording requirements in §43.9 for maintenance;

	(	The falsification and alteration of records prohibitions in §43.12;
and

	(	The performance requirements in §43.13, which requires the repairman
and pilot to do the work in accordance with the manufacturer’s
instructions and states that the work performed must be done in a way
that the aircraft condition is equal to its original or properly altered
condition.

	Other sections of part 43 are changed to address the newly created
sport pilots and repairmen (light-sport aircraft) under §§43.9, 43.12,
and 43.13.  These changes will permit these persons to perform
maintenance in accordance with the provisions of part 43; however, a
person performing work equivalent to a major repair or a major
alteration on a non-FAA-approved product installed on a special
light-sport aircraft will not need to—

Use the repair and alteration form (FAA Form 337) required by §§43.5
(b) and 43.9 (d);

Use the list of major repairs and major alterations in part 43, appendix
A, sections (a) and (b) to determine what constitutes a major repair or
major alteration; or

Record major repairs and major alterations as prescribed in part 43,
appendix B.

	The use of Form 337 is not required because special light-sport
aircraft will be built to a consensus standard “accepted” by the
FAA, but not “approved” by the FAA.  Since data used to comply with
the consensus standard will be accepted design data only, the FAA will
not require the use of approved data for major repairs or major
alterations, nor will the FAA require the use of a form that requires
the listing of “approved” data for a major repair or major
alteration of a special light-sport special aircraft.  The FAA expects
that the consensus standards will address the identification and
recording of major repairs and major alterations for each category of
light-sport aircraft.

	For major repairs and major alterations performed on FAA-approved
products installed on special light-sport aircraft, the recording
requirements to document major repairs and major alterations in part 43
will apply.

Another commenter expressed concern that communication and navigation
equipment required by part 91 would not be adequately maintained.  The
FAA agrees this kind of equipment should be maintained in accordance
with part 91 and the applicable provisions of part 43 and these
requirements are now reflected in the rule.

Several commenters wanted part 43 to be amended to allow sport pilots to
perform preventive maintenance as defined in part 43.  The FAA agrees
that sport pilots should be permitted to perform preventive maintenance
on certain light-sport aircraft.  Therefore § 43.3 is revised to permit
sport pilots to perform preventive maintenance, but only on special
light sport aircraft the pilot owns and operates.

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

Section 43.1  Applicability

	The FAA’s response to comments regarding the applicability of part 43
to light sport aircraft are addressed in the discussion above.  In the
final rule, paragraph (b) is revised to remove proposed language stating
that part 43 would not apply to any aircraft issued a special
airworthiness certificate in the light-sport category.

	In addition, paragraph (d) is added to create exceptions for major
repairs and major alterations performed on products not produced under
an FAA approval installed on special light-sport aircraft.  If the parts
are produced under an FAA approval, the exceptions in paragraph (d) do
not apply.

Changes

	The introductory text of paragraph (a) is amended to include a
reference to the exception established by new paragraph (d).

	Paragraph (b) is revised to remove the proposed exception for special
light-sport aircraft.

	Paragraph (d) is added to address the performance of major repairs and
major alterations on special light-sport aircraft.

Section 43.3  Persons authorized to perform maintenance, preventive
maintenance, rebuilding, and alterations

	As stated above, §43.1 now includes maintenance performance and
recording requirements for special light-sport aircraft.  In §43.3,
paragraph (c) is revised to allow repairmen to perform alterations as
provided in part 65.  This change is being made because part 65 has been
revised to permit repairmen (light-sport aircraft) to perform
alterations on special light-sport aircraft.  Also, §43.3 (g) is
revised to allow the holder of a sport pilot certificate to perform
preventive maintenance on special light-sport aircraft, if he or she
owns or operates the aircraft.

	The new maintenance privileges for sport pilots and repairmen
(light-sport aircraft) do not extend to work performed on
type-certificated aircraft that meet the definition of light-sport
aircraft.  Sport pilots and repairmen (light-sport aircraft) will not be
permitted to perform preventive maintenance and maintenance on
type-certificated aircraft.  This decision is based on the fact that
they do not have the same level of experience as persons who currently
perform maintenance and preventive maintenance on type certificated
aircraft.  The FAA believes the amount of training required under this
rule for sport pilots and repairmen (light-sport aircraft) is not
sufficient to permit them to sign off maintenance-related tasks on more
complicated type-certificated aircraft and this lack of training would
create additional safety concerns.

	The FAA wants to make it clear that, while an appropriately rated sport
pilot may fly a type-certificated aircraft that meets the definition of
light-sport aircraft, only certificated airframe and powerplant
mechanics with inspection authorization and appropriately rated repair
stations must conduct the annual inspection and ensure compliance with
ADs and other inspections required to maintain a standard airworthiness
certificate or other special airworthiness certificate issued to a type
certificated aircraft.

	Some commenters expressed confusion over what the term “preventive
maintenance” means. As defined in §1.1, preventive maintenance means
“...simple or minor preservation operations and the replacement of
small standard parts not involving complex assembly operations.”
Preventive maintenance operations are listed in appendix A of part 43.
As the term pertains to special light-sport aircraft, preventive
maintenance may be performed by the holder of at least a sport pilot
certificate.  That aircraft must be owned or operated by that pilot and
the work must be performed in accordance the performance rules specified
in §43.13.

	Experimental aircraft do not meet a recognized standard for
certification, and the FAA has not imposed the maintenance rules in part
43 for the continuing airworthiness of these aircraft.  Therefore, the
limitations on the performance of preventive maintenance in part 43 do
not apply, and experimental aircraft may have preventive maintenance
performed by any individual.

	Light-sport aircraft manufacturers are not included in the list of
persons authorized to perform maintenance, preventive maintenance,
rebuilding or alterations, or approve an aircraft for return to service,
because they are not required to hold an FAA-issued production approval
or repair station certificate.  This lack of FAA certification does not
prevent the manufacturer from having FAA-certificated persons on its
staff who are authorized to perform maintenance and inspection
functions.

Changes

	Paragraphs (c) and (g) of §43.3 are revised in the final rule as
discussed above.

Section 43.7  Persons authorized to approve aircraft, airframe, aircraft
engines, propellers, appliances, or component parts for return to
service after maintenance, preventive maintenance, rebuilding, or
alteration

	In §43.7, paragraph (g) is added to enable the repairman (light-sport
aircraft) with a maintenance rating to approve an aircraft certificated
as a special light-sport category aircraft for return to service.  This
includes approving both special and experimental light-sport aircraft
for return to service after the performance of either an annual
condition inspection or a 100-hour inspection.  It also includes
approving a special light-sport aircraft for return to service after
maintenance is performed on that aircraft.

	Paragraph (h) is added to allow the holder of a sport pilot certificate
to approve a special light-sport aircraft for return to service after
performance of preventive maintenance as authorized in §43.3 (g).

	For reasons similar to those discussed under §43.3, light-sport
aircraft manufactures are not authorized to approve aircraft for return
to service, unless otherwise certificated.

Changes

	 Paragraphs (g) and (h) are added to §43.7 as discussed above.

Section 43.9  Content, form, and disposition of maintenance, preventive
maintenance, and alterations records (except inspections performed in
accordance with part 91, part 125, §135.411(a)(1), and §135.419 of
this chapter)

	Section 43.9 is amended and reorganized for clarity.  In the final
rule, the FAA is adding a new paragraph (d) using the language presently
at the end of paragraph (a) (beginning with the words “In addition to
the entry required…”).  This new paragraph contains the obligation
for persons who perform major repairs and major alterations on
type-certificated aircraft to record that work as prescribed in appendix
B to part 43.  As stated above, the FAA will not require that major
repairs and major alterations on non-FAA-approved products installed on
an aircraft certificated as a special light-sport category aircraft meet
these requirements.  New paragraph (d) is being established to
facilitate the exception specified in §43.1 (d)(1), which states that
the repair or alteration form specified in this section is not required
to be completed when work is performed on a non-FAA-approved product.
Major repairs and major alterations performed on FAA-approved products
must still meet the recording requirements in part 43.  For a complete
discussion, see “V.3.A. Part 43--General Issues” above.

	In addition, although not related to the amendments for the recording
major repairs and major alterations, the FAA is taking this opportunity
to revise the heading of §43.9 and paragraph (c) to remove the
reference to part 123, which no longer exists.

Changes

The heading for §43.9 is revised to remove the reference to part 123.

In paragraph (a), the concluding text (beginning with the words, “In
addition to the entry required…”) is designated as a new paragraph
(d).  In addition, the words, “required by this paragraph” are
changed to “required by paragraph (a) of this section.”

In paragraph (c), the reference to part 123 is removed.

V.4.  Part 45—Identification And Registration Marking

Section 45.11  General

	Although not proposed in the NPRM, the FAA is including an amendment to
§45.11 in the final rule.  The change is necessary because current
§45.11 sets forth a requirement that an aircraft’s identification
plate must be secured either adjacent to and aft of the rearmost
entrance door or on the fuselage surface near the tail surfaces.
Powered parachutes and weight-shift-control aircraft have neither
entrance doors or tail surfaces.  Therefore, the FAA is adding an
exception in a new paragraph (e) to address powered parachutes and
weight-shift-control aircraft.  Identification plates on these aircraft
may be secured to the aircraft fuselage exterior so that they are
legible to a person on the ground.

Changes

	Paragraph (a) is amended to add a reference to the exception in new
paragraph (e).

	Paragraph (e) is added, as discussed above.

	The changes were not proposed.

Section 45.23 Display of marks; General

	Section 45.23 (b) sets forth the general requirements for displaying
registration marks (“N” numbers) on an aircraft, as well as other
display markings for other types of aircraft.  Although not originally
included in the proposed rule, the FAA is adopting a revision to §45.23
(b) to respond to commenters’ requests that light-sport aircraft have
additional markings identifying them as light-sport aircraft similar to
other marking requirements for experimental aircraft.  This change to
§45.23 adds the requirement for special light-sport aircraft
certificated under §91.190 to include the mark “light-sport.” The
FAA emphasizes that aircraft having a standard airworthiness certificate
that meet the definition of a light-sport aircraft are not required to
have the mark “light-sport” displayed on the aircraft.  Aircraft
that are required to be marked “experimental” also are not required
have the mark “light-sport” displayed on the aircraft.

Changes

	Paragraph (b) is revised to add light-sport aircraft to the list of
other aircraft to which the section applies.  This amendment was not
proposed.

Section § 45.27  Location of marks; nonfixed-wing aircraft

The FAA received several comments on the where marks should be located
on non-fixed-wing aircraft.  Some commenters recommended that the FAA
require powered parachute owners to place markings on the airframe and
not the airfoil.  One commenter requested that markings be required on
gas tanks.  Another commenter wanted to be able to “swap out” the
wings on weight-shift-control aircraft, as they have multiple wings that
attach directly to one powered fuselage unit, and it only takes minutes
to change them.  The FAA believes that all of these commenters’
concerns can be addressed by requiring that the markings be placed on
the fuselage, as that is a permanent structure of these aircraft.  The
FAA has revised the rule language accordingly.

Another commenter requested that marks be required on the wing or the
canopy, as is done in Europe.  The FAA will allow markings on the wings
or canopy if the operator wants to place them there; however, they will
not be required.  As discussed above, the markings are required on the
fuselage.  This allows the interchanging of wings without having to have
the wings and the fuselage recertificated as one unit each time they are
changed.

Changes

In paragraph (e), the words “on any structural member or airfoil”
have been changed to “on any fuselage structural member.”

Section 45.29  Size of marks

Some commenters suggested that the rule allow experimental light-sport
aircraft to use 1.5-inch-high markings instead of 3-inch-high markings
already required for most similar types of aircraft.  These commenters
noted that because some light-sport aircraft are constructed using
narrow tubular metal spars to form the aircraft’s fuselage, there is
not sufficient area on the side of such aircraft to display 3-inch-high
markings.  The FAA disagrees with these observations.  Aircraft that do
not have the required surface area for the display of the required
3-inch-high markings may be modified easily to be in compliance with
this requirement through the installation of a plate on the side of the
aircraft large enough to accommodate the required markings.  The FAA
does not believe that the markings for these aircraft should be smaller
than those required for other certificated aircraft.  The FAA will
continue to require that all registered aircraft display at least
3-inch-high markings.

Some commenters wanted all light-sport aircraft to display 12-inch
markings, regardless of the type of aircraft.  The FAA disagrees that
all light-sport aircraft must display such marks.  While most aircraft
are required to display 12-inch-high marks, part 45 allows for certain
types of aircraft and experimental aircraft with airspeeds under 180
knots CAS to display 3-inch-high marks.  The size and speed of
light-sport aircraft does not necessitate the display of marks of a size
more appropriate for larger and faster aircraft.

Changes

	The proposed rule is adopted without change.

V.5.  Part 61—Certification:  Pilots, Flight Instructors, And Ground
Instructors

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

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

	As discussed above, the FAA proposed the sport pilot certification
provisions as Special Federal Aviation Regulation (SFAR) No. 89.  Those
provisions now have been incorporated into the main body of part 61.
Please use the chart below to determine how the SFAR section numbers
correspond to part 61 section numbers.

SFAR Section	Part 61 Section

1. What is the purpose of this SFAR?	§61.1  Applicability and
definitions.

§61.301  What is the purpose of this subpart?

§61.401  What is the purpose of this subpart?

§61.213 Eligibility requirements.

§61.215  Ground instructor privileges.

3. When am I eligible for a certificate under this SFAR?	Existing
§61.83, Eligibility requirements for student pilots, contains the same
requirements as the proposed rule.

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

§ 61.403  What are the age, language, and pilot certificate
requirements for a flight instructor certificate with a sport pilot
rating?

5. Does this SFAR expire?	Not adopted in final rule

7. Does a sport pilot certificate issued under this SFAR expire?
Existing §61.19, Duration of pilot and instructor certificates,
contains the same requirements as the proposed rule.

9. What is a light-sport aircraft?	§1.1  General definitions

11. Who is an authorized instructor?	Existing §61.1, Applicability and
definitions, contains the same requirements as the proposed rule.

13. Do regulations other than those contained in this SFAR apply to a
sport pilot?	§61.303 If I want to operate a light-sport aircraft, what
operating limits and endorsement requirements in this subpart must I
comply with?

15. Must I hold an airman medical certificate?	§61.3  Requirement for
certificates, ratings, and authorization.

§61.23  Medical certificates:  Requirement and duration.

17. Am I prohibited from operating a light-sport aircraft if I have a
medical deficiency?	§61.53  Prohibition on operations during medical
deficiency.

Student Pilot Certificate to Operate Light-Sport Aircraft

	31. How do I apply for a student pilot certificate to operate
light-sport aircraft?	Existing §61.85, Application, contains the same
requirements as the proposed rule.

33. (a), (b), and (c): What solo requirements must a student pilot
operating light-sport aircraft meet?	§61.87 Solo requirements for
student pilots.

33. (d), (e), and (f): What solo requirements must a student pilot
operating light-sport aircraft meet?	§61.93  Solo cross-country flight
requirements.

35. Are there any limits on how a student pilot may operate a
light-sport aircraft?	§61.89  General limitations

§61.23  Medical certificates:  Requirement and duration

37. How do I obtain privileges to operate in Class B, C, or D airspace
and at an airport located in Class B, C, or D airspace?	§61.94  Student
pilot seeking a sport pilot certificate or recreational pilot
certificate:  Operations at airports within, and in airspace within,
Class B, C, and D airspace, or at airports with an operational control
tower in other airspace.

Sport Pilot Certificate

	51. What aeronautical knowledge must I have to apply for a sport pilot
certificate?	§61.309  What aeronautical knowledge must I have to apply
for a sport pilot certificate?

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

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

57. What tests do I have to take to receive a sport pilot certificate?
§61.307  What tests do I have to take to obtain a sport pilot
certificate?

59. Will my sport pilot certificate list light-sport aircraft category
and class ratings?	§61.317  Is my sport pilot certificate issued with
aircraft category and class ratings?

61. May I operate all categories, classes, and makes and models of
light-sport aircraft with my sport pilot certificate?	§61.303 If I want
to operate a light-sport aircraft, what operating limits and endorsement
requirements in this subpart must I comply with?

§61.319  Can I operate a make and model of aircraft other than the make
and model aircraft for which I have received an endorsement?

63. How do I obtain privileges to operate an additional category or
class of light-sport aircraft?	§61.321  How do I obtain privileges to
operate an additional category or class of light-sport aircraft?

65. How do I obtain privileges to operate an additional make and model
of light-sport aircraft?	§61.323  How do I obtain privileges to operate
a make and model of light-sport aircraft in the same category and class
within a different set of aircraft?

67. Must I carry my logbook with me in the aircraft?	§61.51  Pilot
logbooks.

Privileges and Limits of Holders of a Sport Pilot Certificate

	71. What type of aircraft may I fly if I hold a sport pilot
certificate?	§61.303 If I want to operate a light-sport aircraft, what
operating limits and endorsement requirements in this subpart must I
comply with?

73. What are my limits for the operation of light-sport aircraft?
§61.315  What are the privileges and limits of my sport pilot
certificate?

75. May I demonstrate an aircraft in flight to a prospective buyer?
§61.315  What are the privileges and limits of my sport pilot
certificate?  Paragraph (c)(9)

77. May I carry a passenger?	§61.315  What are the privileges and
limits of my sport pilot certificate?

79. May I share operating expenses of a flight with a passenger?
§61.315  What are the privileges and limits of my sport pilot
certificate?  Paragraph (b)

81. How do I obtain privileges to operate in Class B, C, or D airspace?
§61.325  How do I obtain privileges to operate a light-sport aircraft
at an airport within, or in airspace within, Class B, C, and D airspace,
or in other airspace with an airport having an operational control
tower?

83. How do I obtain privileges to operate a light-sport aircraft that
has a VH greater than 87 knots CAS? 	§61.327  How do I obtain
privileges to operate a light-sport aircraft that has a VH greater than
87 knots CAS?

Transitioning to a Sport Pilot Certificate

	91. How do I obtain a sport pilot certificate if I already hold at
least a private pilot certificate issued under 14 CFR part 61?	§61.303
If I want to operate a light-sport aircraft, what operating limits and
endorsement requirements in this subpart must I comply with?

93. How do I obtain a sport pilot certificate if I do not hold a pilot
certificate issued under 14 CFR part 61, but I have been flying
ultralight vehicles under 14 CFR part 103?	§61.52 Use of aeronautical
experience obtained in ultralight vehicles.

§61.329  Are there special provisions for obtaining a sport pilot
certificate for persons who are registered ultralight pilots with an
FAA-recognized ultralight organization?

95. How do I obtain a sport pilot certificate if I don’t hold a pilot
certificate and have never flown an ultralight vehicle?	Subpart
J—Sport Pilots establishes all requirements.

Flight Instructor Certificate With a Sport Pilot Rating

	111. Must I hold an airman medical certificate?	§61.3  Requirement for
certificates, ratings, and authorizations.

§61.23  Medical certificates:  Requirement and duration.

113. What aeronautical knowledge requirements must I meet to apply for a
flight instructor certificate with a sport pilot rating?	§61.407  What
aeronautical knowledge must I have to obtain a flight instructor
certificate with a sport pilot rating?

115. What training must I have in areas of operation to apply for a
flight instructor certificate with a sport pilot rating?	§61.409  What
flight proficiency requirements must I meet to apply for a flight
instructor certificate with a sport pilot rating?

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

119. What tests do I have to take to get a flight instructor certificate
with a sport pilot rating? 	§61.405  What tests do I have to take to
obtain a flight instructor certificate with a sport pilot rating?

121. What records do I have to keep and for how long?	§61.423  What are
the recordkeeping requirements for a flight instructor with a sport
pilot rating?

123. Will my flight instructor certificate with a sport pilot rating
list light-sport aircraft category and class ratings? 	§61.417  Will my
flight instructor certificate with a sport pilot rating list aircraft
category and class ratings?

125. Am I authorized to provide training in all categories and classes
of light-sport aircraft with my flight instructor certificate with a
sport pilot rating?	§61.413 What are the privileges of my flight
instructor certificate with a sport pilot rating?

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

127. How do I obtain privileges to provide flight training in an
additional category or class of light-sport aircraft?	§61.419  How do I
obtain privileges to provide training in an additional category or class
of light-sport aircraft?

129. How do I obtain privileges authorizing me to provide flight
training in an additional make and model of light-sport aircraft? 	 Not
adopted in final rule.

131. Do I need to carry my logbook with me in the aircraft?	§61.51
Pilot logbooks.

133. What privileges do I have if I hold a flight instructor certificate
with a sport pilot rating?	§61.413  What are the privileges of my
flight instructor certificate with a sport pilot rating?

135. What are the limits of a flight instructor certificate with a sport
pilot rating?	§61.52  Use of aeronautical experience obtained in
ultralight vehicles.

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

137. Are there any additional qualifications for training first-time
flight instructor applicants? 	§61.415  What are the limits of a flight
instructor certificate with a sport pilot rating?

139. May I give myself an endorsement?	§61.421  May I give myself an
endorsement?