Rule2025-13972
Modernization of Special Airworthiness Certification
Primary source
Metadata and text below are from the Federal Register, a public-domain U.S. government work. Always verify the official published version before relying on it for any legal matter.
Published
July 24, 2025
Effective
October 22, 2025
Issuing agencies
Transportation DepartmentFederal Aviation Administration
Abstract
FAA is amending rules for the manufacture, certification, operation, maintenance, and alteration of light-sport aircraft. The amendments enable enhancements in safety and performance and increase privileges under a number of sport pilot and light-sport aircraft rules. These enhancements include increasing suitability for flight training, limited aerial work, and personal travel. This final rule expands what aircraft sport pilots may operate. This final rule also amends the special purpose operations for restricted category aircraft; amends the duration, eligible purposes, and operating limitations for experimental aircraft; and adds operating limitations applicable to experimental aircraft engaged in space support vehicle flights to codify statutory language.
Full Text
<html>
<head>
<title>Federal Register, Volume 90 Issue 140 (Thursday, July 24, 2025)</title>
</head>
<body><pre>
[Federal Register Volume 90, Number 140 (Thursday, July 24, 2025)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 35034-35222]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [<a href="http://www.gpo.gov">www.gpo.gov</a>]
[FR Doc No: 2025-13972]
[[Page 35033]]
Vol. 90
Thursday,
No. 140
July 24, 2025
Part III
Department of Transportation
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Federal Aviation Administration
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
14 CFR Parts 1, 21, et al.
Modernization of Special Airworthiness Certification; Final Rule
Federal Register / Vol. 90 , No. 140 / Thursday, July 24, 2025 /
Rules and Regulations
[[Page 35034]]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
Federal Aviation Administration
14 CFR Parts 1, 21, 22, 36, 43, 45, 61, 65, 91, 119, and 147
[Docket No. FAA-2023-1377; Amdt. Nos. 1-80, 21-109, 22-1, 36-55, 43-63,
45-32, 61-159, 65-66, 91-381, 119-22, and 147-10]
RIN 2120-AL50
Modernization of Special Airworthiness Certification
AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), Department of
Transportation (DOT).
ACTION: Final rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: FAA is amending rules for the manufacture, certification,
operation, maintenance, and alteration of light-sport aircraft. The
amendments enable enhancements in safety and performance and increase
privileges under a number of sport pilot and light-sport aircraft
rules. These enhancements include increasing suitability for flight
training, limited aerial work, and personal travel. This final rule
expands what aircraft sport pilots may operate. This final rule also
amends the special purpose operations for restricted category aircraft;
amends the duration, eligible purposes, and operating limitations for
experimental aircraft; and adds operating limitations applicable to
experimental aircraft engaged in space support vehicle flights to
codify statutory language.
DATES: This final rule is effective October 22, 2025, except for
amendatory instructions 3, 8, 9, 13, 15, 17, 21, 23 through 26, 71, 72,
75, 76, and 80, which are effective July 24, 2026.
The incorporation by reference of certain material listed in this
final rule is approved by the Director of the Federal Register as of
October 22, 2025.
ADDRESSES: For information on where to obtain copies of rulemaking
documents and other information related to this final rule, see section
VII of this document.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For technical questions concerning
this action, contact James Newberger, Aircraft Certification Service
(AIR-632), Federal Aviation Administration, 800 Independence Ave. SW,
Washington, DC 20591, telephone (202) 267-1636; email
<a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#711b101c14025f145f1f1406131403161403314d1051190314174c" http: faa.gov">faa.gov</a>">james.e.newberger@<a href="http://faa.gov">faa.gov</a></a>.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Table of Contents
I. Executive Summary
A. Purpose of the Regulatory Action
B. Summary of the Costs and Benefits
II. Authority for This Rulemaking
III. Background
A. History of Light-Sport Category Aircraft
B. Summary of the NPRM
IV. Discussion of Comments and the Final Rule
A. General Overview of Comments
B. Differences Between the NPRM and the Final Rule
C. FAA Safety Continuum
D. Separation of Limits for Light-Sport Category Aircraft and
Sport Pilots
E. Special Airworthiness Certificates for Light-Sport Category
Aircraft
F. Design, Production, and Airworthiness Requirements for Non-
Type Certificated Aircraft
G. Miscellaneous Provisions for Issuance of Special
Airworthiness Certificates
H. Sport Pilot Certification and Privileges
I. Repairman Certificates (Light-Sport)
J. Maintenance
K. Operations
L. Experimental Airworthiness Certificates
M. Restricted Category Aircraft
N. Noise Certification of Aircraft That Do Not Conform to a Type
Certificate
O. Import and Export of Aircraft
P. Other Out of Scope Comments
Q. Effective and Compliance Dates
R. Benefits and Costs
V. Regulatory Notices and Analyses
VI. Executive Order Determinations
VII. Additional Information
A. Electronic Access and Filing
B. Incorporation by Reference Material
C. Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act
End Notes
List of Acronyms Frequently Used in This Document
ACS--Airman Certification Standards
AGL--Above Ground Level
ASTM--American Society for Testing and Material International
CAS--Calibrated Airspeed
CFR--Code of Federal Regulations
DOD--Department of Defense
EAB--Experimental Amateur-Built
eVTOL--Electric Vertical Takeoff and Landing
FAA--Federal Aviation Administration
FADEC--Full Authority Digital Electric Control
FR--Federal Register
FSTD--Flight Simulation Training Device
GA--General Aviation
IBR--Incorporation by Reference
IFR--Instrument Flight Rules
IMC--Instrument Meteorological Conditions
LOC-I--Loss of Control--In-flight
LSA--Light-Sport Aircraft
LSAMA--Light-Sport Aircraft Manufacturers Assessment
MOSAIC--Modernization of Special Airworthiness Certification
MSL--Mean Sea Level
NAICS--North American Industry Classification System
NPRM--Notice of Proposed Rulemaking
NTSB--National Transportation Safety Board
OMB--Office of Management and Budget
PIC--Pilot in Command
PTS--Practical Test Standards
RFA--Regulatory Flexibility Act
RIA--Regulatory Impact Analysis
U.S.C.--United States Code
V<INF>A</INF>--Design maneuvering speed
VFR--Visual Flight Rules
V<INF>H</INF>--Maximum speed in level flight with maximum continuous
power
V<INF>NE</INF>--Maximum never exceed speed
V<INF>S1</INF>--The stalling speed or the minimum steady flight
speed obtained in a specific configuration
V<INF>S0</INF>--The stalling speed or the minimum steady flight
speed in the landing configuration
I. Executive Summary
A. Purpose of the Regulatory Action
This final rule establishes requirements for aircraft, other than
unmanned aircraft, that hold special airworthiness certificates, airmen
that operate and maintain those aircraft, and supporting rules. This
rule expands eligibility for certification of light-sport category
aircraft while retaining a distinction in level of certification rigor
between experimental and small, type-certificated aircraft. This rule
also expands privileges for sport pilots and light-sport repairmen.
This rule aims to increase the availability of safe, modern, and
affordable aircraft for recreational aviation, flight training, and
certain aerial work.
Generally, this rule provides broad regulatory relief to the
public. That is, under this rule, manufacturers of light-sport category
aircraft may design and manufacture a broader array of aircraft,
including rotorcraft and powered-lift. In addition, the rule allows for
light-sport category aircraft with increased seating, without weight
limits, higher speeds, new types of propulsion systems, new propeller
types, retractable landing gear, and aircraft with simplified flight
controls. Sport pilot privileges are expanded to include a broader
array of aircraft and new privileges. New privileges for sport pilots
include operating helicopters, operating at night, operating aircraft
with retractable landing gear, operating aircraft with constant speed
propellers, and operating high-performance airplanes. These new
privileges for sport pilots are available via training and
endorsements. Operating privileges for certain light-sport category
aircraft are expanded to include certain aerial work. Lastly, repairman
certificate (light-sport) privileges are expanded to allow work on all
aircraft in the expanded light-sport aircraft category.
Though relieving to the public, these expansions are based on
safety data, the safety continuum, and other concepts aimed to increase
safety. Per the safety continuum concept, FAA bases the rigor of
certification requirements on the exposure of the public to risk for an
[[Page 35035]]
aircraft operation. As the risk increases due to increased operating
privileges and aircraft capability, the rigor of certification
requirements also increases.
In 2004, FAA published the ``Certification of Aircraft and Airmen
for the Operation of Light-Sport Aircraft'' final rule (69 FR 44771,
July 27, 2004) (``the 2004 final rule''), which established rules for
the manufacture, certification, operation, and maintenance of light-
sport aircraft. The successful safety record of light-sport category
aircraft since the 2004 final rule validates certification requirements
established in that rule and provides support for expanding the scope
of certification for light-sport category aircraft and operations. As a
result, FAA identified the Modernization of Special Airworthiness
Certification (MOSAIC) rule as an opportunity to expand the 2004 final
rule to include a wider variety of aircraft, increase performance, and
increase operating privileges to extend these safety benefits to more
aircraft. FAA intends for these expansions to increase the safety of
recreational aviation by encouraging aircraft owners, who may be
deciding between an experimental aircraft or a light-sport category
aircraft, to choose light-sport category aircraft that are higher on
the safety continuum and, therefore, meet higher aircraft certification
requirements. FAA also intends for this rule to increase the safety of
light-sport category aircraft by eliminating the prescriptive weight
limit for light-sport category aircraft that hinders safety-enhancing
designs and by adopting new design, production, and airworthiness
requirements.
This rule also addresses other aircraft that hold special
airworthiness certificates. Specifically, this rule codifies additional
special purpose operations for restricted category aircraft. In
addition, this rule amends the duration, eligible purposes, and
operating limitations for special airworthiness certificates issued for
experimental purposes for additional phases of flight and space support
vehicle operations.
The following sections discuss the provisions being adopted in this
final rule.
1. Certification of Light-Sport Category Aircraft
This rule (i) adopts more performance-based rules to expand and
enable innovation in the classes of aircraft that may be certificated
using consensus standards as light-sport category aircraft, including
emerging aircraft types; (ii) removes prescriptive weight limits that
hinder incorporation of safety-enhancing designs and equipage; (iii)
increases the maximum stall speed for light-sport category airplanes
and gliders; (iv) enables more capable and robust aircraft for the
pilot training environment; (v) allows for increased capacities for
passengers, fuel, and cargo; (vi) allows electric and other alternative
propulsion sources; and (vii) allows faster, higher-performing aircraft
that are more suitable for personal travel. Together, based on the
safety record under the 2004 final rule, these changes will enhance
safety by allowing for a more appealing alternative to experimental
amateur-built (EAB) aircraft that do not meet FAA design, production,
or airworthiness standards.
2. Sport Pilot Certification
This rule expands privileges for what aircraft a sport pilot can
operate, including privileges to operate many of the new light-sport
category aircraft and additional normal category aircraft while
retaining the current limit to carriage of two occupants, including the
pilot. This rule allows use of four-seat airplanes; adds a new model-
specific privilege for aircraft with unconventional simplified flight
controls designation; and adds new privileges for operating
helicopters, operating aircraft at night, aircraft with retractable
landing gear, and airplanes with constant speed propellers. This rule
also amends the limits on maximum stall and cruise speed and removes
weight and powerplant limitations.
3. Maintenance and Repairman (Light-Sport)
This rule revises privileges for repairman certificate (light-
sport) holders to align with the expansion of aircraft categories that
will be eligible for light-sport category airworthiness certificates.
In addition, light-sport repairman privileges are expanded to allow a
light-sport repairman to conduct the condition inspection on amateur-
built aircraft that are of the same category and class, as applicable,
of aircraft for which the repairman was certificated. This rule also
revises the requirements for manufacturer-issued safety directives and
revises requirements for performing repairs and alterations of light-
sport category aircraft.
4. Operations
This rule revises operating limitations for restricted category
aircraft, experimental aircraft, and light-sport category aircraft.
This rule also codifies a Congressional mandate to enable certain
aircraft with an experimental airworthiness certificate to conduct
space support vehicle flights carrying persons or property for
compensation or hire without an air carrier certificate or exemption.
This rule also makes minor revisions to right-of-way rules and
operations in the vicinity of airports in Class G airspace.
5. Experimental Aircraft
This rule establishes a new purpose for which experimental
airworthiness certificates may be issued to former military aircraft to
improve alignment between certain operations of former military
aircraft and the experimental airworthiness certificates that authorize
their operation. This rule also increases the duration of certain
experimental airworthiness certificates from one to three years.
6. Restricted Category Aircraft
This rule enhances the requirements for the certification of former
military aircraft in the restricted category by requiring the aircraft
to have a service history with the U.S. Armed Forces. Under 14 CFR
21.25(b)(7), FAA has approved additional special purpose operations for
which restricted category aircraft may be certificated. Currently,
those additional purposes are only listed in FAA policy documents for
type and airworthiness certification of these aircraft. This rule
codifies special purpose operations that have already been published
for public notice in the Federal Register.
7. Noise
This rule enables persons to voluntarily establish compliance with
part 36 noise requirements and provide a statement of compliance to FAA
for a light-sport category aircraft.
B. Summary of the Costs and Benefits
The rule largely expands opportunities for light-sport category
aircraft. These expansions may result in safety benefits; there may
also be associated design and production costs. FAA does not anticipate
more than minimal incremental costs to implement provisions of the rule
and does not have data to estimate any cost savings, such as those that
could result from operating certain light-sport category aircraft in
aerial work for compensation.
II. Authority for This Rulemaking
FAA's authority to issue rules on aviation safety is found in title
49 of the United States Code (U.S.C.). Subtitle I, section 106
describes the authority of FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII, Aviation
Programs, describes in more
[[Page 35036]]
detail the scope of the agency's authority. This rulemaking is
promulgated under the authority described in 49 U.S.C. 106(f), which
establishes the authority of the Administrator to promulgate and revise
regulations and rules related to aviation safety. This rulemaking is
also promulgated under 49 U.S.C. 44701(a)(2)(A) and (a)(5), which
provides that FAA Administrator shall promote safe flight of civil
aircraft in air commerce by prescribing regulations and minimum
standards: (1) in the interest of safety for inspecting, servicing, and
overhauling aircraft, aircraft engines, propellers, and appliances, and
(2) that FAA finds necessary for safety in air commerce and national
security; 49 U.S.C. 44703, which provides the general authority of the
Administrator to prescribe regulations for the issuance of airman
certificates when the Administrator finds, after investigation, that an
individual is qualified for, and physically able to perform the duties
related to, the position authorized by the certificate; 49 U.S.C.
40103(b)(1) and (2), which directs FAA to issue regulations: (1) to
ensure the safety of aircraft and the efficient use of airspace; and
(2) to govern the flight of aircraft for purposes of navigating,
protecting and identifying aircraft, and protecting individuals and
property on the ground; and 49 U.S.C. 44715, which provides the
Administrator the authority to prescribe regulations to control and
abate aircraft noise and sonic boom. These regulations are within the
scope of those authorities because they amend rules for the
manufacture, certification, operation, maintenance, and alteration of
light-sport category aircraft, amend rules related to restricted
category aircraft and experimental airworthiness certification, and
amend rules related to sport pilot and repairman certification. Under
Sec. 135, Public Law 116-260, 134 Stat. 1182, FAA has authority to set
standards for maintenance technician schools, and this rulemaking
incorporates such standards by reference in part 147. In addition, this
rulemaking codifies section 581 of the FAA Reauthorization Act of 2018
(Pub. L. 115-254), which amended 49 U.S.C. 44740 to allow the operator
of an aircraft with a special airworthiness certification in the
experimental category to conduct a space support vehicle flight
carrying persons or property for compensation or hire. The final rule
also addresses section 824 of the FAA Reauthorization Act of 2024 (Pub.
L. 118-63), which requires that FAA issue a final rule for MOSAIC not
later than 24 months after the date of enactment of that Act, May 16,
2024.
III. Background
A. History of Light-Sport Category Aircraft
In the NPRM (88 FR 47650, July 24, 2023), FAA proposed to amend
rules related to the certification and operation of light-sport
category aircraft. That NPRM aimed to modernize the regulatory approach
to light-sport aircraft by incorporating performance-based requirements
that reflect advances in technology and uses for this type of aircraft.
The NPRM was designed to respond to the evolving needs of this sector
and provide for future growth and innovation without compromising
safety.
The 2004 final rule provided for the operation and manufacture of
aircraft weighing less than 1,320 pounds (or 1,430 pounds for aircraft
intended for operation on water). These ``light-sport'' aircraft
included airplanes, gliders, balloons, powered parachutes, weight-
shift-control aircraft, and gyroplanes. FAA bases the rigor of
certification requirements and operational limitations on a safety
continuum that assesses the exposure of the public to risk for each
aircraft and operation; as the risk increases due to increased
operating privileges and aircraft capability, the requirements and
corresponding rigor of requirements and procedures for certification
increase.
In the 2004 final rule, FAA established a level of certification
for light-sport category aircraft between normal category aircraft and
aircraft holding experimental airworthiness certificates in view of
intended operating privileges and aircraft capability. The NPRM used
EAB aircraft for the safety continuum discussions since they are
similar to light-sport category aircraft. EAB aircraft are largely used
for recreational purposes, are flown by sport pilots and pilots with
higher grade certificates and generally have the same flight envelope
and occupancy limits. Amateur-built aircraft are below light-sport
category aircraft on the safety continuum because of their lower safety
assurance for aircraft design and being subject to stringent operating
limitations. Amateur-built aircraft have no regulatory design
requirements for suitability of materials used, structural integrity,
or instruments, equipment, and systems. Amateur-built aircraft are
limited to non-commercial operations for the purpose of education and
recreation.
B. Summary of the NPRM
Since the 2004 final rule, light-sport category aircraft have shown
a lower accident rate than EAB airplanes.1 FAA considered that the
successful safety record of light-sport category aircraft validated
certification requirements established in the 2004 final rule and
provided support for expanding the scope of certification for light-
sport category aircraft and operations. As a result, FAA proposed to
expand the 2004 final rule to include a wider variety of aircraft,
increase performance, and increase operating privileges to extend these
safety benefits to more aircraft. FAA intended for these expansions to
increase safety by encouraging aircraft owners, who may be deciding
between an EAB or a light-sport category aircraft, to choose aircraft
higher on the safety continuum and, therefore, meet higher aircraft
certification requirements.
FAA's proposal addressed other aircraft that hold special
airworthiness certificates. Specifically, FAA proposed to codify
additional special purpose operations for restricted category aircraft
that FAA has previously approved under discretion provided in Sec.
21.25(b)(7). In addition, FAA proposed to amend the duration, eligible
purposes, and operating limitations for special airworthiness
certificates issued for experimental purposes.
FAA identified proposals to improve both the safety and
functionality of light-sport category aircraft and light-sport category
kit-built aircraft. FAA proposed to amend aircraft, pilot, maintenance,
and operational requirements to increase both the safety and
performance of these aircraft while mitigating risk. FAA acknowledged
that this is a balancing act-where the risk is increased due to greater
capability in one area, mitigations may be required from the other
areas.
FAA proposed to establish performance-based requirements for
certification of light-sport category aircraft. As a fundamental
matter, FAA proposed to restructure how certification requirements for
light-sport category aircraft are presented in FAA's regulations.
Currently, issuance of special airworthiness certificates under Sec.
21.190 for light-sport category aircraft, sport pilot certificates
under part 61 subpart J, and repairman certificates (light-sport) under
part 65 are limited by a number of aircraft design limitations included
in the definition of light-sport aircraft in Sec. 1.1. FAA proposed to
remove that definition and, in its place, write performance-based
standards for aircraft and airman certification into
[[Page 35037]]
part 21, 61, and 65, where these requirements for other types of
aircraft and airman certification reside. This would make FAA's
regulatory approach to light-sport category aircraft more consistent
with its approach to other types of aircraft.
Another important change in the NPRM was to eliminate the weight
limits for light-sport category aircraft. To enable the design and
manufacture of light-sport category aircraft that are safe to fly with
increased capacity and ability, FAA proposed to apply new design and
manufacturing requirements. This would allow growth and innovation
within performance-based safety parameters. FAA also proposed to expand
aircraft that sport pilots can operate. Under the NPRM, sport pilots
could operate airplanes designed with up to four seats, even though
they would remain limited to operating with only two occupants.
Finally, FAA proposed to change the name of the repairman certificate
(light-sport aircraft) to repairman certificate (light-sport). This
certificate would apply to existing and new types of aircraft
certificated in the light-sport category, such as rotorcraft and
powered-lift. Related provisions would update the requirements for
maintenance.
FAA also proposed regulations related to noise for light-sport
aircraft, expanding applicability of part 36 noise requirements. To
provide flexibility and reduce burdens of compliance with these noise
requirements, FAA proposed options for compliance: (1) conventional
noise testing per part 36, (2) a means of compliance via FAA-approved,
industry consensus standards, or (3) using the noise requirements
determined by FAA to be appropriate for the aircraft. FAA expects that
any consensus standards would not be limited to physical measurements
of noise during test flights. They might instead to be based on
empirical data, analytical modeling, or generally accepted noise
prediction methods if the underlying noise prediction methods are found
to be robust.
In addition to maintenance and manufacturing requirements, FAA also
proposed to expand the kinds of operations that can be performed by
light-sport category aircraft. Specifically, FAA proposed to permit
light-sport category aircraft that meet applicable consensus standards
to be used in certain aerial work operations.
In addition, FAA proposed amendments to experimental aircraft
regulations. FAA proposed new operating purposes for former military
and kit-built aircraft and clarified who may apply for the operating
purpose for market survey. The proposed regulations also included new
operating limitations authorizing flight over densely populated areas
and in congested airways for all phases of flight, and new regulations
authorizing experimental aircraft to conduct space support vehicle
flights. The proposed regulations also would have increased certificate
duration and extend applicability of noise requirements to aircraft
that do not conform to a type certificate.
FAA further proposed amendments related to restricted category
aircraft, including a codification of special operating purposes for
restricted category aircraft. FAA also proposed minor changes to right-
of-way rules and operations around airports in Class G airspace.
IV. Discussion of Comments and the Final Rule
A. General Overview of Comments
FAA received approximately 1,315 comments in response to the NPRM
from a variety of commenters, including aircraft manufacturers and
operators, aviation training companies, other aviation companies, trade
associations, civil aviation authorities, and individuals. Trade
associations commenting on the NPRM included: Aeronautical Repair
Station Association (ARSA), Air Line Pilots Association (ALPA),
Aircraft Electronics Association (AEA), Aircraft Owner's and Pilot's
Association (AOPA), Association for Uncrewed Vehicle Systems
International (AUVSI), Aviation Suppliers Association (ASA), Commercial
Drone Alliance (CDA), Experimental Aircraft Association (EAA), General
Aviation Manufacturers Association (GAMA), Helicopter Association
International now known as Vertical Association International (VAI),
Light Aircraft Manufacturers Association (LAMA), Manufacturers Flight
Test Council (MFTC), National Agricultural Aviation Association (NAAA),
National Air Transportation Association (NATA), National Association of
Flight Instructors (NAFI), National Business Aviation Association
(NBAA), U.S. Paragliding & Hang Gliding Association (USPHA), and United
States Ultralight Association (USUA). Manufacturers commenting on the
NPRM included: Aerospace Volatus Infrastructure & Energy Solutions, Air
Tractor, AIR VEV, AutoGyro, Cirrus Aircraft, Cub Crafters, Desert
Aerospace, Doroni, Elanus, Flight Design, Hartzell Propeller, Jump
Aero, LEO Flight Corporation, Piper Aircraft, Inc. (Piper), Reliable
Robotics Corporation (Reliable Robotics), Skyryse, Sonex, LLC (Sonex),
Streamline Designs, LLC (Streamline Designs), Van's Aircraft, and
Whisper Aero. Operators commenting on the NPRM included: Aura,
Bombardier, Inc. (Bombardier), International Air Response (IAR), Metrea
Strategic Mobility (MSM), Textron Aviation (Textron), Virgin Galactic,
and Zipline. The only United States government organization commenting
on the NPRM was U.S. Naval Air Systems Command (NAVAIR). Civil Aviation
Authorities commenting on the NPRM included: National Civil Aviation
Agency of Brazil (ANAC), European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA), and
Transport Canada Civil Aviation (TCCA).
Group comments included the following: AEA and ARSA (hereafter,
AEA/ARSA) as a group; EAA, AOPA, NATA, and NBAA as a group; and LEO
Flight Corporation, Doroni, Aerospace Volatus Infrastructure & Energy
Solutions as a group called the Future Flight Federation (3F).
Table 1 provides a general summary of commenter support:
Table 1--Summary of Commenter Support
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Number of
Support commenters
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Oppose..................................................... 11
Support (no changes suggested)............................. 22
Support (changes suggested)................................ 1,282
------------
Total.................................................. 1,315
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Overall, most commenters expressed general support for FAA's NPRM.
Hundreds of individual commenters voiced support for, agreed with, or
applauded the NPRM generally or for specific proposals within the NPRM,
and many of those individuals advocated for proceeding as quickly as
possible with finalizing and implementing a final rule. In addition,
many associations, companies, and other non-individual commenters also
expressed support for the NPRM generally, even if they had specific
recommendations for improvement. For example, EAA, AOPA, NATA, and
NBAA's comment ``commended'' FAA for acknowledging the success of the
light-sport category and proposing the MOSAIC rule expansions and they
strongly supported FAA committing the resources to move forward and
implement the proposed changes. GAMA supported key aspects of the NPRM
such as increasing what aircraft sport pilots can fly and which
aircraft qualify for light-sport category special airworthiness
certificates. VAI
[[Page 35038]]
commented positively on including rotorcraft in the light-sport
category of aircraft, noting that it will increase the variety of
available aircraft and provide economic benefits. Van's Aircraft
characterized the MOSAIC NPRM as a ``revolutionary change'' that was
``close to the mark'' and a ``success'' even given that Van's Aircraft
had constructive feedback. Hartzell Propeller's comment applauded FAA
taking on MOSAIC and broadly supported the expansion of light-sport
aircraft and sport pilot capabilities. Sonex commented it was extremely
supportive of the NPRM, and it expected positive business impacts, an
expanded economic pathway to pilot participation, and the availability
of new aircraft with enhanced safety features at a more affordable
price compared to type-certified aircraft. Skyryse supported the
rulemaking and appreciated FAA's ``forward-thinking approach to
certification.'' AIR VEV also supported the NPRM as allowing
advancement and innovation while maintaining safety.
However, most commenters also recommended revisions to the proposed
rule that they believed would improve the rule. A small minority of
commenters were generally unsupportive of the NPRM. For example, AEA/
ARSA strongly asserted that certain aspects of the NPRM concerning
light-sport category aircraft were unnecessary and duplicative,
stemming from their preference that FAA amend and better utilize the
primary category. AEA/ARSA also stated the proposed rule disregards the
negative impact on design, certification, and installation of retrofit
technologies, as well as the aviation maintenance service industry.
ALPA commented the safety record of light-sport category aircraft
warrants a ``more formalized safety approach'' to certifying light-
sport category aircraft, certifying airmen, and establishing supporting
operating rules and privileges.
The following provides a high-level overview of key issues raised
by commenters that are addressed in more detail below.
Aircraft Stalling Speed for Certification of Light-Sport Category
Aircraft
FAA received approximately 120 comments on this topic. Most
commenters wanted an increased stall speed without lift-enhancing
devices (V<INF>S1</INF>) with the largest support for a V<INF>S1</INF>
increase to 58 knots calibrated airspeed (CAS), but with a substantial
number wanting an even higher increase. A few commenters opposed a
stall speed increase. Recommendations to increase V<INF>S1</INF> varied
widely and covered topics such as maximum stall speed with flaps
(V<INF>S0</INF>), design maneuvering speed (V<INF>A</INF>), maximum
speed in level flight with maximum continuous power (V<INF>H</INF>),
lift-enhancing devices, safety equipment, gross weight,
crashworthiness, legacy aircraft, designs, handling, and kinetic
energy.
Simplified Flight Controls for Light-Sport Category Aircraft
Several commenters requested clarification that primary flight
controls were not available or used on aircraft with simplified flight
controls. A few commenters suggested language that would provide pilots
access to primary flight controls. Some commenters requested
clarification on flight path control, power adjustment, discontinuing
or altering flight, and inadvertent activation of safety features. A
few commenters recommended that the manner with which the pilot is
expected to control the flight path of the simplified flight controls
aircraft should not change in the presence of any single likely
failure. Two commenters thought the proposed Sec. 22.180 provisions
were too prescriptive. TCCA asked for clarification on the use of joy-
stick controllers. ALPA did not support simplified flight controls for
light-sport category aircraft because it may result in an unquantified
risk. One commenter wanted simplified flight controls to be defined.
Size of Rotorcraft and Powered Lift
Several commenters recommended the use of a maximum gross weight in
the range of 2,640 to 5,000 lbs, a 6 lb-ft\2\ main rotor disc loading
limit, or limiting the number of engines. Another commenter stated
market forces will limit powered-lift gross weights.
Aircraft Stalling Speed Limit for Sport Pilot Privileges
FAA received approximately 485 comments on this topic. Most of the
public comments recommend increasing the proposed V<INF>S1</INF> CAS
stall speed, using V<INF>S0</INF>, or using some other stall speed
reference as the stall speed limitation, to permit a greater number of
existing certificated airplanes with similar size, weight, and
performance to be operated by sport pilots. A majority of the
commenters indicated that an aircraft they operate, with higher stall
speeds, was as safe or safer than those with lower stall speeds. Some
commenters also recommend increasing the maximum stall speed for
gliders.
Passenger Limitation for Sport Pilot Privileges
A large number of commenters recommended allowing additional
passengers when operating four-seat airplanes.
Medical Requirements for Night Operations by Sport Pilots
A large number of commenters recommended that FAA allow night
operations under the current driver's license medical qualification
requirement or additional training requirements.
Altitude Limitations for Sport Pilots
A large number of commenters recommended that FAA should permit
sport pilots to operate at higher altitudes than currently permitted.
Light-Sport Repairman Training Courses
Approximately 250 comments were received on this topic. Commenters
were concerned that aligning training courses with the Mechanic ACS
equates to repairman courses increasing in time and cost. Some
commenters suggested FAA's proposal would require light-sport repairmen
to receive the same training in terms of time and complexity as
mechanics. Many commenters recommended creating a system of certificate
endorsements, training course modules, or both. Many comments asserted
FAA is changing a process for no reason that has been proven to be
sufficient.
Light-Sport Repairman Certificate Privileges
Approximately 105 comments were received on this topic. Most
comments requested that FAA expand light-sport repairman privileges to
allow these repairmen to conduct the annual condition inspection on
aircraft issued an experimental airworthiness certificate for the
purpose of operating an amateur-built aircraft. Several commenters also
requested to expand the certificate privileges to allow these repairmen
to work on aircraft issued a standard airworthiness certificate.
Third-Party Repairs and Alterations of Light-Sport Category Aircraft
Some commenters, including AEA/ARSA, stated the proposed rule
disregards the negative impact on design, certification, and
installation of retrofit technologies, as well as the aviation
maintenance service industry. Some commenters requested FAA make
greater use of the language ``a person acceptable to the
Administrator'' to allow greater use of third-party alterations and
repairs when those
[[Page 35039]]
alterations meet applicable standards. Some commenters requested
increased opportunities for retrofit products for upgrades and
modifications, especially relating to safety-enhancing technologies.
Aircraft Noise
FAA received comments from industry, pilots, owners of light-sport
aircraft, and members of the public affected by aircraft noise. Most of
these commenters questioned the need for noise requirements, noting
that LSA are generally already quiet. Some of these commenters
expressed concern that meeting these noise requirements might
necessitate redesigns that could negatively impact performance and
safety. Many commenters supported using industry consensus standards
and self-declaration of noise compliance as methods to reduce costs and
avoid delays in certification. Regarding experimental aircraft,
industry groups such as GAMA, EAA, and various association members and
companies opposed noise requirements for EAB aircraft. Some expressed
opposition to noise requirements for any type of experimental aircraft.
Industry commenters generally supported the use of industry consensus
standards for the noise certification of MOSAIC aircraft but were
concerned that developing those standards would require resources and
pose technical challenges. A number of individual and community
commenters urged increased noise regulation, asserting that aircraft
are too noisy.
Operations of Space Support Vehicles
ALPA and Virgin Galactic were both generally supportive of the
proposed regulatory language. However, both raised concerns about the
development of guidance materials and the agency's internal policies
for the issuance of operating limitations.
Airworthiness Certification of Restricted Category Aircraft
International Air Response (IAR), with several other restricted
category aircraft operators expressing agreement, stated there was
insufficient notice of the changes to the restricted category and such
changes should be part of a separate rulemaking effort specifically for
the restricted category. IAR asserted this is problematic and since
restricted category operators may not be aware of the rule, it could
result in adverse effects on businesses.
B. Differences Between the NPRM and the Final Rule
Table 2 summarizes key changes from the NPRM made in this final
rule.
Table 2--Summary of Key Changes From NPRM
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Adopted by this final Final regulatory Additional discussion in
Proposed action in the NPRM rule citation (14 CFR) section of preamble
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The NPRM proposed to revise the This final rule Sec. 1.1.............. IV.G.5.
definition of consensus standard. removes the
definition.
The NPRM proposed to add a new This final rule Sec. 21.191(j)........ IV.L.1.c.
provision for issuance of an expands this
experimental airworthiness provision to enable
certificate to former military repositioning
aircraft to improve alignment flights between any
between certain operations of public aircraft
former military aircraft and the operation, not just
experimental airworthiness those supporting the
certificates which authorize their U.S. Armed Forces
operation. and adds a provision
to allow check
flights following
repairs,
alterations, or
maintenance.
The NPRM proposed to increase the This final rule Sec. 22.100(a)(3)..... IV.F.6.b and c.
light-sport category maximum stall increases the light-
speed for airplanes from 45 to 54 sport category
knots CAS VS1. maximum stall speed
to 61 knots CAS VS0
for an airplane and
45 knots CAS VS0 for
a glider.
The NPRM proposed to apply control This final rule Sec. 22.105........... IV.F.13.
and maneuverability requirements removes the
to the certification of light- reference to primary
sport category aircraft. flight controls so
the provision is
also applicable to
aircraft designed
with simplified
flight controls.
The NPRM proposed to apply part 36 This final rule makes Sec. 36.0............. IV.N.
noise requirements to most light- compliance with part
sport category aircraft. 36 voluntary for
light-sport category
aircraft.
The NPRM proposed to increase the This final rule Sec. 61.316(a)(1)..... IV.H.1.c.
maximum stall speed for airplanes increases the
that a sport pilot may operate maximum stall speed
from 45 to 54 knots CAS VS1. for airplanes that a
sport pilot may
operate to 59 knots
CAS VS1.
The NPRM did not propose to amend This final rule adds Sec. 61.316(b)........ IV.H.1.j. and IV.H.1.k.
the limitation listed in Sec. a provision allowing
61.316(b) for aircraft that a a sport pilot to
sport pilot may operate that the operate an aircraft
aircraft meet certain limits with retractable
``since its original landing gear or an
certification.''. airplane with a
manual controllable
pitch propeller
regardless of the
configuration status
of the aircraft when
it was originally
certificated if the
pilot meets the
training and
endorsement
requirements
specified in Sec.
61.331.
The NPRM discussed the equivalency This final rule adds Sec. 65.107(f)........ IV.I.2.a.
of a repairman certificate (light- a provision in Sec.
sport aircraft) and a repairman 65.107(f)
certificate (light-sport) but did consistent with the
not include a related provision in NPRM discussion,
Sec. 65.107. The NPRM discussed that establishes the
the equivalency of previously equivalency of
issued aircraft class privileges repairman
with the new aircraft category certificates (light-
privileges, but did not include a sport aircraft) with
related provision in Sec. 65.107. aircraft class
privileges issued
before the effective
date of this final
rule to repairman
certificates (light-
sport) with aircraft
category privileges
issued under this
final rule.
The NPRM did not propose changes to The final rule Sec. 65.109........... IV.I.10.b.
privileges for a holder of a expands privileges
repairman certificate (light- for a holder of a
sport). repairman
certificate (light-
sport) to perform an
annual condition
inspection on Sec.
21.191(g),
experimental amateur-
built aircraft.
[[Page 35040]]
The NPRM did not propose expansions The final rule adds Sec. 91.313(b)(3)..... IV.K.3.
of operating limitations exhibition to the
applicable to restricted category list of operations
aircraft. that are considered
necessary to
accomplish the work
activity directly
associated with a
special purpose
operation.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
C. FAA Safety Continuum
The safety continuum is a concept that FAA has used for years.\2\
It is ``[t]he concept that one level of safety is not appropriate for
all aviation activities.'' \3\ The concept draws statutory support from
49 U.S.C. 44701(d)(B), which requires the Administrator to consider
``differences between air transportation and other air commerce'' when
prescribing regulation.\4\ Per the safety continuum concept, FAA bases
the rigor of certification requirements on the potential risk to the
public for an aircraft operation. As risk increases with increased
operating privileges and aircraft capability, FAA mitigates that risk
through more rigorous certification requirements. For example, EAB have
not been found to meet FAA or FAA-accepted design or production
standards and therefore present a higher level of risk. FAA mitigates
that risk for EAB via operating limitations that reduce the risk to the
public. Light-sport category aircraft under this rule are subject to a
higher rigor in certification requirements and procedures for design,
production, and airworthiness than EAB aircraft. Therefore, light-sport
category aircraft are higher on the safety continuum than EAB aircraft
and can be operated under less restrictive operating limitations than
EAB aircraft.
FAA included two fundamental safety arguments to support the
proposed rule. The first safety argument was that certain changes would
improve the safety of the light-sport category. FAA noted removing the
weight restriction on light-sport category aircraft would provide
manufacturers opportunities to incorporate additional safety-enhancing
designs and equipment; design airframes that are more rugged for the
flight-training environment; increase fuel load and aircraft range;
allow for greater cabin size to enable greater occupant heights and
weights; improve aircraft handling in gusts, turbulence, and
crosswinds; and increase the suitability of light-sport category
aircraft for other intended operating purposes, including recreation
and personal travel. Also, adding performance-based part 22
requirements would increase the rigor and expected safety outcomes of
design, production, and airworthiness requirements for the
certification of light-sport category aircraft.
Secondly, FAA explained that other amendments to the rules applied
to light-sport category aircraft would improve safety more broadly
within general aviation (GA) by making light-sport category aircraft a
more appealing alternative to experimental aircraft that have higher
fatal accident rates. The current fleet of registered EAB aircraft has
approximately 26,450 aircraft. EAB aircraft are not subject to any
design limits such as aircraft class, weight, number of seats, number
or type of engines, stalling speed, or maximum speed. EAB are not
subject to design or production standards in 14 CFR or in other FAA-
accepted standards. Conversely, under the 2004 final rule, the light-
sport category was subject to limits in number of seats, stalling
speed, not-to-exceed speed, and cabin pressurization. Fatal accident
rate data comparing similar EAB, light-sport, and normal category
airplanes reflect accident rates that generally align with the safety
continuum concept; that is, accident rates for light-sport category
airplanes fall between the accident rates for EAB and normal category
airplanes.\5\ FAA views this as validation of the consensus standards
and certification requirements used under the original rules. The final
rule improves those certification requirements with new design,
production, and training requirements for compliance staff. Some
expansions enable safety improvements of light-sport category aircraft,
primarily via relieving weight limitations. Other expansions increase
risk for operations of light-sport category aircraft; that is, enabling
four occupants in airplanes exposes the public to more risk than does
enabling two occupants, but still less than for EAB aircraft that are
not subject to seating or passenger limits. And still other expansions
are clearly intended to increase the performance and usefulness of
light sport category aircraft, such as enabling more fuel capacity,
four seats for airplanes, higher speeds for personal transportation,
expanding operating privileges for light-sport category aircraft, and
expanding sport pilot privileges. Importantly, these expansions of
light-sport category aircraft design, performance, and operation would
increase safety more broadly within recreational GA because light-sport
category aircraft would become a more appealing choice for those owners
who may otherwise be considering purchasing experimental aircraft.
Overall, this shift toward light-sport category aircraft would increase
the numbers of aircraft that are designed and manufactured more safely
than experimental aircraft.
Furthermore, in 2006, FAA published a Roadmap for General Aviation
Aging Airplane Programs \6\ that was designed to aid industry in
identifying and mitigating risks of aging aircraft. At the time, the
roadmap identified the general aviation fleet as having an average age
of more than 35 years old. Almost 20 years later, the age of these
aircraft is reflected in FAA data that shows their attrition. The
availability of non-experimental fixed-wing single-engine airplanes has
decreased from 139,519 in 2010 to 126,076 in 2022, a reduction of over
13,400 airplanes.\7\ With fewer new models being produced in the normal
category and the ever-increasing average age and attrition of normal
category airplanes, pilots naturally will be driven to other
alternatives such as light-sport category and EAB airplanes. Up to now,
pilots have favored EAB airplanes because their performance resembles
that of the normal category. However, this rule should provide a safer
alternative of equivalent performing, factory-built light-sport
category aircraft that meet airworthiness requirements.
Though expanding the light-sport category to attract new entrants
from those aircraft ``lower'' on the safety continuum was the intent of
the proposed rule, such expansions raise the question of what happens
when new entrants are from those who may have otherwise chosen aircraft
``higher'' on the safety continuum. Some commenters argued that such a
shift away from normal category aircraft, for example, would reduce
overall safety
[[Page 35041]]
and counteract the benefit of shifting ownership away from EAB
aircraft. The fatal accident rate data discussed in the NPRM for non-
commercial, single, piston-engine light-sport and normal category
airplanes shows these rates have been very similar since 2018. Also,
though fatal accident rates for EAB airplanes have been generally
decreasing since 2011, these rates are clearly higher than for the
light-sport and normal categories. That is, these relative comparisons
of fatal accident rates mitigate concerns with potential shifts of new
entrants away from type-certified aircraft and further support the
safety arguments for expanding the light-sport category. FAA also notes
the ability to purchase new, less expensive EAB aircraft has driven
pilots from normal category to EAB aircraft.
A goal of this final rule is to apply the safety continuum to
safely expand light-sport category aircraft and light-sport airman
rules via safety standards of appropriate rigor that balance
flexibility for manufacturers and availability to consumers. Given the
proven track record of LSA consensus standards since at least 2011,\8\
FAA believes it can expand the privileges afforded light-sport category
aircraft with an increase in safety based on the flexible consensus
standard process. By applying new part 22 requirements to and loosening
operational restrictions on light-sport category aircraft, FAA safely
expands the middle ground on the safety continuum between relatively
risky experimental aircraft and relatively expensive normal-category
aircraft.
FAA received approximately 16 comments related to FAA's fundamental
safety arguments for the NPRM and the safety continuum. Though
fundamentally supporting the premise of FAA's proposals for the
manufacture, certification, operation, maintenance, and alteration of
light-sport aircraft, AEA and ARSA jointly asserted that the proposed
rules duplicate the primary category and the arguments for amending
design and certification requirements for light-sport aircraft are
unnecessary, duplicative, and frivolous rulemaking.
FAA disagrees. Eligibility for certification in the primary and
(current or as-amended) light-sport categories are different in terms
of acceptable classes of aircraft, weights, propellers, and engines. In
addition, airworthiness standards for the primary category are largely
taken from the applicable and more rigorous normal category standards,
whereas light-sport category aircraft requirements in part 22 are less
rigorous. Finally, design and production certification procedures for
the primary category, as opposed to the light-sport category, rely on
the more rigorous methods of showing and finding compliance to
applicable requirements during type and production certifications. FAA
does not issue a type or production certificate to a manufacturer of
light-sport category aircraft but, instead, relies on a manufacturer's
statement of compliance to applicable requirements. FAA, therefore,
disagrees that the amended light-sport category duplicates the primary
category.
As discussed below, AEA and ARSA commented that prior FAA attempts
over the last thirty years to apply the safety continuum, simplify
certification procedures, enable new technologies, and improve safety
have largely under-delivered for the industry. AEA and ARSA stated
another rulemaking is unwarranted. Contrary to this sentiment, the vast
majority of comments received on the NPRM were generally in favor of
the MOSAIC rulemaking effort, even in cases where there were specific
suggestions or recommendations as to particular sections of the
proposed rule. FAA notes that all but the newest 14 CFR parts have been
amended multiple times. Despite FAA's best efforts to collect data,
form arguments, and draft rules, and despite strong contributions from
the public in the form of aviation rulemaking committees,
recommendations, data, comments submitted to rulemaking dockets, and
such, few rules are static. That rules require regular amendment is not
a reflection of weaknesses with the rulemaking process but of its
strength in continuously adjusting based on experience with prior
amendments, changes in the industry, advances in technology, and such.
FAA disagrees with the notion that this rulemaking is frivolous and
believes changes to the CFR in this final rule are supported with
appropriate rationale. And generally, as AEA and ARSA ``acknowledge,''
the primary category ``predated the wide-spread development of
industry-led aviation consensus standards and[,] as such, [it] has not
been utilized to its intended purpose.'' \9\ Over 200 models of light-
sport category aircraft have been manufactured compared with seven
primary category aircraft models, even though the primary category has
been available to manufacturers for over thirty years.
AEA and ARSA commented that the risk related to an unbound, speed-
based aircraft proposal has not been addressed. FAA disagrees with the
comment that the light-sport category is ``unbound.'' The light-sport
category is subject to the eligibility requirements of Sec. 22.100 and
the design, production, and airworthiness requirements of part 22. FAA
considered risk in applying its safety continuum concept. Per the
safety continuum concept, FAA compares the level of exposure of the
public to risk with the level of rigor in issuance of a certificate.
For recreational operations, FAA considered EAB aircraft, light-sport
category aircraft, primary category aircraft, and normal category
aircraft. Though accident rates for EAB aircraft have been consistently
declining for about 10 years, that category remains a concern to FAA
because it is not required to meet 14 CFR or FAA-accepted design or
production standards. In addition, EAB aircraft are ``unbounded'' in
terms of aircraft design, including aircraft class, weight, number of
seats, number and type of engines, stalling and maximum speeds, and 14
CFR airworthiness standards. The proposed rule addressed the risk
consideration of all such expansions, including the increase of stall
and maximum speeds for light-sport category aircraft. The changes to
the rule will increase safety of light-sport category aircraft through
the requirements of part 22 and by attracting aviators who would
otherwise gravitate toward EAB aircraft.
AEA and ARSA commented that the safety continuum includes three
pillars of recreational aircraft categories-light-sport, primary, and
normal categories-and proposals to one pillar affect the other pillars.
AEA and ARSA commented that proposals must be weighed as to their
effect on the entire safety continuum and the Agency, in coordination
with industry, must consider all three pillars and develop policy and
guidance to support 30 years of Agency promises.
FAA agrees that light-sport category aircraft should be considered
in relation to experimental aircraft, primary category aircraft, and
normal category aircraft. Though additional policies and guidance for
applying the safety continuum to the ``three pillars of recreational
aviation'' may be beneficial, FAA carefully applied safety continuum
concepts in consideration of these three pillars in this rulemaking.
GAMA recommended that FAA develop policy, guidance, and training to
enable consistent application and full benefits of safety continuum
concepts for all general aviation products. GAMA commented that it
supports proposed light-sport category size, performance and scope
increases. However, GAMA asserted the removal of design limitations
would increase design complexity and therefore increase risk.
[[Page 35042]]
GAMA did not offer supporting data or a rationale for this assertion,
nor did it state why or to what extent raising the aircraft speed or
increasing the maximum number of seats from two to four would increase
the design complexity to such a degree as to materially increase risks
related to design compliance and aircraft conformity.
While increases in complexity and speed generally increase risk,
FAA believes the degree of expansion in size, configuration, and
performance of light sport category aircraft under this final rule may
be implemented with common, well-proven aircraft designs, engines,
propellers, systems, equipage, and technology. As such, and as
discussed throughout the NPRM and this final rule, the complexity of
light-sport category aircraft designs can be increased without an
appreciable increase in risk related to aircraft design compliance and
conformity. For example, engine manufacturers typically offer a base
engine model with small variations from that base design to achieve a
range in horsepower to accommodate a range of aircraft weights and
speeds. As another example, for retractable landing gear, the light-
sport rules have included provisions for the manufacture of amphibious
aircraft with retractable landing gear since 2007.\10\ Through
September 30, 2024, operator error led to 14 ``gear-up'' landings on
land and 10 ``gear-down'' events on water with amphibious light-sport
category airplanes. Except for those operator errors, retractable
landing gear have not been a source of fatal accidents or safety issues
related to compliance, conformity, or operations for amphibious, light-
sport category airplanes.
Regarding the proposed expansions of operating privileges with
light-sport category aircraft: aerial work, night operations, and
personal, non-commercial transportation, GAMA also commented on
increased risk from expanding operations along with increasing the
maximum number of occupants. FAA considered safety and risk in its
rationale for each of these expansions. Though GAMA raised general risk
concerns with these expansions, GAMA did not address the specific
rationale for these proposals, provide specific evidence of risk, or
provide any new information or data that would cause FAA to change its
determination to finalize these as proposed.
GAMA commented that each area of expansion of light-sport category
design limits, performance capabilities, and operating privileges lack
sufficient supporting operational safety data and need more
consideration and understanding of FAA intended risk mitigations.
Though GAMA members did not attain consensus on specific
recommendations, GAMA also compiled various, non-consensus
recommendations from different members in its comments for FAA to
consider as mitigations. As discussed previously, FAA considered each
proposal using safety continuum concepts to achieve the appropriate,
intended safety outcomes.
GAMA recommended further FAA risk evaluations related to design
compliance, production conformance, and the proposed increases in the
NPRM, and suggested FAA consider if additional safety requirements are
appropriate.
Importantly, FAA notes the comments from GAMA members and from GAMA
consider risk only in terms of how risk may change within the light-
sport category from the proposed expansions. GAMA did not provide
supporting data or rationale to support its assertion that each
expansion of the light-sport category would increase risk. FAA also
pointed out that, as discussed in the NPRM, FAA considered safety and
risk for not only the light-sport category, but for broader
ramifications of safety and risk to recreational general aviation
stemming from the scope of the light-sport category in terms of design
limits, aircraft performance, and operating privileges. GAMA's comments
reflect an isolated focus on the light-sport category itself. FAA
considered the goals and arguments for decreasing risk and improving
safety more broadly within recreational general aviation and the
overarching goal of attracting general aviation toward lower risk
aircraft than EAB aircraft.
GAMA members suggested the following for potential consideration:
first, a two-tiered concept for light-sport category aircraft based on
design and production risks; second, FAA could apply risk mitigations
via part 22 like the certification levels in part 23; and third, FAA
could consider identifying high-risk design features that would be
subject to a higher rigor of certification requirements. GAMA did not
provide supporting data or rationale to support assertions that each
expansion of design limitations would increase risks and necessitate
this recommendation. The NPRM addressed risk considerations of all
expansions of light-sport category aircraft that could be designed and
produced under this rule. Also, part 23 assigns certification levels
based on maximum seating configurations: level 1 for 0 to 1 passenger;
level 2 for two to six passengers; level 3 for seven to nine
passengers; and level 4 for 10 to 19 passengers. With the maximum
number of occupants for light-sport category aircraft limited to four
for airplanes and two for other classes of aircraft in Sec. 22.100(a),
FAA finds that the range in complexity of light-sport category aircraft
as signified by maximum seating configuration does not merit
establishing multiple certification levels or tiers in part 22.
Similarly, part 23 establishes low- and high-speed performance levels
below and above 250 knots CAS that impact applicable part 23
airworthiness standards for type certification. Since the maximum speed
of light sport category aircraft is limited to 250 knots CAS in Sec.
22.100(a)(4), FAA finds the lower maximum speed of light-sport category
aircraft does not merit the two-tiered approach of part 23 concerning
maximum airspeed.
USUA commented that light-sport category aircraft fatal accident
rates were comparable to type-certificated aircraft, implying that
consensus standards are already high level and there may come a point
where additional regulation is no longer safety enhancing. FAA notes
that much of the additional regulation in this final rule constitutes
expansions in eligibility of aircraft that may be certificated in the
light sport category, operating privileges, and airman privileges.
Rather than adding regulatory burden, such expansions generally give
the public more options and privileges. In establishing new design,
production, and airworthiness requirements under part 22, FAA was
careful to set appropriate requirements for aircraft that fall between
experimental aircraft and normal category aircraft on the safety
continuum.
One commenter stated the logic of FAA's safety continuum concept is
flawed and does not reflect that pilot error, not mechanical failure,
is the leading cause of fatal accidents. FAA applies the safety
continuum concept not only to rules related to aircraft certification
but to rules for pilot, repairman, and operating certifications. Pilots
holding an airline transport pilot certificate are subject to more
rigorous certification requirements than sport pilots. Setting
appropriate pilot certification requirements does not allow FAA to
disregard safety improvements to regulations for aircraft
certification. To maintain and continuously improve safety, FAA applies
the safety continuum concept to not only pilot certifications, but to
all safety regulations, including aircraft, repairman, and operating
certification requirements.
[[Page 35043]]
That commenter also asserted the NPRM lacks statistical data
supporting that increased operating privileges and aircraft capability
increases risks to the flying public, and the data relied upon by FAA
is ``skewed.'' FAA disagrees. The data sources for flight hour and
accident data were posted in the docket with the proposed rule and FAA
used simple mathematical division of flight hours by the number of
accidents to yield the accident rates cited.
This commenter further suggested that FAA should have used
information from the 2020 AOPA Nall Report rather than the 2021 GA
Survey because the GA Survey lacks data on the total number of flight
hours flown by pilot certificate held. FAA notes that pilots of various
levels of experience and grade of certificate may, in some cases,
conduct similar operations along the safety continuum. The accident
rates posted on the NPRM docket used data from the AOPA Nall Report and
FAA GA Survey. However, the resultant accident rates in the NPRM were
not intended to examine pilot experience level or the grade of pilot
certificate. Instead, those rates are simple calculations of the
cumulative number of fatal accidents divided by cumulative flight hours
per year for non-commercial, small, fixed-wing, fixed-landing-gear
airplanes with reciprocating engines for each of three categories of
aircraft. This is a common type of calculation that provides a top-
level safety metric by combining all fatal accidents regardless of
their root causes or corresponding pilot characteristics. In this case,
the resultant accident rate trends generally show decreases from the
EAB aircraft to light-sport category and again from the light-sport
category to the normal category. Decreases in the EAB fatal accident
rate trend reflect collaborative efforts between FAA and industry to
adopt numerous voluntary safety improvements in aircraft equipage as
well as flight test and operational procedures. Both decreases in fatal
accident rate trends correspond with increased rigor in certification
requirements and procedures for light-sport and normal category
aircraft. These accident rate trend comparisons were helpful in
assessing the safety outcomes of the certification requirements for
light-sport category aircraft under the 2004 final rule and safety
continuum arguments for expanding eligibility limits for this category
under the NPRM and this final rule.
A commenter expressed concern about the proposed increased
operating privileges for recreational pilots. That commenter asserted
that FAA is focused on promoting aviation rather than safety by
supporting sport pilots flying larger aircraft and trying to make
recreational flying easier.
Recreational operations already occur in multiple categories and
types of aircraft, including approximately 30,000 EAB aircraft. FAA
disagrees that the NPRM is focused on promoting aviation rather than
safety. Rather, the NPRM focused on applying safety continuum concepts
to provide safer alternative aircraft for recreational operations.
Though the increase of operating privileges or aircraft capability for
light-sport category aircraft considered in isolation may increase risk
concerning light-sport category operations, those risks are more than
offset by providing a safer, appealing alternative to EAB aircraft.
One commenter commented that the NPRM increases the complexity and
decreases safety by allowing things like retractable landing gear,
variable pitch propellors, multiple engines, and full authority digital
electric controls (FADEC). This commenter also commented that the goal
of the NPRM seems to be to increase the markets for these aircraft.
FAA disagrees. As described throughout the NPRM and as summarized
in this final rule in the light-sport and general aviation safety
rationales, the drivers for this rule are improving the safety of the
light-sport category and of general aviation more broadly. For example,
EAB aircraft may already be built with retractable landing gear,
multiple engines, FADECs, variable pitch propellers, and other
``complex'' systems. This rule seeks to make systems available on
light-sport category aircraft that correlate with lower fatal accident
rates and meet FAA-accepted design, production, and airworthiness
standards. FAA intends for these safety improvements to make these
aircraft a more appealing alternative to EAB aircraft. Regardless, FAA
notes that part 22 rules do not mandate installation of complex systems
such as multiple engines, variable pitch propellers, retractable
landing gear, and such. Such configurations and systems have higher
initial and recurring costs and, as in the EAB aircraft fleet, will not
likely represent the majority of configurations. See section IV.K.1.a.
for discussion of aerial work with light-sport category aircraft.
Some individual commenters expressed general opposition to changes
to the 2004 final rule. As described in the NPRM, FAA views successes
with the light-sport sector as the basis for further amendments to
improve safety and to give the public more options and privileges. FAA
notes that many of the basic certification requirements and procedures
of the original rules are unchanged, such as issuance of a special
airworthiness certificate to a light-sport category aircraft based on a
manufacturer's statement of compliance and issuance of a sport pilot
certificate based on compliance with subpart J of part 61.
One commenter asserted that though the NPRM frequently referred to
the safety continuum concept as supporting rationale for its proposals,
analytical substance is lacking to support the conclusion that the
safety continuum is satisfied. In both the NPRM and the final rule, the
safety continuum concept was applied by comparing and analyzing 14 CFR
requirements among different types and levels of certification. For
aircraft certification, FAA compared requirements among experimental,
light-sport category, primary category, and normal category aircraft.
For pilot certification, FAA compared training requirements
commensurate to the certificate privileges and limitations among sport,
recreational, and private pilots. Per the safety continuum concept, the
exposure of the public to risk should correspond with the rigor of the
related certificate. For an aircraft, exposure of the public concerns
passengers aboard the aircraft, proximity to other aircraft, and
populations on the ground. For aircraft that allow a higher exposure of
the public, those aircraft should be subject to more rigorous
certification requirements. That is, the safety continuum primarily
focuses on relative comparisons of regulatory requirements for analysis
and appropriate alignment of corresponding requirements. That is why
FAA included a safety continuum view of the MOSAIC rulemaking \11\ on
the NPRM docket. This document shows a high-level, side-by-side
comparison of the experimental, light-sport, and type-certificated
sectors for recreational aircraft that FAA used to help with
considerations for this proposal from a safety continuum perspective
and a safety continuum view of related pilot rules, including seating/
occupant limitations. See section IV.H.1.a for a discussion of the
passenger limitation for sport pilots.
One commenter requested clarification of NPRM statements about
amateur-built aircraft being lower on the safety continuum than light-
sport category aircraft. FAA ranks categories or groups of operations
on the safety continuum based on the level of risk to the public.
Greater potential risk to the general public requires greater rigor in
[[Page 35044]]
certification standards and procedures. EAB aircraft have not been
found to meet FAA or FAA-accepted design or production standards and
therefore present a higher level of risk. FAA mitigates that risk for
EAB aircraft by requiring those aircraft to meet operating limitations
that reduce the risk to the public. Light-sport category aircraft under
this rule are subject to a higher rigor in certification requirements
and procedures for design, production, and airworthiness than EAB
aircraft. Therefore, light sport category aircraft are higher on the
aircraft safety continuum than EAB aircraft and can be operated under
less restrictive operating limitations than EAB aircraft. Light sport
category aircraft that meet the requirements of this rule can safely
perform operations such as flight training and operations over densely
populated areas. Light sport category aircraft that meet certain
requirements under this final rule may also conduct certain aerial
work. Though these operations provide more risk to the public, FAA
considers that these operations still reach an appropriate level of
overall safety because light-sport category aircraft will be subject to
higher rigor in certification requirements and procedures for design,
production, and airworthiness than EAB aircraft.
One commenter asserted light-sport category airplanes had lower
fatal accident rates than type-certificated aircraft in FAA statistics
for 2020 and 2021 and the NPRM incorrectly implies that light-sport
category aircraft are less safe than certified, general aviation, or
non-commercial planes. FAA disagrees that it misrepresented this data
in the NPRM. FAA provided this data on the docket; though the commenter
is correct that accident rates were lower in 2020 for light-sport
category airplanes, the accident rate for light-sport category
airplanes was higher than the accident rate for type-certificated
airplanes in 2021.
One commenter asserted this rule decreases safety by allowing
larger numbers of less qualified pilots to operate larger numbers of
less proven planes. FAA disagrees. The 2004 final rule and the proposed
rule included safety arguments concerning the certification of light-
sport category aircraft and sport pilots. FAA has determined the
requirements of the rule allow for sufficient sport pilot
qualifications and sufficient certification of light-sport category
aircraft to maintain safety.
ANAC comments that proposed expansions in eligibility for
certification of light-sport category aircraft would allow similar,
small aircraft to be designed as light-sport, primary, normal, or
powered-lift category aircraft. ANAC also comments that, despite
similarities in aircraft designs among these categories, certification
requirements are unnecessarily dissimilar. For example, consensus
standards for light-sport category airplanes are different than for
normal category airplanes, and consensus standards are not acceptable
means of compliance for normal category rotorcraft. Given industry
interest in the benefits of type certification for similar, entry-
level, small aircraft such as additional operating privileges and
broader access to international markets, ANAC asks how FAA intends to
improve type certification of such aircraft with lighter, more
consistent requirements.
FAA notes the NPRM did not propose amendment of requirements for
normal or primary category aircraft or powered lift. All regulations,
means of compliance, policies, and procedures applicable to issuance of
a type certificate for a normal, primary, or powered lift category
aircraft are unchanged by this rulemaking. As mentioned by the
commenter, type-certificated aircraft retain some advantages over
light-sport category aircraft. For example, normal category aircraft
have higher operating privileges such as carriage of people and
property for compensation and hire, sightseeing, and international air
navigation. Also, as mentioned by the commenter, through type
validation procedures, type-certificated aircraft have access to
international markets that require type certification. FAA considers
all future rulemaking priorities such as further amendments of type
certification requirements based on a number of factors, including
feedback from industry, the public, and its bilateral partners.
TCCA expressed concern that the expansions of the light-sport
category works against incentivizing small airplane manufacturers to
pursue type certification and decreases new, small, modern type
certified airplanes under amendment 64 of part 23 \12\ and equivalent
foreign standards. Since amendment 64 of part 23 took effect on August
30, 2017, FAA has issued two type certificates under that part for
passenger airplanes with one to four seats.\13\ Given how few two to
four seat aircraft have obtained type certificates, FAA believes the
opportunity cost of discouraging them is low. This final rule has no
impact on design and production of type-certificated airplanes with
more than four seats.
FAA notes that manufacturers continue to have freedom to design and
produce airplanes with four or less seats in the normal, primary, or
light-sport categories in consideration of intended operating
privileges, market demands, and international transferability. Because
safety must be FAA's top priority, FAA must consider the safety
incentives produced by improving the safety of the light-sport
category.
D. Separation of Limits for Light-Sport Category Aircraft and Sport
Pilots
1. Definition of ``Light-Sport Aircraft''
The NPRM proposed removal of the definition of ``light-sport
aircraft'' to enable separation of limits for light-sport category
aircraft and sport pilots as discussed in the next section, section
IV.D.2. Accordingly, the NPRM proposed moving eligibility requirements
for certification of light-sport category aircraft, experimental light-
sport category aircraft, sport pilots, and repairmen (light-sport) to
the applicable 14 CFR parts. FAA received 8 comments related to this
proposal from 5 industry associations and 3 individuals. All comments
supported this proposed change.
GAMA, AOPA, EAA, NATA, and NBAA commented in favor of removing the
light-sport aircraft definition and incorporating relevant language in
part 22. These commenters noted the difficulty in obtaining exemptions
from parameters established by a definition.
One commenter recommended renaming the defined term ``light-sport
aircraft,'' to ``Sport Pilot Eligible'' aircraft. However, the NPRM
specifically eliminates this definition in favor of establishing
separate and different limits for an aircraft that may be certificated
in the light-sport category and for aircraft that may be operated by a
sport pilot. Retaining and renaming the title of the definition as
recommended by the commenter would confuse and undermine a fundamental
proposal in this rule that is discussed in section IV.D.1. Therefore,
FAA is not adopting this recommendation.
This final rule adopts the proposal to remove the definition of
``light-sport aircraft'' and replace it with separate eligibility
requirements for certification of light-sport category aircraft,
experimental light-sport category aircraft, sport pilots, and repairmen
(light-sport) in the applicable 14 CFR parts.
[[Page 35045]]
2. Elimination of the Definition of ``Light-Sport Aircraft'' Enables
Separation of Limits for Light-Sport Category Aircraft and Sport Pilots
Eliminating the definition of ``Light-sport aircraft'' from Sec.
1.1 enables FAA to establish separate limits for new light-sport
category aircraft and for sport pilots. Understanding this concept is
helpful to understand provisions of this final rule discussed in
sections IV.F concerning certification of light-sport category aircraft
and in IV.H concerning limits for sport pilots.
Since 2004, the Sec. 1.1 light-sport aircraft definition has
defined the design and performance requirements for light-sport
aircraft as well as the aircraft design and performance limits for
sport pilot certificate privileges. The definition was uniquely
structured to not only provide the design and performance criteria of
light-sport category aircraft, but it also specified the design and
performance criteria for other categories and types of aircraft to
determine which aircraft a sport pilot could act as the pilot in
command (PIC).\14\ Simply put, this structure allowed EAB aircraft and
normal and primary category aircraft to be light-sport aircraft for the
purpose of sport pilot privileges if they met the design and
performance requirements within the light-sport aircraft definition.
The definition also included other requirements such as for the design
of gyroplane rotor blade systems, even though gyroplanes are prohibited
from being certificated as light-sport category aircraft.\15\
The light-sport aircraft definition included maximum takeoff
weights for land and water-based operations and maximum airspeeds for
V<INF>H</INF>, V<INF>NE</INF>, and V<INF>S1</INF>. Other design
limitations in the definition specified maximum seating capacity,
engine, propeller, and rotor requirements, as well as cabin
pressurization and landing gear requirements.
Starting October 22, 2025, new aircraft performance limits and
design requirements in Sec. 61.316 of this rule go into effect, which
will replace the performance limits and design requirements in the
light-sport aircraft definition for which aircraft sport pilots may
operate. However, the design and performance requirements in the light-
sport aircraft definition will continue to be applied for airworthiness
certification of light-sport category aircraft under Sec. 21.190.
Then, on July 24, 2026, the light-sport aircraft definition is removed
from part 1 and new aircraft design and performance requirements for
airworthiness certification in the light-sport category are relocated
to Sec. 22.100.
The removal of these requirements from the Sec. 1.1 definition and
separation of pilot and aircraft requirements is beneficial for several
reasons. Separating aircraft design and performance requirements of
light-sport category and sport pilot certification more easily allows
regulations to be developed that meet the specific needs of aircraft
and pilots. For example, while the NPRM initially proposed the same
stall speed for both light-sport category airplanes and sport pilots,
for this final rule FAA recognized that the different purposes for
these limits could result in different stall speed limits. Based on the
comments received and the specific needs of aircraft and pilots, FAA
determined different stall speed requirements are appropriate for the
final rule. The basis for these different stall speeds is discussed in
detail in this final rule in sections IV.F.6.b and IV.H.1.c.
Separate limits allow certification requirements for light-sport
category aircraft to be established without regard to a specific grade
of pilot certificate as is true for other aircraft categories. Under
this rule, light-sport category aircraft are intended for operation by
all grades of pilots. That is, sport pilots will no longer be
restricted to operation of light-sport aircraft (or light-sport
category aircraft under this final rule); part 61 will set forth design
and performance limits that correspond to the scope of training and
operational limits of sport pilots. Instead, the aircraft design and
performance expansions in this final rule allow light-sport category
aircraft to achieve greater performance and utility that is equivalent
to four-seat normal and primary category aircraft as well as EAB
aircraft. The result will make light-sport category aircraft
performance more desirable to the other 490,470 certificated pilots
(non-student) \16\ with greater training and operational experience.
This approach also eliminates complications for obtaining exemptions
from regulations that are tied to both aircraft and pilot requirements.
E. Special Airworthiness Certificates for Light-Sport Category Aircraft
1. Application Documentation (Sec. 21.190(c))
Per Sec. 21.190(c) in this final rule, an applicant for a special
airworthiness certificate in the light-sport category must provide FAA
with a manufacturer's statement of compliance (SOC) and a pilot's
operating handbook (POH). The POH includes operating instructions and
limitations, a flight training supplement, a listing of any authorized
aerial work operations, and any instructions or limitations necessary
to safely conduct towing operations. The POH in this final rule
replaces the current Sec. 21.190(b)(1) aircraft operating instructions
(AOI) requirement. In addition, an applicant must provide a maintenance
and inspection program for the aircraft. Since this final rule makes
compliance with part 36 for new light-sport category aircraft voluntary
(see section IV.N), this final rule also includes conforming amendments
to Sec. 21.190(c). Those conforming amendments eliminate the proposed
application requirements to include a statement in the POH regarding
compliance with part 36 and submission of evidence that the aircraft
has demonstrated compliance with the applicable requirements of part 36
of this chapter.
GAMA recommended that the manufacturer's SOC, POH, and maintenance
and inspection program be prescribed in subpart B of part 22. FAA
disagrees with prescribing these documents in part 22 because they are
already required in Sec. 21.190(c) as part of the special
airworthiness certificate application process. The SOC requirements are
listed in Sec. 21.190(d) and are the foundation of the light-sport
category airworthiness certification process. FAA does not favor adding
requirements for the POH and the maintenance and inspection program in
part 22 because they are not FAA-approved or accepted documents, unlike
the documentation requirements for type certificated aircraft meeting
the airworthiness standards of parts 23, 25, 27, or 29. Part 22 also
differs from the airworthiness standards for type certificated aircraft
in that part 22 covers a wide variety of aircraft classes whereas the
parts for type certificated aircraft are specific to airplanes or
rotorcraft. This would make adding POH and maintenance program
documentation requirements to part 22 difficult because they could not
be tailored to meet the specific needs of each class of aircraft.
2. Pilot's Operating Handbook (Sec. 21.190(c)(2))
Streamline Designs suggested revised language for Sec.
21.190(c)(2)(i) so that the provision reflects industry best practices
and addresses normal and emergency procedures. FAA agrees to revise
this sentence to capture elements discussed in the NPRM. As such, FAA
will remove ``recommended'' and add ``normal'' and ``emergency'' to
this requirement.
[[Page 35046]]
``Recommended'' is being removed because it may result in confusion
over the intended outcome of the operating instructions and limitations
or appear as limiting. Certain operating instructions and limitations
in the manufacturer's POH need to be complied with to prevent death,
injury, or damage to the aircraft and should not be thought of as
``recommendations.'' Examples of these include certain airspeeds such
as V<INF>A</INF> and operating instructions such as warnings, cautions,
and emergency procedures. ``Normal'' and ``emergency'' have been
included in this requirement to provide clarity, reflect the NPRM
preamble discussion, and expand the requirement beyond just abnormal
procedures. In the NPRM, FAA stated the operating instructions should
address normal, abnormal, and emergency operating procedures.
Accordingly, the final rule revises Sec. 21.190(c)(2)(i) to read,
``Operating instructions and limitations to safely accommodate all
environmental conditions and normal, abnormal, and emergency procedures
likely to be encountered in the aircraft's intended operations.''
Streamline Designs also commented on Sec. 21.190(c)(2)(ii) stating
that ``all foreseeable conditions'' could be problematic as it is too
open-ended. FAA agrees and has changed ``all foreseeable conditions''
to ``all likely conditions.'' This change will narrow the scope to
flight training conditions that are likely or probable, based on the
aircraft and its flight envelope, instead of hypothetical scenarios
whose occurrence may be unrealistic, inconsequential, or difficult to
predict. Accordingly, Sec. 21.190(c)(2)(ii) has been changed to read,
``A flight training supplement to enable safe operation of the aircraft
within the intended flight envelope under all likely conditions.''
Jump Aero recommended that the POH include all necessary procedures
for pilots to mitigate likely failures. Reliable Robotics similarly
suggested the POH include simplified flight control failure conditions
and pilot mitigations to improve Sec. 22.180. FAA notes these
recommendations are already captured in the final rule text for Sec.
21.190(c)(2)(i) and (ii) that provides POH requirements as part of the
application for a special airworthiness certificate for a light-sport
category aircraft.
Streamline Designs recommended Sec. 21.190(c)(2)(iii) include the
words ``if applicable'' so aircraft manufacturers would not have to add
a section in their POH just to indicate aerial work does not apply. In
the final rule aerial work is authorized, per Sec. 91.327, for light-
sport category aircraft certificated on or after July 24, 2026 and
Sec. 22.195 requires each light-sport category aircraft to be ground
and flight tested to ensure the aircraft can safely conduct any aerial
work operation designated by the manufacturer. FAA disagrees with this
recommendation. Section 21.190(c)(2)(iii) does not require aircraft
manufacturers to state aerial work operations that may not be safely
conducted so ``if applicable'' is not necessary. Instead, FAA
encourages consensus standards organizations to consider safety
implications of omitting mention of aerial work when creating consensus
standards for the POH. Omission of aerial work may be confusing to the
operator.
Though not proposed in the NPRM, in response to suggestions from
commentors, this final rule includes a requirement for the POH to
include any instructions or limitations necessary to safely conduct
towing operations in Sec. 21.190(c)(iv). FAA proposed to authorize
limited towing for compensation or hire in the NPRM, but did not
include a requirement for the POH. FAA is correcting that omission
here. Towing was added to Sec. 21.190(c)(iv) because Sec. 91.327
authorizes limited towing for compensation or hire and towing can put
similar loads on aircraft structures as certain aerial work operations.
FAA has already accepted ASTM consensus standards for light-sport
category airplane and weight-shift-control aircraft to include
manufacturer-provided instructions and operating limitations for the
towing of gliders in the aircraft's POH. For example, paragraph A1.7 in
the annex of ASTM Standard F2245, Standard Specification for Design and
Performance of a Light Sport Airplane, states that operating
limitations applicable to towing operations must be established and
included in the POH. Also, ASTM Standard F2746, Standard Specification
for Pilot's Operating Handbook (POH) for Light Sport Airplane, requires
towing instructions be included in the POH. Since light-sport category
aircraft manufacturers of towing-eligible aircraft must currently state
compliance to FAA-accepted consensus standards for the POH, the
addition of towing in Sec. 21.190(c)(iv) is similar to the existing
procedures manufacturers already undertake to provide a comprehensive
POH.
3. Maintenance and Inspection Program (Sec. 21.190(c)(3))
A commenter asked if the maintenance and inspection program in
Sec. 21.190(c)(3) was accepted or approved. FAA will not accept or
approve light-sport category aircraft maintenance and inspection
manuals.
4. Evidence of Compliance With Noise Requirements (Sec.
21.190(c)(2)(iv) and (c)(4))
The NPRM proposed Sec. 21.190(c)(2)(iv) would have required the
aircraft manufacturer to provide a statement that the aircraft has
demonstrated compliance with part 36 of this chapter, the tested noise
levels of the aircraft, and the following statement: ``No determination
has been made by FAA that the noise levels of this aircraft are or
should be acceptable or unacceptable for operation in any location.''
Proposed Sec. 21.190(c)(4) would have required the applicant to
provide evidence that the aircraft has demonstrated compliance with the
applicable requirements of part 36 of this chapter.
Since this final rule makes compliance with part 36 for new light-
sport category aircraft voluntary (see section IV.N), this final rule
eliminates the proposed requirements in Sec. 21.190(c)(2)(iv) for an
applicant to provide the statements, tested noise levels, and the
evidence in Sec. 21.190(c)(4) that the aircraft has demonstrated
compliance with the applicable requirements of part 36 of this chapter.
FAA received comments from numerous commenters on the proposal to
require compliance with part 36. Streamline Designs suggested proposed
Sec. 21.190(c)(2)(iv) be reworded so the POH indicates the noise
standard to which the aircraft complies instead of an actual tested
noise level. Van's Aircraft stated a concern that proposed Sec.
21.190(c)(2)(iv)'s requirement to include ``tested noise levels'' in
the POH would need to be reviewed if a simplified method in consensus
standards is approved. Since this final rule makes compliance with part
36 for new light-sport category aircraft voluntary (see section IV.N),
these comments are no longer applicable with the omission of proposed
Sec. 21.190(c)(2)(iv).
LAMA recommended the part 36 references in proposed Sec.
21.190(c)(2)(iv) and (c)(4) be replaced with ``FAA-accepted consensus
standards for noise.'' USUA recommended the elimination of Sec.
21.190(c)(2)(iv) and (c)(4) from the final rule. LAMA and USUA's
comments are addressed in section IV.N.
[[Page 35047]]
5. Manufacturer's Statement of Compliance (Sec. 21.190(d))
a. Certified and Trained Authorized Representatives
The NPRM proposed that the manufacturer's statement of compliance
require a signature by the manufacturer's authorized representative or
agent who is certified and trained on the requirements associated with
the issuance of a statement of compliance by an organization that
certifies and trains quality assurance staff in accordance with a
consensus standard that has been accepted by FAA.
Streamline Designs asked FAA to explain the meaning of ``agent.''
FAA allows agents to submit various FAA documentation on behalf of the
owner, such as required for aircraft registration (Sec. 47.13) or an
airworthiness certificate application (Sec. 21.173). Though FAA does
not define ``agent,'' it is generally someone outside of the owner's
corporation or business who the owner has authorized to act on its
behalf. FAA has determined that the inclusion of ``or agent'' in the
requirement is redundant since an agent is a type of an authorized
representative of the manufacturer. Accordingly, FAA has removed ``or
agent'' from Sec. 21.190(d)(1).
ALPA cited FAA's 2010 Light-Sport Aircraft Manufacturers Assessment
(LSAMA) Final Report and recommended FAA provide greater regulatory
oversight of manufacturers' statements of compliance substantiating
that aircraft met consensus standards. Though this final rule does not
specifically address FAA oversight of manufacturers' SOCs, it does
establish a regulatory framework to address the consensus standards
compliance concerns identified in the LSAMA Final Report. In addition
to the trained and certified representative specified above to fulfill
the Sec. 21.190(d)(1) requirement, Sec. 22.190 requires the aircraft
to have been found compliant with the provisions of the applicable FAA-
accepted consensus standards by individuals who have been trained on
determining compliance with those consensus standards. These two
regulatory requirements will provide better assurance that a
manufacturer's staff designs, manufactures, and tests the aircraft to
meet the applicable FAA-accepted consensus standards.
FAA oversight of light-sport category aircraft manufacturers and
their facilities will be consistent with the safety continuum. Policies
and procedures for that oversight, including FAA audits, are included
in FAA Order 8130.36, Special Light Sport Aircraft Audit Program, which
will be revised to align with changes in this rule. As explained in the
NPRM, FAA would expand its oversight to verify successful
accomplishment of training by the manufacturer's compliance staff per
Sec. 22.190, as well as the training and certification of
manufacturer's staff who sign the manufacturer's statements of
compliance in Sec. 21.190(d)(1).
b. Manufacturer's Statement Whether an Aircraft is Suitable for Sport
Pilots (NRPM proposed Sec. 21.190(d)(3))
The NPRM proposed Sec. 21.190(d)(3), which would have required a
statement from the light-sport category aircraft manufacturer as to
whether the aircraft met the design and performance requirements
specified in proposed Sec. 61.316 for an aircraft that a sport pilot
would be permitted to operate. Streamline Designs recommended that this
requirement be removed because some light-sport aircraft designs may
have features or operation modes that can be toggled on and off and so
whether the aircraft meets these requirements may not be a clear yes or
no answer.
Because sport pilots may or may not have the necessary endorsements
for airplanes designed with controllable pitch propellers or
retractable landing gear, FAA agrees there may not be a clear ``yes or
no'' answer to whether certain light-sport category aircraft meet the
sport pilot aircraft performance limits and design requirements of
Sec. 61.316. However, FAA disagrees that the Sec. 61.316 requirements
of light-sport category aircraft operated by a sport pilot could be
toggled on or off by means of flipping a switch. For instance, changing
the type of installed propeller, the type of gyroplane rotor system, or
converting a helicopter with simplified flight controls to one with
primary flight controls would be impractical to accomplish with a
toggle switch or be prevented by design requirements.
Instead, FAA did not include proposed Sec. 21.190(d)(3) in the
final rule because sport pilots can fly aircraft with retractable
landing gear or controllable pitch propellers if they have obtained an
endorsement through the requirements specified in Sec. 61.331.
Accordingly, the manufacturer's statement in proposed Sec.
21.190(d)(3) would not have been practical for them to make since sport
pilots may or may not be able to fly aircraft with these features. FAA
will instead rely on a sport pilot's knowledge of the aircraft and part
61 requirements to determine whether they can fly a certain light-sport
category aircraft. With the omission of proposed Sec. 21.190(d)(3),
all subsequent proposed sections in Sec. 21.190(d) have been
renumbered accordingly in this final rule.
c. Manufacturer's Statement on Towing and Aerial Work Operations (Sec.
21.190(d)(3))
The NPRM proposed Sec. 21.190(d)(4), which the final rule
renumbers to Sec. 21.190(d)(3), to require light-sport category
aircraft manufacturers specify aerial work operations they have
determined may be safely conducted with the aircraft and state that the
aircraft has been ground and flight tested to ensure that it can be
operated to safely conduct those operations in accordance with the
instructions and limitations provided by the manufacturer.
The Soaring Society of America and Soaring Safety Foundation
commented that it is uncertain whether manufactures will consider
glider towing operations as included within aerial work operations.
They recommended changes to Sec. Sec. 21.190, 22.120 and 22.195(d) to
clarify glider operations. FAA agrees that Sec. 21.190 and the part 22
sections should be revised to include glider towing operations. Though
glider towing is not an aerial work operation per Sec. 91.327(a)(3),
it should be included in the applicable requirements of Sec. 21.190
and part 22 since glider and other towing operations puts similar loads
on aircraft structures as certain aerial work operations, manufacturers
must comply with FAA-accepted consensus standards for their towing-
capable aircraft, and manufacturers will have to state compliance to
any applicable consensus standards for towing. This topic is further
discussed in section IV.K.1.a.iv.b. Accordingly, this final rule adds
towing operations to Sec. 21.190(c)(2)(iv) and (d)(3), and Sec. Sec.
22.110 and 22.195.
The ability for light-sport category aircraft to tow gliders, per
Sec. 91.327, has existed since the 2004 final rule. However, because
the tow-hitch and installation requirements in Sec. 91.309(a)(2)
require Administrator approval, but light-sport category consensus
standards for towing have only gained FAA-acceptance, this gap has
deterred use of light-sport category aircraft in towing operations.
This situation was explained in section IV.H.6 of the NPRM. This final
rule resolves this issue with new requirements in Sec. 91.309(a)(2)
that allow for Administrator acceptance or approval of a tow-hitch and
its installation. This topic is further discussed in section IV.K.1.b.
[[Page 35048]]
The annexes in ASTM Standards F2245 and F2317 include FAA-accepted
consensus standards for the design and performance of airplanes and
weight shift control aircraft that are used to tow gliders.
Manufacturers of light-sport category aircraft designed for towing
would specify the applicable towing consensus standards on the
manufacturer's statement of compliance per Sec. 21.190(d)(5). Since
light-sport category aircraft manufacturers must currently state
compliance to FAA-accepted consensus standards for their towing-
eligible aircraft, the addition of towing to Sec. 21.190(d)(3) is
similar to the existing procedures manufacturers already undertake to
complete a manufacturer's statement of compliance.
USUA stated the provisions of proposed Sec. 21.190(d)(4) were
unnecessary because aircraft under current consensus standards have
already sustained greater loads for glider towing and flight training.
FAA disagrees with the association's statement that this requirement is
unnecessary. The proposed Sec. 21.190(d)(4) requirement holds
manufacturers accountable for designing and constructing their aircraft
to withstand the loads of, and safely perform, towing and any aerial
work operation they authorize in their aircraft's POH. This requirement
also makes the manufacturer state they have flight tested their
aircraft and found it able to safely conduct the authorized operations.
FAA agrees that glider towing and flight training can put the aircraft
under stressful loads; however certain aerial work operations, such as
dispensing liquids or helicopter sling loads, have their own unique
stressors that need to be addressed in the design. Accordingly, the
requirements of proposed Sec. 21.190(d)(4) are in this rule to ensure
the safety of towing and aerial work operations authorized by the
manufacturer. This final rule will retain Sec. 21.190(d)(4) as
proposed, except, as previously discussed, it will include towing
operations and be renumbered as Sec. 21.190(d)(3).
d. Manufacturer's Statement on Simplified Flight Controls (Sec.
21.190(d)(4))
The NPRM proposed that the manufacturer state whether the aircraft
meets the simplified flight control requirements of Sec. 22.180. FAA
did not receive any comments on this section. This final rule will
retain Sec. 21.190(d)(5) as proposed, except, as previously discussed,
it will be renumbered as Sec. 21.190(d)(4).
e. Manufacturer's Statement on Specified Consensus Standards (Sec.
21.190(d)(5))
The existing requirement in Sec. 21.190(c)(2) that the statement
of compliance specify the consensus standards used by the light-sport
category aircraft manufacturer was retained in proposed Sec.
21.190(d)(6). However, this requirement references subpart B of part
22, which contains the applicable design, production, and airworthiness
requirements for which the consensus standards would serve as a means
of compliance.
EAA, AOPA, NATA, NBAA, and GAMA recommended that FAA allow in the
definition of light-sport aircraft for manufacturers to propose safety
enhancing, risk mitigating technologies and designs in lieu of
satisfying specific regulatory requirements. FAA disagrees with the
associations' recommendation. This final rule removes the light-sport
aircraft definition in part 1 and instead has eligibility requirements
in Sec. 22.100 that specify certain design, performance, and
certification requirements of light-sport category aircraft. As
explained in the NPRM, FAA has created the requirements in part 22 for
FAA-accepted consensus standards to act as a means of compliance to
those requirements. For FAA to accept proposals from individual
aircraft manufacturers in lieu of meeting the regulatory requirements
would be contrary to the reason why FAA has implemented part 22 in this
rule. The associations' proposal would add confusion and undermine
industry member participation in, and weaken, the consensus standards
and process upon which the light-sport category relies upon for safe
aircraft.
Streamline Designs commented that the scope of proposed part 22 and
the associated consensus standards is not limited to airworthiness and
the language should reflect their actual scope. FAA disagrees that
every topic covered by a consensus standard needs to be individually
addressed in part 22. This rule will continue to use the overarching
terms of design, production, and airworthiness. The performance-based
requirements proposed in subpart B of part 22 represent the minimum
requirements a consensus standard would be required to address to be an
acceptable means of compliance for certification of light-sport
category aircraft.
FAA is making a correction to proposed Sec. 21.190(d)(6) to
require that specified consensus standards must be ``accepted or
approved'' by FAA instead of only allowing for FAA ``accepted''
consensus standards. This revision is to account for Sec. 36.0(c)(1),
which the final rule renumbers to Sec. 36.0(b)(1)(i), requiring an FAA
``approved'' noise consensus standard rather than an FAA ``accepted''
one. This final rule will retain Sec. 21.190(d)(6) as proposed, except
for this correction and, as previously discussed, it will be renumbered
as Sec. 21.190(d)(5).
f. Manufacturer's Statement on Quality Assurance System (Sec.
21.190(d)(6))
The NPRM proposed that the manufacturer state that the aircraft
conforms to the manufacturer's design data using the manufacturer's
quality assurance system. FAA did not receive any comments on this
section. This final rule will retain Sec. 21.190(d)(7) as proposed,
except, as previously discussed, it will be renumbered as Sec.
21.190(d)(6).
g. Manufacturer's Statement on Availability of Documents (Sec.
21.190(d)(7))
Similar to the existing Sec. 21.190(c)(4), the NPRM proposed Sec.
21.190(d)(8), which would require manufacturers to state that they will
make the documents specified in Sec. 21.190(c) available to any
interested person. Streamline Designs commented the language is
problematic because it does not exclude competitors and others from
requesting and freely accessing the information and utilizing it in
violation of copyright and intellectual property interests. Streamline
Designs recommended the requirement be changed to limit documents
available to pertinent safety of flight and continued operational
safety requests. FAA disagrees with Streamline Designs' requested
change. The documents in Sec. 21.190(c) include the manufacturer's
statement of compliance, a POH that includes a flight training
supplement, and a maintenance and inspection program. Though these
documents are provided to FAA for airworthiness application, they are
also provided with the aircraft to the purchaser. These documents
should not contain design data beyond what is normally provided in
these documents. Manufacturers who alleged violations of copyright and
intellectual property interests have due recourse under the law. Since
these documents are available to the purchasers when an aircraft is
sold, there should be no further restrictions on their dissemination.
The availability of these documents to the public is particularly
beneficial to prospective purchasers of these aircraft by enhancing
their understanding of the aircraft's operation, limitations, and
maintenance
[[Page 35049]]
and inspection procedures before purchase. This final rule will retain
Sec. 21.190(d)(8) as proposed, except, as previously discussed, it
will be renumbered as Sec. 21.190(d)(7).
h. Manufacturer's Statement on Continued Operational Safety Program and
Safety Directives (Sec. 21.190(d)(8))
The NPRM proposed in Sec. 21.190(d)(9) that the aircraft
manufacturer must state that it will support the aircraft by
implementing and maintaining a documented continued operational safety
program that addresses monitoring and resolving in-service safety of
flight issues, includes provisions for the issuance of safety
directives, includes a process for notifying FAA and all owners of all
safety of flight issues, and includes a process for advance notice to
FAA and all owners of a continued operational safety program
discontinuance or provider change. The NPRM also proposed in Sec.
21.190(d)(10) that the manufacturer must state it will monitor and
correct safety-of-flight issues through the issuance of safety
directives and a continued operational safety program that meets the
specified consensus standard.
EASA asked for clarity on why proposed Sec. 21.190(d)(9) requires
the manufacturer to state it will issue safety directives but in Sec.
91.327 removes the existing requirement for an owner or operator to
comply with safety directives. In response, FAA emphasizes that safety
directives are an important means for maintaining the safety of a
light-sport category aircraft. The aircraft manufacturer issues safety
directives to notify owners and future owners of any safety-critical
information for their aircraft model. FAA has previously accepted ASTM
Standard F3198, Standard Specification for Light-Sport Aircraft
Manufacturer's Continued Operational Safety Program, which states that
safety directives are issued when a condition is found to exist or
could exist in the manufacturer's fleet that may cause an unsafe
condition for flight. The removal of the requirement in Sec. 91.327
for owners and operators to comply with safety directives is discussed
in section IV.J.1.
The NPRM asked for public comments on whether manufacturers who are
discontinuing manufacturing operations should be required to send
design information of affected aircraft to FAA prior to discontinuing
their continued operational safety program. This action could
facilitate FAA's issuance of airworthiness directives if an unsafe
condition is discovered after a manufacturer discontinues its
operations. GAMA commented that the policy for light-sport category
aircraft for the transfer of such data should be similar to the policy
applicable to type certificated products. GAMA also requested that FAA
keep abandoned design information it takes ownership of confidential
unless needed to correct an unsafe airworthiness condition.
FAA has decided against requiring aircraft manufacturers that
discontinue operations to provide their design data to FAA. FAA
declines to institute this requirement because of challenges with
property rights, difficulty reviewing large volumes of data in
different formats, and providing proper storage and retrieval services
for the data. In addition, FAA lacks sufficient staff, facilities, and
equipment to assume such responsibilities for light-sport category
aircraft. FAA encourages aircraft manufacturers to maintain
responsibility for their continued operational safety system even if
they stopped manufacturing that model of aircraft. FAA also encourages
aircraft manufacturers to find a suitable manufacturer or other person
that could assume continued operational safety responsibility.
EASA asked if FAA would act as a state of design for non-U.S.
manufacturers that discontinue production of aircraft or go out of
business. Though a manufacturer discontinuing operations may provide
FAA with affected aircraft design data, FAA would not act as a state of
design.
EASA also asked about the implications on current bilateral
aviation safety agreements of FAA's proposal to remove the requirement
for owners and operators of light-sport category aircraft to comply
with manufacturer safety directives. The NPRM section IV.H.1 discussed
the removal of the requirement to comply with safety directives. The
agreements between the United States and individual European countries
and with the European Union have no light-sport specific provision or
terminology. For example, none of these agreements mention
``manufacturer safety directives,'' a term created for the light-sport
rule of 2004. These agreements equate mandatory continuing
airworthiness action with issuance of an airworthiness directive. Since
Sec. 91.327 provisions for mandatory compliance with airworthiness
directives for light-sport category aircraft are unchanged by this
final rule, and since these agreements do not use the term,
``manufacturer safety directive,'' this final rule does not impact
aviation safety agreements between the United States, the European
Union, and any individual European countries.
Streamline Designs stated NPRM proposed Sec. 21.190(d)(9) and
(d)(10) overlap and should be merged and simplified. FAA disagrees. To
contrast the two in simple terms, proposed (d)(9) requires a
manufacturer's statement of a documented continued operational safety
program, including provisions for issuing safety directives and
proposed (d)(10) requires a manufacturer's statement they will issue
safety directives (if necessary) and have a continued operational
safety program. Accordingly, because the two requirements are for
separate actions by the manufacturer, they will remain as separate
requirements.
This final rule will retain Sec. 21.190(d)(9) as proposed, except,
as previously discussed, it will be renumbered as Sec. 21.190(d)(8).
i. Manufacturer's Statement on Monitoring and Correcting Safety-of-
Flight Issues (Sec. 21.190(d)(9))
The NPRM proposed Sec. 21.190(d)(10), which would require the
manufacturer's statement of compliance to include a statement that it
will monitor and correct safety-of-flight issues through the issuance
of safety directives and a continued operational safety program. This
final rule will retain Sec. 21.190(d)(10) as proposed, except, as
previously discussed, it will be renumbered as Sec. 21.190(d)(9).
j. Manufacturer's Statement on Access to Facilities and Data (Sec.
21.190(d)(10))
The NPRM proposed Sec. 21.190(d)(11) would require the
manufacturer to state that, at the request of FAA, the manufacturer
will provide unrestricted access to its facilities and to all data
necessary to determine compliance with this section or other applicable
requirements of this chapter.
Streamline Designs recommended revising this provision to limit
such access only to ``FAA personnel'' and only to the manufacturer's
facilities. Streamline Designs contended that manufacturers should only
be required to grant unrestricted access to FAA personnel or personnel
it directly contracts with rather than anyone FAA desires. FAA
disagrees with Streamline Designs' requested change since the
requirement is for the determination of compliance with this section or
other applicable requirements of this chapter. For manufacturers with
facilities in the United States, FAA would only request that FAA
employees or its contractors be allowed to have access to facilities
and data to facilitate FAA making a determination of compliance.
However,
[[Page 35050]]
for manufacturers with facilities outside the U.S., FAA would
coordinate with the country's civil aviation authority (CAA) and may
request its assistance. In this circumstance, a country's CAA may make
or assist FAA with the compliance determination.
In addition, FAA disagrees with Streamline Designs because of the
omitted requirement for access to data. Access to a facility alone
would not result in a compliance determination if the manufacturer did
not also allow access to necessary data. The data would show the
material and design properties and production methods necessary to
determine compliance. The manufacturer's cooperation, including
allowing FAA access to data, would also be necessary for the issuance
of an airworthiness directive.
This final rule will retain Sec. 21.190(d)(11) as proposed,
except, as previously discussed, it will be renumbered as Sec.
21.190(d)(10).
k. Manufacturer's Statement on Quality Assurance Systems (Sec.
21.190(d)(11))
The NPRM proposed Sec. 21.190(d)(12) required the manufacturer to
state it has established and maintains a quality assurance system that
meets the requirements of Sec. 22.185 of this chapter. EASA commented
that proposed Sec. 21.190(d) and proposed Sec. Sec. 22.185 and 22.190
contain some overlap of quality assurance system and training
requirements. While EASA offered no change or suggestion beyond this
observation, FAA agrees that the training requirements in proposed
Sec. Sec. 21.190(d)(1) and 22.190 and the quality assurance system
requirements in proposed Sec. Sec. 21.190(d)(12) and 22.185 are
complimentary. For a quality assurance system to be successful, the
design, production, and airworthiness staff members must be trained on
determining compliance with applicable FAA-accepted consensus
standards. As previously explained, the training requirements were
implemented in this rule based on the findings in the LSAMA Final
Report. This final rule will retain Sec. 21.190(d)(12) as proposed,
except, as previously discussed, it will be renumbered as Sec.
21.190(d)(11).
6. Amended Statement of Compliance for Aerial Work (Sec. 21.190(e))
The NPRM proposed that an amended statement of compliance would
permit aerial work operations, as designated by the manufacturer, for
light-sport category aircraft certificated prior to the effective date
of Sec. 21.190 in this rule. These aircraft were originally
certificated without a provision to conduct aerial work.
A commenter stated all existing light-sport category aircraft
should be grandfathered to allow aerial work because it will create an
undue time and financial burden on owners and manufacturers, and in
some cases be impossible because the aircraft manufacturer has gone out
of business. USUA similarly disagreed with this requirement because of
the burden on owners and manufacturers. Despite acknowledging in the
NPRM that obtaining an amended statement of compliance may be ``cost
prohibitive,'' FAA generally disagrees with the commenters. Aircraft
manufacturers of light-sport category aircraft certificated prior to
July 24, 2026 have not assessed the design and structural integrity of
the owner's aircraft or provided corresponding instructions and
limitations in the aircraft's operating instructions or POH and
maintenance manual necessary to safely conduct aerial work operations.
Without this assessment and information from the original manufacturer,
aerial work operations may exceed the safe design loads of aircraft
structures.
In completing the amended statement of compliance, the original
aircraft manufacturer must reference and reaffirm the statements made
in the original statement of compliance and provide a statement that
the design and construction of the aircraft provides sufficient
structural integrity to enable safe operation of the aircraft during
the performance of the specified aerial work operations. In addition,
the NPRM proposed that the manufacturer must state that the aircraft is
able to withstand any foreseeable flight and ground loads. Consistent
with the change of ``foreseeable'' to ``likely'' in Sec.
21.190(c)(2)(ii), this final rule has changed ``foreseeable'' to
``likely'' in this provision to narrow the scope of conditions that are
likely instead of hypothetical scenarios whose occurrence may be
unrealistic or inconsequential.
The aircraft manufacturer must specify FAA-accepted consensus
standards used to make the determinations of the aircraft having
sufficient structural integrity and the ability to withstand any flight
and ground loads associated with aerial work operations listed in the
POH. For example, the specified consensus standards may be comprised of
those for structural integrity and aerial work operations. In addition,
the aircraft manufacturer must revise the aircraft's operating
instructions or POH to indicate those aerial work operations that may
be safely conducted and revise the aircraft's maintenance and
inspection program and flight training supplement with necessary
instructions in compliance with applicable FAA-accepted consensus
standards for these documents.
The final rule will make a correction to the phrase ``required by
paragraph (a) of this section'' by replacing proposed ``(a)'' with
``(e)(4)'' so that the manufacturer must specify FAA-accepted consensus
standards used to make the determination that the design and
construction of the aircraft provides sufficient structural integrity
to enable safe operation of the aircraft during the performance of the
specified aerial work operations and that the aircraft is able to
withstand any likely flight and ground loads. Paragraph (a) was an
incorrect reference since it is about the purpose of Sec. 21.190,
which is for the issuance of special airworthiness certificates that
meet the requirements of the section.
F. Design, Production, and Airworthiness Requirements for Non-Type
Certificated Aircraft
1. Naming of Part 22
Van's Aircraft recommended revising the name of part 22 to
eliminate the words ``Design, Production and,'' noting that Sec.
21.190 and parts 23, 25, and 27 do not use these words. FAA disagrees
with Van's Aircraft's recommendation because the terms ``design'' and
``production'' accurately describe some of the requirements within part
22. FAA created the part 22 name, ``Design, Production, and
Airworthiness Requirements for Non-Type Certificated Aircraft,'' to
avoid confusion with the term ``standards.'' While parts 23, 25, 27,
29, 31, 33, and 35 use the term ``airworthiness standards'' in their
titles, FAA was reluctant to follow this pattern with part 22 because
subpart B contains requirements for which consensus standards would act
as the means of compliance. To avoid confusion and ensure the proper
hierarchy of airworthiness and consensus standards, FAA used a
different naming scheme for part 22. Thus, part 22 uses the term
``requirements'' instead of ``standards.'' Also, the term
``airworthiness'' is used several times Sec. 21.190 when referring to
special airworthiness certificates for the light-sport category.
Contrary to Van's Aircraft's comment, Sec. 21.190(d)(5) includes the
phrase ``design, production, and airworthiness'' when referring to the
requirements of subpart B of part 22.
EASA also commented that the use of part 22 in this rule may create
confusion since EASA has used this identification number for CS-22,
Certification
[[Page 35051]]
Specifications, Acceptable Means of Compliance and Guidance Material
for Sailplanes and Powered Sailplanes. Similarly, AEA/ARSA objected to
the creation of part 22 as written. They stated limiting part 22 to
only non-type certificated aircraft will create unnecessary confusion
throughout the global aviation industry. Instead, they stated it should
cover all aircraft, including sailplanes and primary category aircraft,
not addressed by existing certification standards.
While FAA supports global regulatory harmony with other civil
aviation authorities, the decision to create part 22 for the design,
production, and airworthiness of non-type certificated aircraft was
based on several factors. First, FAA does not believe it would be
appropriate to include the performance-based design, production, and
airworthiness requirements in part 21 as that part is largely limited
to prescribing certification procedures, not certification
requirements. Second, FAA did not want to embed certification
requirements for non-type certificated aircraft between 14 CFR parts
dedicated to type certificated products or articles. Thus, creating
part 22 for this rule was a logical destination based on existing 14
CFR structure where more rigorous airworthiness standards began with
part 23 and continue higher. Finally, instead of designating a specific
14 CFR part to gliders, since 1987 FAA has designated type-certificated
gliders as a special class of aircraft in Sec. 21.17. FAA has used the
applicable airworthiness requirements contained in parts 23, 25, 27,
29, 31, 33, and 35 found by FAA to be appropriate for the aircraft and
applicable to a specific type design, or such airworthiness criteria as
FAA may find provide an equivalent level of safety to those parts. FAA
has also accepted requirements in EASA's CS-22 for the type
certification of gliders.
2. Applicability (Sec. 22.1)
FAA made a correction to Sec. 22.1(a) and removed proposed
``applying for an airworthiness certificate'' since it is redundant
with ``for the issue of special airworthiness certificates.'' The
removal of ``applying for an airworthiness certificate'' does not
affect or change the meaning of Sec. 22.1(a). This section will now
read, ``Except as provided in (c), this part prescribes design,
production, and airworthiness requirements for the issue of special
airworthiness certificates, and changes to those certificates, for non-
type certificated aircraft.''
The NPRM proposed in Sec. 22.1(c) that part 22 did not apply to
aircraft issued an experimental airworthiness certificate, aircraft
operating under a special flight permit, or unmanned aircraft. AEA/ARSA
asked about the applicability of part 22 design and performance
standards to special-light-sport and experimental-light-sport aircraft.
Upon further consideration, FAA realizes that an exception should have
been added to Sec. 22.1(c) for light-sport category kit-built
aircraft. When these kit aircraft receive their experimental
airworthiness certificate, they had been designed and produced to meet
applicable part 22 requirements just like the certificated light-sport
category aircraft their design is based on. Kit aircraft certificated
for the experimental purpose of operating light-sport category kit-
built aircraft, Sec. 21.191(k), are subject to applicable part 22
requirements for the design and production of the aircraft on and after
July 24, 2026 and the final rule includes a correction to address this
situation. Accordingly, in this final rule Sec. 22.1(c) will read,
``This part does not apply to: (i) aircraft issued an experimental
airworthiness certificate, except for light-sport category kit-built
aircraft; (ii) aircraft operating under a special flight permit; or
(iii) unmanned aircraft.'' The correction does not impact or change the
airworthiness certification requirements of light-sport category kit-
built aircraft in Sec. Sec. 21.191 and 21.193 in this final rule.
Special-light sport aircraft is a colloquial term for light-sport
category aircraft certificated under Sec. 21.190. As indicated in the
title of part 22, this part applies to light-sport category aircraft.
A manufacturer's statement of compliance accompanies each light-
sport category kit-built aircraft and identifies the manufacturer's
compliance with applicable FAA-accepted consensus standards. Certain
FAA-accepted consensus standards, such as those for production
acceptance as required by Sec. 22.195, will not be included on the SOC
since the manufacturer did not assemble or test fly the kit aircraft.
Because the kits are built by amateur-builders or with the help of
builder-assist companies, the kits must be certificated for the
experimental purpose.
FAA did not include experimental aircraft certificated for the
Sec. 21.191(l) purpose of operating former light-sport category
aircraft in the Sec. 22.1(c) exception because these aircraft could
have been altered from their former light-sport category configuration
prior to being issued the Sec. 21.191(l) experimental airworthiness
certificate. For instance, the alteration could have occurred while the
aircraft was operating under an experimental airworthiness certificate
for the purpose of research and development or exhibition. The
modification would likely cause the aircraft design to no longer comply
with FAA-accepted consensus standards in effect when the aircraft was
originally certificated in the light-sport category.
AEA/ARSA also asked whether part 22 would apply to non-type
certificated unmanned aircraft. The NPRM stated part 22 would not be
applicable to unmanned aircraft as the proposed requirements would not
be appropriate to address the design of an aircraft that could be
remotely operated. In this final rule, part 22 does not include any
proposed requirements for telemetry, remote control stations, or other
launch or recovery equipment unique to unmanned aircraft. The NPRM
noted the requirements for non-type certificated unmanned aircraft
could be proposed at a later date.
A commenter recommended that new performance-based aerial work and
noise requirements only apply to higher performance aircraft with a
V<INF>S1</INF> above 45 knots. FAA disagrees with the commenter since
light-sport category airplanes and gliders are the only aircraft
classes with a stall speed limit more than 45 knots CAS V<INF>S1</INF>.
Rotorcraft and powered-lift are also high-performance aircraft, but
they do not have a stall speed limit. In this final rule, all light-
sport category aircraft classes must meet the part 22 requirements, as
applicable. As explained in the NPRM, the proposed expansion of the
classes of aircraft eligible for certification under the proposal and
the increase in the size and performance of these aircraft requires the
adoption and use of more detailed performance-based requirements.
Regarding aerial work being only applicable to aircraft with a
V<INF>S1</INF> greater than 45 knots, the commenter's position is
overly restrictive as light-sport category aircraft classes other than
airplanes and gliders can also do commercial operations. These other
classes include rotorcraft (helicopters and gyroplanes), powered-lift,
and lighter-than-air aircraft (airships and balloons). The commenter's
statement regarding noise no longer applies since this final rule makes
compliance with part 36 voluntary for new light-sport category aircraft
(see section IV.N).
This final rule adopts Sec. 22.1 as proposed, except for the
correction and Sec. 22.1(c) changes discussed above.
3. Eligibility (Sec. 22.100)
EASA and GAMA commented that it is unclear if the subpart A
requirements
[[Page 35052]]
would also apply to aircraft manufactured outside the United States.
FAA agrees and has made a few corrections to Sec. 22.100(a) and (b) to
provide clarity that all aircraft, whether manufactured inside or
outside the United States, are subject to the applicability
requirements in subpart A and the eligibility requirements in subpart B
of part 22. The proposed title of Sec. 22.100(a), which stated,
``Aircraft manufactured in the United States,'' has been removed. FAA
realized that this title was misleading since it would have made it
seem like aircraft manufactured outside the United States were excluded
from being subject to Sec. 22.100(a) eligibility requirements. In
Sec. 22.100(b), the proposed title ``Aircraft manufactured outside the
United States'' has also been removed. Since the first sentence of
Sec. 22.100(b) begins with ``For aircraft manufactured outside the
United States,'' the title was unnecessary. The proposed language in
Sec. 22.100(b) that stated, ``to be eligible for a special
airworthiness certificate in the light-sport category under Sec.
21.190 of this chapter'' was also removed since it repeats what is
stated at the beginning of Sec. 22.100(a), making the language
redundant. Finally, ``also'' was added to Sec. 22.100(b) to make it
clear that an applicant of an aircraft manufactured outside the United
States must also provide FAA with evidence it meets the requirements of
Sec. 22.100(b) in addition to meeting the requirements of Sec.
22.100(a).
In addition, FAA removed proposed Sec. 22.100(b)(1) from this rule
since it only required aircraft manufactured outside the United States
to meet the requirements of subpart B of part 22. Deleting this
proposal clarifies that aircraft manufactured outside the United States
are subject to both subparts A and B of part 22. This final rule
renumbers NPRM proposed Sec. 22.100(b)(2) and (3) as (1) and (2),
respectively.
Another commenter stated light-sport category aircraft should
continue to be designed for sport pilots and should not increase the
complexity of current light-sport aircraft. FAA disagrees. Section
III.1 of the 2004 final rule acknowledged that time and experience will
determine whether the rules require modification. Prior to initiating
this rule, FAA consulted with industry members and listened to their
recommendations for change. Based on this feedback and supporting
accident data in FAA's annual Continued Operational Safety Report \17\
for light-sport category aircraft, FAA determined that changes to the
design and performance of light-sport category aircraft were warranted.
The separation of light-sport category aircraft design and performance
limits in part 22 from those tailored for sport pilots in part 61
aligns with the regulatory structure of every aircraft category. This
structure allows regulations to be developed that meet the specific
needs of aircraft and pilots. Furthermore, given the sport pilot
training framework, sport pilots should not be solely dependent upon
operating light-sport category aircraft but instead may operate any
aircraft, regardless of the airworthiness certificate issued, as long
as the aircraft meets the design and performance limitations authorized
for sport pilots.
EASA asked if an aircraft with some initial characteristics outside
this proposal could be certificated in the light-sport category after a
modification to its propeller, stall speed, or other characteristics
like mass. The answer would depend on the modifications and whether a
standard, primary, restricted, limited, or provisional airworthiness
certificate, or an equivalent airworthiness certificate issued by a
foreign civil aviation authority had ever been issued for that
aircraft. Mass or gross weight is not an eligibility criterion for
light-sport category aircraft certificated on or after July 24, 2026.
If an aircraft had previously been issued one of the aforementioned
airworthiness certificates, then the aircraft would not be eligible for
airworthiness certification in the light-sport category. If the
aircraft was newly produced, had never previously been issued one of
the listed airworthiness certificates, met the requirements of subpart
B of part 22, as applicable, and the applicant could provide the
certification requirements specified in Sec. 21.190(c) of this rule,
then the aircraft could be issued an airworthiness certificate in the
light-sport category. Note that subpart B requires that the aircraft
must have met the design, production, and airworthiness requirements
specified in subpart B using a means of compliance consisting of
consensus standards accepted by FAA. Thus, if the aircraft was designed
or manufactured prior to FAA acceptance of consensus standards that act
as a means of compliance to part 22 requirements, then the aircraft
manufacturer would have to be able and willing to sign a statement of
compliance that the aircraft complies with the applicable FAA-accepted
consensus standards for a light-sport category aircraft.
a. Eligibility--Class of Aircraft
FAA proposed in the NPRM to allow any class of aircraft to be
eligible for certification in the light-sport category under Sec.
21.190, provided the aircraft meets the eligibility criteria in
Sec. Sec. 21.190 and 22.100 and the proposed performance-based
requirements in part 22 using an FAA-accepted consensus standard as a
means of compliance.
All comments FAA received on this proposal generally supported
expansion of the light-sport category to other classes of aircraft.
Upwards Aero supported the proposal and moving toward performance-based
requirements for light-sport category aircraft. Safari Helicopter
commented favorably that the ability to certificate helicopters as
light-sport category aircraft provides potential pilots confidence that
their helicopter is built to FAA-approved safety standards. VAI
commented about the positive impact of including rotorcraft in the
light-sport category. The Gyrocopter Flight Training Academy commented
that it was long overdue to include gyroplanes in the light-sport
aircraft category.
The response from EAA, AOPA, NATA, and NBAA asserted that the
exclusion of gyroplanes from the 2004 final rule was unfortunate, that
gyroplanes have continued to be excluded from rulemaking for too long,
and recommended broad regulations that relied upon FAA-accepted
standards developed by standards organizations. GAMA agreed with
removing exclusions based on class from the rule to enable future
growth of the light-sport category and new innovations.
Whisper Aero commented supportively that original equipment
manufacturers will be on an equal playing field in new aircraft
development and that certification consistency will allow for
components that are standardized, produced at greater volumes, more
affordable, and higher quality.
On or after July 24, 2026, this final rule allows any class of
aircraft to be eligible for certification in the light-sport category,
provided the aircraft meets the performance-based requirements of part
22 and the eligibility criteria in Sec. Sec. 21.190 and 22.100. FAA
encourages industry to develop acceptable and appropriate consensus
standards to comply with the performance-based requirements in part 22
for all classes of aircraft.
b. Eligibility--Removal of Weight Limitations
Until July 24, 2026, light-sport category aircraft will continue to
be certificated based on a maximum takeoff weight in Sec. 1.1 of not
more than 1,320 pounds (600 kilograms) for aircraft not intended for
operation on water or 1,430
[[Page 35053]]
pounds (650 kilograms) for an aircraft intended for operation on water.
Though this rule does not contain weight limits for light-sport
category aircraft certificated on or after July 24, 2026, light-sport
category aircraft certificated prior to July 24, 2026 will continue to
be subject to these weight limits under Sec. 21.181(a)(3)(iv)(A).
In the NPRM, FAA proposed to remove maximum takeoff weight
restrictions for light-sport category aircraft citing many benefits
such as enabling manufacturers to include more safety-enhancing designs
and equipment. Instead of a maximum takeoff weight restriction, FAA
proposed a stall speed for light-sport category airplanes, gliders, and
weight-shift-control aircraft and determined that maximum seating
capacity and limited aerial work operations would also help to
reasonably constrain size and weight.
ANAC disagreed with the removal of the weight limit and recommended
FAA retain the maximum takeoff limit of up to 1,320 pounds for gliders
and weight-shift-control aircraft. ANAC also questioned whether
allowing heavier gliders and weight-shift-control aircraft would
adversely affect safety. FAA disagrees that allowing heavier aircraft
weight alone decreases safety. Though glider and weight-shift-control
designs generally try to minimize weight, if the design of a glider or
weight-shift-control aircraft accounts for the aircraft weight by
providing the necessary aerodynamic performance and structural support,
safety should not be adversely affected. FAA analyzed weight-shift-
control aircraft accident data dating back to 2004 from the National
Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) and noted none of the occurrence
categories were attributed to a weight-related reason. For light-sport
category gliders, there have been two fatal accidents since 2004, which
occurred during the initial climb and post-impact flight phases.\18\
Otherwise, FAA received overwhelming support in the public comments
for removal of the maximum takeoff weight restriction. The largest
number of commenters on this topic stated the removal of the weight
restriction would benefit aircraft designs, handling, and the inclusion
of safety equipment. For example, GAMA stated existing light-sport
category aircraft weight restrictions inhibit the ability to include
many design and safety features and make more robust airplanes. Van's
Aircraft also noted the positive effect of eliminating weight
restrictions on the ability to develop electric aircraft due to the
weight of batteries.
Many commenters stated the weight restriction resulted in handling
challenges during airplane landings with gusty winds due to light wing
loading. For example, one commenter wrote that eliminating weight
limits allows for higher wing loadings and therefore easier to fly
aircraft. The comments from GAMA, EAA, AOPA, NATA, NBAA, and the
Gyrocopter Flight Academy noted handling or flying challenges caused by
light wing loading resulting from the current light-sport category
weight restriction. Safari Helicopter noted safety, stronger airframe,
and turbulence and wind resistance benefits of higher weight limits.
A few commenters told of unsafe situations they had witnessed due
to the existing maximum takeoff weight restriction on light-sport
category aircraft. The Gyrocopter Flight Training Academy alleged the
potential for manufacturers to cut corners, citing several examples it
had witnessed, which could in turn reduce aircraft structural
integrity. Another commenter alleged rampant, irresponsible flying of
light-sport category aircraft at well above gross weight as a potential
safety danger and asserted that eliminating weight limits will
hopefully address this issue by allowing aircraft to be built more
robustly and with more useful loads.
These allegations are very concerning to FAA. For light-sport
category aircraft certificated prior to July 24, 2026, non-compliance
with a light-sport aircraft definition requirement would disqualify an
aircraft from being certificated in the light-sport category unless an
exemption was obtained. ``Cutting corners'' on manufacturing materials
or processes to save weight would potentially endanger safety, likely
be a violation of the manufacturer's statement of compliance, and
resultingly invalidate airworthiness certification of the aircraft in
the light-sport category. Per the recent FAA Prohibition on
Falsification final rule, a fraudulent or intentionally false
statement, an incorrect statement or omission of fact, or other
fraudulent activities involving certain documents, such as a
manufacturer's statement of compliance, would serve as the basis for
FAA to take certificate action that could include denying, suspending,
revoking, or other appropriate action. Manufacturers of part 22
compliant light-sport category aircraft will not be subject to a weight
limit, which should alleviate future concerns as those raised by the
commenters.
Other commenters favored removal of the maximum takeoff weight
restriction for a variety of reasons. These commenters identified
benefits to pilot or flight training, building stronger, safer, or more
rugged aircraft, enabling the carriage of more cargo, passengers, or
fuel, and increasing safety margins.
Several commenters cited occupant weight as a reason why the
maximum takeoff weight limit should be removed. One commenter stated an
increased weight allowance is more realistic and will improve safety
given heavier individuals, luggage, and a desire for extra fuel for
wind or weather purposes. Another commenter noted challenges in
accommodating themselves, fuel, and a designated pilot examiner given
weight limits. EASA, AOPA, NATA, NBAA, and GAMA commented that the
weight restriction has caused numerous unintended consequences
including concerns about minimal useful load and resulting pilot and
passenger size limitations. Finally, another commenter favored weight
limits that would allow two full sized adults.
Many commenters cited that the removal of a weight restriction in
this rule would allow many popular recreational and training airplane
models to be certificated in the light-sport category. One commenter
stated that the new proposal would better enable sport pilots to get a
biennial flight review. As discussed in greater detail in the stall
speed section (Sec. 22.100(a)(3)), this rule would continue to
restrict aircraft that have been previously certificated in the normal
or primary categories from being issued an airworthiness certificate in
the light-sport category. Owners of kit aircraft holding an
experimental airworthiness certificate for the purpose of operating an
amateur-built aircraft also would not be able to subsequently have
their aircraft certificated in the light-sport category. However,
manufacturers of normal or primary category aircraft, or aircraft
models commonly sold as kits, could certificate new aircraft in the
light-sport category if those aircraft or kits were built by the
manufacturer and meet the requirements of Sec. 21.190 and the light-
sport aircraft definition or part 22, as applicable.
Many commenters acknowledged that the current weight restriction is
not ideal due to the light wing loading, safety equipment sacrifices
made by manufacturers, and reduced fuel carried by operators to operate
under maximum takeoff weight. Despite these considerations, FAA agrees
with a commenter who stated current light-sport category aircraft
designs are fine when flying within their design envelopes and have not
been shown to
[[Page 35054]]
be deficient or easily fail under current loads.
FAA received several recommendations for establishing a maximum
takeoff weight limit for light-sport category airplanes, mostly from
commenters that preferred a weight limit rather than a stall speed
limit. These recommendations ranged from a high of 6,000 pounds, based
on previously applicable BasicMed operations, to a low of 1,080 pounds,
proposed by AEA/ARSA as aligning with the empty weight of a Cessna
model 152, with the majority of the commenters favoring 3,000 pounds as
the maximum takeoff weight limit for this rule.
Though the NPRM clearly stated that a maximum takeoff weight
restriction would not be included in this rule, many commenters seemed
to be under the misimpression that FAA was indirectly using stall speed
to impose a specific weight restriction of 3,000 pounds. Several
commenters, including TCCA, recommended setting an explicit weight
limit if the stall speed was being used to drive a roughly 3,000-pound
weight limit. EASA questioned the background for not setting a direct
3,000-pound limit.
Establishing a stall speed for light-sport category airplanes in
this rule will allow aircraft designers greater flexibility than
establishing a specific maximum takeoff weight. A reasonable stall
speed coupled with other design and performance limitations in this
rule, such as a maximum of four seats, a maximum of four occupants, and
limited aerial work operations,\19\ will likely constrain the size of
light-sport category airplanes to a reasonable size for this category.
Market forces will also constrain designs to those that are desired by
and affordable to the consumer.
In creating this rule, FAA did consider extreme examples, such as
the Antonov An-2, which is a single engine biplane that weighs
approximately 12,000 pounds, has no published stall speed, and has a
maximum speed well under the 250 knot CAS V<INF>H</INF> restriction in
this rule. FAA believes it unlikely that airplanes like the An-2 will
be developed for the light-sport category due to the four seat, four
occupant, and aerial work limitations. Because of these restrictions,
the marketability of a An-2 type airplane for airworthiness
certification in the light-sport category would be significantly
diminished.
As discussed in section IV.F.6.b., FAA also weighed commenters'
concerns of accommodating electric airplanes in the stall speed
decision. Commenters were concerned that a low stall speed allowance
would prohibit the development of electric aircraft by limiting their
battery size. Batteries add significant weight to electric aircraft and
need to be large enough to provide useful range and endurance. FAA
considered this feedback in developing the increased airplane stall
speed requirement in the final rule.
c. Eligibility--Weight Limit of Powered-Lift and Rotorcraft
Though a stall speed limit would generally constrain the weight of
airplanes, it would not have the same effect for powered-lift and
rotorcraft since these aircraft classes can hover in place and not
stall. In the NPRM, FAA requested comments on appropriate parameters to
limit the weight of light-sport category powered-lift and rotorcraft.
AIR VEV recommended against using weight as a regulatory limitation but
instead allow industry to develop consensus standards to address this
matter. FAA disagrees with allowing industry to develop consensus
standards to establish eligibility criteria and FAA will not relinquish
this responsibility to consensus standards organizations. This practice
is consistent with the certification of normal category airplanes in
Sec. 23.2005 and avoids confusion caused by the continual shifting of
requirements for applicants.
Commenters recommending a maximum takeoff weight limit proposed a
range of weights. One commenter recommended doubling the existing limit
to 2,640 pounds, asserting that a higher limit was essential for light-
sport category powered-lift. GAMA recommended a 3,375-pound limit for
light-sport category powered-lift to accommodate newer designs and
features including electric propulsion systems. GAMA recommended a
maximum certificated weight threshold of 2,700 pounds for light-sport
category rotorcraft. These weight limits are also used with Sec. 21.24
primary category seaplanes and rotorcraft. VAI recommended a 3,000-
pound weight limit to facilitate the equipage of safety, avionics, and
control systems of powered-lift and rotorcraft. If a weight limit was
to be developed, AIR VEV favored 5,000 pounds, noting that current
powered-lift design requirements work against the ability to meet the
same airplane weight requirements and that 5,000 pounds is lower than
the limit for part 27 small rotorcraft. Vertical Aviation Technologies,
Cicare USA, and a few individuals stated light-sport category
helicopter designs should be subject to a four seat and 3,000-pound
limitation. Four commenters stated these parameters for rotorcraft
should be the same as that proposed for airplanes, even though this
rule did not propose a maximum weight limit for any light-sport
category aircraft class. Some commenters favored a 3,000-pound weight
for rotorcraft since it would allow for more stability in gusty winds,
the inclusion of safety equipment and crashworthy designs, greater fuel
load for increased range, and greater utility.
Generally, these recommendations suggested actual weight limits
instead of parameters to limit weight as requested by the NPRM and
failed to include rationales sufficient to convince FAA that a weight
limit should be imposed for rotorcraft and powered-lift, particularly
given the rationale provided in the NPRM for not imposing weight limits
and the fact that no weight limit is being proposed for light-sport
category airplanes. FAA emphasizes this rule does not impose a maximum
weight limit as an eligibility criterion in Sec. 22.100 so the
aforementioned benefits of a larger helicopter and powered-lift could
be included in light-sport category designs. Regardless of the
helicopter or powered-lift weight and as explained in section IV.F.4.,
this rule will limit light-sport category helicopters and powered-lift
to two seats. Instead of imposing a weight limit on rotorcraft and
powered-lift in this final rule, the maximum seating capacity of two
seats, two occupants, and limited aerial work operations should provide
the basis for keeping light-sport category rotorcraft and power-lift at
a reasonable size and weight.
ANAC suggested the use of the six-pound per square foot main rotor
disc loading and 2,700 pounds weight limitations used for primary
category helicopters. FAA considered the six-pound per square foot main
rotor disc loading limit for rotorcraft and powered-lift but did not
adopt it. The limit may not work well with powered-lift because of the
potential for heavier weights in certain designs. Also, this value does
not effectively limit the size or weight of a helicopter and could
allow overly complex and outsized helicopters that would not be
appropriate for the design, production, and airworthiness requirements
of the light-sport category. Effectively, without an accompanying
weight limit, the main rotor disc loading limit alone would not provide
any benefits in limiting weight or size making it no more effective
than not imposing a weight limit in this rule. For these reasons, FAA
does not favor the use of a disc loading limitation.
[[Page 35055]]
Whisper Aero commented that competitive market forces will
naturally limit powered-lift gross weights since they are limited to
two seats and a heavier aircraft for the same payload will be more
expensive and louder. It also opined that a weight limit for light-
sport category powered lift was unnecessary as such aircraft are very
weight-sensitive and will become subject to part 36 noise restrictions.
FAA agrees. However, this final rule does not mandate compliance with
part 36 for light-sport category powered lift. The other reason cited
by Whisper Aero, in addition to the limited aerial work operations and
two-person occupancy restriction in Sec. 91.327, will reasonably
control the weight and size of powered-lift.
To limit the weight of light-sport category helicopters indirectly,
Skyryse suggested a limit on the number of engines to a single
conventional powerplant or the functional equivalent for electric
engines. FAA disagrees with this suggestion since it may limit future
development of designs and technologies, and it may also result in more
accidents due to underpowered helicopters or lack of redundancy in
designs.
FAA received a few comments that assumed gyroplanes were going to
be held to a 1,320 pound maximum weight limit. This assumption is
incorrect. Another commenter stated gyroplanes should have a higher
weight limit just like light-sport category airplanes. Similar to the
rationale for powered-lift and helicopters, this rule will not impose a
maximum weight limit for gyroplanes. A maximum seating capacity of two
seats, two occupants, and limited aerial work operations should provide
the basis for a reasonably sized light-sport category gyroplane.
d. Eligibility--Weight Limitation of Light-Sport Category Aircraft
Certificated Prior to July 24, 2026.
For light-sport category aircraft originally certificated prior to
July 24, 2026, the requirements in Sec. 21.181(a)(3) of this rule
specify that a light-sport category aircraft's airworthiness
certificate will remain effective as long as the aircraft conforms to
its original or properly altered configuration, the aircraft has no
unsafe condition and is not likely to develop an unsafe condition, and
the aircraft meets all of the conditions listed in Sec.
21.181(a)(3)(iv)(A) through (L). The requirements in (A) through (L)
are the same as those in the light-sport aircraft definition in effect
at the time of certification.\20\
Several commenters stated they would like to see a path for light-
sport category aircraft, certificated prior to the effective date of
part 22, to increase the maximum takeoff weight above the 1,320- or
1,430-pound restriction in the light-sport aircraft definition. One
commenter recommended that the regulations and ASTM provide a path for
aircraft with sufficient available data to increase gross weight
limits. Another commenter similarly supported existing light-sport
category aircraft being able to increase their gross weight, asserting
that many such aircraft can handle higher gross weights, and such
weight increases would allow for carrying full fuel for increased
safety.
This rule does not provide a regulatory provision for light-sport
category aircraft, certificated prior to July 24, 2026 to increase the
maximum takeoff weight above the 1,320- or 1,430 pound weight
restriction in effect at the time of certification. As discussed in
section IV.Q, this rule implements a clean break in light-sport
category manufacturing and certification requirements upon the
implementation of part 22 requirements in this rule. On and after July
24, 2026, light-sport category aircraft will be subject to new design,
production, and airworthiness requirements. The existing construct of
light-sport category consensus standards will no longer be valid for
the production of new aircraft. To not be subject to a weight limit, an
aircraft would have to meet the applicable Sec. 21.190 and part 22
requirements in this final rule and the consensus standards that will
be developed to act as a means of compliance to the requirements. The
more rigorous requirements in this final rule and associated consensus
standards will likely prevent or preclude compliance of existing models
certificated prior to July 24, 2026. FAA does note that light-sport
category aircraft manufacturers may petition for an exemption to
increase the maximum takeoff weight of their existing certificated
models and this may be a potential avenue for those that can meet the
requirements of the part 11 exemption process.
e. Eligibility--Types of Aircraft Engines and Propellers
The current Sec. 1.1 light-sport aircraft definition limits light-
sport aircraft to a single reciprocating engine if the aircraft is
powered and a fixed or ground-adjustable propeller if a powered
aircraft other than a powered glider. Powered gliders are allowed a
fixed or feathering propeller. With the performance expansions in this
final rule for the design of light-sport category aircraft, there is no
longer a need to restrict light-sport category aircraft to a single
reciprocating engine or a fixed or ground-adjustable propeller.
Removing these restrictions is necessary for the introduction of
powered-lift and certain rotorcraft, e.g., electric vertical takeoff
and landing (eVTOL), into the light-sport category. It will also allow
for the development of light-sport category twin-engine airplanes that
require a feathered propeller for single engine emergency operations.
These changes will also enable the development of new technologies,
including electric, hydrogen, and hybrid engines and motors. Effective
July 24, 2026, with the removal of the light-sport aircraft definition
in Sec. 1.1, this final rule will no longer have single reciprocating
engine and propeller limitations for light-sport category aircraft.
Section 22.100 will allow light-sport category aircraft to be
manufactured with any number and type of engines, motors, or
propellers.
Several commenters supported these changes or portions of these
changes and only one commenter opposed. The commenter opposed to these
changes stated light-sport aircraft are for entry level rather than for
high-performance flying and recommended continuing the one engine (or
electric motor) and existing propellor restrictions. FAA disagrees with
the recommendation. The removal of the restrictions on engines, motors,
and propellers is necessary to open the light-sport category to all
classes of aircraft and benefit from the development of emerging engine
and motor technologies. Under this rule, the designs of light-sport
category aircraft will no longer be bound to the training,
capabilities, and limitations of sport pilots; effectively making their
performance and utility more appealing to a broader range of pilots.
Several commenters supported the removal of the engine
restrictions. Pivotal commented on the benefits to aircraft redundancy
and aircraft safety of non-reciprocating and multi-engine distributed
electric propulsion. Pivotal also commented that the NPRM allowed for
manufacturer innovation to realize the advantages of more complex
systems and failure mitigation through automation. Whisper Aero
commented that removing the single engine requirement enhanced the
ability to develop advanced aircraft, noting the prevalence of
distributed propulsion in electric powered-lift aircraft. Elanus
Aerospace expressed being encouraged by the proposed allowance of
electric motors for light-sport category aircraft.
[[Page 35056]]
Several commenters encouraged allowing more innovative power
systems such as turbine engines, multi-engines, or electrical and
hybrid powerplants. Another commenter applauded the move to become
propulsion agnostic.
EAA, AOPA, NATA, NBAA, and GAMA strongly supported allowing
alternative powerplants since it would allow for innovative propulsion
technologies. They also supported controllable pitch propellers being
allowed for light-sport category aircraft, noting that electric
powerplants and piston engines with forced induction are severely
disadvantaged without such propellers.
Sonex commented as to how crucial turbine powerplants were to
increased energy efficiency, and how continued development will aid
general aviation with shifting away from leaded aviation fuels. It
similarly noted how important controllable pitch propellers were to
turbine-powered, propeller-driven aircraft.
Finally, EASA asked what propulsion engines could be installed on
different types of new light-sport category aircraft and whether such
aircraft could use a pressurized cabin for higher altitudes possible
with turbine engines, electric hybrid, and other types of propulsion.
Upon July 24, 2026, this rule will not prohibit any type or number of
engines or motors on light-sport category aircraft. Though turbine
engines can operate more efficiently at much higher altitudes compared
to reciprocating engines, Sec. 22.100(a)(5) of this final rule
requires light-sport category aircraft to have a non-pressurized cabin,
if equipped with a cabin. This cabin design requirement remains
unchanged from the 2004 final rule.
f. Eligibility--Rotor System for Gyroplanes
Currently, Sec. 21.190 prohibits the issuance of a special
airworthiness certificate in the light-sport category to gyroplanes.
However, the current Sec. 1.1 light-sport aircraft definition limits
gyroplanes to a fixed-pitch, semi-rigid, teetering, two-blade rotor
system. Under the current regulations, though gyroplanes cannot be
certificated in the light-sport category, they are eligible to be flown
by sport pilots if they have a fixed-pitch, semi-rigid, teetering, two-
blade rotor system.
As proposed in the NPRM, this final rule will allow gyroplanes to
be certificated as light-sport category aircraft and will eliminate
restrictions on the rotor system designs of these aircraft. This means
that on or after the effective date of July 24, 2026, newly
manufactured gyroplanes certificated in the light-sport category are
not limited to a fixed-pitch, semi-rigid, teetering, two-blade rotor
system. Gyroplanes will have to comply with the applicable performance-
based requirements in part 22 to be certificated in the light-sport
category. Consensus standards that act as the means of compliance to
part 22 requirements will have to be developed by consensus standards
organizations for light-sport category gyroplanes and gain acceptance
by FAA. Section IV.H.1.h. discusses the applicability of gyrocopter
rotors for sport pilots.
AutoGyro and an anonymous commenter supported this proposal. FAA
did not receive any opposing comments. AutoGyro supported the proposal
wholeheartedly, stating that removing this requirement allows for
innovative designs. The anonymous commenter applauded the inclusion of
designs on gyroplanes, which allow for jump take off systems.
This final rule corrects Sec. 21.181(a)(3)(iv) by removing
proposed provision (I) that specified gyroplanes originally
certificated prior to July 24, 2026 had to have a fixed-pitch, semi-
rigid, teetering, two-blade rotor system for their special
airworthiness certificate in the light-sport category to remain
effective. This provision is removed because gyroplanes are prohibited
from being issued special airworthiness certificates in the light-sport
category. Given this correction, the NPRM proposed provisions Sec.
21.181(a)(3)(iv)(J) through (M) are renumbered as (I) through (L) in
the final rule.
g. Eligibility--Types of Landing Gear
Currently, the Sec. 1.1 light-sport aircraft definition requires
light-sport aircraft to have fixed landing gear, except for an aircraft
intended for operation on water or a glider. Aircraft intended for
operations on water may have fixed or retractable landing gear, or a
hull. Gliders may have fixed or retractable landing gear.
As proposed in the NPRM, this final rule will eliminate
restrictions on the landing gear designs of light-sport category
aircraft. This means that on or after July 24, 2026, newly manufactured
aircraft certificated in the light-sport category will be allowed to
have fixed or retractable landing gear, or floats for aircraft intended
for operation on the water. The NPRM proposed removing the landing gear
requirements for light-sport category aircraft since the proposed part
22 eligibility requirements were not contingent on a sport pilot
operating the aircraft. The proposed rule to eliminate weight limits
for light-sport category aircraft also allowed for more robust
structures and greater weight allowances, which would accommodate the
necessary structural enhancements needed for retractable landing gear.
FAA received support for its landing gear proposal from EAA, AOPA,
NATA, NBAA, GAMA, and Sonex. GAMA and a consolidated comment from EAA,
AOPA, NATA, and NBAA stated there is minimal impact on safety of
retractable landing gear for airplanes, injury rarely results from
``gear up'' events, and they anticipate new cockpit technology that
would make such occurrences less likely. They also stated while adding
complexity, these systems are well-understood and can be safely
implemented. Sonex noted previous FAA retractable gear exemptions that
did not lessen safety, and that retractable gear aircraft are more
energy efficient in cruise flight.
One commenter opposed the proposal, stating that the changes will
add complexity, increase failure or pilot error, and would not draw
more people to light-sport category aircraft from experimental
aircraft. While FAA agrees that the inclusion of retractable landing
gear, by itself, will not draw people away from EAB aircraft, the NPRM
did not make this claim. Rather, the NPRM stated its proposals to
include a wider variety of aircraft, increase performance, and increase
operating privileges were intended to increase safety by encouraging
aircraft owners deciding between experimental aircraft and light-sport
aircraft category to choose aircraft higher on the safety continuum.
While retractable landing gear adds some degree of complexity, can
malfunction, and may not be extended from time to time during landings,
these concerns can be mitigated with proper training and checklist
discipline obtained with a complex aircraft endorsement. Also, aircraft
manufacturers can mitigate risks with comprehensive inspection and
maintenance procedures and designs that include effective alerting
systems. FAA encourages consensus standards organizations for light-
sport category aircraft to develop consensus standards that address the
inspection and maintenance of retractable landing gear and alerting
systems that would help to prevent gear-up landings. Based upon the
above, FAA disagrees that light-sport category aircraft in this final
rule should continue to be subject to the existing landing gear
restrictions.
4. Maximum Seating Capacity for Other Light-Sport Category Aircraft
(Sec. 22.100(a)(1))
For light-sport category aircraft classes other than airplanes, FAA
[[Page 35057]]
proposed to keep the maximum seating capacity of gliders, weight-shift-
control aircraft, lighter-than-air aircraft, and powered-parachutes at
two seats. The NPRM stated two seats were appropriate for these classes
since they are operated for recreation \21\ and that additional
passengers would increase risk. The additional weight of a third person
in certain classes, such as gliders, would be detrimental to
operational efficiency and result in cumbersome designs.
As discussed above, AEA/ARSA opposed seat increases for light-sport
category aircraft citing that the primary category already provides a
pathway for aircraft with a seating capacity of four persons. Of note,
the primary category only applies to airplanes and rotorcraft but not
weight-shift-control, powered parachute, powered-lift, and lighter-
than-air classes. AEA/ARSA's opposition to four seat light-sport
category aircraft aligns with the two-seat maximum capacity for light-
sport category rotorcraft in this final rule. FAA's response to AEA/
ARSA's opposition with respect to four seat light-sport category
airplanes is provided in section IV.F.5.
One commenter advocated for increasing the seating capacity of
weight-shift-control aircraft to three seats citing that three-seated
weight-shift-control trikes already exist and they are just as safe as
two-seaters. FAA disagrees with increasing the seating capacity of
weight-shift-control aircraft as weight-shift-control aircraft have the
highest fatal accident rate of any light-sport category aircraft,
dating back to fiscal year 2005 and based on the total fleet size, per
FAA's 2022 Continued Operational Safety Report for light-sport category
aircraft. FAA is not increasing the seating capacity of weight-shift-
control aircraft in this rule based on the high fatal accident rate for
this class, recreational-only operations, and increased risk of
additional passengers.
Four commenters, including USUA, recommended increasing the seating
capacity of powered parachutes to three. The commenters cited the
availability of bigger engines, increased utility and marketability,
and that three and four seat trikes and powered parachutes operate
outside the United States. A few commenters cited ITEC's Maverick, a
four seat off-road powered parachute, which operated in the U.S. under
an experimental airworthiness certificate for the purpose of
exhibition. Though FAA generally agrees that bigger engines could
increase the feasibility of greater seating capacities and that the
marketability and utility of powered parachutes could be increased with
more seating, FAA does not agree that these enhancements outweigh the
risks of three or more passengers being flown on powered parachutes.
For example, of the four Maverick powered parachutes built by ITEC, two
of them were involved in accidents. Because of limited production of
powered-parachutes models with more than two seats, operations
predominantly occurring in foreign countries, and authorization being
other than in the light-sport category, the FAA could not obtain
comprehensive accident data for these models. However, FAA continues to
affirm that two seats are appropriate for powered parachutes since
powered parachutes are only operated for recreation and additional
occupants would increase risk.
FAA received two comments to increase the seating capacity of
light-sport category airships. One commenter favored three seats for
greater utility or two seats and one stretcher to allow their use in
search and rescue or ambulance operations. The other commenter
requested up to ten seats to train pilots on platforms similar to the
configuration of type-certificated airships. Though FAA generally
favors increasing the utility of aircraft, considering that there were
zero light-sport category lighter-than-air aircraft in the FAA Registry
per FAA's 2022 Light-Sport Category Aircraft Continued Operational
Safety Report, FAA did not increase the seating capacity of lighter-
than-air aircraft in this rule.
In the NPRM, FAA proposed that the two new light-sport category
classes, powered-lift and rotorcraft, would have a maximum seating
capacity of two seats. FAA stated because of the lack of experience
with safety metrics associated with powered-lift and rotorcraft classes
of light-sport category aircraft, the maximum seating capacity of two
seats was appropriate. Unlike light-sport and normal category
airplanes, consensus standards for the airworthiness certification of
rotorcraft or powered-lift of any category have yet to be accepted by
FAA. Since the development of appropriate consensus standards is
starting at ground level, this risk will be mitigated with a maximum
seating capacity of two seats for rotorcraft and powered-lift in this
rule.
AIR VEV and Streamline Designs proposed that the maximum seating
capacity limitation be prescribed in FAA-accepted consensus standards.
AIR VEV suggested that the consensus standards would initially limit
rotorcraft and powered-lift to two seats only and could be modified
once the industry and FAA had gained sufficient safety data regarding
these types of aircraft. Streamline Designs noted industry consensus
standards have included limitations in addition to what the rules
require and the same should be done with the maximum seating limit. FAA
disagrees with these recommendations. Like the airworthiness standards
for other aircraft categories, seating capacity is often used as a
regulatory eligibility criterion for airworthiness certification
purposes. Though potentially less flexible than consensus standard
development, rulemaking would provide FAA an opportunity to propose the
regulatory structure of performance-based limitations and requirements
necessary for safe operations of light-sport category rotorcraft and
powered-lift with increased seating capacities. As stated in the NPRM,
FAA could consider future rulemaking to increase the proposed two seat
limitation for these aircraft classes as experience increases and
consensus standards are developed. Like all classes of light-sport
category aircraft, FAA will monitor the accident rates of rotorcraft
and powered-lift and consider this data for future privileges and
performance expansions.
Several commenters, including VAI, commented that the maximum
seating capacity of helicopters and gyroplanes should be increased to
four seats for the same reasons FAA used for airplanes. As discussed
above, FAA lacks experience with safety metrics associated with
rotorcraft classes of light-sport category aircraft, which includes
helicopters and gyroplanes, and could consider future rulemaking to
increase the two-seat limitation as experience increases and consensus
standards are developed. Other commenters, including EAA, AOPA, NATA,
NBAA, 3F, and Streamline Designs, commented that all classes of light-
sport category aircraft should have a maximum seating capacity of four
seats and USUA recommended that all non-airplane light-sport category
aircraft have a three-seat limit. FAA disagrees with these perspectives
for the reasons discussed above regarding each individual category of
non-airplane light-sport aircraft. In addition, one of the major safety
objectives of this rule is to make light-sport category airplanes a
more appealing alternative compared to EAB airplanes and dampen the
increasing growth into amateur-built airplanes. FAA Registry data shows
this safety benefit is more prevalent for airplanes because there are
far more EAB airplanes than other aircraft classes. As of November 14,
2024, FAA Registry shows there are 26,453 registered EAB airplanes
compared to only 1,162 EAB helicopters, 189 EAB gyroplanes, 285 EAB
gliders, 63 EAB
[[Page 35058]]
weight-shift-control aircraft, and 8 EAB powered-parachutes. Because
this safety benefit is targeted at light-sport category airplanes, FAA
determined that increased seating capacity was necessary for light-
sport category airplanes, but the benefit did not justify seating
increases for other aircraft classes due to lower EAB demand and the
other considerations discussed above with regard to each individual
category of non-airplane light-sport aircraft.
VAI, Vertical Aviation Technologies, Cicare USA, Skyryse, and
several individual commenters recommended increasing light-sport
category helicopters maximum seating capacity to four seats. These
commenters cited that a larger size to accommodate additional seating
would make the helicopter more structurally rugged, perform better in
windy or turbulent air conditions, be equipped with additional safety
devices and crashworthy features, and have a greater fuel load or
battery capacity. Commenters stated larger helicopters have larger
rotor systems or more blades, which results in better autorotation
performance and reduced noise levels. FAA agrees that these
recommendations would increase the marketability, utility, and safety
of light-sport category helicopters. FAA believes it is an
oversimplification to state that larger rotor systems or more blades
results in reduced noise levels, as there are many other considerations
needed to arrive at such a conclusion. FAA generally agrees with these
arguments as most were used to justify the seating increase of light-
sport category airplanes. However, FAA notes this rule will not impose
any size or weight limitations on light-sport category helicopters so
these performance expansions and benefits of a larger-sized helicopter
could be included in light-sport category helicopter designs, even with
the two-seat limitation. An individual commenter favored limiting
helicopters to two seats with a weight limitation; however, this
commenter did not state a recommended weight limitation. As previously
stated, this rule will require a two-seat maximum seating capacity for
light-sport category helicopters to mitigate risk while FAA gains
experience in safety metrics. Future accident data will need to show
the effectiveness of newly developed consensus standards for light-
sport category helicopters.
FAA received comments from the Gyrocopter Flight Training Academy,
AutoGyro, and several individuals to increase the maximum seating
capacity of gyroplanes to either three or four seats. Comments
addressed increased utility and market demand and cited gyroplanes with
more than two seats operating in other countries. AutoGyro commented
that additional seating would allow flight schools to take advantage of
the Gemini method of allowing more than one student on board. Though
FAA generally agrees with these comments, FAA disagrees with increasing
the maximum seating capacity above two seats for gyroplanes primarily
because of the increased risk and, as previously stated, the lack of
experience with safety metrics for these aircraft. The NPRM stated
future rulemaking to increase the proposed two seat limitation for
these aircraft classes could be considered as experience increases and
consensus standards are developed. Like the other classes of light-
sport category aircraft, FAA will monitor the accident rates of
gyroplanes and consider this data for future privileges and performance
expansions.
Another commenter opposed three or four seat gyroplanes but also
challenged some of the NPRM statements regarding gyroplanes and
asserted that FAA's two-seat limitation could limit gyroplane
commercial applications that are evident in other countries. FAA
disagrees with the commenter's challenge to these NPRM statements
because the commercial use cases cited by the commenter could be
accomplished in a two-seat gyroplane and do not necessitate additional
seating, or in the case of the sightseeing use case would not be
permitted as an aerial work operation because it involves the carriage
of a non-essential person for compensation or hire.
FAA received one comment to increase the maximum seating capacity
of powered-lift. The commenter stated a seat limitation for powered-
lift would discourage spending on required resources for the
implementation of distributed electric propulsion and simplified
vehicle operation technologies that provide increased safety advantages
through redundancy and loss of control protection. FAA notes that,
regardless of seating capacities for powered-lift, certain technologies
like distributed propulsion systems may be necessary for the
certification of certain light-sport category powered-lift to show
compliance with requirements for control and maneuverability (Sec.
22.105) and the propulsion system (Sec. 22.145). FAA also notes the
simplified flight controls requirements in Sec. 22.180 are not
applicable to all light-sport category aircraft. As previously
discussed, this rule will require a two-seat maximum seating capacity
for light-sport category powered-lift to mitigate risk while FAA gains
experience in safety metrics. Future accident data will need to show
the effectiveness of newly developed consensus standards for light-
sport category powered-lift.
5. Maximum Seating Capacity for Light-Sport Category Airplanes (Sec.
22.100(a)(2))
FAA proposed to increase the maximum seating capacity of light-
sport category airplanes from two seats to four seats. As explained in
the NPRM, the addition of two more seats should increase safety by
making manufacturer-built light-sport category airplanes that meet
design, production, and airworthiness requirements a more appealing
alternative to EAB airplanes. In addition, pilots holding private pilot
certificates or higher would likely find light-sport category airplanes
with four seats more appealing due to the greater utility. Attracting
more pilots with higher levels of experience and training into light-
sport category airplanes increases the overall safety of those
operations.
Most commenters favored increasing light-sport category airplane
seating capacity from two to four seats. AEA, ARSA, and ALPA opposed
the proposed increase in seating. AEA/ARSA stated primary category
airplanes already allow four seats. FAA agrees that the primary
category is a viable option for manufacturing a four-seat recreational
airplane; FAA recognizes that primary and light-sport category
airplanes will share similarities of weight and seating capacities as a
result of this rule. Accordingly, it would be detrimental to the
utility and marketability of light-sport category airplanes to limit
them to two seats when they will have the size and performance to carry
four people, including the pilot. ALPA asserted that increased seat
capacity would reduce the safety benefits of normal category airplanes
because significantly more pilots will likely migrate down to light-
sport category airplanes. FAA agrees that some pilots may migrate from
normal to light-sport category airplanes just as they have migrated
from normal to EAB airplanes. Regardless, the performance-based
requirements in part 22 will increase safety of light-sport category
airplanes since appropriate consensus standards (for an airplane with a
maximum of four seats) can be created to act as a means of compliance
to those requirements.
FAA notes that a few minor inconsistencies exist regarding seating
when comparing normal, primary, and light-sport category airplanes and
EAB airplanes. Low speed, level one normal category airplanes have a
maximum
[[Page 35059]]
seating configuration of zero to one passenger and level two normal
category airplanes can have a maximum seating configuration that allows
up to six passengers.\22\ Primary category airplanes are limited to
four seats and, like normal category airplanes, are type
certificated.\23\ Thus, primary and normal category aircraft share
similar airworthiness certification paths since they must show
compliance to similar airworthiness requirements. At the low end of the
safety continuum, EAB airplanes do not have to meet any airworthiness
standards and are not bound to a maximum seating capacity restriction.
As of May 13, 2025, only 157 EAB aircraft in the FAA Registry had more
than four seats.
Despite the wide array of certification rigor for normal, primary,
and light-sport category airplanes and EAB airplanes, FAA considered
the seating variances when proposing this rule and determined that a
maximum seating capacity of four seats for light-sport category
airplanes was reasonable given the expected similarities in size and
performance. FAA anticipates that light-sport category airplanes with
four seats will share similar dimensions (i.e., wingspan, length) and
general configurations as the popular models of the other three types
of four-seat airplanes. Likewise, all four types of four-seat airplanes
should share similar engine or motor models and operate within a
similar performance envelope of altitudes and airspeeds.
A few commenters favored increasing the maximum seating capacity of
light-sport category airplanes to more than four seats. One commenter
was concerned that a four-seat limit would dissuade families with more
than two children from buying light-sport category airplanes and
thereby unnecessarily restrict the market. The commenter questioned the
difference, referencing the structural ability of the airplane, in
carrying the weight of four adults compared to a couple with four
children.
FAA agrees that the maximum seating capacity of an airplane plays a
large role in its utility and marketability. As previously discussed,
FAA evaluated the certification categories at the low end of the safety
continuum, including EAB airplanes, to determine the acceptable maximum
seating capacity of light-sport category airplanes. As long as an
airplane is operated within its authorized performance envelope and
weight and balance limits, the presence of passengers does not
necessarily make an airplane less safe. Rather, increasing the seating
capacity allows for the carriage of more passengers, which exposes more
people to risk. Airplanes that carry more passengers, especially for
commercial purposes, should be certificated at increasing levels of
rigor because they have the capacity to expose more people to risk.
Given where light-sport category airplanes fall on the safety continuum
and the seating capacity limits of normal and primary category
airplanes, which have a long history of four-seat airplane designs, FAA
deems four seats as an appropriate seating limit for light-sport
category airplanes.
Another commenter who favored more than four seats asserted that
decoupling light-sport category airplanes from sport pilots eliminated
the need for a four-seat limit and that the handling, controls, and
performance limitations will result in larger airplanes that are safer
and simpler than older alternatives. For the reasons previously
discussed, FAA disagrees with exceeding the four-seat limit for
airplanes in this final rule. Also, the addition of a new light-sport
category airplane does not necessarily correlate with the retirement of
an older airplane, regardless of the category of that older airplane.
As evidenced by the well-documented aging of the general aviation
fleet, used aircraft remain appealing to buyers who need or want lower
cost or higher certificated options. In addition, the commenter does
not provide support for their statement that the handling, controls,
and performance limitations of a larger light-sport category airplane
will make them safer and simpler than older normal category
alternatives. Though this rule aims to increase the safety of light-
sport category airplanes and of general aviation by making light-sport
category airplanes a more appealing alternative to EAB airplanes, FAA
finds no compelling basis for predicting that the safety of light-sport
category airplanes will exceed that of airplane categories higher on
the safety continuum.
Another commenter asked whether six-seat airplanes with two seats
removed would be acceptable. Section 22.100 specifies that light-sport
category airplanes have a maximum seating capacity of not more than
four persons, including the pilot. This means an airplane could not be
designed with more than four seats and be eligible for light-sport
category airworthiness certification under Sec. 21.190. Also note that
Sec. 91.327 as adopted in this final rule prohibits persons from
operating an aircraft certificated in the light-sport category that
carry more than four occupants, including the pilot, if the aircraft is
an airplane. Accordingly, even if there were extra floor space in the
airplane where additional occupants could fit, Sec. 91.327 prohibits a
pilot from carrying more than four occupants, including the pilot.
Many commenters that favored a maximum seating capacity of four
seats for light-sport category airplanes cited the increased utility
that four seats will provide, including for pilots with private or
higher certificates and for training, personal transportation,
recreation, and flight school rental. Other commenters favoring the
seat increase stated it would make pilot training more efficient since
it would allow two students to receive training on the same flight,
citing the ``Gemini Method'' commonly used by flight schools. Under
this method, the non-flying student would be able to observe and learn
from the instruction provided to the other student. The non-flying
student could also increase flight safety by visually clearing for
other aircraft and hazards or assisting with emergencies. Van's
Aircraft highlighted increased marketability for private aviation and
flight schools for such aircraft and the ability for flight schools to
fly with more than one student.
One commenter stated the four-seat change would enable more legacy
aircraft in the light-sport category and allow additional versatility
in future designs. Though FAA agrees that the seat increase will allow
more versatility in future designs, the comment about allowing more
legacy aircraft to be included in the light-sport category needs
clarification. The issuance of a special airworthiness certificate in
the light-sport category for airplanes that have been previously issued
a standard, primary, restricted, limited, or provisional airworthiness
certificate, or an equivalent airworthiness certificate issued by a
foreign civil aviation authority is prohibited per Sec. 22.100.
This final rule sets the maximum seating capacity at four seats for
light-sport category airplanes. FAA finds that four seats are
appropriate for the certification rigor of light-sport category
airplanes given their primary use of recreational flight. The increased
maximum seating capacity from two seats to four seats provides enhanced
utility and marketability of light-sport category airplanes. This
enhanced utility and marketability will make light-sport category
airplanes a more appealing alternative to EAB airplanes and will help
to attract more pilots with higher levels of experience and training
into manufacturer-built light-sport category airplanes, thereby
increasing safety.
[[Page 35060]]
6. Maximum Takeoff Weight and Aircraft Stall Speeds (Sec.
22.100(a)(3))
a. Maximum Takeoff Weight
Streamline Designs commented that there is no certificated takeoff
weight because there is no type certificate. The requirement to use
certificated takeoff weight in proposed Sec. 22.100(a)(3) was taken,
and is unchanged, from the existing requirement in the definition of
light-sport aircraft in Sec. 1.1. The requirement to use certificated
takeoff weight in existing Sec. 1.1 and proposed Sec. 22.100(a)(3)
was a reference to the maximum takeoff weight tied to the airworthiness
certificate and not based upon a type certificate as light-sport
category aircraft are not issued a type certificate. However, given the
concerns raised in this comment, FAA recognizes that `certificated'
takeoff weight is not the best terminology to use in this final rule
with light-sport category aircraft. As such, this final rule eliminates
``certificated'' from proposed Sec. 22.100(a)(3) to determine the
maximum stalling speed or minimum steady flight speed at the aircraft's
maximum takeoff weight. FAA's Airplane Flying Handbook (FAA-H-8083-3C)
defines maximum takeoff weight as the maximum allowab
[…truncated; see source link]Indexed from Federal Register on July 24, 2025.
This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.