Monday, 

February 1, 2010 

Part III 

Department of 

Transportation 

Federal Aviation Administration 

14 CFR Parts 43, 61, 91, and 141 

Certification of Aircraft and Airmen for 

the Operation of Light-Sport Aircraft; 

Modifications to Rules for Sport Pilots 

and Flight Instructors With a Sport Pilot 

Rating; Final Rule 


pwalker on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with RULES3
5204 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 20 / Monday, February 1, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

Federal Aviation Administration 

14 CFR Parts 43, 61, 91, and 141 

[Docket No. FAA–2007–29015; Amdt. Nos. 

43–44, 61–125, 91–311, and 141–13] 

RIN 2120–AJ10 

Certification of Aircraft and Airmen for 

the Operation of Light-Sport Aircraft; 

Modifications to Rules for Sport Pilots 

and Flight Instructors With a Sport 

Pilot Rating 

AGENCY: Federal Aviation 

Administration (FAA), DOT. 

ACTION: Final rule. 

SUMMARY: The FAA is amending its 

rules for sport pilots and flight 

instructors with a sport pilot rating to 

address airman certification and 

operational issues that have arisen since 

regulations for the certification of 

aircraft and airmen for the operation of 

light-sport aircraft were implemented in 

2004. These changes will update those 

regulations to reflect operational 

experience that has been gained since 

the original regulations became 

effective. 

DATES: These amendments become 

effective April 2, 2010. Affected parties, 

however, do not have to comply with 

the information collection requirement 

in § 91.419 until the FAA publishes in 

the Federal Register the control number 

assigned by the Office of Management 

and Budget (OMB) for this information 

collection requirement. Publication of 

the control number notifies the public 

that OMB has approved this information 

collection requirement under the 

Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For 

technical questions concerning this 

proposed rule, contact Larry L. 

Buchanan, Light-Sport Aviation Branch, 

AFS–610, Regulatory Support Division, 

Flight Standards Service, Federal 

Aviation Administration, 6500 South 

MacArthur Blvd, Oklahoma City, OK 

73169; telephone (405) 954–6400; 

Mailing address: Light-Sport Aviation 

Branch, AFS–610; P.O. Box 25082; 

Oklahoma City, OK 73125. 

For legal questions concerning this 

proposed rule, contact Paul Greer, 

Regulations Division, AGC–200, Federal 

Aviation Administration, 800 

Independence Ave., SW., Washington, 

DC 20591; telephone (202) 267–3073. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Authority for This Rulemaking 

The FAA’s authority to issue rules on 

aviation safety is found in Title 49 of the 

United States Code. Subtitle I, Section 

106 describes the authority of the FAA 

Administrator, including the authority 

to issue, rescind, and revise regulations. 

Subtitle VII, Aviation Programs, 

describes in more detail the scope of the 

agency’s authority. 

This rulemaking is promulgated 

under the authority described in 

Subtitle VII, Part A, Chapter 447—Safety 

Regulation. Under section 44701, the 

FAA is charged with promoting safe 

flight of civil aircraft in air commerce by 

prescribing regulations necessary for 

safety. Under section 44703, the FAA 

issues an airman certificate to an 

individual when we find, after 

investigation, that the individual is 

qualified for, and physically able to 

perform the duties related to, the 

position authorized by the certificate. In 

this final rule, the FAA is amending the 

training, qualification, certification, and 

operating requirements for sport pilots 

and flight instructors with a sport pilot 

rating. 

These changes will ensure that these 

airmen have the training and 

qualifications necessary to enable them 

to operate light-sport aircraft safely. For 

this reason, the changes are within the 

scope of the FAA’s authority and are a 

reasonable and necessary exercise of our 

statutory obligations. 

Guide to Terms and Acronyms 

Frequently Used in This Document 

AGL—Above ground level 

AOPA—Aircraft Owners and Pilots 

Association 

ASC—AeroSports Connection 

CAS—Calibrated airspeed 

CFI—Certificated Flight Instructor 

DPE—Designated pilot examiner 

EAA—Experimental Aircraft Association 

MSL—Mean sea level 

NAFI—National Association of Flight 

Instructors 

NPRM—Notice of proposed rulemaking 

SLSA—Special light-sport aircraft 

USUA— U.S. Ultralight Association 

VFR—Visual flight rules 

VH—Maximum airspeed in level flight with 

maximum continuous power 

I. Summary of the NPRM 

On April 15, 2008, the FAA published 

a Notice of proposed rulemaking 

(NPRM) entitled, ‘‘Certification of 

Aircraft and Airmen for the Operation of 

Light-Sport Aircraft; Modifications to 

Rules for Sport Pilots and Flight 

Instructors With a Sport Pilot Rating’’ 

(73 FR 20181). The NPRM proposed to 

address airman certification issues that 

have arisen since regulations for the 

operation of light-sport aircraft were 

first implemented in 2004. The FAA 

sought comment on changes intended to 

align the certification requirements for 

sport pilots and flight instructors with a 

sport pilot rating with those 

requirements currently applicable to 

other airmen certificates. 

Specifically, the FAA proposed to— 

1. Replace sport pilot privileges with 

aircraft category and class ratings on all 

pilot certificates. 

2. Replace sport pilot flight instructor 

privileges with aircraft category ratings 

on all flight instructor certificates. 

3. Remove current provisions for the 

conduct of proficiency checks by flight 

instructors and include provisions for 

the issuance of category and class 

ratings by designated pilot examiners. 

4. Place all requirements for flight 

instructors under a single subpart 

(subpart H) of part 61. 

5. Require 1 hour of flight training on 

the control and maneuvering of an 

airplane solely by reference to 

instruments for student pilots seeking a 

sport pilot certificate to operate an 

airplane with a VH greater than 87 knots 

CAS and sport pilots operating airplanes 

with a VH greater than 87 knots CAS. 

6. Remove the requirement for 

persons exercising sport pilot privileges 

and flight instructors with a sport pilot 

rating to carry their logbooks while in 

flight. 

7. Remove the requirement that 

persons exercising sport pilot privileges 

have an aircraft make-and-model 

endorsement to operate a specific set of 

aircraft while adding specific regulatory 

provisions for endorsements for the 

operation of powered parachutes with 

elliptical wings and aircraft with a VH

less than or equal to 87 knots CAS. 

8. Remove the requirement for all 

flight instructors to log at least 5 hours 

of flight time in a make and model of 

light-sport aircraft before providing 

training in any aircraft from the same set 

of aircraft in which that training is 

given. 

9. Permit persons exercising sport 

pilot privileges and the privileges of a 

student pilot seeking a sport pilot 

certificate to fly up to an altitude of not 

more than 10,000 feet mean sea level 

(MSL) or 2,000 feet above ground level 

(AGL), whichever is higher. 

10. Permit private pilots to receive 

compensation for production flight 

testing powered parachutes and weightshift-control aircraft intended for 

certification in the light-sport category 

under § 21.190. 

11. Revise student sport pilot solo 

cross-country navigation and 

communication flight training 

requirements. 

12. Clarify cross-country distance 

requirements for private pilots seeking 

to operate weight-shift-control aircraft. 


pwalker on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with RULES3
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 20 / Monday, February 1, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 5205 

13. Revise aeronautical experience 

requirements at towered airports for 

persons seeking to operate a powered 

parachute or weight-shift-control 

aircraft as a private pilot. 

14. Remove the requirement for pilots 

with only a powered parachute or a 

weight-shift-control aircraft rating to 

take a knowledge test for an additional 

rating at the same certificate level. 

15. Revise the amount of hours of 

flight training an applicant for a sport 

pilot certificate must log within 60 days 

prior to taking the practical test. 

16. Remove expired ultralight 

transition provisions and limit the use 

of aeronautical experience obtained in 

ultralight vehicles. 

17. Add a requirement for student 

pilots to obtain endorsements identical 

to those proposed for sport pilots in 

§§ 61.324 and 61.327. 

18. Clarify that an authorized 

instructor must be in a powered 

parachute when providing flight 

instruction to a student pilot. 

19. Remove the requirement for 

aircraft certificated as experimental 

aircraft under § 21.191(i)(3) to comply 

with the applicable maintenance and 

preventive maintenance requirements of 

part 43 when those aircraft have been 

previously issued a special 

airworthiness certificate in the lightsport category under § 21.190. 

20. Require aircraft owners or 

operators to retain a record of the 

current status of applicable safety 

directives for special light-sport aircraft. 

21. Provide for the use of aircraft with 

a special airworthiness certificate in the 

light-sport category in training courses 

approved under part 141. 

22. Revise the minimum safe-altitude 

requirements for powered parachutes 

and weight-shift-control aircraft. 

The comment period closed on 

August 13, 2008. See ‘‘III. Discussion of 

Public Comments’’ elsewhere in this 

preamble. 

II. Summary of the Final Rule 

As discussed in further detail under 

‘‘III. Discussion of Public Comments and 

Decisions on Final Rule,’’ the FAA is 

withdrawing or modifying certain 

changes proposed in the 2008 NPRM. In 

the final rule, the following proposals 

are withdrawn or modified. (Note: 

Proposal numbers refer to the list 

above.) 

• Withdrawn: Replace sport pilot 

privileges with aircraft category and 

class ratings on all pilot certificates 

(proposal 1) 

• Withdrawn: Replace sport pilot 

flight instructor privileges with aircraft 

category ratings on all flight instructor 

certificates (proposal 2) 

• Withdrawn: Remove current 

provisions for the conduct of 

proficiency checks by flight instructors 

and include provisions for the issuance 

of category and class ratings by 

designated pilot examiners (proposal 3) 

• Withdrawn: Place all requirements 

for flight instructors under a single 

subpart (subpart H) of part 61 (proposal 

4) 

• Withdrawn: Require 1 hour of flight 

training on the control and maneuvering 

of an airplane solely by reference to 

instruments for student pilots seeking a 

sport pilot certificate to operate an 

airplane with a VH greater than 87 knots 

CAS and sport pilots operating airplanes 

with a VH greater than 87 knots CAS 

(proposal 5) 

• Withdrawn: Remove the 

requirement for persons exercising sport 

pilot privileges and flight instructors 

with a sport pilot rating to carry their 

logbooks while in flight (proposal 6) 

• Withdrawn: Remove specific 

regulatory provisions (under proposed 

§ 61.324) for endorsements for the 

operation of powered parachutes with 

elliptical wings (portion of proposal 7) 

• Withdrawn: Add a requirement for 

student pilots to obtain endorsements 

identical to those proposed for sport 

pilots in § 61.324 (portion of proposal 

17) 

• Modified: Revise the amount of 

hours of flight training an applicant for 

a sport pilot certificate must log within 

the preceding 2 calendar months from 

the month of the practical test (proposal 

15) 

III. Discussion of Public Comments and 

Decisions on Final Rule 

The FAA received approximately 150 

comments on the NPRM. Most were 

from individual pilots and flight 

instructors. In addition, the 

Experimental Aircraft Association 

(EAA), the Aircraft Owners and Pilots 

Association (AOPA), the National 

Association of Flight Instructors (NAFI), 

the U.S. Ultralight Association (USUA), 

and AeroSports Connection (ASC) 

commented. 

A. Proposals 1–4: Replace sport pilot 

and sport pilot flight instructor 

privileges with aircraft category and 

class ratings; require issuance of 

category and class ratings by designated 

pilot examiners; and place all 

requirements for flight instructors under 

part 61 subpart H 

(§§ 61.1, 61.3, 61.5, 61.7, 61.23, 61.31, 

61.51, 61.52, 61.63, 61.87, 61.181, 

61.183, 61.185, 61.187, 61.191, 61.195, 

61.303, 61.309, 61.311, 61.313, 61.317, 

61.321, 61.413, and subparts H and K) 

Currently, for a holder of a pilot 

certificate to obtain additional aircraft 

category and class privileges at the sport 

pilot level, that person must complete a 

proficiency check administered by an 

authorized instructor. Upon successful 

completion of that proficiency check, 

the person receives a logbook 

endorsement from the instructor. That 

endorsement permits the person to 

exercise sport pilot privileges in the 

category and class of aircraft in which 

the proficiency check was administered. 

Similarly, for a flight instructor to 

obtain privileges to provide instruction 

leading to the issuance of a sport pilot 

certificate in an additional category or 

class of light-sport aircraft, or to the 

issuance of a private pilot certificate in 

a powered parachute or a weight-shiftcontrol aircraft, the flight instructor 

must complete a proficiency check 

administered by an authorized 

instructor. Upon successful completion 

of the proficiency check, the flight 

instructor receives a logbook 

endorsement from the instructor who 

administered the proficiency check. 

That endorsement permits the person 

completing the proficiency check to 

provide instruction as a flight instructor 

with a sport pilot rating in the category 

and class of aircraft in which the 

proficiency check was administered. 

The FAA initiated the proposals as a 

result of concerns that the agency may 

not be receiving documentation from 

authorized instructors after proficiency 

checks have been successfully 

completed. This led to concerns that— 

(1) In the event of an accident or 

incident, it may not be possible to 

determine if an individual was 

authorized and qualified to operate the 

aircraft; (2) if a person lost his or her 

logbook, it could hinder that person’s 

ability to demonstrate that he or she had 

privileges to operate a specific category 

and class of aircraft; and (3) if the FAA 

does not know which airmen are 

authorized to exercise additional 

category and class privileges through 

logbook endorsements, the agency 

cannot provide safety information to 

affected airmen. 


pwalker on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with RULES3
5206 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 20 / Monday, February 1, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 

With these concerns in mind, the 

FAA proposed that— 

Holders of sport pilot (or higher level) 

certificates with category and class 

privileges obtained through instructor 

endorsements be issued pilot certificates 

with the category and class ratings 

corresponding to the privileges 

previously granted through instructor 

endorsements; and 

Flight instructors with a sport pilot 

rating receive flight instructor 

certificates with appropriate category 

and class ratings indicating those 

aircraft in which flight instruction could 

be provided. 

Under the NPRM, there would not 

have been any additional burden on 

current certificate holders if the FAA 

had a record of their endorsements. 

However, those persons whose records 

were not on file with the FAA would 

have had to complete an Airman 

Certificate and/or Rating Application— 

Sport Pilot (FAA Form 8710–11) and 

present it, along with evidence of their 

endorsements, to an FAA designated 

pilot examiner (DPE) or FAA inspector 

before the FAA would issue that person 

a pilot or flight instructor certificate 

with corresponding category and class 

ratings. 

Further, the FAA proposed that the 

practice of obtaining privileges to 

operate a light-sport aircraft after 

completion of a proficiency check by an 

authorized instructor would be 

discontinued. Instead, ratings (indicated 

on a person’s pilot certificate rather than 

by endorsement in a logbook) would be 

issued after the completion of a 

practical test, typically administered by 

a DPE. The FAA’s rationale for 

proposing to require applicants take a 

practical test was that DPEs typically 

conducting these tests receive initial 

and recurrent training in administering 

practical tests, and they are directly 

supervised by an aviation safety 

inspector (ASI). Also, a DPE’s 

designation can be terminated if the 

FAA determines that person cannot 

administer a practical test in accordance 

with the Practical Test Standards (PTS). 

In contrast, authorized instructors are 

generally not trained to administer tests 

leading to the issuance of certificate 

privileges, and the FAA does not have 

procedures in place to oversee that 

activity. 

In a related proposal the FAA sought 

comments on whether to move the 

requirements for flight instructors with 

a sport pilot rating currently found in 

part 61 subpart K to part 61 subpart H 

so that all flight instructor requirements 

would be standardized and located in 

one subpart. As stated in the NPRM, if 

the proposed changes for issuing sport 

pilot flight instructor certificates were 

adopted, the privileges and limitations 

of those flight instructors and the 

methods by which they are certificated 

would be so similar to those of flight 

instructors currently certificated under 

subpart H that separate subparts for the 

certification of all flight instructors 

would no longer be necessary. 

A few commenters supported the 

proposals, or certain aspects of them. 

Those commenters said the changes 

would reduce confusion, and make the 

regulations clearer and more uniform 

among different pilot ratings and aircraft 

categories. One said adopting the 

changes would help matters in the 

future as more sport pilots are licensed. 

Many commenters, however, opposed 

the changes. The Experimental Aircraft 

Association and NAFI stated that the 

FAA did not show any safety reasons for 

the proposed changes. They and others 

also said there is a shortage of sport 

pilot examiners and DPEs qualified in 

categories and classes of light-sport 

aircraft such as powered parachutes, 

weight-shift-control aircraft, and 

gyroplanes. Furthermore, many 

commenters said, these examiners are 

not evenly dispersed throughout the 

country. 

Commenters also expressed concern 

that the proposed changes would create 

burdens for existing sport pilots and 

flight instructors who would have to 

spend time and money traveling to a 

DPE to take a practical test. Further, the 

commenters were concerned that 

affected persons would not have a 

means of examining their FAA records 

prior to the issuance of the new 

certificates and that they may have to 

visit their Flight Standards District 

Offices (FSDOs) to correct lapses in the 

FAA’s airmen registry database. The 

commenters believed the problem was 

an internal FAA problem that should be 

fixed using mechanisms already in 

place, such as better training for 

instructors in how to comply with the 

existing rule, and access to electronic 

filing methods such as the Integrated 

Airman Certification and Rating 

Application (IACRA). Another 

suggestion was to provide instructors 

with an expedited process to become 

sport pilot DPEs, thereby increasing 

their availability and providing a less 

costly alternative to the proposal. 

Upon further consideration, the FAA 

agrees with the commenters that the 

potential burden does not justify 

adoption of the proposal. The FAA is 

therefore withdrawing those portions of 

the NPRM related to replacing sport 

pilot and sport pilot flight instructor 

privileges with aircraft category and 

class ratings. In addition, the FAA is 

withdrawing the proposed requirement 

that proficiency checks be conducted by 

DPEs instead of authorized instructors, 

as well as the proposal to move all 

requirements for flight instructors with 

a sport pilot rating from subpart K to 

subpart H. 

The FAA, however, is retaining that 

portion of the proposal that would 

require holders of a commercial pilot 

certificate with an airship or balloon 

rating to obtain privileges to provide 

instruction in an additional category 

and class of aircraft only after 

completion of a practical test and not 

after completion of a proficiency check. 

Although the FAA, in the 2004 final 

rule, intended to permit these airmen to 

be treated in a manner similar to other 

authorized instructors when seeking 

privileges to provide instruction in an 

additional category and class of aircraft, 

the FAA no longer considers such 

action appropriate. The agency has 

determined that when seeking to obtain 

privileges to provide instruction in an 

additional category and class of aircraft, 

these airmen should be tested to the 

same standards as other pilots who do 

not hold flight instructor certificates and 

are seeking similar instructional 

privileges. These airmen currently are 

not required to pass a test on the 

fundamentals of instructing or possess 

equivalent instructional experience. All 

other flight instructors currently 

certificated under subpart K of part 61 

are required to pass this test or possess 

equivalent instructional experience. The 

FAA notes that for a commercial pilot 

with an airship or balloon rating to 

obtain additional privileges to provide 

flight instruction under subpart H of 

part 61, that person must pass a 

practical test for the issuance of a flight 

instructor certificate, even though that 

person is already considered an 

authorized instructor. The FAA is 

therefore revising current § 61.429(c) to 

remove provisions that would permit 

the holder of a commercial pilot 

certificate with an airship or balloon 

rating to obtain a flight instructor 

certificate with a sport pilot rating 

without taking a practical test for the 

issuance of that certificate. 

Additionally, when the FAA 

proposed to include all requirements for 

flight instructors with a sport pilot 

rating in subpart H, the FAA clarified 

the limitations set forth in current 

§ 61.415 by proposing to revise § 61.195 

to indicate that a flight instructor with 

a sport pilot rating may only provide 

flight instruction in a light-sport aircraft. 

Although the FAA is not adopting the 

proposal to place all requirements for 

flight instructors with a sport pilot 

rating in part 61 subpart H, the FAA is 


pwalker on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with RULES3
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 20 / Monday, February 1, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 5207 

revising the introductory text of § 61.415 

to specify that a flight instructor with a 

sport pilot rating may only provide 

flight training in a light-sport aircraft. 

This change clarifies the original intent 

of the 2004 final rule. 

While the FAA is not adopting its 

proposal to remove provisions for the 

conduct of proficiency checks by flight 

instructors and include provisions for 

the issuance of category and class 

ratings by DPEs, the agency remains 

concerned that it may not have a 

complete record of those individuals 

who have received sport pilot privileges 

as a result of satisfactory completion of 

a proficiency check conducted by an 

authorized instructor. Accordingly, the 

FAA is implementing non-regulatory 

procedures, which will improve its 

ability to obtain a record of all 

proficiency checks conducted by flight 

instructors. 

The FAA has included information on 

its Light Sport Aviation Branch’s (AFS– 

610’s) Web site (http://www.faa.gov/ 

about/office_org/headquarters_offices/ 

avs/offices/afs/afs600/afs610/) 

regarding proper procedures for filling 

out and submitting FAA Form 8710–11. 

The agency has taken action to ensure 

that all attendees at Flight Instructor 

Refresher Clinics receive instruction on 

how to properly fill out and submit this 

form. In addition, the FAA is taking 

action to ensure that sport pilot 

privileges are now specifically listed on 

an airman’s certificate. The FAA is also 

conducting outreach at major aviation 

events to better inform flight instructors 

on how to file required documentation. 

In order to improve the FAA’s ability 

to receive the required documentation 

indicating that an airman has been 

endorsed for a specific sport pilot 

privilege, the agency has posted on the 

Light Sport Aviation Branch’s website 

(referenced in the previous paragraph) a 

link to the Airman Registry Web site. 

This action will permit sport pilots and 

flight instructors to determine whether 

the FAA has a record of those airmen 

having obtained additional category and 

class privileges through proficiency 

checks. If an individual has successfully 

completed a proficiency check and 

received an endorsement authorizing 

him or her to operate, or provide 

training in, an additional category and 

class of light-sport aircraft but that 

individual’s name is not listed on the 

website, the individual can contact the 

FAA to ensure that the agency has the 

appropriate records. However, if a 

person’s name is not listed with 

appropriate category and class 

privileges, it does not automatically 

disqualify that person from exercising 

those privileges if a proper endorsement 

has been received. 

B. Proposal 5: Require 1 hour of flight 

training on the control and maneuvering 

of an airplane solely by reference to 

instruments for student pilots seeking a 

sport pilot certificate to operate an 

airplane with a VH greater than 87 knots 

CAS and sport pilots operating 

airplanes with a VH greater than 87 

knots CAS 

(§§ 61.89, 61.93, and 61.327) 

Current regulations require student 

pilots seeking a sport pilot certificate to 

receive and log flight training in the 

control and maneuvering of an airplane 

solely by reference to flight instruments. 

This training must be received before 

conducting a solo cross-country flight or 

any flight greater than 25 nautical miles 

from the airport from where the flight 

originated. It also must be received prior 

to making a solo flight and landing at 

any location other than the airport of 

origination. These requirements are 

detailed in § 61.93 and are applicable to 

persons seeking a student pilot 

certificate to operate any category and 

class of airplane. That section, however, 

does not specify any minimum flight 

training time to meet these 

requirements. In addition, current 

regulations for the issuance of a sport 

pilot certificate do not require an 

applicant to receive flight training on 

the control and maneuvering of any 

airplane solely by reference to 

instruments. 

The FAA proposed to require student 

pilots seeking a sport pilot certificate 

and sport pilots operating an airplane 

with a maximum airspeed in level flight 

with maximum continuous power (VH) 

greater than 87 knots calibrated airspeed 

(CAS) to receive and log 1 hour of flight 

training on the control and maneuvering 

of an aircraft solely by reference to 

instruments. The rationale for the 

proposal was the agency’s concern that 

persons exercising student or sport pilot 

privileges in airplanes with a VH greater 

than 87 knots CAS may not be 

adequately trained to maintain control 

of the airplanes they are operating if 

they inadvertently encounter conditions 

less than those specified for visual flight 

rules (VFR) operations. The FAA was 

particularly concerned that conditions 

less than those specified for VFR 

operations could be more readily 

encountered by persons operating 

airplanes with a VH greater than 87 

knots CAS due to the greater speed and 

potentially greater range of the aircraft. 

A few commenters supported this 

proposed change, but did not provide 

substantive reasons for their support. 

Many commenters, however, objected to 

the proposed change. They asserted 

that—(1) the proposal would go beyond 

the intent of the 2004 rule because sport 

pilots may only fly in day VFR 

conditions; (2) the FAA did not offer 

any data to suggest that there is a safety 

problem that would necessitate such 

training; and (3) flight instructors with 

a sport pilot rating typically receive 

only 1 hour of instrument training and 

therefore do not have necessary 

instrument training to adequately train 

other airmen. 

Although the FAA contends that 

inadvertent flight into instrument 

conditions by pilots not appropriately 

rated to conduct such flight constitutes 

a significant safety hazard, the FAA 

agrees with the commenters’ concern 

that flight instructors with a sport pilot 

rating would not have necessary 

instrument training to adequately train 

other pilots for flight by reference to 

instruments. Additionally, the proposal 

could have required a student pilot 

seeking a sport certificate or a sport 

pilot to obtain instruction in an aircraft 

equipped for instrument flight when the 

aircraft in which he or she normally 

conducts flight operations is not 

equipped for instrument flight. Based 

upon these concerns and the potential 

burden the proposed requirement would 

have placed on the sport pilot 

community, the FAA is withdrawing the 

proposed change. 

C. Proposal 6: Remove the requirement 

for persons exercising sport pilot 

privileges and flight instructors with a 

sport pilot rating to carry their logbooks 

while in flight 

(§ 61.51) 

This proposal was related to the 

proposals to replace privileges with 

aircraft category and class ratings on 

sport pilot and flight instructor 

certificates with a sport pilot rating 

(proposals 1 and 2 listed above). If those 

proposals had been adopted, sport pilots 

and flight instructors with a sport pilot 

rating would have received certificates 

specifically listing category and class 

privileges. As a result, there would no 

longer have been a need for these 

airmen to carry logbooks to demonstrate 

that they were authorized to exercise 

category and class privileges. 

Many commenters supported the 

proposed change, regardless of whether 

proposed items 1 and 2 were adopted. 

However, a few commenters indicated 

that the proposed change was 

unnecessary because § 61.51(i)(3) 

permits a sport pilot to carry other 

evidence of existing endorsements. 

Similar provisions exist for flight 


pwalker on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with RULES3
5208 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 20 / Monday, February 1, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 

instructors with a sport pilot rating 

under § 61.51(i)(5). These commenters 

said it should be sufficient for airmen to 

carry photocopies of their logbook 

endorsements. 

Several commenters opposed the 

change because they opposed the 

proposals to replace privileges with 

aircraft category and class ratings on 

sport pilot and flight instructor 

certificates with a sport pilot rating. 

As a result of the FAA’s decision to 

withdraw the proposals to replace sport 

pilot and flight instructor privileges 

with aircraft category and class ratings 

on certificates, the agency is 

withdrawing this proposed change. 

Persons exercising sport pilot privileges 

and flight instructors with a sport pilot 

rating therefore will need to continue to 

carry their logbooks or other evidence of 

required endorsements while in flight. 

The commenters are correct that § 61.51 

currently allows for ‘‘other evidence’’ of 

instructor endorsements; therefore the 

FAA will continue to allow sport pilots 

and flight instructors with a sport pilot 

rating to carry photocopies of required 

authorized instructor endorsements in 

lieu of carrying their logbooks. 

D. Proposal 7: Remove the requirement 

that persons exercising sport pilot 

privileges have an aircraft make-andmodel endorsement to operate an 

aircraft within a specific set of aircraft 

while adding specific regulatory 

provisions for endorsements for the 

operation of powered parachutes with 

elliptical wings and aircraft with a VH

less than or equal to 87 knots CAS 

(§§ 61.315, 61.319, 61.324, 61.327, 

61.413, 61.415, and 61.423) 

To operate any aircraft within a set of 

aircraft, a sport pilot must have a 

logbook endorsement from an 

authorized flight instructor for a specific 

category, class, and make and model of 

aircraft within that set of light-sport 

aircraft. At the time the current rules 

were adopted, the FAA believed that 

grouping makes and models of lightsport aircraft that have similar 

performance and operating 

characteristics as a set of aircraft was an 

effective means to permit persons 

exercising sport pilot privileges to 

operate any aircraft within that set once 

an endorsement had been received. 

In implementing the 2004 final rule, 

the FAA developed standards for 

defining and establishing sets of aircraft 

within each category of aircraft 

(airplanes, weight-shift-control aircraft, 

powered parachutes, gyroplanes, and 

lighter-than-air aircraft). The FAA 

believed that incorporating a 

requirement for a specific endorsement 

based on a set of aircraft would ensure 

that any person exercising sport pilot 

privileges would receive additional 

flight training appropriate to the aircraft 

in which operations would be 

conducted. 

As stated in the proposal, the FAA 

believes that the duplicative nature of 

currently required endorsements and 

proficiency checks makes a specific 

requirement for a make-and-model 

endorsement to operate any aircraft 

within a set of aircraft redundant. 

Several commenters, including ASC, 

EAA, and NAFI, supported the proposal 

to eliminate the requirement for a makeand-model endorsement to operate a 

specific set of aircraft. The FAA is 

adopting this change as proposed for 

sport pilots. As the FAA’s proposal to 

remove subpart K and incorporate the 

requirements for flight instructors with 

a sport pilot rating in subpart H is being 

withdrawn, the FAA is revising 

§§ 61.413, 61.415, and 61.423 to 

eliminate provisions in those sections 

that refer to the issuance of make-andmodel endorsements to operate a 

specific set of aircraft by flight 

instructors with a sport pilot rating. 

These amendments are necessary to 

implement the changes as originally 

proposed. 

The agency believes that safety 

concerns can be adequately addressed 

using existing endorsements and the 

additional endorsement proposed in the 

NPRM for holders of a sport pilot 

certificate seeking to operate a lightsport aircraft that has a VH less than or 

equal to 87 knots CAS. The FAA notes 

that although it has removed the 

requirement for persons exercising sport 

pilot privileges to have aircraft makeand-model endorsements, the additional 

training requirements of § 61.31 are 

applicable to all pilots, to include both 

sport pilots and student pilots. 

Furthermore, while § 61.31(l)(2) excepts 

both holders of student pilot certificates 

and holders of sport pilot certificates 

when operating a light-sport aircraft 

from the rating limitations of that 

section, it does not except those pilots 

from the additional training 

requirements specified in that section, 

such as the additional training 

requirements for the operation of 

tailwheel airplanes and gliders. Sport 

pilots and student pilots seeking a sport 

pilot certificate therefore must continue 

to ensure that they have received the 

applicable training and endorsements 

required for the operation of those 

aircraft prior to acting as pilot in 

command. 

Based on comments received, the 

FAA does not believe that an additional 

endorsement for the operation of a 

powered parachute with an elliptical 

wing is justified. A few commenters, 

including EAA and NAFI, objected to 

the proposal to add specific regulatory 

provisions for endorsements for the 

operation of powered parachutes with 

elliptical wings. The Experimental 

Aircraft Association and NAFI said 

elliptical wings on the market today fly 

essentially the same as square wings, 

and therefore said no additional 

endorsement is required, nor would it 

add any safety value. An individual 

commenter agreed that the 

fundamentals of inflating, taxiing, 

maneuvering, and landing the wings are 

identical, and added pilots wishing to 

transition from square to elliptical 

wings can do so with instruction 

without a costly endorsement from a 

certified flight instructor (CFI). Another 

commenter said without a solid 

definition of what constitutes an 

elliptical wing, it makes no sense to 

require a specific endorsement to fly 

them. One commenter, however, said 

that the elliptical wing for powered 

parachutes is a significant performance 

issue that should be addressed as 

proposed. 

Although the FAA believes that an 

elliptical wing has different 

performance characteristics than a 

square wing, the agency agrees with the 

commenters that the differences are not 

so different that they warrant additional 

training and an endorsement. The FAA 

is therefore withdrawing this proposed 

change. 

Regarding the proposal to require an 

endorsement for aircraft with a VH less 

than or equal to 87 knots CAS, EAA, 

NAFI, and an individual commenter 

raised objections. The Experimental 

Aircraft Association and NAFI said they 

essentially agreed with the concept, but 

said that initial certification in a singleengine land airplane should be 

sufficient to fly other single-engine 

airplanes within the definition of lightsport aircraft. The individual 

commenter did not believe accident 

data support the 87-knot-CAS division 

any longer and suggested the distinction 

be withdrawn from this proposal and 

removed throughout other light-sport 

regulations. 

The FAA does not believe that 

receiving training in an airplane with a 

VH greater than 87 knots CAS will 

adequately prepare a sport pilot to 

operate a low-speed, high-drag airplane 

with a VH less than or equal to 87 knots 

CAS without additional training. The 

agency maintains the proposed 

endorsement to operate an aircraft with 

a VH less than or equal to 87 knots CAS 

is justified and is adopting this change. 


pwalker on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with RULES3
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 20 / Monday, February 1, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 5209 

E. Proposal 8: Remove the requirement 

for all flight instructors to log at least 5 

hours of flight time in a make and 

model of light-sport aircraft before 

providing training in any aircraft from 

the same set in which that training is 

given 

(§ 61.415) 

The FAA proposed to eliminate the 

requirement for flight instructors with a 

sport pilot rating to have logged 5 hours 

of flight time in order to provide flight 

instruction in a make and model aircraft 

within a specific set of aircraft. The 

FAA believes that the aeronautical 

experience requirements for the 

issuance of a flight instructor certificate 

with a sport pilot rating and the 

endorsements necessary to exercise 

those privileges are sufficient for an 

instructor to safely provide flight 

instruction in any aircraft for which that 

instructor has privileges. An additional 

requirement to obtain 5 hours of 

aeronautical experience therefore 

imposes an unnecessary burden on the 

flight instructor and should not be 

required to safely provide instruction in 

that aircraft. In addition, the 

requirement would also not be 

consistent with the adoption of the 

proposal (included in item 7 above) to 

eliminate the requirement in § 61.319 

for a person exercising sport pilot 

privileges to have a make and model 

endorsement to operate any aircraft 

within a specific set of aircraft. 

Many commenters, including EAA, 

NAFI, and AOPA, supported this 

proposed change. Some individuals, 

however, objected to it. 

One commenter said the change 

seemed ‘‘out of place,’’ considering that 

the FAA also requires examiners to have 

the same 5 hours before administering 

practical exams (in accordance with 

FAA Order 8710.7 Sport Pilot 

Examiner’s Handbook (Oct. 14, 2004)). 

The commenter said if this proposal is 

adopted, the same restriction should be 

removed from examiners. 

The FAA notes that after the NPRM 

was published, FAA Order 8710.7 was 

superseded by FAA Order 8900.2 

General Aviation Airman Designee 

Handbook (Sept. 30, 2008). FAA Order 

8900.2 removed the requirement for a 

DPE to have 5 hours in a make and 

model of aircraft within a set of aircraft 

prior to exercising DPE privileges. The 

commenter’s concern has therefore been 

addressed by the issuance of FAA Order 

8900.2. 

A gyroplane CFI said it would be 

impossible for an endorsing instructor 

to ensure that a sport pilot applicant 

would be safe to fly any gyroplane. The 

commenter said there needs to be some 

way that an endorsing instructor and/or 

the DPE could provide additional 

limitations on what new gyroplanes a 

new pilot could fly. 

The FAA recognizes that flight 

instructors and DPEs cannot place 

additional limitations on newly 

certificated pilots, which would restrict 

those persons from exercising the 

privileges of those certificates. A flight 

instructor, however, may issue an 

endorsement that provides restrictions 

on a student pilot, and the student pilot 

may not act in any manner contrary to 

any limitations placed in his or her 

logbook by an authorized instructor, as 

set forth in § 61.89(a)(8). The FAA did 

not propose to establish additional 

authority for flight instructors and DPEs 

that would permit them to issue 

endorsements for a sport pilot that 

would contain limitations more 

restrictive than the privileges granted by 

that person’s certificate. Such action 

would be outside the scope of this 

rulemaking. 

An individual commenter said an 

instructor should have at least 5 hours 

of time in the aircraft in which he or she 

will be instructing. The commenter said 

a person should not be teaching in an 

aircraft with which he or she is not 

familiar. The FAA agrees that a person 

providing instruction in an aircraft 

should be familiar with that aircraft’s 

operating characteristics. However, due 

to the variety of operating 

characteristics of individual aircraft, the 

agency does not believe that mandating 

a minimum aeronautical experience 

requirement is appropriate for 

instructors to provide flight training in 

light-sport aircraft. The agency believes 

that the aeronautical experience 

requirements for the issuance of a flight 

instructor certificate with a sport pilot 

rating and the endorsements necessary 

to exercise those privileges are sufficient 

for an instructor to safely provide flight 

instruction in any aircraft for which that 

instructor has privileges. 

The FAA notes that flight instructors 

certificated under part 61 subpart H, 

like those certificated under subpart K, 

may provide flight instruction in lightsport aircraft that are airplanes, powered 

parachutes, weight-shift-control aircraft, 

gyroplanes, gliders, and lighter-than-air 

aircraft. However, flight instructors 

certificated under the provisions of part 

61 subpart H are not required to have 5 

hours of flight time in a specific make 

and model of aircraft (except for a multiengine airplane, helicopter, or powered 

lift) prior to providing flight instruction 

in these aircraft. The FAA has 

determined that the individual flight 

characteristics of all makes and models 

of light-sport aircraft within a specific 

category of aircraft are not sufficiently 

different to warrant imposition of a 

requirement on flight instructors with a 

sport pilot rating to obtain 5 hours of 

aeronautical experience in each make 

and model of aircraft prior to providing 

flight instruction. Such a requirement 

imposes an unnecessary burden on 

these flight instructors that is not 

correspondingly imposed in § 61.195 on 

flight instructors with other than a sport 

pilot rating. The agency has determined 

that 5 hours of aeronautical experience 

in a particular make and model of lightsport aircraft therefore should not be 

required to safely provide flight 

instruction in these relatively simple, 

non-complex aircraft. The FAA is 

adopting this change as proposed. 

F. Proposal 9: Permit persons exercising 

sport pilot privileges and the privileges 

of a student pilot seeking a sport pilot 

certificate to fly up to an altitude of not 

more than 10,000 feet mean sea level 

(MSL) or 2,000 feet above ground level 

(AGL), whichever is higher 

(§§ 61.89 and 61.315) 

Current § 61.89 (c)(3) states that 

student pilots seeking a sport pilot 

certificate may not act as pilot in 

command of an aircraft at an altitude of 

more than 10,000 feet mean sea level 

(MSL). Section 61.315 (c)(11) places the 

same limitation on sport pilots. The 

FAA proposed to add the words ‘‘or 

2,000 feet AGL [above ground level], 

whichever is higher’’ to allow sport 

pilots and student pilots seeking a sport 

pilot certificate to operate in 

mountainous areas higher than 10,000 

feet MSL when such operations are less 

than 2,000 feet AGL. 

Many commenters, including AOPA 

and ASC, supported this change. 

Several commenters, including EAA 

and NAFI, generally supported the 

proposal but recommended extending 

the limits even higher. 

The Experimental Aircraft 

Association, NAFI, and others 

recommended the FAA align the rule 

with § 91.211 (a)(1), which allows 

persons to operate civil aircraft that are 

not equipped with supplemental oxygen 

up to 12,500 feet MSL and 14,000 feet 

MSL for 30 minutes or less. Some 

commenters suggested raising the 

maximum altitudes to 10,500 feet MSL 

and 2,500 feet AGL, whichever is 

higher, to conform to VFR altitude 

requirements. Other commenters 

suggested raising the maximum 

altitudes to as much as 18,000 feet MSL, 

noting that glider pilots are permitted to 

fly at that altitude. One commenter 

suggested that training in the effects of 

high-altitude flight should be required if 


pwalker on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with RULES3
5210 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 20 / Monday, February 1, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 

flights are permitted to higher altitudes. 

In addition, some commenters pointed 

out that private pilots with instrument 

ratings are permitted to fly up to 25,000 

feet MSL without a high-altitude 

endorsement. Others proposed raising 

both the minimum altitudes 

requirements applicable to both sport 

pilots and recreational pilots, while 

other commenters proposed eliminating 

the altitude restrictions entirely. 

In addition, commenters pointed out 

that the higher altitudes would provide 

greater safety because they would allow 

greater flexibility in dealing with inflight issues such as wind, glide 

distance, density altitude, and alternate 

airports and safe landing areas. 

Commenters also said higher altitudes 

would allow sport pilots to safely 

operate over mountains and large bodies 

of water, such as the Great Lakes. The 

commenters said that additional altitude 

would allow sport pilots to fly over 

noise-sensitive mountainous areas such 

as wildlife refuges, national parks, etc. 

where pilots are asked to maintain a 

minimum altitude of 2,000 feet AGL. 

Further, EAA and NAFI said they are 

not aware of any engine or airframe or 

ASTM F37 standard that would prevent 

a sport pilot from operating a light-sport 

aircraft at the altitudes permitted by 

§ 91.211(a)(1). 

The FAA agrees that the current 

regulations unnecessarily burden sport 

pilots and student pilots seeking sport 

pilot certificates who operate light-sport 

aircraft in mountainous areas. The FAA 

notes that sport pilots and student pilots 

seeking a sport pilot certificate are 

trained in proper preflight preparation 

procedures, which include training in 

aeromedical factors, such as the effects 

of hypoxia. In addition, these pilots 

receive training in reduced aircraft 

performance at high-density altitudes 

and in the effect of operations at higher 

altitudes. These pilots are required to 

demonstrate knowledge of these factors 

during the practical test. 

Additionally, many of the new lightsport aircraft are capable of operating 

above 10,000 feet MSL. By providing 

sport pilots with the ability to better 

utilize the capabilities of these aircraft 

and operate at higher altitudes in 

mountainous terrain, the revision 

should assist in reducing the risks 

associated with mountain flying. By 

restricting operations above 10,000 feet 

MSL to no more than 2,000 feet AGL, 

sport pilots operating light-sport aircraft 

should not impose a hazard to highperformance aircraft that routinely 

operate at higher altitudes. 

The primary purpose of the proposal 

was to increase the safety of operations 

conducted in mountainous areas and 

eliminate unnecessary burdens imposed 

by the current rule. By permitting 

persons exercising sport pilot privileges 

to operate at 10,000 feet MSL or 2,000 

feet AGL, whichever is higher, the FAA 

is eliminating significant restrictions on 

the operation of light-sport aircraft in all 

mountainous areas regardless of the 

height of the terrain. Additionally, the 

new altitude restrictions would 

correspond to those restrictions for 

recreational pilots set forth in § 61.101 

(e)(8). 

Many of the commenters’ suggestions 

to permit a uniform maximum MSL 

altitude would not provide relief for 

operations over all mountainous terrain. 

Additionally, some of the higher 

maximum MSL altitudes suggested by 

commenters would place light-sport 

aircraft at altitudes typically occupied 

by significantly higher-performance 

aircraft even though operations at such 

altitudes are not necessary to ensure 

safe and adequate terrain clearance in 

most portions of the United States. 

Operations at these higher altitudes 

would also unnecessarily expose sport 

pilots to harsher physiological 

conditions for which their aircraft may 

not be properly equipped. The FAA 

therefore is adopting this change as 

proposed. 

G. Proposal 10: Permit private pilots to 

receive compensation for production 

flight testing of powered parachutes and 

weight-shift-control aircraft intended for 

certification in the light-sport category 

in § 21.190 

(§ 61.113) 

The FAA proposed to allow a private 

pilot to act as pilot in command for 

compensation or hire when conducting 

a production flight test in a powered 

parachute or a weight-shift-control 

aircraft intended for certification in the 

light-sport category under § 21.190. 

The 2004 final rule created two new 

categories of aircraft—powered 

parachutes and weight-shift-control 

aircraft—and permitted their 

manufacture for certification in the 

light-sport category under § 21.190. 

During the manufacturing process, these 

aircraft must undergo a production 

flight test. The 2004 final rule, however, 

did not create ratings at the commercial 

pilot level for the operation of these two 

new categories of aircraft. Since private 

pilots under the current rule cannot 

receive compensation when conducting 

production flight tests, there is not a 

means for a pilot conducting production 

flight tests of powered parachutes or 

weight-shift-control aircraft to be 

compensated for that activity unless an 

exemption is obtained. 

Virtually all of the commenters who 

addressed this proposal supported it. 

Some commenters, however, were 

concerned about the level of experience 

that private pilots possess, and therefore 

recommended the FAA create an aircraft 

category rating at the commercial pilot 

certificate level for powered parachutes 

and weight-shift-control aircraft. Some 

commenters pointed out that these 

aircraft have numerous commercial uses 

for which a pilot could receive 

compensation if appropriate aircraft 

category ratings were created at the 

commercial pilot level (i.e., search and 

rescue, use as camera platforms, wildlife 

management, etc.). Such action 

however, is outside the scope of this 

rulemaking. 

Three commenters suggested that CFIs 

be allowed to perform production flight 

testing, whether they have a private 

pilot certificate or not. Some of the 

commenters pointed out that CFIs must 

have three times the experience of a 

private pilot to become an instructor. 

The FAA notes, though, that flight 

instructor privileges consist of 

providing training and endorsements 

that are required for, and relate to, 

certificates, ratings, privileges, tests, 

recency-of-experience requirements, 

flight reviews, and proficiency checks. 

Privileges to conduct flight operations 

for compensation or hire are granted 

through the issuance of pilot 

certificates. The FAA considers revising 

flight instructor certificate privileges to 

permit the conduct of commercial 

operations outside the scope of this 

rulemaking. 

In its comments to this proposal, EAA 

recommended that the FAA permit 

gyroplanes to be certificated as special 

light-sport aircraft under § 21.190 and 

that private pilots be permitted to act as 

pilots in command of these aircraft for 

the purpose of conducting a production 

flight test. The FAA considers EAA’s 

recommendation to certificate 

gyroplanes as special light-sport aircraft 

under § 21.190 to be outside the scope 

of the NPRM. Accordingly, the agency 

also considers any recommendation for 

private pilots to act as pilots in 

command of these aircraft for the 

purpose of conducting a production 

flight test to be outside the scope of the 

NPRM. 

The FAA is adopting this change with 

modification. In response to 

commenters’ concerns the FAA is 

including a requirement that persons 

conducting production flight testing be 

familiar with the processes and 

procedures applicable to those 

operations to include those conducted 

under a special flight permit and any 

associated operating limitations. 


pwalker on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with RULES3
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 20 / Monday, February 1, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 5211 

H. Proposal 11: Revise student sport 

pilot solo cross-country navigation and 

communication flight training 

requirements 

(§ 61.93) 

This proposal addressed those 

maneuvers and procedures that a 

student pilot seeking a sport pilot 

certificate should receive training in 

prior to conducting solo cross-country 

flight in single-engine airplanes, 

gyroplanes, and airships. Since student 

pilots seeking a sport pilot certificate 

frequently conduct solo cross-country 

flights in aircraft that are not equipped 

with radios for VFR navigation and twoway communications, the FAA does not 

believe that all student pilots seeking a 

sport pilot certificate should be required 

to receive training in those procedures 

prior to conducting solo cross-country 

flight. However, if this equipment is 

installed in the aircraft used for the solo 

cross-country flight, the student pilot 

must receive and log flight training on 

the use of those radios. Additionally, 

since sport pilots are not required to be 

trained in the control and maneuvering 

solely by reference to flight instruments, 

the FAA does not believe that student 

pilots seeking a sport pilot certificate 

should be required to receive training in 

those maneuvers and procedures prior 

to conducting solo cross-country flight, 

unless the student is receiving training 

for cross-country flight in an airplane 

with a VH greater than 87 knots CAS. 

Current § 61.93 requires such training to 

be received prior to the operation of 

single-engine airplanes and airships in 

cross-country flight. 

Many commenters, including EAA, 

NAFI, AOPA, and ASC, supported this 

proposal. An individual commenter 

agreed with the FAA’s proposal, but did 

not want the FAA to retain the 

requirement for student pilots seeking a 

sport pilot certificate to receive and log 

flight training on control and 

maneuvering solely by reference to 

flight instruments when receiving 

training for cross-country flight in an 

airplane that has a VH greater than 87 

knots CAS. Another commenter noted 

that the regulations for a recreational 

pilot do not require flight training in the 

control and maneuvering of an aircraft 

solely by reference to instruments. In 

addition, a commenter did not want the 

FAA to require testing on radio 

navigation or radio communications for 

the issuance of a sport pilot certificate. 

The FAA is adopting this change as 

proposed. It is removing the training 

requirement for student pilots seeking a 

sport pilot certificate to receive training 

in the control and maneuvering of an 

airplane solely by reference to flight 

instruments prior to conducting solo 

cross-country flight in aircraft other 

than airplanes with a VH greater than 87 

knots CAS. The agency is retaining the 

requirement for this training to be 

received if the student pilot will be 

conducting cross-country flight in an 

airplane that has a VH greater than 87 

knots CAS because such airplanes 

generally have greater range than 

airplanes with a VH less than or equal 

to 87 knots CAS. These faster aircraft 

with greater range capability are 

generally more frequently used for 

cross-country flights of extended 

duration where potential instrument 

meteorological conditions (IMC) may be 

encountered. The FAA maintains that 

the change is consistent with the intent 

of the 2004 sport pilot rule, as it 

removes certain requirements that are 

not appropriate for the operation of 

airplanes with a VH equal to or less than 

87 knots CAS and airships. 

The FAA recognizes that the 

regulations for the issuance of a 

recreational pilot certificate contained 

in part 61 subpart D do not require flight 

training in the control and maneuvering 

of an aircraft solely by reference to 

instruments. However, any change in 

the regulations for recreational pilots 

would be outside the scope of this 

rulemaking. 

Further, in response to the comment 

requesting that the FAA eliminate 

testing on radio navigation or radio 

communications for the issuance of a 

sport pilot certificate, the FAA notes 

that such testing is required to ensure 

that a sport pilot applicant meets 

applicable flight-proficiency 

requirements for airport, seaplane base, 

and gliderport operations, as applicable. 

I. Proposal 12: Clarify cross-country 

distance requirements for private pilots 

seeking to operate weight-shift-control 

aircraft 

(§ 61.109) 

Current § 61.109(j)(2)(i) specifies that 

a person applying for a private pilot 

certificate with a weight-shift-control 

rating must log ‘‘one cross-country flight 

over 75 nautical miles total distance’’ at 

night with an authorized instructor. 

Although § 61.109 uses the term ‘‘crosscountry flight,’’ persons applying for this 

rating frequently have overlooked the 

provisions of § 61.1(b)(3)(ii)(B), which 

states that for purposes of meeting the 

aeronautical experience requirements 

for a private pilot certificate with a 

weight-shift-control rating, crosscountry time includes a point of landing 

at least a straight-line distance of more 

than 50 nautical miles from the original 

point of departure. To ensure that 

persons applying for a private pilot 

certificate with a weight-shift-control 

rating complete a cross-country flight 

that meets the requirements of both 

§§ 61.1 and 61.109, the FAA proposed 

to make § 61.109 consistent with § 61.1 

by indicating that the cross-country 

flight must include a point of landing 

that is a straight-line distance of more 

than 50 nautical miles from the original 

point of departure. 

Several commenters, including EAA, 

NAFI, and ASC, supported this 

proposal. One commenter, however, 

said the FAA’s revision would not 

clarify § 61.109. The commenter 

suggested adopting the requirement for 

an airplane single-engine rating (one 

solo cross-country flight of at least 150 

nautical miles total distance, with fullstop landings at a minimum of three 

points, and one segment of the flight 

consisting of a straight-line distance of 

at least 50 nautical miles between the 

take off and landing locations). If the 

total distance is too great to allow a 

person seeking a private pilot certificate 

with a weight-shift-control aircraft 

rating to accomplish the flight without 

refueling, the commenter believed that 

reducing the flight to 100 miles total 

distance with full stop landings at a 

minimum of three points would be 

appropriate. 

The FAA notes that the proposal 

merely clarified the existing regulation 

and did not add any new requirement. 

The agency believes the current 

requirement provides adequate training 

and experience for private pilots seeking 

to operate weight-shift-control aircraft. 

The agency did not intend in the NPRM 

to create identical requirements for 

private pilots seeking to operate weightshift-control aircraft and private pilots 

seeking to operate single-engine 

airplanes. The FAA therefore is 

adopting the change as proposed. 

J. Proposal 13: Revise the aeronautical 

experience requirements at towered 

airports for persons seeking to operate a 

powered parachute or weight-shiftcontrol aircraft as a private pilot 

(§ 61.109) 

The aeronautical experience 

requirements for a private pilot 

certificate with a powered parachute 

rating and weight-shift-control aircraft 

rating are found in § 61.109 (i) and (j) 

respectively. These paragraphs state that 

the training required for these aircraft 

ratings must include at least three 

takeoffs and landings (with each landing 

involving a flight in traffic pattern) at an 

airport with an operating control tower. 

These paragraphs also require the 

takeoffs and landings to be performed in 


pwalker on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with RULES3
5212 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 20 / Monday, February 1, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 

solo flight in the specific category of 

aircraft for which a rating is sought. 

Currently, many persons seeking to 

obtain ratings in powered parachutes or 

weight-shift-control aircraft experience 

difficulty conducting operations at 

tower-controlled airports. These aircraft 

frequently experience difficulty 

operating in the traffic pattern with 

other categories and classes of aircraft 

due to their slower speeds, flight 

characteristics, and operating 

limitations. The FAA proposed to allow 

persons seeking these ratings to conduct 

operations at tower-controlled airports 

without the burden of having to conduct 

them in a powered parachute or weightshift-control aircraft while in solo flight. 

The proposal was intended to provide 

applicants with additional flexibility in 

obtaining the aeronautical experience 

necessary to conduct operations at 

tower-controlled airports. An applicant 

would not only be permitted to obtain 

the necessary aeronautical experience in 

the category of aircraft for which a 

rating is sought while in solo flight, but 

also in dual flight in any category of 

aircraft. 

Several commenters, including EAA, 

NAFI, and ASC, supported this 

proposal. One of those commenters said 

the proposal makes sense because it 

focuses on the primary value of the 

training—communication with the 

tower. Another commenter supported 

the change, noting that a person who is 

already a private pilot already has the 

type of experience to safely operate at a 

towered airport, so the requirements 

should be decreased. 

As stated in the preamble to the 

NPRM, the intent of the proposal was to 

allow persons seeking to operate a 

powered parachute or weight-shiftcontrol aircraft as a private pilot to 

conduct operations at tower-controlled 

airports without the burden of having to 

conduct these operations in a powered 

parachute or weight-shift-control 

aircraft while in solo flight. The change 

will provide applicants with additional 

flexibility in obtaining the aeronautical 

experience necessary to conduct 

operations at tower-controlled airports. 

The FAA is adopting the change as 

proposed. 

K. Proposal 14: Remove the requirement 

for pilots with only powered parachute 

and weight-shift-control aircraft ratings 

to take a knowledge test for an 

additional rating at the same certificate 

level 

(§ 61.63) 

Knowledge tests for applicants for 

category or class ratings for powered 

aircraft at the same certificate level 

address identical aeronautical 

knowledge areas. Persons who hold a 

category rating for a powered aircraft 

(other than powered parachutes and 

weight-shift-control aircraft) are not 

currently required to take a knowledge 

test when applying for an additional 

category or class rating for a powered 

aircraft at their certificate level. The 

2004 final rule created two additional 

categories and classes of powered 

aircraft. In that rule, applicants who 

hold category ratings for powered 

parachutes or weight-shift-control 

aircraft seeking additional category and 

class ratings were not provided the same 

relief as that provided to persons who 

hold category and class ratings for other 

powered aircraft. The FAA therefore 

proposed to provide applicants who 

hold category ratings for powered 

parachutes or weight-shift-control 

aircraft with this relief. 

All persons who commented on this 

issue, including EAA, NAFI, and ASC, 

supported the proposal, some 

‘‘strongly.’’ The FAA is adopting the 

change as proposed, except that in the 

final rule, the proposed revisions to 

paragraphs (b)(5) and (c)(5) of § 61.63 

are adopted as paragraphs (b)(4) and 

(c)(4) respectively. This modification is 

being made because after the proposed 

rule was published, § 61.63 was revised 

in the ‘‘Pilot, Flight Instructor, and Pilot 

School’’ final rule, (74 FR 42500, Aug. 

21, 2009). The modification, therefore, 

aligns the changes with the current 

structure of § 61.63. 

L. Proposal 15: Revise the amount of 

hours of flight training an applicant for 

a sport pilot certificate must log within 

the preceding 2 calendar months from 

the month of the practical test 

(§ 61.313) 

Currently § 61.313 requires an 

applicant for a sport pilot certificate to 

log at least ‘‘3 hours of flight training 

with an authorized instructor on those 

areas of operation specified in § 61.311 

in preparation for the practical test, 

within the preceding 2 calendar months 

from the month of the test.’’ In 

developing the 2004 rule, the FAA 

based this requirement on the 

corresponding aeronautical experience 

requirements for the issuance of higherlevel pilot certificates. Those 

certificates, however, require applicants 

to log more flight time than is required 

for the issuance of a sport pilot 

certificate and to prepare for testing on 

a higher number of tasks. Due to the 

lower number of hours required for a 

person to apply for a sport pilot 

certificate and the lower number of 

tasks for which preparation is necessary, 

the number of hours currently required 

to be logged within 2 calendar months 

prior to the date of the practical test is 

proportionately higher than that 

required for other certificates. 

Accordingly, the FAA proposed to 

reduce the number of hours that must be 

logged in preparation for the practical 

test from 3 hours to 2 hours, for aircraft 

other than gliders. For gliders, the FAA 

proposed to reduce the aeronautical 

experience that must be logged in 

preparation for the practical test from 3 

hours to 3 training flights. 

Many commenters, including EAA, 

NAFI, AOPA, and ASC, supported this 

proposal. Two commenters were 

concerned, though, that the reduction in 

flight training could allow people who 

are not current or have not had adequate 

practice within the allotted time to test 

and become sport pilots when they may 

not have the recent experience 

necessary to operate the aircraft. The 

FAA notes, however, that an applicant 

cannot take a practical test unless that 

person has received an endorsement 

from an instructor certifying that he or 

she is prepared for the practical test. 

One commenter did not believe the 

proposal went far enough for powered 

parachutes. He said the flight portion of 

a sport pilot practical test for powered 

parachutes takes less than one half hour 

in flight. Therefore, the commenter said, 

a flight instructor should be able to fly 

with a student and determine that 

person’s readiness for a check ride in 

one hour or less. The commenter 

believed that requiring more than one 

hour of flight training in preparation for 

the practical test is a burden since often 

flight windows for operating a powered 

parachute are little more than one hour 

in the morning or evening. The 

commenter recognized that if the 

student needs more training, it will 

remain the flight instructor’s decision as 

to whether the instructor will endorse 

that pilot for a practical test. 

The FAA agrees with the commenter. 

In addition, the agency notes that the 

proposed uniform reductions in the 

numbers of hours of flight training in 

preparation for the practical test for all 

aircraft categories did not take into 

account the varying amounts of flight 

time required to be logged for the 

issuance of a sport pilot certificate with 

differing aircraft category and class 

privileges. An applicant for—(1) 

powered-parachute category land- or 

sea-class privileges; or (2) lighter-thanair category and balloon-class privileges 

need only log 12 and 7 hours of flight 

time, respectively, to meet the 

applicable aeronautical experience 

requirements for the issuance of a sport 

pilot certificate. An applicant for—(1) 


pwalker on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with RULES3
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 20 / Monday, February 1, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 5213 

airplane category and single-engine 

land- or sea-class privileges; (2) 

rotorcraft category and gyroplane-class 

privileges; (3) lighter-than-air category 

and airship class privileges; and (4) 

weight-shift-control category land- or 

sea-class privileges must log at least 20 

hours of flight time to meet applicable 

aeronautical experience requirements 

for the issuance of a sport pilot 

certificate. Due to the fewer hours of 

flight time required to be logged for the 

issuance of a sport pilot certificate 

with—(1) powered-parachute category 

land- or sea-class privileges; and (2) 

lighter-than-air category and balloonclass privileges, the FAA is revising its 

proposal to require that applicants for a 

sport pilot certificate with these 

privileges must only log 1 hour of flight 

training on those areas of operation 

specified in § 61.311 in preparation for 

the practical test. 

M. Proposal 16: Remove expired 

ultralight transition provisions and limit 

the use of aeronautical experience 

obtained in ultralight vehicles 

(§§ 61.52, 61.301, 61.309, 61.311, 

61.313, 61.329, and 61.431) 

Current §§ 61.329 and 61.431 describe 

special provisions for obtaining sport 

pilot certificates and flight instructor 

certificates with a sport pilot rating for 

persons who are registered with FAArecognized ultralight organizations. 

These rules were intended to provide a 

means for pilots and flight instructors 

who received training from an FAArecognized ultralight organization to 

transition to sport pilot certificates and 

flight instructor certificates with a sport 

pilot rating. As provided in the rules, 

the transition period for obtaining a 

sport pilot certificate expired on January 

31, 2007, and the transition period for 

obtaining a flight instructor certificate 

with a sport pilot rating expired on 

January 31, 2008. Because January 31, 

2007, and January 31, 2008, have 

passed, the FAA proposed to remove 

§§ 61.329 (except for the ultralight pilot 

record provisions of paragraph (a)(2)(iv), 

which will be transferred to § 61.52) and 

61.431. The FAA also proposed to 

amend §§ 61.309, 61.311, and 61.313 to 

remove references to § 61.329. In 

addition, the agency proposed to 

remove the reference to the expired 

transition provisions in § 61.301 (a)(7). 

Several commenters, including USUA 

and EAA, supported this proposal to 

remove expired ultralight transition 

provisions from the regulations. The 

FAA is adopting the changes affecting 

§§ 61.301, 61.309, 61.311, 61.313, 

61.329, and 61.431 as proposed. 

Additionally, the FAA proposed to 

change § 61.52 (a) and (b) to limit the 

use of aeronautical experience obtained 

in ultralight vehicles. The proposal was 

intended to permit persons to use 

aeronautical experience obtained in 

ultralight vehicles to meet the 

requirements for certain airman 

certificates and ratings and also to meet 

the provisions of § 61.69 (for glider and 

unpowered ultralight towing) until 

January 31, 2012. The FAA originally 

adopted the provisions of current 

§ 61.52 to facilitate the process for 

operators of ultralight vehicles to obtain 

airman certificates established by the 

2004 rule and to meet the requirements 

of § 61.69. The FAA did not intend for 

these transition provisions to be 

indefinite in duration. Since operators 

of ultralight vehicles should have 

transitioned to the new airman 

certificates prior to the date of the 

proposal, or have used their 

aeronautical experience to meet the 

provisions of § 61.69, the agency 

determined that retaining the provisions 

for the use of aeronautical experience in 

§ 61.52 is no longer warranted. The 

agency recognizes, however, that 

operators of ultralight vehicles may 

have acquired aeronautical experience 

in ultralight vehicles with the intent of 

obtaining airman certificates established 

by the 2004 rule, or to meet the 

experience requirements of § 61.69. To 

provide these persons with a sufficient 

amount of time to use this aeronautical 

experience to obtain the new 

certificates, or meet the requirements of 

§ 61.69, the FAA proposed a date of 

January 31, 2012, after which the 

provisions of § 61.52 may no longer be 

used. 

Some commenters did not believe the 

proposal would have a safety or 

efficiency benefit. Although the FAA 

recognizes the benefits of aeronautical 

experience obtained in ultralight 

vehicles, the agency believes the rule 

will increase safety by promoting 

training in aircraft that have 

characteristics closer to those of the 

specific aircraft that sport pilots will be 

authorized to operate. The rule will also 

encourage training in certificated 

aircraft that meet airworthiness 

standards. 

A few commenters were concerned 

with the higher costs associated with 

training in 2-place light-sport aircraft as 

opposed to ultralight vehicles. Many 

commenters said the proposal would 

discourage new flight instructor 

applicants and pilots. The commenter 

noted that, even though FAA-recognized 

ultralight organizations still exist, there 

are no longer any formal flight training 

programs for ultralight vehicles that 

meet the definition of a ‘‘light-sport 

aircraft.’’ The FAA agrees that the rule 

may increase the cost that applicants for 

flight instructor and sport pilot 

certificates may incur as a result of 

requiring that aeronautical experience 

be obtained in light-sport aircraft as 

opposed to ultralight vehicles. 

Many commenters, including EAA, 

NAFI, ASC, and USUA, opposed 

limiting the use of aeronautical 

experience obtained in ultralight 

vehicles. The Experimental Aircraft 

Association and NAFI pointed out that 

the FAA said in the preamble to the 

2002 proposed sport pilot rule that it 

intended to allow § 61.329 (a)(2) 

provisions to continue without setting 

an end date. 

The FAA acknowledges that at the 

time of the 2002 NPRM, the agency did 

not consider limiting the time period in 

which a person could credit 

aeronautical experience obtained in an 

ultralight vehicle toward the 

requirements in §§ 61.309, 61.311 and 

61.313. However, the agency proposed 

to limit the time period in this 

rulemaking action because the agency 

believed that operators of ultralight 

vehicles have been provided sufficient 

time to obtain airman certificates using 

aeronautical experience gained in 

ultralight vehicles. The agency 

recognizes that certain operators of 

ultralight vehicles may not have already 

obtained sport pilot certificates and will 

therefore allow the provisions of § 61.52 

to remain in effect until January 31, 

2012. 

One commenter said many ultralight 

vehicle operators are still planning to 

use their ultralight experience to obtain 

sport pilot certificates, but have not 

done so because of the shortage of flight 

instructors and DPEs. 

The FAA recognizes that in certain 

circumstances, persons seeking to 

obtain sport pilot certificates may 

experience difficulties in obtaining the 

services of appropriately rated flight 

instructors or authorized DPEs, 

especially when seeking certification in 

powered parachutes and weight-shiftcontrol aircraft. The FAA notes, 

however, that the withdrawal of the 

proposal to replace sport pilot and flight 

instructor privileges with aircraft 

category and class ratings and the 

retention of current provisions 

permitting additional aircraft category 

and class privileges to be obtained after 

completion of a proficiency check by an 

authorized instructor (discussed in III.A. 

above) should assuage the commenters’ 

concerns regarding the shortage of DPEs. 

Some individual commenters, urging 

the FAA not to modify § 61.52, said that 

many individuals who provide training 


pwalker on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with RULES3
5214 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 20 / Monday, February 1, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 

to persons who are seeking a sport pilot 

certificate are unable to obtain adequate 

insurance for students to fly a lightsport aircraft solo. However, the 

commenters said, a student could fly an 

ultralight vehicle solo under the same 

insurance historically available for 

ultralight flying. The commenters 

believed withdrawing this proposed 

rule change would relieve flight 

instructors of being forced to allow 

students to fly solo without insurance. 

Another commenter, referring to other 

comments in the docket regarding the 

inability of flight instructors to obtain 

insurance for their students while 

conducting solo flights, noted that he 

had no problem obtaining insurance for 

his registered light-sport airplanes; 

rather, he found that obtaining 

insurance for an ultralight vehicle is 

more difficult. The commenter went on 

to say that if the proposal were adopted, 

persons providing instruction would 

have until January 31, 2012, to alter 

their training structure, which should be 

enough time. The commenter noted that 

after the 2012 deadline, the net effect of 

the change could be to establish a more 

definitive dividing line between 

ultralight training and sport pilot 

training. 

The FAA notes that persons providing 

flight instruction in light-sport aircraft 

are able to obtain insurance for their 

students to conduct solo operations in 

certain categories and classes of lightsport aircraft, such as airplanes. The 

FAA recognizes that obtaining 

insurance for students to conduct solo 

operations in other categories of aircraft, 

such as powered parachutes and weightshift-control aircraft, is often difficult to 

obtain or is unavailable in certain areas. 

In addition, the agency recognizes that 

insurance to conduct solo operations in 

ultralight vehicles is also not readily 

available. Although these difficulties in 

obtaining insurance limits the ability of 

certain persons to provide flight 

instruction, the FAA does not believe 

that continuing to permit the use of 

aeronautical experience in ultralight 

vehicles to meet the requirements for 

certain certificates and ratings would 

improve the ability of the persons 

conducting those operations (or 

operations in powered parachutes and 

weight-shift-control aircraft) to obtain 

adequate insurance. The FAA believes 

that the benefits of conducting solo 

flight in a light-sport aircraft that meets 

specified airworthiness standards 

support adoption of the proposal. 

The FAA is adopting this change to 

§ 61.52(a) and (b) to limit the use of 

aeronautical experience obtained in 

ultralight vehicles as proposed. 

N. Proposal 17: Add a requirement for 

student pilots to obtain endorsements 

identical to those proposed for sport 

pilots in §§ 61.324 and 61.327 

(§ 61.89) 

The FAA proposed to require student 

pilots seeking sport pilot certificates to 

obtain endorsements identical to those 

specified for sport pilots in proposed 

§§ 61.327 (to operate a light-sport 

aircraft based on VH) and 61.324 (to 

operate a powered parachute with an 

elliptical wing), respectively. By 

proposing to require student pilots 

seeking a sport pilot certificate to 

receive these identical endorsements 

prior to the issuance of a sport pilot 

certificate, the FAA sought to ensure 

that newly certificated sport pilots 

would be able to continue to operate 

those aircraft in which they exercised 

pilot-in-command privileges as student 

pilots. Currently, sport pilots are 

required to obtain specific make-andmodel endorsements for the operation of 

a particular set of light-sport aircraft. 

These endorsements, including the 

endorsements to operate a light-sport 

airplane based on VH, have not been 

required for student pilots seeking a 

sport pilot certificate because student 

pilots are required to have a make-andmodel endorsement for each particular 

aircraft they operate. If a student pilot 

does not obtain an endorsement to 

operate a light-sport airplane based on 

VH, that person is precluded from 

operating any airplane within the range 

of airspeeds that would have been 

covered by that endorsement upon 

issuance of the sport pilot certificate. 

The FAA proposed similar requirements 

for student pilots seeking to operate 

powered parachutes with elliptical 

wings. 

Several commenters, including ASC, 

supported the proposal. The 

Experimental Aircraft Association and 

NAFI opposed the change to add a 

specific endorsement for operating 

powered parachutes with elliptical 

wings for student pilots. In addition, 

two commenters did not want the FAA 

to require all students to get an extra 

endorsement to operate an aircraft with 

a VH of 87 knots or greater. One of the 

commenters said student pilots are 

endorsed for a specific make and model 

already; therefore an endorsement for 

VH is redundant. 

As stated in the preamble to the 

NPRM, the rule will ensure that newly 

certificated sport pilots will be able to 

continue to operate aircraft in which 

they have exercised pilot-in-command 

privileges as student pilots. The FAA 

therefore has decided to adopt the 

change as proposed with regard to those 

endorsements addressing VH. Since the 

FAA has decided to withdraw the 

proposed elliptical-wing endorsement 

for sport pilots, the agency is 

withdrawing the proposal to require a 

corresponding endorsement for student 

pilots. See discussion in III.D. 

O. Proposal 18: Clarify that an 

authorized instructor must be in a 

powered parachute when providing 

flight instruction to a student pilot 

(§ 61.313) 

In § 61.313(g)(1), which describes the 

requirements for logging aeronautical 

experience to obtain powered parachute 

category land or sea class ratings, the 

FAA proposed to add the words ‘‘from 

an authorized instructor in a powered 

parachute aircraft’’ to clarify that an 

authorized instructor must be in the 

aircraft for a student pilot to log flight 

training time. The FAA was concerned 

that there is confusion in the sport pilot 

community whether the 2004 rule 

allows for ‘‘radio flight training’’ (i.e., 

flight training when an authorized 

instructor is not in the aircraft). ‘‘Radio 

flight training’’ is not permitted. The 

intent of the proposed change was to 

make the rule consistent with other 

provisions for logging the aeronautical 

experience necessary to apply for a 

sport pilot certificate and clarify that all 

flight training must be received from an 

authorized instructor in flight in an 

aircraft, as specified in § 61.1(b)(6). 

In addition, the FAA proposed to 

change the words ‘‘at least 2 hours of 

solo flight training’’ to ‘‘at least 2 hours 

of solo flight time.’’ Although the FAA 

stated that the word ‘‘training’’ implies 

that an instructor should be in the 

aircraft, the agency notes that it has 

consistently used the term ‘‘solo flight 

training’’ to refer to solo flight 

conducted by an applicant for an airman 

certificate that is conducted under the 

supervision of an authorized instructor. 

In accordance with this convention, the 

agency is not adopting this change as 

proposed. 

Several commenters, including ASC, 

supported the proposed change to 

clarify that an authorized instructor 

must be in a powered parachute when 

providing flight instruction to a student 

pilot. The Experimental Aircraft 

Association and NAFI opposed the 

change, however. They said a structured 

professional training program for 

powered parachutes benefits from 

including supervised solo flight with an 

authorized instructor using established 

radio communications as he or she 

observes from the ground. For 

instruction in powered parachutes, the 

commenters said, this training ideally 


pwalker on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with RULES3
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 20 / Monday, February 1, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 5215 

takes place during the first few lessons 

prior to the instructor being on board 

the aircraft. Once the student has 

reached an acceptable level of 

competency with the added cushion of 

single-pilot aircraft performance, then 

the instructor continues the training 

syllabus with several lessons of actual 

(in the aircraft) dual instruction. 

One commenter said that powered 

parachute instruction has been 

successfully done for years using 

established radio communications 

where the instructor on the ground 

supervises a soloing student pilot. 

Although the FAA recognizes the 

benefits of solo flight training, the 

agency has never recognized radio flight 

training as ‘‘dual flight instruction.’’ The 

FAA notes that neither the current 

regulation nor the proposed change 

permits radio flight training to be logged 

as training time to meet the flight 

training requirements necessary for the 

issuance of an airman certificate. The 

FAA is therefore adopting the change to 

§ 61.313(g)(1), with a minor nonsubstantive revision, to clarify that an 

authorized instructor must be in a 

powered parachute when providing 

instruction to a student pilot. 

The Experimental Aircraft 

Association and NAFI also said the FAA 

needs to clarify what constitutes 

loggable time when powered parachute 

dual flight instruction is being 

conducted. The Experimental Aircraft 

Association stated that loggable time 

begins when the instructor and student 

start to prepare to taxi the aircraft with 

the intent to fly, and ends with the 

completion of the last pilot-in-command 

duties. This, EAA said, would include 

any taxi to the final take-off area, setting 

up and inspecting the wing (chute), the 

takeoff, the flight, the landing, and the 

post flight inspection/stowage of the 

wing. 

An individual commenter said that 

the problem with the proposed change 

is that a large part of the take-off 

procedure is done on the ground with 

the instructor coaching the student in 

how to properly lay out a canopy before 

flight. That coaching, the commenter 

said, is done on the runway, often after 

the aircraft is taxied into position for 

takeoff. The commenter pointed out that 

powered parachuting is the only form of 

powered flight that requires the pilot to 

get out of the aircraft and position a 

wing on the runway surface before 

flight, but currently that time is logged 

as part of the dual training by most 

instructors since it is one-on-one 

instruction. The proposal, the 

commenter believed, would preclude 

that time from being logged and 

effectively lengthen the experience 

requirements for those obtaining a 

powered parachute rating. The 

commenter concluded that it would not 

be a bad idea to limit the amount of time 

that could be logged as dual training, 

but it should not be eliminated unless 

the FAA reduced the total amount of 

dual flight time received for a rating. 

These comments are outside the scope 

of this rulemaking. The agency notes 

that the time spent inspecting the 

general condition of the canopy of a 

powered parachute is part of the 

preflight inspection of the aircraft. The 

agency does not consider the time spent 

by a pilot performing this inspection to 

constitute flight time. Section 1.1 

defines ‘‘flight time’’ as ‘‘pilot time that 

commences when an aircraft moves 

under its own power for the purpose of 

flight and ends when the aircraft comes 

to rest after landing.’’ 

P. Proposal 19: Remove the requirement 

for aircraft certificated as experimental 

aircraft under § 21.191(i)(3) to comply 

with the applicable maintenance and 

preventive maintenance requirements of 

part 43 when those aircraft have been 

previously issued a special 

airworthiness certificate in the lightsport category under § 21.190 

(§ 43.1) 

Currently, aircraft that have been 

issued a special airworthiness certificate 

in the light-sport category under 

§ 21.190 must continue to meet the 

applicable maintenance and preventive 

maintenance requirements of part 43 

when those aircraft are subsequently 

certificated as experimental light-sport 

aircraft under § 21.191(i)(3) or as 

experimental aircraft certificated for any 

other purpose. 

A manufacturer may produce a 

special light-sport aircraft for 

certification under the provisions of 

§ 21.190, and the maintenance 

provisions of part 43 will apply to that 

aircraft. The manufacturer may continue 

to produce that same aircraft model as 

an aircraft kit under the provisions of 

§ 21.191(i)(2), and part 43 will not apply 

to the maintenance of that aircraft. 

However, that same aircraft model, 

when originally certificated under 

§ 21.190 and subsequently recertificated as an experimental lightsport aircraft under the provisions of 

§ 21.191(i)(3) (or any other paragraph of 

§ 21.191) must continue to comply with 

the provisions of part 43. 

Additionally, currently part 43 

precludes non-certificated persons from 

approving an aircraft for return to 

service after the performance of 

maintenance when that aircraft was 

originally certificated under § 21.190 

and subsequently re-certificated under 

§ 21.191, even though these 

experimental aircraft are restricted to 

personal use. This procedure, however, 

unnecessarily burdens operators of 

aircraft certificated under § 21.191(i)(3) 

because it requires aircraft certificated 

under that paragraph, but previously 

certificated under § 21.190, to be 

maintained in accordance with part 43. 

The FAA proposed to amend § 43.1 to 

remove the requirement for 

experimental aircraft to comply with the 

requirements of part 43 when those 

aircraft have previously been issued a 

special airworthiness certificate in the 

light-sport category under § 21.190. The 

agency’s intent was to conform the 

maintenance requirements for aircraft 

certificated under § 21.191(i) to the 

original intent of the 2004 final rule. 

The proposed change to § 43.1 was 

intended to permit any aircraft 

originally certificated in the light-sport 

category under § 21.190, and 

subsequently issued an experimental 

certificate under § 21.191(i)(3), to be 

maintained in a manner identical to any 

experimental aircraft that previously has 

not been issued a different kind of 

airworthiness certificate. 

Two commenters wanted the FAA to 

consider allowing sport pilots to 

perform preventive maintenance on 

aircraft not certificated in the light-sport 

category, such as the Ercoupe 415. 

These comments are outside the scope 

of this rulemaking. 

Most other commenters who 

addressed this proposal, including ASC, 

EAA, and NAFI, supported it. 

The FAA is adopting the change with 

modifications. The proposal would have 

permitted an aircraft issued an 

experimental certificate for any purpose 

specified in § 21.191 to be excepted 

from the requirements of part 43 if it 

had previously been issued an 

airworthiness certificate in the special 

light-sport category under § 21.190. The 

FAA did not intend to provide this 

relief to all aircraft issued experimental 

certificates regardless of the purpose for 

which the certificates were issued. As 

discussed in the preamble to the NPRM, 

the FAA only intended to provide this 

relief to an aircraft issued an 

experimental certificate under the 

provisions of § 21.191(i)(3) when that 

aircraft has previously been issued an 

airworthiness certificate in the lightsport category under § 21.190. Proposed 

§ 43.1(b) is therefore modified in the 

final rule to include the current 

provisions of that paragraph as new 

paragraph (b)(1) and the additional 

provisions as paragraph (b)(2). 


pwalker on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with RULES3
5216 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 20 / Monday, February 1, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 

Q. Proposal 20: Require aircraft owners 

or operators to retain a record of the 

current status of applicable safety 

directives for special light-sport aircraft 

(§ 91.417) 

Currently § 91.327 specifies that no 

person may operate an aircraft that has 

a special airworthiness certificate in the 

light-sport category unless the owner or 

operator complies with each safety 

directive applicable to the aircraft that 

corrects an existing unsafe condition. 

Although owners and operators must 

comply with these safety directives, 

there currently is no requirement to 

retain a record of the current status of 

applicable safety directives or transfer 

that information at the time of aircraft 

sale. 

Without a requirement to retain and 

transfer this information, owners, 

operators, and FAA safety inspectors are 

not able to easily determine whether 

maintenance actions critical to flight 

safety have been accomplished on 

special light-sport aircraft. The FAA 

therefore proposed to require owners or 

operators to retain these records. These 

records must be transferred in 

accordance with the provisions of 

§ 91.419. 

All but one of the commenters who 

addressed this proposal, including ASC, 

AOPA, and EAA, supported it. The 

Aircraft Owners and Pilots Association 

said the change would help ensure that 

light-sport aircraft remain airworthy and 

allow aircraft owners and operators to 

better track the current status of 

applicable safety directives. The Aircraft 

Owners and Pilots Association went on 

to say the change also would help 

ensure that people buying a light-sport 

aircraft would have a complete record of 

all the safety directives complied with 

on the aircraft. 

One commenter said even through the 

manufacturer says some item must be 

completed, the owner should have the 

final say on whether the upgrade is 

needed; otherwise the light-sport 

aircraft owner would be at the mercy of 

the manufacturer. The FAA did not 

propose to revise current § 91.327 to 

permit an owner or operator to 

independently decide whether to 

comply with a safety directive that 

corrects an existing unsafe condition. 

However, the FAA notes that an owner 

or operator may use the procedures 

specified in current § 91.327(b)(4) to 

obtain an FAA waiver from the 

provisions of a manufacturer’s safety 

directive. 

The commenter went on to say that 

the FAA should avoid creating another 

Airworthiness Directive (AD) 

compliance system for light-sport 

aircraft. The FAA did not propose to 

create another AD compliance system or 

propose any revisions to the process by 

which safety directives are issued or 

accomplished. 

The Experimental Aircraft 

Association requested that the FAA also 

include regulatory language addressing 

the applicability of safety directives and 

airworthiness directives. The EAA also 

requested the FAA revise § 39.1 to 

address the applicability of part 39 to 

experimental light-sport and amateurbuilt aircraft. The FAA considers these 

recommendations to be outside the 

scope of this rulemaking. 

The FAA is adopting the change as 

proposed. 

R. Proposal 21: Provide for use of 

aircraft with a special airworthiness 

certificate in the light-sport category in 

training courses approved under part 

141 

(§ 141.39) 

When the 2004 final rule was issued, 

the FAA did not amend part 141 to 

provide for the use of light-sport aircraft 

in courses approved under that part. 

Since that time, the FAA has received 

requests that special light-sport aircraft 

be used in courses approved under part 

141. Although special light-sport aircraft 

are not type-certificated aircraft, they 

are designed, manufactured, and 

certificated in accordance with 

consensus standards that have been 

accepted by the FAA. When part 141 

was originally adopted, the FAA did not 

contemplate the use of aircraft 

manufactured in accordance with 

consensus standards. Since these 

aircraft are manufactured in accordance 

with FAA-accepted consensus 

standards, the FAA believes that these 

aircraft provide an acceptable level of 

safety for use in part 141 training 

courses. To be used in a course 

approved under part 141, the aircraft 

also would have to be properly 

equipped for performing the tasks 

specified in the training course in which 

the aircraft would be used. We therefore 

proposed to revise § 141.39(b) to permit 

the use of special light-sport aircraft in 

training courses that are approved under 

part 141. 

All of the commenters who responded 

on this proposal, including ASC, EAA, 

and AOPA, supported it. The FAA is 

adopting the change as proposed for 

training facilities located within the 

United States. The FAA is revising 

paragraph (a)(2) because after the 

proposed rule was published, § 141.39 

was revised in the ‘‘Pilot, Flight 

Instructor, and Pilot School’’ final rule, 

(74 FR 42500, Aug. 21, 2009) to 

separately address training facilities 

located within the United States and 

outside the United States. The agency is 

not revising § 141.39(b)(2) to specifically 

permit SLSAs to be used in training 

facilities located outside the United 

States due to the limitations that certain 

foreign countries may have on the 

operation of these aircraft within their 

airspace. 

S. Proposal 22: Revise minimum safealtitude requirements for powered 

parachutes and weight-shift-control 

aircraft 

(§ 91.119) 

Currently pilots of powered 

parachutes and weight-shift-control 

aircraft must remain at least 1,000 feet 

above the highest obstacle within a 

horizontal radius of 2,000 feet when 

operating over any congested area of a 

city, town, or settlement, or over any 

open-air assembly of persons. When 

operating over other-than-congested 

areas, powered parachutes and weightshift-control aircraft must be operated at 

an altitude of 500 feet above the surface, 

except when operating over open water 

or sparsely populated areas. When 

operating over these areas, these aircraft 

may not be operated closer than 500 feet 

to any person, vessel, vehicle, or 

structure. The restrictions specified for 

operations over congested areas and 

other than congested areas are not 

applicable when necessary for the 

takeoff or landing of the aircraft. 

While the FAA believes that current 

operating restrictions for powered 

parachutes and weight-shift-control 

aircraft over congested areas are 

appropriate, the agency also believes 

that current restrictions on the operation 

of powered parachutes and weight-shiftcontrol aircraft over other-thancongested areas are overly restrictive. 

The FAA recognizes that the 

operational characteristics (lower 

maximum gross weights, slower speeds, 

and lower climb rates) of powered 

parachutes and weight-shift-control 

aircraft enable them to safely operate 

over other-than-congested areas at 

altitudes lower than those at which 

other aircraft are routinely operated. In 

the event of a forced landing, the slower 

speeds, lower weights, and greater 

maneuverability of these aircraft allow 

for shorter landing distances and lower 

impact forces. Requiring these aircraft to 

operate at altitudes more appropriate to 

other categories and classes of aircraft 

significantly decreases their utility to 

owners and operators. The FAA 

proposed, therefore, to amend § 91.119 

to allow powered parachutes and 

weight-shift-control aircraft to be 


pwalker on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with RULES3
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 20 / Monday, February 1, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 5217 

operated over other-than-congested 

areas at less than 500 feet above the 

surface, provided the operation is 

conducted without hazard to persons or 

property on the surface. 

All commenters agreed with the 

proposed change; however some 

suggested further changes. The 

Experimental Aircraft Association and 

NAFI agreed with the proposed change 

for powered parachutes and weightshift-control aircraft, but recommended 

that the FAA grant powered parachutes 

the same minimum safe altitude 

authorization as helicopters in both 

congested and other-than-congested 

areas. A number of individuals made 

similar comments, with one commenter 

recommending that no minimum 

altitude restrictions apply to the 

operation of powered parachutes. In 

addition, EAA, NAFI, and other 

commenters, argued that all light-sport 

aircraft that have a VH equal to or less 

than 87 knots CAS have the same flight 

safety parameters and therefore should 

be provided similar relief. One said 

there are several fixed-wing aircraft that 

also exhibit the same flight 

characteristics discussed in the NPRM, 

and many weight-shift-control aircraft 

can outperform many of the slower 

(‘‘ultralight-like’’) fixed-wing aircraft, yet 

the FAA did not propose to grant those 

fixed-wing aircraft the same privilege. 

The commenter suggested using ‘‘max 

speeds’’ or another generic description, 

so the proposed revision would apply to 

all types of aircraft, not just powered 

parachutes and weight-shift-control 

aircraft. Another commenter asked why 

other aircraft of similar weights and 

speeds are not also encompassed by the 

proposed change. 

The FAA is adopting the change as 

proposed. Although a number of 

commenters suggested that the FAA 

further revise § 91.119 to permit 

powered parachutes and weight-shiftcontrol aircraft to operate over 

congested areas with the same 

limitations applicable to helicopters, the 

agency considers a further expansion of 

the proposal to be outside the scope of 

the original NPRM. Similarly the FAA 

considers commenters’ suggestions to 

permit all light-sport aircraft that have 

a VH equal to or less than 87 knots CAS 

and aircraft with weights and speeds 

similar to those of powered parachutes 

and weight-shift-control aircraft to 

operate over congested areas with the 

same limitations applicable to 

helicopters to be outside the scope of 

the NPRM. 

Lastly, EAA noted that the FAA titled 

the discussion of these changes ‘‘22. 

Revise minimum safe-altitude 

requirements for powered parachutes 

and weight-shift-control aircraft, and 

balloons (§ 91.119)’’; however, EAA 

pointed out, the FAA did not discuss 

balloons or add balloons to its proposed 

change to § 91.119. The FAA 

acknowledges that the heading was 

incorrect. No reference to balloons 

should have been included in the 

caption. 

T. Miscellaneous 

Section 61.303: The FAA proposed to 

revise paragraphs (a)(1)(ii) and (a)(2)(ii) 

to include the words ‘‘at that certificate 

level or higher.’’ The FAA has 

determined that inclusion of the 

proposed language would be redundant 

and therefore is withdrawing those 

proposed amendments. 

Section 61.413: In the proposal, the 

provisions of current § 61.413 were 

incorporated into current § 61.193. 

Although the FAA is withdrawing its 

proposal to merge the provisions of 

subpart K with subpart H, the agency is 

revising the introductory text of § 61.413 

to mirror the introductory text of current 

§ 61.193. This action will correct a 

typographical error and revise the 

introductory text to indicate that a flight 

instructor with a sport pilot rating may 

provide endorsements related to various 

certificates, ratings, and privileges that 

may be found in places other than a 

pilot’s logbook. 

Section 61.109: The FAA is also 

correcting an inadvertent oversight in 

§ 61.109(j) introductory text by adding 

the words ‘‘of operation’’ after the words 

‘‘solo flight training in the areas.’’ 

IV. Paperwork Reduction Act 

As required by the Paperwork 

Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 

3507(d)), the FAA submitted a copy of 

the new information collection 

requirements in this final rule to the 

Office of Management and Budget for its 

review. Affected parties do not have to 

comply with the information collection 

requirements until the FAA publishes in 

the Federal Register the control number 

assigned by OMB for these information 

requirements. Publication of the control 

number notifies the public that OMB 

has approved these information 

collection requirements under the 

Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995. 

The FAA has determined that there 

are no new information collection 

requirements associated with posting 

pilots’ names on the Light-Sport 

Standardization Branch’s Web site, as 

that action is being taken to verify 

compliance with the 2004 final rule. 

That information collection requirement 

previously was approved under OMB 

Control Number 2120–0690. Further, 

airmens’ names are already publicly 

available on the FAA’s Web site. 

Information collection requirements 

associated with the amendment to 

paragraph (a) of § 91.417 Maintenance 

records to require owners and operators 

of special light-sport aircraft (SLSAs) to 

retain a record of the current status of 

applicable safety directives and transfer 

that information at the time of the sale 

of that aircraft is a new information 

collection requirement. Virtually all of 

the comments received on this change 

were favorable. However, one 

commenter opposed the proposed 

change. The commenter did not object 

to keeping a record of the status of 

applicable safety directives, but 

opposed the FAA’s enforcing 

compliance. The FAA notes that 

paragraph (b)(4) of § 91.327 Aircraft 

having a special airworthiness 

certificate in the light-sport category: 

Operating limitations requires operators 

of SLSAs to comply with all applicable 

safety directives. The FAA is taking 

action to ensure that owners and 

operators of SLSAs can readily 

determine the current status of safety 

directives applicable to their aircraft. 

The FAA is therefore adopting the 

change as proposed. 

A summary of the new information 

collection requirement under § 91.417 is 

as follows. 

Use: The information will be used by 

owners and operators of SLSAs to 

determine the current status of safety 

directives applicable to their aircraft. In 

addition, the information will be used to 

enable safety inspectors, in situations 

such as accident investigations, to 

determine whether required 

maintenance actions were accomplished 

on SLSAs. 

Respondents: There are currently 953 

registered SLSAs (expected to increase 

by 2.86 percent per year). However, the 

FAA does not know the exact numbers 

of owners and operators. The FAA 

expects the number of owners and 

operators would be fewer than 953. 

Frequency: Owners and operators of 

SLSAs would retain and transfer records 

on the status of safety directives only 

when safety directives have been issued 

on their SLSAs. The FAA estimates that 

it would take an owner operator 2 hours 

per year to comply with the 

requirement. 

Annual Burden Estimate 

There would be no annualized cost to 

the Federal government. For owners and 

operators, the total hour burden would 

be 21,688 hours over a 10-year period. 

The average number of hours each year 

would be 2,169, computed as follows: 


pwalker on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with RULES3
5218 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 20 / Monday, February 1, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 

Year Number of 

SLSA aircraft 

Hours per 

aircraft 

Total hour 

burden 

2010 ............................................................................................................................................. 953 2 1906 

2011 ............................................................................................................................................. 980 2 1960 

2012 ............................................................................................................................................. 1008 2 2016 

2013 ............................................................................................................................................. 1037 2 2074 

2014 ............................................................................................................................................. 1066 2 2132 

2015 ............................................................................................................................................. 1096 2 2192 

2016 ............................................................................................................................................. 1127 2 2254 

2017 ............................................................................................................................................. 1159 2 2318 

2018 ............................................................................................................................................. 1192 2 2384 

2019 ............................................................................................................................................. 1226 2 2452 

Total ...................................................................................................................................... ........................ ........................ 21688 

Average ................................................................................................................................ ........................ ........................ 2169 

The total cost burden, assuming the 

value of an owner or operator’s time is 

$31.50 per hour, would be $683,200 

($472,400 discounted) over a 10-year 

period. 

An agency may not collect or sponsor 

the collection of information, nor may it 

impose an information collection 

requirement unless it displays a 

currently valid Office of Management 

and Budget (OMB) control number. 

V. International Compatibility 

In keeping with U.S. obligations 

under the Convention on International 

Civil Aviation, it is FAA policy to 

comply with International Civil 

Aviation Organization (ICAO) Standards 

and Recommended Practices to the 

maximum extent practicable. The FAA 

has determined that there are no ICAO 

Standards and Recommended Practices 

that correspond to these regulations. 

VI. Regulatory Evaluation, Regulatory 

Flexibility Determination, International 

Trade Impact Assessment, and 

Unfunded Mandates Assessment 

A. Regulatory Evaluation Summary 

Changes to Federal regulations must 

undergo several economic analyses. 

First, Executive Order 12866 directs that 

each Federal agency shall propose or 

adopt a regulation only upon a reasoned 

determination that the benefits of the 

intended regulation justify its costs. 

Second, the Regulatory Flexibility Act 

of 1980 (Pub. L. 96–354) requires 

agencies to analyze the economic 

impact of regulatory changes on small 

entities. Third, the Trade Agreements 

Act (Pub. L. 96–39) prohibits agencies 

from setting standards that create 

unnecessary obstacles to the foreign 

commerce of the United States. In 

developing U.S. standards, this Trade 

Act requires agencies to consider 

international standards and, where 

appropriate, that they be the basis of 

U.S. standards. Fourth, the Unfunded 

Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 

104–4) requires agencies to prepare a 

written assessment of the costs, benefits, 

and other effects of proposed or final 

rules that include a Federal mandate 

likely to result in the expenditure by 

State, local, or tribal governments, in the 

aggregate, or by the private sector, of 

$100 million or more annually (adjusted 

for inflation with base year of 1995). 

This portion of the preamble 

summarizes the FAA’s analysis of the 

economic impacts of this proposed rule. 

We suggest readers seeking greater 

detail read the full regulatory 

evaluation, a copy of which we have 

placed in the docket for this rulemaking. 

In conducting these analyses, FAA 

has determined that this rule: (1) Has 

benefits that justify its costs, (2) is not 

an economically ‘‘significant regulatory 

action’’ as defined in section 3(f) of 

Executive Order 12866, (3) is not 

‘‘significant’’ as defined in DOT’s 

Regulatory Policies and Procedures; (4) 

will not have a significant economic 

impact on a substantial number of small 

entities; (5) will not create unnecessary 

obstacles to the foreign commerce of the 

United States; and (6) will not impose 

an unfunded mandate on State, local, or 

tribal governments, or on the private 

sector by exceeding the threshold 

identified above. These analyses are 

summarized below. 

Costs and Benefits 

The total cost of this rule will be 

approximately $683,000 ($472,000 

discounted). This cost is due to the 

provision of the rule that will require 

owners and operators to retain a record 

of the current status of applicable safety 

directives and to transfer that 

information at the time of sale of the 

aircraft. This rule will benefit sport 

pilots by establishing more appropriate 

training requirements and eliminating 

unnecessary endorsements. It will also 

benefit pilots of powered parachutes 

and weight-shift-control aircraft by 

allowing them to fly at lower altitudes, 

enabling them to more fully utilize the 

operational characteristics of their 

aircraft. Additionally, this rule will 

increase the maximum altitude at which 

sport pilots (or student pilots seeking 

sport pilot privileges) may fly, up to a 

maximum of 10,000 ft MSL or 2,000 ft 

AGL, whichever is higher. 

B. Regulatory Flexibility Determination 

The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 

(Pub. L. 96–354) (RFA) establishes ‘‘as a 

principle of regulatory issuance that 

agencies shall endeavor, consistent with 

the objectives of the rule and of 

applicable statutes, to fit regulatory and 

informational requirements to the scale 

of the businesses, organizations, and 

governmental jurisdictions subject to 

regulation. To achieve this principle, 

agencies are required to solicit and 

consider flexible regulatory proposals 

and to explain the rationale for their 

actions to assure that such proposals are 

given serious consideration.’’ The RFA 

covers a wide-range of small entities, 

including small businesses, not-forprofit organizations, and small 

governmental jurisdictions. 

Agencies must perform a review to 

determine whether a rule will have a 

significant economic impact on a 

substantial number of small entities. If 

the agency determines that it will, the 

agency must prepare a regulatory 

flexibility analysis as described in the 

RFA. However, if an agency determines 

that a rule is not expected to have a 

significant economic impact on a 

substantial number of small entities, 

section 605(b) of the RFA provides that 

the head of the agency may so certify 

and a regulatory flexibility analysis is 

not required. The certification must 

include a statement providing the 

factual basis for this determination, and 

the reasoning should be clear. 

This final rule will impose negligible 

costs on individuals who are or are in 

the process of becoming sport pilots. 


pwalker on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with RULES3
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 20 / Monday, February 1, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 5219 

While owners of special light-sport 

aircraft may experience a small cost 

with regard to the final rule’s 

requirement to hold and transfer 

applicable safety directives at the time 

of an aircraft’s sale, these costs are 

minimal. Moreover, most of these 

individuals fly for sport or recreation, 

and therefore the Regulatory Flexibility 

Act does not apply to them. However, 

the rule will also affect flight instructors 

with a sport pilot rating who provide 

instruction as a business endeavor, and 

in this case the Regulatory Flexibility 

Act does apply. Still, this final rule will 

impose only negligible costs on flight 

instructors with a sport pilot rating. 

Therefore as the FAA Administrator, I 

certify that this rule will not have a 

significant economic impact on a 

substantial number of small entities. 

C. International Trade Impact 

Assessment 

The Trade Agreements Act of 1979 

(Pub. L. 96–39), as amended by the 

Uruguay Round Agreements Act (Pub. 

L. 103–465), prohibits Federal agencies 

from establishing standards or engaging 

in related activities that create 

unnecessary obstacles to the foreign 

commerce of the United States. 

Pursuant to these Acts, the 

establishment of standards is not 

considered an unnecessary obstacle to 

the foreign commerce of the United 

States, so long as the standard has a 

legitimate domestic objective, such the 

protection of safety, and does not 

operate in a manner that excludes 

imports that meet this objective. The 

statute also requires consideration of 

international standards and, where 

appropriate, that they be the basis for 

U.S. standards. The FAA has assessed 

the potential effect of this final rule and 

determined that it will have only a 

domestic impact and therefore will not 

create unnecessary obstacles to the 

foreign commerce of the United States. 

D. Unfunded Mandates Assessment 

Title II of the Unfunded Mandates 

Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104–4) 

requires each Federal agency to prepare 

a written statement assessing the effects 

of any Federal mandate in a proposed or 

final agency rule that may result in an 

expenditure of $100 million or more (in 

1995 dollars) in any one year by State, 

local, and tribal governments, in the 

aggregate, or by the private sector; such 

a mandate is deemed to be a ‘‘significant 

regulatory action.’’ The FAA currently 

uses an inflation-adjusted value of 

$136.1 million in lieu of $100 million. 

This final rule does not contain such a 

mandate; therefore, the requirements of 

Title II of the Act do not apply. 

VII. Executive Order 13132, Federalism 

The FAA has analyzed this final rule 

under the principles and criteria of 

Executive Order 13132, Federalism. We 

determined that this action will not 

have a substantial direct effect on the 

States, or the relationship between the 

Federal Government and the States, or 

on the distribution of power and 

responsibilities among the various 

levels of government, and, therefore, 

does not have federalism implications. 

VIII. Environmental Analysis 

FAA Order 1050.1E identifies FAA 

actions that are categorically excluded 

from preparation of an environmental 

assessment or environmental impact 

statement under the National 

Environmental Policy Act in the 

absence of extraordinary circumstances. 

The FAA has determined this 

rulemaking action qualifies for the 

categorical exclusion identified in 

paragraph 307(k) and involves no 

extraordinary circumstances. 

IX. Regulations That Significantly 

Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or 

Use 

The FAA analyzed this final rule 

under Executive Order 13211, Actions 

Concerning Regulations that 

Significantly Affect Energy Supply, 

Distribution, or Use (May 18, 2001). We 

have determined that it is not a 

‘‘significant energy action’’ under the 

Executive Order, and it is not likely to 

have a significant adverse effect on the 

supply, distribution, or use of energy. 

X. Availability of Rulemaking 

Documents 

You can get an electronic copy of 

rulemaking documents using the 

Internet by— 

1. Searching the Federal eRulemaking 

Portal (http://www.regulations.gov); 

2. Visiting the FAA’s Regulations and 

Policies Web page at http:// 

www.faa.gov/regulations_policies/; or 

3. Accessing the Government Printing 

Office’s Web page at http:// 

www.gpoaccess.gov/fr/index.html. 

You can also get a copy by sending a 

request to the Federal Aviation 

Administration, Office of Rulemaking, 

ARM–1, 800 Independence Avenue 

SW., Washington, DC 20591, or by 

calling (202) 267–9680. Be sure to 

identify the amendment number or 

docket number of this rulemaking. 

Anyone is able to search the 

electronic form of all comments 

received into any of our dockets by the 

name of the individual submitting the 

comment (or signing the comment, if 

submitted on behalf of an association, 

business, labor union, etc.). You may 

review DOT’s complete Privacy Act 

statement in the Federal Register 

published on April 11, 2000 (Volume 

65, Number 70; Pages 19477–19478) or 

you may visit http:// 

DocketsInfo.dot.gov. 

XI. Small Business Regulatory 

Enforcement Fairness Act 

The Small Business Regulatory 

Enforcement Fairness Act (SBREFA) of 

1996 requires FAA to comply with 

small entity requests for information or 

advice about compliance with statutes 

and regulations within its jurisdiction. If 

you are a small entity and you have a 

question regarding this document, you 

may contact your local FAA official, or 

the person listed under the FOR FURTHER

INFORMATION CONTACT heading at the 

beginning of the preamble. You can find 

out more about SBREFA on the Internet 

at http://www.faa.gov/ 

regulations_policies/rulemaking/ 

sbre_act/. 

List of Subjects 

14 CFR Part 43 

Aircraft, Aviation safety. 

14 CFR Part 61 

Aircraft, Airmen, Teachers. 

14 CFR Part 91 

Aircraft, Airmen, Aviation safety, 

Reporting and recordkeeping 

requirements. 

14 CFR Part 141 

Airmen, Educational facilities, 

Schools. 

The Amendment 

■ In consideration of the foregoing, the 

Federal Aviation Administration 

amends chapter I of title 14, Code of 

Federal Regulations as follows: 

PART 43—MAINTENANCE, 

PREVENTIVE MAINTENANCE, 

REBUILDING, AND ALTERATION 

■ 1. The authority citation for part 43 

continues to read as follows: 

Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701, 

44703, 44705, 44707, 44711, 44713, 44717, 

44725. 

■ 2. Amend § 43.1 by revising paragraph 

(b) to read as follows: 

§ 43.1 Applicability. 

* * * * * 

(b) This part does not apply to— 

(1) Any aircraft for which the FAA 

has issued an experimental certificate, 

unless the FAA has previously issued a 

different kind of airworthiness 

certificate for that aircraft; or 


pwalker on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with RULES3
5220 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 20 / Monday, February 1, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 

(2) Any aircraft for which the FAA 

has issued an experimental certificate 

under the provisions of § 21.191 (i)(3) of 

this chapter, and the aircraft was 

previously issued a special 

airworthiness certificate in the lightsport category under the provisions of 

§ 21.190 of this chapter. 

* * * * * 

PART 61—CERTIFICATION: PILOTS, 

FLIGHT INSTRUCTORS, AND GROUND 

INSTRUCTORS 

■ 3. The authority citation for part 61 

continues to read as follows: 

Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701– 

44703, 44707, 44709–44711, 45102–45103, 

45301–45302. 

■ 4. Amend § 61.52 by revising 

paragraphs (a) introductory text, (b), 

(c)(2) and (c)(3), and adding paragraph 

(c)(4) to read as follows: 

§ 61.52 Use of aeronautical experience 

obtained in ultralight vehicles. 

(a) Before January 31, 2012, a person 

may use aeronautical experience 

obtained in an ultralight vehicle to meet 

the requirements for the following 

certificates and ratings issued under this 

part: 

* * * * * 

(b) Before January 31, 2012, a person 

may use aeronautical experience 

obtained in an ultralight vehicle to meet 

the provisions of § 61.69. 

(c) * * * 

(2) Document and log that 

aeronautical experience in accordance 

with the provisions for logging 

aeronautical experience specified by an 

FAA-recognized ultralight organization 

and in accordance with the provisions 

for logging pilot time in aircraft as 

specified in § 61.51; 

(3) Obtain the aeronautical experience 

in a category and class of vehicle 

corresponding to the rating or privilege 

sought; and 

(4) Provide the FAA with a certified 

copy of his or her ultralight pilot 

records from an FAA-recognized 

ultralight organization, that — 

(i) Document that he or she is a 

registered ultralight pilot with that 

FAA-recognized ultralight organization; 

and 

(ii) Indicate that he or she is 

recognized to operate the category and 

class of aircraft for which sport pilot 

privileges are sought. 

■ 5. Amend § 61.63 by revising 

paragraphs (b)(4) and (c)(4) to read as 

follows: 

§ 61.63 Additional aircraft ratings (other 

than on an airline transport pilot certificate). 

* * * * * 

(b) * * * 

(4) Need not take an additional 

knowledge test, provided the applicant 

holds an airplane, rotorcraft, poweredlift, weight-shift-control aircraft, 

powered parachute, or airship rating at 

that pilot certificate level. 

(c) * * * 

(4) Need not take an additional 

knowledge test, provided the applicant 

holds an airplane, rotorcraft, poweredlift, weight-shift-control aircraft, 

powered parachute, or airship rating at 

that pilot certificate level. 

* * * * * 

■ 6. Amend § 61.89 by: 

■ a. Revising paragraph (c)(3); 

■ b. Removing the period from the end 

of paragraph (c)(4) and adding a semicolon in its place; and 

■ c. Adding paragraph (c)(5). 

The revision and addition read as 

follows: 

§ 61.89 General limitations. 

* * * * * 

(c) * * * 

(3) At an altitude of more than 10,000 

feet MSL or 2,000 feet AGL, whichever 

is higher; 

* * * * * 

(5) Of a light-sport aircraft without 

having received the applicable ground 

training, flight training, and instructor 

endorsements specified in § 61.327 (a) 

and (b). 

■ 7. Amend § 61.93 by revising 

paragraphs (e)(9), (e)(12), (h)(9), (k)(9), 

and (k)(11) to read as follows: 

§ 61.93 Solo cross-country flight 

requirements. 

* * * * * 

(e) * * * 

(9) Use of radios for VFR navigation 

and two-way communication, except 

that a student pilot seeking a sport pilot 

certificate must only receive and log 

flight training on the use of radios 

installed in the aircraft to be flown; 

* * * * * 

(12) Control and maneuvering solely 

by reference to flight instruments, 

including straight and level flight, turns, 

descents, climbs, use of radio aids, and 

ATC directives. For student pilots 

seeking a sport pilot certificate, the 

provisions of this paragraph only apply 

when receiving training for crosscountry flight in an airplane that has a 

VH greater than 87 knots CAS. 

* * * * * 

(h) * * * 

(9) Use of radios for VFR navigation 

and two-way communication, except 

that a student pilot seeking a sport pilot 

certificate must only receive and log 

flight training on the use of radios 

installed in the aircraft to be flown; and 

* * * * * 

(k) * * * 

(9) Use of radios for VFR navigation 

and two-way communication, except 

that a student pilot seeking a sport pilot 

certificate must only receive and log 

flight training on the use of radios 

installed in the aircraft to be flown; 

* * * * * 

(11) Control of the airship solely by 

reference to flight instruments, except 

for a student pilot seeking a sport pilot 

certificate; and 

* * * * * 

■ 8. Amend § 61.109 by: 

■ a. Amending paragraph (j) 

introductory text by adding the words 

‘‘of operation’’ after the words ‘‘solo 

flight training in the areas;’’ 

■ b. Removing the word ‘‘and’’ at the end 

of paragraphs (i)(3) and (j)(3); 

■ c. Revising paragraphs (i)(4)(ii) and 

(j)(2)(i); 

■ d. Adding the word ‘‘and’’ to the end 

of paragraph (j)(4)(i); 

■ e. Removing paragraph (j)(4)(iii); and 

■ f. Adding paragraphs (i)(5) and (j)(5). 

The revisions and additions read as 

follows: 

§ 61.109 Aeronautical experience. 

* * * * * 

(i) * * * 

(4) * * * 

(ii) Twenty solo takeoffs and landings 

to a full stop (with each landing 

involving a flight in a traffic pattern) at 

an airport; and 

(5) Three takeoffs and landings (with 

each landing involving a flight in the 

traffic pattern) in an aircraft at an airport 

with an operating control tower. 

(j) * * * 

(2) * * * 

(i) One cross-country flight of over 75 

nautical miles total distance that 

includes a point of landing that is a 

straight-line distance of more than 50 

nautical miles from the original point of 

departure; and 

* * * * * 

(5) Three takeoffs and landings (with 

each landing involving a flight in the 

traffic pattern) in an aircraft at an airport 

with an operating control tower. 

* * * * * 

■ 9. Amend § 61.113 by: 

■ a. Amending paragraph (a) by 

removing the words ‘‘paragraphs (b) 

through (g)’’ and adding in their place 

the words ‘‘paragraphs (b) through (h)’’; 

and 

■ b. Adding paragraph (h) to read as 

follows: 


pwalker on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with RULES3
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 20 / Monday, February 1, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 5221 

§ 61.113 Private pilot privileges and 

limitations: Pilot in command. 

* * * * * 

(h) A private pilot may act as pilot in 

command for the purpose of conducting 

a production flight test in a light-sport 

aircraft intended for certification in the 

light-sport category under § 21.190 of 

this chapter, provided that— (1) The aircraft is a powered 

parachute or a weight-shift-control 

aircraft; 

(2) The person has at least 100 hours 

of pilot-in-command time in the 

category and class of aircraft flown; and 

(3) The person is familiar with the 

processes and procedures applicable to 

the conduct of production flight testing, 

to include operations conducted under 

a special flight permit and any 

associated operating limitations. 

§ 61.301 [Amended] 

■ 10. Amend § 61.301 by removing 

paragraph (a)(7). 

■ 11. Amend § 61.303 by: 

■ a. Removing the words ‘‘light sport’’ 

adding the words ‘‘light-sport’’ in their 

place in the introductory text of 

paragraphs (a)(1)(ii)(A), (a)(1)(iii)(A), 

(a)(2)(i)(A), (a)(2)(ii)(A), and 

(a)(2)(iii)(A); and 

■ b. Revising the introductory text of 

paragraphs (a)(1)(i)(A), (a)(2)(i)(A), 

(a)(3)(i)(A), (a)(3)(ii)(A), and 

(a)(3)(iii)(A), and paragraph 

(a)(3)(ii)(A)(1) to read as follows: 

§ 61.303 If I want to operate a light-sport 

aircraft, what operating limits and 

endorsement requirements in this subpart 

must I comply with? 

(a) * * * 

If you hold And you hold Then you may operate And 

(1) * * * ................. (i) * * * ................ (A) Any light-sport aircraft for which you hold the endorsements required for its category and class.* * * * * 

(2) * * * ................. (i) * * * ................ (A) Any light-sport aircraft for which you hold the endorsements required for its category and class. * * * * * 

(3) * * * ................. (i) * * * ................ (A) Any light-sport glider or balloon for which you hold 

the endorsements required for its category and class.

* * * * * 

(ii) * * * ................ (A) Any light-sport glider or balloon in that category and 

class.

(1) You do not have to hold any of the 

endorsements required by this subpart, 

nor do you have to comply with the limitations in § 61.315. 

(iii) * * * ............... (A) Any light-sport glider or balloon, only if you hold the 

endorsements required in § 61.321 for its category and 

class 

* * * * * 

* * * * * 

§ 61.309 [Amended] 

■ 12. Amend § 61.309 introductory text 

by removing the words ‘‘Except as 

specified in § 61.329, to’’ and adding the 

word ‘‘To’’ to the beginning of the 

sentence. 

§ 61.311 [Amended] 

■ 13. Amend § 61.311 introductory text 

by removing the words ‘‘Except as 

specified in § 61.329, to’’ and adding in 

their place the word ‘‘To’’ to the 

beginning of the sentence. 

■ 14. Amend § 61.313 by: 

■ a. Removing the words ‘‘Except as 

specified in § 61.329, use’’ from the 

introductory text and adding the word 

‘‘Use’’ to the beginning of the sentence; 

■ b. Removing the numeral ‘‘3’’ and 

adding in its place the numeral ‘‘2’’ in 

paragraphs (a)(1)(iv), (d)(1)(iv), (e)(1)(iv), 

and (h)(1)(iv); 

■ c. Removing the numeral ‘‘3’’ and 

adding in its place the numeral ‘‘1’’ in 

paragraphs (f)(1)(ii), (g)(1)(v); 

■ d. Revising paragraphs (b)(1)(ii) and 

(c)(1)(ii); and 

■ e. Revising paragraph (g)(1) 

introductory text. 

The revisions read as follows: 

§ 61.313 What aeronautical experience 

must I have to apply for a sport pilot 

certificate? 

* * * * * 

If you are applying for a sport pilot 

certificate with . . . Then you must log at least . . . Which must include at least . . . 

* * * * * * * 

(b) * * * ......................................... (1) * * * ...................................................................... * * * * * 

(ii) at least 3 training flights with an authorized instructor on those areas of operation specified in 

§ 61.311 in preparation for the practical test within 

the preceding 2 calendar months from the month 

of the test. 

(c) * * * .......................................... (1) * * * ...................................................................... * * * * * 

(ii) at least 3 training flights with an authorized instructor on those areas of operation specified in 

§ 61.311 in preparation for the practical test within 

the preceding 2 calendar months from the month 

of the test. 

* * * * * * * 

(g) * * * ......................................... (1) 12 hours of flight time in a powered parachute, 

including 10 hours of flight training from an authorized instructor in a powered parachute, and at 

least 2 hours of solo flight training in the areas of 

operation listed in § 61.311.

* * * * * 

* * * * * * * 


pwalker on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with RULES3
5222 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 20 / Monday, February 1, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 

■ 15. Amend § 61.315 by revising 

paragraphs (c)(11), (c)(14), and (c)(16) to 

read as follows: 

§ 61.315 What are the privileges and limits 

of my sport pilot certificate? 

* * * * * 

(c) * * * 

(11) At an altitude of more than 

10,000 feet MSL or 2,000 feet AGL, 

whichever is higher. 

* * * * * 

(14) If the aircraft has: 

(i) A VH greater than 87 knots CAS, 

unless you have met the requirements of 

§ 61.327 (a). 

(ii) A VH less than or equal to 87 knots 

CAS, unless you have met the 

requirements of § 61.327 (b) or have 

logged pilot-in-command time in an 

aircraft with a VH less than or equal to 

87 knots CAS before March 3, 2010. 

* * * * * 

(16) Contrary to any limit on your 

pilot certificate or airman medical 

certificate, or any other limit or 

endorsement from an authorized 

instructor. 

* * * * * 

§ 61.319 [Removed and reserved] 

■ 16. Remove and reserve § 61.319. 

§ 61.323 [Removed and reserved] 

■ 17. Remove and reserve § 61.323. 

■ 18. Revise § 61.327 to read as follows: 

§ 61.327 Are there specific endorsement 

requirements to operate a light-sport 

aircraft based on VH? 

(a) Except as specified in paragraph 

(c) of this section, if you hold a sport 

pilot certificate and you seek to operate 

a light-sport aircraft that has a VH less 

than or equal to 87 knots CAS you 

must— 

(1) Receive and log ground and flight 

training from an authorized instructor in 

an aircraft that has a VH less than or 

equal to 87 knots CAS; and 

(2) Receive a logbook endorsement 

from the authorized instructor who 

provided the training specified in 

paragraph (a)(1) of this section certifying 

that you are proficient in the operation 

of light-sport aircraft with a VH less than 

or equal to 87 knots CAS. 

(b) If you hold a sport pilot certificate 

and you seek to operate a light-sport 

aircraft that has a VH greater than 87 

knots CAS you must— 

(1) Receive and log ground and flight 

training from an authorized instructor in 

an aircraft that has a VH greater than 87 

knots CAS; and 

(2) Receive a logbook endorsement 

from the authorized instructor who 

provided the training specified in 

paragraph (b)(1) of this section 

certifying that you are proficient in the 

operation of light-sport aircraft with a 

VH greater than 87 knots CAS. 

(c) The training and endorsements 

required by paragraph (a) of this section 

are not required if you have logged 

flight time as pilot in command of an 

aircraft with a VH less than or equal to 

87 knots CAS prior to March 3, 2010. 

§ 61.329 [Removed] 

■ 19. Remove § 61.329. 

§ 61.401 [Amended] 

■ 20. Amend § 61.401 by removing 

paragraph (a)(6). 

■ 21. Amend § 61.413 by revising the 

introductory text and paragraph (i) to 

read as follows: 

§ 61.413 What are the privileges of my 

flight instructor certificate with a sport pilot 

rating? 

If you hold a flight instructor 

certificate with a sport pilot rating, you 

are authorized, within the limits of your 

certificate and rating, to provide training 

and endorsements that are required for, 

and relate to— 

* * * * * 

(i) A proficiency check for an 

additional category or class privilege for 

a sport pilot certificate or a flight 

instructor certificate with a sport pilot 

rating. 

■ 22. Amend § 61.415 by revising the 

introductory text and paragraphs (a)(1) 

and (g), removing paragraph (e), 

redesignating paragraph (f) as paragraph 

(e), and adding new paragraph (f) to 

read as follows: 

§ 61.415 What are the limits of a flight 

instructor certificate with a sport pilot 

rating? 

If you hold a flight instructor 

certificate with a sport pilot rating, you 

may only provide flight training in a 

light-sport aircraft and are subject to the 

following limits: 

(a) * * * 

(1) A sport pilot certificate with 

applicable category and class privileges 

or a pilot certificate with the applicable 

category and class rating; and 

* * * * * 

(f) You may not provide training in a 

light-sport aircraft with a VH less than 

or equal to 87 knots CAS unless you 

have the endorsement specified in 

§ 61.327 (a), or are otherwise authorized 

to operate that light-sport aircraft. 

(g) You may not provide training in a 

light-sport aircraft with a VH greater 

than 87 knots CAS unless you have the 

endorsement specified in § 61.327 (b), or 

are otherwise authorized to operate that 

light-sport aircraft. 

* * * * * 

■ 23. Amend § 61.423 by removing 

paragraph (a)(2)(iii)(B), redesignating 

paragraph (a)(2)(iii)(C) as (a)(2)(iii)(B) 

and removing the word ‘‘and’’ from the 

end of the paragraph, adding new 

paragraph (a)(2)(iii)(C), and revising 

paragraph (a)(2)(iv) to read as follows: 

§ 61.423 What are the recordkeeping 

requirements for a flight instructor with a 

sport pilot rating? 

(a) * * * 

(2) * * * 

(iii) * * * 

(C) A light-sport aircraft with a VH

less than or equal to 87 knots CAS; and 

* * * * * 

(iv) Each person whose logbook you 

have endorsed as proficient to provide 

flight training in an additional category 

or class of light-sport aircraft. 

* * * * * 

■ 24. Amend § 61.429 by revising 

paragraph (c) to read as follows: 

§ 61.429 May I exercise the privileges of a 

flight instructor certificate with a sport pilot 

rating if I hold a flight instructor certificate 

with another rating? 

* * * * * 

(c) If you want to exercise the 

privileges of your flight instructor 

certificate in a category or class of lightsport aircraft for which you are not 

currently rated, you must meet all 

applicable requirements to provide 

training in an additional category or 

class of light-sport aircraft specified in 

§ 61.419. 

§ 61.431 [Removed] 

■ 25. Remove § 61.431. 

PART 91—GENERAL OPERATING AND 

FLIGHT RULES 

■ 26. The authority citation for part 91 

continues to read as follows: 

Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(g), 1155, 40103, 

40113, 40120, 44101, 44111, 44701, 44704, 


pwalker on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with RULES3
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 20 / Monday, February 1, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 5223 

44709, 44711, 44712, 44715, 44716, 44717, 

44722, 46306, 46315, 46316, 46504, 46506– 

46507, 47122, 47508, 47528–47531, articles 

12 and 29 of the Convention on International 

Civil Aviation (61 Stat. 1180). 

■ 27. Amend § 91.119 by revising 

paragraph (d) to read as follows: 

§ 91.119 Minimum safe altitudes: General. 

* * * * * 

(d) Helicopters, powered parachutes, 

and weight-shift-control aircraft. If the 

operation is conducted without hazard 

to persons or property on the surface— 

(1) A helicopter may be operated at 

less than the minimums prescribed in 

paragraph (b) or (c) of this section, 

provided each person operating the 

helicopter complies with any routes or 

altitudes specifically prescribed for 

helicopters by the FAA; and 

(2) A powered parachute or weightshift-control aircraft may be operated at 

less than the minimums prescribed in 

paragraph (c) of this section. 

■ 28. Amend § 91.417 by revising 

paragraph (a)(2)(v) to read as follows: 

§ 91.417 Maintenance records. 

(a) * * * 

(2) * * * 

(v) The current status of applicable 

airworthiness directives (AD) and safety 

directives including, for each, the 

method of compliance, the AD or safety 

directive number and revision date. If 

the AD or safety directive involves 

recurring action, the time and date 

when the next action is required. 

* * * * * 

PART 141—PILOT SCHOOLS 

■ 29. The authority citation for part 141 

continues to read as follows: 

Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701– 

44703, 44707, 44709, 44711, 45102–45103, 

45301–45302. 

■ 30. Amend § 141.39 by revising 

paragraph (a)(2) to read as follows: 

§ 141.39 Aircraft. 

(a) * * * 

(2) Is certificated with a standard 

airworthiness certificate, a primary 

airworthiness certificate, or a special 

airworthiness certificate in the lightsport category unless the FAA 

determines otherwise because of the 

nature of the approved course; 

* * * * * 

Issued in Washington, DC, on January 22, 

2010. 

J. Randolph Babbitt, 

Administrator. 

[FR Doc. 2010–2056 Filed 1–29–10; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4910–13–P 


pwalker on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with RULES3