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, 5204-5223 [2010-2056]

Agencies

• Federal Aviation Administration
• DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

[Federal Register Volume 75, Number 20 (Monday, February 1, 2010)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 5204-5223]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2010-2056]



[[Page 5203]]

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

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

Federal Register / Vol. 75 , No. 20 / Monday, February 1, 2010 / 
Rules and Regulations

[[Page 5204]]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

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 Sec.  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 weight-shift-control aircraft 
intended for certification in the light-sport category under Sec.  
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.

[[Page 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 Sec. Sec.  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 Sec.  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 light-sport category under Sec.  
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 Sec.  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 Sec.  
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

(Sec. Sec.  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-shift-control 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.

[[Page 5206]]

    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 Sec.  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 Sec.  61.415 by 
proposing to revise Sec.  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

[[Page 5207]]

revising the introductory text of Sec.  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 (https://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

(Sec. Sec.  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 Sec.  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

(Sec.  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 Sec.  
61.51(i)(3) permits a sport pilot to carry other evidence of existing 
endorsements. Similar provisions exist for flight

[[Page 5208]]

instructors with a sport pilot rating under Sec.  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 Sec.  
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-and-model 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

(Sec. Sec.  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 light-sport 
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 make-and-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 
Sec. Sec.  61.413, 61.415, and 61.423 to eliminate provisions in those 
sections that refer to the issuance of make-and-model 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 light-sport 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 make-and-model endorsements, the additional training 
requirements of Sec.  61.31 are applicable to all pilots, to include 
both sport pilots and student pilots. Furthermore, while Sec.  
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 single-engine land airplane should 
be sufficient to fly other single-engine airplanes within the 
definition of light-sport 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.

[[Page 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

(Sec.  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 Sec.  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 Sec.  
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 light-sport 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 multi-engine 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 Sec.  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 light-sport 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

(Sec. Sec.  61.89 and 61.315)
    Current Sec.  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 Sec.  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

[[Page 5210]]

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 in-flight 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 Sec.  
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 light-sport 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 high-performance 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 Sec.  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 Sec.  21.190

(Sec.  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 Sec.  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 Sec.  
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 Sec.  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 Sec.  
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.

[[Page 5211]]

H. Proposal 11: Revise student sport pilot solo cross-country 
navigation and communication flight training requirements

(Sec.  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 
two-way 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 Sec.  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

(Sec.  61.109)
    Current Sec.  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 Sec.  61.109 uses the 
term ``cross-country flight,'' persons applying for this rating 
frequently have overlooked the provisions of Sec.  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, cross-country 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 Sec. Sec.  
61.1 and 61.109, the FAA proposed to make Sec.  61.109 consistent with 
Sec.  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 Sec.  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 full-stop 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 weight-shift-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-shift-control aircraft as a private pilot

(Sec.  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 Sec.  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

[[Page 5212]]

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 weight-shift-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-
shift-control 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

(Sec.  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 Sec.  61.63 are adopted as 
paragraphs (b)(4) and (c)(4) respectively. This modification is being 
made because after the proposed rule was published, Sec.  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 Sec.  61.63.

L. Proposal 15: Revise the amount of hours of flight training an 
applicant for a sport pilot certifi