Modernization of Special Airworthiness Certification

Federal RegisterJul 24, 2025

Ask Donna

What actually matters in this document.

Text

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Parts 1, 21, 22, 36, 43, 45, 61, 65, 91, 119, and 147

[Docket No. FAA-2023-1377; Amdt. Nos. 1-80, 21-109, 22-1, 36-55, 43-63, 45-32, 61-159, 65-66, 91-381, 119-22, and 147-10]

RIN 2120-AL50

Modernization of Special Airworthiness Certification

AGENCY:

Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), Department of Transportation (DOT).

ACTION:

Final rule.

SUMMARY:

FAA is amending rules for the manufacture, certification, operation, maintenance, and alteration of light-sport aircraft. The amendments enable enhancements in safety and performance and increase privileges under a number of sport pilot and light-sport aircraft rules. These enhancements include increasing suitability for flight training, limited aerial work, and personal travel. This final rule expands what aircraft sport pilots may operate. This final rule also amends the special purpose operations for restricted category aircraft; amends the duration, eligible purposes, and operating limitations for experimental aircraft; and adds operating limitations applicable to experimental aircraft engaged in space support vehicle flights to codify statutory language.

DATES:

This final rule is effective October 22, 2025, except for amendatory instructions 3, 8, 9, 13, 15, 17, 21, 23 through 26, 71, 72, 75, 76, and 80, which are effective July 24, 2026.

The incorporation by reference of certain material listed in this final rule is approved by the Director of the Federal Register as of October 22, 2025.

ADDRESSES:

For information on where to obtain copies of rulemaking documents and other information related to this final rule, see section VII of this document.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

For technical questions concerning this action, contact James Newberger, Aircraft Certification Service (AIR-632), Federal Aviation Administration, 800 Independence Ave. SW, Washington, DC 20591, telephone (202) 267-1636; email

james.e.newberger@faa.gov.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Table of Contents

I. Executive Summary

A. Purpose of the Regulatory Action

B. Summary of the Costs and Benefits

II. Authority for This Rulemaking

III. Background

A. History of Light-Sport Category Aircraft

B. Summary of the NPRM

IV. Discussion of Comments and the Final Rule

A. General Overview of Comments

B. Differences Between the NPRM and the Final Rule

C. FAA Safety Continuum

D. Separation of Limits for Light-Sport Category Aircraft and Sport Pilots

E. Special Airworthiness Certificates for Light-Sport Category Aircraft

F. Design, Production, and Airworthiness Requirements for Non-Type Certificated Aircraft

G. Miscellaneous Provisions for Issuance of Special Airworthiness Certificates

H. Sport Pilot Certification and Privileges

I. Repairman Certificates (Light-Sport)

J. Maintenance

K. Operations

L. Experimental Airworthiness Certificates

M. Restricted Category Aircraft

N. Noise Certification of Aircraft That Do Not Conform to a Type Certificate

O. Import and Export of Aircraft

P. Other Out of Scope Comments

Q. Effective and Compliance Dates

R. Benefits and Costs

V. Regulatory Notices and Analyses

VI. Executive Order Determinations

VII. Additional Information

A. Electronic Access and Filing

B. Incorporation by Reference Material

C. Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act

End Notes

List of Acronyms Frequently Used in This Document

ACS—Airman Certification Standards

AGL—Above Ground Level

ASTM—American Society for Testing and Material International

CAS—Calibrated Airspeed

CFR—Code of Federal Regulations

DOD—Department of Defense

EAB—Experimental Amateur-Built

eVTOL—Electric Vertical Takeoff and Landing

FAA—Federal Aviation Administration

FADEC—Full Authority Digital Electric Control

FR—Federal Register

FSTD—Flight Simulation Training Device

GA—General Aviation

IBR—Incorporation by Reference

IFR—Instrument Flight Rules

IMC—Instrument Meteorological Conditions

LOC-I—Loss of Control—In-flight

LSA—Light-Sport Aircraft

LSAMA—Light-Sport Aircraft Manufacturers Assessment

MOSAIC—Modernization of Special Airworthiness Certification

MSL—Mean Sea Level

NAICS—North American Industry Classification System

NPRM—Notice of Proposed Rulemaking

NTSB—National Transportation Safety Board

OMB—Office of Management and Budget

PIC—Pilot in Command

PTS—Practical Test Standards

RFA—Regulatory Flexibility Act

RIA—Regulatory Impact Analysis

U.S.C.—United States Code

—Design maneuvering speed

VFR—Visual Flight Rules

—Maximum speed in level flight with maximum continuous power

—Maximum never exceed speed

—The stalling speed or the minimum steady flight speed obtained in a specific configuration

—The stalling speed or the minimum steady flight speed in the landing configuration

I. Executive Summary

A. Purpose of the Regulatory Action

This final rule establishes requirements for aircraft, other than unmanned aircraft, that hold special airworthiness certificates, airmen that operate and maintain those aircraft, and supporting rules. This rule expands eligibility for certification of light-sport category aircraft while retaining a distinction in level of certification rigor between experimental and small, type-certificated aircraft. This rule also expands privileges for sport pilots and light-sport repairmen. This rule aims to increase the availability of safe, modern, and affordable aircraft for recreational aviation, flight training, and certain aerial work.

Generally, this rule provides broad regulatory relief to the public. That is, under this rule, manufacturers of light-sport category aircraft may design and manufacture a broader array of aircraft, including rotorcraft and powered-lift. In addition, the rule allows for light-sport category aircraft with increased seating, without weight limits, higher speeds, new types of propulsion systems, new propeller types, retractable landing gear, and aircraft with simplified flight controls. Sport pilot privileges are expanded to include a broader array of aircraft and new privileges. New privileges for sport pilots include operating helicopters, operating at night, operating aircraft with retractable landing gear, operating aircraft with constant speed propellers, and operating high-performance airplanes. These new privileges for sport pilots are available via training and endorsements. Operating privileges for certain light-sport category aircraft are expanded to include certain aerial work. Lastly, repairman certificate (light-sport) privileges are expanded to allow work on all aircraft in the expanded light-sport aircraft category.

Though relieving to the public, these expansions are based on safety data, the safety continuum, and other concepts aimed to increase safety. Per the safety continuum concept, FAA bases the rigor of certification requirements on the exposure of the public to risk for an

aircraft operation. As the risk increases due to increased operating privileges and aircraft capability, the rigor of certification requirements also increases.

In 2004, FAA published the “Certification of Aircraft and Airmen for the Operation of Light-Sport Aircraft” final rule (69 FR 44771, July 27, 2004) (“the 2004 final rule”), which established rules for the manufacture, certification, operation, and maintenance of light-sport aircraft. The successful safety record of light-sport category aircraft since the 2004 final rule validates certification requirements established in that rule and provides support for expanding the scope of certification for light-sport category aircraft and operations. As a result, FAA identified the Modernization of Special Airworthiness Certification (MOSAIC) rule as an opportunity to expand the 2004 final rule to include a wider variety of aircraft, increase performance, and increase operating privileges to extend these safety benefits to more aircraft. FAA intends for these expansions to increase the safety of recreational aviation by encouraging aircraft owners, who may be deciding between an experimental aircraft or a light-sport category aircraft, to choose light-sport category aircraft that are higher on the safety continuum and, therefore, meet higher aircraft certification requirements. FAA also intends for this rule to increase the safety of light-sport category aircraft by eliminating the prescriptive weight limit for light-sport category aircraft that hinders safety-enhancing designs and by adopting new design, production, and airworthiness requirements.

This rule also addresses other aircraft that hold special airworthiness certificates. Specifically, this rule codifies additional special purpose operations for restricted category aircraft. In addition, this rule amends the duration, eligible purposes, and operating limitations for special airworthiness certificates issued for experimental purposes for additional phases of flight and space support vehicle operations.

The following sections discuss the provisions being adopted in this final rule.

1. Certification of Light-Sport Category Aircraft

This rule (i) adopts more performance-based rules to expand and enable innovation in the classes of aircraft that may be certificated using consensus standards as light-sport category aircraft, including emerging aircraft types; (ii) removes prescriptive weight limits that hinder incorporation of safety-enhancing designs and equipage; (iii) increases the maximum stall speed for light-sport category airplanes and gliders; (iv) enables more capable and robust aircraft for the pilot training environment; (v) allows for increased capacities for passengers, fuel, and cargo; (vi) allows electric and other alternative propulsion sources; and (vii) allows faster, higher-performing aircraft that are more suitable for personal travel. Together, based on the safety record under the 2004 final rule, these changes will enhance safety by allowing for a more appealing alternative to experimental amateur-built (EAB) aircraft that do not meet FAA design, production, or airworthiness standards.

2. Sport Pilot Certification

This rule expands privileges for what aircraft a sport pilot can operate, including privileges to operate many of the new light-sport category aircraft and additional normal category aircraft while retaining the current limit to carriage of two occupants, including the pilot. This rule allows use of four-seat airplanes; adds a new model-specific privilege for aircraft with unconventional simplified flight controls designation; and adds new privileges for operating helicopters, operating aircraft at night, aircraft with retractable landing gear, and airplanes with constant speed propellers. This rule also amends the limits on maximum stall and cruise speed and removes weight and powerplant limitations.

3. Maintenance and Repairman (Light-Sport)

This rule revises privileges for repairman certificate (light-sport) holders to align with the expansion of aircraft categories that will be eligible for light-sport category airworthiness certificates. In addition, light-sport repairman privileges are expanded to allow a light-sport repairman to conduct the condition inspection on amateur-built aircraft that are of the same category and class, as applicable, of aircraft for which the repairman was certificated. This rule also revises the requirements for manufacturer-issued safety directives and revises requirements for performing repairs and alterations of light-sport category aircraft.

4. Operations

This rule revises operating limitations for restricted category aircraft, experimental aircraft, and light-sport category aircraft. This rule also codifies a Congressional mandate to enable certain aircraft with an experimental airworthiness certificate to conduct space support vehicle flights carrying persons or property for compensation or hire without an air carrier certificate or exemption. This rule also makes minor revisions to right-of-way rules and operations in the vicinity of airports in Class G airspace.

5. Experimental Aircraft

This rule establishes a new purpose for which experimental airworthiness certificates may be issued to former military aircraft to improve alignment between certain operations of former military aircraft and the experimental airworthiness certificates that authorize their operation. This rule also increases the duration of certain experimental airworthiness certificates from one to three years.

6. Restricted Category Aircraft

This rule enhances the requirements for the certification of former military aircraft in the restricted category by requiring the aircraft to have a service history with the U.S. Armed Forces. Under 14 CFR 21.25(b)(7), FAA has approved additional special purpose operations for which restricted category aircraft may be certificated. Currently, those additional purposes are only listed in FAA policy documents for type and airworthiness certification of these aircraft. This rule codifies special purpose operations that have already been published for public notice in the

Federal Register

7. Noise

This rule enables persons to voluntarily establish compliance with part 36 noise requirements and provide a statement of compliance to FAA for a light-sport category aircraft.

B. Summary of the Costs and Benefits

The rule largely expands opportunities for light-sport category aircraft. These expansions may result in safety benefits; there may also be associated design and production costs. FAA does not anticipate more than minimal incremental costs to implement provisions of the rule and does not have data to estimate any cost savings, such as those that could result from operating certain light-sport category aircraft in aerial work for compensation.

II. Authority for This Rulemaking

FAA's authority to issue rules on aviation safety is found in title 49 of the United States Code (U.S.C.). Subtitle I, section 106 describes the authority of FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII, Aviation Programs, describes in more

detail the scope of the agency's authority. This rulemaking is promulgated under the authority described in 49 U.S.C. 106(f), which establishes the authority of the Administrator to promulgate and revise regulations and rules related to aviation safety. This rulemaking is also promulgated under 49 U.S.C. 44701(a)(2)(A) and (a)(5), which provides that FAA Administrator shall promote safe flight of civil aircraft in air commerce by prescribing regulations and minimum standards: (1) in the interest of safety for inspecting, servicing, and overhauling aircraft, aircraft engines, propellers, and appliances, and (2) that FAA finds necessary for safety in air commerce and national security; 49 U.S.C. 44703, which provides the general authority of the Administrator to prescribe regulations for the issuance of airman certificates when the Administrator finds, after investigation, that an individual is qualified for, and physically able to perform the duties related to, the position authorized by the certificate; 49 U.S.C. 40103(b)(1) and (2), which directs FAA to issue regulations: (1) to ensure the safety of aircraft and the efficient use of airspace; and (2) to govern the flight of aircraft for purposes of navigating, protecting and identifying aircraft, and protecting individuals and property on the ground; and 49 U.S.C. 44715, which provides the Administrator the authority to prescribe regulations to control and abate aircraft noise and sonic boom. These regulations are within the scope of those authorities because they amend rules for the manufacture, certification, operation, maintenance, and alteration of light-sport category aircraft, amend rules related to restricted category aircraft and experimental airworthiness certification, and amend rules related to sport pilot and repairman certification. Under Sec. 135, Public Law 116-260, 134 Stat. 1182, FAA has authority to set standards for maintenance technician schools, and this rulemaking incorporates such standards by reference in part 147. In addition, this rulemaking codifies section 581 of the FAA Reauthorization Act of 2018 (Pub. L. 115-254), which amended 49 U.S.C. 44740 to allow the operator of an aircraft with a special airworthiness certification in the experimental category to conduct a space support vehicle flight carrying persons or property for compensation or hire. The final rule also addresses section 824 of the FAA Reauthorization Act of 2024 (Pub. L. 118-63), which requires that FAA issue a final rule for MOSAIC not later than 24 months after the date of enactment of that Act, May 16, 2024.

III. Background

A. History of Light-Sport Category Aircraft

In the NPRM (88 FR 47650, July 24, 2023), FAA proposed to amend rules related to the certification and operation of light-sport category aircraft. That NPRM aimed to modernize the regulatory approach to light-sport aircraft by incorporating performance-based requirements that reflect advances in technology and uses for this type of aircraft. The NPRM was designed to respond to the evolving needs of this sector and provide for future growth and innovation without compromising safety.

The 2004 final rule provided for the operation and manufacture of aircraft weighing less than 1,320 pounds (or 1,430 pounds for aircraft intended for operation on water). These “light-sport” aircraft included airplanes, gliders, balloons, powered parachutes, weight-shift-control aircraft, and gyroplanes. FAA bases the rigor of certification requirements and operational limitations on a safety continuum that assesses the exposure of the public to risk for each aircraft and operation; as the risk increases due to increased operating privileges and aircraft capability, the requirements and corresponding rigor of requirements and procedures for certification increase.

In the 2004 final rule, FAA established a level of certification for light-sport category aircraft between normal category aircraft and aircraft holding experimental airworthiness certificates in view of intended operating privileges and aircraft capability. The NPRM used EAB aircraft for the safety continuum discussions since they are similar to light-sport category aircraft. EAB aircraft are largely used for recreational purposes, are flown by sport pilots and pilots with higher grade certificates and generally have the same flight envelope and occupancy limits. Amateur-built aircraft are below light-sport category aircraft on the safety continuum because of their lower safety assurance for aircraft design and being subject to stringent operating limitations. Amateur-built aircraft have no regulatory design requirements for suitability of materials used, structural integrity, or instruments, equipment, and systems. Amateur-built aircraft are limited to non-commercial operations for the purpose of education and recreation.

B. Summary of the NPRM

Since the 2004 final rule, light-sport category aircraft have shown a lower accident rate than EAB airplanes.1 FAA considered that the successful safety record of light-sport category aircraft validated certification requirements established in the 2004 final rule and provided support for expanding the scope of certification for light-sport category aircraft and operations. As a result, FAA proposed to expand the 2004 final rule to include a wider variety of aircraft, increase performance, and increase operating privileges to extend these safety benefits to more aircraft. FAA intended for these expansions to increase safety by encouraging aircraft owners, who may be deciding between an EAB or a light-sport category aircraft, to choose aircraft higher on the safety continuum and, therefore, meet higher aircraft certification requirements.

FAA's proposal addressed other aircraft that hold special airworthiness certificates. Specifically, FAA proposed to codify additional special purpose operations for restricted category aircraft that FAA has previously approved under discretion provided in § 21.25(b)(7). In addition, FAA proposed to amend the duration, eligible purposes, and operating limitations for special airworthiness certificates issued for experimental purposes.

FAA identified proposals to improve both the safety and functionality of light-sport category aircraft and light-sport category kit-built aircraft. FAA proposed to amend aircraft, pilot, maintenance, and operational requirements to increase both the safety and performance of these aircraft while mitigating risk. FAA acknowledged that this is a balancing act-where the risk is increased due to greater capability in one area, mitigations may be required from the other areas.

FAA proposed to establish performance-based requirements for certification of light-sport category aircraft. As a fundamental matter, FAA proposed to restructure how certification requirements for light-sport category aircraft are presented in FAA's regulations. Currently, issuance of special airworthiness certificates under § 21.190 for light-sport category aircraft, sport pilot certificates under part 61 subpart J, and repairman certificates (light-sport) under part 65 are limited by a number of aircraft design limitations included in the definition of light-sport aircraft in § 1.1. FAA proposed to remove that definition and, in its place, write performance-based standards for aircraft and airman certification into

part 21, 61, and 65, where these requirements for other types of aircraft and airman certification reside. This would make FAA's regulatory approach to light-sport category aircraft more consistent with its approach to other types of aircraft.

Another important change in the NPRM was to eliminate the weight limits for light-sport category aircraft. To enable the design and manufacture of light-sport category aircraft that are safe to fly with increased capacity and ability, FAA proposed to apply new design and manufacturing requirements. This would allow growth and innovation within performance-based safety parameters. FAA also proposed to expand aircraft that sport pilots can operate. Under the NPRM, sport pilots could operate airplanes designed with up to four seats, even though they would remain limited to operating with only two occupants. Finally, FAA proposed to change the name of the repairman certificate (light-sport aircraft) to repairman certificate (light-sport). This certificate would apply to existing and new types of aircraft certificated in the light-sport category, such as rotorcraft and powered-lift. Related provisions would update the requirements for maintenance.

FAA also proposed regulations related to noise for light-sport aircraft, expanding applicability of part 36 noise requirements. To provide flexibility and reduce burdens of compliance with these noise requirements, FAA proposed options for compliance: (1) conventional noise testing per part 36, (2) a means of compliance via FAA-approved, industry consensus standards, or (3) using the noise requirements determined by FAA to be appropriate for the aircraft. FAA expects that any consensus standards would not be limited to physical measurements of noise during test flights. They might instead to be based on empirical data, analytical modeling, or generally accepted noise prediction methods if the underlying noise prediction methods are found to be robust.

In addition to maintenance and manufacturing requirements, FAA also proposed to expand the kinds of operations that can be performed by light-sport category aircraft. Specifically, FAA proposed to permit light-sport category aircraft that meet applicable consensus standards to be used in certain aerial work operations.

In addition, FAA proposed amendments to experimental aircraft regulations. FAA proposed new operating purposes for former military and kit-built aircraft and clarified who may apply for the operating purpose for market survey. The proposed regulations also included new operating limitations authorizing flight over densely populated areas and in congested airways for all phases of flight, and new regulations authorizing experimental aircraft to conduct space support vehicle flights. The proposed regulations also would have increased certificate duration and extend applicability of noise requirements to aircraft that do not conform to a type certificate.

FAA further proposed amendments related to restricted category aircraft, including a codification of special operating purposes for restricted category aircraft. FAA also proposed minor changes to right-of-way rules and operations around airports in Class G airspace.

IV. Discussion of Comments and the Final Rule

A. General Overview of Comments

FAA received approximately 1,315 comments in response to the NPRM from a variety of commenters, including aircraft manufacturers and operators, aviation training companies, other aviation companies, trade associations, civil aviation authorities, and individuals. Trade associations commenting on the NPRM included: Aeronautical Repair Station Association (ARSA), Air Line Pilots Association (ALPA), Aircraft Electronics Association (AEA), Aircraft Owner's and Pilot's Association (AOPA), Association for Uncrewed Vehicle Systems International (AUVSI), Aviation Suppliers Association (ASA), Commercial Drone Alliance (CDA), Experimental Aircraft Association (EAA), General Aviation Manufacturers Association (GAMA), Helicopter Association International now known as Vertical Association International (VAI), Light Aircraft Manufacturers Association (LAMA), Manufacturers Flight Test Council (MFTC), National Agricultural Aviation Association (NAAA), National Air Transportation Association (NATA), National Association of Flight Instructors (NAFI), National Business Aviation Association (NBAA), U.S. Paragliding & Hang Gliding Association (USPHA), and United States Ultralight Association (USUA). Manufacturers commenting on the NPRM included: Aerospace Volatus Infrastructure & Energy Solutions, Air Tractor, AIR VEV, AutoGyro, Cirrus Aircraft, Cub Crafters, Desert Aerospace, Doroni, Elanus, Flight Design, Hartzell Propeller, Jump Aero, LEO Flight Corporation, Piper Aircraft, Inc. (Piper), Reliable Robotics Corporation (Reliable Robotics), Skyryse, Sonex, LLC (Sonex), Streamline Designs, LLC (Streamline Designs), Van's Aircraft, and Whisper Aero. Operators commenting on the NPRM included: Aura, Bombardier, Inc. (Bombardier), International Air Response (IAR), Metrea Strategic Mobility (MSM), Textron Aviation (Textron), Virgin Galactic, and Zipline. The only United States government organization commenting on the NPRM was U.S. Naval Air Systems Command (NAVAIR). Civil Aviation Authorities commenting on the NPRM included: National Civil Aviation Agency of Brazil (ANAC), European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA), and Transport Canada Civil Aviation (TCCA).

Group comments included the following: AEA and ARSA (hereafter, AEA/ARSA) as a group; EAA, AOPA, NATA, and NBAA as a group; and LEO Flight Corporation, Doroni, Aerospace Volatus Infrastructure & Energy Solutions as a group called the Future Flight Federation (3F).

Table 1 provides a general summary of commenter support:

Table 1—Summary of Commenter Support

Support

Number of

commenters

Oppose

Support (no changes suggested)

Support (changes suggested)

1,282

Total

1,315

Overall, most commenters expressed general support for FAA's NPRM. Hundreds of individual commenters voiced support for, agreed with, or applauded the NPRM generally or for specific proposals within the NPRM, and many of those individuals advocated for proceeding as quickly as possible with finalizing and implementing a final rule. In addition, many associations, companies, and other non-individual commenters also expressed support for the NPRM generally, even if they had specific recommendations for improvement. For example, EAA, AOPA, NATA, and NBAA's comment “commended” FAA for acknowledging the success of the light-sport category and proposing the MOSAIC rule expansions and they strongly supported FAA committing the resources to move forward and implement the proposed changes. GAMA supported key aspects of the NPRM such as increasing what aircraft sport pilots can fly and which aircraft qualify for light-sport category special airworthiness certificates. VAI

commented positively on including rotorcraft in the light-sport category of aircraft, noting that it will increase the variety of available aircraft and provide economic benefits. Van's Aircraft characterized the MOSAIC NPRM as a “revolutionary change” that was “close to the mark” and a “success” even given that Van's Aircraft had constructive feedback. Hartzell Propeller's comment applauded FAA taking on MOSAIC and broadly supported the expansion of light-sport aircraft and sport pilot capabilities. Sonex commented it was extremely supportive of the NPRM, and it expected positive business impacts, an expanded economic pathway to pilot participation, and the availability of new aircraft with enhanced safety features at a more affordable price compared to type-certified aircraft. Skyryse supported the rulemaking and appreciated FAA's “forward-thinking approach to certification.” AIR VEV also supported the NPRM as allowing advancement and innovation while maintaining safety.

However, most commenters also recommended revisions to the proposed rule that they believed would improve the rule. A small minority of commenters were generally unsupportive of the NPRM. For example, AEA/ARSA strongly asserted that certain aspects of the NPRM concerning light-sport category aircraft were unnecessary and duplicative, stemming from their preference that FAA amend and better utilize the primary category. AEA/ARSA also stated the proposed rule disregards the negative impact on design, certification, and installation of retrofit technologies, as well as the aviation maintenance service industry. ALPA commented the safety record of light-sport category aircraft warrants a “more formalized safety approach” to certifying light-sport category aircraft, certifying airmen, and establishing supporting operating rules and privileges.

The following provides a high-level overview of key issues raised by commenters that are addressed in more detail below.

Aircraft Stalling Speed for Certification of Light-Sport Category Aircraft

FAA received approximately 120 comments on this topic. Most commenters wanted an increased stall speed without lift-enhancing devices (V

) with the largest support for a V

increase to 58 knots calibrated airspeed (CAS), but with a substantial number wanting an even higher increase. A few commenters opposed a stall speed increase. Recommendations to increase V

varied widely and covered topics such as maximum stall speed with flaps (V

), design maneuvering speed (V

), maximum speed in level flight with maximum continuous power (V

), lift-enhancing devices, safety equipment, gross weight, crashworthiness, legacy aircraft, designs, handling, and kinetic energy.

Simplified Flight Controls for Light-Sport Category Aircraft

Several commenters requested clarification that primary flight controls were not available or used on aircraft with simplified flight controls. A few commenters suggested language that would provide pilots access to primary flight controls. Some commenters requested clarification on flight path control, power adjustment, discontinuing or altering flight, and inadvertent activation of safety features. A few commenters recommended that the manner with which the pilot is expected to control the flight path of the simplified flight controls aircraft should not change in the presence of any single likely failure. Two commenters thought the proposed § 22.180 provisions were too prescriptive. TCCA asked for clarification on the use of joy-stick controllers. ALPA did not support simplified flight controls for light-sport category aircraft because it may result in an unquantified risk. One commenter wanted simplified flight controls to be defined.

Size of Rotorcraft and Powered Lift

Several commenters recommended the use of a maximum gross weight in the range of 2,640 to 5,000 lbs, a 6 lb-ft

main rotor disc loading limit, or limiting the number of engines. Another commenter stated market forces will limit powered-lift gross weights.

Aircraft Stalling Speed Limit for Sport Pilot Privileges

FAA received approximately 485 comments on this topic. Most of the public comments recommend increasing the proposed V

CAS stall speed, using V

, or using some other stall speed reference as the stall speed limitation, to permit a greater number of existing certificated airplanes with similar size, weight, and performance to be operated by sport pilots. A majority of the commenters indicated that an aircraft they operate, with higher stall speeds, was as safe or safer than those with lower stall speeds. Some commenters also recommend increasing the maximum stall speed for gliders.

Passenger Limitation for Sport Pilot Privileges

A large number of commenters recommended allowing additional passengers when operating four-seat airplanes.

Medical Requirements for Night Operations by Sport Pilots

A large number of commenters recommended that FAA allow night operations under the current driver's license medical qualification requirement or additional training requirements.

Altitude Limitations for Sport Pilots

A large number of commenters recommended that FAA should permit sport pilots to operate at higher altitudes than currently permitted.

Light-Sport Repairman Training Courses

Approximately 250 comments were received on this topic. Commenters were concerned that aligning training courses with the Mechanic ACS equates to repairman courses increasing in time and cost. Some commenters suggested FAA's proposal would require light-sport repairmen to receive the same training in terms of time and complexity as mechanics. Many commenters recommended creating a system of certificate endorsements, training course modules, or both. Many comments asserted FAA is changing a process for no reason that has been proven to be sufficient.

Light-Sport Repairman Certificate Privileges

Approximately 105 comments were received on this topic. Most comments requested that FAA expand light-sport repairman privileges to allow these repairmen to conduct the annual condition inspection on aircraft issued an experimental airworthiness certificate for the purpose of operating an amateur-built aircraft. Several commenters also requested to expand the certificate privileges to allow these repairmen to work on aircraft issued a standard airworthiness certificate.

Third-Party Repairs and Alterations of Light-Sport Category Aircraft

Some commenters, including AEA/ARSA, stated the proposed rule disregards the negative impact on design, certification, and installation of retrofit technologies, as well as the aviation maintenance service industry. Some commenters requested FAA make greater use of the language “a person acceptable to the Administrator” to allow greater use of third-party alterations and repairs when those

alterations meet applicable standards. Some commenters requested increased opportunities for retrofit products for upgrades and modifications, especially relating to safety-enhancing technologies.

Aircraft Noise

FAA received comments from industry, pilots, owners of light-sport aircraft, and members of the public affected by aircraft noise. Most of these commenters questioned the need for noise requirements, noting that LSA are generally already quiet. Some of these commenters expressed concern that meeting these noise requirements might necessitate redesigns that could negatively impact performance and safety. Many commenters supported using industry consensus standards and self-declaration of noise compliance as methods to reduce costs and avoid delays in certification. Regarding experimental aircraft, industry groups such as GAMA, EAA, and various association members and companies opposed noise requirements for EAB aircraft. Some expressed opposition to noise requirements for any type of experimental aircraft. Industry commenters generally supported the use of industry consensus standards for the noise certification of MOSAIC aircraft but were concerned that developing those standards would require resources and pose technical challenges. A number of individual and community commenters urged increased noise regulation, asserting that aircraft are too noisy.

Operations of Space Support Vehicles

ALPA and Virgin Galactic were both generally supportive of the proposed regulatory language. However, both raised concerns about the development of guidance materials and the agency's internal policies for the issuance of operating limitations.

Airworthiness Certification of Restricted Category Aircraft

International Air Response (IAR), with several other restricted category aircraft operators expressing agreement, stated there was insufficient notice of the changes to the restricted category and such changes should be part of a separate rulemaking effort specifically for the restricted category. IAR asserted this is problematic and since restricted category operators may not be aware of the rule, it could result in adverse effects on businesses.

B. Differences Between the NPRM and the Final Rule

Table 2 summarizes key changes from the NPRM made in this final rule.

Table 2—Summary of Key Changes From NPRM

Proposed action in the NPRM

Adopted by this final rule

Final

regulatory

citation (14 CFR)

Additional

discussion

in section

of preamble

The NPRM proposed to revise the definition of consensus standard

This final rule removes the definition

§ 1.1

IV.G.5.

The NPRM proposed to add a new provision for issuance of an experimental airworthiness certificate to former military aircraft to improve alignment between certain operations of former military aircraft and the experimental airworthiness certificates which authorize their operation

This final rule expands this provision to enable repositioning flights between any public aircraft operation, not just those supporting the U.S. Armed Forces and adds a provision to allow check flights following repairs, alterations, or maintenance

§ 21.191(j)

IV.L.1.c.

The NPRM proposed to increase the light-sport category maximum stall speed for airplanes from 45 to 54 knots CAS V

This final rule increases the light-sport category maximum stall speed to 61 knots CAS V

for an airplane and 45 knots CAS V

for a glider

§ 22.100(a)(3)

IV.F.6.b and c.

The NPRM proposed to apply control and maneuverability requirements to the certification of light-sport category aircraft

This final rule removes the reference to primary flight controls so the provision is also applicable to aircraft designed with simplified flight controls

§ 22.105

IV.F.13.

The NPRM proposed to apply part 36 noise requirements to most light-sport category aircraft

This final rule makes compliance with part 36 voluntary for light-sport category aircraft

§ 36.0

IV.N.

The NPRM proposed to increase the maximum stall speed for airplanes that a sport pilot may operate from 45 to 54 knots CAS V

This final rule increases the maximum stall speed for airplanes that a sport pilot may operate to 59 knots CAS V

§ 61.316(a)(1)

IV.H.1.c.

The NPRM did not propose to amend the limitation listed in § 61.316(b) for aircraft that a sport pilot may operate that the aircraft meet certain limits “since its original certification.”

This final rule adds a provision allowing a sport pilot to operate an aircraft with retractable landing gear or an airplane with a manual controllable pitch propeller regardless of the configuration status of the aircraft when it was originally certificated if the pilot meets the training and endorsement requirements specified in § 61.331

§ 61.316(b)

IV.H.1.j. and IV.H.1.k.

The NPRM discussed the equivalency of a repairman certificate (light-sport aircraft) and a repairman certificate (light-sport) but did not include a related provision in § 65.107. The NPRM discussed the equivalency of previously issued aircraft class privileges with the new aircraft category privileges, but did not include a related provision in § 65.107

This final rule adds a provision in § 65.107(f) consistent with the NPRM discussion, that establishes the equivalency of repairman certificates (light-sport aircraft) with aircraft class privileges issued before the effective date of this final rule to repairman certificates (light-sport) with aircraft category privileges issued under this final rule

§ 65.107(f)

IV.I.2.a.

The NPRM did not propose changes to privileges for a holder of a repairman certificate (light-sport)

The final rule expands privileges for a holder of a repairman certificate (light-sport) to perform an annual condition inspection on § 21.191(g), experimental amateur-built aircraft

§ 65.109

IV.I.10.b.

The NPRM did not propose expansions of operating limitations applicable to restricted category aircraft

The final rule adds exhibition to the list of operations that are considered necessary to accomplish the work activity directly associated with a special purpose operation

§ 91.313(b)(3)

IV.K.3.

C. FAA Safety Continuum

The safety continuum is a concept that FAA has used for years.

It is “[t]he concept that one level of safety is not appropriate for all aviation activities.”

The concept draws statutory support from 49 U.S.C. 44701(d)(B), which requires the Administrator to consider “differences between air transportation and other air commerce” when prescribing regulation.

Per the safety continuum concept, FAA bases the rigor of certification requirements on the potential risk to the public for an aircraft operation. As risk increases with increased operating privileges and aircraft capability, FAA mitigates that risk through more rigorous certification requirements. For example, EAB have not been found to meet FAA or FAA-accepted design or production standards and therefore present a higher level of risk. FAA mitigates that risk for EAB via operating limitations that reduce the risk to the public. Light-sport category aircraft under this rule are subject to a higher rigor in certification requirements and procedures for design, production, and airworthiness than EAB aircraft. Therefore, light-sport category aircraft are higher on the safety continuum than EAB aircraft and can be operated under less restrictive operating limitations than EAB aircraft.

FAA included two fundamental safety arguments to support the proposed rule. The first safety argument was that certain changes would improve the safety of the light-sport category. FAA noted removing the weight restriction on light-sport category aircraft would provide manufacturers opportunities to incorporate additional safety-enhancing designs and equipment; design airframes that are more rugged for the flight-training environment; increase fuel load and aircraft range; allow for greater cabin size to enable greater occupant heights and weights; improve aircraft handling in gusts, turbulence, and crosswinds; and increase the suitability of light-sport category aircraft for other intended operating purposes, including recreation and personal travel. Also, adding performance-based part 22 requirements would increase the rigor and expected safety outcomes of design, production, and airworthiness requirements for the certification of light-sport category aircraft.

Secondly, FAA explained that other amendments to the rules applied to light-sport category aircraft would improve safety more broadly within general aviation (GA) by making light-sport category aircraft a more appealing alternative to experimental aircraft that have higher fatal accident rates. The current fleet of registered EAB aircraft has approximately 26,450 aircraft. EAB aircraft are not subject to any design limits such as aircraft class, weight, number of seats, number or type of engines, stalling speed, or maximum speed. EAB are not subject to design or production standards in 14 CFR or in other FAA-accepted standards. Conversely, under the 2004 final rule, the light-sport category was subject to limits in number of seats, stalling speed, not-to-exceed speed, and cabin pressurization. Fatal accident rate data comparing similar EAB, light-sport, and normal category airplanes reflect accident rates that generally align with the safety continuum concept; that is, accident rates for light-sport category airplanes fall between the accident rates for EAB and normal category airplanes.

FAA views this as validation of the consensus standards and certification requirements used under the original rules. The final rule improves those certification requirements with new design, production, and training requirements for compliance staff. Some expansions enable safety improvements of light-sport category aircraft, primarily via relieving weight limitations. Other expansions increase risk for operations of light-sport category aircraft; that is, enabling four occupants in airplanes exposes the public to more risk than does enabling two occupants, but still less than for EAB aircraft that are not subject to seating or passenger limits. And still other expansions are clearly intended to increase the performance and usefulness of light sport category aircraft, such as enabling more fuel capacity, four seats for airplanes, higher speeds for personal transportation, expanding operating privileges for light-sport category aircraft, and expanding sport pilot privileges. Importantly, these expansions of light-sport category aircraft design, performance, and operation would increase safety more broadly within recreational GA because light-sport category aircraft would become a more appealing choice for those owners who may otherwise be considering purchasing experimental aircraft. Overall, this shift toward light-sport category aircraft would increase the numbers of aircraft that are designed and manufactured more safely than experimental aircraft.

Furthermore, in 2006, FAA published a Roadmap for General Aviation Aging Airplane Programs

that was designed to aid industry in identifying and mitigating risks of aging aircraft. At the time, the roadmap identified the general aviation fleet as having an average age of more than 35 years old. Almost 20 years later, the age of these aircraft is reflected in FAA data that shows their attrition. The availability of non-experimental fixed-wing single-engine airplanes has decreased from 139,519 in 2010 to 126,076 in 2022, a reduction of over 13,400 airplanes.

With fewer new models being produced in the normal category and the ever-increasing average age and attrition of normal category airplanes, pilots naturally will be driven to other alternatives such as light-sport category and EAB airplanes. Up to now, pilots have favored EAB airplanes because their performance resembles that of the normal category. However, this rule should provide a safer alternative of equivalent performing, factory-built light-sport category aircraft that meet airworthiness requirements.

Though expanding the light-sport category to attract new entrants from those aircraft “lower” on the safety continuum was the intent of the proposed rule, such expansions raise the question of what happens when new entrants are from those who may have otherwise chosen aircraft “higher” on the safety continuum. Some commenters argued that such a shift away from normal category aircraft, for example, would reduce overall safety

and counteract the benefit of shifting ownership away from EAB aircraft. The fatal accident rate data discussed in the NPRM for non-commercial, single, piston-engine light-sport and normal category airplanes shows these rates have been very similar since 2018. Also, though fatal accident rates for EAB airplanes have been generally decreasing since 2011, these rates are clearly higher than for the light-sport and normal categories. That is, these relative comparisons of fatal accident rates mitigate concerns with potential shifts of new entrants away from type-certified aircraft and further support the safety arguments for expanding the light-sport category. FAA also notes the ability to purchase new, less expensive EAB aircraft has driven pilots from normal category to EAB aircraft.

A goal of this final rule is to apply the safety continuum to safely expand light-sport category aircraft and light-sport airman rules via safety standards of appropriate rigor that balance flexibility for manufacturers and availability to consumers. Given the proven track record of LSA consensus standards since at least 2011,

FAA believes it can expand the privileges afforded light-sport category aircraft with an increase in safety based on the flexible consensus standard process. By applying new part 22 requirements to and loosening operational restrictions on light-sport category aircraft, FAA safely expands the middle ground on the safety continuum between relatively risky experimental aircraft and relatively expensive normal-category aircraft.

FAA received approximately 16 comments related to FAA's fundamental safety arguments for the NPRM and the safety continuum. Though fundamentally supporting the premise of FAA's proposals for the manufacture, certification, operation, maintenance, and alteration of light-sport aircraft, AEA and ARSA jointly asserted that the proposed rules duplicate the primary category and the arguments for amending design and certification requirements for light-sport aircraft are unnecessary, duplicative, and frivolous rulemaking.

FAA disagrees. Eligibility for certification in the primary and (current or as-amended) light-sport categories are different in terms of acceptable classes of aircraft, weights, propellers, and engines. In addition, airworthiness standards for the primary category are largely taken from the applicable and more rigorous normal category standards, whereas light-sport category aircraft requirements in part 22 are less rigorous. Finally, design and production certification procedures for the primary category, as opposed to the light-sport category, rely on the more rigorous methods of showing and finding compliance to applicable requirements during type and production certifications. FAA does not issue a type or production certificate to a manufacturer of light-sport category aircraft but, instead, relies on a manufacturer's statement of compliance to applicable requirements. FAA, therefore, disagrees that the amended light-sport category duplicates the primary category.

As discussed below, AEA and ARSA commented that prior FAA attempts over the last thirty years to apply the safety continuum, simplify certification procedures, enable new technologies, and improve safety have largely under-delivered for the industry. AEA and ARSA stated another rulemaking is unwarranted. Contrary to this sentiment, the vast majority of comments received on the NPRM were generally in favor of the MOSAIC rulemaking effort, even in cases where there were specific suggestions or recommendations as to particular sections of the proposed rule. FAA notes that all but the newest 14 CFR parts have been amended multiple times. Despite FAA's best efforts to collect data, form arguments, and draft rules, and despite strong contributions from the public in the form of aviation rulemaking committees, recommendations, data, comments submitted to rulemaking dockets, and such, few rules are static. That rules require regular amendment is not a reflection of weaknesses with the rulemaking process but of its strength in continuously adjusting based on experience with prior amendments, changes in the industry, advances in technology, and such.

FAA disagrees with the notion that this rulemaking is frivolous and believes changes to the CFR in this final rule are supported with appropriate rationale. And generally, as AEA and ARSA “acknowledge,” the primary category “predated the wide-spread development of industry-led aviation consensus standards and[,] as such, [it] has not been utilized to its intended purpose.”

Over 200 models of light-sport category aircraft have been manufactured compared with seven primary category aircraft models, even though the primary category has been available to manufacturers for over thirty years.

AEA and ARSA commented that the risk related to an unbound, speed-based aircraft proposal has not been addressed. FAA disagrees with the comment that the light-sport category is “unbound.” The light-sport category is subject to the eligibility requirements of § 22.100 and the design, production, and airworthiness requirements of part 22. FAA considered risk in applying its safety continuum concept. Per the safety continuum concept, FAA compares the level of exposure of the public to risk with the level of rigor in issuance of a certificate. For recreational operations, FAA considered EAB aircraft, light-sport category aircraft, primary category aircraft, and normal category aircraft. Though accident rates for EAB aircraft have been consistently declining for about 10 years, that category remains a concern to FAA because it is not required to meet 14 CFR or FAA-accepted design or production standards. In addition, EAB aircraft are “unbounded” in terms of aircraft design, including aircraft class, weight, number of seats, number and type of engines, stalling and maximum speeds, and 14 CFR airworthiness standards. The proposed rule addressed the risk consideration of all such expansions, including the increase of stall and maximum speeds for light-sport category aircraft. The changes to the rule will increase safety of light-sport category aircraft through the requirements of part 22 and by attracting aviators who would otherwise gravitate toward EAB aircraft.

AEA and ARSA commented that the safety continuum includes three pillars of recreational aircraft categories-light-sport, primary, and normal categories-and proposals to one pillar affect the other pillars. AEA and ARSA commented that proposals must be weighed as to their effect on the entire safety continuum and the Agency, in coordination with industry, must consider all three pillars and develop policy and guidance to support 30 years of Agency promises.

FAA agrees that light-sport category aircraft should be considered in relation to experimental aircraft, primary category aircraft, and normal category aircraft. Though additional policies and guidance for applying the safety continuum to the “three pillars of recreational aviation” may be beneficial, FAA carefully applied safety continuum concepts in consideration of these three pillars in this rulemaking.

GAMA recommended that FAA develop policy, guidance, and training to enable consistent application and full benefits of safety continuum concepts for all general aviation products. GAMA commented that it supports proposed light-sport category size, performance and scope increases. However, GAMA asserted the removal of design limitations would increase design complexity and therefore increase risk.

GAMA did not offer supporting data or a rationale for this assertion, nor did it state why or to what extent raising the aircraft speed or increasing the maximum number of seats from two to four would increase the design complexity to such a degree as to materially increase risks related to design compliance and aircraft conformity.

While increases in complexity and speed generally increase risk, FAA believes the degree of expansion in size, configuration, and performance of light sport category aircraft under this final rule may be implemented with common, well-proven aircraft designs, engines, propellers, systems, equipage, and technology. As such, and as discussed throughout the NPRM and this final rule, the complexity of light-sport category aircraft designs can be increased without an appreciable increase in risk related to aircraft design compliance and conformity. For example, engine manufacturers typically offer a base engine model with small variations from that base design to achieve a range in horsepower to accommodate a range of aircraft weights and speeds. As another example, for retractable landing gear, the light-sport rules have included provisions for the manufacture of amphibious aircraft with retractable landing gear since 2007.

Through September 30, 2024, operator error led to 14 “gear-up” landings on land and 10 “gear-down” events on water with amphibious light-sport category airplanes. Except for those operator errors, retractable landing gear have not been a source of fatal accidents or safety issues related to compliance, conformity, or operations for amphibious, light-sport category airplanes.

Regarding the proposed expansions of operating privileges with light-sport category aircraft: aerial work, night operations, and personal, non-commercial transportation, GAMA also commented on increased risk from expanding operations along with increasing the maximum number of occupants. FAA considered safety and risk in its rationale for each of these expansions. Though GAMA raised general risk concerns with these expansions, GAMA did not address the specific rationale for these proposals, provide specific evidence of risk, or provide any new information or data that would cause FAA to change its determination to finalize these as proposed.

GAMA commented that each area of expansion of light-sport category design limits, performance capabilities, and operating privileges lack sufficient supporting operational safety data and need more consideration and understanding of FAA intended risk mitigations. Though GAMA members did not attain consensus on specific recommendations, GAMA also compiled various, non-consensus recommendations from different members in its comments for FAA to consider as mitigations. As discussed previously, FAA considered each proposal using safety continuum concepts to achieve the appropriate, intended safety outcomes.

GAMA recommended further FAA risk evaluations related to design compliance, production conformance, and the proposed increases in the NPRM, and suggested FAA consider if additional safety requirements are appropriate.

Importantly, FAA notes the comments from GAMA members and from GAMA consider risk only in terms of how risk may change within the light-sport category from the proposed expansions. GAMA did not provide supporting data or rationale to support its assertion that each expansion of the light-sport category would increase risk. FAA also pointed out that, as discussed in the NPRM, FAA considered safety and risk for not only the light-sport category, but for broader ramifications of safety and risk to recreational general aviation stemming from the scope of the light-sport category in terms of design limits, aircraft performance, and operating privileges. GAMA's comments reflect an isolated focus on the light-sport category itself. FAA considered the goals and arguments for decreasing risk and improving safety more broadly within recreational general aviation and the overarching goal of attracting general aviation toward lower risk aircraft than EAB aircraft.

GAMA members suggested the following for potential consideration: first, a two-tiered concept for light-sport category aircraft based on design and production risks; second, FAA could apply risk mitigations via part 22 like the certification levels in part 23; and third, FAA could consider identifying high-risk design features that would be subject to a higher rigor of certification requirements. GAMA did not provide supporting data or rationale to support assertions that each expansion of design limitations would increase risks and necessitate this recommendation. The NPRM addressed risk considerations of all expansions of light-sport category aircraft that could be designed and produced under this rule. Also, part 23 assigns certification levels based on maximum seating configurations: level 1 for 0 to 1 passenger; level 2 for two to six passengers; level 3 for seven to nine passengers; and level 4 for 10 to 19 passengers. With the maximum number of occupants for light-sport category aircraft limited to four for airplanes and two for other classes of aircraft in § 22.100(a), FAA finds that the range in complexity of light-sport category aircraft as signified by maximum seating configuration does not merit establishing multiple certification levels or tiers in part 22. Similarly, part 23 establishes low- and high-speed performance levels below and above 250 knots CAS that impact applicable part 23 airworthiness standards for type certification. Since the maximum speed of light sport category aircraft is limited to 250 knots CAS in § 22.100(a)(4), FAA finds the lower maximum speed of light-sport category aircraft does not merit the two-tiered approach of part 23 concerning maximum airspeed.

USUA commented that light-sport category aircraft fatal accident rates were comparable to type-certificated aircraft, implying that consensus standards are already high level and there may come a point where additional regulation is no longer safety enhancing. FAA notes that much of the additional regulation in this final rule constitutes expansions in eligibility of aircraft that may be certificated in the light sport category, operating privileges, and airman privileges. Rather than adding regulatory burden, such expansions generally give the public more options and privileges. In establishing new design, production, and airworthiness requirements under part 22, FAA was careful to set appropriate requirements for aircraft that fall between experimental aircraft and normal category aircraft on the safety continuum.

One commenter stated the logic of FAA's safety continuum concept is flawed and does not reflect that pilot error, not mechanical failure, is the leading cause of fatal accidents. FAA applies the safety continuum concept not only to rules related to aircraft certification but to rules for pilot, repairman, and operating certifications. Pilots holding an airline transport pilot certificate are subject to more rigorous certification requirements than sport pilots. Setting appropriate pilot certification requirements does not allow FAA to disregard safety improvements to regulations for aircraft certification. To maintain and continuously improve safety, FAA applies the safety continuum concept to not only pilot certifications, but to all safety regulations, including aircraft, repairman, and operating certification requirements.

That commenter also asserted the NPRM lacks statistical data supporting that increased operating privileges and aircraft capability increases risks to the flying public, and the data relied upon by FAA is “skewed.” FAA disagrees. The data sources for flight hour and accident data were posted in the docket with the proposed rule and FAA used simple mathematical division of flight hours by the number of accidents to yield the accident rates cited.

This commenter further suggested that FAA should have used information from the 2020 AOPA Nall Report rather than the 2021 GA Survey because the GA Survey lacks data on the total number of flight hours flown by pilot certificate held. FAA notes that pilots of various levels of experience and grade of certificate may, in some cases, conduct similar operations along the safety continuum. The accident rates posted on the NPRM docket used data from the AOPA Nall Report and FAA GA Survey. However, the resultant accident rates in the NPRM were not intended to examine pilot experience level or the grade of pilot certificate. Instead, those rates are simple calculations of the cumulative number of fatal accidents divided by cumulative flight hours per year for non-commercial, small, fixed-wing, fixed-landing-gear airplanes with reciprocating engines for each of three categories of aircraft. This is a common type of calculation that provides a top-level safety metric by combining all fatal accidents regardless of their root causes or corresponding pilot characteristics. In this case, the resultant accident rate trends generally show decreases from the EAB aircraft to light-sport category and again from the light-sport category to the normal category. Decreases in the EAB fatal accident rate trend reflect collaborative efforts between FAA and industry to adopt numerous voluntary safety improvements in aircraft equipage as well as flight test and operational procedures. Both decreases in fatal accident rate trends correspond with increased rigor in certification requirements and procedures for light-sport and normal category aircraft. These accident rate trend comparisons were helpful in assessing the safety outcomes of the certification requirements for light-sport category aircraft under the 2004 final rule and safety continuum arguments for expanding eligibility limits for this category under the NPRM and this final rule.

A commenter expressed concern about the proposed increased operating privileges for recreational pilots. That commenter asserted that FAA is focused on promoting aviation rather than safety by supporting sport pilots flying larger aircraft and trying to make recreational flying easier.

Recreational operations already occur in multiple categories and types of aircraft, including approximately 30,000 EAB aircraft. FAA disagrees that the NPRM is focused on promoting aviation rather than safety. Rather, the NPRM focused on applying safety continuum concepts to provide safer alternative aircraft for recreational operations. Though the increase of operating privileges or aircraft capability for light-sport category aircraft considered in isolation may increase risk concerning light-sport category operations, those risks are more than offset by providing a safer, appealing alternative to EAB aircraft.

One commenter commented that the NPRM increases the complexity and decreases safety by allowing things like retractable landing gear, variable pitch propellors, multiple engines, and full authority digital electric controls (FADEC). This commenter also commented that the goal of the NPRM seems to be to increase the markets for these aircraft.

FAA disagrees. As described throughout the NPRM and as summarized in this final rule in the light-sport and general aviation safety rationales, the drivers for this rule are improving the safety of the light-sport category and of general aviation more broadly. For example, EAB aircraft may already be built with retractable landing gear, multiple engines, FADECs, variable pitch propellers, and other “complex” systems. This rule seeks to make systems available on light-sport category aircraft that correlate with lower fatal accident rates and meet FAA-accepted design, production, and airworthiness standards. FAA intends for these safety improvements to make these aircraft a more appealing alternative to EAB aircraft. Regardless, FAA notes that part 22 rules do not mandate installation of complex systems such as multiple engines, variable pitch propellers, retractable landing gear, and such. Such configurations and systems have higher initial and recurring costs and, as in the EAB aircraft fleet, will not likely represent the majority of configurations. See section IV.K.1.a. for discussion of aerial work with light-sport category aircraft.

Some individual commenters expressed general opposition to changes to the 2004 final rule. As described in the NPRM, FAA views successes with the light-sport sector as the basis for further amendments to improve safety and to give the public more options and privileges. FAA notes that many of the basic certification requirements and procedures of the original rules are unchanged, such as issuance of a special airworthiness certificate to a light-sport category aircraft based on a manufacturer's statement of compliance and issuance of a sport pilot certificate based on compliance with subpart J of part 61.

One commenter asserted that though the NPRM frequently referred to the safety continuum concept as supporting rationale for its proposals, analytical substance is lacking to support the conclusion that the safety continuum is satisfied. In both the NPRM and the final rule, the safety continuum concept was applied by comparing and analyzing 14 CFR requirements among different types and levels of certification. For aircraft certification, FAA compared requirements among experimental, light-sport category, primary category, and normal category aircraft. For pilot certification, FAA compared training requirements commensurate to the certificate privileges and limitations among sport, recreational, and private pilots. Per the safety continuum concept, the exposure of the public to risk should correspond with the rigor of the related certificate. For an aircraft, exposure of the public concerns passengers aboard the aircraft, proximity to other aircraft, and populations on the ground. For aircraft that allow a higher exposure of the public, those aircraft should be subject to more rigorous certification requirements. That is, the safety continuum primarily focuses on relative comparisons of regulatory requirements for analysis and appropriate alignment of corresponding requirements. That is why FAA included a safety continuum view of the MOSAIC rulemaking

on the NPRM docket. This document shows a high-level, side-by-side comparison of the experimental, light-sport, and type-certificated sectors for recreational aircraft that FAA used to help with considerations for this proposal from a safety continuum perspective and a safety continuum view of related pilot rules, including seating/occupant limitations. See section IV.H.1.a for a discussion of the passenger limitation for sport pilots.

One commenter requested clarification of NPRM statements about amateur-built aircraft being lower on the safety continuum than light-sport category aircraft. FAA ranks categories or groups of operations on the safety continuum based on the level of risk to the public. Greater potential risk to the general public requires greater rigor in

certification standards and procedures. EAB aircraft have not been found to meet FAA or FAA-accepted design or production standards and therefore present a higher level of risk. FAA mitigates that risk for EAB aircraft by requiring those aircraft to meet operating limitations that reduce the risk to the public. Light-sport category aircraft under this rule are subject to a higher rigor in certification requirements and procedures for design, production, and airworthiness than EAB aircraft. Therefore, light sport category aircraft are higher on the aircraft safety continuum than EAB aircraft and can be operated under less restrictive operating limitations than EAB aircraft. Light sport category aircraft that meet the requirements of this rule can safely perform operations such as flight training and operations over densely populated areas. Light sport category aircraft that meet certain requirements under this final rule may also conduct certain aerial work. Though these operations provide more risk to the public, FAA considers that these operations still reach an appropriate level of overall safety because light-sport category aircraft will be subject to higher rigor in certification requirements and procedures for design, production, and airworthiness than EAB aircraft.

One commenter asserted light-sport category airplanes had lower fatal accident rates than type-certificated aircraft in FAA statistics for 2020 and 2021 and the NPRM incorrectly implies that light-sport category aircraft are less safe than certified, general aviation, or non-commercial planes. FAA disagrees that it misrepresented this data in the NPRM. FAA provided this data on the docket; though the commenter is correct that accident rates were lower in 2020 for light-sport category airplanes, the accident rate for light-sport category airplanes was higher than the accident rate for type-certificated airplanes in 2021.

One commenter asserted this rule decreases safety by allowing larger numbers of less qualified pilots to operate larger numbers of less proven planes. FAA disagrees. The 2004 final rule and the proposed rule included safety arguments concerning the certification of light-sport category aircraft and sport pilots. FAA has determined the requirements of the rule allow for sufficient sport pilot qualifications and sufficient certification of light-sport category aircraft to maintain safety.

ANAC comments that proposed expansions in eligibility for certification of light-sport category aircraft would allow similar, small aircraft to be designed as light-sport, primary, normal, or powered-lift category aircraft. ANAC also comments that, despite similarities in aircraft designs among these categories, certification requirements are unnecessarily dissimilar. For example, consensus standards for light-sport category airplanes are different than for normal category airplanes, and consensus standards are not acceptable means of compliance for normal category rotorcraft. Given industry interest in the benefits of type certification for similar, entry-level, small aircraft such as additional operating privileges and broader access to international markets, ANAC asks how FAA intends to improve type certification of such aircraft with lighter, more consistent requirements.

FAA notes the NPRM did not propose amendment of requirements for normal or primary category aircraft or powered lift. All regulations, means of compliance, policies, and procedures applicable to issuance of a type certificate for a normal, primary, or powered lift category aircraft are unchanged by this rulemaking. As mentioned by the commenter, type-certificated aircraft retain some advantages over light-sport category aircraft. For example, normal category aircraft have higher operating privileges such as carriage of people and property for compensation and hire, sightseeing, and international air navigation. Also, as mentioned by the commenter, through type validation procedures, type-certificated aircraft have access to international markets that require type certification. FAA considers all future rulemaking priorities such as further amendments of type certification requirements based on a number of factors, including feedback from industry, the public, and its bilateral partners.

TCCA expressed concern that the expansions of the light-sport category works against incentivizing small airplane manufacturers to pursue type certification and decreases new, small, modern type certified airplanes under amendment 64 of part 23

and equivalent foreign standards. Since amendment 64 of part 23 took effect on August 30, 2017, FAA has issued two type certificates under that part for passenger airplanes with one to four seats.

Given how few two to four seat aircraft have obtained type certificates, FAA believes the opportunity cost of discouraging them is low. This final rule has no impact on design and production of type-certificated airplanes with more than four seats.

FAA notes that manufacturers continue to have freedom to design and produce airplanes with four or less seats in the normal, primary, or light-sport categories in consideration of intended operating privileges, market demands, and international transferability. Because safety must be FAA's top priority, FAA must consider the safety incentives produced by improving the safety of the light-sport category.

D. Separation of Limits for Light-Sport Category Aircraft and Sport Pilots

1. Definition of “Light-Sport Aircraft”

The NPRM proposed removal of the definition of “light-sport aircraft” to enable separation of limits for light-sport category aircraft and sport pilots as discussed in the next section, section IV.D.2. Accordingly, the NPRM proposed moving eligibility requirements for certification of light-sport category aircraft, experimental light-sport category aircraft, sport pilots, and repairmen (light-sport) to the applicable 14 CFR parts. FAA received 8 comments related to this proposal from 5 industry associations and 3 individuals. All comments supported this proposed change.

GAMA, AOPA, EAA, NATA, and NBAA commented in favor of removing the light-sport aircraft definition and incorporating relevant language in part 22. These commenters noted the difficulty in obtaining exemptions from parameters established by a definition.

One commenter recommended renaming the defined term “light-sport aircraft,” to “Sport Pilot Eligible” aircraft. However, the NPRM specifically eliminates this definition in favor of establishing separate and different limits for an aircraft that may be certificated in the light-sport category and for aircraft that may be operated by a sport pilot. Retaining and renaming the title of the definition as recommended by the commenter would confuse and undermine a fundamental proposal in this rule that is discussed in section IV.D.1. Therefore, FAA is not adopting this recommendation.

This final rule adopts the proposal to remove the definition of “light-sport aircraft” and replace it with separate eligibility requirements for certification of light-sport category aircraft, experimental light-sport category aircraft, sport pilots, and repairmen (light-sport) in the applicable 14 CFR parts.

2. Elimination of the Definition of “Light-Sport Aircraft” Enables Separation of Limits for Light-Sport Category Aircraft and Sport Pilots

Eliminating the definition of “Light-sport aircraft” from § 1.1 enables FAA to establish separate limits for new light-sport category aircraft and for sport pilots. Understanding this concept is helpful to understand provisions of this final rule discussed in sections IV.F concerning certification of light-sport category aircraft and in IV.H concerning limits for sport pilots.

Since 2004, the § 1.1 light-sport aircraft definition has defined the design and performance requirements for light-sport aircraft as well as the aircraft design and performance limits for sport pilot certificate privileges. The definition was uniquely structured to not only provide the design and performance criteria of light-sport category aircraft, but it also specified the design and performance criteria for other categories and types of aircraft to determine which aircraft a sport pilot could act as the pilot in command (PIC).

Simply put, this structure allowed EAB aircraft and normal and primary category aircraft to be light-sport aircraft for the purpose of sport pilot privileges if they met the design and performance requirements within the light-sport aircraft definition. The definition also included other requirements such as for the design of gyroplane rotor blade systems, even though gyroplanes are prohibited from being certificated as light-sport category aircraft.

The light-sport aircraft definition included maximum takeoff weights for land and water-based operations and maximum airspeeds for V

, V

, and V

. Other design limitations in the definition specified maximum seating capacity, engine, propeller, and rotor requirements, as well as cabin pressurization and landing gear requirements.

Starting October 22, 2025, new aircraft performance limits and design requirements in § 61.316 of this rule go into effect, which will replace the performance limits and design requirements in the light-sport aircraft definition for which aircraft sport pilots may operate. However, the design and performance requirements in the light-sport aircraft definition will continue to be applied for airworthiness certification of light-sport category aircraft under § 21.190. Then, on July 24, 2026, the light-sport aircraft definition is removed from part 1 and new aircraft design and performance requirements for airworthiness certification in the light-sport category are relocated to § 22.100.

The removal of these requirements from the § 1.1 definition and separation of pilot and aircraft requirements is beneficial for several reasons. Separating aircraft design and performance requirements of light-sport category and sport pilot certification more easily allows regulations to be developed that meet the specific needs of aircraft and pilots. For example, while the NPRM initially proposed the same stall speed for both light-sport category airplanes and sport pilots, for this final rule FAA recognized that the different purposes for these limits could result in different stall speed limits. Based on the comments received and the specific needs of aircraft and pilots, FAA determined different stall speed requirements are appropriate for the final rule. The basis for these different stall speeds is discussed in detail in this final rule in sections IV.F.6.b and IV.H.1.c.

Separate limits allow certification requirements for light-sport category aircraft to be established without regard to a specific grade of pilot certificate as is true for other aircraft categories. Under this rule, light-sport category aircraft are intended for operation by all grades of pilots. That is, sport pilots will no longer be restricted to operation of light-sport aircraft (or light-sport category aircraft under this final rule); part 61 will set forth design and performance limits that correspond to the scope of training and operational limits of sport pilots. Instead, the aircraft design and performance expansions in this final rule allow light-sport category aircraft to achieve greater performance and utility that is equivalent to four-seat normal and primary category aircraft as well as EAB aircraft. The result will make light-sport category aircraft performance more desirable to the other 490,470 certificated pilots (non-student)

with greater training and operational experience. This approach also eliminates complications for obtaining exemptions from regulations that are tied to both aircraft and pilot requirements.

E. Special Airworthiness Certificates for Light-Sport Category Aircraft

1. Application Documentation (§ 21.190(c))

Per § 21.190(c) in this final rule, an applicant for a special airworthiness certificate in the light-sport category must provide FAA with a manufacturer's statement of compliance (SOC) and a pilot's operating handbook (POH). The POH includes operating instructions and limitations, a flight training supplement, a listing of any authorized aerial work operations, and any instructions or limitations necessary to safely conduct towing operations. The POH in this final rule replaces the current § 21.190(b)(1) aircraft operating instructions (AOI) requirement. In addition, an applicant must provide a maintenance and inspection program for the aircraft. Since this final rule makes compliance with part 36 for new light-sport category aircraft voluntary (see section IV.N), this final rule also includes conforming amendments to § 21.190(c). Those conforming amendments eliminate the proposed application requirements to include a statement in the POH regarding compliance with part 36 and submission of evidence that the aircraft has demonstrated compliance with the applicable requirements of part 36 of this chapter.

GAMA recommended that the manufacturer's SOC, POH, and maintenance and inspection program be prescribed in subpart B of part 22. FAA disagrees with prescribing these documents in part 22 because they are already required in § 21.190(c) as part of the special airworthiness certificate application process. The SOC requirements are listed in § 21.190(d) and are the foundation of the light-sport category airworthiness certification process. FAA does not favor adding requirements for the POH and the maintenance and inspection program in part 22 because they are not FAA-approved or accepted documents, unlike the documentation requirements for type certificated aircraft meeting the airworthiness standards of parts 23, 25, 27, or 29. Part 22 also differs from the airworthiness standards for type certificated aircraft in that part 22 covers a wide variety of aircraft classes whereas the parts for type certificated aircraft are specific to airplanes or rotorcraft. This would make adding POH and maintenance program documentation requirements to part 22 difficult because they could not be tailored to meet the specific needs of each class of aircraft.

2. Pilot's Operating Handbook (§ 21.190(c)(2))

Streamline Designs suggested revised language for § 21.190(c)(2)(i) so that the provision reflects industry best practices and addresses normal and emergency procedures. FAA agrees to revise this sentence to capture elements discussed in the NPRM. As such, FAA will remove “recommended” and add “normal” and “emergency” to this requirement.

“Recommended” is being removed because it may result in confusion over the intended outcome of the operating instructions and limitations or appear as limiting. Certain operating instructions and limitations in the manufacturer's POH need to be complied with to prevent death, injury, or damage to the aircraft and should not be thought of as “recommendations.” Examples of these include certain airspeeds such as V

and operating instructions such as warnings, cautions, and emergency procedures. “Normal” and “emergency” have been included in this requirement to provide clarity, reflect the NPRM preamble discussion, and expand the requirement beyond just abnormal procedures. In the NPRM, FAA stated the operating instructions should address normal, abnormal, and emergency operating procedures. Accordingly, the final rule revises § 21.190(c)(2)(i) to read, “Operating instructions and limitations to safely accommodate all environmental conditions and normal, abnormal, and emergency procedures likely to be encountered in the aircraft's intended operations.”

Streamline Designs also commented on § 21.190(c)(2)(ii) stating that “all foreseeable conditions” could be problematic as it is too open-ended. FAA agrees and has changed “all foreseeable conditions” to “all likely conditions.” This change will narrow the scope to flight training conditions that are likely or probable, based on the aircraft and its flight envelope, instead of hypothetical scenarios whose occurrence may be unrealistic, inconsequential, or difficult to predict. Accordingly, § 21.190(c)(2)(ii) has been changed to read, “A flight training supplement to enable safe operation of the aircraft within the intended flight envelope under all likely conditions.”

Jump Aero recommended that the POH include all necessary procedures for pilots to mitigate likely failures. Reliable Robotics similarly suggested the POH include simplified flight control failure conditions and pilot mitigations to improve § 22.180. FAA notes these recommendations are already captured in the final rule text for § 21.190(c)(2)(i) and (ii) that provides POH requirements as part of the application for a special airworthiness certificate for a light-sport category aircraft.

Streamline Designs recommended § 21.190(c)(2)(iii) include the words “if applicable” so aircraft manufacturers would not have to add a section in their POH just to indicate aerial work does not apply. In the final rule aerial work is authorized, per § 91.327, for light-sport category aircraft certificated on or after July 24, 2026 and § 22.195 requires each light-sport category aircraft to be ground and flight tested to ensure the aircraft can safely conduct any aerial work operation designated by the manufacturer. FAA disagrees with this recommendation. Section 21.190(c)(2)(iii) does not require aircraft manufacturers to state aerial work operations that may not be safely conducted so “if applicable” is not necessary. Instead, FAA encourages consensus standards organizations to consider safety implications of omitting mention of aerial work when creating consensus standards for the POH. Omission of aerial work may be confusing to the operator.

Though not proposed in the NPRM, in response to suggestions from commentors, this final rule includes a requirement for the POH to include any instructions or limitations necessary to safely conduct towing operations in § 21.190(c)(iv). FAA proposed to authorize limited towing for compensation or hire in the NPRM, but did not include a requirement for the POH. FAA is correcting that omission here. Towing was added to § 21.190(c)(iv) because § 91.327 authorizes limited towing for compensation or hire and towing can put similar loads on aircraft structures as certain aerial work operations.

FAA has already accepted ASTM consensus standards for light-sport category airplane and weight-shift-control aircraft to include manufacturer-provided instructions and operating limitations for the towing of gliders in the aircraft's POH. For example, paragraph A1.7 in the annex of ASTM Standard F2245, Standard Specification for Design and Performance of a Light Sport Airplane, states that operating limitations applicable to towing operations must be established and included in the POH. Also, ASTM Standard F2746, Standard Specification for Pilot's Operating Handbook (POH) for Light Sport Airplane, requires towing instructions be included in the POH. Since light-sport category aircraft manufacturers of towing-eligible aircraft must currently state compliance to FAA-accepted consensus standards for the POH, the addition of towing in § 21.190(c)(iv) is similar to the existing procedures manufacturers already undertake to provide a comprehensive POH.

3. Maintenance and Inspection Program (§ 21.190(c)(3))

A commenter asked if the maintenance and inspection program in § 21.190(c)(3) was accepted or approved. FAA will not accept or approve light-sport category aircraft maintenance and inspection manuals.

4. Evidence of Compliance With Noise Requirements (§ 21.190(c)(2)(iv) and (c)(4))

The NPRM proposed § 21.190(c)(2)(iv) would have required the aircraft manufacturer to provide a statement that the aircraft has demonstrated compliance with part 36 of this chapter, the tested noise levels of the aircraft, and the following statement: “No determination has been made by FAA that the noise levels of this aircraft are or should be acceptable or unacceptable for operation in any location.” Proposed § 21.190(c)(4) would have required the applicant to provide evidence that the aircraft has demonstrated compliance with the applicable requirements of part 36 of this chapter.

Since this final rule makes compliance with part 36 for new light-sport category aircraft voluntary (see section IV.N), this final rule eliminates the proposed requirements in § 21.190(c)(2)(iv) for an applicant to provide the statements, tested noise levels, and the evidence in § 21.190(c)(4) that the aircraft has demonstrated compliance with the applicable requirements of part 36 of this chapter.

FAA received comments from numerous commenters on the proposal to require compliance with part 36. Streamline Designs suggested proposed § 21.190(c)(2)(iv) be reworded so the POH indicates the noise standard to which the aircraft complies instead of an actual tested noise level. Van's Aircraft stated a concern that proposed § 21.190(c)(2)(iv)'s requirement to include “tested noise levels” in the POH would need to be reviewed if a simplified method in consensus standards is approved. Since this final rule makes compliance with part 36 for new light-sport category aircraft voluntary (see section IV.N), these comments are no longer applicable with the omission of proposed § 21.190(c)(2)(iv).

LAMA recommended the part 36 references in proposed § 21.190(c)(2)(iv) and (c)(4) be replaced with “FAA-accepted consensus standards for noise.” USUA recommended the elimination of § 21.190(c)(2)(iv) and (c)(4) from the final rule. LAMA and USUA's comments are addressed in section IV.N.

5. Manufacturer's Statement of Compliance (§ 21.190(d))

a. Certified and Trained Authorized Representatives

The NPRM proposed that the manufacturer's statement of compliance require a signature by the manufacturer's authorized representative or agent who is certified and trained on the requirements associated with the issuance of a statement of compliance by an organization that certifies and trains quality assurance staff in accordance with a consensus standard that has been accepted by FAA.

Streamline Designs asked FAA to explain the meaning of “agent.” FAA allows agents to submit various FAA documentation on behalf of the owner, such as required for aircraft registration (§ 47.13) or an airworthiness certificate application (§ 21.173). Though FAA does not define “agent,” it is generally someone outside of the owner's corporation or business who the owner has authorized to act on its behalf. FAA has determined that the inclusion of “or agent” in the requirement is redundant since an agent is a type of an authorized representative of the manufacturer. Accordingly, FAA has removed “or agent” from § 21.190(d)(1).

ALPA cited FAA's 2010 Light-Sport Aircraft Manufacturers Assessment (LSAMA) Final Report and recommended FAA provide greater regulatory oversight of manufacturers' statements of compliance substantiating that aircraft met consensus standards. Though this final rule does not specifically address FAA oversight of manufacturers' SOCs, it does establish a regulatory framework to address the consensus standards compliance concerns identified in the LSAMA Final Report. In addition to the trained and certified representative specified above to fulfill the § 21.190(d)(1) requirement, § 22.190 requires the aircraft to have been found compliant with the provisions of the applicable FAA-accepted consensus standards by individuals who have been trained on determining compliance with those consensus standards. These two regulatory requirements will provide better assurance that a manufacturer's staff designs, manufactures, and tests the aircraft to meet the applicable FAA-accepted consensus standards.

FAA oversight of light-sport category aircraft manufacturers and their facilities will be consistent with the safety continuum. Policies and procedures for that oversight, including FAA audits, are included in FAA Order 8130.36, Special Light Sport Aircraft Audit Program, which will be revised to align with changes in this rule. As explained in the NPRM, FAA would expand its oversight to verify successful accomplishment of training by the manufacturer's compliance staff per § 22.190, as well as the training and certification of manufacturer's staff who sign the manufacturer's statements of compliance in § 21.190(d)(1).

b. Manufacturer's Statement Whether an Aircraft is Suitable for Sport Pilots (NRPM proposed § 21.190(d)(3))

The NPRM proposed § 21.190(d)(3), which would have required a statement from the light-sport category aircraft manufacturer as to whether the aircraft met the design and performance requirements specified in proposed § 61.316 for an aircraft that a sport pilot would be permitted to operate. Streamline Designs recommended that this requirement be removed because some light-sport aircraft designs may have features or operation modes that can be toggled on and off and so whether the aircraft meets these requirements may not be a clear yes or no answer.

Because sport pilots may or may not have the necessary endorsements for airplanes designed with controllable pitch propellers or retractable landing gear, FAA agrees there may not be a clear “yes or no” answer to whether certain light-sport category aircraft meet the sport pilot aircraft performance limits and design requirements of § 61.316. However, FAA disagrees that the § 61.316 requirements of light-sport category aircraft operated by a sport pilot could be toggled on or off by means of flipping a switch. For instance, changing the type of installed propeller, the type of gyroplane rotor system, or converting a helicopter with simplified flight controls to one with primary flight controls would be impractical to accomplish with a toggle switch or be prevented by design requirements.

Instead, FAA did not include proposed § 21.190(d)(3) in the final rule because sport pilots can fly aircraft with retractable landing gear or controllable pitch propellers if they have obtained an endorsement through the requirements specified in § 61.331. Accordingly, the manufacturer's statement in proposed § 21.190(d)(3) would not have been practical for them to make since sport pilots may or may not be able to fly aircraft with these features. FAA will instead rely on a sport pilot's knowledge of the aircraft and part 61 requirements to determine whether they can fly a certain light-sport category aircraft. With the omission of proposed § 21.190(d)(3), all subsequent proposed sections in § 21.190(d) have been renumbered accordingly in this final rule.

c. Manufacturer's Statement on Towing and Aerial Work Operations (§ 21.190(d)(3))

The NPRM proposed § 21.190(d)(4), which the final rule renumbers to § 21.190(d)(3), to require light-sport category aircraft manufacturers specify aerial work operations they have determined may be safely conducted with the aircraft and state that the aircraft has been ground and flight tested to ensure that it can be operated to safely conduct those operations in accordance with the instructions and limitations provided by the manufacturer.

The Soaring Society of America and Soaring Safety Foundation commented that it is uncertain whether manufactures will consider glider towing operations as included within aerial work operations. They recommended changes to §§ 21.190, 22.120 and 22.195(d) to clarify glider operations. FAA agrees that § 21.190 and the part 22 sections should be revised to include glider towing operations. Though glider towing is not an aerial work operation per § 91.327(a)(3), it should be included in the applicable requirements of § 21.190 and part 22 since glider and other towing operations puts similar loads on aircraft structures as certain aerial work operations, manufacturers must comply with FAA-accepted consensus standards for their towing-capable aircraft, and manufacturers will have to state compliance to any applicable consensus standards for towing. This topic is further discussed in section IV.K.1.a.iv.b. Accordingly, this final rule adds towing operations to § 21.190(c)(2)(iv) and (d)(3), and §§ 22.110 and 22.195.

The ability for light-sport category aircraft to tow gliders, per § 91.327, has existed since the 2004 final rule. However, because the tow-hitch and installation requirements in § 91.309(a)(2) require Administrator approval, but light-sport category consensus standards for towing have only gained FAA-acceptance, this gap has deterred use of light-sport category aircraft in towing operations. This situation was explained in section IV.H.6 of the NPRM. This final rule resolves this issue with new requirements in § 91.309(a)(2) that allow for Administrator acceptance or approval of a tow-hitch and its installation. This topic is further discussed in section IV.K.1.b.

The annexes in ASTM Standards F2245 and F2317 include FAA-accepted consensus standards for the design and performance of airplanes and weight shift control aircraft that are used to tow gliders. Manufacturers of light-sport category aircraft designed for towing would specify the applicable towing consensus standards on the manufacturer's statement of compliance per § 21.190(d)(5). Since light-sport category aircraft manufacturers must currently state compliance to FAA-accepted consensus standards for their towing-eligible aircraft, the addition of towing to § 21.190(d)(3) is similar to the existing procedures manufacturers already undertake to complete a manufacturer's statement of compliance.

USUA stated the provisions of proposed § 21.190(d)(4) were unnecessary because aircraft under current consensus standards have already sustained greater loads for glider towing and flight training. FAA disagrees with the association's statement that this requirement is unnecessary. The proposed § 21.190(d)(4) requirement holds manufacturers accountable for designing and constructing their aircraft to withstand the loads of, and safely perform, towing and any aerial work operation they authorize in their aircraft's POH. This requirement also makes the manufacturer state they have flight tested their aircraft and found it able to safely conduct the authorized operations. FAA agrees that glider towing and flight training can put the aircraft under stressful loads; however certain aerial work operations, such as dispensing liquids or helicopter sling loads, have their own unique stressors that need to be addressed in the design. Accordingly, the requirements of proposed § 21.190(d)(4) are in this rule to ensure the safety of towing and aerial work operations authorized by the manufacturer. This final rule will retain § 21.190(d)(4) as proposed, except, as previously discussed, it will include towing operations and be renumbered as § 21.190(d)(3).

d. Manufacturer's Statement on Simplified Flight Controls (§ 21.190(d)(4))

The NPRM proposed that the manufacturer state whether the aircraft meets the simplified flight control requirements of § 22.180. FAA did not receive any comments on this section. This final rule will retain § 21.190(d)(5) as proposed, except, as previously discussed, it will be renumbered as § 21.190(d)(4).

e. Manufacturer's Statement on Specified Consensus Standards (§ 21.190(d)(5))

The existing requirement in § 21.190(c)(2) that the statement of compliance specify the consensus standards used by the light-sport category aircraft manufacturer was retained in proposed § 21.190(d)(6). However, this requirement references subpart B of part 22, which contains the applicable design, production, and airworthiness requirements for which the consensus standards would serve as a means of compliance.

EAA, AOPA, NATA, NBAA, and GAMA recommended that FAA allow in the definition of light-sport aircraft for manufacturers to propose safety enhancing, risk mitigating technologies and designs in lieu of satisfying specific regulatory requirements. FAA disagrees with the associations' recommendation. This final rule removes the light-sport aircraft definition in part 1 and instead has eligibility requirements in § 22.100 that specify certain design, performance, and certification requirements of light-sport category aircraft. As explained in the NPRM, FAA has created the requirements in part 22 for FAA-accepted consensus standards to act as a means of compliance to those requirements. For FAA to accept proposals from individual aircraft manufacturers in lieu of meeting the regulatory requirements would be contrary to the reason why FAA has implemented part 22 in this rule. The associations' proposal would add confusion and undermine industry member participation in, and weaken, the consensus standards and process upon which the light-sport category relies upon for safe aircraft.

Streamline Designs commented that the scope of proposed part 22 and the associated consensus standards is not limited to airworthiness and the language should reflect their actual scope. FAA disagrees that every topic covered by a consensus standard needs to be individually addressed in part 22. This rule will continue to use the overarching terms of design, production, and airworthiness. The performance-based requirements proposed in subpart B of part 22 represent the minimum requirements a consensus standard would be required to address to be an acceptable means of compliance for certification of light-sport category aircraft.

FAA is making a correction to proposed § 21.190(d)(6) to require that specified consensus standards must be “accepted or approved” by FAA instead of only allowing for FAA “accepted” consensus standards. This revision is to account for § 36.0(c)(1), which the final rule renumbers to § 36.0(b)(1)(i), requiring an FAA “approved” noise consensus standard rather than an FAA “accepted” one. This final rule will retain § 21.190(d)(6) as proposed, except for this correction and, as previously discussed, it will be renumbered as § 21.190(d)(5).

f. Manufacturer's Statement on Quality Assurance System (§ 21.190(d)(6))

The NPRM proposed that the manufacturer state that the aircraft conforms to the manufacturer's design data using the manufacturer's quality assurance system. FAA did not receive any comments on this section. This final rule will retain § 21.190(d)(7) as proposed, except, as previously discussed, it will be renumbered as § 21.190(d)(6).

g. Manufacturer's Statement on Availability of Documents (§ 21.190(d)(7))

Similar to the existing § 21.190(c)(4), the NPRM proposed § 21.190(d)(8), which would require manufacturers to state that they will make the documents specified in § 21.190(c) available to any interested person. Streamline Designs commented the language is problematic because it does not exclude competitors and others from requesting and freely accessing the information and utilizing it in violation of copyright and intellectual property interests. Streamline Designs recommended the requirement be changed to limit documents available to pertinent safety of flight and continued operational safety requests. FAA disagrees with Streamline Designs' requested change. The documents in § 21.190(c) include the manufacturer's statement of compliance, a POH that includes a flight training supplement, and a maintenance and inspection program. Though these documents are provided to FAA for airworthiness application, they are also provided with the aircraft to the purchaser. These documents should not contain design data beyond what is normally provided in these documents. Manufacturers who alleged violations of copyright and intellectual property interests have due recourse under the law. Since these documents are available to the purchasers when an aircraft is sold, there should be no further restrictions on their dissemination. The availability of these documents to the public is particularly beneficial to prospective purchasers of these aircraft by enhancing their understanding of the aircraft's operation, limitations, and maintenance

and inspection procedures before purchase. This final rule will retain § 21.190(d)(8) as proposed, except, as previously discussed, it will be renumbered as § 21.190(d)(7).

h. Manufacturer's Statement on Continued Operational Safety Program and Safety Directives (§ 21.190(d)(8))

The NPRM proposed in § 21.190(d)(9) that the aircraft manufacturer must state that it will support the aircraft by implementing and maintaining a documented continued operational safety program that addresses monitoring and resolving in-service safety of flight issues, includes provisions for the issuance of safety directives, includes a process for notifying FAA and all owners of all safety of flight issues, and includes a process for advance notice to FAA and all owners of a continued operational safety program discontinuance or provider change. The NPRM also proposed in § 21.190(d)(10) that the manufacturer must state it will monitor and correct safety-of-flight issues through the issuance of safety directives and a continued operational safety program that meets the specified consensus standard.

EASA asked for clarity on why proposed § 21.190(d)(9) requires the manufacturer to state it will issue safety directives but in § 91.327 removes the existing requirement for an owner or operator to comply with safety directives. In response, FAA emphasizes that safety directives are an important means for maintaining the safety of a light-sport category aircraft. The aircraft manufacturer issues safety directives to notify owners and future owners of any safety-critical information for their aircraft model. FAA has previously accepted ASTM Standard F3198, Standard Specification for Light-Sport Aircraft Manufacturer's Continued Operational Safety Program, which states that safety directives are issued when a condition is found to exist or could exist in the manufacturer's fleet that may cause an unsafe condition for flight. The removal of the requirement in § 91.327 for owners and operators to comply with safety directives is discussed in section IV.J.1.

The NPRM asked for public comments on whether manufacturers who are discontinuing manufacturing operations should be required to send design information of affected aircraft to FAA prior to discontinuing their continued operational safety program. This action could facilitate FAA's issuance of airworthiness directives if an unsafe condition is discovered after a manufacturer discontinues its operations. GAMA commented that the policy for light-sport category aircraft for the transfer of such data should be similar to the policy applicable to type certificated products. GAMA also requested that FAA keep abandoned design information it takes ownership of confidential unless needed to correct an unsafe airworthiness condition.

FAA has decided against requiring aircraft manufacturers that discontinue operations to provide their design data to FAA. FAA declines to institute this requirement because of challenges with property rights, difficulty reviewing large volumes of data in different formats, and providing proper storage and retrieval services for the data. In addition, FAA lacks sufficient staff, facilities, and equipment to assume such responsibilities for light-sport category aircraft. FAA encourages aircraft manufacturers to maintain responsibility for their continued operational safety system even if they stopped manufacturing that model of aircraft. FAA also encourages aircraft manufacturers to find a suitable manufacturer or other person that could assume continued operational safety responsibility.

EASA asked if FAA would act as a state of design for non-U.S. manufacturers that discontinue production of aircraft or go out of business. Though a manufacturer discontinuing operations may provide FAA with affected aircraft design data, FAA would not act as a state of design.

EASA also asked about the implications on current bilateral aviation safety agreements of FAA's proposal to remove the requirement for owners and operators of light-sport category aircraft to comply with manufacturer safety directives. The NPRM section IV.H.1 discussed the removal of the requirement to comply with safety directives. The agreements between the United States and individual European countries and with the European Union have no light-sport specific provision or terminology. For example, none of these agreements mention “manufacturer safety directives,” a term created for the light-sport rule of 2004. These agreements equate mandatory continuing airworthiness action with issuance of an airworthiness directive. Since § 91.327 provisions for mandatory compliance with airworthiness directives for light-sport category aircraft are unchanged by this final rule, and since these agreements do not use the term, “manufacturer safety directive,” this final rule does not impact aviation safety agreements between the United States, the European Union, and any individual European countries.

Streamline Designs stated NPRM proposed § 21.190(d)(9) and (d)(10) overlap and should be merged and simplified. FAA disagrees. To contrast the two in simple terms, proposed (d)(9) requires a manufacturer's statement of a documented continued operational safety program, including provisions for issuing safety directives and proposed (d)(10) requires a manufacturer's statement they will issue safety directives (if necessary) and have a continued operational safety program. Accordingly, because the two requirements are for separate actions by the manufacturer, they will remain as separate requirements.

This final rule will retain § 21.190(d)(9) as proposed, except, as previously discussed, it will be renumbered as § 21.190(d)(8).

i. Manufacturer's Statement on Monitoring and Correcting Safety-of-Flight Issues (§ 21.190(d)(9))

The NPRM proposed § 21.190(d)(10), which would require the manufacturer's statement of compliance to include a statement that it will monitor and correct safety-of-flight issues through the issuance of safety directives and a continued operational safety program. This final rule will retain § 21.190(d)(10) as proposed, except, as previously discussed, it will be renumbered as § 21.190(d)(9).

j. Manufacturer's Statement on Access to Facilities and Data (§ 21.190(d)(10))

The NPRM proposed § 21.190(d)(11) would require the manufacturer to state that, at the request of FAA, the manufacturer will provide unrestricted access to its facilities and to all data necessary to determine compliance with this section or other applicable requirements of this chapter.

Streamline Designs recommended revising this provision to limit such access only to “FAA personnel” and only to the manufacturer's facilities. Streamline Designs contended that manufacturers should only be required to grant unrestricted access to FAA personnel or personnel it directly contracts with rather than anyone FAA desires. FAA disagrees with Streamline Designs' requested change since the requirement is for the determination of compliance with this section or other applicable requirements of this chapter. For manufacturers with facilities in the United States, FAA would only request that FAA employees or its contractors be allowed to have access to facilities and data to facilitate FAA making a determination of compliance. However,

for manufacturers with facilities outside the U.S., FAA would coordinate with the country's civil aviation authority (CAA) and may request its assistance. In this circumstance, a country's CAA may make or assist FAA with the compliance determination.

In addition, FAA disagrees with Streamline Designs because of the omitted requirement for access to data. Access to a facility alone would not result in a compliance determination if the manufacturer did not also allow access to necessary data. The data would show the material and design properties and production methods necessary to determine compliance. The manufacturer's cooperation, including allowing FAA access to data, would also be necessary for the issuance of an airworthiness directive.

This final rule will retain § 21.190(d)(11) as proposed, except, as previously discussed, it will be renumbered as § 21.190(d)(10).

k. Manufacturer's Statement on Quality Assurance Systems (§ 21.190(d)(11))

The NPRM proposed § 21.190(d)(12) required the manufacturer to state it has established and maintains a quality assurance system that meets the requirements of § 22.185 of this chapter. EASA commented that proposed § 21.190(d) and proposed §§ 22.185 and 22.190 contain some overlap of quality assurance system and training requirements. While EASA offered no change or suggestion beyond this observation, FAA agrees that the training requirements in proposed §§ 21.190(d)(1) and 22.190 and the quality assurance system requirements in proposed §§ 21.190(d)(12) and 22.185 are complimentary. For a quality assurance system to be successful, the design, production, and airworthiness staff members must be trained on determining compliance with applicable FAA-accepted consensus standards. As previously explained, the training requirements were implemented in this rule based on the findings in the LSAMA Final Report. This final rule will retain § 21.190(d)(12) as proposed, except, as previously discussed, it will be renumbered as § 21.190(d)(11).

6. Amended Statement of Compliance for Aerial Work (§ 21.190(e))

The NPRM proposed that an amended statement of compliance would permit aerial work operations, as designated by the manufacturer, for light-sport category aircraft certificated prior to the effective date of § 21.190 in this rule. These aircraft were originally certificated without a provision to conduct aerial work.

A commenter stated all existing light-sport category aircraft should be grandfathered to allow aerial work because it will create an undue time and financial burden on owners and manufacturers, and in some cases be impossible because the aircraft manufacturer has gone out of business. USUA similarly disagreed with this requirement because of the burden on owners and manufacturers. Despite acknowledging in the NPRM that obtaining an amended statement of compliance may be “cost prohibitive,” FAA generally disagrees with the commenters. Aircraft manufacturers of light-sport category aircraft certificated prior to July 24, 2026 have not assessed the design and structural integrity of the owner's aircraft or provided corresponding instructions and limitations in the aircraft's operating instructions or POH and maintenance manual necessary to safely conduct aerial work operations. Without this assessment and information from the original manufacturer, aerial work operations may exceed the safe design loads of aircraft structures.

In completing the amended statement of compliance, the original aircraft manufacturer must reference and reaffirm the statements made in the original statement of compliance and provide a statement that the design and construction of the aircraft provides sufficient structural integrity to enable safe operation of the aircraft during the performance of the specified aerial work operations. In addition, the NPRM proposed that the manufacturer must state that the aircraft is able to withstand any foreseeable flight and ground loads. Consistent with the change of “foreseeable” to “likely” in § 21.190(c)(2)(ii), this final rule has changed “foreseeable” to “likely” in this provision to narrow the scope of conditions that are likely instead of hypothetical scenarios whose occurrence may be unrealistic or inconsequential.

The aircraft manufacturer must specify FAA-accepted consensus standards used to make the determinations of the aircraft having sufficient structural integrity and the ability to withstand any flight and ground loads associated with aerial work operations listed in the POH. For example, the specified consensus standards may be comprised of those for structural integrity and aerial work operations. In addition, the aircraft manufacturer must revise the aircraft's operating instructions or POH to indicate those aerial work operations that may be safely conducted and revise the aircraft's maintenance and inspection program and flight training supplement with necessary instructions in compliance with applicable FAA-accepted consensus standards for these documents.

The final rule will make a correction to the phrase “required by paragraph (a) of this section” by replacing proposed “(a)” with “(e)(4)” so that the manufacturer must specify FAA-accepted consensus standards used to make the determination that the design and construction of the aircraft provides sufficient structural integrity to enable safe operation of the aircraft during the performance of the specified aerial work operations and that the aircraft is able to withstand any likely flight and ground loads. Paragraph (a) was an incorrect reference since it is about the purpose of § 21.190, which is for the issuance of special airworthiness certificates that meet the requirements of the section.

F. Design, Production, and Airworthiness Requirements for Non-Type Certificated Aircraft

1. Naming of Part 22

Van's Aircraft recommended revising the name of part 22 to eliminate the words “Design, Production and,” noting that § 21.190 and parts 23, 25, and 27 do not use these words. FAA disagrees with Van's Aircraft's recommendation because the terms “design” and “production” accurately describe some of the requirements within part 22. FAA created the part 22 name, “Design, Production, and Airworthiness Requirements for Non-Type Certificated Aircraft,” to avoid confusion with the term “standards.” While parts 23, 25, 27, 29, 31, 33, and 35 use the term “airworthiness standards” in their titles, FAA was reluctant to follow this pattern with part 22 because subpart B contains requirements for which consensus standards would act as the means of compliance. To avoid confusion and ensure the proper hierarchy of airworthiness and consensus standards, FAA used a different naming scheme for part 22. Thus, part 22 uses the term “requirements” instead of “standards.” Also, the term “airworthiness” is used several times § 21.190 when referring to special airworthiness certificates for the light-sport category. Contrary to Van's Aircraft's comment, § 21.190(d)(5) includes the phrase “design, production, and airworthiness” when referring to the requirements of subpart B of part 22.

EASA also commented that the use of part 22 in this rule may create confusion since EASA has used this identification number for CS-22, Certification

Specifications, Acceptable Means of Compliance and Guidance Material for Sailplanes and Powered Sailplanes. Similarly, AEA/ARSA objected to the creation of part 22 as written. They stated limiting part 22 to only non-type certificated aircraft will create unnecessary confusion throughout the global aviation industry. Instead, they stated it should cover all aircraft, including sailplanes and primary category aircraft, not addressed by existing certification standards.

While FAA supports global regulatory harmony with other civil aviation authorities, the decision to create part 22 for the design, production, and airworthiness of non-type certificated aircraft was based on several factors. First, FAA does not believe it would be appropriate to include the performance-based design, production, and airworthiness requirements in part 21 as that part is largely limited to prescribing certification procedures, not certification requirements. Second, FAA did not want to embed certification requirements for non-type certificated aircraft between 14 CFR parts dedicated to type certificated products or articles. Thus, creating part 22 for this rule was a logical destination based on existing 14 CFR structure where more rigorous airworthiness standards began with part 23 and continue higher. Finally, instead of designating a specific 14 CFR part to gliders, since 1987 FAA has designated type-certificated gliders as a special class of aircraft in § 21.17. FAA has used the applicable airworthiness requirements contained in parts 23, 25, 27, 29, 31, 33, and 35 found by FAA to be appropriate for the aircraft and applicable to a specific type design, or such airworthiness criteria as FAA may find provide an equivalent level of safety to those parts. FAA has also accepted requirements in EASA's CS-22 for the type certification of gliders.

2. Applicability (§ 22.1)

FAA made a correction to § 22.1(a) and removed proposed “applying for an airworthiness certificate” since it is redundant with “for the issue of special airworthiness certificates.” The removal of “applying for an airworthiness certificate” does not affect or change the meaning of § 22.1(a). This section will now read, “Except as provided in (c), this part prescribes design, production, and airworthiness requirements for the issue of special airworthiness certificates, and changes to those certificates, for non-type certificated aircraft.”

The NPRM proposed in § 22.1(c) that part 22 did not apply to aircraft issued an experimental airworthiness certificate, aircraft operating under a special flight permit, or unmanned aircraft. AEA/ARSA asked about the applicability of part 22 design and performance standards to special-light-sport and experimental-light-sport aircraft. Upon further consideration, FAA realizes that an exception should have been added to § 22.1(c) for light-sport category kit-built aircraft. When these kit aircraft receive their experimental airworthiness certificate, they had been designed and produced to meet applicable part 22 requirements just like the certificated light-sport category aircraft their design is based on. Kit aircraft certificated for the experimental purpose of operating light-sport category kit-built aircraft, § 21.191(k), are subject to applicable part 22 requirements for the design and production of the aircraft on and after July 24, 2026 and the final rule includes a correction to address this situation. Accordingly, in this final rule § 22.1(c) will read, “This part does not apply to: (i) aircraft issued an experimental airworthiness certificate, except for light-sport category kit-built aircraft; (ii) aircraft operating under a special flight permit; or (iii) unmanned aircraft.” The correction does not impact or change the airworthiness certification requirements of light-sport category kit-built aircraft in §§ 21.191 and 21.193 in this final rule. Special-light sport aircraft is a colloquial term for light-sport category aircraft certificated under § 21.190. As indicated in the title of part 22, this part applies to light-sport category aircraft.

A manufacturer's statement of compliance accompanies each light-sport category kit-built aircraft and identifies the manufacturer's compliance with applicable FAA-accepted consensus standards. Certain FAA-accepted consensus standards, such as those for production acceptance as required by § 22.195, will not be included on the SOC since the manufacturer did not assemble or test fly the kit aircraft. Because the kits are built by amateur-builders or with the help of builder-assist companies, the kits must be certificated for the experimental purpose.

FAA did not include experimental aircraft certificated for the § 21.191(l) purpose of operating former light-sport category aircraft in the § 22.1(c) exception because these aircraft could have been altered from their former light-sport category configuration prior to being issued the § 21.191(l) experimental airworthiness certificate. For instance, the alteration could have occurred while the aircraft was operating under an experimental airworthiness certificate for the purpose of research and development or exhibition. The modification would likely cause the aircraft design to no longer comply with FAA-accepted consensus standards in effect when the aircraft was originally certificated in the light-sport category.

AEA/ARSA also asked whether part 22 would apply to non-type certificated unmanned aircraft. The NPRM stated part 22 would not be applicable to unmanned aircraft as the proposed requirements would not be appropriate to address the design of an aircraft that could be remotely operated. In this final rule, part 22 does not include any proposed requirements for telemetry, remote control stations, or other launch or recovery equipment unique to unmanned aircraft. The NPRM noted the requirements for non-type certificated unmanned aircraft could be proposed at a later date.

A commenter recommended that new performance-based aerial work and noise requirements only apply to higher performance aircraft with a V

above 45 knots. FAA disagrees with the commenter since light-sport category airplanes and gliders are the only aircraft classes with a stall speed limit more than 45 knots CAS V

. Rotorcraft and powered-lift are also high-performance aircraft, but they do not have a stall speed limit. In this final rule, all light-sport category aircraft classes must meet the part 22 requirements, as applicable. As explained in the NPRM, the proposed expansion of the classes of aircraft eligible for certification under the proposal and the increase in the size and performance of these aircraft requires the adoption and use of more detailed performance-based requirements. Regarding aerial work being only applicable to aircraft with a V

greater than 45 knots, the commenter's position is overly restrictive as light-sport category aircraft classes other than airplanes and gliders can also do commercial operations. These other classes include rotorcraft (helicopters and gyroplanes), powered-lift, and lighter-than-air aircraft (airships and balloons). The commenter's statement regarding noise no longer applies since this final rule makes compliance with part 36 voluntary for new light-sport category aircraft (see section IV.N).

This final rule adopts § 22.1 as proposed, except for the correction and § 22.1(c) changes discussed above.

3. Eligibility (§ 22.100)

EASA and GAMA commented that it is unclear if the subpart A requirements

would also apply to aircraft manufactured outside the United States. FAA agrees and has made a few corrections to § 22.100(a) and (b) to provide clarity that all aircraft, whether manufactured inside or outside the United States, are subject to the applicability requirements in subpart A and the eligibility requirements in subpart B of part 22. The proposed title of § 22.100(a), which stated, “Aircraft manufactured in the United States,” has been removed. FAA realized that this title was misleading since it would have made it seem like aircraft manufactured outside the United States were excluded from being subject to § 22.100(a) eligibility requirements. In § 22.100(b), the proposed title “Aircraft manufactured outside the United States” has also been removed. Since the first sentence of § 22.100(b) begins with “For aircraft manufactured outside the United States,” the title was unnecessary. The proposed language in § 22.100(b) that stated, “to be eligible for a special airworthiness certificate in the light-sport category under § 21.190 of this chapter” was also removed since it repeats what is stated at the beginning of § 22.100(a), making the language redundant. Finally, “also” was added to § 22.100(b) to make it clear that an applicant of an aircraft manufactured outside the United States must also provide FAA with evidence it meets the requirements of § 22.100(b) in addition to meeting the requirements of § 22.100(a).

In addition, FAA removed proposed § 22.100(b)(1) from this rule since it only required aircraft manufactured outside the United States to meet the requirements of subpart B of part 22. Deleting this proposal clarifies that aircraft manufactured outside the United States are subject to both subparts A and B of part 22. This final rule renumbers NPRM proposed § 22.100(b)(2) and (3) as (1) and (2), respectively.

Another commenter stated light-sport category aircraft should continue to be designed for sport pilots and should not increase the complexity of current light-sport aircraft. FAA disagrees. Section III.1 of the 2004 final rule acknowledged that time and experience will determine whether the rules require modification. Prior to initiating this rule, FAA consulted with industry members and listened to their recommendations for change. Based on this feedback and supporting accident data in FAA's annual Continued Operational Safety Report

for light-sport category aircraft, FAA determined that changes to the design and performance of light-sport category aircraft were warranted. The separation of light-sport category aircraft design and performance limits in part 22 from those tailored for sport pilots in part 61 aligns with the regulatory structure of every aircraft category. This structure allows regulations to be developed that meet the specific needs of aircraft and pilots. Furthermore, given the sport pilot training framework, sport pilots should not be solely dependent upon operating light-sport category aircraft but instead may operate any aircraft, regardless of the airworthiness certificate issued, as long as the aircraft meets the design and performance limitations authorized for sport pilots.

EASA asked if an aircraft with some initial characteristics outside this proposal could be certificated in the light-sport category after a modification to its propeller, stall speed, or other characteristics like mass. The answer would depend on the modifications and whether a standard, primary, restricted, limited, or provisional airworthiness certificate, or an equivalent airworthiness certificate issued by a foreign civil aviation authority had ever been issued for that aircraft. Mass or gross weight is not an eligibility criterion for light-sport category aircraft certificated on or after July 24, 2026. If an aircraft had previously been issued one of the aforementioned airworthiness certificates, then the aircraft would not be eligible for airworthiness certification in the light-sport category. If the aircraft was newly produced, had never previously been issued one of the listed airworthiness certificates, met the requirements of subpart B of part 22, as applicable, and the applicant could provide the certification requirements specified in § 21.190(c) of this rule, then the aircraft could be issued an airworthiness certificate in the light-sport category. Note that subpart B requires that the aircraft must have met the design, production, and airworthiness requirements specified in subpart B using a means of compliance consisting of consensus standards accepted by FAA. Thus, if the aircraft was designed or manufactured prior to FAA acceptance of consensus standards that act as a means of compliance to part 22 requirements, then the aircraft manufacturer would have to be able and willing to sign a statement of compliance that the aircraft complies with the applicable FAA-accepted consensus standards for a light-sport category aircraft.

a. Eligibility—Class of Aircraft

FAA proposed in the NPRM to allow any class of aircraft to be eligible for certification in the light-sport category under § 21.190, provided the aircraft meets the eligibility criteria in §§ 21.190 and 22.100 and the proposed performance-based requirements in part 22 using an FAA-accepted consensus standard as a means of compliance.

All comments FAA received on this proposal generally supported expansion of the light-sport category to other classes of aircraft. Upwards Aero supported the proposal and moving toward performance-based requirements for light-sport category aircraft. Safari Helicopter commented favorably that the ability to certificate helicopters as light-sport category aircraft provides potential pilots confidence that their helicopter is built to FAA-approved safety standards. VAI commented about the positive impact of including rotorcraft in the light-sport category. The Gyrocopter Flight Training Academy commented that it was long overdue to include gyroplanes in the light-sport aircraft category.

The response from EAA, AOPA, NATA, and NBAA asserted that the exclusion of gyroplanes from the 2004 final rule was unfortunate, that gyroplanes have continued to be excluded from rulemaking for too long, and recommended broad regulations that relied upon FAA-accepted standards developed by standards organizations. GAMA agreed with removing exclusions based on class from the rule to enable future growth of the light-sport category and new innovations.

Whisper Aero commented supportively that original equipment manufacturers will be on an equal playing field in new aircraft development and that certification consistency will allow for components that are standardized, produced at greater volumes, more affordable, and higher quality.

On or after July 24, 2026, this final rule allows any class of aircraft to be eligible for certification in the light-sport category, provided the aircraft meets the performance-based requirements of part 22 and the eligibility criteria in §§ 21.190 and 22.100. FAA encourages industry to develop acceptable and appropriate consensus standards to comply with the performance-based requirements in part 22 for all classes of aircraft.

b. Eligibility—Removal of Weight Limitations

Until July 24, 2026, light-sport category aircraft will continue to be certificated based on a maximum takeoff weight in § 1.1 of not more than 1,320 pounds (600 kilograms) for aircraft not intended for operation on water or 1,430

pounds (650 kilograms) for an aircraft intended for operation on water. Though this rule does not contain weight limits for light-sport category aircraft certificated on or after July 24, 2026, light-sport category aircraft certificated prior to July 24, 2026 will continue to be subject to these weight limits under § 21.181(a)(3)(iv)(A).

In the NPRM, FAA proposed to remove maximum takeoff weight restrictions for light-sport category aircraft citing many benefits such as enabling manufacturers to include more safety-enhancing designs and equipment. Instead of a maximum takeoff weight restriction, FAA proposed a stall speed for light-sport category airplanes, gliders, and weight-shift-control aircraft and determined that maximum seating capacity and limited aerial work operations would also help to reasonably constrain size and weight.

ANAC disagreed with the removal of the weight limit and recommended FAA retain the maximum takeoff limit of up to 1,320 pounds for gliders and weight-shift-control aircraft. ANAC also questioned whether allowing heavier gliders and weight-shift-control aircraft would adversely affect safety. FAA disagrees that allowing heavier aircraft weight alone decreases safety. Though glider and weight-shift-control designs generally try to minimize weight, if the design of a glider or weight-shift-control aircraft accounts for the aircraft weight by providing the necessary aerodynamic performance and structural support, safety should not be adversely affected. FAA analyzed weight-shift-control aircraft accident data dating back to 2004 from the National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) and noted none of the occurrence categories were attributed to a weight-related reason. For light-sport category gliders, there have been two fatal accidents since 2004, which occurred during the initial climb and post-impact flight phases.

Otherwise, FAA received overwhelming support in the public comments for removal of the maximum takeoff weight restriction. The largest number of commenters on this topic stated the removal of the weight restriction would benefit aircraft designs, handling, and the inclusion of safety equipment. For example, GAMA stated existing light-sport category aircraft weight restrictions inhibit the ability to include many design and safety features and make more robust airplanes. Van's Aircraft also noted the positive effect of eliminating weight restrictions on the ability to develop electric aircraft due to the weight of batteries.

Many commenters stated the weight restriction resulted in handling challenges during airplane landings with gusty winds due to light wing loading. For example, one commenter wrote that eliminating weight limits allows for higher wing loadings and therefore easier to fly aircraft. The comments from GAMA, EAA, AOPA, NATA, NBAA, and the Gyrocopter Flight Academy noted handling or flying challenges caused by light wing loading resulting from the current light-sport category weight restriction. Safari Helicopter noted safety, stronger airframe, and turbulence and wind resistance benefits of higher weight limits.

A few commenters told of unsafe situations they had witnessed due to the existing maximum takeoff weight restriction on light-sport category aircraft. The Gyrocopter Flight Training Academy alleged the potential for manufacturers to cut corners, citing several examples it had witnessed, which could in turn reduce aircraft structural integrity. Another commenter alleged rampant, irresponsible flying of light-sport category aircraft at well above gross weight as a potential safety danger and asserted that eliminating weight limits will hopefully address this issue by allowing aircraft to be built more robustly and with more useful loads.

These allegations are very concerning to FAA. For light-sport category aircraft certificated prior to July 24, 2026, non-compliance with a light-sport aircraft definition requirement would disqualify an aircraft from being certificated in the light-sport category unless an exemption was obtained. “Cutting corners” on manufacturing materials or processes to save weight would potentially endanger safety, likely be a violation of the manufacturer's statement of compliance, and resultingly invalidate airworthiness certification of the aircraft in the light-sport category. Per the recent FAA Prohibition on Falsification final rule, a fraudulent or intentionally false statement, an incorrect statement or omission of fact, or other fraudulent activities involving certain documents, such as a manufacturer's statement of compliance, would serve as the basis for FAA to take certificate action that could include denying, suspending, revoking, or other appropriate action. Manufacturers of part 22 compliant light-sport category aircraft will not be subject to a weight limit, which should alleviate future concerns as those raised by the commenters.

Other commenters favored removal of the maximum takeoff weight restriction for a variety of reasons. These commenters identified benefits to pilot or flight training, building stronger, safer, or more rugged aircraft, enabling the carriage of more cargo, passengers, or fuel, and increasing safety margins.

Several commenters cited occupant weight as a reason why the maximum takeoff weight limit should be removed. One commenter stated an increased weight allowance is more realistic and will improve safety given heavier individuals, luggage, and a desire for extra fuel for wind or weather purposes. Another commenter noted challenges in accommodating themselves, fuel, and a designated pilot examiner given weight limits. EASA, AOPA, NATA, NBAA, and GAMA commented that the weight restriction has caused numerous unintended consequences including concerns about minimal useful load and resulting pilot and passenger size limitations. Finally, another commenter favored weight limits that would allow two full sized adults.

Many commenters cited that the removal of a weight restriction in this rule would allow many popular recreational and training airplane models to be certificated in the light-sport category. One commenter stated that the new proposal would better enable sport pilots to get a biennial flight review. As discussed in greater detail in the stall speed section (§ 22.100(a)(3)), this rule would continue to restrict aircraft that have been previously certificated in the normal or primary categories from being issued an airworthiness certificate in the light-sport category. Owners of kit aircraft holding an experimental airworthiness certificate for the purpose of operating an amateur-built aircraft also would not be able to subsequently have their aircraft certificated in the light-sport category. However, manufacturers of normal or primary category aircraft, or aircraft models commonly sold as kits, could certificate new aircraft in the light-sport category if those aircraft or kits were built by the manufacturer and meet the requirements of § 21.190 and the light-sport aircraft definition or part 22, as applicable.

Many commenters acknowledged that the current weight restriction is not ideal due to the light wing loading, safety equipment sacrifices made by manufacturers, and reduced fuel carried by operators to operate under maximum takeoff weight. Despite these considerations, FAA agrees with a commenter who stated current light-sport category aircraft designs are fine when flying within their design envelopes and have not been shown to

be deficient or easily fail under current loads.

FAA received several recommendations for establishing a maximum takeoff weight limit for light-sport category airplanes, mostly from commenters that preferred a weight limit rather than a stall speed limit. These recommendations ranged from a high of 6,000 pounds, based on previously applicable BasicMed operations, to a low of 1,080 pounds, proposed by AEA/ARSA as aligning with the empty weight of a Cessna model 152, with the majority of the commenters favoring 3,000 pounds as the maximum takeoff weight limit for this rule.

Though the NPRM clearly stated that a maximum takeoff weight restriction would not be included in this rule, many commenters seemed to be under the misimpression that FAA was indirectly using stall speed to impose a specific weight restriction of 3,000 pounds. Several commenters, including TCCA, recommended setting an explicit weight limit if the stall speed was being used to drive a roughly 3,000-pound weight limit. EASA questioned the background for not setting a direct 3,000-pound limit.

Establishing a stall speed for light-sport category airplanes in this rule will allow aircraft designers greater flexibility than establishing a specific maximum takeoff weight. A reasonable stall speed coupled with other design and performance limitations in this rule, such as a maximum of four seats, a maximum of four occupants, and limited aerial work operations,

will likely constrain the size of light-sport category airplanes to a reasonable size for this category. Market forces will also constrain designs to those that are desired by and affordable to the consumer.

In creating this rule, FAA did consider extreme examples, such as the Antonov An-2, which is a single engine biplane that weighs approximately 12,000 pounds, has no published stall speed, and has a maximum speed well under the 250 knot CAS V

restriction in this rule. FAA believes it unlikely that airplanes like the An-2 will be developed for the light-sport category due to the four seat, four occupant, and aerial work limitations. Because of these restrictions, the marketability of a An-2 type airplane for airworthiness certification in the light-sport category would be significantly diminished.

As discussed in section IV.F.6.b., FAA also weighed commenters' concerns of accommodating electric airplanes in the stall speed decision. Commenters were concerned that a low stall speed allowance would prohibit the development of electric aircraft by limiting their battery size. Batteries add significant weight to electric aircraft and need to be large enough to provide useful range and endurance. FAA considered this feedback in developing the increased airplane stall speed requirement in the final rule.

c. Eligibility—Weight Limit of Powered-Lift and Rotorcraft

Though a stall speed limit would generally constrain the weight of airplanes, it would not have the same effect for powered-lift and rotorcraft since these aircraft classes can hover in place and not stall. In the NPRM, FAA requested comments on appropriate parameters to limit the weight of light-sport category powered-lift and rotorcraft. AIR VEV recommended against using weight as a regulatory limitation but instead allow industry to develop consensus standards to address this matter. FAA disagrees with allowing industry to develop consensus standards to establish eligibility criteria and FAA will not relinquish this responsibility to consensus standards organizations. This practice is consistent with the certification of normal category airplanes in § 23.2005 and avoids confusion caused by the continual shifting of requirements for applicants.

Commenters recommending a maximum takeoff weight limit proposed a range of weights. One commenter recommended doubling the existing limit to 2,640 pounds, asserting that a higher limit was essential for light-sport category powered-lift. GAMA recommended a 3,375-pound limit for light-sport category powered-lift to accommodate newer designs and features including electric propulsion systems. GAMA recommended a maximum certificated weight threshold of 2,700 pounds for light-sport category rotorcraft. These weight limits are also used with § 21.24 primary category seaplanes and rotorcraft. VAI recommended a 3,000-pound weight limit to facilitate the equipage of safety, avionics, and control systems of powered-lift and rotorcraft. If a weight limit was to be developed, AIR VEV favored 5,000 pounds, noting that current powered-lift design requirements work against the ability to meet the same airplane weight requirements and that 5,000 pounds is lower than the limit for part 27 small rotorcraft. Vertical Aviation Technologies, Cicare USA, and a few individuals stated light-sport category helicopter designs should be subject to a four seat and 3,000-pound limitation. Four commenters stated these parameters for rotorcraft should be the same as that proposed for airplanes, even though this rule did not propose a maximum weight limit for any light-sport category aircraft class. Some commenters favored a 3,000-pound weight for rotorcraft since it would allow for more stability in gusty winds, the inclusion of safety equipment and crashworthy designs, greater fuel load for increased range, and greater utility.

Generally, these recommendations suggested actual weight limits instead of parameters to limit weight as requested by the NPRM and failed to include rationales sufficient to convince FAA that a weight limit should be imposed for rotorcraft and powered-lift, particularly given the rationale provided in the NPRM for not imposing weight limits and the fact that no weight limit is being proposed for light-sport category airplanes. FAA emphasizes this rule does not impose a maximum weight limit as an eligibility criterion in § 22.100 so the aforementioned benefits of a larger helicopter and powered-lift could be included in light-sport category designs. Regardless of the helicopter or powered-lift weight and as explained in section IV.F.4., this rule will limit light-sport category helicopters and powered-lift to two seats. Instead of imposing a weight limit on rotorcraft and powered-lift in this final rule, the maximum seating capacity of two seats, two occupants, and limited aerial work operations should provide the basis for keeping light-sport category rotorcraft and power-lift at a reasonable size and weight.

ANAC suggested the use of the six-pound per square foot main rotor disc loading and 2,700 pounds weight limitations used for primary category helicopters. FAA considered the six-pound per square foot main rotor disc loading limit for rotorcraft and powered-lift but did not adopt it. The limit may not work well with powered-lift because of the potential for heavier weights in certain designs. Also, this value does not effectively limit the size or weight of a helicopter and could allow overly complex and outsized helicopters that would not be appropriate for the design, production, and airworthiness requirements of the light-sport category. Effectively, without an accompanying weight limit, the main rotor disc loading limit alone would not provide any benefits in limiting weight or size making it no more effective than not imposing a weight limit in this rule. For these reasons, FAA does not favor the use of a disc loading limitation.

Whisper Aero commented that competitive market forces will naturally limit powered-lift gross weights since they are limited to two seats and a heavier aircraft for the same payload will be more expensive and louder. It also opined that a weight limit for light-sport category powered lift was unnecessary as such aircraft are very weight-sensitive and will become subject to part 36 noise restrictions. FAA agrees. However, this final rule does not mandate compliance with part 36 for light-sport category powered lift. The other reason cited by Whisper Aero, in addition to the limited aerial work operations and two-person occupancy restriction in § 91.327, will reasonably control the weight and size of powered-lift.

To limit the weight of light-sport category helicopters indirectly, Skyryse suggested a limit on the number of engines to a single conventional powerplant or the functional equivalent for electric engines. FAA disagrees with this suggestion since it may limit future development of designs and technologies, and it may also result in more accidents due to underpowered helicopters or lack of redundancy in designs.

FAA received a few comments that assumed gyroplanes were going to be held to a 1,320 pound maximum weight limit. This assumption is incorrect. Another commenter stated gyroplanes should have a higher weight limit just like light-sport category airplanes. Similar to the rationale for powered-lift and helicopters, this rule will not impose a maximum weight limit for gyroplanes. A maximum seating capacity of two seats, two occupants, and limited aerial work operations should provide the basis for a reasonably sized light-sport category gyroplane.

d. Eligibility—Weight Limitation of Light-Sport Category Aircraft Certificated Prior to July 24, 2026.

For light-sport category aircraft originally certificated prior to July 24, 2026, the requirements in § 21.181(a)(3) of this rule specify that a light-sport category aircraft's airworthiness certificate will remain effective as long as the aircraft conforms to its original or properly altered configuration, the aircraft has no unsafe condition and is not likely to develop an unsafe condition, and the aircraft meets all of the conditions listed in § 21.181(a)(3)(iv)(A) through (L). The requirements in (A) through (L) are the same as those in the light-sport aircraft definition in effect at the time of certification.

Several commenters stated they would like to see a path for light-sport category aircraft, certificated prior to the effective date of part 22, to increase the maximum takeoff weight above the 1,320- or 1,430-pound restriction in the light-sport aircraft definition. One commenter recommended that the regulations and ASTM provide a path for aircraft with sufficient available data to increase gross weight limits. Another commenter similarly supported existing light-sport category aircraft being able to increase their gross weight, asserting that many such aircraft can handle higher gross weights, and such weight increases would allow for carrying full fuel for increased safety.

This rule does not provide a regulatory provision for light-sport category aircraft, certificated prior to July 24, 2026 to increase the maximum takeoff weight above the 1,320- or 1,430 pound weight restriction in effect at the time of certification. As discussed in section IV.Q, this rule implements a clean break in light-sport category manufacturing and certification requirements upon the implementation of part 22 requirements in this rule. On and after July 24, 2026, light-sport category aircraft will be subject to new design, production, and airworthiness requirements. The existing construct of light-sport category consensus standards will no longer be valid for the production of new aircraft. To not be subject to a weight limit, an aircraft would have to meet the applicable § 21.190 and part 22 requirements in this final rule and the consensus standards that will be developed to act as a means of compliance to the requirements. The more rigorous requirements in this final rule and associated consensus standards will likely prevent or preclude compliance of existing models certificated prior to July 24, 2026. FAA does note that light-sport category aircraft manufacturers may petition for an exemption to increase the maximum takeoff weight of their existing certificated models and this may be a potential avenue for those that can meet the requirements of the part 11 exemption process.

e. Eligibility—Types of Aircraft Engines and Propellers

The current § 1.1 light-sport aircraft definition limits light-sport aircraft to a single reciprocating engine if the aircraft is powered and a fixed or ground-adjustable propeller if a powered aircraft other than a powered glider. Powered gliders are allowed a fixed or feathering propeller. With the performance expansions in this final rule for the design of light-sport category aircraft, there is no longer a need to restrict light-sport category aircraft to a single reciprocating engine or a fixed or ground-adjustable propeller. Removing these restrictions is necessary for the introduction of powered-lift and certain rotorcraft,

e.g.,

electric vertical takeoff and landing (eVTOL), into the light-sport category. It will also allow for the development of light-sport category twin-engine airplanes that require a feathered propeller for single engine emergency operations. These changes will also enable the development of new technologies, including electric, hydrogen, and hybrid engines and motors. Effective July 24, 2026, with the removal of the light-sport aircraft definition in § 1.1, this final rule will no longer have single reciprocating engine and propeller limitations for light-sport category aircraft. Section 22.100 will allow light-sport category aircraft to be manufactured with any number and type of engines, motors, or propellers.

Several commenters supported these changes or portions of these changes and only one commenter opposed. The commenter opposed to these changes stated light-sport aircraft are for entry level rather than for high-performance flying and recommended continuing the one engine (or electric motor) and existing propellor restrictions. FAA disagrees with the recommendation. The removal of the restrictions on engines, motors, and propellers is necessary to open the light-sport category to all classes of aircraft and benefit from the development of emerging engine and motor technologies. Under this rule, the designs of light-sport category aircraft will no longer be bound to the training, capabilities, and limitations of sport pilots; effectively making their performance and utility more appealing to a broader range of pilots.

Several commenters supported the removal of the engine restrictions. Pivotal commented on the benefits to aircraft redundancy and aircraft safety of non-reciprocating and multi-engine distributed electric propulsion. Pivotal also commented that the NPRM allowed for manufacturer innovation to realize the advantages of more complex systems and failure mitigation through automation. Whisper Aero commented that removing the single engine requirement enhanced the ability to develop advanced aircraft, noting the prevalence of distributed propulsion in electric powered-lift aircraft. Elanus Aerospace expressed being encouraged by the proposed allowance of electric motors for light-sport category aircraft.

Several commenters encouraged allowing more innovative power systems such as turbine engines, multi-engines, or electrical and hybrid powerplants. Another commenter applauded the move to become propulsion agnostic.

EAA, AOPA, NATA, NBAA, and GAMA strongly supported allowing alternative powerplants since it would allow for innovative propulsion technologies. They also supported controllable pitch propellers being allowed for light-sport category aircraft, noting that electric powerplants and piston engines with forced induction are severely disadvantaged without such propellers.

Sonex commented as to how crucial turbine powerplants were to increased energy efficiency, and how continued development will aid general aviation with shifting away from leaded aviation fuels. It similarly noted how important controlla

This text is long and has been trimmed here. Open the source document for the complete record.

This is a copy of a public record, reproduced as it was published. It is not legal advice, and it may not be the version a court would rely on. Check the official source before you cite it.