[Federal Register: April 19, 2007 (Volume 72, Number 75)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 19661-19665]
From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]
[DOCID:fr19ap07-1]
========================================================================
Rules and Regulations
Federal Register
________________________________________________________________________
This section of the FEDERAL REGISTER contains regulatory documents
having general applicability and legal effect, most of which are keyed
to and codified in the Code of Federal Regulations, which is published
under 50 titles pursuant to 44 U.S.C. 1510.
The Code of Federal Regulations is sold by the Superintendent of Documents.
Prices of new books are listed in the first FEDERAL REGISTER issue of each
week.
========================================================================
[[Page 19661]]
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
Federal Aviation Administration
14 CFR Part 1
[Docket No. FAA-2007-27160; Amendment No. 1-56]
RIN 2120-AI97
Changes to the Definition of Certain Light-Sport Aircraft
AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
ACTION: Direct final rule; request for comments.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: This action corrects an unintended consequence created when we
adopted the original Light-Sport Aircraft (LSA) Rule; we did not have
sufficient information at that time to foresee this difficulty. This
action amends the definition of an LSA in two areas. The changes will
(1) permit development of lighter-than-air (LTA) LSA, and (2) allow
retractable landing gear for LSA intended for operation on water. The
LTA change will result in a common land-based LSA maximum takeoff
weight limit and allow the LTA LSA industry to design and build safe,
functional LTA aircraft. Allowing retractable landing gear for LSA
intended for operation on water recognizes the realities of the
operation of these LSA and will also enhance the growth of that
industry.
DATES: Effective June 4, 2007.
Comments for inclusion in the Rules Docket must be received on or
before May 21, 2007.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Larry Werth, Federal Aviation
Administration, Aircraft Certification Service, Small Airplane
Directorate, ACE-114, 901 Locust, Room 301, Kansas City, MO 64106;
telephone 816-329-4147; fax: 816-329-4090; e-mail: larry.werth@faa.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Later in this preamble under the Additional
Information section, we discuss how you can comment on this direct
final rule and how we will handle your comments. Included in this
discussion is related information about the docket. We also discuss how
you can get a copy of this direct final rule and any related rulemaking
documents.
Authority for This Rulemaking
The FAA's authority to issue rules regarding aviation safety is
found in Title 49 of the United States Code. Subtitle I, section 106
describes the authority of the 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
subtitle VII, part A, subpart III, section 44701. Under that section,
the FAA is charged with prescribing regulations for practices, methods,
and procedures the Administrator finds necessary for safety in air
commerce. This regulation is within the scope of that authority because
it establishes minimum standards required in the interest of safety for
the design of aircraft.
Background
On July 27, 2004, the FAA issued the ``Certification of Aircraft
and Airmen for the Operation of Light-Sport Aircraft'' final rule (69
FR 44772) (hereon referred to as The LSA/Sport Pilot Rule). That rule
established a definition for the term ``Light-Sport Aircraft'' (LSA).
Since we adopted that rule, the FAA has been working with the LSA
industry in evaluating the overall LSA program. The past two years have
seen remarkable growth in the overall LSA program. Over 600 new
factory-built airplanes, powered parachutes, and weight-shift control
aircraft have received airworthiness certificates. The exceptions to
this rapid growth are lighter-than-air (LTA) LSA and LSA intended for
operation on water.
In the first area, the FAA has determined the current LTA LSA
maximum takeoff weight (MTW) of 660 pounds (300 kilograms) precludes
the desired effect of industry design and development of safe LTA LSA.
In the second area, the FAA has determined the physical differences
between LSA intended for operation on water (amphibious LSA) and land-
based LSA justify allowing retractable landing gear for amphibious LSA.
We discuss these determinations in the following paragraphs.
Lighter-Than-Air Light-Sport Aircraft
The LSA/Sport Pilot Rule, which became effective September 1, 2004,
established an LTA LSA MTW of 660 pounds (300 kilograms). When the FAA
originally considered LTA LSA, we determined that airships suitable for
sport pilots do not need to meet all the requirements established in
FAA-P-8110-2, ``Airship Design Criteria''.\1\ We based the criteria on
airship designs that conventionally use low molecular weight lifting
gases rather than hot air. We based the weight limit in the final rule
on a review of type-certificated free balloons not using hot air as a
captive lifting gas. Since publication of the final rule, the FAA has
received comments from the LTA aircraft community requesting the
addition of aircraft using hot air as a lifting gas.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Available in the docket.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
One commenter recommended the 660 pounds MTW in the current rule be
redefined as a ``Design Useful Load.'' The commenter reasons that, for
designers of LTA aircraft, this definition would be a rational
quantitative objective consistent with standards for sport pilot/light-
sport aircraft. The commenter also said the definition would make the
envelope volume/size differences between hot-air and low molecular
weight lifting gas LSA irrelevant. The commenter provided information
that counters the logic used to define weights for LTA aircraft.
Another commenter provided a table comparing envelope volume and
maximum gross weight of 26 type-certificated hot air balloons designed
for two-place use. The comparison table shows an average envelope
volume of 58,615 cubic feet (ranging from 42,000 to 65,000 cubic feet),
and an average maximum gross weight of 1,170 pounds (ranging from 870
to 1,433 pounds).
A commenter requested that the 660-pound design useful load be the
LTA aircraft design weight criteria. The commenter also asked that
existing two-place type-certificated hot air balloons be permitted to
have maximum gross weights of at least 1,100 pounds. The commenter
believes economics would naturally discourage a ``larger'' size
[[Page 19662]]
airship with a useful load of 660 pounds.
We have reconsidered our decision to distinguish hot-air balloons
and hot-air based airships from LSA in light of the facts and data
presented by the light-sport community. We believe the characteristics
and operation of these aircraft are within the standards for sport
pilot/light-sport aircraft. Further, we erred in our determination of
maximum weight for LTA aircraft as described in the preamble for the
final rule. Based on the information presented by the LTA aircraft
community, we have determined that the 1,320-pound MTW limit for LSA is
applicable to LTA aircraft. This weight includes the structure,
uninflated envelope, engine, burner system, fuel, installed equipment
and systems, and two occupants. This increased weight limit permits LTA
aircraft designers to provide better integrity for the structure that
carries the sport pilot and passenger.
We do not agree with the recommendation to establish a definition
for ``design useful load'' as the parameter for LTA aircraft weight. As
stated in the notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) dated February 5,
2002 (67 FR 5376), and in the preamble for the final rule dated July
27, 2004 (69 FR 44794), the criteria in the LSA definition are intended
to be objective characteristics that are easily measured. Design useful
load would not be easily verified as a limiting measure.
Under the provisions of the Sport Pilot and Light-Sport Aircraft
rule and revised Office of Management and Budget (OMB) Circular A-119,
``Federal Participation in the Development and Use of Voluntary
Consensus Standards and in Conformity Assessment Activities,'' dated
February 10, 1998, industry and the FAA have been working with ASTM
International (originally formed as the American Society for Testing
and Materials) to develop consensus standards for LSA. These consensus
standards satisfy the FAA's goal for airworthiness certification and
establish a verifiable minimum safety level for LSA. In addition, use
of the consensus standard process assures government and industry
discussion and agreement on appropriate standards for the required
level of safety.
We have reviewed the particular consensus standards developed for
LTA LSA and note that these standards contain provisions for airships
and balloons based on hot air or low molecular weight gas.
Retractable Landing Gear for LSA Intended for Operation on Water
When we drafted the original proposal for LSA appropriate for sport
pilots, we were concerned that LSA be simple in design and operation.
For aircraft design, low performance within the constraints of light
weight and structural integrity were important. For aircraft operation,
simple mechanical systems within the constraint of sport pilot training
requirements were important. As noted in the preamble to the rule, from
an operations perspective, 14 CFR, part 61, Sec. 61.31(e) provides a
statement of the aircraft features that the FAA considers in assuring
adequate training for a pilot to operate complex aircraft. From the
aircraft operations perspective, Sec. 61.31(e) does not dictate that
retractable landing gear makes a seaplane complex.
We intended to allow for retractable landing gear for amphibious
aircraft. We attempted to differentiate between retractable and
repositionable landing gear, but that distinction has caused problems
when implementing the rule. The term ``repositionable landing gear''
was defined in the preamble to the LSA/Sport Pilot Rule as ``* * *
wheeled landing gear that allows an aircraft designed for operation on
water to takeoff and land from a hard surface and which may be
retracted on the ground to permit takeoff and landing on water.
Repositionable landing gear remains fixed in its position from takeoff
through landing.'' This definition did not fully recognize or account
for the realities of operation of amphibious LSA. From the aircraft
design perspective, we were concerned that malfunction or misuse of
retractable landing gear on amphibious aircraft not impose a hazard to
the aircraft occupants.
During the original rulemaking, we were willing to accept the
prospect that aircraft structure designed for water loads for takeoff
or landing would provide occupant protection in the event of a wheels
up landing on the ground. Since the original rulemaking, the FAA has
received data \2\ from the industry showing that a wheels-down water
landing accident sometimes results in minor injuries, but typically
results in no injuries. The biggest challenge is escaping from the
aircraft when a wheels-down landing accident results in the aircraft
submerging in water. The simple two-place design configuration of a LSA
facilitates easy exit from the aircraft should such an accident occur.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ See Docket Management System Docket Number FAA-2005-23030.
Available at dms.dot.gov.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Considering the relatively safe record of retractable landing gear
on amphibious LSA and the physical differences between amphibious and
land-based LSA, we believe use of retractable landing gear is
appropriate for amphibious LSA. Our expectations for simple,
mechanically operated retractable landing gear for sailplanes align
with our expectations for operation of amphibious aircraft. (Sailplane
fuselages are typically designed for landing loads similar to
amphibious aircraft structural design criteria).
Finally, with the current Sec. 1.1 LSA definition, most of the
existing fleet of amphibious single- and two-seat ultralight-like
aircraft in the LSA fleet cannot be issued an airworthiness certificate
under Sec. 21.191(i)(1). These aircraft do not meet the current
definition of a LSA since most are equipped with retractable landing
gear and not ``repositionable'' landing gear. Unless the LSA definition
is changed to allow retractable landing gear for amphibious LSA before
January 31, 2008, these aircraft will be unnecessarily excluded from
this category of aircraft.
Czech Air Works (CZAW) petitioned the FAA for an exemption to allow
retractable landing gear on its Mermaid amphibious airplane. As part of
its request, CZAW provided information concerning the design and
operation of amphibious LSA. The petition can be found in Docket No.
FAA-2005-23030.
The FAA received approximately 450 comments from 260 commenters.
Comments on the petition highlighted the overall benefits for an
airplane to be capable of land and water landings. These comments also
addressed structural design integrity of amphibious aircraft that
provide added protection for aircraft occupants in the event of landing
with the landing gear in the wrong position (gear up or down). One
commenter pointed out that, without an exemption, manufacturers might
sell the aircraft equipped with ``beaching gear'' (for use only when
taxiing to land from water, and vice versa, using a ramp) instead of
landing gear. This commenter suggested that pilots may be tempted to
use the beaching gear as landing gear, which would compromise safety.
Several commenters objected to the petition for exemption. One
commenter said changing gear position would increase risk to occupants
of an amphibious LSA. Three commenters said that increasing complexity
of LSA would increase risk. Four commenters
[[Page 19663]]
said the Mermaid aircraft would be seriously damaged if the pilot
landed on water with the gear down. One commenter recommended allowing
only one change of gear position each flight.
In granting the petition for exemption to allow retractable landing
gear for amphibious LSA, the primary concern was to determine if the
Mermaid aircraft is as safe as any other aircraft with LSA
airworthiness certification. We reviewed the information provided by
CZAW and the commenters to the petition for exemption. The FAA found
the structural integrity of the Mermaid aircraft is enhanced by its
``flying boat'' design. This design offers increased protection for the
occupants when landing with improperly positioned landing gear. We also
found the simple method of actuating and monitoring the position of the
landing gear is consistent with the design objectives for LSA.
We agree with the commenters who implied the safety of amphibious
aircraft is better served by allowing for retractable rather than
repositionable landing gear because of the manner in which amphibious
aircraft are operated. We considered the comment that pilots might be
tempted to use ``beaching gear'' (if equipped) as landing gear to be a
persuasive argument. Using ``beaching gear'' as landing gear would
compromise safety because it is not designed for landing impact loads.
Several commenters were concerned that retractable landing gear
would add to the complexity of amphibious LSA. Commenters were divided
on the need for landing gear position indicators for amphibious LSA. We
find that a direct-action manual lever to mechanically operate the
landing gear or a simple mechanical system is appropriate for
amphibious LSA. Currently, sailplanes certificated as LSA are allowed
to use a direct-action manual lever to mechanically operate the landing
gear. We have determined that this revision to the definition of a LSA
recognizes the operational requirements of amphibious LSA and is
consistent with the stated design and safety objectives.
The Direct Final Rule Process
The FAA anticipates that this regulation will not result in adverse
or negative comment and, therefore, is issuing it as a direct final
rule. The two changes in the definition of LSA will be beneficial to
and supported by the LSA industry. Increasing the LTA MTW will result
in a common LSA limitation and eliminate the current unnecessary
restrictions. Allowing retractable landing gear for amphibious LSA will
be beneficial to that portion of the LSA industry and will enhance the
development of safe amphibious LSA.
Unless we receive a written adverse or negative comment, or a
written notice of intent to submit an adverse or negative comment
within the comment period, the regulation will become effective on the
date specified above. After the close of the comment period, the FAA
will publish a document in the Federal Register that indicates we
received no adverse or negative comments and confirms the date the
final rule will become effective. If the FAA receives, within the
comment period, an adverse or negative comment, or written notice of
intent to submit such a comment, we will publish a document withdrawing
the direct final rule in the Federal Register, and we may publish a
notice of proposed rulemaking with a new comment period.
In evaluating any comments received, the FAA will consider only
comments supported by valid and reasonable data. Adverse comments that
dispute previously established and accepted FAA determinations or
decisions will not be considered. Any written notice of intent to
submit late comments must contain a reasonable estimate of when that
comment will be submitted. We will not delay implementing these changes
because comments were not submitted on time.
Paperwork Reduction Act
The Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3507(d)) requires
the FAA to consider the impact of paperwork and other information
collection burdens imposed on the public. We have determined that there
are no current or new requirements for information collection
associated with these amendments.
International Compatibility
The FAA has determined that there are no International Civil
Aviation Organization (ICAO) Standards and Recommended Practices that
correspond to this regulation.
Regulatory Evaluation, Regulatory Flexibility Determination,
International Trade Impact Assessment, and Unfunded Mandates Assessment
Changes to Federal regulations must undergo several economic
analyses. First, Executive Order 12866 directs that each Federal agency
shall propose or adopt a regulation only upon a reasoned determination
that the benefits of the intended regulation justify its costs. Second,
the Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 (Pub. L. 96-354) requires
agencies to analyze the economic impact of regulatory changes on small
entities. Third, the Trade Agreements Act (Pub. L. 96-39) prohibits
agencies from setting standards that create unnecessary obstacles to
the foreign commerce of the United States. In developing U.S.
standards, the Trade Agreements Act requires agencies to consider
international standards and, where appropriate, that they be the basis
of U.S. standards. Fourth, the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995
(Pub. L. 104-4) requires agencies to prepare a written assessment of
the costs, benefits, and other effects of proposed or final rules that
include a Federal mandate likely to result in the expenditure by State,
local, or tribal governments, in the aggregate, or by the private
sector, of $100 million or more annually (adjusted for inflation with
base year of 1995). This portion of the preamble summarizes the FAA's
analysis of the economic impacts of this final rule.
Department of Transportation Order DOT 2100.5 prescribes policies
and procedures for simplification, analysis, and review of regulations.
If the expected cost impact is so minimal that a proposed or final rule
does not warrant a full evaluation, this order permits that a statement
to that effect and the basis for it be included in the preamble if a
full regulatory evaluation of the cost and benefits is not prepared.
Such a determination has been made for this final rule. The reasoning
for this determination follows.
We were too restrictive in two areas of the original LSA
definition. With this rulemaking action, we are removing a restriction
by allowing the LSA to use retractable landing gear when the aircraft
is intended for operation on water. This rule will also create a common
land-based LSA MTW limit, which will allow the LTA LSA industry to
design and build safe, functional LTA aircraft.
The FAA has, therefore, determined that this final rule is not a
``significant regulatory action'' as defined in section 3(f) of
Executive Order 12866, and is not ``significant'' as defined in DOT's
Regulatory Policies and Procedures.
Regulatory Flexibility Determination
The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 (Pub. L. 96-354) (RFA)
establishes ``as a principle of regulatory issuance that agencies shall
endeavor, consistent with the objectives of the rule and of applicable
statutes, to fit regulatory and informational requirements to the scale
of the businesses, organizations, and governmental jurisdictions
subject to regulation. To achieve this principle, agencies are required
to solicit and consider flexible regulatory proposals and to explain
the rationale for their
[[Page 19664]]
actions to assure that such proposals are given serious
consideration.'' The RFA covers a wide range of small entities,
including small businesses, not-for-profit organizations, and small
governmental jurisdictions.
Agencies must perform a review to determine whether a rule will
have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small
entities. If the agency determines that it will, the agency must
prepare a regulatory flexibility analysis as described in the RFA.
However, if an agency determines that a rule is not expected to
have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small
entities, section 605(b) of the RFA provides that the head of the
agency may so certify and a regulatory flexibility analysis is not
required. The certification must include a statement providing the
factual basis for this determination, and the reasoning should be
clear.
This final rule will not impose any costs on small entities. We
were overly restrictive in our original rule. We are removing
restrictions to allow retractable landing gear for LSA intended for
operation on water and are creating a common land-based LSA MTW limit,
which will allow the LTA LSA industry to design and build safe,
functional LTA aircraft. Therefore, as the FAA Administrator, I certify
that this rule will not have a significant economic impact on a
substantial number of small entities.
International Trade Impact Assessment
The Trade Agreements Act of 1979 (Pub. L. 96-39) prohibits Federal
agencies from establishing any standards or engaging in related
activities that create unnecessary obstacles to the foreign commerce of
the United States. Legitimate domestic objectives, such as safety, are
not considered unnecessary obstacles. The statute also requires
consideration of international standards and, where appropriate, that
they be the basis for U.S. standards. The FAA has assessed the
potential effect of this final rule and has determined that it will
have a cost relieving impact on domestic and international entities and
thus has a neutral trade impact.
Unfunded Mandates Assessment
Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-
4) requires each Federal agency to prepare a written statement
assessing the effects of any Federal mandate in a proposed or final
agency rule that may result in an expenditure of $100 million or more
(adjusted annually for inflation with the base year 1995) in any one
year by State, local, and tribal governments, in the aggregate, or by
the private sector; such a mandate is deemed to be a ``significant
regulatory action.'' The FAA currently uses an inflation-adjusted value
of $128.1 million in lieu of $100 million. This final rule does not
contain such a mandate.
Executive Order 13132, Federalism
The FAA has analyzed this final rule under the principles and
criteria of Executive Order 13132, Federalism. We determined that this
action will not have a substantial direct effect on the States, or the
relationship between the national Government and the States, or on the
distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of
government. Therefore, we determined that this final rule does not have
federalism implications.
Environmental Analysis
FAA Order 1050.1E identifies FAA actions that are categorically
excluded from preparation of an environmental assessment or
environmental impact statement under the National Environmental Policy
Act in the absence of extraordinary circumstances. The FAA has
determined this proposed rulemaking action qualifies for the
categorical exclusion identified in paragraph 312f and involves no
extraordinary circumstances.
Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or
Use
The FAA has analyzed this final rule under Executive Order 13211,
Actions Concerning Regulations that Significantly Affect Energy Supply,
Distribution, or Use (66 FR 28355, May 18, 2001). We have determined
that it is not a ``significant energy action'' under the executive
order because it is not a ``significant regulatory action'' under
Executive Order 12866, and it is not likely to have a significant
adverse effect on the supply, distribution, or use of energy.
Additional Information
Commenting on This Direct Final Rule
You may send comments identified by Docket Number FAA-2007-27160
using any of the following methods:
DOT Docket Web site: Go to http://dms.dot.gov and follow
the instructions for sending your comments electronically.
Government-wide rulemaking Web site: Go to http://www.regulations.gov
and follow the instructions for sending your
comments electronically.
Mail: Docket Management Facility; U.S. Department of
Transportation, 400 Seventh Street, SW., Nassif Building, Room PL-401,
Washington, DC 20590-0001.
Fax: 1-202-493-2251.
Hand Delivery: Room PL-401 on the plaza level of the
Nassif Building, 400 Seventh Street, SW., Washington, DC, between 9
a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.
Availability of Rulemaking Documents
You can get an electronic copy using the Internet by:
(1) Searching the Department of Transportation's electronic Docket
Management System (DMS) Web page (http://dms.dot.gov/search); (2) Visiting the FAA's Regulations and Policy Web page at http://
http://www.faa.gov/regulations_policies/; or
(3) Accessing the Government Printing Office's Web page at http://www.gpoaccess.gov/fr/index.html
.
You can also get a copy by sending a request to the Federal
Aviation Administration, Office of Rulemaking, ARM-1, 800 Independence
Avenue, SW., Washington, DC 20591, or by calling (202) 267-9680. Make
sure to identify the docket number, notice number, or amendment number
of this rulemaking.
Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act
The Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act (SBREFA) of
1996 requires FAA to comply with small entity requests for information
or advice about compliance with statutes and regulations within its
jurisdiction. If you are a small entity and you have a question
regarding this document, you may contact your local FAA official, or
the person listed under the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT heading at
the beginning of the preamble. You can find out more about SBREFA on
the Internet at http://www.faa.gov/regulations_policies/rulemaking/sbre_act/
.
List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 1
Air transportation.
The Amendment
0
In consideration of the foregoing, the Federal Aviation Administration
amends part 1 of Title 14, Code of Federal Regulations, as follows:
PART 1--DEFINITIONS AND ABBREVIATIONS
0
1. The authority citation for part 1 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701.
0
2. Amend the definition of ``light-sport aircraft'' in Sec. 1.1 by
removing
[[Page 19665]]
paragraph (1)(i), redesignating (1)(ii) and (1)(iii) as (1)(i) and
(1)(ii), respectively, and revising paragraph (12) to read as follows:
Sec. 1.1 General definitions.
* * * * *
Light-sport aircraft * * *
* * * * *
(12) Fixed or retractable landing gear, or a hull, for an aircraft
intended for operation on water.
* * * * *
Issued in Washington, DC, on April 9, 2007.
Marion C. Blakey,
Administrator.
[FR Doc. E7-7453 Filed 4-18-07; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P