FAA Extends MOSAIC Comment Period To March 11, New Comments Limited


The FAA last month extended the comment period for the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking on the Modernization of Special Airworthiness Certification (MOSAIC). The extension adds a memo concerning a conversation between an FAA representative and members of the Light Sport committee of ASTM International about a technical error in the NPRM.

That exchange didn’t make it into the original NPRM and the addition of the memo and comment extension to March 11 were done “in the interest of transparency.” Comments during the extension are limited to the issues covered in the memo.

Russ Niles
Russ Niles is Editor-in-Chief of AVweb. He has been a pilot for 30 years and joined AVweb 22 years ago. He and his wife Marni live in southern British Columbia where they also operate a small winery.


    • Follow the link. I confess I didn’t really grasp their significance but seemed like a minor technical thing.

  1. The memo describes a conversation between the FAA’s LSA Program Manager and the Chair of the F37 (i.e., LSA) committee of ASTM, which took place in person at the ASTM International Fall Committee Week meeting.

    The F37 Chair asked for clarification of the proposed Part 36 noise requirements, where the proposed text for 36.1581(h) read “Noise compliance with this part must be documented as specified in 21.190(e) or 21.191 of this chapter, as applicable.” The F37 Chair pointed out that 21.190(e) applies to an amended statement of compliance (SOC) for aerial work and makes no mention of noise. The Chair asked if this was an error, or if the FAA intended to allow an amended SOC for noise. He went on to ask if FAA would allow an amended SOC for third party repairs and alterations, i.e., going beyond using an SOC for noise compliance.

    He said he would like to see the FAA create language similar to 21.190(e) for third-party repairs and alterations, which would require the third party to be held to the same requirements for standards compliance as the original manufacturer and would also transfer responsibility for continued operational safety to the third party rather than the original manufacturer. He said that manufacturers are currently worried about their liability arising from allowing any third parties to make repairs and alterations.

    End of summary.

    To me, all of that looks okay except for one thing: the complete transfer of responsibility for continued operational safety to the third party. I think we could all accept that the third party could be help responsible for any fault resulting from their work, but I wouldn’t want my local A&P to become responsible for any error of the manufacturer, merely because he replaced the spark plugs – which would simply result in all the shops putting up “No LSA” signs.