[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 176 (Friday, September 11, 2015)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 54736-54737]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2015-22933]


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

NATIONAL TRANSPORTATION SAFETY BOARD

49 CFR Part 830

[Docket No. NTSB-AS-2015-0001]


Interpretation of Notification Requirements To Exclude Model 
Aircraft

AGENCY: National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB or Board).

ACTION: Notice of interpretation.

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

SUMMARY: This document provides the NTSB's interpretation of the 
applicability of the agency's regulations concerning aircraft accident 
notification requirements to unmanned aircraft. The regulations define 
``unmanned aircraft accident'' and require notifications of accidents 
that fulfill the criteria included in the definition. By this Notice, 
the NTSB clarifies it does not consider model aircraft to fall within 
the regulatory definition of unmanned aircraft accident, for purposes 
of required notification.

DATES: Effective September 11, 2015.

ADDRESSES: A copy of this Notice of interpretation is available for 
inspection and copying at NTSB Headquarters, 490 L'Enfant Plaza SW., 
Washington, DC 20594-2003. Alternatively, a copy of the Notice is 
available on the NTSB's Web site at www.ntsb.gov and at the government-
wide Web site on regulations at www.regulations.gov, Docket No. NTSB-
AS-2015-0001. A paper copy is available.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: William English, NTSB Office of 
Aviation Safety, (202) 314-6686.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

NTSB Investigations of Unmanned Aircraft

    On August 24, 2010, the NTSB published a Final Rule defining 
``unmanned aircraft accident'' as:

    [A]n occurrence associated with the operation of any public or 
civil unmanned aircraft system that takes place between the time 
that the system is activated with the purpose of flight and the time 
that the system is deactivated at the conclusion of its mission, in 
which: (1) Any person suffers death or serious injury; or (2) The 
aircraft has a maximum gross takeoff weight of 300 pounds or greater 
and sustains substantial damage.

75 FR 51953, 51955.\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ Existing NTSB regulations define ``serious injury'' and 
``substantial damage.'' 49 CFR 830.2.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In the preamble to the Final Rule, the NTSB stated it sought to 
exclude model aircraft from the notification requirements of 49 CFR 
part 830. 75 FR at 51954. The NTSB's promulgation of the notification 
requirements with well-recognized definitions in part 830 was prompted 
by enactment of the Airport and Airway Safety and Capacity Expansion 
Act of 1987, Public Law 100-223, 101 Stat. 1486 (Dec. 30, 1987). The 
statute specifically required the NTSB to promulgate notification 
requirements, stating the NTSB must ``establish by regulation 
requirements binding on persons reporting . . . accidents and aviation 
incidence subject to the Board's investigatory jurisdiction under this 
subsection.'' Id. sec. 311, 101 Stat. 1528.
    The NTSB has consistently excluded unmanned aircraft systems (UAS) 
flown for hobby and recreational use from the definition of 
``accident'' under 49 CFR part 830, and has historically not 
investigated the rare occasions in which a model aircraft has caused 
serious injury or fatality. For purposes of defining the term ``model 
aircraft'' in this publication, the NTSB has adopted the definition of 
the term that appears in section 336(c) of the Federal Aviation 
Administration (FAA) Modernization and Reform Act of 2012, Public Law 
112-95; 126 Stat. 77-78 (Feb. 14, 2012). Section 336(c) defines ``model 
aircraft'' to mean an unmanned aircraft that is:

    (1) capable of sustained flight in the atmosphere;
    (2) flown within visual line of sight of the person operating 
the aircraft; and
    (3) flown for hobby or recreational purposes.

    The NTSB's exclusion of model aircraft from the applicability of 49 
CFR part 830 is consistent with international practices and 
interpretations concerning accident notifications and investigations. 
For example, Circular 328 from the International Civil Aviation 
Organization states model aircraft are outside the scope of 
applicability of the Chicago Convention. International Civil Aviation 
Organization, Unmanned Aircraft Systems (UAS), Circular 328 (2011). The 
Circular states: ``In the broadest sense, the introduction of UAS does 
not change any existing distinctions between model aircraft and 
aircraft. Model aircraft, generally recognized as intended for 
recreational purposes only, fall outside the provisions of the Chicago 
Convention, being exclusively the subject of relevant national 
regulations, if any.'' Id. at 3, ] 2.4. Furthermore, the International 
Society of Air Safety Investigators (ISASI) has set forth a similar 
policy statement. The organization recognizes ``[f]ormal air safety 
investigations are not constituted to investigate model aircraft 
accidents, and Annex 13 is not applicable to them.'' ISASI Unmanned 
Aircraft System Handbook and Accident/Incident Investigation Guidelines 
at 24 (Jan. 2015).

Related Legislative and Regulatory Developments

    On February 14, 2012, the President signed into law the FAA 
Modernization and Reform Act of 2012. Public Law 112-95. Among other 
provisions, the statute defines unmanned aircraft and small unmanned 
aircraft. The statute describes UAS as ``an unmanned aircraft and 
associated elements (including communication links and the components 
that control the unmanned aircraft) that are required for the pilot in 
command to operate safely and efficiently in the national airspace 
system.'' Id. at sec. 331(9). The statute defines ``small unmanned 
aircraft'' as a UAS weighing less than 55 pounds. Id. at sec. 331(6).
    In addition, the statute provides a definition of ``model 
aircraft.'' As quoted above, section 336(c) of the Act states the 
definition of a model aircraft is dependent upon the aircraft's use; an 
aircraft capable of sustained flight in the atmosphere that is flown 
within the operator's visual line of sight and only for hobby or 
recreational purposes is considered a ``model aircraft.''
    Section 336(a) of the Act precludes the FAA from promulgating any 
rule concerning a model aircraft if the aircraft: (1) Is flown 
``strictly for hobby or recreational use''; (2) is ``operated in 
accordance with a community-based set of safety guidelines and within 
the programming of a nationwide community-based organization''; (3) is 
limited to not more than 55 pounds unless otherwise certified; (4) is 
``operated in a manner that does not interfere with and gives way to 
any manned aircraft''; and (5) when flown within 5 miles of an airport, 
the model aircraft's operator provides the airport operator and air 
traffic control tower with prior notice of its operation. Id. at sec. 
336(a).
    On June 25, 2014, the FAA published a Notice of interpretation with 
request for comment in the Federal Register. 79 FR 36172. The Notice 
stated the FAA had received inquiries concerning its enforcement 
authority over model aircraft, and states based on the language of the 
statute, aircraft that meet the statutory definition of ``model 
aircraft'' and operational requirements, as described above, are 
``exempt from future FAA rulemaking action

[[Page 54737]]

specifically regarding model aircraft.'' Id. The FAA went on to 
clarify, however, ``model aircraft that do not meet these statutory 
requirements are nonetheless unmanned aircraft, and as such, are 
subject to all existing FAA regulations, as well as future rulemaking 
action, and the FAA intends to apply its regulations to such unmanned 
aircraft.'' Id. at 36173. Following the Notice of interpretation, the 
FAA published a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, in which it proposed a 
new regulatory part to regulate small UAS (14 CFR part 107). 80 FR 9544 
(Feb. 23, 2015).

Conclusion

    In light of recent regulatory and legislative actions and industry 
developments in the area of unmanned aircraft, the agency believes it 
is prudent to clarify our interpretation of the definitions codified at 
49 CFR 830.2 and the notification requirements contained in Sec.  
830.5(a) (applicable to ``aircraft accidents'' and ``serious 
incidents'').\2\ In this regard, we remain consistent with our long-
held practice of refraining from conducting investigations of any model 
aircraft accident or incident. We maintain this declination in our 
interpretation of our regulations within 49 CFR part 830, and we do not 
feel compelled to alter this practice in light of recently proposed 
regulatory changes from the FAA or Congress's recent inclusion of a 
statutory definition of ``model aircraft.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ We recognize the aviation community is mindful of the 
Board's decision in Administrator v. Pirker, NTSB Order No. EA-5730 
(Nov. 18, 2014). In Pirker, the Board held the FAA could apply to 
UAS 14 CFR 91.13(a), which prohibits careless or reckless operation 
of aircraft. The respondent's flight that gave rise to the FAA's 
action in Pirker occurred prior to Congress's enactment of the FAA 
Modernization and Reform Act of 2012, which addresses UAS, small 
UAS, and model aircraft. The NTSB considers these statutory 
definitions instructive in interpreting its regulations.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The NTSB does not now propose a definition of model aircraft, but 
will consider as instructive the description of ``model aircraft'' 
within section 336 of the FAA Modernization and Reform Act of 2012, as 
described above in the section of this Notice entitled ``Related 
Legislative and Regulatory Developments.''
    The NTSB trusts operators will find this statement of 
interpretation helpful in understanding the NTSB's definition of 
``unmanned aircraft accident.''

Christopher A. Hart,
Chairman.
[FR Doc. 2015-22933 Filed 9-10-15; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7533-01-P