[Federal Register Volume 84, Number 30 (Wednesday, February 13, 2019)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 3856-3907]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2019-00732]
[[Page 3855]]
Vol. 84
Wednesday,
No. 30
February 13, 2019
Part II
Department of Transportation
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Federal Aviation Administration
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
14 CFR Part 107
Operation of Small Unmanned Aircraft Systems Over People; Proposed
Rules
Federal Register / Vol. 84 , No. 30 / Wednesday, February 13, 2019 /
Proposed Rules
[[Page 3856]]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
Federal Aviation Administration
14 CFR Part 107
[Docket No.: FAA-2018-1087; Notice No. 18-07]
RIN 2120-AK85
Operation of Small Unmanned Aircraft Systems Over People
AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) and Office of the
Secretary of Transportation (OST), Department of Transportation (DOT).
ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The FAA proposes to amend its rules applicable to the
operation of small unmanned aircraft systems (UAS). This rulemaking
would allow operations of small unmanned aircraft over people in
certain conditions and operations of small UAS at night without
obtaining a waiver. It would also require remote pilots in command to
present their remote pilot in command certificate as well as
identification to certain Federal, State, or local officials, upon
request, and proposes to amend the knowledge testing requirements in
the rules that apply to small UAS operations to require training every
24 calendar months. This proposal would be the next phase in
integrating small UAS using a risk-based approach. These amendments
would allow expanded small UAS operations and reduce the knowledge
testing burden on remote pilot in command certificate holders.
DATES: Send comments on or before April 15, 2019.
ADDRESSES: Send comments identified by docket number [FAA-2018-1087]
using any of the following methods:
Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to http://www.regulations.gov and follow the online instructions for sending your
comments electronically.
Mail: Send comments to Docket Operations, M-30; U.S.
Department of Transportation (DOT), 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, Room
W12-140, West Building Ground Floor, Washington, DC 20590-0001.
Hand Delivery or Courier: Take comments to Docket
Operations in Room W12-140 of the West Building Ground Floor at 1200
New Jersey Avenue SE, Washington, DC, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday
through Friday, except Federal holidays.
Fax: Fax comments to Docket Operations at 202-493-2251.
Privacy: In accordance with 5 U.S.C. 553(c), DOT solicits comments
from the public to better inform its rulemaking process. DOT posts
these comments, without edit, including any personal information the
commenter provides, to http://www.regulations.gov, as described in the
system of records notice (DOT/ALL-14 FDMS), which can be reviewed at
http://www.dot.gov/privacy.
Docket: Background documents or comments received may be read at
http://www.regulations.gov at any time. Follow the online instructions
for accessing the docket or go to the Docket Operations in Room W12-140
of the West Building Ground Floor at 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE,
Washington, DC, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday,
except Federal holidays.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For small UAS policy questions
concerning this proposed rule, contact Guido Hassig, Aviation Safety
Inspector, General Aviation and Commercial Division, Flight Standards
Service, Federal Aviation Administration, 55 M Street SE, 8th Floor,
Washington, DC 20003; telephone 1-844-FLY-MYUAS; email: [email protected].
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
I. Executive Summary
A. Background
B. Overview of the Proposal
1. Night Operations
2. Operations Over People
3. Applicability to Existing Small UAS
4. Waivers
5. Miscellaneous Changes to Part 107
C. Security Considerations
D. Compliance and Enforcement Tools
E. Costs and Benefits
II. Authority for This Rulemaking
III. Background
A. Related FAA and DOT Actions
1. Registration and Marking Requirements for Small Unmanned
Aircraft
2. Operation and Certification of Small Unmanned Aircraft
Systems
3. Secure Operations of Small Unmanned Aircraft Systems
B. Advantages of Operations Over People and at Night
C. Micro UAS Aviation Rulemaking Committee
IV. Discussion of the Proposed Rule
A. Operations at Night
1. Analysis of Risk of Night Operations
2. Review of Exemptions and Waivers
3. Visual Observation at Night
4. Anti-Collision Lighting
5. Waiver
6. Preflight Familiarization
7. Remote Pilot Knowledge
B. Operations Over People
1. Definitions
2. ARC Recommendation
3. Category 1 Operations
4. Category 2 and 3 Operations
5. Means of Compliance
6. Aircraft With Variable Modes and Configurations
7. Declaring Compliance
8. Recordkeeping Requirements
9. Remote Pilot Operating Instructions
10. Labeling Requirements
11. Manufacturer Accountability
12. Operational Requirements and Remote Pilot Restrictions
13. Provisions Applicable to Existing Small UAS
C. Waivers
1. Prohibition on Operations Over a Moving Vehicle
2. Operations Over People
D. Remote Pilot in Command Requirements
1. Presentation of Remote Pilot in Command Certificate
2. Changes to Knowledge Testing Framework
V. Other Amendments
A. UAS Exemption-Holders
B. Remote Pilot in Command
C. Operation of Multiple Small UAS
VI. Privacy
VII. Section 44807 Statutory Findings
A. Hazard to Users of the NAS or the Public
B. Certificate Requirements
VIII. Regulatory Notices and Analyses
A. Regulatory Evaluation
1. Assumptions and Data
2. Benefits Summary
3. Costs and Savings Summary
4. Benefit Cost Summary
B. Regulatory Flexibility Act
1. Description of Reasons the Agency is Considering the Action
2. Statement of the Legal Basis and Objectives for the Proposed
Rule
3. Description of the Record-Keeping and Other Compliance
Requirements of the Proposed Rule
4. All Federal Rules That May Duplicate, Overlap, or Conflict
With the Proposed Rule
5. Description and an Estimated Number of Small Entities to
Which the Proposed Rule Will Apply
6. Description of Significant Regulatory Alternatives Considered
for Small Entities
C. International Trade Impact Assessment
D. Unfunded Mandates Assessment
E. Paperwork Reduction Act
F. International Compatibility and Cooperation
G. Environmental Analysis
IX. Executive Order Determinations
A. Executive Order 13132, Federalism
B. Executive Order 13211, Regulations That Significantly Affect
Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use
C. Executive Order 13609, Promoting International Regulatory
Cooperation
D. Executive Order 13771, Reducing Regulation and Controlling
Regulatory Costs
X. Tribal Outreach
XI. Additional Information
A. Comments Invited
B. Proprietary or Confidential Business Information
C. Availability of Rulemaking Documents
D. Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act
[[Page 3857]]
I. Executive Summary
A. Background
On June 28, 2016, the FAA published the much-anticipated rules that
allowed people to begin conducting routine, civil small UAS
operations.\1\ That rule established a new part in the Code of Federal
Regulations, 14 CFR part 107 (part 107), containing remote pilot
certification and operating rules for small UAS weighing less than 55
pounds. Under those rules, anyone operating a small UAS must either
hold a remote pilot certificate or be under the direct supervision of a
remote pilot in command.\2\ Throughout this document the FAA uses the
term ``remote pilot'' to mean a person authorized to conduct operations
under part 107. Part 107 specifically excludes operations by any UAS
weighing 55 pounds or greater; by air carriers, regardless of size; and
by any UAS, regardless of size that operates pursuant to an exemption
issued under Section 333 of Public Law 112-95 \3\ (or 49 U.S.C.
44807).\4\ In addition, as a result of Public Law 115-254, part 107
also does not apply to limited recreational UAS operations under 49
U.S.C. 44809.\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Operation and Certification of Small Unmanned Aircraft
Systems, 81 FR 42064 (June 28, 2016).
\2\ 14 CFR 107.12.
\3\ Signed into law February 14, 2012.
\4\ Section 347(b) of Public Law 115-254 (Oct. 5, 2018) repealed
Section 333.
\5\ Section 349 of Public Law 115-254 repealed section 336 of
Public Law 112-95.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
This proposal is the next step in the FAA's incremental approach to
integrating UAS into the national airspace system (NAS), based on
demands for increased operational flexibility and the experience FAA
has gained since part 107 was first published.\6\ Specifically, this
proposal would expand the activities permitted under part 107 to allow
operations over people and at night under certain conditions. As such,
it builds on the framework established when the FAA first published
part 107. For example, this proposal applies to the same universe of
UAS operations identified in the 2016 rule. The FAA will continue to
build on this framework as it develops future proposals to allow
increasingly more complex operations in the NAS.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\6\ Operation and Certification of Small Unmanned Aircraft
Systems, 81 FR 42064 (June 28, 2016). In the 2016 rule, the FAA
noted that it would continue to work on expanding the types of small
UAS operations that would be permitted as it gained more experience
with the risks UAS pose to the NAS.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
This proposal also builds on the performance-based regulatory
philosophy established in the 2016 part 107 rule. In that rule, the FAA
recognized that the possibilities for innovation in unmanned aircraft
technology are virtually boundless and that the industry can move in
directions no one can predict. Today, there are even more applications
and opportunities for small UAS that either did not exist or were only
in their nascent stages in 2016. The FAA's challenge in developing this
proposal, therefore, is to balance the need to mitigate the risk small
unmanned aircraft pose to other aircraft and to people and property on
the ground without inhibiting innovation.
One aspect of the FAA's challenge is that technology moves at the
speed of innovation while the administrative rulemaking process, by
design, does not. To address this challenge, this proposal is
technologically neutral, with the understanding that technology and
applications will evolve in the time between the publication of this
proposal and the final rule, and beyond. As a result, this proposal
incorporates performance-based requirements to achieve the agency's
safety objectives while simultaneously encouraging the development of
solutions in this dynamic environment.
Taking into account this challenge and these competing
considerations, the FAA proposes to relax the prohibition on operations
over people and at night under certain circumstances. While this step
may have a significant effect on stakeholders, it represents a small
change to the regulatory structure for small UAS. The FAA expects all
operators to continue to comply with the existing provisions of part
107. The consequences of noncompliance that currently apply to part 107
remain in effect and would be extended to any new provisions
implemented following this proposal. Section I.D. discusses the
consequences of noncompliance.
B. Overview of the Proposal
1. Night Operations
Current FAA regulations do not permit small UAS operations at night
(Sec. 107.29). An operation at night is defined as an operation
conducted between the end of evening civil twilight and the beginning
of morning civil twilight, as published in the Air Almanac, converted
to local time.\7\ Part 107 permits operators to request a waiver from
these provisions, however. (Sec. 107.200). As of December 31, 2017,
the agency received 4,837 requests for waivers to operate at night,
granted 1,233, and disapproved 2,256; the vast majority of these were
disapproved because the waiver requests lacked necessary
information.\8\ Requests to operate at night are, by far, the most
common type of waiver request the FAA receives. To date, the FAA has
not received any reports of small UAS accidents operating under a night
waiver.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\7\ 14 CFR 1.1.
\8\ The total reflects a third category of waiver requests:
Those that were neither granted nor disapproved. These may include
pending, withdrawn, or abandoned requests.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In evaluating the waiver requests, the FAA considered the most
critical factors to ensuring safety during night operations to be anti-
collision lighting and operator knowledge. Accordingly, the FAA
proposes to allow routine, small UAS operations at night under two
conditions. First, the operator would complete knowledge testing or
training, including new subject matter areas related to operating at
night. The second condition would be that the small UAS has an anti-
collision light illuminated and visible for at least 3 statute
miles.\9\ Section IV.A. discusses these proposed requirements.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\9\ A statute mile is 5,280 feet. This is distinguished from a
nautical mile, which is approximately 6,076 feet and is often used
as a unit of measure in aviation.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
2. Operations Over People
In the 2016 rule, the FAA established that an operation over people
is one in which a small unmanned aircraft passes over any part of any
person who is not directly participating in the operation \10\ and who
is not located under a covered structure or inside a stationary
vehicle. (Sec. 107.39). While the 2016 rule prohibited routine
operations over people, it provided a process for a remote pilot to
obtain a waiver to conduct operations over people. (Sec. 107.200).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\10\ See 81 FR at 42129. To the extent part 107 refers to direct
involvement, the FAA considers such involvement to mean the remote
pilot in command relies on the person's assistance for the safe
conduct of the operation.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
This rule proposes to allow routine operations over people without
a waiver or exemption \11\ under certain conditions. The applicable
conditions vary depending on the level of risk the small UAS operations
present to people
[[Page 3858]]
on the ground. The FAA proposes three categories of permissible
operations over people based on the risk of injury they present:
Category 1, Category 2, and Category 3. Section IV.B. discusses
manufacturer and operator requirements for each category.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\11\ Title 14 CFR107.200 states the Administrator may issue a
certificate of waiver authorizing a deviation from any regulation
specified in Sec. 107.205 if the Administrator finds that a
proposed small UAS operation can safely be conducted under the terms
of that certificate of waiver. Section 107.205(g) currently lists
the operations over people prohibition as a regulation that is
subject to waiver. The Administrator also maintains authority to
issue exemptions from regulations promulgated under 49 U.S.C.
44701(a) or (b) or any of sections 44702-44706 of title 49, if the
Administrator finds the exemption is in the public interest. Title
14 CFR 11.81-11.103 details the process for obtaining such an
exemption.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
(a) Category 1
The FAA determined that small unmanned aircraft weighing less than
0.55 pounds pose a low risk of injury when operating over people.
Accordingly, Category 1 is simple and straightforward: Operators would
be able to fly small unmanned aircraft weighing 0.55 pounds or less
over people. While these operations would be subject to all of the
existing requirements governing small UAS operations in part 107,\12\
the FAA does not propose any additional restrictions as a condition of
flying over people. If adopted, remote pilots would be able to conduct
operations over people the day a final rule goes into effect. Remote
operators would be responsible for weighing or otherwise determining
that their small unmanned aircraft does not exceed the weight
threshold. The weight restriction would apply from takeoff to landing,
meaning that any cargo attached to the UAS could not cause the
aggregate weight (unmanned aircraft plus cargo) to exceed 0.55 pounds.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\12\ For example, the requirements to hold a remote operator's
certificate (Sec. 107.12), operate a small unmanned aircraft in a
condition for safe operation (Sec. 107.15), not operate in a
hazardous manner (Sec. 107.23), operate within visual line of sight
(Sec. 107.31), and others would continue to apply to these
operations.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The FAA does not propose any design standards for Category 1.
Although the FAA proposes design standards for exposed rotating parts
(propellers) for other categories of small unmanned aircraft operations
(discussed later in this document), it does not propose comparable
standards for Category 1. This is because the FAA believes that exposed
rotating parts on this category of small unmanned aircraft pose a low
risk of injury to people. Section IV.B.3. discusses Category 1
operations.
(b) Category 2
Category 2 would provide flexibility for operators who wish to
conduct operations over people using unmanned aircraft that weigh more
than 0.55 pounds. Unlike Category 1, Category 2 is not solely weight-
based. The FAA proposes a set of performance-based requirements that
would allow a small unmanned aircraft to operate over people if the
manufacturer can demonstrate that, if the unmanned aircraft crashed
into a person, the resulting injury would be below a certain severity
threshold. The manufacturer would have the flexibility to design the
unmanned aircraft in any way that would allow it to meet this
threshold.
The requirements specific to Category 2 would have three parts.
First, the small unmanned aircraft must be designed, upon impact with a
person, not to result in an injury as severe as the injury that would
result from a transfer of 11 ft-lbs of kinetic energy from a rigid
object. Section IV.B.4. provides more detailed information about how
the FAA chose this standard, including how to measure the severity of
the injury. There are myriad ways a manufacturer could design a small
unmanned aircraft to meet this threshold, taking into account weight,
speed, altitude limitations, materials, and technological fail-safe
measures. For example, a manufacturer could offset weight with speed
limitations, or vice versa. Or the manufacturer could use advanced
materials or construction methods that are designed to reduce or
prevent injury upon impact. For example, using frangible materials, or
designing aircraft to crumple upon impact in a way that would likely
reduce the amount of kinetic energy transferred and, as a result, the
severity of the injury. In addition, the manufacturer could design
features or use technology that slow the unmanned aircraft's rate of
descent or divert it away from people during a loss of control. These
are just a few conceptual examples. The possibilities for designing an
unmanned aircraft to meet this standard are too vast to create an
exhaustive list. By providing flexibility through performance-based
requirements, the FAA enables the ingenuity of the industry to come up
with ideas not yet even considered.
Second, the FAA proposes that the unmanned aircraft would not have
exposed rotating parts that could lacerate human skin. There are a
number of ways a manufacturer could design small unmanned aircraft to
comply with this requirement. For example, a manufacturer could design
a shroud to protect skin from laceration upon impact. Or it could
design blades that do not lacerate upon impact. Another option could be
to design the unmanned aircraft without external rotating parts. This
proposal leaves the decision to choose any one of these, or create
another solution. This proposal sets only the desired outcome; it does
not tell manufacturers how to achieve that outcome. The FAA anticipates
that manufacturers would present many different designs to meet this
requirement.
Third, no small UAS could be operated over people if it has an FAA-
identified safety defect. For Category 2, a safety defect would be any
material, component, or feature that presents more than a low
probability of causing a casualty when operating over people. For this
proposal, the FAA defines a casualty to be a serious injury, which
corresponds to a level 3 injury on the Abbreviated Injury Scale (AIS).
Section IV.B.1. discusses the AIS and includes examples of level 3
injuries. A safety defect could include any hazardous condition that
meets this threshold, including those not otherwise identified through
the impact kinetic energy or exposed rotating parts analyses. Examples
could include exposed wires, hot surfaces, sharp edges, faulty
construction, corrupted software as well as many other hazardous
conditions. Section IV.B.11.a) discusses safety defects.
Before a Category 2 small unmanned aircraft could be used to fly
over people, the manufacturer would be required to demonstrate, to the
FAA's satisfaction, that the aircraft met these injury threshold
requirements. The process for demonstrating compliance is discussed
later. If adopted as proposed, once a manufacturer demonstrated
compliance to the FAA, the small unmanned aircraft could be flown over
people. Operators would be required to adhere to any other existing
requirements in part 107 that apply to operating small UAS generally,
but the FAA does not propose any operational restrictions specific to
operations over people for Category 2.
More detailed information about Category 2 operations and how the
FAA developed the requirements is in Section IV.B.4.
(c) Category 3
The FAA proposes a final category of operations--Category 3--that
allows for a higher injury threshold than Category 2, but that limits
an individual's exposure to the risk of injury through operational
limitations. Similar to Category 2, the requirements specific to
Category 3 would have three parts. The first part would require a small
unmanned aircraft to be designed, upon impact with a person, not to
result in an injury as severe as the injury that would result from a
transfer of 25 ft-lbs of kinetic energy from a rigid object. The higher
injury threshold means that operators could take into account different
weight, speed, altitude, material, and technology factors when choosing
a mission-appropriate small UAS. For example, the unmanned aircraft
could be faster, heavier, designed to fly higher, made from
[[Page 3859]]
different materials, or use different technology. The second part would
be identical to Category 2: The unmanned aircraft would not have
exposed rotating parts that could lacerate human skin.
Third, as with Category 2, no small UAS could be operated over
people if it has an FAA-identified a safety defect. Category 3 is
distinct, however, because the safety defect would be one that presents
more than a low probability of causing a fatality when operating over
people.
In addition, unlike Category 1 and 2, Category 3 would have an
operational requirement. Because of the higher injury threshold, there
would be an increased risk of injury to people on the ground. To manage
this increased risk, Category 3 operations would include three
operational limitations not applicable to the other categories of
operations. First, the proposal would prohibit operations over any
open-air assembly of people. Second, the operations would have to be
within or over a closed- or restricted-access site and anyone within
that site would have to be notified that a small unmanned aircraft may
fly over them. Third, for operations not within or over a closed- or
restricted-access site, the small unmanned aircraft may transit but not
hover over people.
As with Category 2, before a Category 3 small unmanned aircraft
could be used to fly over people, the manufacturer would be required to
demonstrate, to the FAA's satisfaction, that the aircraft meets the
injury threshold requirements.
More detailed information about Category 3 operations and how the
FAA developed the standards is in Section IV.B.4.
(d) Demonstrating Compliance With Injury Thresholds
Before a small unmanned aircraft could be used to fly Category 2 or
3 operations over people, the manufacturer would have to demonstrate,
to the FAA's satisfaction, that the aircraft meets the proposed
requirements. The proposed process for presenting evidence of
compliance to the FAA is based on processes that the FAA currently uses
for determining compliance with standards applicable to manned
aircraft. For that reason, members of the manned aviation community may
find the processes and terminology in this proposal familiar; however,
they differ in that they are streamlined and tailored to the unique
requirements of small UAS.
The proposal directs manufacturers to submit evidence of compliance
using a Means of Compliance. A Means of Compliance is the term the FAA
uses for the method a manufacturer would use to show that its small UAS
would not exceed the injury threshold upon impact with a person. The
FAA does not propose to tell manufacturers which method or test to use
to establish compliance; rather, the proposal allows the manufacturer
to develop a test and present evidence to the FAA showing that the test
is appropriate and accurately demonstrates compliance. The FAA
anticipates that manufacturers or standards setting organizations
(SSOs) will come up with a variety of different types of Means of
Compliance. Some could include simple measures of kinetic energy, or
they could include sophisticated tests or computer modeling or any
other method that accurately shows compliance.
If the FAA agreed that the Means of Compliance accurately
demonstrates compliance, it would accept the Means of Compliance and
allow the manufacturer to use it to demonstrate that small UAS meet the
proposed requirements. Once the FAA accepts a Means of Compliance, the
FAA would notify the public. The FAA would not disclose commercially
valuable information in this document. It would only provide general
information stating that FAA had accepted the Means of Compliance.
Given that small UAS manufacturers have varying degrees of
sophistication, the FAA proposes to offer one pre-accepted Means of
Compliance that measures the transfer of kinetic energy upon impact.
The FAA stresses that manufacturers would not have to use this method;
it would be merely pre-accepted for manufacturers to use if they so
choose.
A manufacturer could use any FAA-accepted Means of Compliance to
show that its small UAS meets the standards proposed in this rule. If
the small UAS meets the standards, the manufacturer would submit a
Declaration of Compliance to the FAA that identifies the Means of
Compliance used and certifies compliance with all the applicable
requirements. If the FAA accepted the Declaration of Compliance, the
manufacturer would be able to consider the small UAS available for
operations over people. The FAA would make a list publicly available of
the small UAS models for which it accepted a Declaration of Compliance.
The FAA proposes an additional flexibility that would allow a small
UAS to be qualified for both Category 2 or 3 operations, as long as
there are safeguards that prevent the remote pilot from inadvertently
switching between the two modes of operation. For example, the small
UAS could have software that limits speed or altitude that makes it
eligible for Category 2 operations, but have different settings for
Category 3 operations. Or, a small unmanned aircraft could be eligible
for Category 2 operations when unladen, but meet Category 3
requirements when carrying a payload. There are many different
combinations or options manufacturers could employ to qualify small UAS
for operations over people in different modes for different operations.
More information on small UAS that are qualified for more than one
category of operation is in Section IV.B.6.
Section IV.B.5. provides information about Means of Compliance.
Section IV.B.7. includes details concerning Declarations of Compliance.
The FAA also proposes a process to rescind a previously accepted
Declaration of Compliance if the FAA determined the small unmanned
aircraft did not meet requirements of this rule. More information on
the circumstances under which the FAA proposes to consider rescinding a
Declaration of Compliance and the proposed process is in Section
IV.B.7.b)(6).
(e) Other Requirements for Manufacturers
First, the FAA proposes to require that each manufacturer,
including anyone who assumes the role of manufacturer after making
modifications, provides remote pilot operating instructions to anyone
to whom it sells, transfers, or otherwise provides the small UAS for
use. The operating instructions would address what types of payloads
are permissible and other information relevant to the eligibility of
the small UAS to operate in accordance with its Category 2 or Category
3 qualification. Section IV.B.9. discusses operating instructions.
Second, the rule proposes to require that any manufacturer holding
an FAA-accepted Declaration of Compliance allow the FAA to inspect the
manufacturer's facilities, technical data, and small UAS covered by
that Declaration of Compliance to determine compliance. The FAA also
proposes that the manufacturer allow the FAA to witness any tests
required for compliance. Section IV.B.11.d) discusses inspection
requirements.
Third, the FAA proposes to require that a manufacturer holding an
FAA-accepted Declaration of Compliance establish a process to notify
the public and the FAA of safety defects or other issues that would
render the small UAS ineligible for operations over people. Section
IV.B.11.b) discusses reporting requirements.
[[Page 3860]]
Fourth, the FAA proposes to require any holder of a Declaration of
Compliance or Means of Compliance to retain certain records for a
minimum of two years after ending production of related small UAS.
Section IV.B.8. discusses recordkeeping requirements.
(f) Rules Applicable to Individuals Who Modify Small UAS
Under this proposal, the FAA would consider not only the original
person or company that designed or built a small UAS to be a
manufacturer, but also anyone who modifies it after the FAA accepted
its Declaration of Compliance. For example, if an individual bought a
small unmanned aircraft that the FAA accepted as meeting Category 2
requirements and then modified it in a way that would change its
performance so that it would no longer meet Category 2, that person
would be considered a manufacturer and would be required either to
requalify the small unmanned aircraft or cease operations over people.
The purpose would be to prevent someone from buying a qualified small
unmanned aircraft, modifying it in a way that would make it unqualified
for operations over people, and then continuing to operate over people.
Potential disqualifying modifications could include (but are not
limited to), changing computer code to remove operational restrictions,
replacing compliant propeller blades with noncompliant blades, or
attaching a camera or other payload to the unmanned aircraft that was
not specifically identified as approved in the manufacturer's
instructions. Before flying over people after making disqualifying
modifications, the person making the modification would have to test
the small unmanned aircraft using an FAA-accepted Means of Compliance
and submit a Declaration of Compliance. Section IV.B.7.b)(5) discusses
post-acceptance modifications.
(g) Other Requirements for Operators
This proposal includes several other requirements for remote pilots
who operate over people. First, any small unmanned aircraft used for
Category 2 or 3 operations would have to be marked with a label that
identified it as either Category 2 or 3 (or both). While manufacturers
would be free to label their small unmanned aircraft, ultimately the
responsibility for making sure that an aircraft is properly labeled
before each flight falls to the remote pilot. Section IV.B.10.
discusses labeling requirements.
Second, operators would be responsible for following the
manufacturer's instructions that accompany the small UAS. In some
cases, small UAS qualified to operate over people may have specific
instructions for operating over people. For example, a manufacturer of
a small UAS qualified to operate under more than one category would
have to explain how to operate in each category. Similarly, some small
UAS may have a mode that does not qualify for any category of
operations over people. Remote pilots would have to follow the
instructions provided so that they only operated over people when their
small UAS are in the right operational mode and are otherwise following
all instructions or limitations for safe operations. Section IV.B.9.
discusses manufacturer instructions.
Third, under existing rules, remote pilots must conduct certain
pre-flight actions to ensure the safety of the operation, including
assessing the operating environment and inspecting the small UAS.
(Sec. 107.49). The FAA proposes to require, in addition to the
existing pre-flight requirements, that the remote pilot ensure that the
aircraft meets the requirements in this proposed rule before flying
over people. One way of doing this would be for the remote pilot to
verify that the small UAS is qualified for the type of operation over
people he or she plans to conduct. This would include making sure that
the small UAS is marked with the appropriate category and checking
publicly available information from the FAA and the manufacturer to
verify that the Declaration of Compliance for that model of small UAS
has been accepted by the FAA. Section IV.B.12. discusses pre-flight
requirements.
Fourth, although part 107 currently does not allow operations over
people in moving vehicles (Sec. 107.39), the FAA proposes a new
section that makes clear that such operations are expressly prohibited.
There is more information on operations over moving vehicles in Section
IV.B.12.b).
3. Applicability to Existing Small UAS
The FAA recognizes that a great number of small UAS are available
in the marketplace and are in use. Accordingly, the FAA proposes to
allow any manufacturer or operator to test its small UAS and submit
evidence that it is eligible to operate over people using the proposed
Means of Compliance and Declaration of Compliance processes described
above. Section IV.B.13. discusses provisions applicable to existing
small UAS.
4. Waivers
Under existing part 107, remote pilots can request a waiver from
specific operational provisions. (Sec. 107.200). The FAA does not
propose to make any changes to this process; however, it does propose
to expand the list of provisions from which an operator could seek a
waiver. Currently, part 107 allows operators to seek waivers from the
following provisions: The prohibition on operations from a moving
vehicle or aircraft; the requirement for daylight operations; the
requirement to operate within visual line of sight; the provision
relating to the use of visual observers; the prohibition on operating
multiple small UAS simultaneously; the requirement to yield the right
of way; the prohibition on operating over people; provisions relating
to operations within certain airspace; and provisions relating to
certain operating limitations. (Sec. 107.205).
This rule proposes to include three additional types of waivers.
The first would apply to operations over moving vehicles. Under
existing regulations, an operator may seek a waiver to operate over
moving vehicles using the waiver provision applicable to operations
over people. (Sec. 107.205(g)). This proposal would establish a stand-
alone waiver provision applicable to operations over moving vehicles to
make the process clearer for operators. The second would permit an
operator to seek a waiver to conduct operations over people that would
not otherwise meet the requirements of this proposed rule. The third
would permit an operator to seek a waiver of the anti-collision
lighting requirement for night and civil twilight operations. In all
cases, the waiver applicant would be required to demonstrate that the
operations could be conducted at the same level of safety that the
proposed requirements provide. Section IV.C. discusses waivers.
5. Miscellaneous Changes to Part 107
In addition to the provisions enabling operations at night and over
people, the FAA proposes some other changes to part 107. First, under
current regulations, the FAA requires the remote pilot to present his
or her remote pilot certificate upon request from the Administrator.
(Sec. 107.7). This proposal would extend that obligation to require
the remote pilot to present his or her remote pilot certificate and
identification in response to a request from the Administrator; an
authorized representative of the National Transportation Safety Board
(NTSB); any Federal, State, or local law enforcement officer; and any
authorized
[[Page 3861]]
representative of the Transportation Security Administration (TSA).
Section IV.D.1. discusses this proposed amendment.
Second, the FAA proposes to update existing regulations related to
remote pilot certification. Currently, part 107 requires remote pilots
to take an initial knowledge test and then another test once every two
years to maintain a current remote pilot certificate. (Sec. Sec.
107.61, 107.65). This rule proposes to convert the subsequent knowledge
testing requirement to a knowledge training requirement. In addition,
the rule proposes to update the testing and training materials to
harmonize initial testing and subsequent training, and to add new
information about night operations. Section IV.D.2. provides more
information about knowledge testing and training.
C. Security Considerations
While the focus of this proposal is to ensure the safety of
operations that fly over people, the FAA is cognizant that security
concerns are paramount. As with manned aviation, safety and security
walk hand in hand. For that reason, the FAA, which is primarily a
safety organization, has partnered with other Federal agencies to
identify and address security concerns. Through this partnership, the
FAA developed an advance notice of proposed rulemaking (ANPRM), Safe
and Secure Operations of Small Unmanned Aircraft Systems, seeking input
on various security considerations related to unmanned aircraft.\13\
The ANPRM appears separately in this issue of the Federal Register.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\13\ See Safe and Secure Operations of Small Unmanned Aircraft
Systems, RIN 2120-AL26 (Fall 2018), available at https://www.reginfo.gov/public/do/eAgendaViewRule?pubId=201810&RIN=2120-AL26.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In particular, the FAA is cognizant of the importance of various
stakeholders to be able to identify small UAS to mitigate security
concerns that operations may present. Because of the importance of this
particular issue, the FAA plans to finalize its policy concerning
remote identification of small UAS--by way of rulemaking, standards
development, or other activities that other Federal agencies may
propose--prior to finalizing the proposed changes in this rule that
would permit operations of small UAS over people and operations at
night. Section III.A.3. provides more information about security
considerations.
D. Compliance and Enforcement Tools
While the FAA does not propose any new penalties or compliance and
enforcement tools in this rule, all existing means of addressing
noncompliance that currently apply to small UAS operators under
existing part 107 or the FAA's general enforcement authority would
continue to apply. The FAA expects compliance with all terms of the
final rule that follows this proposal. The consequences of
noncompliance could include any of the following compliance and
enforcement tools the FAA has available to it.
In accordance with its current compliance philosophy, FAA's goal is
to find and fix problems before they cause an accident or incident.
Under this approach, enforcement is one tool the FAA uses, but it may
not be the most effective tool for addressing small UAS compliance
concerns, given the relative inexperience of small UAS operators.
Therefore, non-enforcement tools, to which the FAA refers as compliance
actions, are additional means to achieve compliance with FAA
regulations concerning the safety of small UAS. Such tools include
counseling in the form of operator education or an informational letter
used to communicate effectively the requirements of small UAS
regulations.
If an operator is unwilling or unable to comply with, or is
deliberately flouting, regulations, the FAA would employ enforcement
action. The FAA has a number of enforcement tools available including
warning notices, letters of correction, civil penalties, and
certificate actions to address violations and help deter future
violations. Civil penalties for violations of the Federal Aviation
Regulations range from a maximum per violation penalty of $1,437, for
individual operators, to $32,666 for large companies. In addition,
Congress granted the FAA the authority to levy civil penalties of up to
$20,000 for interfering with law enforcement, first responders, or
wildfire operations. The FAA may take enforcement action against anyone
who conducts an unauthorized UAS operation or operates a UAS in a way
that endangers the safety of the National Airspace System. This
authority is designed to protect users of the airspace as well as
people and property on the ground.
This proposed rule would not alter this enforcement regime. The FAA
emphasizes, however, that certain requirements this rule proposes would
increase remote pilots' responsibilities. For example, for operations
at night, remote pilots in command would be responsible for ensuring
their small unmanned aircraft has an anti-collision light visible for a
minimum of 3 statute miles, and for completing an updated initial
knowledge test or updated training. For operations over people, remote
pilots in command would be responsible for ensuring their Category 1
aircraft does not exceed the proposed weight limitation. For Category 3
operations, remote pilots in command would have the responsibility of
adhering to specific operating limitations. For both Category 2 and
Category 3 operations, remote pilots in command would need to ensure
they comply with remote pilot operating instructions. For all proposed
categories of operations, remote pilots in command would be required to
ensure the small UAS is eligible for the appropriate category of
operations. The FAA maintains the discretion and authority to utilize
appropriate surveillance and engage in action available to the FAA when
the FAA determines to do so.
Table 1 provides a brief summary of the major provisions of this
notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).
Table 1--Summary of Major Provisions
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Issue Proposed regulation
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Presentation of Certificate Remote pilots in command must present
and Identification. their remote pilot certificate as well
as identification to certain Federal,
State, or local officials, upon request.
14 CFR 107.7(a)
Operations at Night.......... A remote pilot in command may operate a
small UAS at night as long as:
(1) The remote pilot has
satisfactorily completed updated
knowledge testing or training
requirements; and
(2) The small unmanned aircraft
maintains an anti-collision light
that remains lit throughout the
flight.
[[Page 3862]]
14 CFR 107.29
Prohibition on Operation over No operations over people located in
Moving Vehicles. moving vehicles.
14 CFR 107.105
Category 1 Remote Pilot Ensure aircraft weighs 0.55 pounds or
Requirements. less.
14 CFR 107.110
Category 2 Remote Pilot (1) Use aircraft qualified and labeled
Requirements. for Category 2 operations;
14 CFR 107.115(a)
(2) Ensure aircraft is labeled for
Category 2 operations.
14 CFR 107.150
Category 3 Remote Pilot (1) Use aircraft qualified and labeled
Requirements. for Category 3 operations;
14 CFR 107.120(a)(1)
(2) Ensure aircraft is labeled for
Category 3 operations;
14 CFR 107.145
Remote pilots in command cannot conduct
Category 3 operations over open air
assemblies, and cannot conduct these
operations unless the operation occurs:
(1) Within or over a closed- or
restricted-access site where all
people accessing the site have
notice; or
(2) When the aircraft does not
maintain sustained flight over
people.
14 CFR 107.120(a)(2) and (3)
Eligibility Requirements for No performance-based requirements (only a
Category 1. requirement that the small UAS weigh
0.55 pounds or less).
14 CFR 107.110
Eligibility Requirements for (1) Meet performance-based requirements
Category 2. by showing the small unmanned aircraft:
will not, upon impact with a
person, result in an injury more
severe than the injury that would
result from a transfer of 11 ft-lbs
of kinetic energy from a rigid
object;
does not contain any exposed
rotating parts that could lacerate
human skin upon impact with a person;
and
does not contain any safety
defects identified by the Administrator.
(2) Display a label indicating
eligibility for Category 2;
(3) Have remote pilot operating
instructions;
(4) Be subject to a product notification
process; and
(5) Operate only after the FAA has
accepted a Declaration of Compliance for
that make/model.
14 CFR 107.115(b)
Eligibility Requirements for (1) Meet performance-based requirements
Category 3. showing the small unmanned aircraft:
will not, upon impact with a
person, result in an injury more
severe than the injury that would
result from a transfer of 25 ft-lbs
of kinetic energy from a rigid
object;
Does not contain any exposed
rotating parts that could lacerate
human skin upon impact with a person;
and
Does not contain any safety
defects identified by the
Administrator
(2) Display a label indicating
eligibility for Category 3;
(3) Have remote pilot operating
instructions;
(4) Be subject to a product notification
process; and
(5) Operate only after the FAA has
accepted a Declaration of Compliance for
that make/model.
14 CFR 107.120(b)
Previously Manufactured Small A small UAS manufactured prior to the
UAS. effective date of a final rule
implementing these regulations may be
operated over people if:
It weighs 0.55 pounds or less; or the
make/model complies with the impact
kinetic energy and exposed rotating
parts requirements to render it
eligible for operations pursuant to
Category 2 or Category 3; and
(1) The manufacturer has submitted a
Declaration of Compliance for that
make/model;
(2) The FAA has accepted the
Declaration of Compliance; and
(3) The aircraft has a label
appropriate for the category of
operations for which it is eligible
to operate.
14 CFR 107.140
Requirements for a Means of For small UAS manufactured to be eligible
Compliance. for Category 2 or Category 3 operations,
the small UAS must comply with the
requirements of Sec. 107.115(b)(1) or
Sec. 107.120(b)(1), as shown by test,
analysis, or inspection, or any
combination of these options that the
Administrator has determined is
acceptable. Requests for FAA acceptance
of means of compliance must contain:
(1) Detailed description of the means
of compliance; and
(2) Justification, including any
substantiating material, showing the
means of compliance fulfills the
safety level set forth in Sec.
107.115(b)(1) or Sec.
107.120(b)(1).
14 CFR 107.125
Required Information for (1) Applicant's name;
Declaration of Compliance. (2) Applicant's physical address;
(3) Applicant's email address;
(4) Small UAS make/model name;
(5) Small UAS serial number or range of
serial numbers;
(6) Whether the Declaration of Compliance
is an initial or amended declaration;
[[Page 3863]]
(7) If amended, the reasons for the re-
submittal of the Declaration of
Compliance;
(8) Certification that the small UAS
satisfies the impact kinetic energy and
exposed rotating parts standards of that
category through an accepted means of
compliance;
(9) Certification that the manufacturer
has a product support and notification
process;
(10) Certification that the Administrator
will be allowed to inspect the
manufacturer's facilities, technical
data, and any manufactured small UAS and
witness any tests necessary to determine
compliance with this subpart; and
(11) Other information as required by the
Administrator.
14 CFR 107.135
Rescinding a Declaration of The FAA may rescind a Declaration of
Compliance. Compliance if:
(1) The make/model is no longer
compliant with the impact kinetic
energy requirements of the category
for which it is declared;
(2) The make/model is no longer
compliant with the exposed rotating
parts limitation; or
(3) The Administrator identifies a
safety defect.
14 CFR 107.135
Recurrent Knowledge Training. A person may only operate a small UAS if
that person has completed the following
in a manner acceptable to the
Administrator within the past 24 months:
(1) Passed an initial aeronautical
knowledge test covering the areas of
knowledge specified in Sec. 107.73;
(2) Completed recurrent training
covering the areas of knowledge
specified in Sec. 107.73; or
(3) If a person holds a pilot
certificate (other than a student
pilot certificate) issued under part
61 and meets the flight review
requirements specified in Sec.
61.56, completed training covering
the areas of knowledge specified in
Sec. 107.74.
14 CFR 107.65
------------------------------------------------------------------------
E. Costs and Benefits
The FAA has analyzed the benefits and the costs associated with
this proposed rule and expects the benefits justify the costs. This
proposal would enable further operations of small UAS that will benefit
the economy and enable innovation and growth across a variety of
sectors, such as construction, education, infrastructure inspection,
insurance, marketing, and event photography. Operations currently
allowed under Part 107 would become less onerous and, in many
instances, more efficient with this proposal because, in general,
remote pilots would not necessarily need to avoid flying over people or
clear an area of non-participating people in advance of flying.\14\ In
addition, this proposal would assist the execution of first responder
and emergency management planning and operations.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\14\ As explained in section IV.B.12., this proposed rule would
not permit Category 3 operations over open-air assemblies of people.
Operations that occur pursuant to Category 1 and Category 2,
however, would not be subject to this prohibition.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The costs of this rule include both the FAA converting the
administration of tests to administration of training and manufacturers
conducting testing, analysis, or inspection to comply with the
requirements relevant to manufacturing a small UAS for operations over
people. Upon analysis of these costs, the FAA concludes the proposed
rule would result in a cost savings for relief provided through online
training and testing for remote pilots. The regulatory analysis for
this proposed rule presents a range of cost savings based on the three
varying fleet forecasts. Subsequently, over the five-year analysis
period the net present value cost savings of the proposed rule ranges
from $24 million to $121 million at a seven percent discount rate, for
net annualized costs savings between $6 million and $29 million. The
following table presents quantified costs to manufacturers and the FAA
and savings to remote pilots.
Table 2--Costs and Savings of Proposed Rule [$Millions]
[5-Year period of analysis *]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
7% PV 7% Annualized 3% PV 3% Annualized
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Low Case:
Costs (Manufacturers and FAA)............... 14 3 15 3
Cost Savings (Remote Pilots)................ (38) (9) (44) (10)
Net Cost Savings............................ (24) (6) (29) (6)
Base Case:
Costs (Manufacturers and FAA)............... 14 3 15 3
Cost Savings (Remote Pilots)................ (49) (12) (57) (12)
Net Cost Savings............................ (35) (9) (42) (9)
High Case:
Costs (Manufacturers and FAA)............... 14 3 15 3
Cost Savings (Remote Pilots)................ (135) (33) (158) (34)
Net Costs Savings........................... (121) (29) (143) (31)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* Columns may not sum to total due to rounding. Savings are shown in parenthesis to distinguish from costs.
[[Page 3864]]
The operation of small UAS over people may result in an increased
risk to safety. Although the FAA believes the probability of injuries
that may occur from operations of small UAS over people is small, when
that small probability is multiplied by an increased number of
operations, some additional risk of injury exists. This proposed rule's
performance-based standards would establish three categories of small
UAS operations defined primarily by level of risk of injury posed.
Compliance with the manufacturer and operational requirements that
apply to these categories would mitigate the risks of operating over
people.
II. Authority for This Rulemaking
The primary authority for this rulemaking is based on 49 U.S.C.
44807, which directs the Secretary of Transportation to determine
whether ``certain unmanned aircraft systems may operate safely in the
national airspace system [NAS].'' Section 44807 directs the Secretary
to use a risk-based approach in making such determinations and provides
such determinations may occur notwithstanding the completion of the
comprehensive plan and rulemaking required in other sections of the
statute. Section 44807(b) directs the Secretary to consider a specific
list of factors in determining which types of UAS may operate safely:
The Secretary must consider size, weight, speed, operational
capability, proximity to airports and populated areas, operation over
people, operation within visual line of sight, or operation during the
day or night. The Secretary must determine, based on these factors,
whether operations of the UAS do not create a hazard to users of the
NAS or the public. If the Secretary determines, pursuant to section
44807, that certain unmanned aircraft systems may operate safely in the
NAS, then the Secretary must ``establish requirements for the safe
operation of such aircraft systems in the national airspace system.''
49 U.S.C. 44807(c).
This rulemaking is also promulgated pursuant to 49 U.S.C.
40103(b)(1) and (2), which directs the 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. In addition, 49 U.S.C. 44701(a)(5) charges the
FAA with promoting safe flight of civil aircraft by prescribing
regulations the FAA finds necessary for safety in air commerce and
national security.
III. Background
A. Related FAA and DOT Actions
This rulemaking is a deliberative step in further integrating small
UAS into the NAS in a safe and secure manner. The FAA is incorporating
the operation of small UAS into the NAS using a phased, incremental,
and risk-based approach.\15\ In 2012, Congress passed the FAA
Modernization and Reform Act of 2012 (Pub. L. 112-95). Section 333 of
Pub. L. 112-95 directed the Secretary to determine which types of UAS
do not create a hazard to users of the NAS or the public or pose a
threat to national security. Based on such findings, Congress directed
the Secretary to establish requirements for the safe operation of such
UAS.\16\ On June 28, 2016, the FAA published the final rule for
Operation and Certification of small Unmanned Aircraft Systems
(hereinafter, ``2016 final rule''), which was among the first steps to
allow small UAS operations.\17\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\15\ For more information regarding the operation of small UAS,
see http://www.faa.gov/uas.
\16\ Section 347 of Public Law 115-254 repealed Section 333, but
replaced the relevant substantive provisions, codified at 49 U.S.C.
44807.
\17\ 81 FR 42064.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
As technology improves and the utility of small UAS for activities
that previously required manned aircraft increases, the FAA anticipates
an increased demand for flexibility in small UAS operations. The
proposal to permit small UAS operations over people and small UAS
operations at night is one of a number of regulatory steps the FAA is
taking to allow for this growth while still maintaining the safety of
the NAS. Possible small UAS operations that may operate over people or
at night include motion picture filming, newsgathering, law
enforcement, aerial photography, sports photography, and construction
or surveying. This proposed rule would enable further operations of
small UAS that would benefit the economy by increasing opportunities
for commercially beneficial small UAS operations.
1. Registration and Marking Requirements for Small Unmanned Aircraft
On December 16, 2015, the FAA published the Registration and
Marking Requirements for Small Unmanned Aircraft (Registration
Rule).\18\ The Registration Rule established a streamlined, web-based
registration system for small unmanned aircraft in 14 CFR part 48. The
FAA provided this process as an alternative to the registration
requirements for manned aircraft found in 14 CFR part 47. Regardless of
whether they chose the process in part 47 or part 48, the Registration
and Marking rule required all small UAS owners to register by February
16, 2016.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\18\ 80 FR 78594.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Registration Rule also established marking requirements for
small unmanned aircraft. In accordance with that rule, all small
unmanned aircraft must display a unique identifier. Each small UAS
operated under part 107 must display a unique registration number,
visible upon inspection of the small unmanned aircraft.
2. Operation and Certification of Small Unmanned Aircraft Systems
On June 28, 2016, the FAA and DOT jointly issued the 2016 final
rule.\19\ That rule, codified at 14 CFR part 107, allows small UAS
operations without requiring airworthiness certification, exemption, or
a certificate of waiver or authorization (COA). Part 107 generally sets
forth a framework of operational rules and robust restrictions to
permit routine civil operation of small UAS in the NAS in a safe
manner.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\19\ 81 FR 42064.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
To mitigate risk to people on the ground and other users of the
airspace, the 2016 final rule limited small UAS to daylight and civil
twilight operations, confined areas of operation, and visual-line-of-
sight operations. The 2016 final rule also addressed airspace
restrictions, remote pilot certification, visual observer requirements
that apply when a remote pilot in command opts to use a visual
observer, and operational limits to maintain the safety of the NAS and
ensure small UAS do not pose a threat to national security. Finally,
the 2016 final rule included a waiver provision, which allows
individual operations to deviate from many of the operational
limitations if the Administrator finds the applicant could safely
conduct the proposed operation under the terms of the certificate of
waiver.
In its NPRM that preceded the 2016 final rule, the agency proposed
including special provisions applicable to UAS weighing less than 4.4
pounds (micro UAS), but concluded such provisions were best addressed
in a separate proposal.\20\ A number of comments were submitted on
micro UAS operations in response to the Operation and Certification of
Small Unmanned Aircraft Systems NPRM,\21\ and the FAA considered many
of those
[[Page 3865]]
comments during the development of this proposal. This proposal for
small UAS operations over people is distinct from that proposal and not
all of the originally submitted comments remain relevant. Nevertheless,
the agency encourages members of the public to submit comments on this
proposal regardless of whether they had submitted comments to the
previous proposal.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\20\ 81 FR 42064 at 42122-23.
\21\ Operation and Certification of Small Unmanned Aircraft
Systems, Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, 80 FR 9544 (Feb. 23, 2015).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
3. Secure Operations of Small Unmanned Aircraft Systems
The FAA has been engaged in extensive outreach with Federal, State,
local, and tribal law enforcement entities on the subject of small UAS
operations. The FAA recognizes law enforcement officials are often in
the best position to detect and deter unsafe and unauthorized drone
operations. Therefore, the FAA works closely with these agencies to
provide information regarding the evidence needed by the FAA to take
enforcement actions and provide a communications link wherein state and
local law enforcement can pass along reports in a timely manner. For
example, all remote pilots operating in accordance with part 107 must
obtain an FAA-issued remote pilot certificate with small UAS rating.
The process for obtaining this certificate includes the same
Transportation Security Administration (TSA) review procedures that are
currently used under 49 U.S.C. 46111 to ensure that airman certificate
applicants do not pose a security risk. Although this proposed rule
would modify the recurrent knowledge testing requirements, an applicant
for a remote pilot certificate would still be subject to initial and
continuing TSA vetting.\22\ After initial vetting, TSA conducts
recurrent vetting to ensure that certificate holders do not
subsequently become a security threat. This framework is similar to the
framework applicable to pilots who operate manned aircraft.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\22\ See 49 U.S.C. 44903(j)(2)(D)(i).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The FAA remains committed to working with security partners to
ensure that appropriate means exist to mitigate security risks that
small UAS operations may present. In this regard, the FAA seeks input
on whether certain standards and restrictions should apply to
operations of small UAS. In particular, the FAA is currently engaged in
two distinct projects in which the FAA seeks feedback.
On May 4, 2017, the FAA convened an Aviation Rulemaking Committee
(ARC) of industry stakeholders and observers from relevant government
agencies to provide recommendations regarding technologies available
for remote identification and tracking of UAS. The ARC's objectives
included identifying and recommending emerging technology as well as
identifying requirements for fulfilling security and public safety
needs of law enforcement, homeland defense, and national security
communities. The ARC's members included experts with knowledge and
experience in electronic data capture, law enforcement, and public
safety, among other areas. The FAA is cognizant of the importance of
conducting research to develop potential standards relevant to remote
identification and tracking of small UAS and is committed to ensuring
further development of such standards and protocol in the interest of
enabling adequate security measures to mitigate security concerns that
operations of small UAS may present. As a result, the FAA plans to
finalize its policy concerning remote identification of small UAS--by
way of rulemaking, standards development, or other activities that
other Federal agencies may propose--prior to finalizing the proposed
changes in this rule that would permit operations of small UAS over
people and operations at night.\23\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\23\ The UAS Identification and Tracking Aviation Rulemaking
Committee charter is available at https://www.faa.gov/news/updates/media/UAS_ID_and_Tracking_ARC_Charter.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In addition, the FAA is collecting comments in response to its
publication of the Safe and Secure Operations of Small Unmanned
Aircraft Systems advance notice of proposed rulemaking (ANPRM). In
publishing the ANPRM, the FAA intends to gather information from the
public to inform the FAA's efforts in assessing options for reducing
risks to public safety and national security associated with further
integration of UAS into the NAS. The FAA may consider one or more
rulemaking efforts based on the comments it receives in response to the
ANPRM.
B. Advantages of Operations Over People and at Night
The high level of interest in small UAS rulemaking reflects the
small UAS industry's strong desire for integration of unmanned aircraft
in the NAS. UAS integration will likely create substantial economic,
technological, and societal benefits while ensuring that the United
States retains its role as a global leader in innovation and aviation
safety.
Today, remote pilots in command who are compliant with part 107 can
fly a small UAS within the remote pilot's visual line of sight within a
safe distance from people, but not over people who are not
participating in the operation, and not at night. Without this proposed
rule, the only entities allowed to operate small UAS over people or at
night are: (1) Public entities holding an active certificate of waiver
or authorization (COA), (2) entities holding an exemption from the FAA
that permits UAS operations over people or at night, (3) entities that
hold a waiver to the prohibitions on operations over people or
operations at night, or (4) civil small UAS that have received
airworthiness certification from the FAA and operate with a COA. The
FAA has issued over 6,000 exemptions for operations of small UAS, some
of which permitted operations over people or operations at night. In
addition, since part 107 took effect, the FAA has issued 9 waivers for
operations over people and over 1,200 for operations at night. Under
the terms of this proposed rule, individuals would be able to operate
small UAS over people and at night in the NAS under part 107 without a
waiver or exemption, as long as the remote pilot in command conducts
the activity pursuant to the proposed provisions.
With this proposed rule, the FAA expects the small UAS industry to
continue finding new and creative ways for deploying small UAS, and
thereby grow the industry through innovation. The proposed performance-
based framework would enable an entirely new realm of operations, such
as emergency response efforts, newsgathering, aerial surveying and
photography, and certain infrastructure inspections.
During an emergency situation, response time often corresponds to
lives saved. Remote pilots in command operating pursuant to the
proposed provisions would not need to expend time clearing an area of
any people not directly involved in the small UAS operation before
operating the small UAS pursuant to Category 1 or Category 2. Police or
special weapons and tactics (SWAT) units could operate small UAS over
people in situations that would otherwise present risk to law
enforcement officers and support personnel, such as a hostage situation
or similar type of incident. Other examples include firefighters using
small UAS over a burning building and over people while colleagues
actively fight the fire inside, providing real time footage of isolated
pockets of fire, safe entry or egress points, or the location of
trapped people or animals. A remote pilot could provide small UAS
visual or infrared imagery for search and rescue missions
[[Page 3866]]
while personnel are active on the ground beneath the small unmanned
aircraft. First responders to major transportation disasters, such as
train derailments or bus accidents, could use small UAS eligible for
operations over people to locate victims or assess danger from a
distance while the small unmanned aircraft proceeds over people
involved in responding to the disaster. This would allow more targeted
and efficient rescue efforts on the ground. The advantages of such
operations are driven by timely and accurate decisions that save lives
and reduce injuries.
The advantages of enabling small UAS operations over people and at
night extend beyond the realm of emergency response. With safety
standards for operations over people, media outlets could gather aerial
images and video with greater ease and safety, giving them the
flexibility to cover a wide array of news stories. Likewise, the
potential for scientific and professional applications are numerous. A
farmer could survey an entire field, even as employees are working in
it. Small UAS, which are ideal for operations at low altitudes, could
enable wildlife biologists to track and collect data on animal
populations in towns and cities where people may traverse below,
providing more accurate data on myriad aspects such as the efficacy of
pest control efforts and the progression of habitat loss. In addition,
the use of small UAS during sporting and cultural events could afford
enhanced viewer experience, more dynamic visuals, and greater accuracy.
Using a small UAS to observe the performance of athletes, a judge would
be able to measure competitors against one another with precise data
the small UAS obtains.
Permitting small UAS operations at night would obviate the need for
people to engage in activities that present a risk to their safety,
such as nighttime inspections of infrastructure, wildlife, and other
activities that may be preferable during nighttime hours. The absence
of a person actually performing such inspections or higher-risk
activities would therefore result in a decrease in the associated costs
of the activities. As a result, the benefits of utilizing small UAS to
engage in various activities are diverse.
The FAA continues to prioritize safety as it develops subsequent
rulemakings for the entire aviation community. Providing a set of
flexible, performance-based regulations enables the next phase of UAS
operations, thereby ushering in additional economic and societal
advantages while maintaining the safety of the NAS.
C. Micro UAS Aviation Rulemaking Committee
On February 24, 2016, the FAA chartered the Micro UAS Aviation
Rulemaking Committee (ARC) (hereinafter ``the ARC'') on the subject of
enabling operations of small UAS over people. As such, the ARC provided
recommendations on enabling such operations. ARC members were familiar
with small UAS designed for aerial data collection and photography with
a focus on safety features and miniaturization of the aircraft and
sensors; in addition, ARC members' experience included development of
performance-based regulations for operations within the NAS, consensus
standards, consumer product testing techniques, manufacture of unmanned
aircraft, and human injury research. The ARC provided a forum to
discuss and provide recommendations to the FAA on enabling the
operation of micro UAS over people who are not directly participating
in the operation of the UAS or under a covered structure. On April 2,
2016, the ARC provided a final report with recommendations.\24\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\24\ A copy of the ARC's final report has been placed in the
docket for this rulemaking.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The ARC recommended the FAA establish four categories for
operations over people with small UAS. Specifically, the ARC suggested
the establishment of risk thresholds based on the probability that
direct impact with a person on the ground from a small unmanned
aircraft would cause an injury that qualified as level 3 or higher on
the Abbreviated Injury Scale (AIS).\25\ The Association for the
Advancement of Automotive Medicine (AAAM) classifies AIS level 3
injuries as ``serious.'' \26\ The ARC focused on this ``serious''
category, and assumed any small UAS flown over people may experience a
failure and therefore fall, impacting a person. The ARC did not attempt
to quantify the current risk of experiencing a failure or an acceptable
failure rate, and did not specify the acceptable probability of a human
impact occurrence. For each particular model of small UAS to qualify
for operations over people, the ARC recommended the manufacturer of
that model would have to certify that the aircraft's energy upon
impact, as measured by a test established by an industry consensus
standards body, would not, in the most probable failure modes, exceed a
specified threshold. Such a test would establish the typical or likely
impact energy of the most probable failure mode, and not simply the
worst-case condition.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\25\ AAAM developed the AIS as: ``an anatomically based,
consensus derived, global severity scoring system that classifies
each injury by body region according to its relative importance on a
6-point ordinal scale (1=minor and 6=maximal).'' See https://www.aaam.org/abbreviated-injury-scale-ais/ ais/. Explanations of the AIS
were presented to the ARC by several speakers. See section IV.B.1.
for a description that contains more information concerning the
FAA's use of the AIS in this proposed rule.
\26\ In a presentation on the historical basis for FAA occupant
safety, an FAA presenter provided the following examples of level 3
injuries to the head: Small penetrating skull, sinus thrombosis,
ischemic brain damage, basilar fracture/loss of consciousness for 1
to 6 hours.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Based on the foregoing structure for categorizing risk, the ARC
recommended four categories of operations of small UAS over people.
Under ARC Category 1, the ARC recommended a small UAS could operate
over people if the small unmanned aircraft weighed 0.55 pounds or less.
Based on the data the ARC received, the ARC believed the level of risk
of injury posed by this category of small UAS was so insignificant that
no performance standards or specific operational restrictions would be
necessary. To demonstrate a small UAS qualifies for ARC Category 1
operations over people, the ARC recommended the manufacturer of small
UAS either: (1) Label the product retail packaging of the small UAS
with the actual weight of the aircraft, or a general statement that the
aircraft weighs 0.55 pounds or less; or (2) declare the aircraft
weighed 0.55 pounds or less, and submit that declaration to the FAA in
a form and manner acceptable to the FAA.
To conduct ARC Category 2, 3, and 4 operations, the ARC recommended
a small UAS should be able to operate over people if it did not exceed
the impact energy threshold specified for each category, as determined
by the manufacturer using test methods contained in industry consensus
standards. Additionally, the ARC recommended the remote pilot for such
operations should comply with operational restrictions specified for
each category. Because the level of risk increases between ARC
Categories 2, 3, and 4, the ARC recommended scaling up the performance-
based standards and operational restrictions in each category to
mitigate the increased risks.
Under ARC Category 2, the ARC recommended that a small unmanned
aircraft be permitted to operate over people if it weighed more than
0.55 pounds, but still presented a 1 percent or less chance of
``serious injury'' (AIS level 3 or greater) upon impact with a person.
The manufacturer would be required to certify that the small UAS did
not, in the most probable failure modes, exceed the typical or likely
impact energy threshold, in accordance with test methods contained in
industry
[[Page 3867]]
consensus standards. The ARC also recommended the operator \27\ of the
small UAS comply with the manufacturer's operator manual for the small
UAS, developed in accordance with industry consensus standards. Lastly,
the ARC recommended the operator maintain minimum set-off distances of
20 feet vertically or 10 feet laterally away from people, and generally
not operate so close to people as to create an undue hazard for them.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\27\ The FAA notes that the ARC used the term ``operator,'' as
the FAA proposed in the Operation and Certification of Small
Unmanned Aircraft Systems NPRM. When the FAA finalized that rule, it
changed the term ``operator'' to ``remote pilot.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Under ARC Category 3, the ARC recommended a small UAS could operate
over people if it presented a 30 percent or less chance of causing an
AIS level 3 or greater injury upon impact with a person. The
manufacturer of the small UAS would be required to certify to the FAA
that the small UAS did not, in the most probable failure modes, exceed
the typical or likely impact energy threshold. The ARC also recommended
the operator comply with the manufacturer's operator manual for the
small UAS, developed in accordance with industry consensus standards
and that flight over crowds or dense concentrations of people never be
permitted under this category. In addition, the ARC recommended small
UAS eligible for operations over people pursuant to ARC Category 3 only
be permitted to operate over people if: (1) The operation is conducted
over a closed- or restricted-access work site with the permission of
the site's owner or operator; or (2) overflight of people is limited to
transient or incidental operation, rather than sustained flight over
people. The performance standards and operational restrictions
applicable to ARC Category 2 operations would also apply to ARC
Category 3.
The ARC recommended an ARC Category 4 to include operations in
which a small UAS may operate over people, including flights over
crowds or dense concentrations of people prohibited in ARC Category 3,
if: (1) The manufacturer of the small UAS certifies the aircraft
satisfies the same impact energy threshold as small UAS eligible to
conduct ARC Category 3 operations; (2) the small UAS complies with
industry consensus standards; and (3) the operation is conducted in
compliance with a documented risk mitigation plan, which would be
developed and adopted in accordance with industry consensus standards
for conducting risk mitigation. The ARC's recommended performance
standards for ARC Category 3 and operational restrictions for ARC
Category 2 would also have applied to ARC Category 4 operations.
The ARC recommended the means by which manufacturers would comply
with the provisions would be to: (1) Declare the small UAS met industry
consensus standards applicable to the category; (2) submit the
declaration to the FAA in a form and manner acceptable to the FAA; (3)
label the product or retail packaging in accordance with industry
consensus standards; and (4) provide an operating manual to the
operator that includes operator instructions for flight over people.
The operator would be responsible for knowing the category of
operations for which his or her small UAS is qualified, and any
operational limitations he or she would be required to follow.
In addition, the ARC recommended the FAA establish a distinct
knowledge testing framework for ARC Category 1 operations. Based on the
proposed requirements for part 107, a majority of the ARC recommended
the knowledge test be available online and the TSA vetting process
(background checks) be reconsidered or eliminated for ARC Category 1
operations. The ARC based this recommendation on input that the process
is unduly burdensome and therefore detrimental to safety because the
process discourages operators of small UAS from complying with the
procedural requirements.\28\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\28\ Representatives of the Air Line Pilots Association (ALPA);
National Agricultural Aviation Association (NAAA); Helicopter
Association International (HAI); and Professional Aerial
Photographers Association, International (PAPA) did not agree with
the majority of the ARC on changing the testing requirements for
remote pilots conducting Category 1 operations. These organizations
all maintained that an individual intending to exercise the
privileges permitted under the proposed part 107, which include
commercial small UAS operations, ``should fully comply with the
necessary training and certification as currently described in part
107, no matter the size or complexity of the aircraft.'' ARC Report
at 13. In addition, these organizations argued that data was not
provided to the ARC.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The FAA considered the ARC's recommendations in the context of the
agency's statutory authorities and responsibilities, as well as the
practical realities of administering the regulatory scheme, while
carefully deliberating over the ARC's recommendations and other public
policy factors.
IV. Discussion of the Proposed Rule
This proposed rule would amend part 107 to enable routine small UAS
operations over people and at night. This rule would require
manufacturers ensure that small UAS they build for flying over people
adhere to certain standards to mitigate the risk of injury to people
should the aircraft fail. This rule would also set operational
standards for all remote pilots in command who conduct operations over
people and who conduct operations at night.
A. Operations at Night
This rule proposes permitting operations of small UAS at night,
subject to specific requirements.
The requirements that accompany each of the operations this
proposed rule would permit would adequately mitigate the risk of
collision with other aircraft, as well as the risk of injury to people.
Such an analysis is consistent with the FAA's grant of exemptions under
section 333 that preceded the promulgation of part 107, as well as
waivers the FAA has issued for operations that occur at night and
operations over people under Sec. 107.200.
This proposed rule would amend Sec. 107.29 to permit operations at
night only: (1) When the small unmanned aircraft has an anti-collision
light that is visible for 3 statute miles, and (2) when the remote
pilot in command has completed an updated knowledge test or recurrent
training as applicable, to ensure familiarity with the risks and
appropriate mitigations for nighttime operations. Under 14 CFR 1.1, the
definition of ``night'' is applicable for purposes of proposed Sec.
107.29. Section 1.1 defines ``night'' as follows: ``the time between
the end of evening civil twilight and the beginning of morning civil
twilight, as published in the Air Almanac, converted to local time.''
1. Analysis of Risk of Night Operations
The FAA recognizes the 2016 final rule limited operations of small
UAS to daytime and civil twilight, based on the assessment that
operations at night pose a higher safety risk. The FAA based this
presumption on the general difficulty involved in maintaining visual
line of sight and in ensuring discernment of the location of other
aircraft during night hours. The portion of the 2016 final rule that
explained the agency's rationale for the prohibition stated the
distance and movement of small unmanned aircraft relative to the
distance and movement of other lighted manned aircraft are difficult to
judge, due to the relative size of the aircraft.\29\ Moreover, the
agency determined visual autokinesis, which is the apparent movement of
a lighted object, may occur when the person maintaining visual line of
sight stares at a single light source for several seconds on a dark
night; as a result, darkness
[[Page 3868]]
increases the difficulty of perceiving reference points that could be
used to help understand the position and movement of the lighted manned
aircraft, the small unmanned aircraft, or other lighted object. Based
on the difficulty of perceiving reference points and other associated
risks the FAA identified, the FAA opined in the preamble of the 2016
final rule that operations of small UAS at night could increase the
risk of collision with people, obstacles on the ground, and other
aircraft.\30\ The FAA, however, acknowledged the many comments in favor
of permitting operations at night and stated it planned to consider
commenters' recommendations as part of future rulemaking efforts.\31\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\29\ 81 FR 42064, 42103.
\30\ Id. at 42104.
\31\ Id. at 42105.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
While the FAA carefully analyzed the risks that operations of small
UAS at night present, the FAA remains mindful of the fact that the
remaining rules of part 107 address risks in a comprehensive manner. In
this regard, aside from amending the provisions of Sec. Sec. 107.29
and 107.39, none of the amendments the FAA proposes in this NPRM would
change the remaining operational restrictions and requirements of part
107.\32\ The FAA determined these existing operational provisions, in
addition to the proposed requirements of an anti-collision light and
additional knowledge testing or recurrent training, mitigate the risk
posed by small UAS operations at night.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\32\ For example, remote pilots must still maintain a valid
remote pilot certificate and may not operate the small UAS in an
unsafe manner. Remote pilots remain prohibited from: Operating small
UAS from a moving vehicle (other than over sparsely populated areas)
or aircraft and operating in the absence of the capability to
discern visually the speed, altitude, attitude, and position of the
small unmanned aircraft. In addition, remote pilots may only operate
in Class G airspace unless they first obtain prior authorization and
must thoroughly check the area of operation and the small UAS in
advance of the operation. Furthermore, remote pilots must continue
to yield to other aircraft.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
2. Review of Exemptions and Waivers
The current prohibition on nighttime operations of small UAS may be
waived, and the FAA has analyzed the effects of risk mitigation
measures the FAA requires under such waivers. Since the effective date
of the rule on August 29, 2016, the agency has received 4,837 \33\
requests for waiver of the prohibition on nighttime operations. The
agency has issued 1,233 \34\ waivers for operations at night, and has
determined the operations that proceed in accordance with those waivers
are safe.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\33\ This information is current as of December 31, 2017.
\34\ This information is current as of December 31, 2017.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The FAA also has granted exemptions pursuant to section 333 for UAS
operations at night under 14 CFR part 91, which contains a different
framework than part 107.\35\ The FAA considered in its analysis the
fact that it did not exempt the requirements of Sec. Sec. 91.205(c)
and 91.209, which require lighting on aircraft. In addition, most of
the airman qualification requirements under 14 CFR part 61 applied to
such exemptions. The FAA considered these two factors--anti-collision
lighting and airman knowledge--as critical to ensuring safety in the
NAS when permitting the UAS operations at night under section 333. In
addition, the current version of Sec. 107.29(b) requires anti-
collision lighting for operations during periods of civil twilight. The
FAA has determined this requirement is a suitable risk mitigation
measure for operations at night.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\35\ Section 333 required the Secretary to determine which types
of UAS do not create a hazard, based on considerations that include
unmanned aircraft size, weight, speed, operational capability,
proximity to airports and populated areas, and operation within
visual line of sight. Id. Public Law 112-95 section 333(b)(1). Based
on such determinations, the FAA issued exemptions from various
operating rules applicable to manned aviation operations to enable
operations of UAS. Some exemptions permitted operations of UAS at
night, pursuant to certain conditions and limitations. See, e.g.,
Industrial Skyworks, Exemption No. 16341 (April 18, 2016)
(concluding, ``the petitioner's use of anti-collision lights that
are visible from 5,000 feet are adequate for the PIC and [visual
observer] to maintain [visual line of sight] capability and as an
additional means for collision mitigation.'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The FAA has also assessed the potential effects of operations of
small UAS at night in conjunction with the other type of operation this
proposed rule would permit, which is operations over people. First,
risks of operations at night are distinct from those that operations
over people present. As explained in this proposed rule, the FAA
classifies the risk mitigations for operations over people via proposed
categories that are based on the level of risk of injury posed.
Manufacturers of small UAS who seek to produce small UAS eligible to
operate over people would need to consider the mass of an anti-
collision light if they include such a light on the small unmanned
aircraft.
The lighting conditions at the time of the flight do not change the
level of risk that small UAS operations that occur over people present.
If the small UAS used in the operation complies with one of the
categories of aircraft listed in proposed subpart D of part 107, then
the remote pilot in command may operate the small UAS over people
pursuant to the proposed requirements within subpart D, as well as
other requirements that may apply.
3. Visual Observation at Night
Visual observation is the means by which a remote pilot in command
ensures the small unmanned aircraft does not collide with other
aircraft. Several factors influence a person's ability to detect
aircraft visually. For example, size, orientation, visual clutter, and
the location of the image on a person's retina all affect the
discernment of an aircraft with unaided human vision. Creating
contrast, which is the difference in luminance between an object in its
background, enhances the safety of aviation operations that occur at
night because contrast facilitates one's ability to observe aircraft
and therefore avoid a collision. Contrast consists of paint schemes,
aircraft lighting systems, atmospheric conditions, and variations in
background.\36\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\36\ See Williams and Gildea, A Review of Research Related to
Unmanned Aircraft System Visual Observers, DOT/FAA/AM-14/9 Civil
Aerospace Medical Institute (October 2014) (stating operations at
night offer the potential advantage of higher contrast conditions
because the small unmanned aircraft's light against a dark sky
provides a difference in luminance).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Feedback from an FAA Pathfinder participant supports the FAA's
conclusion that such contrast affects the remote pilot's ability to
avoid a collision based on visual observation. The Pathfinder
participant operated a small UAS at night and staged a manned aircraft
in the same area as the unmanned aircraft. In that case, both the
remote pilot in command and the manned aircraft pilot spotted one
another more easily during night operations than during the day, due to
the increased conspicuity that anti-collision lighting provided.\37\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\37\ A copy of correspondence with staff from Pathfinder
participant Burlington Northern Santa Fe (BNSF) is available in this
rulemaking docket.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
4. Anti-Collision Lighting
Small unmanned aircraft, in most cases, are significantly smaller
than their manned counterparts. The reduced size, combined with the
reduced visibility due to darkness, favors requiring an anti-collision
light for reduction of the risk involved with small UAS operations at
night. The FAA anticipates the presence of the light will provide other
aircraft with awareness of the small unmanned aircraft's presence. The
FAA's rationale for the proposed anti-collision light for night
operations in this rule remains consistent with the rationale the FAA
articulated in the 2016 final rule with regard to the
[[Page 3869]]
requirement for the light during civil twilight operations.\38\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\38\ 81 FR at 42103.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Although a remote pilot in command might be able to discern the
position of the small unmanned aircraft with his or her unaided human
vision when the aircraft is further away at night due to the lighted
anti-collision light this proposed rule would require, the remote pilot
may not be able to rely solely on that light as a manner of complying
with the existing requirements applicable to visual line of sight
operations. Existing Sec. 107.31(a) requires the remote pilot to be
able to see the small unmanned aircraft throughout the flight to: Know
the unmanned aircraft's location; determine the unmanned aircraft's
attitude, altitude, and direction of flight; observe the airspace for
other air traffic or hazards; and determine that the unmanned aircraft
does not endanger the life or property of another.
In almost all cases, the remote pilot in command will need to
restrict the operational area of the aircraft at night or use a small
UAS that contains an additional system, such as position lighting, to
meet Sec. 107.31(a) requirements while operating at night. Such a
necessity arises from the fact that reduced lighting and contrast at
night makes it difficult for remote pilots in command to maintain the
capability of visually discerning the location, attitude, altitude, and
direction of the flight of the aircraft. In the interest of enabling
remote pilots in command with the flexibility to determine the
appropriate solution for each unique operation, the FAA decided not to
propose amending existing Sec. 107.31 to require additional
requirements on visual line of sight operations at night. The FAA
invites comments from the public, however, on whether it should require
position lighting, in addition to the anti-collision lighting the FAA
proposes in this rule, for night operations.
Currently, Sec. 107.29 requires an anti-collision light visible
for 3 statute miles during periods of ``civil twilight.'' The 2016
final rule cited 14 CFR 103.11 as the source of the requirement for an
anti-collision light.\39\ Section 103.11 prohibits operation of
ultralight vehicles at night, and sets forth an anti-collision light
requirement for ultralight vehicles during twilight periods. The FAA is
aware that the anti-collision light requirement for ultralights does
not constitute a precise analogy to small UAS operations. Nevertheless,
the FAA has considered the anti-collision light requirement as it
applies to ultralights as instructive for both the existing version of
Sec. 107.29 as it relates to civil twilight operations, as well as the
version of Sec. 107.29 that the FAA proposes in this NPRM.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\39\ 81 FR 42064, 42103 (June 28, 2016).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In promulgating this requirement for ultralights, the FAA stated
``[t]he visibility from above of ultralights operating at very low
levels can be significantly enhanced by the addition of an anti-
collision light on these vehicles.'' \40\ The FAA stated, for purposes
of Sec. 103.11, an anti-collision light is ``any flashing or
stroboscopic device that is of sufficient intensity so as to be visible
for at least 3 statute miles.'' \41\ Overall, the 3 statute mile
visibility standard for anti-collision lighting for night operations of
ultralight vehicles has been a longstanding requirement.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\40\ 47 FR 38770, 38773 (Sept. 2, 1982).
\41\ Id. at 38773-74.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The FAA considered incorporating the standards of 14 CFR 27.1401,
Anti-collision light system, for night operations under part 107. Part
107 does not contain aircraft certification rules or standards, and the
FAA concludes the reduced risk small UAS operations pose does not
warrant application of such standards. Prescribing lighting
requirements would be overly burdensome for both the FAA and
manufacturers of small UAS because they would be forced to make
tradeoffs that affect both the weight of the aircraft and the
aircraft's power source and supply. The FAA proposes small UAS
operating at night must simply have an anti-collision lighting
component that is visible for 3 statute miles, rather than a light that
fulfills prescriptive design criteria. The FAA, however, invites
comments on the following:
Should the FAA impose a specific color or type requirement
concerning the anti-collision light; the most helpful comments on this
issue will explain how a prescriptive standard would achieve the
objective of ensuring safety of small UAS operations at night, in light
of the risks the FAA has identified in this proposed rule.
Are there characteristics or effects of anti-collision
lights at low altitude that could have an effect on normal human
activities? If so, are there potential mitigations or alternatives to
consider?
5. Waiver
The FAA also proposes making the anti-collision lighting
requirement for small UAS night operations subject to waiver. The FAA
would consider granting a certificate of waiver allowing a nighttime
small UAS operation without an anti-collision light visible for 3
statute miles if an applicant demonstrated sufficient measures to
mitigate the risk associated with the proposed operation. In this
regard, as with the FAA's current manner of responding to requests for
waiver, the FAA would expect waiver applicants to establish that
operating at night without an anti-collision light (or with a light
that is visible at a distance of less than 3 statute miles) would not
reduce the level of safety of the operation.
6. Preflight Familiarization
The FAA also considers the existing preflight familiarization,
inspection, and actions for aircraft operation under Sec. 107.49 to
mitigate the risk of operations of small UAS at night. Section 107.49
will continue to require the remote pilot in command to assess in
advance of the operation the location of persons and property on the
surface as well as other ground hazards. The remote pilot in command
must also determine the functionality of the small UAS and its required
components. Similar to the requirements of Sec. 91.205(a), the FAA
expects the remote pilot to check the anti-collision light in advance
of the operation to ensure the light is in an operable condition for
the duration of all flights during civil twilight and at night.
In addition to verifying the functionality of the anti-collision
light prior to commencing the operation and after noting the locations
of hazards during the assessment of the operating environment, the
remote pilot in command must determine how to avoid the identified
hazards to ensure continued safe operation of the small UAS in
accordance with Sec. Sec. 107.15 and 107.19(c). Prior to the flight,
the remote pilot in command must also ensure he or she will be able to
keep the small unmanned aircraft within the intended area of operation
and within visual line of sight for the duration of the operation. This
preflight assessment provides flexibility to the remote pilot in
command and allows him or her to exercise judgment in using the
principles of Aeronautical Decision Making. Advisory Circular 107-2\42\
contains recommended best practices for operational site assessments
and avoiding flight over non-participating people, unless the operation
satisfies the proposed requirements of Sec. 107.39.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\42\ Small Unmanned Aircraft Systems (sUAS), Advisory Circular
107-2 (June 21, 2016), available at https://www.faa.gov/documentLibrary/media/Advisory_Circular/AC_107-2.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The FAA considered amending Sec. 107.49 to include an explicit
[[Page 3870]]
requirement to check the functionality of the anti-collision light
prior to night operations. The FAA decided such an amendment is
unnecessary because the language in the proposed version of Sec.
107.29(a)(2) would specifically require a lighted anti-collision light.
This language is identical to the original Sec. 107.29(b) for civil
twilight operations that also did not require checking the
functionality of the light in Sec. 107.49.
7. Remote Pilot Knowledge
The remote pilot's first-hand knowledge of the risks nighttime
small UAS operations present, as well as the appropriate risk
mitigations and aeronautical judgment, are critical to enhancing the
safety of operations of small UAS at night. As a result, the FAA would
require remote pilots complete either an updated knowledge test or
recurrent training that addresses small UAS operations at night prior
to operating as a remote pilot in command at night.
The additional test questions the FAA anticipates including on the
initial knowledge test under Sec. 107.73 and the recurrent training
under Sec. 107.74 would focus on night physiology and night illusions.
The remote pilot in command's ability to maintain both the small
unmanned aircraft and any intruding aircraft within his or her field of
view will directly affect his or her ability to discern the potential
for a collision.\43\ As such, maintaining the ability to view the
airspace pertinent to the operation is a principal mitigation of the
risk small UAS operations present under part 107. Therefore, the
additional knowledge questions and training relevant to night
operations would emphasize the ability to maintain uninhibited visual
observation of the airspace and would address how to detect aircraft in
a dynamic, visually complex operational environment.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\43\ See M.A. Crognale, UAS/UAV Ground Observer Performance:
Field Measurements, DOT/FAA/AR-10/1 (Dec. 24, 2009).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In addition, the FAA will continue to provide resources to remote
pilots in command concerning practical tips and best practices for
ensuring the safety of small UAS operations at night. The FAA publishes
several resources that contain information and best practices for night
operations. The FAA encourages remote pilots to become familiar with
certain sections of the Aeronautical Information Manual (AIM),\44\
Pilot's Handbook of Aeronautical Knowledge,\45\ and Airplane Flying
Handbook.\46\ The FAA intends to update Advisory Circular 107-2 with
specific sections pertaining to night operations and currently
maintains brochures and training videos for night operations. Remote
pilots have free online access to these materials.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\44\ AIM, Ch. 8: Medical Facts for Pilots, Sec. 8-1-6 ``Vision
in Flight,'' available at https://www.faa.gov/air_traffic/publications/media/aim.pdf (April 27, 2017).
\45\ Pilot's Handbook of Aeronautical Knowledge, Ch. 17:
Aeromedical Factors at p. 17-19 ``Vision in Flight,'' available at
https://www.faa.gov/regulations_policies/handbooks_manuals/aviation/phak/media/19_phak_ch17.pdf (2016).
\46\ Airplane Flying Handbook, Ch. 10: Night Operations (March
23, 2017).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
A remote pilot who obtained his or her remote pilot certificate
under part 107 prior to the effective date of this rule and has not
completed updated training would not be eligible to act as remote pilot
in command and operate their small UAS at night under this rule. Any
person who wishes to be a remote pilot in command and operate at night
must complete the updated training, which includes night operations,
regardless of the amount of time that has passed since the person
completed the previous test or course, before operating at night.
B. Operations Over People
This rule proposes amendments to part 107 that would enable
operations of small UAS over people. The FAA bases its proposed
framework on the presumption that small UAS operating under part 107
are not airworthy, given that they are not subject to the requirement
of an airworthiness certificate.\47\ Accordingly, the FAA proposes
three categories of operation that could be conducted over people,\48\
based on likelihood and severity of injuries that could result.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\47\ 81 FR 42068-70 (stating Pub. L. 112-95 section 333(b)(2)
allows for the determination that airworthiness certification is not
necessary for certain small UAS, such as those part 107 covers).
\48\ As discussed in the preamble of the 2016 final rule, the
term ``over'' refers to the flight of a small unmanned aircraft
directly over any part of a person, regardless of the dwell time. 81
FR 42064, 42129.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
This section describes the FAA's proposed requirements applicable
to the three categories that would ensure the safety of operations over
people. These requirements address the manufacturing of small UAS that
fulfill the safety thresholds of this proposed rule as well as
restrictions that may apply to the operation. In addition, this section
describes the measures of oversight the FAA will employ in ensuring
compliance with the proposed requirements.
1. Definitions
This proposed rule includes two new definitions applicable to
manufacturing small UAS eligible to conduct operations over people:
``casualty'' and ``declaration of compliance.'' For purposes of this
rule, the FAA considers a ``casualty'' as an Abbreviated Injury Scale
(AIS) level 3 or greater injury. The AIS provides a means of
classifying the type and severity of injuries throughout the body.
Although originally designed to map a series of anatomically-defined
injury descriptions using several parameters (energy dissipation,
threat to life, permanent impairment, treatment period, and incidence)
specifically for vehicular crashes, the U.S. Department of
Transportation as well as many university and industry research teams
in the United States, Europe, and Australia have adopted the AIS
severity level scale as the standard for various crash investigation
teams. Within the AIS system, injuries are classified on a scale of 1
to 6, as follows:
Table 3--Abbreviated Injury Scale
------------------------------------------------------------------------
AIS Level Definition
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1...................................... Minor injury.
2...................................... Moderate injury.
3...................................... Serious injury.
4...................................... Severe injury.
5...................................... Critical injury.
6...................................... Non-survivable injury.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Throughout this NPRM, the FAA uses the phrase ``low probability of
causing a casualty'' for Category 2 operations to mean a low chance
exists that a person whom a small unmanned aircraft impacts would
experience a serious injury. The FAA notes that the AAAM classifies all
AIS level 3 injuries as ``serious.'' Similarly, although the FAA does
not propose codifying a definition of ``fatality'' in this rule, this
NPRM uses that term in descriptions concerning Category 3 operations,
which appear in section IV.B.4. For purposes of this discussion, the
FAA regards a ``fatality'' as an AIS level 6 injury, which means the
injury ultimately results in death. Because a casualty is an AIS level
3 or greater injury, AIS level 6 is included within the definition of a
casualty.\49\ Overall, consistent with the ARC's recommendations, the
FAA uses the AIS in assessing the levels of risks of injury small
unmanned aircraft operating over
[[Page 3871]]
people may present, in the interest of determining the appropriate
manner for reducing such risks.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\49\ AIS 3 head injuries can result in a loss of consciousness
of 1 to 6 hours, or specific types of skull fractures. AIS 3 neck
injuries include dislocations, fractures, and injuries that put the
spinal cord at risk. While an AIS 3 injury may not be life-
threatening as a stand-alone injury, compounding factors may lead to
death. Therefore, the FAA notes that a person could experience an
AIS 3 injury as a result of a small unmanned aircraft impact that
could develop into a more serious injury if, for example, the person
does not seek the appropriate medical attention.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
This proposed rule would also define a ``Declaration of
Compliance'' as a document a manufacturer submits to certify that a
small UAS conforms to the Category 2 or 3 requirements for operations
over people. As discussed in section IV.B.7., this rule would require
manufacturers producing small UAS for Category 2 and 3 operations to
submit a Declaration of Compliance to the FAA. Although these aircraft
systems would not be certificated as airworthy under this rule, the FAA
would rely on a manufacturer's Declaration of Compliance to ensure the
make and model of aircraft complies with the applicable standards at
the time of manufacture.
2. ARC Recommendation
As noted previously, the ARC recommended a small UAS operating over
people should present only a low probability of causing a serious
injury to uninvolved people. The ARC used two concepts to address the
risk to persons from small UAS operations over people: injury threshold
and impact kinetic energy threshold. The injury threshold is the
maximum injury level a person would be expected to suffer as a result
of being impacted by a small unmanned aircraft under normal operating
conditions. The impact kinetic energy threshold is the maximum kinetic
energy that the small unmanned aircraft could transfer to a person upon
impact without exceeding the injury threshold. The ARC identified
threshold injury levels using the AIS for each category: a one percent
chance of causing an AIS level 3 injury for ARC Category 2 operations
and no more than a 30 percent chance of causing an AIS level 3 injury
for ARC Category 3 operations.\50\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\50\ ARC Report at 9-10.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The ARC recommended the proposed rule should limit the kinetic
energy a small UAS could transfer upon impact in order to limit the
injury the small UAS could cause. The ARC encouraged the FAA to use the
injury thresholds to calculate corresponding impact kinetic energy
thresholds. The ARC recommended using an impact kinetic energy
threshold measured in Joules per centimeter squared (J/cm\2\) to
calculate the impact kinetic energy thresholds that correspond to these
injury thresholds, by way of a performance-based requirement that
limits the risk of injury. Based on a presentation it received from
Transport Canada, the ARC stated this calculation would result in a
value of 12 J/cm\2\, and that a quadcopter UAS weighing 4 to 5 pounds
would qualify for an ARC Category 2 operation, depending on its design
characteristics and operating instructions.\51\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\51\ ARC Report at 7.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
3. Category 1 Operations
This rule would establish a category of operations over people
using small UAS that weigh 0.55 pounds or less, including everything
that is on board or otherwise attached to the aircraft at the time of
takeoff. The FAA refers to this category as Category 1, and proposes to
enable Category 1 operations without any additional manufacturer or
operational restrictions beyond what part 107 already requires and any
other applicable laws and regulations.
The FAA's proposal is consistent with the ARC's recommendation for
Category 1 operations. Based on information from experts in government,
industry, and academia,\52\ the ARC concluded, ``the level of risk of
injury posed by this category of UAS is so low that no performance
standards and no operational restrictions beyond those imposed by the
proposed part 107 are necessary.'' \53\ The ARC came to this conclusion
based on the following: (1) An example provided by Dr. Paul Wilde of
the FAA in which a small UAS weighing 0.55 pounds and operating over
people presented a ``probability of serious injury or fatality
consistent with existing levels of safety for non-participating people
when exposed to aviation risks;'' \54\ (2) data provided by Mr.
Arterburn, of the University of Alabama in Huntsville's Alliance for
System Safety of UAS through Research Excellence (ASSURE), who
``correlated various human injury thresholds with risks associated with
sporting events'' \55\ and suggested that a UAS, under certain
conditions, could transfer as low as 38 percent of its total kinetic
energy on impact; \56\ and (3) the Registration Task Force's selection
of a weight threshold of 0.55 pounds for registration purposes. There
is more information about the ARC's analysis of the risks posed by
Category 1 operations in its report, a copy of which has been placed in
the docket. The FAA adopts this conclusion that a small unmanned
aircraft that weighs 0.55 pounds or less poses a low risk of injury
when operated over people.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\52\ In addition to presentations from FAA experts,
presentations made at the ARC included analyses from researchers at
ASTM International (ASTM), Transport Canada, National Aeronautics
and Space Administration (NASA), National Institute of Standards and
Technology (NIST), Alliance for System Safety of UAS through
Research Excellence (ASSURE), Virginia Tech, RTCA, Praxis Aerospace
Concepts, MIT Lincoln Labs, Simpson College, Naval Sea Systems
Command (NSWC Dahlgren), EASA, U.S. Navy, UAS Insurance Association,
and the Consumer Product Safety Commission. See ARC Report at
Appendix A
\53\ ARC Report at 4.
\54\ ARC Report at 6.
\55\ ARC Report at 6.
\56\ ARC Report at 6.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The FAA anticipates Category 1 operations would consist almost
exclusively of aerial photography, due to the small size of aircraft
eligible for such operations. For example, a small UAS qualified for
Category 1 operations might be used to film a wedding, collect pictures
of a school sporting event, or take a self-portrait. The FAA invites
comments containing data on the risk of injury to persons posed by
operations using small UAS that weigh 0.55 pounds or less.
The FAA anticipates manufacturers would design small UAS to meet
the Category 1 qualifications for marketing purposes, but
responsibility for determining whether a small unmanned aircraft weighs
0.55 pounds or less rests with the remote pilot in command. The remote
pilot in command would be in the best position to determine, before
flight, whether the small unmanned aircraft satisfies the weight
limitation and can therefore conduct Category 1 operations. For
example, the remote pilot in command may choose to add or change the
small unmanned aircraft's batteries or camera, which may cause a small
unmanned aircraft that previously satisfied the 0.55-pound limit to
exceed that weight and no longer qualify for Category 1 operations.
Overall, the remote pilot in command must ensure the small UAS is
eligible for operations under Category 1 prior to operating the small
UAS over people.
4. Category 2 and 3 Operations
While the proposal for Category 1 operations is based on weight
alone, the proposed amendments for enabling Category 2 and 3 operations
require a more sophisticated analysis. This rule proposes categorizing
eligibility for Category 2 and 3 operations based on the risk of human
injury, which is consistent with the ARC's recommendations. The
following discussion describes the level of safety this rule proposes
as the standard for limiting human injuries from the energy a small
unmanned aircraft transfers upon impact. This discussion also
summarizes the sources of relevant information the FAA considered and
will continue to monitor.
[[Page 3872]]
(a) International Activities and Ongoing Research
Since the ARC, the FAA has carefully examined additional
information with regard to injury risks and energy thresholds. The
European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA) published a prototype regulation
in August 2016, followed by a Notice of Proposed Amendment (NPA) on May
4, 2017.\57\ The NPA introduces categories of permissible small UAS
operations based on maximum takeoff masses; the ``open'' category is
most permissive, and proposes a subcategory to permit small UAS
operations over uninvolved people, but not over assemblies of people,
as long as the aircraft does not exceed 250 grams maximum takeoff mass
and does not have sharp edges. These aircraft would be limited to 50
meters (approximately 164 feet) above ground level (AGL) and eligible
for operations that remote pilots of any age could conduct, provided
they have educational materials to ensure competence. Other
commercially built small unmanned aircraft would be permitted to
operate over uninvolved people if they fulfill several product safety
requirements, including either an energy transmitted to the human body
less than 80 joules upon impact or a maximum takeoff mass, including
payload, of less than 900 grams and a maximum cruising speed of 18
meters per second. These other aircraft would also be subject to the
limit of 50 meters AGL unless the pilots conducting the operations take
online training with a test, in which case they could conduct
operations up to 120 meters AGL. The NPA proposes allowing other
operations that do not fulfill these criteria, as long as they do not
operate directly over uninvolved people and comply with certain
operational restrictions.\58\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\57\ Introduction of a Regulatory Framework for the Operation of
Drones--Unmanned Aircraft System Operations in the Open and Specific
Category, Notice of Proposed Amendment 2017-05, available at https://www.easa.europa.eu/system/files/dfu/NPA%202017-05%20%28A%29_0.pdf.
\58\ Similar to the FAA, EASA may consider ongoing research as
it determines the suitability of energy thresholds and the
likelihood of human injury in attempting to categorize the risk
small UAS operations over people may present.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In the NPA, EASA also states it relied on the Joint Authorities for
Rulemaking on Unmanned Systems (JARUS) concept that identifies three
categories based on several factors concerning the intended operations.
JARUS is a collaborative group of international participants that
develop guidance material to assist governing authorities in
promulgating standards. The FAA participates in JARUS in developing
such materials, and has considered JARUS activities and proposed
policies in furtherance of the FAA's goal of integrating UAS safely
into the NAS. In this regard, the FAA continues to contribute to JARUS
and its stated mission to develop a regulatory framework for unmanned
aircraft operations and proposals for the regulation of operations the
member states would consider ``low-risk.''
Since 2015, the FAA has collaborated with the academic community
and its affiliates by fostering cooperative research and developing
intellectual capabilities of primary interest to the FAA and the UAS
community, through the work of the UAS Center of Excellence under the
Alliance for System Safety of UAS through Research Excellence (ASSURE).
Recent research from one ASSURE study has informed the FAA's decision-
making concerning operations of small unmanned aircraft over
people.\59\ The results of the study corroborate the FAA's impact
severity estimates that form the basis for this rule, in that the
ASSURE researchers used kinetic energy upon impact as a basis for
estimating the severity of injury a small UAS impacting a person
causes.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\59\ Arterburn, et al., FAA UAS Center of Excellence Task A4:
UAS Ground Collision Severity Evaluation: Revision 2 (Apr. 28, 2017)
(hereinafter ``A4 Report''). The final report underwent peer review
of researchers from FAA, the National Aeronautics and Space
Administration, and industry participants. The report is available
in the docket for this rulemaking.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
This research substantiates the need for the development of
manufacturer standards that will address how to measure the potential
for human injury that results from small UAS impacts with a person. In
particular, given the significant variability in the impact dynamics
and amounts of energy transfer that the report identified, the ASSURE
research indicates addressing impact dynamics, aerodynamic drag, the
shape and material properties of the small UAS, and other potential
factors, will be persuasive aspects to consider for creating standards
that ensure safety. The A4 Report also highlights the necessity for
safer blade designs or restrictions that could limit the effects of
exposed rotating parts.
(b) FAA Proposal
This proposed rule would use the term ``safety level'' in the
requirement applicable to means of compliance: In particular,
applicants that submit means of compliance for FAA acceptance must show
the means of compliance would achieve the safety level the proposed
standards reach. This safety level refers to the limitation of injury
severity caused by transfers of kinetic energy, exposed rotating parts,
or safety defects. With regard to the impact kinetic energy limitations
in this rule, the small unmanned aircraft must not be capable of
causing an injury to a human being that is more severe than injury that
would result from an impact kinetic energy transfer of 11 ft-lbs
(Category 2) or 25 ft-lbs (Category 3) from a rigid object. In
addition, this proposed rule would prohibit small UAS eligible for
operations in either Category 2 or Category 3 from having exposed
rotating parts that could lacerate human skin and from having any
safety defects. Finally, to establish an appropriate safety level, this
rule would also require certain operational limitations for Category 3
operations. Consistent with the ARC recommendation, this rule proposes
a performance-based standard that the FAA believes is equivalent to
reducing the likelihood of causing a certain level of expected injury.
(1) Safety Level
This proposed rule's establishment of a safety level that, in part,
limits the effects of kinetic energy upon impact arises from the FAA's
consideration of the AIS as a means of establishing the acceptable
injury thresholds. In the Supplemental NPRM (SNPRM) titled ``Licensing
and Safety Requirements for Launch,'' the FAA discussed the concept of
levels of injury risk from impacts with inert debris resulting from
commercial space launches.\60\ In determining the acceptable level of
risk of injury from inert debris, the FAA stated: ``[o]ne must note
that not every impact of debris at 11 ft-lbs or greater would
necessarily result in a casualty. The probability of casualty due to
such an impact is further dependent on a number of other factors
specific to the debris and the impact scenario.'' \61\ The FAA
considered the concept of the risk of injury from inert debris in
proposing standards for small unmanned aircraft, as explained below.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\60\ See Licensing and Safety Requirements for Launch,
Supplemental Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, 67 FR 49456 (July 30,
2002), which the FAA finalized on August 25, 2006. 71 FR 50508.
\61\ 67 FR at 49465.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
(a) Transfer of Energy From Rigid Object
This rule proposes a performance-based standard that includes the
term ``rigid object'' with regard to the transfer of energy. For
purposes of this proposed rule, the FAA considers a rigid object to be
a body on which the distance between two points never changes,
notwithstanding the amount of force applied on it. Such a definition,
therefore, includes a body that does not
[[Page 3873]]
deform under the influence of forces. The FAA is fully aware that many
factors affect the transfer of kinetic energy. For example, elasticity,
impact dynamics, impact orientation, and a variety of other factors
would ostensibly reduce the amount of energy the object actually
transfers. Research suggests a rigid object impacts someone with more
kinetic energy and therefore could cause injuries more severe than
those a small unmanned aircraft would cause upon impact.
The A4 Report from ASSURE suggests a vertical drop test that
measures kinetic energy upon impact alone is not the most accurate
means of estimating injury that occurs as a result of the energy
transfer. The ASSURE research also proposed alternatives to measuring
injury that would result from a small unmanned aircraft that impacts a
person. The study suggested other test methods that account for the
design configuration and material properties of the small UAS may
measure the severity of blunt trauma that results from an impact more
accurately than kinetic energy measurements alone. ASSURE is conducting
further research on alternative methodologies as indicators of the
severity of injuries from impacts with small unmanned aircraft.
The study strongly suggests the transfer of energy from a small
unmanned aircraft, while difficult to measure, is unlikely to reach 100
percent of the total kinetic energy. In this regard, the study states:
The energy that is directly absorbed is the difference between
the transferred energy and the change in kinetic energy of the
impacted object. Absorbed energy is a function of the deformation of
the impacted mass and the associated damping caused by the materials
from which the impacted object is manufactured.\62\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\62\ A4 Report at 32-33.
The study indicates deformation and absorption of energy are
influential factors to consider when measuring energy from a small
unmanned aircraft falling on a person because ``[i]n the case of a
person being hit by a UAS, deformation and absorbed energy contribute
to the injuries associated with blunt force trauma.'' \63\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\63\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The study attempted to theorize the likelihood of injury that would
result from an impact with a small unmanned aircraft as compared to an
impact with blunt, dense objects such as a ball of steel and a block of
wood.\64\ The risk of a serious injury from such objects varies, given
the frangibility and dense nature of the object, among other factors.
The research conducted impact testing of each of these objects and
established that the transfer of energy from these objects varies
greatly due to design characteristics and the variation of materials
that compose the objects. The study showed the transfer of energy from
a rigid object was more likely to cause injury than the energy
transferred from an object that is less rigid, such as a small unmanned
aircraft of the same weight. The FAA intends the practice of comparing
the energy transferred from a rigid object to the transfer of energy
from a small unmanned aircraft will permit manufacturers, likely by way
of an industry consensus standard, to design small unmanned aircraft
that fulfill the safety levels the FAA proposes in this rule.
Ultimately, the FAA intends its inclusion of the term ``rigid object''
to provide flexibility applicable to each small unmanned aircraft
design, based on limiting human injury caused by the transfer of
energy.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\64\ A-4 Report at 84.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Along with the inclusion of the term ``rigid object'' in the
standards that would govern the qualification of small UAS eligible to
conduct operations in Category 2 and Category 3, the FAA proposes
measurements of energy that would ensure a low likelihood that the
small unmanned aircraft would cause a casualty or fatality upon impact.
The FAA's use of 11 ft-lbs as the basis for the injury standard
applicable to Category 2 operations is consistent with existing
commercial space safety regulations at 14 CFR part 417, Launch Safety,
and longstanding Range Commander's Council (RCC) standards.
Specifically, 14 CFR 417.107(c) establishes 11 ft-lbs as the impact
kinetic energy threshold for inert debris from a commercial space
launch operation that could cause a casualty from blunt trauma to a
person not under a covered structure. The FAA bases this threshold on
extensive government research of human injury thresholds discussed in
the RCC Common Risk Criteria Standards for National Test Ranges, RCC
Standard 321 and associated supplements. The stated intent of RCC
Standard 321 is to ``establish safety criteria and guidelines to
provide definitive and quantifiable measures to protect mission-
essential personnel'' \65\ and the general public from launch and
reentry hazards generated by guided and unguided missiles, missile
intercepts, space launches and reentry vehicles. The RCC conducted
extensive testing and analysis to address blunt force injuries that may
result from falling inert debris. Based upon this information and human
injury criteria, the RCC established threshold values that correlate to
low probabilities of specific human injury levels. Section 6.2 of RCC
321-07, for example, states ``the threshold criterion for protection
against blunt trauma and crushing injuries is 11 ft-lbs impact kinetic
energy.'' \66\ Section 6.2.1 of RCC 321-10 states, this criterion is
designed to afford protection against injury levels of an Abbreviated
Injury Scale (AIS) of level 3 or worse. This statement explains that 11
ft-lbs is the appropriate standard for a ``low probability'' of an AIS
level 3 injury. In addition, the standard is consistent with the use of
11 ft-lbs as the threshold for casualties in commercial space launch
safety analyses and with the ARC recommendation. The document further
establishes 25 ft-lbs as a higher impact kinetic energy threshold for
limiting fatalities due to blunt trauma. When modeling debris fragments
and their impacts on unsheltered people, the RCC standard explains the
impacts that transfer kinetic energy in the amount of 25 ft-lbs or less
have a low probability of causing a fatality.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\65\ RCC Range Safety Group, Common Risk Criteria Standards for
National Test Ranges: Supplement 321-10 at sec. 1.3 (2010).
\66\ RCC Range Safety Group, Common Risk Criteria Standards for
National Test Ranges: Supplement 321-07 at sec. 6.2.a (2007).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
This research arose from criteria the RCC issued in 1999, which
provided government and military Range Commanders a common approach to
safety risk assessments.\67\ These documents refer to the impact
kinetic energy data in RCC Document 321-00 as the basis for calculating
the casualty expectation criteria for unmanned aircraft operations at
national test ranges. Using the probability of fatality data developed
in RCC 321-00, the RCC determined casualty expectation criteria with
the same data the FAA uses in this proposed rule to establish the
impact kinetic energy thresholds.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\67\ RCC Range Safety Group, Range Safety Criteria for Unmanned
Vehicles: Standard 323-99 (1999); see also Range Safety Criteria for
Unmanned Vehicles--Rationale and Methodology Supplement (1999).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Because the RCC impact kinetic energy thresholds are based on
impacts from metallic fragments, the criteria does not take into
account any potential loss of kinetic energy from non-rigid objects
that can be shown to transfer only a portion of their total kinetic
energy to person upon impact. The RCC thresholds presume all kinetic
energy from a rigid object would transfer to a person upon impact. The
ASSURE research, however, demonstrates that small UAS do not always
impact a person or surface in the same manner that metallic fragments
impact them.
[[Page 3874]]
The FAA proposal for using injury avoidance as a threshold, rather than
an impact kinetic energy threshold alone, takes into account the
disparity between impacts from metallic fragments and small unmanned
aircraft. The performance-based standards the FAA proposes in this rule
intend to encourage development of testing methodologies and other
means of compliance that account for the transfer of kinetic energy
that may occur upon impact from small unmanned aircraft.
With regard to analyzing the transfer of energy, the FAA considers
impact kinetic energy thresholds established in the RCC standards as
instructive. The RCC based its thresholds primarily on the assumption
that inert debris exists in rigid form. Because kinetic energy depends
on weight and speed, the human injury models of the RCC report recorded
data of impacting fragments for various weights, such as one, 10, or 80
pounds. The resulting kinetic energy of these weights can be measured
due to the changing velocity of the impacting fragments. For example, a
lightweight unmanned aircraft flying at a certain speed could have the
exact same impact kinetic energy as a heavier unmanned aircraft flying
at a slower speed. Due to the variability in the kinematics of these
systems, the FAA considers the transfer of this impact energy to be the
determining factor for safe operations over people. For determining
whether a means of compliance fulfills the safety levels the FAA
proposes at Sec. Sec. 107.115(b)(1) and 107.120(b)(1), the FAA will
consider long-held science on which the RCC standards are based, as
well as other analytical models that may be relevant at the time of the
FAA's analysis.
Based on the foregoing, the FAA identified two existing impact
kinetic energy thresholds that analyze public safety risk from
commercial space launches, government space launches, and aircraft
operations at national test ranges. The FAA concludes, based on the
research cited above, that a small unmanned aircraft that transfers no
more than 11 ft-lbs of kinetic energy to a person on impact would have
a low probability of causing a casualty to that person. Therefore, the
FAA considers this rule's proposed standard for Category 2 to consist
of the limitation of the results, or injury, that arise from a transfer
of 11 ft-lbs of kinetic energy from a rigid object upon impact.
Similarly, the FAA proposes setting the standard for Category 3 as
limiting the injury to that of an impact of 25 ft-lbs from a rigid
object because a small unmanned aircraft that transfers no more than 25
ft-lbs of kinetic energy to a person on impact would have a low
probability of causing a fatality to that person. As discussed further
below, the FAA also proposes standards for exposed rotating parts
applicable to Categories 2 and 3 as well as operational restrictions
for Category 3 operations.
(b) Measurements of Transfer of Energy
With regard to energy transfer, the FAA proposes setting the safety
level in this rule as the limitation of injuries caused by the total
kinetic energy transferred from a rigid object to a person upon impact,
rather than the impact kinetic energy per unit area. The FAA
acknowledges the ARC recommended the FAA adopt a measurement of J/cm\2\
for the energy limitation aspect of this proposed rule, but declines to
propose this measurement. This decision is the result of the fact that
the contact area varies considerably, based on many factors (varying
shapes of aircraft, size and positioning of the person, and so on).
Further, the orientation of the aircraft at the time of impact will
also greatly affect the contact area as well as the position of the
person who is impacted. Impact kinetic energy thresholds alone consider
neither the dimensions of the small unmanned aircraft nor the area of
the small unmanned aircraft that makes contact with a person upon
impact. Moreover, impact kinetic energy transferred to a person may
result in blunt trauma injuries. Thresholds specified in units of
energy per area, such as J/cm\2\, are used to measure the risk of non-
lacerating, or ``chunky penetration'' injuries, not blunt trauma
injuries.\68\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\68\ Impact kinetic energy per unit area, such as J/cm\2\ is the
most appropriate means of measuring non-lacerating or ``chunky
penetration'' injuries, not blunt trauma injuries. A4 Report at 83
(Table 30, comparison of energy densities and related metrics for
chunky penetration).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Manufacturers or others who do not seek to use an industry
consensus standard may also present a manner of measuring energy
transfer the FAA deems acceptable, via a custom means of compliance.
Once the FAA accepts a means of compliance for measuring the transfer
of energy that accounts for mitigating factors, such as dissipation or
absorption of post-impact kinetic energy by the small unmanned
aircraft, the FAA would consider the means as fulfilling the
performance-based requirements of Category 2 and 3, respectively. As
described below, manufacturers would then take advantage of the
accepted means of compliance by declaring a particular make and model
of small UAS they have manufactured fulfills the appropriate standard
by submitting a declaration of compliance.
At present, no means of measuring exists to establish that a
specific amount of energy equates with a likelihood of injury.
Nevertheless, the FAA's adoption of a performance-based standard as a
performance-based measurement should encourage development of various
means of compliance to ensure small UAS do not present an unacceptable
level of risk of injuring a person when operating over people. The FAA
emphasizes further research is necessary on the subject of proper
modeling of small unmanned aircraft impact physics as it correlates to
human injury. From the variation of kinetic energy thresholds in the
historical blunt trauma research, the FAA understands the rigidity of
the small unmanned aircraft can have an effect on the impact dynamics,
as seen when comparing small UAS data with rigid object data points.
Additional research may suggest other ways of measuring injury that
results from the transmission of energy upon impact.
The FAA seeks comment on whether establishing an impact kinetic
energy threshold and using kinetic energy transferred upon impact is
the appropriate method to measure the potential injury a small unmanned
aircraft could cause upon impact with a person.
(c) Reduction in Likelihood of Injury
As noted above, the FAA uses the term ``safety level'' to refer to
the limitation of injury severity caused by transfers of kinetic energy
from a rigid object, exposed rotating parts, or safety defects. The FAA
proposes to establish the safety levels set forth in Category 2 and 3
based on a risk assessment that does not attempt to predict the precise
types or probability of injuries. A chain of events must occur for a
small UAS to cause an injury. A Category 2 operation resulting in a low
probability of casualty and a Category 3 operation resulting in a low
probability of fatality assumes a small UAS would experience a failure
during an operation over people and that it would impact a person. A
one hundred percent chance that each of these events would occur is
impossible. Therefore, the probability of injury such thresholds would
present is uncertain.
This proposal also does not consider which part or section of a
small unmanned aircraft impacts a person, but rather assumes the
occurrence of the worst case in a typical failure mode. For example,
the orientation of a small unmanned aircraft as it impacts a person
might affect the amount of kinetic energy it transfers. Similarly, if
[[Page 3875]]
the arm of a small unmanned aircraft is bendable or breakable and comes
into contact with a person, the full energy of the impact might not
transfer to the person; therefore, that person may experience an injury
of reduced severity. The FAA assumes that, to determine the maximum
kinetic energy the small unmanned aircraft transfers upon impact with a
person, the test would utilize the aircraft orientation likely to cause
the most harm to the person. For example, the standard assumes the
small unmanned aircraft would not impact the person at an angle or in a
manner that curtails the fall of the small unmanned aircraft. The
standard does not take into account these less hazardous orientations
because a small unmanned aircraft's position at the time of impact with
a person is unpredictable.
In addition, the FAA is aware that different parts of the human
body have different vulnerabilities depending on the weight of the
impacting object. The 11 ft-lbs and 25 ft-lbs thresholds for Category 2
and 3 consider these variations using data, analyses, and studies
performed by the RCC. This threshold also considers these variations
for all parts of the body for both adults and children, including when
people are in various positions, such as standing, sitting, and prone.
The FAA seeks comment on methods, processes, or procedures used in
the studies on which the FAA bases these proposed standards. In
particular, the FAA invites comment on the costs associated with
meeting these proposed standards, in light of such research. Collecting
operational safety data for small UAS operations over people will
assist in the FAA's evaluation of the effectiveness and continued
applicability of the safety standards the agency proposes. The FAA also
seeks comment on the need for a process, and the details of that
process, to enable the FAA to reassess and possibly adjust the safety
thresholds in this proposed rule based on such safety data. The FAA
acknowledges the lack of certainty concerning failure rates and
estimates of injury severity based on failures. The FAA seeks specific
information regarding methods used to deal with such uncertainty.
(2) Exposed Rotating Parts
Exposed rotating parts, which could cause lacerations or other
serious injuries if these parts were to come into contact with a
person, are a feature common to small UAS on the market today. Due to
the hazards this feature can pose, the FAA has determined small UAS
eligible for operations in Category 2 and 3 of this proposed rule must
be designed such that they would not lacerate human skin upon impact
with a person.
The ARC recommended manufacturers limit the risk of injuries caused
by exposed rotating parts because energy transfer requirements alone
would not mitigate this risk sufficiently. The ARC stated the analysis
of exposed rotating parts should ``focus on serious injury (level 3 or
greater)'' without any distinction based on the category of operation.
Although the ARC used the term ``exposed rotating parts'' to identify
any rotating part that could cause an injury, the most common example
of this on a small unmanned aircraft is a propeller. In a multi-rotor
unmanned aircraft configuration, propellers are generally arranged
symmetrically around the periphery of the unmanned aircraft. In a
fixed-wing unmanned aircraft configuration, propellers are generally
arranged in either a puller (propeller in front) or pusher (propeller
in back) configuration. These propellers generally spin at high speeds,
and could cause injuries, even if on small unmanned aircraft.
The ASSURE study predicted that the severity of cutting or tearing
injuries could be greater than impact injuries from existing rotorcraft
designs on UAS.\69\ The study indicated blade tip speed, blade
sharpness, and leading edge sharpness may all significantly affect the
potential for laceration of human skin from UAS blades. The ASSURE
study clarified that all propellers can lacerate skin. Based on this
research, the FAA concludes any small UAS that conducts operations over
people should not have exposed rotating parts capable of lacerating
human skin upon impact with a person. Manufacturers would need to
ensure the small UAS fulfills this standard using a means of compliance
the FAA accepts. This requirement would not apply to operations of
small UAS that occur pursuant to Category 1. The FAA invites public
comment, however, on the issue of whether operations of small UAS
eligible to operate pursuant to Category 1 should be subjected to a
performance-based requirement for exposed rotating parts.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\69\ A4 Report at 89.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The FAA is aware that exposed rotating parts could be capable of
injuries beyond just lacerations. For example, injuries to hair, teeth
or eyes, rather than skin, may occur. The FAA, however, considered
carefully the proposed limitation on exposed rotating parts that could
lacerate human skin and determined the prohibition on skin lacerations,
combined with the limitation on transfer of kinetic energy on impact
and prohibition of safety defects, will mitigate the risk of injuries
that may not involve skin. Moreover, the FAA is keenly aware that
permanently disfiguring injuries could result from lacerations of
skin.\70\ As a result, and based on the ASSURE research that
highlighted the concern that exposed rotating parts present, the FAA
proposes a general prohibition on such parts that could lacerate skin.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\70\ In this regard, the FAA's decision to ensure protection of
skin from lacerating injuries is similar to the logic the National
Highway Traffic Safety Administration employs. See Federal Motor
Vehicle Safety Standards: Glazing Materials, 65 FR 44710, 44711
(July 19, 2000) (explaining NHTSA's decision to assess whether
``advanced glazings'' are more likely to cause lacerations than
``current glass,'' and stating, ``[a]lthough facial lacerations
injuries are relatively minor (AIS 1 or 2), they . . . can be
disfiguring'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
This proposal is the result of the agency's determination that any
allowance for serious injury from exposed rotating parts would have a
compounding effect and would add to the overall level of risk for
Category 2 and 3 operations. The FAA concluded that this proposed
standard of prohibiting lacerations of human skin would maintain the
risk posed by Category 2 operations as a low probability of causing a
casualty, and Category 3 operations as a low probability of causing a
fatality. As described below, manufacturers would fulfill this standard
by either providing descriptions of their test methodology and test
data; analyses with substantiating data; or inspection information.
A manufacturer may establish it has fulfilled the limitation on
exposed rotating parts by ensuring the small unmanned aircraft simply
does not have parts that are exposed. For example, if the propellers
that provide lift and thrust for the small unmanned aircraft are
internal to the unmanned aircraft, such as in a ducted fan
configuration, and are incapable of making contact with a person as a
result of an impact, then the parts would not be exposed, and the
aircraft would satisfy this proposed requirement. The FAA may require
testing and analysis to conclude the rotating parts could not become
exposed as a result of an impact with a person. For example, if the
forces on the small unmanned aircraft during an impact with a person
could cause structural failures that result in the rotating parts
becoming exposed, then that design would not achieve the requisite
safety level of this proposed rule. The FAA seeks comment on other
[[Page 3876]]
means of compliance it could include in a final rule.
5. Means of Compliance
This rule proposes several performance-based requirements that
would accommodate varying means of compliance. In this manner, the FAA
would build flexibility into the regulations, which would allow the
regulatory scheme to progress alongside the fast pace of small UAS
innovation and development. Additionally, this rule would establish a
process by which the FAA could expedite the acceptance of voluntary
consensus standards as means of compliance with requirements related to
impact kinetic energy and exposed rotating parts. This proposal would
align with the direction of the Office of Management and Budget (OMB)
Circular A-119, which favors the use of performance-based regulations
and voluntary consensus standards. The FAA proposes to accept both
voluntary consensus standards and non-consensus standards as means of
compliance with the proposed performance-based requirements.
Given the current absence of voluntary consensus standards that
could apply to operating small unmanned aircraft over people, the FAA
is proposing one means of compliance for each proposed performance-
based standard for operations over people, to allow interested
stakeholders to begin demonstrating compliance as soon as this rule
goes into effect. Additionally, the FAA is proposing a process by which
it would approve additional means of compliance. A voluntary consensus
standards body, an industry, a manufacturer, or an individual may
develop these means of compliance. Each means of compliance, including
the FAA's proposed means, would constitute one way, but not the only
way, to satisfy the proposed performance-based standards. The FAA would
consider other means of compliance as entities or individuals develop
and submit them to the FAA for review.
(a) Establishing Compliance
The FAA proposes to require a manufacturer producing a small UAS
eligible for Category 2 or 3 operations to establish compliance with
the proposed safety level by using a means of compliance the FAA has
accepted. A manufacturer would then declare on its Declaration of
Compliance what means of compliance, or combination of them, it used.
This proposal sets forth three ways of establishing compliance: (1) The
FAA-proposed means of compliance, discussed in this preamble; (2) an
FAA-accepted means of compliance developed by a voluntary consensus
standards body; and (3) an FAA-accepted custom means of compliance
developed independent of either the FAA or a voluntary consensus
standards body. A custom means of compliance would require more
extensive review by the FAA than a means of compliance developed by a
voluntary consensus standards body.
(1) FAA-Provided Means of Compliance
Under this proposed rule, any person may establish compliance with
the applicable safety levels the FAA proposes in this rule in a variety
of ways. The FAA must affirmatively accept the means of compliance
before a manufacturer can rely upon it to demonstrate compliance.
Because no means of compliance currently exist to address the
requirements this rule proposes, the FAA proposes one means of
compliance it would accept immediately, to allow manufacturers to
demonstrate their small UAS would fulfill the level of safety the FAA
proposes in this rule for operations over people. Section IV.B.5.c)
provides a description of this means of compliance. The FAA may provide
additional FAA-accepted means of compliance based on future research.
(2) Voluntary Consensus Standards Body Means of Compliance
A voluntary consensus standards body develops standards that
incorporate openness, balance, due process, appeals process and
consensus. These characteristics also necessarily result in voluntary
consensus standards being peer reviewed. Because voluntary consensus
standards bodies are composed of a wide selection of industry
participants, and often include FAA participation, the FAA expects its
review of a means of compliance developed by a voluntary consensus
standards body to be more expeditious than a custom means of compliance
developed in the absence of a voluntary consensus standards body.
The FAA has an extensive history of working with voluntary
consensus standards bodies such as RTCA, ASTM International, Society of
Automotive Engineers (SAE), and Institute of Electrical and Electronics
Engineers (IEEE). In accordance with the ARC recommendation to use
industry consensus standards for small UAS, and with the precedent
already set for general aviation aircraft, the FAA anticipates
voluntary consensus standards bodies to take the lead in offering means
of compliance for FAA review.
(3) Custom Means of Compliance
The FAA proposes that a manufacturer or other person may propose a
custom means of compliance to fulfill the safety level set forth in
this proposed rule's impact kinetic energy or exposed rotating parts
standards. As discussed further in this section, a custom means of
compliance would be subject to a more comprehensive review than a means
of compliance submitted by a voluntary consensus standards body. If a
person proposes an alternate means of compliance to the impact kinetic
energy or exposed rotating parts requirements in the rule, or an
alternate method to any FAA-accepted means of compliance, the FAA would
evaluate the means of compliance on a case-by-case basis. A custom
means of compliance would need to set forth a manner by which an
applicant could comply with the impact kinetic energy and exposed
rotating parts standards of Sec. 107.115(b)(1) or Sec. 107.120(b)(1),
as applicable.
Applicants should consider carefully the additional time and effort
that could be necessary to coordinate a new or alternate means of
compliance when scheduling their projects. FAA coordination may require
the efforts of FAA technical specialists, Chief Scientific Technical
Advisors, and other government agencies. The use of existing FAA-
accepted means of compliance would be more expeditious because the FAA
has already reviewed them. Not all developers of custom means of
compliance would be manufacturers who submit a Declaration of
Compliance. The FAA, therefore, would provide a process by which an
applicant could submit a custom means of compliance for FAA review
separate from submitting a Declaration of Compliance. This process is
described in further detail in Advisory Circular 107-2.
When reviewing a custom means of compliance, the FAA would utilize
a comprehensive set of criteria. To demonstrate compliance with the
impact kinetic energy or exposed rotating parts requirements, the FAA
would determine whether the applicant has shown compliance by testing,
analysis, or inspection that demonstrates the manufacturer has met the
appropriate level of safety provided in the proposed standards. The FAA
would also determine whether the custom tests or analyses are performed
in accordance with accepted methods used by the medical industry,
consumer safety groups, or other peer-reviewed test methods. In
addition, the FAA would determine whether the proposed
[[Page 3877]]
means of compliance required unreasonable skill on behalf of the remote
pilot in command or incorporation of mitigations to meet the standards.
Lastly, the FAA would determine whether the means of compliance
addressed design features such as deployable devices, parachutes, or
other features. Those additional features would require the FAA's
review to determine whether they assist in achieving an acceptable
means of compliance when those features function as intended.
The FAA's proposed regulatory text in Sec. 107.125 of this rule
sets forth the information the FAA must receive in determining whether
to accept the means of compliance. This information would ensure FAA
oversight at a level that is appropriate for the risk operations of
small UAS over people present. In addition, the model for ensuring
compliance that the FAA proposes in this rule would also permit the
FAA's adoption of an industry consensus standard that fulfills the
applicable standard.
(b) Submittal and FAA Acceptance of Means of Compliance
As described previously, manufacturers or industry stakeholders may
establish compliance in a variety of different ways; however, the FAA
must affirmatively accept the means of compliance before the
manufacturer can rely on it for self-certification.
Any person may submit a means of compliance to the FAA for review.
To submit a means of compliance, a person would be required to identify
whether the manufacturer achieves compliance by way of test, analysis
or inspection, and provide a detailed description of the means of
compliance that establishes exactly how the testing, analysis, or
inspection fulfills the safety level set forth in the standards of
Sec. 107.115(b)(1) or Sec. 107.120(b)(1). The rule proposes requiring
any person who submits such a custom means of compliance to provide any
substantiating data, studies, information, or the like to explain
precisely how their proposed means of compliance achieves the safety
level that the standards of Sec. 107.115(b)(1) or Sec. 107.120(b)(1)
represent. For example, if a manufacturer would achieve compliance by
conducting testing, then the manufacturer's request for the FAA's
acceptance of the means of compliance should include test procedures
that outline the test methodology, an analysis to support the
equivalency of the testing to the safety level identified in Sec.
107.115(b)(1) or Sec. 107.120(b)(1), and all substantiating data that
supports the test, methods, results, and conclusions. On the other
hand, if a manufacturer seeks to achieve compliance by analysis, then
the manufacturer should submit the standard to which the manufacturer
compared his or her specific model of small unmanned aircraft and
explain how the data and interpretation of it establishes that the
manufacturer fulfills the applicable standard. For example, if the
manufacturer has a simulation with modeling of the impact dynamics that
the FAA has validated, then the FAA would evaluate the analysis that
utilizes the impact dynamics data to confirm that the analysis
establishes fulfillment of the standard. In sum, anyone may submit a
variety of types of means of compliance using testing, analyses,
inspections, or any combination of them, in seeking the FAA's
acceptance of their means of compliance. As described previously, the
FAA would more closely scrutinize custom means of compliance not
submitted by a voluntary consensus standards body.
The FAA would indicate acceptance of a means of compliance by
publishing a Notice of Availability in the Federal Register identifying
the means of compliance as accepted and by sending a letter to the
applicant accepting the proposed means of compliance. If a manufacturer
referred to a custom means of compliance on its Declaration of
Compliance, FAA acceptance of that Declaration of Compliance would also
indicate acceptance of the custom means of compliance.
Once the FAA has accepted a custom means of compliance, the FAA
would consider it as equally valid as a voluntary consensus standard
that the FAA had accepted. If the FAA did not accept a custom means of
compliance, the FAA would notify the applicant of the rationale for its
decision and would reject any associated Declarations of Compliance
that rely on that particular custom means of compliance. For both
custom means of compliance and voluntary consensus standards, the FAA
could rescind a previously accepted means of compliance if the FAA
determined from service history that the means of compliance did not
meet the applicable standards for operations over people.
(c) Types of Means of Compliance
This proposal provides latitude for people who request acceptance
of a means of compliance to show compliance by testing, analyses,
inspections, or any combination of the three. In all proposed means of
compliance cases, the FAA would review data based on the worst-case
scenario of a typical failure of the small unmanned aircraft. The
applications for approval of proposed means of compliance that include
data and relevant information regarding a reasonably foreseeable worst-
case scenario will facilitate the most straightforward, efficient type
of review from the FAA. In general, the FAA expects the amount of
information needed to justify the proposed means of compliance will be
proportionate to the complexity of factors relevant to both common and
worst-case scenarios.
(1) Tests
Anyone may submit test data to show their small UAS fulfills the
safety level the FAA proposes in this rule. The description below
describes tests used for both a pre-accepted means of compliance based
solely on the impact kinetic energy measurement, as well as tests used
for an alternate means of compliance.
(a) Impact Kinetic Energy Transfer
As explained below, this proposed rule includes one potential means
of compliance that manufacturers may use to declare compliance. For all
potential means of compliance, the FAA expects manufacturers, during
their testing, to install or enable any mechanisms that could affect
the transfer of kinetic energy upon impact. For example, manufacturers
must employ any systems that could limit the velocity of the small
unmanned aircraft upon which the means of compliance relies. In such
cases, the manufacturer should provide information on the proper use of
those systems or equipment, as well as any restrictions, in the remote
pilot operating instructions, as discussed in section IV.B.9.
The FAA anticipates a person who seeks to comply via a custom means
of compliance would implement these types of systems or equipment
through hardware, software, or a combination of both. If an operator
can operate the small UAS regardless of whether these systems or
equipment are enabled or installed, such as in a variable-mode small
UAS, then the manufacturer should provide information in the remote
pilot operating instructions to ensure remote pilots in command
understand any restrictions or limitations associated with the
different modes.
Pre-Accepted Means of Compliance
One means, but not the only means, of complying with the proposed
limitation with regard to the transfer of kinetic energy upon impact
would entail a manufacturer's calculation of kinetic energy transferred
when a small
[[Page 3878]]
unmanned aircraft impacts a person. This type of means of compliance
would not account for impact dynamics or other factors, but consists of
using only the formula the FAA describes to measure kinetic energy upon
impact. Use of this formula alone would establish the small unmanned
aircraft fulfills one of the standards described above because 11 ft-
lbs (for Category 2 operations) and 25 ft-lbs (for Category 3
operations) are thresholds that establish low probability of occurrence
of a casualty or fatality would exist, respectively.
This pre-accepted means of compliance would be based on the maximum
performance capabilities of a small unmanned aircraft during a typical
failure mode. To test a small unmanned aircraft using this means of
compliance, a manufacturer would first determine the maximum forward
airspeed that the small unmanned aircraft may attain at full power in
level flight during typical environmental conditions. The manufacturer
would use a reliable and accurate airspeed measurement method. For
example, a manufacturer could measure the maximum speed using a GPS
groundspeed indicator, a radar gun, or tape measure and stop watch.
Next, the manufacturer would determine the ground impact speed
resulting from an unpowered free-fall from the highest altitude the
small UAS is capable of attaining at full power. The ground impact
speed could be determined by performing a drop test from the altitude
determined in the previous step using a reliable and accurate vertical
speed measurement method under typical environmental conditions.\71\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\71\ Small unmanned aircraft operated under part 107 may not
exceed the speed limitations in part 107 unless authorized under a
Certificate of Waiver or an exemption. See 14 CFR 107.51(a) (stating
the ground speed of the small unmanned aircraft may not exceed 87
knots (100 miles per hour)) and Sec. 107.205 (listing Sec.
107.51(a) as a provision that is subject to waiver).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
If a manufacturer determines it is unreasonable to perform a drop
test from the highest attainable altitude, then the manufacturer may
perform a drop test from a lower altitude sufficient to determine the
small unmanned aircraft free-fall aerodynamic characteristics, such as
the coefficient of drag, to calculate accurately the ground impact
speed from a free-fall from the highest attainable altitude. The
substantiating data the manufacturer would submit would include
sufficient information concerning the environmental conditions and the
maximum speeds the manufacturer utilized, as well as any unique test
conditions for both the level flight and free-fall scenarios.
The above tests account for speeds a small unmanned aircraft could
reach prior to or during a typical failure mode, such as losing power
and falling with both a vertical and horizontal speed component. The
tests do not take into account small UAS failure modes or pilot actions
that would cause the small unmanned aircraft to exceed the speeds
determined in the previous steps. One example is a powered descent in
which the ground impact speed of the small unmanned aircraft exceeds
its unpowered free-fall ground impact speed. The FAA assumes these
types of failure modes or pilot actions are not typical, and while
possible, have a low likelihood of occurring. If a manufacturer
determines these types of failure modes or pilot actions could
typically occur and result in speeds greater than those determined in
the previous steps, then the manufacturer should use higher speeds to
determine the maximum impact kinetic energy.
Once the manufacturer determines the maximum speeds associated with
a horizontal and vertical impact, the manufacturer would ascertain the
highest combination of these speeds that he or she could achieve as a
result of a reasonably foreseeable failure. These conclusions would
lead to the manufacturer's determination of the maximum impact kinetic
energy. In such a case, the manufacturer should use the highest
combination of horizontal and vertical impact speeds unless he or she
can show the highest combination is not possible in a reasonably
foreseeable failure and another combination is therefore more
appropriate. The manufacturer should assess reasonably foreseeable
failures caused by system or equipment loss of function or malfunction
as well as those that pilot error could cause.
To calculate the impact kinetic energy, manufacturers would use the
following equation:
KEimpact = 0.0155 * w * v\2\
Where KEimpact is the maximum impact kinetic energy in ft-
lbs, w is the weight of the small unmanned aircraft measured in pounds,
and v is the maximum impact speed measured in feet per second (ft/
s).\72\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\72\ The FAA used the constant 0.0155 in order to allow a person
to plug in the weight, rather than the mass, of a small unmanned
aircraft. Using the following equations, KE = \1/2\
*mass*velocity\2\ and mass= weight/gravity, the FAA determined that,
in English units, KE = \1/2\ * weight/32.17 * velocity\2\ and KE =
\1/2\ * (1/32.17) *weight* velocity\2\ therefore KE = 0.0155 *
weight * velocity\2\. Note that 32.17 is the gravitational constant
measured in English units.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
For example, a small UAS that weighs 1.0 pound and has a maximum
impact speed of 26 ft/s has a maximum impact kinetic energy of:
KEimpact = 0.0155 * 1.0 * (26) \2\ = 10.5 ft-lbs
Similarly, a small UAS that weighs 1.0 pound and has a maximum
impact speed of 40 ft/s has an impact kinetic energy of:
KEimpact = 0.0155 * 1.0 * (40) \2\ = 24.8 ft-lbs
Utilizing the formula KEimpact = 0.0155 * w * v \2\, the
two tables below provide examples of maximum impact speeds, rounded to
whole numbers, associated with the impact kinetic energy thresholds of
the different categories and the weight of the small unmanned aircraft.
One table provides speeds in feet per second and the other table
provides speeds in miles per hour. Manufacturers could use these tables
when following this proposed means of compliance based on the maximum
performance of a small UAS. These tables do not consider any energy-
absorbing characteristics of a small unmanned aircraft that may reduce
the amount of energy transferred to a person during an impact.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\73\ The values provided in Tables 4 and 5 are based on the
factors summarized in footnote 75.
Table 4--Maximum Impact Speeds (ft/sec) for a Given Weight and Impact
Kinetic Energy \73\
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Maximum speed (ft/sec)
-------------------------
Weight (lbs) Category 2 Category 3
(11 ft-lbs) (25 ft-lbs)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1.0........................................... 26 40
1.5........................................... 22 33
2.0........................................... 19 28
2.5........................................... 17 25
3.0........................................... 15 23
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Table 5--Maximum Impact Speeds (mph) for a Given Weight and Impact
Kinetic Energy
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Maximum speed (mph)
-------------------------
Weight (lbs) Category 2 Category 3
(11 ft-lbs) (25 ft-lbs)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1.0........................................... 18 27
1.5........................................... 15 22
2.0........................................... 13 19
2.5........................................... 11 17
3.0........................................... 10 16
------------------------------------------------------------------------
This proposed means of compliance does not account for the use or
testing of design features such as parachutes, ballistic recovery
systems, or other deployable devices that, once deployed,
[[Page 3879]]
create drag to reduce the maximum impact speed. The discussion below,
concerning custom means of compliance, addresses the potential use of
such design features.
As discussed in section IV.B.7.b), if a remote pilot in command or
other person modified a small unmanned aircraft in a manner that
increases its maximum speed or weight beyond what is identified in the
remote pilot operating instructions, then the small unmanned aircraft
would no longer fulfill the safety level set forth at Sec.
107.115(b)(1)(i) or Sec. 107.120(b)(1)(i). To conduct operations over
people, a manufacturer would have to verify that the modifications
satisfied the impact kinetic energy requirements by re-testing and
submitting a new Declaration of Compliance for the modified small UAS.
Custom Means of Compliance
Under this proposal, any person may propose a custom means of
compliance showing the small unmanned aircraft achieves the safety
level the FAA proposes in Sec. 107.115(b)(1) or Sec. 107.120(b)(1).
At the time of this proposal, the FAA has not identified a means
available to determine the actual amount of kinetic energy that is
transferred upon impact with a person. Nevertheless, research into this
area is ongoing. Taking advantage of the opportunity to employ a
customized solution that ensures compliance with the safety levels set
forth in Sec. Sec. 107.115(b)(1) and 107.120(b)(1), the manufacturer
would request the FAA's acceptance of a means of compliance that
establishes how the manufacturer has made this determination.
The structural configuration, materials of construction, or other
design features may function to reduce the amount of the total kinetic
energy that is transferred to a person from a small unmanned aircraft
during an impact. The FAA's proposed means of compliance described
above does not take into account the effect of these aspects during an
impact with a person, because it assumes that the total kinetic energy
of the small unmanned aircraft would be transferred to the person upon
impact. In reality, however, the small unmanned aircraft may transfer
much less energy. For example, the presence of energy-absorbing
materials, or an energy-absorbing protective cage, may reduce the
transfer of kinetic energy during an impact with a person. Under these
circumstances, a manufacturer may wish to provide data showing the
amount of kinetic energy that is transferred to a person during an
impact, based on the impact-absorbing characteristics of the small
unmanned aircraft. In this regard, some small UAS manufacturers may
seek to use design features such as parachutes or other deployable
devices to establish that a reduced amount of transferred energy exists
for their small unmanned aircraft. Such design features would require
the FAA's review to determine whether they assist in achieving an
acceptable means of compliance if the small UAS is reliant on the
proper functioning of these features.
The means of compliance discussed in the preceding paragraphs
should not be confused with the Declaration of Compliance discussed in
Section IV.B.7.b), below. The testing or analysis conducted to
determine the maximum kinetic energy that a small unmanned aircraft
could transfer to a person upon impact during a typical failure
scenario would be the actual means of compliance under this rule. The
Declaration of Compliance would be the ``evidence'' or ``artifact''
that is the final step in demonstrating to the FAA that the small UAS
is in compliance with this proposed rule.
(b) Exposed Rotating Parts
Anyone who seeks approval of a means of compliance may establish,
using test descriptions, results, and data, that a small unmanned
aircraft does not contain any rotating parts that could cause
lacerations of human skin. An industry consensus organization could
develop a standard for small unmanned aircraft that have rotating parts
that are protected by safety features, such as propeller guards. The
standard could require testing to support the determination that the
protective safety features accomplish their intended function of
preventing rotating parts from contacting a person during an impact. If
the manufacturer has tested those safety features and established they
would remain intact during an impact, this could be one means of
demonstrating that exposed rotating parts would not be capable of
lacerating human skin. If a small unmanned aircraft has rotating parts
that are exposed without any protective safety features, this rule
proposes to permit manufacturers or others to show through testing,
analysis or inspection that the rotating parts are not capable of
lacerating human skin upon impact with a person. Manufacturers or
others who seek to obtain approval of a means of compliance could
submit testing results and data that consider the size, shape,
rotational speed, material, and orientation of the rotating parts, and
concludes that these parts could not cause lacerations under any impact
scenarios.
The more sophisticated or complex the materials or design of the
small unmanned aircraft, the more sophisticated the analysis or testing
should be. If a small unmanned aircraft had propellers made out of
soft, flexible material, a manufacturer would likely not need to employ
a means of compliance that had used a sophisticated analysis or testing
to demonstrate that the exposed rotating parts are not capable of
causing a laceration. However, if a manufacturer chooses to design a
small unmanned aircraft with exposed propellers that have sharp leading
edges, are made of a rigid material such as a carbon fiber composite
and are driven by high torque motors, that manufacturer would likely
have to perform a more sophisticated analysis or testing to demonstrate
that the propellers are not capable of lacerating human skin upon
impact with a person.
Tests and associated data could also consist of utilizing exposed
rotating propellers at maximum revolutions per minute (RPM) and
contacting a medium that accurately represents human skin to establish
the propeller would not lacerate human skin. Similarly, for shrouded
propellers, such a test would establish that the propellers, while
turning, would not lacerate human skin. This test would establish the
effectiveness of the shroud or covering in a dynamic impact scenario.
Such a test may consist of a drop test or test using a pendulum to show
the shrouds remain effective when the propeller did not lacerate the
medium that represents human skin.
Further, in the exemplar test described above, the test data
manufacturers or others submit would likely require a description of
the skin media used to determine that the shrouded propellers did not
lacerate human skin. Research that has led to the development of
standards and analyses on the subject of laceration injuries includes
the use of media such as a medium that is 10 percent gelatin,\74\ a
[[Page 3880]]
pig cadaver,\75\ plasticine,\76\ and a medium that may include chamois,
among other components.\77\ In this rulemaking, the FAA does not
endorse any of the aforementioned media as substitutions for human
skin. Rather, a manufacturer or industry consensus group that seeks
acceptance from the FAA of a means of compliance for establishing
exposed rotating parts would not lacerate human skin may provide test
data, analyses, or information that employs one of the above media, or
another medium. The FAA would review the entire submission of
information in order to determine whether the agency will accept the
potential means of compliance.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\74\ Nicholas and Welsch, Ballistic Gelatin 2, Pennsylvania
State University Applied Research Laboratory, (2004), available at
http://www.firearmsid.com/Gelatin/Ballistic%20Gelatin%20Report.pdf.
\75\ Sullivan et al, The Pig as a Model for Human Wound Healing,
The International Journal of Tissue Repair and Regeneration (2001);
Simon and Maibach, The Pig as an Experimental Animal Model of
Percutaneous Permeation in Man: Qualitative and Quantitative
Observations An Overview, Skin Pharmacology and Physiology 13.5 at
229-34 (2000).
\76\ R[ouml]hrich et al, Skin Injury Model Classification Based
on Shape Vector Analysis, BMC Medical Imaging (2012), available at
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3599354/.
\77\ Bir, et al., Skin Penetration Surrogate for the Evaluation
of Less Lethal Kinetic Energy Munitions, 220 Forensic Science
International 126, 127 (2012), available at http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0379073812000801?via%3Dihub.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
(2) Analysis
A person may submit means of compliance that consist of analyses to
establish they have achieved the level of safety set forth in Sec.
107.115(b)(1) or Sec. 107.120(b)(1). In general, the FAA envisions
many proposed means of compliance could employ computer modeling
analysis to comply with the energy transfer standard or the exposed
rotating parts standard.
(a) Impact Kinetic Energy Transfer
A proposed means of compliance may involve the use of analyses to
predict the amount of kinetic energy transferred upon impact with a
person. For example, a person who submits a means of compliance for
acceptance may seek to incorporate the aerodynamic effects (including
drag) of the small unmanned aircraft in a dynamic model of impact with
a person. The person could utilize computational fluid dynamics (CFD)
and finite element modeling (FEM) into the simulation. Such a
simulation would analyze the aerodynamic properties of the
aircraft.\78\ The model would calculate the interaction of the geometry
of the object in a flow field of the medium. Further, the model may
also simulate the dynamic interaction of the aircraft structure with a
validated model of a person to calculate the amount of kinetic energy
that is transferred.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\78\ CFD, as used in the example above, refers to a simulation
that incorporates Navier-Stokes equations in a mathematical and
computational program that utilizes a multi-dimensional model of an
object. Constantin and Fioas. Navier-Stokes Equations. Univ. of
Chicago (1988).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The person who seeks FAA acceptance of the means of compliance
would need to document the justification by including any analysis or
validation testing. Such records should establish validity of the
aerodynamic modeling as well as any other modeling techniques used in
the computation of impact kinetic energy values. Therefore, in
evaluating the proposed means of compliance based on analysis, the FAA
would expect submission of a full description of the process and an
explanation of the precise effect of the aerodynamic or other
characteristics that influence the flight envelope in which the small
unmanned aircraft operates. As with all proposed custom means of
compliance, the FAA would expect to evaluate information and data
concerning the worst-case scenario of a typical failure, combined with
mean data that depicts common scenarios within the aircraft's flight
envelope.
(b) Exposed Rotating Parts
A person may also choose to confirm that exposed rotating parts on
the small unmanned aircraft they have manufactured would not lacerate
human skin by submitting analysis. Such analysis could include verified
data from relatable studies that models the small unmanned aircraft's
propellers at a maximum RPM, and the material choice of the propeller
and strength characteristics of an average human's skin in an FEM
simulation,\79\ and performs a finite element analysis (FEA) \80\ to
determine the laceration characteristics of the propeller. In such a
case, the FAA would expect the justification related to this method to
explain the rationale for concluding that the use of the previously
accepted data and FEA methodology is appropriate for the small UAS
design at issue.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\79\ FEM, as used in the example above, refers to the
utilization of multi-dimensional model of an object that subdivides
the model into smaller components with attached algebraic equations
to help represent complex geometry and the dynamics associated to
such geometry during simulated stresses or impacts.
\80\ FEA, as used in this example, is a numerical analysis of a
system to simulate the impact dynamic reaction when developed with
the material and design characteristics of the small unmanned
aircraft and surrounding objects that are relevant to the analysis.
Manufacturers may use FEA in computer modeling by using boundary
value problems for partial differential equations and variation
methods from calculus disparities to approximate a solution using
algebraic equations attached to small, subdivided pieces of the
model and by minimizing an associated error function.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
(3) Inspection
Manufacturers may also opt to confirm that the small UAS they have
manufactured would fulfill the safety level set forth in this proposed
rule by submitting information based on inspection. The FAA would
expect a full description of the inspection and the results or
conclusions from that inspection in order to accept the means of
compliance. Often, manufacturers may use the inspection option when a
small UAS has undergone modifications.
(a) Impact Kinetic Energy Transfer
For purposes of establishing that the kinetic energy a small
unmanned aircraft transfers upon impact does not exceed the applicable
standard, a manufacturer may submit records to establish the
manufacturer has performed an inspection verifying that the small UAS
adheres to the standard. For example, a small UAS model the FAA has
previously determined fulfills the standard may continue to do so after
a modification when the manufacturer has simply replaced a part on the
small unmanned aircraft that weighs less than the original part. The
manufacturer would provide justification to verify the new part does
not alter the small unmanned aircraft such that it would increase the
kinetic energy the small unmanned aircraft transfers upon impact. In
this example, the manufacturer would present information to establish
that the overall weight and structure of the small unmanned aircraft
did not change to render it out of compliance with the applicable
standard regarding energy transfer.
(b) Exposed Rotating Parts
In addition, a manufacturer's design with propeller blade guards to
fulfill the prohibition on exposed rotating parts may lend itself to a
verification of the means of compliance by way of inspection. For
example, a manufacturer with a previously accepted means of compliance
who wishes to replace or upgrade propellers could do so with a
propeller design of the same size, fit and weight that has fulfilled
the previously accepted means of compliance, and thus demonstrate
compliance through inspection means and not need to retest or perform
another analysis. When the manufacturer has completed previous tests
the FAA had verified demonstrated the effectiveness of blade guards,
the Administrator may presume
[[Page 3881]]
replacement of propellers would not have an effect on the function of
the guard to prevent laceration.
6. Aircraft with Variable Modes and Configurations
Although this rule proposes three distinct categories of operations
over people, the FAA proposes to allow small UAS to be configured to
conduct operations within more than one category. For example, an
aircraft may be designed in such a way that it would be qualified to
conduct Category 2 operations in one mode or configuration, and
Category 3 operations in another mode or configuration. Alternatively,
a small UAS could meet the requirements to operate over people in one
mode or configuration, but not in another. For example, an aircraft
could operate within the restrictions of an operation over people, but
could also operate using higher performance characteristics when not
operating over people.
To transition between various modes or configurations, a
manufacturer may choose to use a variety of methods, such as software-
enabled performance limitations including altitude or groundspeed
limitations, hardware configurations, or any combination thereof. Using
different modes or configurations, a manufacturer could design a small
UAS to meet the performance capabilities of multiple categories of
operations over people. Additionally, a manufacturer could design a
small UAS that has removable propeller guards or cages that would need
to be installed for operations over people but could be removed when
not operating over people.
The design of a small UAS should not permit a remote pilot to
change the mode or configuration inadvertently. Regardless of whether
the method of transitioning between various modes or configurations
involves software or control station selections, a change of mode or
configuration must result only from a deliberate action on the part of
the remote pilot in command. For example, a remote pilot in command
could be required to enter a passcode that would intentionally alter
the mode of operation, thereby switching the category of operation for
the aircraft.
To test a small UAS with multiple modes or configurations, a
manufacturer should test the small UAS in the mode or configuration
that allows the small UAS to meet the requirements for the category to
which a manufacturer wishes to declare compliance. If a small UAS could
meet the requirements for operations in both Category 2 and Category 3
based on the mode or configuration in which the small UAS is operated,
then the manufacturer must submit to the FAA a Declaration of
Compliance that includes each category for which the manufacturer has
tested or analyzed the small UAS.
The FAA seeks comment on the need for means of compliance that
address incorporation of software, including software updates or
changes, to enable performance limitations, variable modes, or variable
configurations to meet the safety level proposed in this rule. The FAA
also seeks comment on how the FAA should review an acceptable means of
compliance for the impact kinetic energy or exposed rotating parts
safety thresholds to address the appropriateness of using software to
limit or establish the small UAS performance to meet the safety level
proposed in this rule.
7. Declaring Compliance
The FAA agrees with the ARC recommendation that self-certification
is the appropriate method for manufacturers to declare compliance with
a performance standard. Self-certification, combined with the FAA's
determination that the means of compliance the manufacturer has used is
acceptable, will ensure the small UAS meets the appropriate safety
level the FAA proposes in this rule. In addition, the FAA's other
proposed measures for overseeing manufacturers, as described in section
IV.B.12, below, would result in a level of oversight and accountability
the FAA has determined is appropriate for manufacturers of small UAS
that certify eligibility to operate over people in accordance with this
proposed rule.
(a) Applicability to Manufacturers
In this proposed rule, the FAA would consider a manufacturer to be
any person or entity that designs, produces, or modifies a small UAS
that is eligible to operate over people within the United States under
part 107. The FAA expects the most common form of manufacturer under
this proposed rule would be an entity that produces and sells a
complete and operable small UAS.
Additionally, an entity that sells a kit that contains all the
components and parts from which to build an operable small UAS would be
considered a manufacturer. The kit would contain all the components
necessary to build the small UAS and would not require the owner to
purchase any additional materials to meet the requirements of this
proposed rule. A kit manufacturer would be required to test the
assembled, completed small UAS, rather than its component parts, to
demonstrate the small UAS satisfies the standard for Category 2 or 3
operations.
A person who builds a small UAS from parts not provided as a kit
would also be a manufacturer under this proposal. For example, anyone
may purchase the component parts of a small UAS separately and build
small UAS themselves. The FAA would consider such a person to be a
manufacturer, and would require submission of a Declaration of
Compliance regarding the eligibility of the small UAS to conduct
Category 2 or 3 operations.
A manufacturer would also be a person who modifies a small UAS
covered under an existing Declaration of Compliance to a condition that
is non-compliant with the original declaration. ``Non-compliant'' means
the small UAS has been altered such that it no longer matches the
configuration that was originally declared. Any person who makes this
kind of a change would be required to submit a new Declaration of
Compliance for the modified configuration(s) prior to conducting
operations over people within that category. Not all modifications
would cause a previously determined small UAS to become non-compliant,
however. A manufacturer may include a list of acceptable modifications
in the remote pilot operating instructions to ensure that a remote
pilot in command who may replace parts or otherwise modify the small
UAS is aware of which modifications would allow it to remain compliant
in the category to which compliance has been declared.
Additionally, a manufacturer may be a person who modifies a small
UAS to be compliant with one or more categories of operations over
people. For example, this would include a person who modifies a small
UAS not previously eligible to conduct operations over people to a
small UAS that is eligible to conduct Category 2 or 3 operations over
people. Similarly, a person who modifies a small UAS that was
previously qualified to conduct only Category 2 operations so that it
may now conduct only Category 3 operations, by, for example, increasing
the weight of the small unmanned aircraft, would be a manufacturer. The
manufacturer identified on the most recent FAA-accepted Declaration of
Compliance would not carry the responsibility for the new configuration
of the small UAS that is the subject of the Declaration. Instead, the
person who made the modification assumes the role of the manufacturer.
A person making such modifications and still seeking to operate over
people would have to first
[[Page 3882]]
submit a new Declaration of Compliance.
The FAA would not consider a person performing maintenance on a
small UAS, including replacement of components and parts in accordance
with the manufacturer's maintenance or operating instructions, to be a
manufacturer as long as the maintenance or replacement does not alter
the configuration or characteristics of the small UAS such that it no
longer meets its Declaration of Compliance. As a result, such a person
would not need to submit a new Declaration of Compliance. For example,
if a manufacturer provides replacement propellers with instructions on
how to install them, someone could install the parts in accordance with
the manufacturer's instructions. If the manufacturer, however, does not
provide or identify propellers in the remote pilot operating
instructions with specific maintenance instructions, the owner could
inadvertently become a manufacturer by virtue of replacing those
propellers with different replacement parts.
The FAA applies the term manufacturer as described in this section
for the purposes of proposed subpart D of part 107 only. For example, a
UAS manufacturer that holds a type certificate (TC) or production
certificate (PC) would not be a manufacturer under this proposal
because the regulatory oversight for a TC/PC holder is codified at 14
CFR part 21. Rather, this discussion applies only to manufacturers of
non-type-certificated or non-production-certificated small UAS who
declare compliance with the standards of either Category 2 or Category
3 for operations over people.
(b) Declarations of Compliance
For a small UAS to be eligible to conduct Category 2 or 3
operations over people, this proposed rule would require a manufacturer
to declare compliance with the impact kinetic energy and exposed
rotating parts standards applicable to aircraft eligible to conduct
Category 2 or 3 operations demonstrated through an FAA-accepted means
of compliance. The manufacturer would do this by submitting a
Declaration of Compliance via an electronic form available on the FAA's
website. For Category 1 operations, manufacturers would not be required
to submit a Declaration of Compliance.
By submitting a Declaration of Compliance, a manufacturer would
also certify that it (1) established and maintained a process to notify
owners of small UAS and the FAA of any unsafe conditions that render
those small UAS non-compliant with proposed subpart D, (2) would
correct any safety defects the FAA identified, and (3) would allow the
Administrator to inspect its facilities, technical data, and any
manufactured small UAS and witness any tests necessary to determine
compliance with this subpart. As explained below in section
IV.B.7.b)(4), a manufacturer would be permitted to label its small UAS
for Category 2 or 3 operations after it receives notification of
acceptance of its Declaration of Compliance from the FAA.
(1) Contents of Declaration of Compliance
The proposed Declaration of Compliance would be an electronic form
available on the FAA's website. A manufacturer interested in labeling a
small UAS as eligible for Category 2 or 3 operations over people would
submit a Declaration of Compliance to the FAA. A completed Declaration
of Compliance would include information the Administrator would require
for both determining that a small UAS complied with the regulation and
tracking those models of small UAS that were declared compliant with
the regulation. A manufacturer would declare compliance with the safety
level established by the impact kinetic energy and the exposed rotating
parts standards and include the following information:
Means of compliance used,
Name of the manufacturer,
Physical address of the manufacturer,
Email address of the manufacturer,
Small UAS make and model
Serial number or range of serial numbers for the small
unmanned aircraft (open-ended are permitted), and
Whether the Declaration of Compliance was an initial or
an amended Declaration of Compliance.
In the event a manufacturer is re-submitting the Declaration of
Compliance, the manufacturer would be required to include the reason
for such re-submittal. For example, the re-submittal could be to
correct a safety defect, or it could be to correct the misspelling of
the manufacturer's name or an incorrect address.
The FAA would make information contained in Declarations of
Compliance publicly available. By posting the Declarations or otherwise
making the information in the Declarations publicly available, the FAA
and the public would be able to determine which make and model of small
UAS are eligible to conduct Category 2 and 3 operations over people.
(2) Declaring Compliance for Multiple Small UAS With the Same Make and
Model
The FAA understands that manufacturers who are producing the same
make and model of small UAS on a large scale may not wish to perform
individual unit testing to demonstrate that each small UAS meets the
requirements of this proposal. The FAA would encourage these
manufacturers to establish and maintain a production quality system and
design configuration control system to provide for consistent
repeatability. Such a system would provide increased confirmation that
each individual small UAS meets the requirements of the category of
operations for which the manufacturer declared compliance, so that a
manufacturer could avoid testing every unit it constructed. If a
manufacturer utilizes a quality assurance system, the FAA would remain
confident that each unit subsequently manufactured would comply with
the proposed impact kinetic energy, exposed rotating parts, and safety
defects standards.
(3) Multiple Categories of Operation
This proposal would also allow a manufacturer to design a small UAS
that could meet the performance requirements of multiple categories of
operations over people. If a manufacturer conducts testing or engages
in analysis or inspection to determine a small UAS could meet the
requirements for operations in both Category 2 and Category 3 in the
appropriate modes or configurations, the small UAS manufacturer would
need to submit only one Declaration of Compliance to the FAA. On that
Declaration of Compliance, the manufacturer would identify the
categories of operation for which it determined the small UAS was
compliant, and the means of compliance used for each category.
(4) FAA Acceptance of Declaration of Compliance
This proposed rule would require a manufacturer to provide
information on its Declaration of Compliance regarding whether it has
used an FAA-accepted means of compliance or a custom means of
compliance the FAA has not yet accepted. A manufacturer would label its
small UAS for Category 2 or 3 operations once it receives notification
of acceptance of its Declaration of Compliance from the FAA. Once the
FAA accepts a Declaration of Compliance, the FAA would make the
Declaration of Compliance, or
[[Page 3883]]
information from the Declaration, publicly available.
If a manufacturer uses a custom means of compliance that the FAA
has not yet accepted, the FAA must review and accept the means of
compliance before it accepts the Declaration of Compliance. This could
result in additional review time prior to acceptance of the Declaration
of Compliance. The FAA would notify the manufacturer upon its decision
regarding acceptance of the custom means of compliance and Declaration
of Compliance.
(5) Modifying a Small UAS and Resubmitting a Declaration of Compliance
Any person who modifies a small UAS in a way that could affect the
eligibility of the small UAS to operate over people under Category 2 or
Category 3 of this proposed rule would be required to submit a new
Declaration of Compliance before the small UAS could be operated over
people. This requirement would not apply to those situations in which
an individual performs a modification that the manufacturer identifies
in the remote pilot operating instructions as an allowable change or
modification for that small UAS, as discussed in section IV.B.9. When a
manufacturer seeks to submit a Declaration of Compliance for a small
UAS that was not previously eligible for operations over people,
however, the FAA would undertake the same review process to verify the
small UAS fulfills the performance-based standards described
previously.
The requirement to submit a new Declaration of Compliance would
ensure any small UAS operated under this framework meets the applicable
requirements for operations over people. In this way, the FAA would
have the ability to track the responsible manufacturer as well as any
modifications that the small UAS may undergo during its lifetime. For
these reasons, the FAA would require any person who modifies a
previously declared small UAS to take on the responsibilities of a
manufacturer and submit a new Declaration of Compliance if the
modification took the small UAS outside the configuration originally
declared.
(6) Rescission Process
Under this proposed rule, the FAA would rescind a manufacturer's
Declaration of Compliance if the agency becomes aware that a small UAS
for which a manufacturer has declared compliance is no longer qualified
for operations over people. The FAA is proposing new procedural rules,
described below, to govern any action to rescind a Declaration of
Compliance. Therefore, the FAA's rules under 14 CFR part 13 would not
apply.
(a) Notification of Safety Issues
The FAA proposes in Sec. 107.135(c) that it would notify the
manufacturer when the FAA becomes aware of a safety issue that could
affect a manufacturer's Declaration of Compliance, either because the
small unmanned aircraft is not compliant with the exposed rotating
parts or kinetic energy standards, or because the small UAS has a
safety defect as described in section IV.B.11. (a). If a safety issue
arises in which the small UAS no longer fulfills the safety level set
forth in this proposed rule, either by way of a safety defect,
material, component, or feature on the small UAS, then the manufacturer
must notify the FAA. At that point, the manufacturer would have the
opportunity to discuss the potential safety issue with the FAA. As a
result of such a discussion, the FAA may determine that a safety issue
does not actually exist, that the manufacturer has incorporated an
adequate mitigation to address and correct the safety issue, or that a
safety issue still exists.
(b) Proposed Rescission of a Declaration of Compliance
If the FAA determines, as a result of the discussion described
above, that a safety issue remains unaddressed, the FAA would send the
manufacturer a notice of proposed rescission of a Declaration of
Compliance. The notice would set forth the agency's basis for the
proposed rescission and provide the manufacturer 10 business days to
submit evidentiary information to refute the proposed notice of
rescission.
(c) Notice of Rescission of a Declaration of Compliance
After receiving a proposed notice of rescission, a manufacturer may
provide information demonstrating the small UAS meets the requirements
of this part within 10 business days. If a manufacturer fails to
establish that a safety issue does not exist, or if the manufacturer
fails to respond within 10 business days, the FAA would issue a notice
rescinding the Declaration of Compliance. At this point, the FAA would
publish this rescission. The FAA would also specify on its website for
which category the Declaration of Compliance has been rescinded. Remote
pilots in command would not be permitted to operate the particular
small UAS over people if the FAA has rescinded the Declaration of
Compliance.
If the FAA rescinds a Declaration of Compliance as a result of a
safety issue, a manufacturer would be able to modify the small UAS such
that the safety issue is resolved, at which point the manufacturer
could submit a new Declaration of Compliance. The FAA would review the
new Declaration of Compliance and notify the manufacturer of whether
the FAA has deemed it acceptable.
(d) Petition for Reconsideration of a Rescission of a Declaration of
Compliance
Once a Declaration of Compliance is rescinded, a manufacturer would
have the opportunity to petition the FAA for reconsideration. A
manufacturer seeking reconsideration under this rule must petition the
FAA within 60 days of the date of issuance of the notice of rescission.
The petition would have to show: (1) The lack of a material fact in the
original response to the notification of the safety issue, and address
why that fact was not present in the original response; (2) an
important factual error existed in the decision to rescind the
Declaration of Compliance; or (3) the FAA did not correctly interpret a
law, regulation, or precedent. The FAA would consider this petition and
issue a final agency decision either affirming or withdrawing the
rescission of the Declaration of Compliance. A manufacturer could
appeal the final agency decision as provided in 49 U.S.C. 46110.
(e) Emergency Rescission of a Declaration of Compliance
Prior to rescission of a Declaration of Compliance, the FAA would
typically initiate the safety issue notification process with the
manufacturer as discussed previously. However, if the Administrator
determines an emergency exists and safety of persons on the ground
requires an immediate rescission of a Declaration of Compliance, the
FAA may exercise its authority under 49 U.S.C. 46105(c) \81\ to issue
an emergency order rescinding a Declaration of Compliance. Under these
circumstances, rescission would go into effect immediately, prior to
the FAA initiating the notification process or the rescission
procedures described above. The order would remain in effect until the
basis for issuing the order no longer
[[Page 3884]]
exists. The emergency order would be considered a final agency
decision; as such, a manufacturer may appeal the decision as provided
in 49 U.S.C. 46110 following the issuance of the order.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\81\ When the Administrator determines that an emergency exists
related to safety in air commerce and requires immediate action, the
Administrator may issue an immediately effective order to meet the
emergency, with or without notice. 49 U.S.C. 46105(c).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
8. Recordkeeping Requirements
This proposed rule would require manufacturers maintain small UAS
records related to their Declarations of Compliance for a minimum of
two years after ceasing production. The FAA also proposes to require
manufacturers to retain the substantiating data for a custom means of
compliance for as long as the means of compliance remains accepted. In
the event of a safety defect, or if the FAA initiated an action against
a manufacturer, this information would be critical to determine the
cause, scope, and severity of the defect or infraction. The FAA
requests comment on the appropriateness of this proposed amount of time
for record retention.
For a Declaration of Compliance that uses an accepted means of
compliance, the manufacturer would keep substantiating data that
includes a description of the method used to demonstrate compliance as
well as the results. Specifically, if the manufacturer established
compliance by testing, the manufacturer would retain detailed
information on the test method and the results used to demonstrate the
small UAS meets the applicable impact kinetic energy and exposed
rotating parts standards.
For a custom means of compliance submitted independently of a
Declaration of Compliance, the submitter would keep:
Test procedures that outline the test methodology (if
the manufacturer established compliance by testing);
An analysis or record of inspection to establish the
equivalency of the means of compliance to the safety level
identified in this proposal; and
Substantiating data that supports the test (if
applicable), methods, results and conclusions.
This information would likely include details on the method and the
results the submitter used to demonstrate the small unmanned aircraft
meets the applicable impact kinetic energy and exposed rotating parts
standards. Substantiating data could include detailed information on
whether the testing or analysis was done consistent with accepted
methods used by the medical industry, consumer safety groups, or other
peer-reviewed test methods. Such information should also indicate
whether the proposed means of compliance required unreasonable skill or
mitigation to meet the requirements.
For a Declaration of Compliance that uses a custom means of
compliance that requires direct FAA review, a manufacturer would keep
both the records for its Declaration of Compliance and its custom means
of compliance, as discussed above. The FAA may require access to that
information in several types of situations. For example, if the FAA
rescinded a Declaration of Compliance, it may request the original set
of substantiating data from a manufacturer if a manufacturer elects to
correct the safety issue and submit a new Declaration of Compliance for
the same small UAS. Upon resubmittal, the FAA would likely require all
substantiating data from prior to the identification of the safety
issue, as well as supporting data after anyone had made modifications.
Additionally, if a manufacturer submitted a Declaration of Compliance
and identified a custom means of compliance the FAA had not previously
accepted, the FAA would require the manufacturer to submit
substantiating data to facilitate the FAA's review of the means of
compliance.
9. Remote Pilot Operating Instructions
In order to operate a small UAS safely over people, the remote
pilot in command would be responsible for knowing what category of
operations his or her small UAS is eligible to conduct, and what
technical and operational limitations apply to the operations.
Accordingly, the FAA proposes to require manufacturers to provide
remote pilot operating instructions with product-specific information
related to operations over people that would occur in Category 2 or
Category 3.
This proposed requirement is consistent with the ARC's
recommendation. Specifically, the ARC recommended small UAS
manufacturers provide operating manuals to the operators of the small
UAS that would include operating instructions for Category 2 and 3
operations.\82\ The ARC did not provide any information regarding the
contents of the operating manual, leaving that determination to future
voluntary consensus standards. The ARC recommended the FAA require the
operator to comply with the operating manual.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\82\ ARC Report at 7-8. The FAA uses the term ``remote pilot
operating instructions'' in this proposal in lieu of the ARC's
suggested term of ``operating manual,'' to avoid confusion with
manned aircraft flight manuals.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
This rule proposes to require manufacturers to provide operating
instructions upon sale, transfer, or use of the aircraft by someone
other than the manufacturer. This requirement would apply to anyone who
is a manufacturer for the purposes of this proposed rule, as described
above in section (IV.B.7.(a). In addition, the manufacturer would be
required to keep the instructions up-to-date to account for any changes
it makes to an aircraft over time.
Specifically, the FAA proposes in Sec. Sec. 107.115(b)(3) and
107.120(b)(3) that the remote pilot operating instructions include, at
a minimum, the following information:
General information, including system description and
system limitations, and the category or categories of operations
over people for which the manufacturer of the small UAS has declared
compliance;
If modifications of the small UAS can occur, those
modifications the manufacturer has determined do not bring the small
UAS out of compliance with the category declared; and
If the small UAS has variable modes or configurations,
information regarding those modes or configurations.
Existing regulations require remote pilots to conduct a preflight
inspection and ensure that the small UAS is in a condition for safe
operation.\83\ These existing regulations would continue to apply to
operations over people conducted under the terms of this proposed rule.
The additional information contained in the remote pilot operating
instructions would serve to inform a remote pilot in command of the
characteristics of the small UAS, which in turn would assist the remote
pilot in conducting his or her preflight check and ensuring the small
UAS is in a condition for safe operation prior to conducting a Category
2 or 3 operation.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\83\ The remote pilot in command must check the small UAS to
ensure it is in a condition for safe operation prior to each flight.
14 CFR 107.15(a). Further, no person may continue flight of the
small unmanned aircraft when he or she knows or has reason to know
that the small UAS is no longer in a condition for safe operation.
Sec. 107.15(b). Section 107.49(a) requires that, prior to flight,
the remote pilot in command must assess the operating environment,
considering risks to persons and property in the immediate vicinity
both on the surface and in the air. This assessment must include
becoming aware of: (1) Local weather conditions; (2) local airspace
and any flight restrictions; (3) the location of persons and
property on the surface; and (4) other ground hazards. The preflight
assessment must also include verification that all control links
between the ground control station and the small unmanned aircraft
are working properly. 14 CFR 107.49(c). Finally, Sec. 107.49
requires that, if the small UAS is powered, the remote pilot in
command must ensure that there is enough available power for the
small UAS to operate for the intended operational time.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Manufacturer-required components that make up the small UAS must be
listed in the remote pilot operating instructions to help the remote
pilot ensure that all components of the small UAS are present. This is
necessary
[[Page 3885]]
because, if a small UAS is missing any components, the small UAS would
not comply with the category of operations over people for which the
manufacturer declared compliance. A manufacturer must also clarify the
category or categories of operations over people for which the small
UAS is eligible.
The FAA proposes requiring in Sec. Sec. 107.115(b)(3)(ii) and
107.120(b)(3)(ii) that a manufacturer include in the remote pilot
operating instructions all modifications the manufacturer has
determined would not change the ability of the small UAS to meet the
requirements for the category of operation for which the manufacturer
declared compliance. The FAA acknowledges that modification of a small
UAS is a routine event for some remote pilots. Some modifications may
not change the flight characteristics of the small unmanned aircraft;
for example, replacing one camera with another that has the same weight
and size but better optics. However, changing small unmanned aircraft
components such as propellers or other articles necessary for flight
may change the flight characteristics of the small unmanned aircraft,
and could potentially change the small UAS eligibility to conduct
operations over people.
The modifications described in proposed Sec. Sec.
107.115(b)(3)(ii) and 107.120(b)(3)(ii) could consist of adding or
exchanging products and evaluating them based on characteristics such
as weight, size and shape. For example, a manufacturer could list
certain makes and models of payload cameras, or provide weight and size
limits along with a generic shape description. A remote pilot would
then be able to switch out any payload cameras that meet the described
parameters and continue to operate over people. The manufacturer would
have to ensure, through an accepted means of compliance, that the small
UAS with the included modifications would remain in compliance with the
performance-based requirements for the applicable categories of
operations. If a person modified a small UAS in a manner not included
in the remote pilot operating instructions, the small UAS may no longer
comply with its associated Declaration of Compliance. This is because
if a person changed anything related to design, performance,
coefficient of drag, or energy-absorbing materials, the original test
results or analyses concerning the transfer of impact kinetic energy
could change, and such alteration could change the category of
operations or cause the small UAS to exceed the applicable standard.
The same principle would apply concerning the presence of exposed
rotating parts. Therefore, should a person make a modification that is
not listed in the remote pilot operating instructions, the FAA would
consider that person as the new manufacturer of the small UAS, and
would require compliance with manufacturer requirements to operate the
aircraft over people.
The remote pilot operating instructions must also state whether the
small UAS has modifications that will change the determination of the
small UAS fulfilling the standard for the category of operation the
small UAS is eligible to conduct. For example, a manufacturer may add
an interchangeable camera to the small unmanned aircraft that would
affect the small unmanned aircraft's eligibility for operating over
people in Category 2 or 3 operations.\84\ By this proposed rule, the
FAA would require the manufacturer to inform remote pilots of the
effect of such options to the extent the exercise of those options may
affect compliance with the applicable standards. Without this
information, a person could change the flight characteristics of the
small unmanned aircraft and make it non-compliant with Category 2 or 3
requirements.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\84\ As discussed in section IV.B.5. (b), manufacturers must
submit a declaration of compliance that identifies a means of
compliance the FAA has accepted. When verification of compliance
assumes the presence of a component affixed to the aircraft, the FAA
must receive information concerning this because it would likely
affect the mass of the small unmanned aircraft.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
For a small UAS that has variable modes or configurations, the FAA
would require a manufacturer to provide instructions on how to verify
what mode or configuration the small UAS is in, and how to switch
between modes or configurations. This information would facilitate a
remote pilot's verification that his or her small UAS is in the correct
mode or configuration to conduct a certain category of operations over
people. Similarly, if a remote pilot chooses to operate in a different
category of operations over people, or in a mode or configuration that
is not permitted for operations over people but is permitted under part
107, he or she could consult the remote pilot operating instructions to
determine how to change the mode or configuration to the desired
settings.
The FAA would not require the manufacturer to provide remote pilot
operating instructions in a particular format. For example, a
manufacturer could choose to provide the operating instructions as part
of the packaging of a small UAS, make them available electronically, or
provide them in some other way. Manufacturers with products currently
on the market would be free to choose whether to incorporate the
instructions into existing materials, or they could create a new set of
instructions that are specific to operations over people. For products
in production before this rule is finalized but subsequently declared
to be in compliance and eligible for operations over people, the
manufacturer would be responsible for developing remote pilot operating
instructions and making them available to remote pilots and owners. The
FAA would not prescribe the method for making the instructions
available, but acknowledges publishing them online would be an
efficient and effective way.
Although the FAA does not propose requiring the remote pilot
operating instructions to contain information in addition to the items
enumerated above, the FAA encourages small UAS manufacturers to provide
additional operational information to remote pilots. Examples of such
information appear in Advisory Circular 107-2, which accompanies this
NPRM.
10. Labeling Requirements
The FAA proposes to require that manufacturers label any small
unmanned aircraft that are qualified for Category 2 or 3 operations
over people. Such labeling would assist the FAA in its oversight role
by providing a simple and efficient way to determine whether an
operation is consistent with this proposal. In addition, it would
provide notice to the remote pilot of which category of operations he
or she is eligible to conduct using that aircraft.
In its report, the ARC recommended a manufacturer of a small UAS
``label the product or product retail packaging in accordance with
industry consensus standards,'' \85\ and that the operator be
responsible for knowing the category in which his or her small UAS
qualifies to operate. Therefore, the operator would presumably know
which operating limitations he or she must follow. The proposed
labeling requirement would assist the FAA in its oversight role because
it provides an efficient means for an inspector to evaluate whether an
operation is consistent with the category or categories of operation
the small UAS may conduct. Because Category 3 operations would entail
unique operating limitations, the label on small unmanned aircraft
eligible to conduct Category 3 operations would indicate to the remote
pilot that he or she must
[[Page 3886]]
adhere to the applicable operating limitations.\86\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\85\ ARC Report at 10.
\86\ The labeling requirement this rule proposes is not the sole
means by which a remote pilot in command will be aware of the
operating limitations applicable to Category 3 operations. Remote
pilots in command must maintain awareness of updated regulations, as
required by proposed Sec. Sec. 107.73(a) and 107.74(a) in this
rule. As a result, initial knowledge testing and recurrent training
implemented after the effective date of a final rule implementing
this proposed rule would include operations over people as a subject
area on both the test and training.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The FAA is not proposing a specific location for label placement
due to the numerous design variations of small unmanned aircraft. In
the case of very small unmanned aircraft, manufacturers may need to
exercise creativity in determining the location best suited to
satisfying the proposed labeling requirement. Labeling a non-critical
surface would likely prevent wear and removal during normal operations.
The FAA declines to propose a prescriptive labeling requirement
that specifies exactly how a manufacturer must label an aircraft, what
size font to use, and so on. Due to the large variety of small UAS
models that exist, such a prescriptive requirement would be
unnecessarily limiting for manufacturers. Instead, a manufacturer could
label the aircraft by any means as long as the label is in English,
legible, prominent, and permanently affixed to the aircraft. For
example, a manufacturer could use the following labels: ``Category 2'',
``Category 3'', ``Cat. 2'', or ``Cat. 3''.
Given that a small UAS could be qualified to conduct more than one
category of operations, the FAA proposes requiring a manufacturer label
the small UAS with each category of operations the small UAS is
qualified to conduct. For example, a small UAS qualified to conduct
Category 2 operations may also be qualified to conduct Category 3
operations. The manufacturer would label such a small UAS with each
category, as follows: ``Cat. 2, 3'' or ``Category 2, 3''. The label
could be painted onto, etched into, or affixed to the aircraft by some
other permanent means.
Some small UAS manufactured prior to final publication of this rule
may qualify for a category of operations over people. In a situation in
which a manufacturer declared a previously existing make/model of small
UAS eligible for Category 2 or 3 operations and has provided remote
pilot operating instructions as described in section IV.B.9., the
remote pilot could then label that small unmanned aircraft in
accordance with the Declaration of Compliance.
In addition to the proposed requirement that a manufacturer label
the aircraft, the FAA also proposes requiring a remote pilot ensure his
or her small unmanned aircraft is properly labeled before conducting
any operations over people. A clear and legible label will enable a
remote pilot, an inspector, or a member of the public to identify the
types of operations a small UAS may conduct. If a label degrades such
that it is no longer legible or attached to the aircraft, the remote
pilot is responsible for providing a new label before operating over
people. The proposed labeling requirement would apply regardless of
whether a person obtains a small UAS directly from a manufacturer or as
a subsequent transfer. No pilot would be able to operate the small UAS
over people unless he or she verifies the label meets the requirements
of this rule.
11. Manufacturer Accountability
After a manufacturer has declared that a specific small UAS
fulfills the standard of a particular category, this proposal would
require the manufacturer to monitor the small UAS to ensure it complies
with the requirements of this subpart. Specifically, a manufacturer
should monitor the validity of the means of compliance used to ensure
the continued fulfillment of the safety level the standards at
Sec. Sec. 107.115(b)(1) and 107.120(b)(1) establish. The manufacturer
should also track the construction, related safety analysis, and
service history to ensure they do not reveal any hazardous conditions
or safety defects that could increase the risk of a small UAS operation
over people. Moreover, the manufacturer has a continuing obligation to
ensure that the remote pilot operating instructions satisfy the
regulatory requirements. To satisfy these obligations, a manufacturer
may have to monitor its manufacturing processes, small UAS operational
usage, and collection of accident and incident data. Manufacturer
monitoring could also include information that owners and operators of
the small UAS provide. Should the FAA identify a safety issue that
warrants review of a manufacturer's data, records, or facilities, a
manufacturer would be required to grant such access.
(a) Safety Defects
The FAA proposes to require that a manufacturer build a small UAS
qualified to conduct Category 2 or 3 operations such that it does not
contain any safety defects. For the purposes of this proposal, a safety
defect refers to a material, component, or feature on a small UAS that
increases the likelihood that the small UAS could cause a casualty or
fatality to a person during an operation over people. Under this
proposal, a safety defect would cause a small UAS to exceed a low
probability of causing a casualty (Category 2) or a fatality (Category
3) to a person during an operation over people. For example, exposed
wires or hot surfaces on a small unmanned aircraft could cause
electrocution or burns to a person upon impact. Many small unmanned
aircraft utilize lithium polymer or lithium-ion batteries as the
primary energy source; damaged or defective batteries could cause
casualties from battery fires or explosions. Sharp edges or projections
on a small unmanned aircraft could cause lacerations or puncture wounds
as a result of an impact with a person. As small UAS designs evolve
over time, potentially hazardous features or characteristics, unknown
at the present time, could emerge.
The FAA would identify safety defects through a variety of means.
The FAA may receive consumer complaints, industry safety bulletins, or
an individual manufacturer's notification that a safety defect has
arisen. Once the FAA has formally identified a safety defect, it would
notify the manufacturer of the defect. The manufacturer would have an
opportunity to respond by either correcting the defect or demonstrating
the small UAS does not contain any materials, components, or features
that increase the probability of casualty or fatality for the category
of operations for which the manufacturer declared the small UAS as
compliant. If the manufacturer is unable to demonstrate the small UAS
does not contain any safety defects, the FAA may initiate proceedings
to rescind the manufacturer's Declaration of Compliance.
As an ongoing requirement, manufacturers would be responsible for
correcting any safety defects they identify after manufacturing the
small UAS, to ensure continued qualification for Category 2 or 3
operations. In the event the FAA rescinds a Declaration of Compliance,
no small UAS covered by that declaration could operate over people. The
small UAS could resume operations only after the FAA reinstates
acceptance of the Declaration of Compliance, accepts an amended
Declaration of Compliance, or accepts a new Declaration of Compliance
that applies to that small UAS. Either the original or a subsequent
manufacturer could submit a new Declaration of Compliance in accordance
with this proposed rule.
[[Page 3887]]
The FAA would publish any final rescission of a Declaration of
Compliance on the FAA website, and may publish notification of the
safety defect in the Federal Register as a Notice of Availability.
These actions would serve two purposes: First, to notify remote pilots
that the identified aircraft are no longer safe to conduct operations
over people and second, to put manufacturers on notice not to
incorporate the material, component, or feature into any future small
UAS a manufacturer wishes to qualify for Category 2 or 3 operations
over people without appropriate mitigations. The FAA notes the
rescission of a Declaration of Compliance would not render a small UAS
inoperable, but rather only unsafe for operations over people. The FAA
seeks comment on whether this process provides sufficient opportunity
for notice and comment for manufacturers aside from those whose
products the safety directive directly implicates, and whether the
process provides the public sufficient opportunity for notice and
comment.
If the FAA rescinds a Declaration of Compliance, the FAA would
publish the applicable makes and models of small UAS that are no longer
eligible to operate over people. Remote pilots would be required to
refrain from using those aircraft to operate over people until the
manufacturer institutes an acceptable correction. To correct a safety
defect, a manufacturer could develop a correction and test the aircraft
to ensure the aircraft does not increase the probability of causing a
casualty or fatality when operated over people with the correction. The
manufacturer would then submit a new Declaration of Compliance to the
FAA identifying the means of compliance the manufacturer used to
correct the safety defect.
Alternatively, the owner or remote pilot of a small UAS may elect
to correct a safety defect associated with his or her aircraft. Should
any person choose this option, he or she could submit a Declaration of
Compliance to the FAA identifying the means of compliance used to
correct the safety defect. That person, by means of modifying the small
UAS such that it is again in compliance with the operation over people
requirements, would become the manufacturer of his or her specific
small UAS, and would assume all responsibilities that apply to
manufacturers under this proposal.
(b) Public and FAA Notification Process
This proposed rule would require a manufacturer to certify on its
Declaration of Compliance that it has established a process to notify
the public and the FAA if the manufacturer identifies an issue with its
small UAS that would render the small UAS ineligible for operations
over people. Reporting a safety defect to the FAA would not
automatically result in the rescission of a Declaration of Compliance.
The FAA would evaluate the report and correspond with a manufacturer to
determine whether taking corrective action or rescission would be
appropriate.
A manufacturer must notify the FAA of any safety issues it
identifies. Reporting such issues would both assist the FAA in
discovering product hazards and identifying risks of injury the FAA
could address through direct communication with manufacturers,
publication of Notices of Availability in the Federal Register, or
education. Manufacturers' reporting would provide a timely and
effective source of information about small UAS because manufacturers
often learn of potential product safety problems at an early stage. For
this reason, this proposed rule would require manufacturers to develop
a system for maintaining and reviewing information about their products
that might identify when their product may have a defect that increases
the probability of causing injury during operations over people. Such
information would include, but is not limited to, consumer complaints,
warranty returns, insurance claims or payments, product liability
lawsuits, reports of production problems, product testing, or other
critical information concerning their products.
Subsequent to manufacturers' discovery of noncompliance, this rule
would require manufacturers notify the FAA and the public of the
existence of the safety defect. Manufacturers' notification to the FAA
should describe the nature of the noncompliance and how the
manufacturer plans to address it. As stated above, such notification
would not automatically result in the rescission of the Declaration of
Compliance, but would involve the FAA corresponding with manufacturers
to resolve the issue to ensure safety.
Notification to the public and owners of that make/model would also
be a critical step in ensuring continued safety. Such notification
could take the form of a notice on a manufacturer's website, electronic
notification to owners who have registered the small UAS with the
manufacturer, or an update to the small UAS software advising the
remote pilot of the change in status. The FAA encourages manufacturers
to exercise diligence to ensure the intended audience receives
communications involving any potentially non-compliant conditions. In
this regard, the FAA encourages manufacturers to design and utilize a
system that would facilitate communication between the manufacturer and
the owners of the small UAS and would successfully inform members of
the public at large. In general, the FAA contends potential consumers
and the public have an important interest in being aware that proximity
to a particular small unmanned aircraft may pose an undue hazard.
(c) Falsification
As defined in this proposal, a Declaration of Compliance would be a
record submitted by a manufacturer for a small UAS that certifies the
small UAS is eligible for operations pursuant to Category 2 or Category
3 under subpart D of this part. Records are subject to compliance with
the falsification provisions of the existing terms of Sec. 107.5.
These provisions prohibit any fraudulent or intentionally false record
from being made, kept, or used to show compliance with any requirement
of part 107. Accordingly, falsifying any part of any record intended to
constitute proof of compliance with manufacturer requirements under
this proposal could subject the person who submitted the record to a
civil penalty, and would be a basis for rescinding a Declaration of
Compliance.
(d) Access to Facilities
Under this proposed rule, a manufacturer must grant the FAA access
to its facilities upon the FAA's request as described in Sec. 107.7,
to validate compliance with this subpart. As part of a manufacturer's
Declaration of Compliance, the manufacturer would agree to allow the
FAA to inspect its facilities, technical data, and any manufactured
small UAS and witness any tests necessary to determine compliance with
this subpart. Some occurrences may necessitate facility inspection. For
example, facility access would likely become necessary when the FAA and
the manufacturer are working together to address a safety defect.
(e) FAA Publication of Status of Declarations of Compliance
The FAA proposes making available on the FAA website the status of
each manufacturer's Declaration of Compliance for public access to
enable remote pilots to determine which small UAS (by make, model,
serial number, and/or category declared) are eligible for operations
over people. If the FAA rescinds a Declaration of Compliance,
[[Page 3888]]
the FAA would notify the public of the rescission and would identify
the small UAS associated with the rescinded Declaration of Compliance
as no longer eligible for operations over people. In this way, remote
pilots would be aware of whether the model of small UAS they are
utilizing was eligible for operations over people.
12. Operational Requirements and Remote Pilot Restrictions
The FAA proposes to include in Sec. 107.49 a requirement that a
remote pilot ensure he or she is using a small UAS eligible to conduct
an operation over people. This verification would need to occur as part
of the pre-flight inspection. Advisory Circular 107-2 would include
updates with suggestions concerning the pre-flight procedures a remote
pilot could follow to be compliant with this proposed rule.
As a general matter, the FAA acknowledges pilot experience may be
relevant in determining whether the operation of a small UAS qualified
to operate in either Category 2 or 3 adheres to the safety level the
FAA contemplates in this proposed rule. In this regard, the ARC
recommended that remote pilots conducting operations over crowds be
required to have more training or experience than other pilots, but did
not recommend specifically what such training or experience would
involve. The FAA sees value in an experience requirement, however, at
this time, lacks information and data to assess how much training or
time piloting a particular aircraft is warranted. In order to gather
information on what mitigations would be appropriate, the FAA requests
comments on the following questions: To conduct operations over open-
air assemblies using a small unmanned aircraft that can transfer up to
25 ft-lbs kinetic energy to a person upon impact, should the remote
pilot-in-command have additional skills, experience, or currency beyond
what part 107 currently requires? If so, what kind of skill,
experience, or currency should be required (e.g., minimum time
operating the small UAS to be used, minimum number of take offs and
landings, etc.)? How should that skill, experience, or currency be
documented? The FAA will consider carefully all input it receives on
this topic.
To conduct Category 1 operations, Sec. 107.110 would require a
remote pilot to ensure the small unmanned aircraft weighs 0.55 pounds
or less on takeoff and for the duration of the flight, including
everything that is on board or otherwise attached to the aircraft. To
confirm a small UAS aircraft is eligible to conduct Category 1
operations, a remote pilot could weigh the aircraft. To conduct
Category 2 and 3 operations, Sec. Sec. 107.115(a) and 107.120(a)(1)
would require a remote pilot in command to use a small UAS that is
qualified and labeled to conduct those operations.
To confirm a small UAS is eligible to conduct Category 2 or 3
operations, a remote pilot must ensure an FAA-accepted Declaration of
Compliance exists for his or her small UAS. A situation may occur in
which a small UAS previously eligible for operations over people in
either Category 2 or Category 3 would either no longer be compliant
with the standards with which compliance was declared or would be
ineligible for such operations due to rescission of the Declaration of
Compliance that previously applied to it. The remote pilot would have
to verify the flight eligibility status of his or her small UAS.
(a) Distances From People
The FAA declines to propose that the remote pilot maintain a
specific minimum distance from people during small UAS operations
because the existing requirements of part 107, combined with the new
proposed subpart D, provide a sufficient manner of mitigating risks.
Part 107 already requires the remote pilot to ensure the small UAS
operation does not pose an undue hazard to other aircraft, people, or
property in the event of a loss of control of the aircraft for any
reason.\87\ In addition, a prescriptive minimum distance from people is
not appropriate; for some operations, such a distance may be too
burdensome, and for others, it might be too conservative. The FAA
acknowledges, however, that the ARC recommended a ``small UAS must be
operated at a minimum distance of 20 feet above people's heads, or 10
feet laterally away from people'' for Category 2 and 3 operations.\88\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\87\ See Sec. Sec. 107.19(c), 107.23(a), 107.31(a)(4) and
107.49(a)(3).
\88\ ARC Report at 11.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Section 107.19(c) requires the remote pilot in command to ensure
the operation will not pose any undue hazard to other people, other
aircraft, or other property in the event of a loss of control of the
small UAS. The FAA believes Sec. 107.19(c), as a performance-based
requirement, allows a remote pilot in command to determine what
specific stand-off distance (if any) is appropriate to the specific
small unmanned aircraft and operation that he or she is conducting. To
determine this stand-off distance, the preamble of the 2016 final rule
stated that a remote pilot should consider the small unmanned
aircraft's course, speed, and trajectory to determine whether the small
unmanned aircraft would go over or impact a person who is not directly
involved in the flight operation (uninvolved person).\89\ To comply
with Sec. Sec. 107.19(c), 107.23(a), 107.31(a)(4), and 107.49(a)(3),
therefore, a remote pilot conducting operations over people would
likely consider several factors when making the determination of a
stand-off distance from uninvolved people, all of which the remote
pilot must tailor to the intended operation.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\89\ 81 FR 42064, 42129. In addition, Sec. 107.23(a) prohibits
operating a small UAS ``in a careless or reckless manner so as to
endanger the life or property of another.'' Section 107.31(a)(4)
requires that the remote pilot in command maintain an ability to see
the aircraft and make a determination that the unmanned aircraft
does not endanger others. Section 107.49(a)(3) requires the remote
pilot in command to conduct a preflight assessment of the risk to
persons and property, factoring in their locations.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The FAA has not received information to demonstrate that a
prescriptive stand-off distance would provide a safety benefit beyond
complying with part 107's current requirements; therefore, the FAA
maintains the position it articulated in the 2016 final rule. Due to
the large variety of operations and types of small UAS that exist, and
consistent with the mitigations in part 107, the importance of
providing flexibility to the remote pilot outweighs any benefit of
having a prescriptive standard.
The remote pilot is best suited to determine what distance would be
safe and thereby ensure operation of the small UAS would pose no undue
hazard to other aircraft, people, or property in the event of a loss of
control of the aircraft for any reason. For example, a remote pilot
might factor in the traffic along nearby roads, current and forecasted
weather conditions, the likelihood of people gathering or transiting
under or near the flight path, and property located in or near the
flight path. The remote pilot would use this information, in addition
to his or her knowledge of the performance of the small UAS under
normal operating conditions and probable failure modes such as lost
link, fly-away, and power failure, to identify a suitable horizontal
and vertical distance from people and property to ensure the small UAS
operation would not create an undue hazard. These distances may include
an area around people and property.
The FAA requests comment on the following question: Does a
prescriptive standard exist for a minimum vertical or horizontal
distance that would apply equally across a large variety of
[[Page 3889]]
operations and aircraft and that would provide a safety benefit that
outweighs the importance of allowing the remote pilot the flexibility
to assess each unique situation? The FAA further requests data to
support any comments identifying a prescriptive standard.
(b) Prohibition on Operations Over a Moving Vehicle
Part 107 currently prohibits the operation of a small UAS over a
moving vehicle in the absence of a waiver. The FAA established this
prohibition because the moving vehicle operating environment is
dynamic, as the remote pilot in command cannot control it directly. In
addition, the potential forces that would result when a small unmanned
aircraft impacts a moving vehicle on a road pose unacceptable risks due
to head-on closure speeds. For example, the impact kinetic energy of a
small unmanned aircraft on a person who is moving at 40 miles per hour
on a motorcycle would be much greater than on a person who is
stationary. Impact with a small unmanned aircraft may also distract the
driver of a moving vehicle and result in an accident.
The FAA is considering, however, allowing the operation of small
UAS over moving vehicles in absence of a waiver. The agency seeks
public comment on whether it should take this action, in this or a
future rulemaking. The most useful comments on this issue will include
data on whether operations over moving vehicles would either increase
or decrease safety risks, including distracted driving or other hazards
to traffic. The FAA encourages commenters to include information, with
supporting data, on how to mitigate any risks they identify.
(c) Restricted Areas of Operation
Due to the increased risk of injury associated with the higher
impact kinetic energy threshold, the FAA proposes restricting the areas
where Category 3 operations may occur. This rule would permit small UAS
eligible for operations in Category 3 to fly over people only when the
operator conducts the operation over a closed- or restricted-access
site and when people with access to the site have been notified that a
small unmanned aircraft may fly over them. In the alternative, if the
operation was over people not within a closed- or restricted-access
site, the small UAS operating in Category 3 must not sustain flight
over one or more people during its operation. For example, small UAS
conducting operations pursuant to Category 3 would be limited to
transient flights over people unless the operation occurs in a closed-
or restricted-access site in which the people within the site have
received notice. Moreover, unlike Categories 1 and 2, all Category 3
operations would be prohibited from occurring over open-air assemblies
of people.
For Categories 1 and 2, the FAA proposes to permit operations at
any location, in accordance with the other requirements of this
proposed rule, part 107, and any other applicable laws and regulations.
The absence of any restrictions on the location of Category 1 or 2
operations is due to the fact that these categories present a low risk
of injuring people. A small UAS qualified to conduct Category 1 or 2
operations could operate over open air assemblies and in public spaces
with no applicable restrictions.
In its report, the ARC recommended the FAA prohibit flight over
crowds or dense concentrations of people for ARC Category 3 operations.
The ARC also stated:
Category 3 UAS may only operate over people if: (1) the
operation is conducted over a closed- or restricted-access work site
with the permission of the site's owner or operator; or (2)
overflight of people is limited to those who are transient or
incidental to the operation, i.e., the overflight of people is
incidental to the operation and is not sustained.\90\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\90\ ARC Report at 4.
Compared to Categories 1 and 2, Category 3 operations under this
proposed rule present a higher likelihood of causing a casualty by
blunt trauma. In this regard, Category 3 operations could utilize
heavier, faster, or higher-operated small UAS. Permitting Category 3
operations would allow for continued and uninterrupted operation at a
site, minimize disruption of normal site operations, and limit
situations that could compromise the site's operational safety.
Examples of closed- or restricted-access sites over which Category 3
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
operations could be conducted include, but are not limited to:
Agricultural fields in which workers are conducting
agricultural operations;
Bridge inspections that include workers who may be
conducting inspection or construction activities;
Filming operations that include movie set location
employees, such as caterers, set designers, and actors; and
A wedding in which access is available only to guests
and a small UAS is conducting aerial photography or filming
operations.
Based on the increased risk associated with Category 3 operations,
the FAA proposes to prohibit operating over open-air assemblies of
people, as well as the other restrictions described above. The FAA
proposes allowing Category 3 operations at closed- or restricted-access
sites because the general public would be unable to access the site. In
this regard, a closed- or restricted-access site would permit access to
those involved in the activity that occurs on the site, but not to the
general public. Those people who are permitted access to the closed- or
restricted-access site could be advised of precautions or other
recommended actions to ensure safety during a small UAS operation.
The FAA would expect a remote pilot to ascertain whether a site is
closed- or restricted-access prior to conducting Category 3 operations
under this provision. A remote pilot could accomplish this by
identifying sites that restrict access to the general public through,
for example, public notices and signage, flagging and barricading,
erecting temporary fencing, or providing escorts, as appropriate.
Remote pilots would be responsible for monitoring activity during the
small UAS operation to ensure access to the site remains closed or
restricted. Remote pilots must control vehicle and pedestrian access
routes onto the site to prevent inadvertent or unauthorized entry of
persons onto the closed- or restricted-access site.
In addition, this rule proposes to require that a remote pilot
verify that people with access to the closed- or restricted-access site
were provided notice that a small UAS may operate over them within the
site. The FAA anticipates this notice will enhance the situational
awareness of the people over whom the operations will occur. For the
purposes of this proposal, actual notice could include a written notice
posted at the entry point to the restricted area. When a person
receives a letter or contract stating small UAS operations may occur
over him or her, this would serve as sufficient actual notice, no
matter the amount of time that passes between receipt of the
information and the small UAS operation. By this proposed rule, the FAA
encourages operators to provide verbal notice in addition to the
written notice in cases in which a verbal notification is necessary to
ensure the information is received and understood. The remote pilot
would not have to be the person who provides the notice, but he or she
must ascertain people below the small unmanned aircraft have received
notice before conducting a Category 3 operation over a closed- or
restricted-access site.
Alternatively, Category 3 operations could take place outside a
closed- or restricted-access site as long as the small unmanned
aircraft does not maintain
[[Page 3890]]
sustained flight over a person who is not directly involved in the
operation. This requirement would prohibit holding above, or
maintaining sustained flight above, any part of any person during a
Category 3 operation that occurs outside a closed- or restricted-access
site. This would include hovering above any person's head, flying back
and forth over a person, or circling above an uninvolved person in such
a way that the small unmanned aircraft remains above some part of that
person. The intent of this proposed requirement is ensuring only
momentary exposure to any one person occurs for Category 3
operations.\91\ Overall, restricting Category 3 operations from
maintaining sustained flight over people enhances safety by reducing
the likelihood of injury by limiting protracted duration of a flight
over a person or persons.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\91\ The FAA considers ``exposure,'' to mean the amount of time
during which the small unmanned aircraft would be in a position over
or a near a person in which, if it were to experience a failure, it
would likely impact the person. For example, in the event a person
is lying down, this rule would not permit a small unmanned aircraft
to maintain sustained flight over any part of that person.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The ARC suggested permitting flights to occur only over uninvolved
people who may loiter beneath the aircraft. The FAA declines to adopt
such a suggestion because doing so would place a heavy burden on the
remote pilot to anticipate constantly a person's actions during an
operation, which could affect the remote pilot's ability to operate the
small UAS safely, as the obligation may present a distraction.
In some circumstances, it may not be possible for a small unmanned
aircraft to take off and land inside a closed- or restricted-access
site. The proposed requirements for Category 3 operations would allow
for takeoffs and landings to occur outside the site and transition to
the site to conduct the desired operation provided the aircraft does
not maintain sustained flight over uninvolved persons when outside the
site.
13. Provisions Applicable to Existing Small UAS
The FAA recognizes a significant number of small UAS have already
been sold and are operating in the NAS under part 107. Some remote
pilots and manufacturers of small UAS may wish to use existing small
UAS to conduct operations over people. The FAA does not seek to
preclude existing small UAS from conducting these operations, and
recognizes the economic benefits of not requiring current owners of
small UAS to procure new aircraft solely for the purpose of operations
over people when existing aircraft may fulfill the proposed safety
level of this rule.
Accordingly, manufacturers of existing small UAS may follow the
procedures in this proposed rule to establish the eligibility of their
small UAS to operate over people. Once a manufacturer has demonstrated
through an FAA-accepted Means of Compliance that the existing small UAS
meets the safety levels in this proposed rule, it would submit a
Declaration of Compliance establishing compliance with the proposed
requirements in Sec. Sec. 107.115(b)(5) and 107.120(b)(5). A
manufacturer would identify those small UAS to which the declaration
applied by listing the aircraft serial numbers on the Declaration of
Compliance submitted to the FAA. Once submitted, the FAA would handle a
Declaration of Compliance for an existing small UAS in the same manner
it proposes to handle a Declaration of Compliance submitted for a newly
manufactured small UAS. A manufacturer would also be responsible for
developing remote pilot operating instructions for the existing
aircraft, and making those instructions available to remote pilots or
owners of the small UAS.
The FAA emphasizes this proposal would require a manufacturer make
the remote pilot operating instructions available; the FAA does not
propose requiring a manufacturer to locate owners or remote pilots
operating these small UAS and provide the instructions personally to
them. Rather, if a remote pilot owns an existing aircraft that a
manufacturer has identified on a Declaration of Compliance as eligible
for Category 2 or 3 operations, and the remote pilot intends to conduct
operations over people using that aircraft, the remote pilot would be
able to access the remote pilot operating instructions if the
manufacturer posted them online.
Finally, the FAA proposes the remote pilot be permitted to label an
existing small unmanned aircraft, not previously labeled, in accordance
with the labeling requirements of this rule. The FAA recognizes that
requiring a manufacturer to contact all remote pilots of a particular
make and model of small UAS and provide labels to those persons would
be unreasonable. However, the option for a remote pilot to label the
aircraft would not preclude a manufacturer from making a label
available, either as a website download or for cost, which a remote
pilot could then affix to the aircraft. A remote pilot could choose to
label his or her existing aircraft in any manner that meets the
requirements of the regulations.
C. Waivers
In the 2016 final rule, the FAA noted its process to integrate UAS
is ongoing. As such, the FAA decided to proceed with an incremental
approach, which included waiver authority in the regulatory text of
part 107 to permit new technologies and unique operational
circumstances that part 107 may currently restrict. The FAA does not
propose any changes to the existing waiver process in part 107. The FAA
proposes, however, to amend 14 CFR 107.205 to allow waivers for
specific types of operations over people this proposal would otherwise
limit, as well as to allow waivers for the anti-collision light
requirement that applies to operations at night and during civil
twilight.
1. Prohibition on Operations Over a Moving Vehicle
This proposal would allow small UAS operations over people in
moving vehicles through the part 107 waiver process. Although this rule
does not address mitigations concerning the types of risks associated
with operating a small UAS over a person located in a moving vehicle,
the FAA would allow these operations if a waiver applicant is able to
demonstrate that these operations can be conducted safely pursuant to
the terms of the certificate of waiver. As stated above, the FAA does
not propose altering the prohibition on operating over a moving vehicle
in this NPRM, but seeks comments on this topic.
2. Operations Over People
While this proposal would enable certain routine operations over
people, other operations would remain prohibited. For example,
operations using small UAS that exceed the Category 2 or 3 thresholds
for kinetic energy transfer would remain prohibited. Under current
regulations, an operator that wishes to conduct prohibited operation
over people may request a waiver under Sec. 107.205(g). The FAA does
not propose to change that provision. Operators seeking to operate over
people, but beyond the limits of this rule's requirements, would be
able to request a waiver under Sec. 107.205(g).
Some operators of small UAS may seek a waiver of more than simply
the operational restrictions applicable to Category 3. For operations
over people that would occur, for example, in an aircraft that does not
achieve the safety level the FAA proposes in this rule, the FAA may
consider an application for waiver of the proposed prohibition of Sec.
107.39. The FAA anticipates such
[[Page 3891]]
applications would consider the rationale the FAA has provided in this
proposed rule, in an effort to understand the FAA's views on the
acceptable level of risk, as well as the agency's expectations with
regard to safety of operations over people. As such, the FAA would
continue to scrutinize applications for waiver of Sec. 107.39 in light
of the agency's risk-based decision-making process, and determine
whether any waiver application fulfills the waiver application
requirements. In this regard, the FAA expects any person who seeks a
waiver of Sec. 107.39 would present a unique risk assessment of the
intended area of operation that proves the operation would either
present a de minimis risk or that the operator's proposed limitations
or provisions would mitigate the risk sufficiently.\92\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\92\ For example, one waiver for operations over people included
a small unmanned aircraft that only weighed 18.5 grams, while
another waiver relies primarily on containment of the operational
environment and conclusions regarding reliability of the small
unmanned aircraft, which weighs 8 kg. or 17.7 lbs. See Waiver No.
107W-2016-00993A (May 3, 2017) and Waiver No. 107W-2017-03788 (Sept.
25, 2017). In both cases, the FAA first assessed the risks, then
provided mitigation measures sufficient to address the level of risk
that the operation presented.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
D. Remote Pilot in Command Requirements
Since promulgating part 107, the FAA determined that certain
amendments to part 107 would enhance clarity as well as consistency
with other FAA regulations. As a result, this rule includes a proposal
to add to Sec. 107.7 the requirement for remote pilots to present
their remote pilot in command certificate with small UAS rating, as
well as a form of identification, to authorized individuals upon
request. Lastly, this rule proposes permitting remote pilots to
maintain currency of their remote pilot in command certificates by
participating in recurrent training, rather than knowledge testing.
1. Presentation of Remote Pilot in Command Certificate
Section 107.7 (``Inspection, testing, and demonstration of
compliance'') requires a remote pilot in command, owner, or person
manipulating the controls of a small UAS to present to the
Administrator, upon request, the remote pilot certificate with small
UAS rating and any other document, record, or report the regulations of
this chapter require. This proposed rule will align the text of Sec.
107.7 with 14 CFR 61.3(l), which requires pilots to present airman
certificates upon request.
The FAA proposes amending Sec. 107.7 to require remote pilots to
present their remote pilot in command certificates to the
Administrator, authorized representatives of the National
Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) or Transportation Security
Administration (TSA), or any Federal, State, or local law enforcement
officer, upon request from any such officials. As noted above, Sec.
61.3(l) includes a parallel requirement for airman certificates,
medical certificates, and other similar documents, along with photo
identification. When the FAA promulgated 14 CFR 61.3(l), the agency
cited security concerns regarding the identification of pilots as the
primary impetus for the requirement. 67 FR 65858 (Oct. 28, 2002). The
same rationale applies to remote pilots. Law enforcement officials, the
Administrator, and the NTSB and TSA must be capable of correctly
identifying remote pilots in command in the event that an operation
raises security concerns or issues concerning safety in the NAS. Such a
provision will enhance the ability of other government agencies and
officials to conduct timely investigations in the interest of ensuring
safety and security pursuant to their authority.
The FAA proposes requiring presentation of both the remote pilot in
command certificate and one of the types of identification the remote
pilot could use to establish his or her identity at a knowledge testing
center. Section 107.67(b) states a person's application for a knowledge
test must include proof of the applicant's identity that contains the
person's photograph, signature, date of birth, and permanent mailing
address. This proposed requirement would apply equally to remote pilots
who hold a certificate under 14 CFR part 61 and obtained their remote
pilot certificate by fulfilling the requirements of Sec. 107.61(d)(2).
2. Changes to Knowledge Testing Framework
Following the implementation of part 107, the FAA re-evaluated its
testing requirements for remote pilots. This proposed rule would amend
the knowledge testing framework by requiring remote pilots to complete
recurrent training, rather than pass knowledge tests, to maintain a
current remote pilot in command certificate with small UAS rating.
(a) Recurrent Knowledge Testing and Training
The FAA maintains the current initial testing requirement to
evaluate a remote pilot's knowledge for operating in the NAS is
critical, given the absence of a requirement for a practical test or
proficiency course in obtaining a remote pilot certificate. The FAA
proposes requiring recurrent training every 24 months, in lieu of
recurrent knowledge testing, however, so remote pilots maintain ongoing
familiarity with small UAS operations and the provisions of part 107.
Moreover, recurrent training, which a remote pilot can complete online,
presents a less costly option and will achieve a level of assurance of
knowledge that is comparable to the assurance a recurrent test
provides. In this regard, the FAA's current use of online training
enables the FAA to tailor the training to address the pilot's areas of
knowledge in which improvement is necessary. The FAA intends to employ
this type of mechanism to remote pilot training, in order to customize
the training.
The recurrent training the FAA contemplates in this proposal may
take different formats. The primary way the FAA anticipates remote
pilots may fulfill the recurrent training requirement would be to
complete questions throughout the training, the completion of which the
FAA will consider satisfactory once the applicant achieves a score of
100 percent. The FAA may also allow small UAS training to occur within
a proficiency program or other approved program. The FAA would either
offer, or review and approve, all such training that could fulfill the
requirement of the proposed version of Sec. 107.65(b) and (c).
The FAA anticipates the proposed change from recurrent knowledge
testing to completion of recurrent training will continue to serve as
an important risk mitigation measure. As UAS operations in the NAS
continue to evolve, training provides the opportunity to re-emphasize
the requirements of part 107 and incorporate any changes the FAA has
made to part 107 as a part of subsequent rulemakings, such as this one.
A training course provides the FAA with a way to ensure remote pilots
are aware of the key requirements that affect them, address new or
changed requirements in part 107 as a result of subsequent rulemakings,
and highlight the tools and resources available to remote pilots. Such
training would ensure remote pilots maintain awareness of
recommendations for decision-making so they can continue to operate
safely within the boundaries part 107 has established.
Because pilots could complete online training to fulfill the
recurrent training requirement, this rule would not require travel to
any kind of knowledge testing center every 24 calendar months. Upon
completion of the training course, the
[[Page 3892]]
pilot would be able to print a completion certificate, which the pilot
would use to demonstrate aeronautical knowledge recency in accordance
with the proposed revisions to Sec. 107.65.
The FAA uses the term ``training'' rather than ``training course''
in the proposed regulatory text in the relevant sections that address
training requirements, which would provide the opportunity for the FAA
to consider completion of special pilot proficiency programs, such as
an FAA-provided WINGS course \93\ specific to small UAS operations, to
suffice for fulfillment of the training requirements. Such a program
would offer tools and resources to strengthen decision-making skills
and thereby enable the remote pilot to continue to ensure he or she
operates safely in accordance with part 107. Overall, the FAA expects a
recurrent online training course, pilot proficiency program, or similar
option would keep remote pilots informed about enhancements to the
small UAS industry while reducing costs associated with travel to
knowledge testing centers.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\93\ WINGS is a voluntary pilot education and proficiency
program the FAA offers. The program addresses accident causal
factors associated with common pilot errors, lack of proficiency,
and faulty knowledge, and is available online. WINGS provides the
opportunity and the structure for pilots to continue pilots'
aviation education.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
(b) Aeronautical Knowledge Areas
The FAA re-evaluated the knowledge topics that are required for
initial knowledge tests and those required for training currently
identified in Sec. Sec. 107.73 and 107.74, respectively. In
particular, the FAA reviewed the associated knowledge testing standards
identified in the Remote Pilot--Small Unmanned Aircraft System Airman
Certification Standards (sUAS ACS) document \94\ and the resource
guidance identified in the Remote Pilot sUAS ACS. As explained above,
knowledge regarding operations at night is one of the measures the FAA
seeks to employ to ensure the safety of operations at night. As such,
the FAA proposes adding a knowledge area that would cover night
operations for the initial knowledge test and the training. This area
would include questions on night physiology and night illusions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\94\ The FAA's sUAS ACS is available at https://www.faa.gov/training_testing/testing/acs/media/uas_acs.pdf.
_____________________________________-
The FAA also plans to update its guidance, training, and testing
material, including the associated knowledge testing standards
identified in the sUAS ACS document and the resources listed in that
ACS, to ensure the information is available for those remote pilots who
seek to operate a small UAS at night. In addition, the FAA would
provide educational items to the small UAS community through various
means of communication such as FAASafety.gov, FAA.gov/UAS, and industry
organizations.
The existing subject areas on the recurrent knowledge test for
remote pilots include fewer topic areas than subject areas on the
initial knowledge test. This proposed rule would amend this by
requiring inclusion of the same list of subject areas on both the
initial test and the recurrent training for pilots who hold a remote
pilot certificate under Sec. 107.65(b). As for pilots who already hold
a pilot certificate under 14 CFR part 61 as described in Sec.
107.65(c), this proposed rule would likewise require the initial
training and the recurrent training cover identical subject areas. The
FAA has carefully evaluated the topics applicable in each category and
concludes that consistency in pilots' adequate knowledge in all topic
areas listed is important for ensuring safety of small UAS operations
in the NAS. Topics such as weather, small unmanned aircraft loading,
determining the performance of the small UAS, the effects of drugs and
alcohol, and radio communication procedures are all sufficiently
important to warrant a place in recurrent small UAS training.
In addition, pilots who hold a part 61 certificate and therefore
need to complete only an abbreviated listing of topic areas should be
required to complete training on weather, small unmanned aircraft
loading, and determining the performance of the small UAS. Although the
2016 final rule stated that the validation of skills necessary for a
pilot who holds a part 61 certificate to complete flight review for
manned aircraft obviated the need to address these topics in recurrent
training for unmanned aircraft, the FAA has now revisited its analysis
and concluded such a distinction is not well-founded.\95\ For example,
although a pilot who holds a part 61 certificate will understand the
effects of weather on a manned aircraft, such effects could be very
different for operations of small UAS. Likewise, determining the
performance of a manned aircraft is distinct from the manner in which a
pilot should determine the performance of a small UAS; in this regard,
the preflight check requirements of Sec. 107.49 are distinct from
those codified in part 91 and in other, similar regulations specific to
manned aircraft.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\95\ See 81 FR 42064, 42162.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The fact that remote pilots operating under part 107 are not
subject to flight reviews or any practical test criteria from the FAA
also forms a basis for the FAA's rationale in making the recurrent
training area topics match the initial topic areas. The FAA has no
means of knowing remote pilots' weaknesses or areas in which they lack
experience or recollection. As a result, the FAA's presumption that
each pilot may lack recollection with regard to every subject area is
reasonable. For the foregoing reasons, the FAA now proposes to abandon
the distinctions in the topic areas of initial knowledge tests (or
training courses) and recurrent training.
Those remote pilots who hold a remote pilot certificate with a
small UAS rating who completed initial knowledge testing or training
prior to this rule becoming final would not have been tested or
initially trained on operations at night. Although all remote pilots
who choose to exercise the privileges of their remote pilot in command
certificate could receive training through an online recurrent training
course that would cover the subject matter, a period of time would
exist for some remote pilots in which operations over people would be
permitted and those remote pilots would not have completed recurrent
training that includes instruction on night operations. As with all
airman certificate holders, the FAA expects such remote pilots would
adhere to the regulations under which they operate even when those
regulations change. As a result, remote pilots who operate at night
without having first completed the updated training this rule proposes
would be operating in violation of Sec. 107.29. The FAA would update
its guidance, training, and testing material to ensure information is
available for those remote pilots who seek to exercise this new
privilege, and would alert the small UAS community accordingly, through
various means of communication.
In addition, the regulatory text the FAA proposes with regard to
eligibility and recency requirements for a remote pilot certificate
includes the phrase ``in a manner acceptable to the Administrator.''
The FAA's addition of this phrase would serve to ensure remote pilots
who already hold a remote pilot in command certificate under part 107
and are not yet required to complete their recurrent training would not
need to re-take a knowledge test or complete training immediately,
simply because the subject area listings of Sec. Sec. 107.73 and
107.74 have changed. Instead, remote pilots who wish to operate a small
UAS at night must take the updated knowledge test or training before
operating at night.
[[Page 3893]]
V. Other Amendments
For purposes of consistency throughout part 107, as well as
clarity, this rule also includes proposals to make certain, specific
amendments to various provisions of part 107. These amendments are
minor and concise.
A. UAS Exemption-Holders
The existing text of Sec. 107.1 excludes from the applicability of
part 107 remote pilots who hold an exemption for a UAS operation
pursuant to section 333 of Public Law 112-95. The text identifies the
remote pilot as the person who is excluded from the applicability of
part 107. The FAA has concluded this identification is imprecise, as
the text should identify the excluded party as the exemption-holder,
rather than the remote pilot. In addition, on October 5, 2018, the
President signed the FAA Reauthorization Act of 2018.\96\ The statute
codified within title 49 of the United States Code the authority
previously provided in section 333 of Public Law 112-95. As a result,
the citation within Sec. 107.1(b)(3) should reflect 49 U.S.C. 44807 as
the exemption authority. The FAA proposes re-phrasing the text of Sec.
107.1(b)(3), accordingly.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\96\ Public Law 115-254.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
B. Remote Pilot in Command
Section 107.19 outlines the responsibilities of the remote pilot in
command under part 107. Following the promulgation of part 107, the FAA
identified the need for a minor edit to paragraph (c) of Sec. 107.19,
which currently requires each remote pilot in command to ``ensure the
small unmanned aircraft will pose no undue hazard to other people,
other aircraft, or other property in the event of a loss of control of
the aircraft for any reason.'' The FAA amends the phrase ``loss of
control of the aircraft'' to say ``loss of control of the small
unmanned aircraft,'' for clarity. The FAA's intention in promulgating
Sec. 107.19(c) was to ensure the remote pilot in command remains
responsible for the safe operation of a small unmanned aircraft when a
loss of control of that small unmanned aircraft occurs. The remote
pilot in command is not responsible for ensuring the safety of another
person's aircraft in the event of loss of control; as a result, this
proposed rule amends the text of Sec. 107.19(c), accordingly.
C. Operation of Multiple Small UAS
The FAA proposes amending the existing text of Sec. 107.35, which
prohibits contemporaneous operation of more than one small unmanned
aircraft. Following the promulgation of part 107, the FAA realized its
use of the term ``operate'' in Sec. 107.35 could result in the
perception that a single company or operator was prohibited from
employing more than one remote pilot in command and conducting more
than one small UAS operation at the same time. The FAA's proposed
change to this section would allow companies to run two or more
simultaneous small UAS operations, provided each aircraft is under the
control of its own remote pilot in command.
VI. Privacy
In the 2016 final rule, the FAA acknowledged various organizations'
and commenters' concerns regarding the use of small UAS to collect
information about individuals. In that rule, the FAA noted that privacy
concerns were beyond the scope of the FAA's mission to ensure safety
and efficiency of aviation operations in the NAS, but discussed various
methods by which the FAA intended to continue addressing privacy
concerns through engagement and collaboration with the public,
stakeholders, and other agencies with authority and subject matter
expertise in privacy law and policy.
Proposed regulations to address privacy concerns are beyond the
scope of the FAA's mission. Nonetheless, the FAA has consistently
recognized the importance of stakeholder engagement regarding privacy
implications associated with UAS integration and incorporated privacy
considerations into the UAS Test Site Program and the UAS Integration
Pilot Program, under its contracting authority.
The FAA acknowledges unique characteristics and capabilities of UAS
may pose uncertainties with regard to individual privacy. However,
these concerns are generally related to technology and equipment, which
may be installed on an unmanned (or manned) aircraft, but are unrelated
to the safe operation of the aircraft. News helicopters, aerial
surveys, film/television production, law enforcement, and other such
manned aircraft have long placed cameras and other sensors on them, for
a variety of purposes.
Although the FAA regulates the safe and efficient operation of
aircraft within the NAS, the FAA has never extended its administrative
reach to regulate the use of cameras and other sensors extraneous to
the airworthiness or safe operation of the aircraft in order to protect
individual privacy. Substantial, ongoing debate among policymakers,
industry, advocacy groups and members of the public has occurred
regarding: The extent to which UAS operations pose novel privacy
issues, whether those issues are addressed by existing legal
frameworks, and the means by which privacy risks should be further
mitigated. In recognizing the importance of addressing privacy concerns
in the proper forum, the FAA has partnered with other agencies with the
mandate and expertise to identify, develop, and implement appropriate
mitigation strategies to address such concerns. The FAA's discussions
with stakeholders have informed the FAA as it furthers plans for UAS
integration. As the FAA stated in a July 20, 2018 press release,\97\
Congress exclusively authorized the FAA to regulate aviation safety,
the efficiency of navigable airspace, and air traffic control, among
other things. The FAA further stated, ``[l]aws traditionally related to
state and local police power--including land use, zoning, privacy, and
law enforcement operations--generally are not subject to federal
regulation.'' As a result, cities and municipalities, while not
permitted to have their own rules or regulations governing the
operation of aircraft, may generally determine the location of aircraft
landing sites. The FAA expects the Department of Transportation's UAS
Integration Pilot Program \98\ to provide the FAA with insight on how
best to involve local jurisdictions in the integration of UAS into the
airspace while considering local interests in conjunction with aviation
safety.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\97\ Federal Aviation Administration, Press Release--FAA
Statement--Federal vs. Local Drone Authority, available at https://www.faa.gov/news/press_releases/news_story.cfm?newsId=22938.
\98\ 82 FR 51903 (Nov. 8, 2017); Presidential Memorandum for the
Secretary of Transportation (Oct. 25, 2017), available at https://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2017/10/25/presidential-memorandum-secretary-transportation.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
With regard to the information manufacturers and operators may
submit in accordance with this proposed rule's requirements, the FAA
conducted a privacy impact assessment (PIA) under section 522(a)(5) of
division H of the FY 2005 Omnibus Appropriations Act, Public Law 108-
447, 118 Stat. 3268 (Dec. 8, 2004) and section 208 of the E-Government
Act of 2002, Public Law 107-347, 116 Stat. 2889 (Dec. 17, 2002). As
part of the PIA, the FAA analyzed the effect the proposed rule might
have on collecting, storing, and disseminating personally identifiable
information (PII) of manufacturers and UAS operators. The FAA also
examined and evaluated protections and alternative information-handling
processes in developing the proposed rule to mitigate potential privacy
risks. A copy of the draft PIA is
[[Page 3894]]
posted in the docket for this rulemaking.\99\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\99\ Upon finalization, PIAs are posted on the Department of
Transportation's Privacy Program page, available at https://www.transportation.gov/individuals/privacy/privacy-impact-assessments#Federal%20Aviation%20Administration%20(FAA).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
VII. Section 44807 Statutory Findings
To determine whether certain UAS may operate safely in the NAS
pursuant to 49 U.S.C. 44807, the Secretary must find that the operation
of the UAS would not create a hazard to users of the NAS or the public.
The Secretary must also determine whether a certificate under 49 U.S.C.
44703 (``Airman certificates'') or section 44704 (``Type certificates,
production certificates, and airworthiness certificates, and design and
production organization certificates''), or a certificate of waiver or
certificate of authorization, is required for the operation of small
UAS subject to this proposed rule. Using a risk-based approach, the
Secretary proposes to determine that small UAS operations under this
proposed rule would operate safely in the NAS; the individual findings
section 44807 requires are as follows.
A. Hazard to Users of the NAS or the Public
Section 44807(b)(1) requires the Secretary to determine which types
of small UAS operations, as a result of their size, weight, speed,
operational capability, proximity to airports and populated areas,
operation over people, and operation within or beyond visual line of
sight, or operation during the day or night do not create a hazard to
users of the NAS or the public. In the 2016 final rule, the Secretary's
finding of acceptable risk was based on the following mitigations:
Requiring operations to be conducted within visual line of sight;
limiting maximum gross weight of the small unmanned aircraft to be 55
pounds; limiting the operating altitude to below 400 feet above ground
level (AGL); requiring remote pilots to hold valid, current
certificates; defining the area of operation; and prohibiting
operations over any person who is not directly participating in the
operation. This proposed rule would allow operations over uninvolved
people; however, these aircraft would still be required to comply with
the other restrictions codified in part 107. The additional hazard
posed by operating directly over people would be mitigated through
manufacturer requirements and operational restrictions, including
limited areas of operation for Category 3 aircraft. This rule would
also allow for operations at night. The proposed risk mitigation
measures of an illuminated anti-collision light and increased airman
knowledge would provide sufficient risk mitigation for such operations.
Accordingly, the Secretary proposes to find that small UAS
operations subject to this proposed rule would not create a hazard to
users of the NAS or the public. The FAA invites comments on this
proposed finding.
B. Certificate Requirements
Additionally, 49 U.S.C. 44807(b)(2) requires the Secretary to
determine whether small UAS operations subject to this proposed rule
pose a safety risk sufficient to require airworthiness certification or
airman certification.
Due to the provisions in this proposed rule, in addition to the
existing provisions in part 107, the risks associated with small UAS
operations over people are significantly distinct from the risks that
other types of aircraft operations present. Under part 107, a remote
pilot must make a determination of whether the small UAS is in a
condition for safe operation prior to and during flight operations.
This proposed rule would also require a remote pilot to ensure that his
or her unmanned aircraft weighs 0.55 pounds or less or has an FAA-
accepted Declaration of Compliance prior to operating over people.
Similarly, operations at night may only occur after the remote pilot
has taken the updated knowledge test or training that includes content
on night operations and when the small unmanned aircraft maintains an
illuminated anti-collision light. These proposed requirements serve to
mitigate the risks the proposed operations would present.
Small UAS operations that occur in accordance with this proposal
and the requirements of part 107 would pose significantly less risk
than the level of risk that heavier aircraft present. Moreover, small
UAS operating under part 107 must remain in a condition for safe
operation. Therefore, the Secretary proposes to find, pursuant to 49
U.S.C. 44807(b)(2), that airworthiness certification would be
unnecessary for small UAS subject to this proposed rule.
Part 107 currently requires a remote pilot in command certificate
prior to conducting operations under part 107. The FAA has carefully
tailored the knowledge and training requirements of part 107, subpart
C, to ensure remote pilots in command are adequately aware of the
restrictions and requirements of part 107. This framework is a key
component of the Secretary's determination. As a result, the Secretary
proposes to find, in this proposed rule, that a certificate under 49
U.S.C. 44703 is required. The FAA invites comments on these findings.
VIII. Regulatory Notices and Analyses
A. Regulatory Evaluation
Changes to Federal regulations must undergo several economic
analyses. First, Executive Order 12866 and Executive Order 13563 direct
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
(Public Law 96-354) requires agencies to analyze the economic impact of
regulatory changes on small entities. Third, the Trade Agreement Act of
1979 (Public Law 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 Agreement Act of 1979
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 (Public Law 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 $155
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 proposed rule. We suggest readers seeking
greater detail read the full regulatory evaluation, a copy of which is
available in the docket for this rulemaking.
In conducting these analyses, FAA has determined that this proposed
rule: (1) Has benefits that exceed costs; (2) is not an economically
``significant regulatory action'' as defined in section 3(f) of
Executive Order 12866; (3) is ``significant'' as defined in DOT's
Regulatory Policies and Procedures; (4) would have a significant
positive economic impact on a substantial number of small entities; (5)
would not create unnecessary obstacles to the foreign commerce of the
United States; and (6) would not create a Federal mandate likely to
result in the expenditure of more than $155 million annually under the
Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Public Law 104-4). These analyses
are summarized below.
[[Page 3895]]
1. Assumptions and Data
The benefit and cost analysis for the regulatory evaluation is
based on the following assumptions:
The analysis is conducted in constant dollars with 2016
as the base year.
Because the commercial small UAS industry may evolve
differently from current expectations, the FAA determines that a
five-year period of analysis is appropriate.
We use a three percent and seven percent discount rate
for the costs and benefits as prescribed by OMB in Circular A-
4.\100\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\100\ https://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/circulars_a004_a_4.
Accessed August 3, 2017.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The small UAS vehicle forecasts used in this analysis
are based on the Federal Aviation Administration's FAA Aerospace
Forecast 2017-2037.\101\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\101\ FAA Aerospace Forecast Fiscal Years 2017-2037 at 30-33,
available at http://www.faa.gov/data_research/aviation/aerospace_forecasts/media/FY2017-37_FAA_Aerospace_Forecast.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Small unmanned aircraft that weigh 0.55 lbs. or less
(Category 1) are not part of this analysis as costs are zero to
minimal.
The FAA estimates that 15 existing models may satisfy
the performance-based requirements of the rule for Category 2 and
Category 3 operations with little or no modification. These
operations would be subject to the cost of obtaining a Declaration
of Compliance. The FAA also assumes manufacturers would likely
introduce a comparable number of compliant models in each of the
subsequent years of the analysis.
The FAA estimates that the remote pilot operating
manual is 6 pages in length and requires 150 hours to develop at an
hourly rate of $72.91.
The FAA assumes that five percent of submitted
Declarations of Compliance (DoC) documents would be rescinded,
rewritten, and resubmitted for acceptance. It is assumed that DoCs
resubmitted to the FAA would be accepted.
The FAA assigns the United States Department of
Transportation guidance on the hourly value of time and hourly value
of travel time savings as to equal $25.40 for the analysis
period.\102\
\102\ Time savings is estimated to be median hourly wage plus
benefits as described in the U.S. Department of Transportation
Revised Departmental Guidance on Valuation of Travel Time in
Economic Analysis dated September 27, 2016.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
2. Benefits Summary
This proposed rulemaking would further integrate small UAS into the
NAS by enabling operations over people and nighttime operations. These
would benefit the economy and encourage innovation and growth across a
variety of sectors, such as construction, education, infrastructure
inspection, insurance, marketing, and event, film and sports
photography.
Today, remote pilots who comply with part 107 can fly a small UAS
within a safe distance from people, but are not able to operate over
people who are not participating in the operation. Without this
proposed rule, the only entities allowed to operate small UAS over
people in the NAS are public entities holding an active certificate of
waiver or authorization (COA), entities with an FAA-issued exemption,
entities that hold a waiver to the prohibition on operations over
people provision of part 107, or small UAS that have received
airworthiness certification from the FAA who also operate with a COA.
When this proposed rule is finalized, individuals would be able to
conduct operations of a small UAS over people in the NAS and at night
under part 107, so long as the activity is conducted by a small UAS
that complies with the proposed provisions.
3. Costs and Savings Summary
A manufacturer would incur costs for demonstrating compliance with
the safety requirements of this proposed rule and providing a
Declaration of Compliance to the FAA. For both Category 2 and Category
3 operations, this proposed rule would also require the manufacturer to
label the aircraft for the appropriate category of operation and to
provide remote pilot operating instructions for the small UAS upon
sale, transfer, or use by someone other than the manufacturer.
Additionally, a small UAS manufacturer would be responsible for the
development of a website or other notification process for the purpose
of notifying the public of the continued eligibility of small UAS for
operations over people under this proposed rule. The costs to the FAA
from this proposed rule include notice to a manufacturer that a
Declaration of Compliance has been accepted (or rescinded); the
development of a website for the FAA to notify the public of small UAS
that have a Declaration of Compliance rescinded; and altering knowledge
test questions into a training format. FAA costs are minimal.
Over the five-year period of analysis, the total present value cost
of the proposed rule is about $14 million with annualized costs of $3
million (using a seven percent discount rate).
This proposed rulemaking would have quantified cost savings. Part
107 currently requires an applicant for a remote pilot certificate with
a small UAS rating to go to a knowledge testing center and take the
initial knowledge test to be eligible for the remote pilot in command
certificate. To maintain the privileges of that certificate, remote
pilots currently must pass a recurrent knowledge test at a knowledge
testing center every 24 calendar months thereafter. This proposed rule
would remove the requirement for completing a recurrent aeronautical
knowledge test at a knowledge testing center and replace the
requirement with completing online training.
As a result, the remote pilot in command who does not also hold a
current certificate under part 61 would be relieved of costs associated
with recurrent knowledge testing every 24 months. The cost savings
include the elimination of the knowledge test fee; the elimination of
the mileage expense for travel to and from the knowledge testing
center; and the elimination of the opportunity cost of time studying
for the knowledge test and travelling to the knowledge testing center.
In total, these costs savings average $460 every 24 calendar months per
affected remote pilot.
The full regulatory evaluation for this proposed rule presents a
range of cost savings based on three varying fleet forecasts.
Subsequently, over the five-year period of analysis, this proposed
change would provide a total present value cost savings between $38
million and $135 million with annualized cost savings between $9
million and $33 million (using a seven percent discount rate).
The net present value cost savings (less costs) of the proposed
rule ranges from $24 million to $121 million at a seven percent
discount rate with net annualized costs savings between $6 million and
$29 million. The following table presents quantified costs to
manufacturers and the FAA and savings to remote pilots.
[[Page 3896]]
Table 6--Costs and Savings of Proposed Rule ($ Millions) 5-Year Period of Analysis *
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
7% PV 7% Annualized 3% PV 3% Annualized
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Low case:
Costs (Manufacturers and FAA)............... $14 $3 $15 $3
Cost Savings (Remote Pilots)................ (38) (9) (44) (10)
---------------------------------------------------------------
Net Cost Savings........................ (24) (6) (29) (6)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Base case:
Costs (Manufacturers and FAA)............... 14 3 15 3
Cost Savings (Remote Pilots)................ (49) (12) (57) (12)
---------------------------------------------------------------
Net Cost Savings........................ (35) (9) (42) (9)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
High case:
Costs (Manufacturers and FAA)............... 14 3 15 3
Cost Savings (Remote Pilots)................ (135) (33) (158) (34)
---------------------------------------------------------------
Net Costs Savings....................... (121) (29) (143) (31)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* Columns may not sum to total due to rounding. Savings are shown in parenthesis to distinguish from costs.
4. Benefit Cost Summary
This rulemaking responds to Congressional direction that instructs
the Secretary of Transportation to determine whether ``certain unmanned
aircraft systems may operate safely in the national airspace
system.\103\ This proposed rule has been initiated at the request of
the Administrator and the Secretary of Transportation after
consultation with the Office of Management and Budget, and the Office
of Science and Technology Policy in the Executive Office of the
President. This high-level interest reflects a strong desire from
industry for operating small UAS over people and is another step toward
an eventual full integration of unmanned aircraft systems operating in
the NAS. This rule would expand the opportunities for part 107 remote
pilots and supports innovation in the emerging UAS industry.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\103\ See Public Law 115-254 347 (2018), codified at 49 U.S.C.
44807.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The operation of small UAS over people may increase safety risk.
Although the FAA believes the probability of injury from operating
small UAS over people is small, when that small probability is
multiplied by an increased number of operations, the risk of the
occurrence of injury increases. The proposed performance-based
standards would establish three categories of small UAS operations
defined primarily by level of risk of injury posed. Additional
manufacturer and operational requirements would also apply to certain
categories of small UAS to mitigate the risks of operating over people.
B. Regulatory Flexibility Act
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 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.
The FAA believes this proposed rule would have a significant impact
on a substantial number of small entities. Therefore, under Section
603(b) of the RFA, the initial analysis must address:
Description of reasons the agency is considering the
action.
Statement of the legal basis and objectives for the
proposed rule.
Description of the record-keeping and other compliance
requirements of the proposed rule.
All Federal rules that may duplicate, overlap, or
conflict with the proposed rule.
Description and an estimated number of small entities
to which the proposed rule will apply.
Description of Significant Regulatory Alternatives for
Small Entities.
1. Description of Reasons the Agency Is Considering the Action
This rulemaking proposes performance-based requirements to allow
small UAS to operate over people or at night under part 107 without
obtaining a waiver or exemption. Currently under part 107, a remote
pilot must obtain a waiver or exemption explicitly allowing operations
over people or at night. As of July 10, 2017, the FAA has received
2,155 requests for waiver to permit operation at night, 477 requests to
permit operating over people, and 228 requests to permit operating over
people at night.\104\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\104\ As of September 2017, part 107 Non-Airspace Waivers
totaled 5,835. Of these 5,835 waivers, 3,915 have been disapproved
and 1,060 have been approved. Of the remaining waivers, 543 are in
process, with another 317 withdrawn.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The proposed requirements would allow small UAS to operate over
people and during the hours of night while minimizing the risk these
operations may pose to the general public. For operations over people,
the FAA's proposed performance-based standards would establish three
categories of small UAS operations defined primarily by level of risk
of injury posed. Additional manufacturer requirements and operational
restrictions beyond those already in part 107 would apply to certain
categories of small UAS to mitigate the risks associated with each
category.
This rulemaking also proposes to remove the requirement for
completing a recurrent aeronautical knowledge test at a knowledge
testing center and replaces the requirement with completing training
that requires passing an online knowledge check by achieving a 100%
score. As a result, the remote pilot in command who does not
[[Page 3897]]
also hold a certificate under part 61 would be relieved of costs
associated with recurrent knowledge testing every 24 months.
2. Statement of the Legal Basis and Objectives for the Proposed Rule
The FAA promulgates this rulemaking pursuant to the authority set
forth in 49 U.S.C. 44807. Section 44807 directs the Secretary of
Transportation to determine whether ``certain unmanned aircraft systems
may operate safely in the national airspace system.'' If the Secretary
determines that certain unmanned aircraft systems may operate safely in
the NAS, then the Secretary must ``establish requirements for the safe
operation of such aircraft systems in the national airspace system,
including operation related to research, development, and testing of
proprietary systems.'' \105\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\105\ 49 U.S.C. 44807(c).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
This rulemaking is also promulgated pursuant to 49 U.S.C.
40103(b)(1) and (2), which charge the FAA with issuing 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. In addition, 49 U.S.C. 44701(a)(5) charges the
FAA with prescribing regulations that the FAA finds necessary for
safety in air commerce and national security. Lastly, 49 U.S.C.
46105(c) allows the Administrator to issue immediate orders to address
an emergency related to safety in air commerce.
The FAA intends this rule will be an important step in further
integrating small UAS operations into the NAS. This rule would permit
operations of small UAS over people and operations at night without
first obtaining a waiver. This proposed rule would also amend the
knowledge testing requirements in part 107 to provide for recurrent
training to substitute for in-person knowledge testing. With this
proposed rule, the FAA expects the small UAS industry to continue
finding new and creative ways for utilizing small UAS, and thereby grow
the industry through innovation. The FAA's overall objective in this
proposed rule is to ensure safety while encouraging new uses of small
UAS in the NAS.
3. Description of the Record-Keeping and Other Compliance
Requirements of the Proposed Rule
The proposed rule would require the manufacturer to declare that a
small UAS meets applicable performance-based requirements by using a
means of compliance by test, analysis, or inspection, or any
combination of these options. A manufacturer could perform any
necessary tests contained in the means of compliance in-house or they
could rent a testing facility with the necessary equipment to show
compliance with the injury limitation based on transfer of kinetic
energy upon impact. The manufacturer would certify the results from
this means of compliance testing on its Declaration of Compliance to
the FAA.
The proposed rule would require manufacturers of small UAS who use
a means of compliance the FAA has accepted for Category 2 or Category 3
operations, to make available to the Administrator the Declaration of
Compliance and any other document, record, or report that the proposal
requires, upon the FAA's request. The proposed rule would provide
record retention requirements for manufacturers who submit either a
Declaration of Compliance or a means of compliance to the FAA. With
today's minimal cost of producing electronic documents and mass storage
hardware devices, the FAA expects manufacturers would keep all relevant
documents, records, or reports required in an electronic format and
properly back up their storage systems. Therefore, this requirement
would add minimal to no costs to the manufacturers because
manufacturers would already have computer systems, with sufficient
memory available, to store and produce the documents this proposal
requires.
The proposed rule would require a manufacturer to label a small
unmanned aircraft qualified for Category 2 or Category 3 operations
with each category for which the small UAS is qualified to operate such
that the label is in English, legible, prominent, and affixed onto the
small unmanned aircraft by some permanent means. In addition, the FAA
proposes requiring remote pilots to ensure their small unmanned
aircraft are properly labeled before conducting any operations over
people. The FAA believes the cost of adding the additional labeling
information for the category for which the small UAS is qualified to
operate would be minimal given that UAS typically come with a label
containing information such as the name of the manufacturer, serial
number, and model name or number. In addition, if the label has worn
out due to use or age, the remote pilot could satisfy the proposal by
using a permanent marker, or etching the category into the body of the
small unmanned aircraft.
The proposed rule would require a small UAS manufacturer to
establish and maintain a product support and notification process to
notify the public and the FAA of any safety issues that would render
the aircraft ineligible for operations over people. The FAA believes
manufacturers of small UAS would have such a system already developed
and in place to handle their warranties and to inform users of their
small UAS about new developments and new products they are bringing to
the marketplace. This proposal does not require the owner of a small
UAS to send in a warranty card or provide the manufacturer any personal
contact information. Therefore, the FAA believes the cost of this
requirement would be minimal. The FAA notes a manufacturer could be an
individual that modifies a small UAS and then sells it. According to
the proposal, this individual would also be required to have a
notification and support process in place. The FAA envisions this
process would be scaled to the production, so the individual who sells
a single aircraft could establish a much smaller scale process. For
example, the manufacturer could simply email the owner of the small UAS
and advise them of any safety issues. The FAA also believes for a
small-scale manufacturer or a modifier, the requirement to maintain a
product support and notification process would also result in minimal
costs.
4. All Federal Rules That May Duplicate, Overlap, or Conflict With the
Proposed Rule
The FAA is unaware that the proposed rule will overlap, duplicate
or conflict with existing Federal rules.
5. Description and an Estimated Number of Small Entities to Which the
Proposed Rule Will Apply
This proposed rule would apply to two separate communities of small
entities: Manufacturers of small UAS and entities that operate small
UAS. The FAA has not quantified the number of manufacturers that would
be subject to the proposed rule because the FAA cannot reasonably
predict how the market will develop for individual commercial uses of
small UAS. However, one database that the FAA has access to identifies
2,126 manufacturers of UAS worldwide.\106\ Out of these 2,126
manufacturers, over 72 percent are foreign entities. Additionally,
Association of Unmanned Vehicle Systems International (AUVSI)
[[Page 3898]]
examined the top 15 platforms used by section 333 exemption holders,
and determined that only 3 of the 15 platforms are manufactured by U.S.
entities, with over half (8 platforms) manufactured by DJI Industries,
a company based in China. It is not known how many of these
manufacturers currently build, or will build in the future, small UAS
that may fit within the bounds of this rulemaking. The FAA requests
comments on the number of U.S. owned and operated small manufacturers
of small UAS that would be affected by this proposed rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\106\ AUVSI Air Platform Database (accessed August 2018).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
To be eligible for operations over people, a manufacturer must
submit a Declaration of Compliance that would generally include the
test report that is generated by following an acceptable means of
compliance. Based on information from industry, the FAA estimated the
one-time cost for developing the means of compliance to be
$200,000.\107\ The FAA considers this cost as an upper bound; as
methods become standardized, the cost will be reduced. To provide
flexibility to small entities, this rule proposes several performance-
based requirements that would accommodate varying means of compliance.
In this manner, the FAA would build flexibility into the regulations,
which would adapt to the fast pace of small UAS innovation and
development. The FAA requests information and data on the cost of
developing varying means of compliance for small manufacturers.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\107\ The FAA received aggregated cost data that included the
full rental of a research facility that has a drop tower, the set-up
of the facility, testing equipment costs, the cost of small UAS to
be tested, and the cost of time experts spend on testing and
analysis among other information. The FAA did not receive itemized
cost data to perform a sensitivity analysis of the costs for varying
means of compliance.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The FAA determines many of the small UAS operations over people or
at night will be conducted by small business entities. Based on
analysis conducted by AUVSI, over 85 percent of waivers granted have
been to small businesses.\108\ Therefore, the FAA determines this
proposed rule would have a positive significant economic impact on a
substantial number of small entities.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\108\ (AUVSI) Association of Unmanned Vehicle Systems
International. As of July 31, 2017, 1,074 waivers had been issued of
which 85 percent were granted to small entities (entities with less
than 10 employees).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
6. Description of Significant Regulatory Alternatives Considered for
Small Entities
The FAA considered both more and less costly alternatives as part
of its NPRM because the RFA requires the agency to consider significant
regulatory alternatives that meet the agency's statutory objectives and
minimize the costs to small entities. The FAA rejected the costlier
alternatives due to policy considerations and the undue burden imposed
on small UAS operators. The less costly alternatives and the FAA's
reasons for rejecting those alternatives are discussed below. In
addition, the FAA discusses performance-based means of compliance that
may provide additional flexibility and minimize costs to small
entities.
The FAA considered hands-on remote pilot flight
training as part of the requirements for operating a small UAS over
people or at night. However, at this time, the FAA does not have
enough knowledge or experience with the operation of small UAS on a
large scale to assess whether training beyond part 107 requirements
is warranted.
The FAA considered allowing Category 3 operations on a
closed- or restricted-access site without requiring notice that the
operation was taking place. The FAA rejected this alternative due to
the increased severity of an injury resulting from a small unmanned
aircraft impacting a person with up to 25 foot-pounds of kinetic
energy.
The FAA considered proposing a Category 4 to include
operations in which a small UAS may operate over people, including
flights over crowds or dense concentrations of people, if: (1) The
manufacturer of the small UAS certifies the aircraft satisfies the
same impact energy threshold as small UAS eligible to conduct
Category 3 operations; (2) the small UAS complies with industry
consensus standards; and (3) the operation is conducted in
compliance with a documented risk mitigation plan. The FAA rejected
this alternative due to the increased severity of an injury
resulting from a small unmanned aircraft impacting a person with up
to 25 foot-pounds of kinetic energy.
The FAA considered incorporating the standards of 14
CFR 23.1401 or 27.1401 (``Anti-collision light system'') for night
operations under part 107. Part 107 does not contain aircraft
certification rules or standards, and the FAA concludes the reduced
risk small UAS operations pose does not warrant application of such
standards. In addition, the diverse range of aircraft that may
operate under part 107 render prescriptive lighting requirements for
all types of operations at night impractical. Prescribing lighting
requirements would be overly burdensome for both the FAA and
manufacturers of small UAS, because they would be forced to make
tradeoffs that affect both the weight of the aircraft and the
aircraft's power source and supply.
The FAA considered the status quo. In other words,
requiring those entities that want to perform operations over people
or operations at night to go through the process of obtaining a
waiver. The FAA rejected this alternative due to the undue burden it
would impose on small UAS operators without an expectation of an
increased level of safety.
As previously discussed in this section, the FAA considered and
incorporated performance-based requirements that would accommodate
varying means of compliance and potentially provide flexibility to
small manufacturers. However, the FAA did not identify itemized cost
data to perform a sensitivity analysis of the costs for varying means
of compliance for small manufacturers. Instead, the FAA estimates the
cost of developing a means of compliance assuming it would involve the
full costs of testing in a research facility. The FAA requests
information and data on types of means of compliance that would be
flexible and scalable and minimize costs to small manufacturers.
C. International Trade Impact Assessment
The Trade Agreement Act of 1979 (Pub. L. 96-39), as amended by the
Uruguay Round Agreements Act (Pub. L. 103-465), prohibits Federal
agencies from establishing standards or engaging in related activities
that create unnecessary obstacles to the foreign commerce of the United
States. Pursuant to these Acts, the establishment of standards is not
considered an unnecessary obstacle to the foreign commerce of the
United States, so long as the standard has a legitimate domestic
objective, such as the protection of safety, and does not operate in a
manner that excludes imports that meet this objective. The statute also
requires consideration of international standards and, where
appropriate, that they be the basis for U.S. standards. The FAA has
considered the ongoing work of international organizations and other
countries. No international standards currently exist for the types of
operations the FAA proposes in this rule. In addition, the FAA's
proposed requirements would not create any obstacle to foreign
commerce. The FAA will maintain its awareness of other countries' and
international organizations' work in developing potential standards
relevant to small UAS operations.
D. 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
(in 1995 dollars) 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
[[Page 3899]]
uses an inflation-adjusted value of $155.0 million in lieu of $100
million. The assessment may be included in conjunction with other
assessments, as it is here.
Although this proposed rule is a significant regulatory action, it
does not contain a mandate that would impose costs on the private
sector of more than $155 million annually.\109\ As a result, the
requirements of Title II of the Act do not apply.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\109\ The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 defines ``Federal
private sector mandate'' as ``any provision in legislation, statute,
or regulation that . . . would impose an enforceable duty upon the
private sector . . . or would reduce or eliminate the amount of
authorization of appropriations for Federal financial assistance
that will be provided to the private sector for the purposes of
ensuring compliance with such duty.'' Public Law 104-4 section 658
(1995).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
E. Paperwork Reduction Act
The Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3507(d)) requires
the FAA consider the impact of paperwork and other information
collection burdens imposed on the public. According to the 1995
amendments to the Paperwork Reduction Act (as implemented by 5 CFR
1320.8(b)(2)(vi)), an agency may not collect or sponsor the collection
of information, nor may it impose an information collection
requirement, unless it displays a currently valid Office of Management
and Budget (OMB) control number.
This rule proposes to add a new information collection for the
Operation of Small Unmanned Aircraft over People. This information
collection includes the estimated burdens for the Declaration of
Compliance, Means of Compliance, and the development of remote pilot
operating instructions.
This proposed rule also eliminates information collection
requirements from the 2016 final rule as a result of changes to the
recurrent knowledge testing requirement. In addition, it may reduce the
number of waiver applications the FAA receives because under this
proposed rule, most operations at night and some operations over people
would be permissible in the absence of a waiver.
Below is a discussion of each of these information-collection
requirements in detail. As required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of
1995 (44 U.S.C. 3507(d)), the FAA has submitted these proposed
information collection amendments to OMB for its review.
Summary for Declaration of Compliance and Means of Compliance: The
information collection addresses a manufacturer's submission of the
Declaration of Compliance and the Means of Compliance to the FAA for
the purpose of demonstrating that the small UAS fulfills the applicable
standards for Category 2 and Category 3 operations. It also addresses
manufacturers' compliance with the record retention requirements
associated with submitting justification to establish compliance.
The Declaration of Compliance includes the following information:
Manufacturer's name, physical address, and email
address;
the small unmanned aircraft system make, model name,
and serial number;
whether the Declaration of Compliance is an initial
declaration or an amended declaration, and if amended, the reason
for resubmittal;
A process for notifying customers of conditions that
could render the small UAS ineligible for operations over people;
and
certification that the manufacturer has demonstrated
that the small unmanned aircraft satisfies the kinetic energy and
exposed rotating parts standards through an accepted Means of
Compliance.
The Means of Compliance demonstrates through test, analysis, or
inspection that the small UAS is eligible for operations pursuant to
Category 2 and/or Category 3. The Means of Compliance includes the
following information: Detailed description of the means of compliance,
and justification (including any substantiating material) showing the
means of compliance establishes achievement of or equivalency to the
safety level identified.
Use: The FAA uses the Declaration of Compliance and Means of
Compliance to either accept or not accept that the manufacturer has
demonstrated compliance with the requirements applicable to Category 2
and/or Category 3 operations.
Table 7--Annual Burden Estimate for Declaration of Compliance and Means of Compliance
[In hours]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Year Initial Resubmitted Pages Hours per page Hourly burden
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1............................... 15 0.75 50 1 787.5
2............................... 15 0.75 50 1 787.5
3............................... 15 0.75 50 1 787.5
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total....................... .............. .............. .............. .............. 2,362.5
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The cost for the information collection on an hourly basis is a
wage of $72.91, for an annual cost of $57,417 for the small UAS
manufacturers to submit their declarations. Over the 3-year analysis
period, the total cost is approximately $172,250 in 2016 dollars.
Summary for Remote Pilot Operating Instructions: The information
collection addresses the manufacturer's recordkeeping associated with
the development and maintenance of remote pilot operating instructions
for small UAS operating over people. The remote pilot operating
instructions must address, at a minimum:
A system description that includes the required small
UAS components, any system limitations, and the declared category or
categories of operation;
Modifications that will not change the ability of the
small UAS to meet the requirements for the category or categories of
operation the small UAS is eligible to conduct, and
Instructions for how to verify and change the mode or
configuration of the small UAS, if they are variable.
Use: In order to operate a small UAS safely over people, the remote
pilot would be responsible for knowing what category of operations his
or her small UAS is eligible to conduct, and what technical and
operational limitations apply to the operations. Accordingly, the FAA
proposes to require manufacturers to provide remote pilot operating
instructions with product-specific information.
[[Page 3900]]
Table 8--3-Year Burden Estimates for Remote Pilot Operating Instructions
[Hours]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Operating
Year instructions Pages Hours per page Hourly burden
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1............................................... 15 6 25 150
2............................................... 15 6 25 150
3............................................... 15 6 25 150
---------------------------------------------------------------
Total....................................... .............. .............. .............. 450
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The cost per hour for the information collection is a wage of
$72.91, for an annual cost of $10,937 for small UAS manufacturers to
develop and maintain remote pilot operating instructions. Over the 3-
year analysis period, the total cost is approximately $32,810 in 2016
dollars.
Summary for Labeling of Unmanned Aircraft: Given that a small UAS
could be qualified to conduct more than one category of operations, the
FAA proposes requiring a manufacturer label the small UAS with each
category of operations the small UAS is qualified to conduct. For
example, a small UAS qualified to conduct Category 2 operations may
also be qualified to conduct Category 3 operations. The manufacturer
would label such a small UAS with each category, as follows: ``Cat. 2,
3'' or ``Category 2, 3''. The label could be painted onto, etched into,
or affixed to the aircraft by some other permanent means.
Use: The proposed labeling requirement would assist the remote
pilot to know what category of operations his or her small UAS is
eligible to conduct, and what technical and operational limitations
apply to the operations. The proposed labeling requirement would also
assist the FAA in its oversight role because it provides an efficient
means for an inspector to evaluate whether an operation is consistent
with the category or categories of operation the small UAS may conduct.
Because Category 3 operations would entail unique operating
limitations, the label on small unmanned aircraft eligible to conduct
Category 3 operations would indicate to the remote pilot that he or she
must adhere to the applicable operating limitations.\110\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\110\ The labeling requirement this rule proposes is not the
sole means by which a remote pilot in command will be aware of the
operating limitations applicable to Category 3 operations. Remote
pilots in command must maintain awareness of updated regulations, as
required by proposed Sec. Sec. 107.73(a) and 107.74(a) in this
rule. As a result, initial knowledge testing and recurrent training
implemented after the effective date of this proposed rule would
include operations over people as a subject area on both the test
and training.
Table 9--3-Year Burden Estimates for Labeling Unmanned Aircraft
[Hours]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Number of Hours per
Year platforms redesign Hourly burden
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1............................................................... 15 2 30
2............................................................... 15 2 30
3............................................................... 15 2 30
-----------------------------------------------
Total....................................................... .............. .............. 90
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The FAA assumes that a manufacturer would redesign a label already
affixed to the aircraft, and that the label redesign and redesign
approval would take a maximum of two hours at an hourly wage of $72.91,
for an annual cost of $2,187. Over the 3-year analysis period, the
total cost is approximately $6,562 in 2016 dollars.
Summary for Replacing Recurrent Knowledge Testing Requirement with
Recurrent Training. The FAA is proposing to revise existing information
collection 2120-0021, Certification: Pilots and Flight Instructors, to
reflect a reduction in the information collection burden as a result of
replacing recurrent in-person knowledge testing with recurrent online
training.
Following the implementation of part 107, the FAA re-evaluated its
testing requirements for remote pilots. The FAA maintains the current
initial testing requirement to evaluate a remote pilot's knowledge for
operating in the NAS is critical, given the absence of a requirement
for a practical test or proficiency course in obtaining a remote pilot
certificate. The FAA, however, has concluded that requiring recurrent
training in lieu of recurrent knowledge testing will achieve the
necessary assurance the FAA seeks with regard to remote pilots' ongoing
familiarity with small UAS operations and the provisions of part 107.
Recurrent training, which a remote pilot can complete online, presents
a less costly option and will achieve a level of assurance of knowledge
that is comparable to the assurance a recurrent test provides.
The FAA maintains that completion of training every two years is
important in ensuring the remote pilots' familiarity with small UAS
operations under part 107. As a result, this proposed rule would
replace the recurrent knowledge testing requirement with a requirement
to complete an online recurrent training, which the FAA may tailor to
address any knowledge areas in which the remote pilot needs
improvement. Thus, each remote pilot eligible to take recurrent
knowledge training as a result of this proposed rulemaking would no
longer be required to take a knowledge test.
Use: A training course affords the FAA the ability to ensure remote
pilots are aware of the key requirements that affect them, address new
or changed requirements in part 107 as a result of subsequent
rulemakings, and highlight the tools and resources available to remote
pilots. Such training would
[[Page 3901]]
ensure remote pilots stay current and aid in their decision-making so
they can continue to operate safely within the boundaries part 107 has
established. The table below shows the hourly savings in terms of the
annual information collection burden.
Table 10--3-Year Burden Estimate--Savings From Eliminating Recurrent Testing
[Hours]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Applicant
Year Pages per time Low case Low case Base case Base case High case High case
application (hours) pages hours pages hours pages hours
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1............................................... 70 3 915,692 39,244 1,039,015 44,529 2,264,918 97,068
2............................................... 70 3 1,673,944 71,740 1,899,440 81,405 4,140,494 177,450
3............................................... 70 3 2,164,218 92,752 2,868,812 122,949 8,362,221 358,381
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total....................................... 70 3 4,753,854 203,737 5,807,267 248,883 14,767,633 632,899
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Rows and Columns may not sum to total due to rounding. Recurrent testing is not required until 2018.
Table 11--3-Year Burden Estimates for Relief From Recurrent Testing
[$Millions]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Savings ($Millions)--by scenario
Year Hourly value -----------------------------------------------
of time Low Base High
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1............................................... $25.40 $1.0 $1.1 $2.5
2............................................... 25.40 1.8 2.1 4.5
3............................................... 25.40 2.4 3.1 9.1
---------------------------------------------------------------
Total....................................... .............. 5.2 6.3 16.1
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Rows and Columns may not sum to total due to rounding.
Individuals and organizations may send comments on the information
collection requirement to the address listed in the ADDRESSES section
at the beginning of this preamble by April 15, 2019. Comments also
should be submitted to the Office of Management and Budget, Office of
Information and Regulatory Affairs, Attention: Desk Officer for FAA,
New Executive Office Building, Room 10202, 725 17th Street NW,
Washington, DC 20053.
F. International Compatibility and Cooperation
In keeping with U.S. obligations under the Convention on
International Civil Aviation, it is FAA policy to conform to
International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO) Standards and
Recommended Practices to the maximum extent practicable. The FAA has
reviewed the corresponding ICAO Standards and Recommended Practices and
has identified no differences with these regulations.
G. Environmental Analysis
FAA Order 1050.1F 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 notice of proposed rulemaking action qualifies for the
categorical exclusion identified in paragraph 5-6.6 of FAA Order
1050.1F and involves no extraordinary circumstances.
IX. Executive Order Determinations
A. Executive Order 13132, Federalism
The FAA has analyzed this proposed rule under the principles and
criteria of Executive Order 13132, Federalism.\111\ The agency has
determined this action would not have a substantial direct effect on
the States, or the relationship between the Federal Government and the
States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the
various levels of government and therefore would not have federalism
implications.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\111\ 64 FR 43255 (Aug. 4, 1999).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
B. Executive Order 13211, Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy
Supply, Distribution, or Use
The FAA analyzed this proposed rule under Executive Order 13211,
Actions Concerning Regulations that Significantly Affect Energy Supply,
Distribution, or Use.\112\ The agency has determined this rule would
not be a ``significant energy action'' under the executive order and
would not be likely to have a significant adverse effect on the supply,
distribution, or use of energy.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\112\ 66 FR 28355 (May 18, 2001).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
C. Executive Order 13609, Promoting International Regulatory
Cooperation
Executive Order 13609, Promoting International Regulatory
Cooperation,\113\ promotes international regulatory cooperation to meet
shared challenges involving health, safety, labor, security,
environmental, and other issues and to reduce, eliminate, or prevent
unnecessary differences in regulatory requirements. The FAA has
analyzed this proposed rule under the policies and agency
responsibilities of Executive Order 13609, and has determined this
proposal would have no effect on international regulatory cooperation.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\113\ 77 FR 26413 (May 1, 2012).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
D. Executive Order 13771, Reducing Regulation and Controlling
Regulatory Costs
This proposed rule is expected to be an Executive Order 13771
deregulatory action. Details on the estimated cost savings of this
proposed rule can be found in the rule's economic analysis.
X. Tribal Outreach
Consistent with Executive Order 13175, Consultation and
Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments,\114\ and FAA Order
1210.20, American Indian
[[Page 3902]]
and Alaska Native Tribal Consultation Policy and Procedures,\115\ the
FAA ensures that federally recognized Tribes (Tribes) are given the
opportunity to provide meaningful and timely input regarding proposed
Federal actions that have the potential to affect uniquely or
significantly their respective Tribes. At this point, the FAA has not
identified any unique or significant effects, environmental or
otherwise, on tribes resulting from this proposed rule. As the FAA
contemplated in the 2016 final rule, the FAA has conducted outreach to
tribes and responded to those tribes seeking information about small
UAS operations conducted within their territory.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\114\ 65 FR 67249 (Nov. 6, 2000).
\115\ FAA Order No. 1210.20 (Jan. 28, 2004), available at http://www.faa.gov/documentLibrary/media/1210.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The FAA continues to evaluate how it might address such concerns
within the broader UAS integration effort.\116\ In particular, the FAA
is currently engaged in steps to fulfill the President's recent
direction to the Secretary to establish a pilot program under which
State, local, and tribal governments can submit proposals to the
Secretary to test and evaluate the integration of civil and public UAS
operations into the low-altitude NAS.\117\ The pilot program involves
cultivating relationships with State, local, and tribal jurisdictions
to promote the safe operation of UAS and enable the development of UAS
technologies and their use in agriculture, commerce, emergency
management, human transportation, and other sectors.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\116\ 81 FR 42064, 42189.
\117\ 82 FR 51903 (Nov. 8, 2017); Presidential Memorandum for
the Secretary of Transportation (Oct. 25, 2017), available at
https://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2017/10/25/presidential-memorandum-secretary-transportation.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The FAA has also conducted outreach to tribes to ensure they are
familiar with the provisions of part 107 and how they might apply in
Indian country, and that they are aware of FAA's plans for additional
rulemakings to integrate UAS into the NAS. As part of that outreach,
the FAA has:
Provided material on the 2016 final rule to
participants at the mid-year conference of the National Congress of
American Indians (Spokane, Washington, June 27-30, 2016);
Presented at a workshop at the National Tribal
Transportation Conference (Anaheim, California, October 4, 2016);
Responded to inquiries from the Shoshone-Bannock Tribes
and Muscogee (Creek) Nation regarding use of UAS (September and
October 2016);
Presented information on UAS at a meeting of the Tribal
Transportation Self-Governance Program Negotiated Rulemaking Meeting
(Shawnee, Oklahoma, October 18, 2016); and
Provided information to The Choctaw Nation of Oklahoma,
which is participating in the UAS Integration Pilot Program.\118\
Through this program, the FAA will work with The Choctaw Nation to
ensure safe UAS operations for the purposes of agriculture, public
safety, and infrastructure inspections. Such operations may include
operations over people and operations at night.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\118\ Federal Aviation Administration, UAS Integration Pilot
Program (May 7, 2018), available at https://www.faa.gov/uas/programs_partnerships/uas_integration_pilot_program/. See also
The FAA will continue to respond to tribes that express interest in
or concerns about UAS operations, and will engage in government-to-
government consultation with tribes as appropriate, in accordance with
Executive Orders and FAA guidance.
XI. Additional Information
A. Comments Invited
The FAA invites interested persons to participate in this
rulemaking by submitting written comments, data, or views. The agency
also invites comments relating to the economic, environmental, energy,
or federalism impacts that might result from adopting the proposals in
this document. The most helpful comments reference a specific portion
of the proposal, explain the reason for any recommended change, and
include supporting data. To ensure the docket does not contain
duplicate comments, commenters should send only one copy of written
comments, or if comments are filed electronically, commenters should
submit only one time.
The FAA will file in the docket all comments it receives, as well
as a report summarizing each substantive public contact with FAA
personnel concerning this proposed rulemaking. Before acting on this
proposal, the FAA will consider all comments it receives on or before
the closing date for comments. The agency may change this proposal in
light of the comments it receives.
B. Proprietary or Confidential Business Information
Commenters should not file proprietary or confidential business
information in the docket. Such information must be sent or delivered
directly to the person identified in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION
CONTACT section of this document, and marked as proprietary or
confidential. If submitting information on a disk or CD ROM, mark the
outside of the disk or CD ROM, and identify electronically within the
disk or CD ROM the specific information that is proprietary or
confidential.
Under 14 CFR 11.35(b), if the FAA is aware of proprietary
information filed with a comment, the agency does not place it in the
docket. It is held in a separate file to which the public does not have
access, and the FAA places a note in the docket that it has received
it. If the FAA receives a request to examine or copy this information,
it treats it as any other request under the Freedom of Information Act
(5 U.S.C. 552). The FAA processes such a request under Department of
Transportation procedures found in 49 CFR part 7.
C. Availability of Rulemaking Documents
An electronic copy of rulemaking documents may be obtained from the
internet by--
1. Searching the Federal eRulemaking Portal (http://www.regulations.gov);
2. Visiting the FAA's Regulations and Policies web page at http://www.faa.gov/regulations_policies; or
3. Accessing the Government Publishing Office's web page at https://www.govinfo.gov/.
Copies may also be obtained 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) 267-9677.
Commenters must identify the docket or notice number of this
rulemaking.
All documents the FAA considered in developing this proposed rule,
including economic analyses and technical reports, may be accessed from
the internet through the Federal eRulemaking Portal referenced above.
D. Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act
The Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996
(SBREFA) requires FAA to comply with small entity requests for
information or advice about compliance with statutes and regulations
within its jurisdiction. A small entity with questions regarding this
document may contact its local FAA official, or the person listed under
the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT heading at the beginning of the
preamble. To find out more about SBREFA online, visit http://www.faa.gov/regulations_policies/rulemaking/sbre_act/.
List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 107
Aircraft, Airmen, Aviation safety, Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements, Security measures, Signs and symbols, Small unmanned
aircraft, Unmanned aircraft.
The Proposed Amendment
In consideration of the foregoing, the Federal Aviation
Administration
[[Page 3903]]
proposes to amend chapter I of title 14, Code of Federal Regulations as
follows:
PART 107--SMALL UNMANNED AIRCRAFT SYSTEMS
0
1. The authority citation for part 107 is revised to read as follows:
Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(f), 40101 note, 40103(b), 44701(a)(5),
46105(c), 46110, 44807.
0
2. Amend Sec. 107.1 by revising paragraphs (a) and (b)(3) to read as
follows:
Sec. 107.1 Applicability.
(a) Except as provided in paragraph (b) of this section, this part
applies to the registration, airman certification, and operation of
civil small unmanned aircraft systems within the United States. This
part also applies to the qualification of civil small unmanned aircraft
systems to operate over human beings in the United States.
(b) * * *
(3) Any operation that the holder of an exemption under section 333
of Public Law 112-95 or 49 U.S.C. 44807 elects to conduct pursuant to
the exemption, unless otherwise specified in the exemption.
0
3. Amend Sec. 107.3 by adding the definitions of ``Casualty'' and
``Declaration of Compliance'' in alphabetical order to read as follows:
Sec. 107.3 Definitions.
* * * * *
Casualty means an Abbreviated Injury Scale level 3 or greater
injury.
* * * * *
Declaration of Compliance means a record submitted to the FAA that
certifies the small unmanned aircraft system conforms to the Category 2
or Category 3 requirements under subpart D of this part.
* * * * *
0
4. Amend Sec. 107.5 by revising paragraphs (b)(2) and (3) and adding
paragraph (b)(4) to read as follows:
Sec. 107.5 Falsification, reproduction or alteration.
* * * * *
(b) * * *
(2) Denial of a Declaration of Compliance;
(3) Suspension or revocation of any certificate, waiver, or
Declaration of Compliance issued or accepted by the Administrator under
this part and held by that person; or
(4) A civil penalty.
0
5. Amend Sec. 107.7 by revising paragraph (a) and adding paragraphs
(c) and (d) to read as follows:
Sec. 107.7 Inspection, testing, and demonstration of compliance.
(a)(1) A remote pilot in command, owner, or person manipulating the
flight controls of a small unmanned aircraft system must present his or
her remote pilot certificate with a small UAS rating and identification
that contains the information listed at Sec. 107.67(b) for inspection
upon a request from:
(i) The Administrator;
(ii) An authorized representative of the National Transportation
Safety Board;
(iii) Any Federal, State, or local law enforcement officer; or
(iv) An authorized representative of the Transportation Security
Administration.
(2) A remote pilot in command, owner, or person manipulating the
flight controls of a small unmanned aircraft system must, upon request,
make available to the Administrator any document, record, or report
required to be kept under the regulations of this chapter.
* * * * *
(c) Any person holding an FAA-accepted Declaration of Compliance
under subpart D of this part must, upon request, make available to the
Administrator:
(1) The Declaration of Compliance required under subpart D of this
part; and
(2) Any other document, record, or report required to be kept under
the regulations of this chapter.
(d) Any person holding an FAA-accepted Declaration of Compliance
under subpart D of this part must, upon request, allow the
Administrator to inspect its facilities, technical data, and any
manufactured small UAS and witness any tests necessary to determine
compliance with that subpart.
0
6. Amend Sec. 107.19 by revising paragraph (c) to read as follows:
Sec. 107.19 Remote pilot in command.
* * * * *
(c) The remote pilot in command must ensure that the small unmanned
aircraft will pose no undue hazard to other people, other aircraft, or
other property in the event of a loss of control of the small unmanned
aircraft for any reason.
* * * * *
0
7. Amend Sec. 107.29 by revising paragraph (a) to read as follows:
Sec. 107.29 Operation at night.
(a) No person may operate a small unmanned aircraft system at night
unless:
(1) The remote pilot in command of the small unmanned aircraft has
completed an initial knowledge test or training, as applicable, under
Sec. 107.73 or Sec. 107.74, after [the effective date of a subsequent
final rule]; and
(2) The small unmanned aircraft has lighted anti-collision lighting
visible for at least 3 statute miles. The remote pilot in command may
reduce the intensity of, but may not extinguish, the anti-collision
lighting if he or she determines that, because of operating conditions,
it would be in the interest of safety to do so.
* * * * *
0
8. Revise Sec. 107.35 to read as follows:
Sec. 107.35 Operation of multiple small unmanned aircraft.
A person may not manipulate flight controls or act as a remote
pilot in command or visual observer in the operation of more than one
unmanned aircraft at the same time.
0
9. Revise Sec. 107.39 to read as follows:
Sec. 107.39 Operation over human beings.
No person may operate a small unmanned aircraft over a human being
unless:
(a) That human being is directly participating in the operation of
the small unmanned aircraft;
(b) That human being is located under a covered structure or inside
a stationary vehicle that can provide reasonable protection from a
falling small unmanned aircraft; or
(c) The operation meets the requirements of at least one of the
operational categories specified in subpart D of this part.
0
10. Amend Sec. 107.49 by revising paragraphs (d) and (e) and adding
paragraph (f) to read as follows:
Sec. 107.49 Preflight familiarization, inspection, and actions for
aircraft operation.
* * * * *
(d) If the small unmanned aircraft is powered, ensure that there is
enough available power for the small unmanned aircraft system to
operate for the intended operational time;
(e) Ensure that any object attached or carried by the small
unmanned aircraft is secure and does not adversely affect the flight
characteristics or controllability of the aircraft; and
(f) If the operation will be conducted over human beings under
subpart D of this part, ensure that the aircraft meets the requirements
of Sec. 107.110, Sec. 107.115(a), or Sec. 107.120(a), as applicable.
0
11. Amend Sec. 107.61 by revising paragraph (d) to read as follows:
Sec. 107.61 Eligibility.
* * * * *
[[Page 3904]]
(d) Demonstrate aeronautical knowledge by satisfying one of the
following conditions, in a manner acceptable to the Administrator:
(1) Pass an initial aeronautical knowledge test covering the areas
of knowledge specified in Sec. 107.73; or
(2) If a person holds a pilot certificate (other than a student
pilot certificate) issued under part 61 of this chapter and meets the
flight review requirements specified in Sec. 61.56, complete training
covering the areas of knowledge specified in Sec. 107.74.
0
12. Revise Sec. 107.65 to read as follows:
Sec. 107.65 Aeronautical knowledge recency.
A person may not exercise the privileges of a remote pilot in
command with small UAS rating unless that person has accomplished the
following in a manner acceptable to the Administrator within the
previous 24 calendar months:
(a) Passed an initial aeronautical knowledge test covering the
areas of knowledge specified in Sec. 107.73;
(b) Completed recurrent training covering the areas of knowledge
specified in Sec. 107.73; or
(c) If a person holds a pilot certificate (other than a student
pilot certificate) issued under part 61 of this chapter and meets the
flight review requirements specified in Sec. 61.56, completed training
covering the areas of knowledge specified in Sec. 107.74.
(d) A person who has passed a recurrent aeronautical knowledge test
in a manner acceptable to the Administrator or who has satisfied the
training requirement of paragraph (c) of this section prior to [the
effective date of a subsequent final rule] within the previous 24
calendar months is considered to be in compliance with the requirement
of paragraph (b) or (c) of this section, as applicable.
0
13. Revise Sec. 107.73 to read as follows:
Sec. 107.73 Knowledge and training.
An initial aeronautical knowledge test and recurrent training
covers the following areas of knowledge:
(a) Applicable regulations relating to small unmanned aircraft
system rating privileges, limitations, and flight operation;
(b) Airspace classification, operating requirements, and flight
restrictions affecting small unmanned aircraft operation;
(c) Aviation weather sources and effects of weather on small
unmanned aircraft performance;
(d) Small unmanned aircraft loading;
(e) Emergency procedures;
(f) Crew resource management;
(g) Radio communication procedures;
(h) Determining the performance of the small unmanned aircraft;
(i) Physiological effects of drugs and alcohol;
(j) Aeronautical decision-making and judgment;
(k) Airport operations;
(l) Maintenance and preflight inspection procedures; and
(m) Operation at night.
0
14. Revise Sec. 107.74 to read as follows:
Sec. 107.74 Small unmanned aircraft system training.
Training for pilots who hold a pilot certificate (other than a
student pilot certificate) issued under part 61 of this chapter and
meet the flight review requirements specified in Sec. 61.56 covers the
following areas of knowledge:
(a) Applicable regulations relating to small unmanned aircraft
system rating privileges, limitations, and flight operation;
(b) Effects of weather on small unmanned aircraft performance;
(c) Small unmanned aircraft loading;
(d) Emergency procedures;
(e) Crew resource management;
(f) Determining the performance of the small unmanned aircraft;
(g) Maintenance and preflight inspection procedures; and
(h) Operation at night.
Subpart D--[Redesignated as Subpart E]
0
15. Redesignate subpart D as subpart E.
0
16. Add new subpart D to read as follows:
Subpart D--Operations Over Human Beings
Sec.
107.100 Applicability.
107.105 Prohibition on operations over moving vehicles.
107.108 Limitations on operations over human beings.
107.110 Category 1 operations.
107.115 Category 2 operations.
107.120 Category 3 operations.
107.125 Means of compliance.
107.130 Variable mode and variable configuration of small unmanned
aircraft systems.
107.135 Declaration of Compliance.
107.140 Previously manufactured small unmanned aircraft systems.
107.145 Record retention.
107.150 Relabeling by remote pilot in command for Category 2 and 3
operations.
Sec. 107.100 Applicability.
This subpart prescribes the eligibility standards and operating
requirements for small unmanned aircraft systems that may conduct
operations over human beings, in addition to those permitted by Sec.
107.39(a) and (b).
Sec. 107.105 Prohibition on operations over moving vehicles.
No person may operate a small unmanned aircraft over a human being
located in a moving vehicle.
Sec. 107.108 Limitations on operations over human beings.
Except as provided in Sec. 107.39(a) and (b), a remote pilot in
command may conduct operations over human beings only as Category 1, 2,
or 3 operations authorized by Sec. Sec. 107.110, 107.115, and 107.120.
Sec. 107.110 Category 1 operations.
To conduct Category 1 operations, a remote pilot in command must
use a small unmanned aircraft that weighs 0.55 pounds or less on
takeoff and throughout the duration of each operation under this
category, including everything that is on board or otherwise attached
to the aircraft.
Sec. 107.115 Category 2 operations.
(a) Remote pilot in command requirements. To conduct Category 2
operations, a remote pilot in command must use a small unmanned
aircraft system that is qualified and labeled for Category 2 operations
pursuant to paragraph (b) of this section.
(b) Eligibility. To be qualified to conduct Category 2 operations,
the small unmanned aircraft system must:
(1) Be designed, produced, or modified such that it:
(i) Will not cause injury to a human being that is equivalent to or
greater than the severity of injury caused by a transfer of 11 foot-
pounds of kinetic energy upon impact from a rigid object;
(ii) Does not contain any exposed rotating parts that could
lacerate human skin upon impact with a human being; and
(iii) Does not contain any safety defects identified by the
Administrator.
(2) Display a label indicating eligibility to conduct Category 2
operations. The label must be in English and be legible, prominent, and
permanently affixed to the small unmanned aircraft.
(3) Have current remote pilot operating instructions that apply to
the operation of the small unmanned aircraft system. The person who
designed, produced, or modified the small unmanned aircraft system must
make available the instructions upon sale, transfer, or use of the
aircraft by someone other than the person who designed, produced, or
modified the small unmanned aircraft system. Such
[[Page 3905]]
instructions must address, at a minimum:
(i) A system description that includes the required small unmanned
aircraft system components, any system limitations, and the declared
category or categories of operation;
(ii) Modifications that will not change the ability of the small
unmanned aircraft system to meet the requirements for the category or
categories of operation the small unmanned aircraft system is eligible
to conduct; and
(iii) Instructions for how to verify and change the mode or
configuration of the small unmanned aircraft system, if they are
variable.
(4) Be subject to a product support and notification process.
Anyone who designs, produces, or modifies a small unmanned aircraft
system under this paragraph (b) must maintain product support and
notification procedures to notify the public and the FAA of:
(i) Any defect or condition that causes the small unmanned aircraft
system to no longer meet the requirements of this subpart; and
(ii) Any identified safety defect that causes the small unmanned
aircraft system to exceed a low probability of casualty.
(5) Operate only after the person who designed, produced, or
modified the small unmanned aircraft system has received notification
that the FAA has accepted the Declaration of Compliance for that small
unmanned aircraft system in accordance with Sec. 107.135.
Sec. 107.120 Category 3 operations.
(a) Remote pilot in command requirements. To conduct Category 3
operations, a remote pilot in command:
(1) Must use a small unmanned aircraft system that is qualified and
labeled for Category 3 operations pursuant to paragraph (b) of this
section;
(2) Must not operate the small unmanned aircraft over open air
assemblies of human beings; and
(3) May only operate the small unmanned aircraft above any human
being if the operation meets one of the following conditions:
(i) The operation is within or over a closed- or restricted-access
site, and any human being located within the closed- or restricted-
access site is on notice that a small unmanned aircraft may fly over
them; or
(ii) The small unmanned aircraft does not maintain sustained flight
over any human being not directly participating in the operation of the
small unmanned aircraft or located under a covered structure or inside
a stationary vehicle that can provide reasonable protection from a
falling small unmanned aircraft.
(b) Eligibility. To be qualified to conduct Category 3 operations,
the small unmanned aircraft system must:
(1) Be designed, produced, or modified such that it:
(i) Will not cause injury to a human being that is equivalent to or
greater than the severity of the injury caused by a transfer of 25
foot-pounds of kinetic energy upon impact from a rigid object;
(ii) Does not contain any exposed rotating parts that could
lacerate human skin upon impact with a human being; and
(iii) Does not contain any safety defects identified by the
Administrator.
(2) Display a label indicating eligibility to conduct Category 3
operations. The label must be in English and be legible, prominent, and
permanently affixed to the small unmanned aircraft.
(3) Have current remote pilot operating instructions that apply to
the operation of the small unmanned aircraft system. The person who
designed, produced, or modified the small unmanned aircraft system must
make available the instructions upon sale, transfer, or use of the
aircraft by someone other than the person who designed, produced, or
modified the small unmanned aircraft system. Such instructions must
address, at a minimum:
(i) A system description that includes the required small unmanned
aircraft system components, any system limitations, and the declared
category or categories of operation;
(ii) Modifications that will not change the ability of the small
unmanned aircraft system to meet the requirements for the category or
categories of operation the small unmanned aircraft system is eligible
to conduct; and
(iii) Instructions for how to verify and change the mode or
configuration of the small unmanned aircraft system, if they are
variable.
(4) Be subject to a product support and notification process.
Anyone who designs, produces, or modifies a small unmanned aircraft
system under this paragraph (b) must maintain product support and
notification procedures to notify the public and the FAA of:
(i) Any defect or condition that causes the small unmanned aircraft
system to no longer meet the requirements of this subpart; and
(ii) Any identified safety defect that causes the small unmanned
aircraft system to exceed a low probability of fatality.
(5) Operate only after the person who designed, produced, or
modified the small unmanned aircraft system has received notification
that the FAA has accepted a Declaration of Compliance for that small
unmanned aircraft system in accordance with Sec. 107.135.
Sec. 107.125 Means of compliance.
(a) To meet the requirements of Sec. 107.115(b)(1) for operations
in Category 2, or the requirements of Sec. 107.120(b)(1) for
operations in Category 3, the means of compliance must consist of test,
analysis, or inspection that the Administrator has determined is
acceptable. The means of compliance may include consensus standards.
(b) An applicant requesting FAA acceptance of a means of compliance
must submit the following information to the FAA in a manner specified
by the Administrator:
(1) Detailed description of the means of compliance; and
(2) Justification, including any substantiating material, showing
the means of compliance establishes achievement of or equivalency to
the safety level identified in Sec. Sec. 107.115(b)(1) and
107.120(b)(1).
Sec. 107.130 Variable mode and variable configuration of small
unmanned aircraft systems.
A small unmanned aircraft system may be eligible for one or more
categories of operation over human beings under this subpart, as long
as a remote pilot in command cannot inadvertently switch between modes
or configurations.
Sec. 107.135 Declaration of Compliance.
(a) Required information. Prior to declaring a small unmanned
aircraft system to be compliant with the requirements of this subpart
for Category 2 or 3 operations, an applicant must submit a Declaration
of Compliance for acceptance by the FAA, in a manner specified by the
Administrator, that includes the following information:
(1) Applicant's name;
(2) Applicant's physical address;
(3) Applicant's email address;
(4) The small unmanned aircraft system make and model name;
(5) The small unmanned aircraft system serial number or range of
serial numbers that are the subject of the Declaration of Compliance;
(6) Whether the Declaration of Compliance is an initial declaration
or an amended declaration;
(7) If the Declaration of Compliance is an amended declaration, the
reason for the re-submittal;
(8) Certification that the applicant:
(i) Has demonstrated that the small unmanned aircraft, or specific
[[Page 3906]]
configurations of that aircraft, satisfies Sec. 107.115(b)(1)(i) and
(ii), or Sec. 107.120(b)(1)(i) and (ii), or both, through an accepted
means of compliance;
(ii) Has satisfied Sec. 107.115(b)(4) or Sec. 107.120(b)(4), or
both; and
(iii) Will, upon request, allow the Administrator to inspect its
facilities, technical data, and any manufactured small unmanned
aircraft system and witness any tests necessary to determine compliance
with this subpart; and
(9) Other information as required by the Administrator.
(b) FAA acceptance. If the FAA determines the applicant has
demonstrated compliance with the requirements of this subpart, it will
notify the applicant that it has accepted the Declaration of
Compliance. If the FAA determines the applicant has not provided
sufficient evidence to demonstrate compliance, the FAA will notify the
applicant that it has not accepted the Declaration of Compliance.
(c) Notification of a safety issue. Prior to initiating rescission
proceedings pursuant to paragraphs (d)(1) through (3) of this section,
the FAA will notify the applicant if a safety issue has been identified
for the Declaration of Compliance.
(d) Rescission. (1) No person may operate a small unmanned aircraft
system identified on a Declaration of Compliance that the FAA has
rescinded pursuant to this subpart while that Declaration of Compliance
is rescinded.
(2) The FAA may rescind a Declaration of Compliance if any of the
following conditions occur:
(i) A small unmanned aircraft system for which a Declaration of
Compliance was accepted no longer complies with Sec. 107.115(b)(1) or
Sec. 107.120(b)(1);
(ii) The FAA finds a Declaration of Compliance is in violation of
Sec. 107.5(a); or
(iii) The Administrator determines an emergency exists related to
safety in accordance with the authority in 49 U.S.C. 46105.
(3) If a safety issue identified under paragraph (c) of this
section has not been resolved, the FAA may rescind the Declaration of
Compliance as follows:
(i) The FAA will issue a notice proposing to rescind the
Declaration of Compliance. The notice will set forth the agency's basis
for the proposed rescission and provide the holder of the Declaration
of Compliance with 10 business days from the date of issuance of the
proposed notice to submit evidentiary information to refute the
proposed notice.
(ii) The holder of the Declaration of Compliance must submit
information demonstrating how the small unmanned aircraft system meets
the requirements of this subpart within 10 business days from the date
of issuance of the proposed notice.
(iii) If the FAA does not receive the information required by
paragraph (d)(3)(ii) of this section within 10 business days from the
date of the issuance of the proposed notice, the FAA will issue a
notice rescinding the Declaration of Compliance.
(4) If the Administrator determines that an emergency exists in
accordance with paragraph (d)(2)(iii) of this section, the FAA will
exercise its authority under 49 U.S.C. 46105(c) to issue an order
rescinding a Declaration of Compliance without initiating the process
in paragraph (d)(3) of this section.
(e) Petition to reconsider the rescission of a Declaration of
Compliance. A person subject to an order of rescission under paragraph
(d)(3) of this section may petition the FAA to reconsider the
rescission of a Declaration of Compliance by submitting a request to
the FAA in a manner specified by the Administrator within 60 days of
the date of issuance of the rescission.
(1) A petition to reconsider the rescission of a Declaration of
Compliance must demonstrate at least one of the following:
(i) A material fact that was not present in the original response
to the notification of the safety issue and an explanation for why it
was not present in the original response;
(ii) The FAA made a material factual error in the decision to
rescind the Declaration of Compliance; or
(iii) The FAA did not correctly interpret a law, regulation, or
precedent.
(2) Upon consideration of the information submitted under paragraph
(e)(1) of this section, the FAA will issue a notice either affirming
the rescission or withdrawing the rescission.
(f) Inapplicability of part 13, subpart D, of this chapter. Title
14 CFR part 13, subpart D, does not apply to the procedures of
paragraphs (d) and (e) of this section.
Sec. 107.140 Previously manufactured small unmanned aircraft systems.
A remote pilot in command may operate a small unmanned aircraft
system manufactured prior to [the effective date of a subsequent final
rule] over human beings under the following circumstances:
(a) Category 1 operations. The small unmanned aircraft weighs 0.55
pounds or less on takeoff, including everything that is on board or
otherwise attached to the aircraft; or
(b) Category 2 and 3 operations. (1) The FAA has accepted a
Declaration of Compliance in accordance with Sec. 107.135; and
(2) The small unmanned aircraft is labeled for the appropriate
category of operations in English such that the label is legible,
prominent, and permanently affixed to the small unmanned aircraft.
Sec. 107.145 Record retention.
A person who submits a Declaration of Compliance or means of
compliance under this subpart must retain the following substantiating
data:
(a)(1) For the Declaration of Compliance, the holder of the
Declaration of Compliance must store the detailed description of the
means of compliance and justification, including any substantiating
material, for two years after the cessation of production of the small
unmanned aircraft system to support the Declaration of Compliance; and
(2) Any accompanying data must contain detailed information on the
type of means of compliance and the results or justification used to
demonstrate the small unmanned aircraft system meets Sec. Sec.
107.115(b) and 107.120(b), as applicable.
(b)(1) For a means of compliance, the information described in
paragraph (a) of this section must be stored for as long as the means
of compliance is accepted by the FAA; and
(2) Accompanying data or information must contain:
(i) Test procedures that outline the test methodology, if
applicable; and
(ii) Justification, including any substantiating material, showing
the means of compliance establishes achievement of or equivalency to
the safety level identified in Sec. Sec. 107.115(b)(1) and
107.120(b)(1), as applicable.
Sec. 107.150 Relabeling by remote pilot in command for Category 2 and
3 operations.
If a Category 2 or Category 3 label affixed to a small unmanned
aircraft is damaged or destroyed such that it is no longer legible, a
remote pilot in command must relabel the aircraft in English such that
the label is legible, prominent, and will remain on the small unmanned
aircraft for the duration of the operation before conducting operations
over human beings. The label must correctly identify the category or
categories of operation over human beings that the small unmanned
aircraft is qualified to conduct in accordance with this subpart.
[[Page 3907]]
0
17. Amend Sec. 107.205 by revising paragraph (b) and adding paragraph
(j) to read as follows:
Sec. 107.205 List of regulations subject to waiver.
* * * * *
(b) Section 107.29(a)(2) and (b)--Anti-collision light required for
operations at night and during periods of civil twilight.
* * * * *
(j) Section 107.105--Prohibition on operations over moving
vehicles.
Issued under the authority provided by 49 U.S.C. 106(f), 40101
note; and 44807, in Washington, DC on January 29, 2019.
Elaine L. Chao,
Secretary, Department of Transportation.
Daniel K. Elwell,
Acting Administrator, Federal Aviation Administration.
[FR Doc. 2019-00732 Filed 2-12-19; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P