The FAA invites interested people to take part in the development of these airworthiness criteria by sending written comments, data, or views. The most helpful comments reference a specific portion of the airworthiness criteria, explain the reason for any recommended change, and include supporting data. Comments on operational, pilot certification, and maintenance requirements would address issues that are beyond the scope of this document.

Except for Confidential Business Information as described in the following paragraph, and other information as described in 14 CFR 11.35, the FAA will file in the docket all comments received, as well as a report summarizing each substantive public contact with FAA personnel concerning these proposed airworthiness criteria. Before acting on this proposal, the FAA will consider all comments received on or before the closing date for comments. The FAA will consider comments filed late if it is possible to do so without incurring delay. The FAA may change these airworthiness criteria based on received comments.

Confidential Business Information (CBI) is commercial or financial information that is both customarily and actually treated as private by its owner. Under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) (5 U.S.C. 552), CBI is exempt from public disclosure. If your comments responsive to this NPRM contain commercial or financial information that is customarily treated as private, that you actually treat as private, and that is relevant or responsive to this notice, it is important that you clearly designate the submitted comments as CBI. Please mark each page of your submission containing CBI as “PROPIN.” The FAA will treat such marked submissions as confidential under the FOIA, and they will not be placed in the public docket of this notice. Submissions containing CBI should be sent to the individual listed under For Further Information Contact . Any commentary that the FAA receives which is not specifically designated as CBI will be placed in the public docket for this notice.

Amazon Logistics, Inc., (Amazon) applied to the FAA on October 13, 2017, for a special class type certificate under Title 14, Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR) 21.17(b) for the Model MK27 UAS.

The Model MK27 consists of an unmanned aircraft (UA) and its associated elements that include communication links and the components that control the UA. The Model MK27 UA has a maximum gross takeoff weight of 89 pounds. It is approximately 78 inches in width, 65 inches in length, and 46 inches in height. The Model MK27 UA is battery powered using electric motors for vertical takeoff, landing, and forward flight. The UAS operations would rely on high levels of automation and may include multiple UA operated by a single pilot, up to a ratio of 20 UA to 1 pilot. Amazon anticipates operators will use the Model MK27 for delivering packages. The proposed concept of operations for the Model MK27 identifies a maximum operating altitude of 400 feet above ground level, a maximum cruise speed of 60 knots, operations beyond visual line of sight of the pilot, and operations over human beings. Amazon has not requested type certification for flight into known icing for the Model MK27.

The FAA establishes airworthiness criteria to ensure the safe operation of aircraft in accordance with 49 U.S.C. 44701(a) and 44704. UAS are type certificated by the FAA as special class aircraft for which airworthiness standards have not been established by regulation. Under the provisions of 14 CFR 21.17(b), the airworthiness standards for special class aircraft are those the FAA finds to be appropriate and applicable to the specific type design.

The applicant has proposed a design with constraints upon its operations and an unusual design characteristic: The pilot is remotely located. The FAA developed existing airworthiness standards to establish an appropriate level of safety for each product and its intended use. The FAA's existing airworthiness standards did not envision aircraft with no pilot in the cockpit and the technologies associated with that capability.

The FAA has reviewed the proposed design and assessed the potential risk to the National Airspace System. The FAA considered the size of the proposed aircraft, its maximum airspeed and altitude, and operational limitations to address the number of unmanned aircraft per operator and to address operations in which the aircraft would operate beyond the visual line of sight of the pilot. These factors allowed the FAA to assess the potential risk the aircraft could pose to other aircraft and to human beings on the ground. Using these parameters, the FAA developed airworthiness criteria to address those potential risks to ensure the aircraft remains reliable, controllable, safe, and airworthy.

The proposed criteria focus on mitigating hazards by establishing safety outcomes that must be achieved, rather than by establishing prescriptive requirements that must be met. This is in contrast to many current airworthiness standards, used to certificate traditional aircraft systems, which prescribe specific indicators and instruments for a pilot in a cockpit that would be inappropriate for UAS. The FAA finds that the proposed criteria are appropriate and applicable for the UAS design, based on the intended operational concepts for the UAS as identified by the applicant.

The FAA selected the particular airworthiness criteria proposed by this notice for the following reasons:

General: In order to determine appropriate and applicable airworthiness standards for UAS as a special class of aircraft, the FAA determined that the applicant must provide information describing the characteristics and capabilities of the UAS and how it will be used.

UAS.001 Concept of Operations: To assist the FAA in identifying and analyzing the risks and impacts associated with integrating the proposed UAS design into the National Airspace System, the applicant would be required to submit a Concept of Operations (CONOPS). The proposed criteria would require the applicant's CONOPS to identify the intended operational concepts for the UAS and describe the UAS and its operation. The information in the CONOPS would determine parameters and extent of testing, as well as operating limitations that will be placed in the UAS Flight Manual.

Design and Construction: The FAA selected the design and construction criteria in this section to address airworthiness requirements where the flight testing demonstration alone may not be sufficient to demonstrate an appropriate level of safety.

UAS.100 Control Station: The control station, which is located separately from the UA, is a unique feature to UAS. As a result, no regulatory airworthiness standards exist that directly apply to this part of the system. The FAA based some of the proposed criteria on existing regulations that address the information that must be provided to a pilot in the cockpit of a manned aircraft, and modified them as appropriate to this UAS. Thus, to address the risks associated with loss of control of the UAS, the applicant would be required to design the control station to provide the pilot with the information necessary for continued safe flight and operation. The proposed criteria contain the specific minimum types of information the FAA finds are necessary for this requirement; however, the applicant must determine whether additional parameters are necessary.

UAS.110 Software: Software for manned aircraft is certified under the regulations applicable to systems, equipment, and installations ( e.g., §§ 23.2510, 25.1309, 27.1309, or 29.1309). There are two regulations that specifically prescribe airworthiness standards for software: Engine airworthiness standards (§ 33.28) and propeller airworthiness standards (§ 35.23). The proposed UAS software criteria was based on these regulations and tailored for the risks posed by UAS software.

UAS.115 Cyber Security: The location of the pilot separate from the UA requires a continuous wireless connection (command and control link) with the UA for the pilot to monitor and control it. Because the purpose of this link is to control the aircraft, this makes the UAS susceptible to cyber security threats in a unique way.

The current regulations for the certification of systems, equipment, and installations ( e.g., §§ 23.2510, 25.1309, 27.1309, and 29.1309) do not adequately address potential security vulnerabilities that could be exploited by unauthorized access to aircraft systems, data buses, and services. For manned aircraft, the FAA therefore issues special conditions for particular designs with network security vulnerabilities.

To address the risks to the UAS associated with intentional unauthorized electronic interactions, the applicant would be required to design the UAS's systems and networks to protect against intentional unauthorized electronic interactions and mitigate potential adverse effects. The FAA based the language for the proposed criteria on recommendations in the final report dated August 22, 2016, from the Aircraft System Information Security/Protection (ASISP) working group, under the FAA's Aviation Rulemaking Advisory Committee. Although the recommendations pertained to manned aircraft, the FAA has reviewed the report and determined the recommendations are also appropriate for UAS. The wireless connections used by UAS make these aircraft susceptible to the same cyber security risks, and therefore require similar criteria, as manned aircraft.

UAS.120 Contingency Planning: The location of the pilot and the controls for the UAS, separate from the UA, is a unique feature to UAS. As a result, no regulatory airworthiness standards exist that directly apply to this feature of the system.

To address the risks associated with loss of communication between the pilot and the UA, and thus the pilot's inability to control the UA, the proposed criteria would require that the UAS be designed to automatically execute a predetermined action. Because the pilot needs to be aware of the particular predetermined action the UA will take when there is a loss of communication between the pilot and the UA, the proposed criteria would require that the applicant identify the predetermined action in the UAS Flight Manual. The proposed criteria would also include requirements for preventing takeoff when quality of service is inadequate.

UAS.125 Lightning: Because of the size and physical limitations of this UAS, it would be unlikely that this UAS would incorporate traditional lightning protection features. To address the risks that would result from a lightning strike, the proposed criteria would require an operating limitation in the UAS Flight Manual that prohibits flight into weather conditions conducive to lightning. The proposed criteria would also allow design characteristics to protect the UAS from lightning as an alternative to the prohibition.

UAS.130 Adverse Weather Conditions: Because of the size and physical limitations of this UAS, adverse weather such as rain, snow, and icing pose a greater hazard to the UAS than to manned aircraft. For the same reason, it would be unlikely that this UAS would incorporate traditional protection features from icing. The FAA based the proposed criteria on the icing requirements in 14 CFR 23.2165(b) and (c), and applied them to all of these adverse weather conditions. The proposed criteria would allow design characteristics to protect the UAS from adverse weather conditions. As an alternative, the proposed criteria would require an operating limitation in the UAS Flight Manual that prohibits flight into known adverse weather conditions, and either also prevent inadvertent flight into adverse weather or provide a means to detect and to avoid or exit adverse weather conditions.

UAS.135 Critical Parts: The proposed criteria for critical parts are substantively the same as that in § 27.602, with changes to reflect UAS terminology and failure condition.

Operating Limitations and Information: Similar to manned aircraft, the FAA determined that the UAS applicant must provide airworthiness instructions, operating limitations, and flight and performance information necessary for the safe operation and continued operational safety of the UAS.

UAS.200 Flight Manual: The proposed criteria for the UAS Flight Manual are substantively the same as that in § 23.2620, with minor changes to reflect UAS terminology.

UAS.205 Instructions for Continued Airworthiness: The proposed criteria for the Instructions for Continued Airworthiness (ICA) are substantively the same as that in § 23.1529, with minor changes to reflect UAS terminology.

Testing: Traditional certification methodologies for manned aircraft are based on design requirements verified at the component level by inspection, analysis, demonstration, or test. Due to the difference in size and complexity, the FAA determined testing methodologies that demonstrate reliability at the aircraft (UAS) level, in addition to the design and construction criteria identified in this proposal, will achieve the same safety objective. The proposed testing criteria in sections UAS.300 through UAS.320 utilize these methodologies.

UAS.300 Durability and Reliability: The FAA intends the proposed testing criteria in this section to cover key design aspects and prevent unsafe features at an appropriate level tailored for this UAS. The proposed durability and reliability testing would require the applicant to demonstrate safe flight of the UAS across the entire operational envelope and up to all operational limitations, for all phases of flight and all aircraft configurations. The UAS would only be certificated for operations within the limitations, and for flight over the maximum population density, as demonstrated by test. The proposed criteria would require that all flights during the testing be completed with no failures that result in a loss of flight, loss of control, loss of containment, or emergency landing outside of the operator's recovery zone.

For some aircraft design requirements imposed by existing airworthiness standards ( e.g., §§ 23.2135, 23.2600, 25.105, 25.125, 27.141, 27.173, 29.51, 29.177) the aircraft must not require exceptional piloting skill or alertness. These rules recognize that pilots have varying levels of ability and attention. In a similar manner, the proposed criteria would require that the durability and reliability flight testing be performed by a pilot with average skill and alertness.

Flight testing will be used to determine the aircraft's ability to withstand flight loads across the range of operating limits and the flight envelope. Because small UAS may be subjected to significant ground loads when handled, lifted, carried, loaded, maintained, and transported physically by hand, the proposed criteria would require that the aircraft used for testing endure the same worst-case ground loads as those the UAS will experience in operation after type certification.

UAS.305 Probable Failures: The FAA intends the proposed testing criteria to evaluate how the UAS functions after failures that are probable to occur. The applicant will test the UAS by inducing certain failures and demonstrating that the failure will not result in a loss of containment or control of the UA. The proposed criteria contain the minimum types of failures the FAA finds are probable; however, the applicant must determine the probable failures related to any other equipment that will be addressed for this requirement.

UAS.310 Capabilities and Functions: The proposed criteria for this section address the minimum capabilities and functions the FAA finds are necessary in the design of the UAS and would require the applicant to demonstrate these capabilities and functions by test. Due to the location of the pilot and the controls for UAS, separate from the UA, communication between the pilot and the UA is significant to the design. Thus, the proposed criteria would require the applicant to demonstrate the capability of the UAS to regain command and control after a loss. As with manned aircraft, the electrical system of the UAS must have a capacity sufficient for all anticipated loads; the proposed criteria would require the applicant to demonstrate this by test.

The proposed criteria contain functions that would allow the pilot to command the UA to deviate from its flight plan or from its pre-programmed flight path. For example, in the event the pilot needs to deconflict the airspace, the UA must be able to respond to pilot inputs that override any pre-programming.

In the event an applicant requests approval for certain features, such as geo-fencing or external cargo, the proposed criteria contain requirements to address the associated risks. The proposed criteria in this section would also require design of the UAS to safeguard against an unintended discontinuation of flight or release of cargo, whether by human action or malfunction.

UAS.315 Fatigue: The FAA intends the proposed criteria in this section to address the risks from reduced structural integrity and structural failure due to fatigue. The proposed criteria would require the applicant to establish an airframe life limit and demonstrate that loss of flight or loss of control due to structural failure will be avoided throughout the operational life of the UA. These proposed criteria would require the applicant to demonstrate this by test, while maintaining the UA in accordance with the ICA.

UAS.320 Verification of Limits: This section would evaluate structural safety and address the risks associated with inadequate structural design. While the proposed criteria in UAS.300 address testing to demonstrate that the UAS structure adequately supports expected loads throughout the flight and operational envelopes, the proposed criteria in this section would require an evaluation of the performance, maneuverability, stability, and control of the UA with a factor of safety.

The FAA proposes to establish the following airworthiness criteria for type certification of the Amazon Model MK27. The FAA proposes that compliance with the following would mitigate the risks associated with the proposed design and Concept of Operations appropriately and would provide an equivalent level of safety to existing rules:

The applicant must define and submit to the FAA a concept of operations (CONOPS) proposal describing the Unmanned Aircraft System (UAS) operation in the National Airspace System for which certification is requested. The CONOPS proposal must include, at a minimum, a description of the following information.

(a) The intended type of operations;

(b) Unmanned aircraft (UA) specifications;

(c) Meteorological conditions;

(d) Operators, pilots, and personnel responsibilities;

(e) Control station and support equipment;

(f) Command, control, and communication functions; and

(g) Operational parameters, such as population density, geographic operating boundaries, airspace classes, launch and recovery area, congestion of proposed operating area, communications with air traffic control, line of sight, and aircraft separation.

The control station must be designed to provide the pilot with all information required for continued safe flight and operation. This information includes, at a minimum, the following:

(a) Alerts, such as an alert following the loss of the command and control (C2) link and function.

(b) The status of all critical parameters for all energy storage systems.

(c) The status of all critical parameters for all propulsion systems.

(d) Flight and navigation information as appropriate, such as airspeed, heading, altitude, and location.

(e) C2 link signal strength, quality, or status.

To minimize the existence of errors, the applicant must:

(a) Verify by test all software that may impact the safe operation of the UAS;

(b) Utilize a configuration management system that tracks, controls, and preserves changes made to software throughout the entire life cycle; and

(c) Implement a problem reporting system that captures and records defects and modifications to the software.

(a) UAS equipment, systems, and networks, addressed separately and in relation to other systems, must be protected from intentional unauthorized electronic interactions that may result in an adverse effect on the security or airworthiness of the UAS. Protection must be ensured by showing that the security risks have been identified, assessed, and mitigated as necessary.

(b) When required by paragraph (a) of this section, procedures and instructions to ensure security protections are maintained must be included in the Instructions for Continued Airworthiness (ICA).

(a) The UAS must be designed so that, in the event of a loss of the C2 link, the UA will automatically and immediately execute a safe predetermined flight, loiter, landing, or termination.

(b) The applicant must establish the predetermined action in the event of a loss of the C2 link and include it in the UAS Flight Manual.

(c) The UAS Flight Manual must include the minimum performance requirements for the C2 data link defining when the C2 link is degraded to a level where remote active control of the UA is no longer ensured. Takeoff when the C2 link is degraded below the minimum link performance requirements must be prevented by design or prohibited by an operating limitation in the UAS Flight Manual.

(a) Except as provided in paragraph (b) of this section, the UAS must have design characteristics that will protect the UAS from loss of flight or loss of control due to lightning.

(b) If the UAS has not been shown to protect against lightning, the UAS Flight Manual must include an operating limitation to prohibit flight into weather conditions conducive to lightning activity.

(a) For purposes of this section, “adverse weather conditions” means rain, snow, and icing.

(b) Except as provided in paragraph (c) of this section, the UAS must have design characteristics that will allow the UAS to operate within the adverse weather conditions specified in the CONOPS without loss of flight or loss of control.

(c) For adverse weather conditions for which the UAS is not approved to operate, the applicant must develop operating limitations to prohibit flight into known adverse weather conditions and either:

(1) Develop operating limitations to prevent inadvertent flight into adverse weather conditions; or

(2) Provide a means to detect any adverse weather conditions for which the UAS is not certificated to operate and show the UAS's ability to avoid or exit those conditions.

(a) A critical part is a part, the failure of which could result in a loss of flight or unrecoverable loss of UAS control.

(b) If the type design includes critical parts, the applicant must establish a critical parts list. The applicant must develop and define mandatory maintenance instructions or life limits, or a combination of both, to prevent failures of critical parts. Each of these mandatory actions must be included in the Airworthiness Limitations Section of the ICA.

The applicant must provide a UAS Flight Manual with each UAS.

(a) The UAS Flight Manual must contain the following information:

(1) UAS operating limitations;

(2) UAS normal and emergency operating procedures;

(3) Performance information;

(4) Loading information; and

(5) Other information that is necessary for safe operation because of design, operating, or handling characteristics.

(b) Those portions of the UAS Flight Manual containing the information specified in paragraphs (a)(1) through (4) of this section must be approved by the FAA.

The applicant must prepare ICA for the UAS in accordance with Appendix A to Part 23, as appropriate, that are acceptable to the FAA. The ICA may be incomplete at type certification if a program exists to ensure their completion prior to delivery of the first UAS or issuance of a standard airworthiness certificate, whichever occurs later.

The UAS must be designed to be durable and reliable commensurate to the maximum population density specified in the operating limitations. The durability and reliability must be demonstrated by flight test in accordance with the requirements of this section and completed with no failures that result in a loss of flight, loss of control, loss of containment, or emergency landing outside the operator's recovery area.

(a) Once a UAS has begun testing to show compliance with this section, all flights for that UA must be included in the flight test report.

(b) Tests must include an evaluation of the entire flight envelope across all phases of operation and must address, at a minimum, the following:

(1) Flight distances;

(2) Flight durations;

(3) Route complexity;

(4) Weight;

(5) Center of gravity;

(6) Density altitude;

(7) Outside air temperature;

(8) Airspeed;

(9) Wind;

(10) Weather;

(11) Operation at night, if requested;

(12) Energy storage system capacity; and

(13) Aircraft to pilot ratio.

(c) Tests must include the most adverse combinations of the conditions and configurations in paragraph (b) of this section.

(d) Tests must show a distribution of the different flight profiles and routes representative of the type of operations identified in the CONOPS.

(e) Tests must be conducted in conditions consistent with the expected environmental conditions identified in the CONOPS, including electromagnetic interference (EMI) and High Intensity Radiated Fields (HIRF).

(f) Tests must not require exceptional piloting skill or alertness.

(g) Any UAS used for testing must be subject to the same worst-case ground handling, shipping, and transportation loads as those allowed in service.

(h) Any UAS used for testing must be maintained and operated in accordance with the ICA and UAS Flight Manual. No maintenance beyond the intervals established in the ICA will be allowed to show compliance with this section.

(i) If cargo operations or external-load operations are requested, tests must show, throughout the flight envelope and with the cargo or external-load at the most critical combinations of weight and center of gravity, that—

(1) the UA is safely controllable and maneuverable; and

(2) the cargo or external-load are retainable and transportable.

The UAS must be designed such that a probable failure will not result in a loss of containment or control of the UA. This must be demonstrated by test.

(a) Probable failures related to the following equipment, at a minimum, must be addressed.

(1) Propulsion systems;

(2) C2 link;

(3) Global Positioning System (GPS);

(4) Critical flight control components with a single point of failure;

(5) Control station; and

(6) Any other equipment identified by the applicant.

(b) Any UAS used for testing must be operated in accordance with the UAS Flight Manual.

(c) Each test must occur at the critical phase and mode of flight, and at the highest aircraft-to-pilot ratio.

(a) All of the following required UAS capabilities and functions must be demonstrated by test:

(1) Capability to regain command and control of the UA after the C2 link has been lost.

(2) Capability of the electrical system to power all UA systems and payloads.

(3) Ability for the pilot to safely discontinue the flight.

(4) Ability for the pilot to dynamically re-route the UA.

(5) Ability to safely abort a takeoff.

(6) Ability to safely abort a landing and initiate a go-around.

(b) The following UAS capabilities and functions, if requested for approval, must be demonstrated by test:

(1) Continued flight after degradation of the propulsion system.

(2) Geo-fencing that contains the UA within a designated area, in all operating conditions.

(3) Positive transfer of the UA between control stations that ensures only one control station can control the UA at a time.

(4) Capability to release an external cargo load to prevent loss of control of the UA.

(5) Capability to detect and avoid other aircraft and obstacles.

(c) The UAS must be designed to safeguard against inadvertent discontinuation of the flight and inadvertent release of cargo or external-load.

The structure of the UA must be shown to be able to withstand the repeated loads expected during its service life without failure. A life limit for the airframe must be established, demonstrated by test, and included in the ICA.

The performance, maneuverability, stability, and control of the UA within the flight envelope described in the UAS Flight Manual must be demonstrated at a minimum of 5% over maximum gross weight with no loss of control or loss of flight.

Comments Invited

The FAA invites interested people to take part in the development of these airworthiness criteria by sending written comments, data, or views. The most helpful comments reference a specific portion of the airworthiness criteria, explain the reason for any recommended change, and include supporting data. Comments on operational, pilot certification, and maintenance requirements would address issues that are beyond the scope of this document.

Except for Confidential Business Information as described in the following paragraph, and other information as described in 14 CFR 11.35, the FAA will file in the docket all comments received, as well as a report summarizing each substantive public contact with FAA personnel concerning these proposed airworthiness criteria. Before acting on this proposal, the FAA will consider all comments received on or before the closing date for comments. The FAA will consider comments filed late if it is possible to do so without incurring delay. The FAA may change these airworthiness criteria based on received comments.

Confidential Business Information (CBI) is commercial or financial information that is both customarily and actually treated as private by its owner. Under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) (5 U.S.C. 552), CBI is exempt from public disclosure. If your comments responsive to this NPRM contain commercial or financial information that is customarily treated as private, that you actually treat as private, and that is relevant or responsive to this notice, it is important that you clearly designate the submitted comments as CBI. Please mark each page of your submission containing CBI as “PROPIN.” The FAA will treat such marked submissions as confidential under the FOIA, and they will not be placed in the public docket of this notice. Submissions containing CBI should be sent to the individual listed under “For Further Information Contact.” Any commentary that the FAA receives which is not specifically designated as CBI will be placed in the public docket for this notice.

Wingcopter GmbH (Wingcopter) applied to the FAA on March 17, 2020, for a special class type certificate under Title 14, Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR) 21.17(b) for the Model 198 US UAS.

The Model 198 US consists of an unmanned aircraft (UA) and its associated elements that include communication links and the components that control the UA. The Model 198 US UA has a maximum gross takeoff weight of 53 pounds. It has a wingspan of approximately 78 inches, is approximately 60 inches in length, and 22 inches in height. The Model 198 US UA is battery powered using electric motors for vertical takeoff, landing, and forward flight. The UAS operations would rely on high levels of automation and may include multiple UA operated by a single pilot, up to a ratio of 20 UA to 1 pilot. Wingcopter anticipates operators will use the Model 198 US for delivering packages. The proposed concept of operations for the Model 198 US identifies a maximum operating altitude of 400 feet above ground level, a maximum cruise speed of 70 knots, operations beyond visual line of sight of the pilot, and operations over human beings. Wingcopter has not requested type certification for flight into known icing for the Model 198 US.

The FAA establishes airworthiness criteria to ensure the safe operation of aircraft in accordance with 49 U.S.C. 44701(a) and 44704. UAS are type certificated by the FAA as special class aircraft for which airworthiness standards have not been established by regulation. Under the provisions of 14 CFR 21.17(b), the airworthiness standards for special class aircraft are those the FAA finds to be appropriate and applicable to the specific type design.

The applicant has proposed a design with constraints upon its operations and an unusual design characteristic: The pilot is remotely located. The FAA developed existing airworthiness standards to establish an appropriate level of safety for each product and its intended use. The FAA's existing airworthiness standards did not envision aircraft with no pilot in the cockpit and the technologies associated with that capability.

The FAA has reviewed the proposed design and assessed the potential risk to the National Airspace System. The FAA considered the size of the proposed aircraft, its maximum airspeed and altitude, and operational limitations to address the number of unmanned aircraft per operator and to address operations in which the aircraft would operate beyond the visual line of sight of the pilot. These factors allowed the FAA to assess the potential risk the aircraft could pose to other aircraft and to human beings on the ground. Using these parameters, the FAA developed airworthiness criteria to address those potential risks to ensure the aircraft remains reliable, controllable, safe, and airworthy.

The proposed criteria focus on mitigating hazards by establishing safety outcomes that must be achieved, rather than by establishing prescriptive requirements that must be met. This is in contrast to many current airworthiness standards, used to certificate traditional aircraft systems, which prescribe specific indicators and instruments for a pilot in a cockpit that would be inappropriate for UAS. The FAA finds that the proposed criteria are appropriate and applicable for the UAS design, based on the intended operational concepts for the UAS as identified by the applicant.

The FAA selected the particular airworthiness criteria proposed by this notice for the following reasons:

General: In order to determine appropriate and applicable airworthiness standards for UAS as a special class of aircraft, the FAA determined that the applicant must provide information describing the characteristics and capabilities of the UAS and how it will be used.

UAS.001 Concept of Operations: To assist the FAA in identifying and analyzing the risks and impacts associated with integrating the proposed UAS design into the National Airspace System, the applicant would be required to submit a Concept of Operations (CONOPS). The proposed criteria would require the applicant's CONOPS to identify the intended operational concepts for the UAS and describe the UAS and its operation. The information in the CONOPS would determine parameters and extent of testing, as well as operating limitations that will be placed in the UAS Flight Manual.

Design and Construction: The FAA selected the design and construction criteria in this section to address airworthiness requirements where the flight testing demonstration alone may not be sufficient to demonstrate an appropriate level of safety.

UAS.100 Control Station: The control station, which is located separately from the UA, is a unique feature to UAS. As a result, no regulatory airworthiness standards exist that directly apply to this part of the system. The FAA based some of the proposed criteria on existing regulations that address the information that must be provided to a pilot in the cockpit of a manned aircraft, and modified them as appropriate to this UAS. Thus, to address the risks associated with loss of control of the UAS, the applicant would be required to design the control station to provide the pilot with the information necessary for continued safe flight and operation. The proposed criteria contain the specific minimum types of information the FAA finds are necessary for this requirement; however, the applicant must determine whether additional parameters are necessary.

UAS.110 Software: Software for manned aircraft is certified under the regulations applicable to systems, equipment, and installations ( e.g., §§ 23.2510, 25.1309, 27.1309, or 29.1309). There are two regulations that specifically prescribe airworthiness standards for software: Engine airworthiness standards (§ 33.28) and propeller airworthiness standards (§ 35.23). The proposed UAS software criteria was based on these regulations and tailored for the risks posed by UAS software.

UAS.115 Cyber Security: The location of the pilot separate from the UA requires a continuous wireless connection (command and control link) with the UA for the pilot to monitor and control it. Because the purpose of this link is to control the aircraft, this makes the UAS susceptible to cyber security threats in a unique way.

The current regulations for the certification of systems, equipment, and installations ( e.g., §§ 23.2510, 25.1309, 27.1309, and 29.1309) do not adequately address potential security vulnerabilities that could be exploited by unauthorized access to aircraft systems, data buses, and services. For manned aircraft, the FAA therefore issues special conditions for particular designs with network security vulnerabilities.

To address the risks to the UAS associated with intentional unauthorized electronic interactions, the applicant would be required to design the UAS's systems and networks to protect against intentional unauthorized electronic interactions and mitigate potential adverse effects. The FAA based the language for the proposed criteria on recommendations in the final report dated August 22, 2016, from the Aircraft System Information Security/Protection (ASISP) working group, under the FAA's Aviation Rulemaking Advisory Committee. Although the recommendations pertained to manned aircraft, the FAA has reviewed the report and determined the recommendations are also appropriate for UAS. The wireless connections used by UAS make these aircraft susceptible to the same cyber security risks, and therefore require similar criteria, as manned aircraft.

UAS.120 Contingency Planning: The location of the pilot and the controls for the UAS, separate from the UA, is a unique feature to UAS. As a result, no regulatory airworthiness standards exist that directly apply to this feature of the system.

To address the risks associated with loss of communication between the pilot and the UA, and thus the pilot's inability to control the UA, the proposed criteria would require that the UAS be designed to automatically execute a predetermined action. Because the pilot needs to be aware of the particular predetermined action the UA will take when there is a loss of communication between the pilot and the UA, the proposed criteria would require that the applicant identify the predetermined action in the UAS Flight Manual. The proposed criteria would also include requirements for preventing takeoff when quality of service is inadequate.

UAS.125 Lightning: Because of the size and physical limitations of this UAS, it would be unlikely that this UAS would incorporate traditional lightning protection features. To address the risks that would result from a lightning strike, the proposed criteria would require an operating limitation in the UAS Flight Manual that prohibits flight into weather conditions conducive to lightning. The proposed criteria would also allow design characteristics to protect the UAS from lightning as an alternative to the prohibition.

UAS.130 Adverse Weather Conditions: Because of the size and physical limitations of this UAS, adverse weather such as rain, snow, and icing pose a greater hazard to the UAS than to manned aircraft. For the same reason, it would be unlikely that this UAS would incorporate traditional protection features from icing. The FAA based the proposed criteria on the icing requirements in 14 CFR 23.2165(b) and (c), and applied them to all of these adverse weather conditions. The proposed criteria would allow design characteristics to protect the UAS from adverse weather conditions. As an alternative, the proposed criteria would require an operating limitation in the UAS Flight Manual that prohibits flight into known adverse weather conditions, and either also prevent inadvertent flight into adverse weather or provide a means to detect and to avoid or exit adverse weather conditions.

UAS.135 Critical Parts: The proposed criteria for critical parts are substantively the same as that in § 27.602, with changes to reflect UAS terminology and failure condition.

Operating Limitations and Information: Similar to manned aircraft, the FAA determined that the UAS applicant must provide airworthiness instructions, operating limitations, and flight and performance information necessary for the safe operation and continued operational safety of the UAS.

UAS.200 Flight Manual: The proposed criteria for the UAS Flight Manual are substantively the same as that in § 23.2620, with minor changes to reflect UAS terminology.

UAS.205 Instructions for Continued Airworthiness: The proposed criteria for the Instructions for Continued Airworthiness (ICA) are substantively the same as that in § 23.1529, with minor changes to reflect UAS terminology.

Testing: Traditional certification methodologies for manned aircraft are based on design requirements verified at the component level by inspection, analysis, demonstration, or test. Due to the difference in size and complexity, the FAA determined testing methodologies that demonstrate reliability at the aircraft (UAS) level, in addition to the design and construction criteria identified in this proposal, will achieve the same safety objective. The proposed testing criteria in sections UAS.300 through UAS.320 utilize these methodologies.

UAS.300 Durability and Reliability: The FAA intends the proposed testing criteria in this section to cover key design aspects and prevent unsafe features at an appropriate level tailored for this UAS. The proposed durability and reliability testing would require the applicant to demonstrate safe flight of the UAS across the entire operational envelope and up to all operational limitations, for all phases of flight and all aircraft configurations. The UAS would only be certificated for operations within the limitations, and for flight over the maximum population density, as demonstrated by test. The proposed criteria would require that all flights during the testing be completed with no failures that result in a loss of flight, loss of control, loss of containment, or emergency landing outside of the operator's recovery zone.

For some aircraft design requirements imposed by existing airworthiness standards ( e.g., §§ 23.2135, 23.2600, 25.105, 25.125, 27.141, 27.173, 29.51, 29.177) the aircraft must not require exceptional piloting skill or alertness. These rules recognize that pilots have varying levels of ability and attention. In a similar manner, the proposed criteria would require that the durability and reliability flight testing be performed by a pilot with average skill and alertness.

Flight testing will be used to determine the aircraft's ability to withstand flight loads across the range of operating limits and the flight envelope. Because small UAS may be subjected to significant ground loads when handled, lifted, carried, loaded, maintained, and transported physically by hand, the proposed criteria would require that the aircraft used for testing endure the same worst-case ground loads as those the UAS will experience in operation after type certification.

UAS.305 Probable Failures: The FAA intends the proposed testing criteria to evaluate how the UAS functions after failures that are probable to occur. The applicant will test the UAS by inducing certain failures and demonstrating that the failure will not result in a loss of containment or control of the UA. The proposed criteria contain the minimum types of failures the FAA finds are probable; however, the applicant must determine the probable failures related to any other equipment that will be addressed for this requirement.

UAS.310 Capabilities and Functions: The proposed criteria for this section address the minimum capabilities and functions the FAA finds are necessary in the design of the UAS and would require the applicant to demonstrate these capabilities and functions by test. Due to the location of the pilot and the controls for UAS, separate from the UA, communication between the pilot and the UA is significant to the design. Thus, the proposed criteria would require the applicant to demonstrate the capability of the UAS to regain command and control after a loss. As with manned aircraft, the electrical system of the UAS must have a capacity sufficient for all anticipated loads; the proposed criteria would require the applicant to demonstrate this by test.

The proposed criteria contain functions that would allow the pilot to command the UA to deviate from its flight plan or from its pre-programmed flight path. For example, in the event the pilot needs to deconflict the airspace, the UA must be able to respond to pilot inputs that override any pre-programming.

In the event an applicant requests approval for certain features, such as geo-fencing or external cargo, the proposed criteria contain requirements to address the associated risks. The proposed criteria in this section would also require design of the UAS to safeguard against an unintended discontinuation of flight or release of cargo, whether by human action or malfunction.

UAS.315 Fatigue: The FAA intends the proposed criteria in this section to address the risks from reduced structural integrity and structural failure due to fatigue. The proposed criteria would require the applicant to establish an airframe life limit and demonstrate that loss of flight or loss of control due to structural failure will be avoided throughout the operational life of the UA. These proposed criteria would require the applicant to demonstrate this by test, while maintaining the UA in accordance with the ICA.

UAS.320 Verification of Limits: This section would evaluate structural safety and address the risks associated with inadequate structural design. While the proposed criteria in UAS.300 address testing to demonstrate that the UAS structure adequately supports expected loads throughout the flight and operational envelopes, the proposed criteria in this section would require an evaluation of the performance, maneuverability, stability, and control of the UA with a factor of safety.

The FAA proposes to establish the following airworthiness criteria for type certification of the Wingcopter Model 198 US. The FAA proposes that compliance with the following would mitigate the risks associated with the proposed design and Concept of Operations appropriately and would provide an equivalent level of safety to existing rules:

The applicant must define and submit to the FAA a concept of operations (CONOPS) proposal describing the Unmanned Aircraft System (UAS) operation in the National Airspace System for which certification is requested. The CONOPS proposal must include, at a minimum, a description of the following information.

(a) The intended type of operations;

(b) Unmanned aircraft (UA) specifications;

(c) Meteorological conditions;

(d) Operators, pilots, and personnel responsibilities;

(e) Control station and support equipment;

(f) Command, control, and communication functions; and

(g) Operational parameters, such as population density, geographic operating boundaries, airspace classes, launch and recovery area, congestion of proposed operating area, communications with air traffic control, line of sight, and aircraft separation.

The control station must be designed to provide the pilot with all information required for continued safe flight and operation. This information includes, at a minimum, the following:

(a) Alerts, such as an alert following the loss of the command and control (C2) link and function.

(b) The status of all critical parameters for all energy storage systems.

(c) The status of all critical parameters for all propulsion systems.

(d) Flight and navigation information as appropriate, such as airspeed, heading, altitude, and location.

(e) C2 link signal strength, quality, or status.

To minimize the existence of errors, the applicant must:

(a) Verify by test all software that may impact the safe operation of the UAS;

(b) Utilize a configuration management system that tracks, controls, and preserves changes made to software throughout the entire life cycle; and

(c) Implement a problem reporting system that captures and records defects and modifications to the software.

(a) UAS equipment, systems, and networks, addressed separately and in relation to other systems, must be protected from intentional unauthorized electronic interactions that may result in an adverse effect on the security or airworthiness of the UAS. Protection must be ensured by showing that the security risks have been identified, assessed, and mitigated as necessary.

(b) When required by paragraph (a) of this section, procedures and instructions to ensure security protections are maintained must be included in the Instructions for Continued Airworthiness (ICA).

(a) The UAS must be designed so that, in the event of a loss of the C2 link, the UA will automatically and immediately execute a safe predetermined flight, loiter, landing, or termination.

(b) The applicant must establish the predetermined action in the event of a loss of the C2 link and include it in the UAS Flight Manual.

(c) The UAS Flight Manual must include the minimum performance requirements for the C2 data link defining when the C2 link is degraded to a level where remote active control of the UA is no longer ensured. Takeoff when the C2 link is degraded below the minimum link performance requirements must be prevented by design or prohibited by an operating limitation in the UAS Flight Manual.

(a) Except as provided in paragraph (b) of this section, the UAS must have design characteristics that will protect the UAS from loss of flight or loss of control due to lightning.

(b) If the UAS has not been shown to protect against lightning, the UAS Flight Manual must include an operating limitation to prohibit flight into weather conditions conducive to lightning activity.

(a) For purposes of this section, “adverse weather conditions” means rain, snow, and icing.

(b) Except as provided in paragraph (c) of this section, the UAS must have design characteristics that will allow the UAS to operate within the adverse weather conditions specified in the CONOPS without loss of flight or loss of control.

(c) For adverse weather conditions for which the UAS is not approved to operate, the applicant must develop operating limitations to prohibit flight into known adverse weather conditions and either:

(1) Develop operating limitations to prevent inadvertent flight into adverse weather conditions; or

(2) Provide a means to detect any adverse weather conditions for which the UAS is not certificated to operate and show the UAS's ability to avoid or exit those conditions.

(a) A critical part is a part, the failure of which could result in a loss of flight or unrecoverable loss of UAS control.

(b) If the type design includes critical parts, the applicant must establish a critical parts list. The applicant must develop and define mandatory maintenance instructions or life limits, or a combination of both, to prevent failures of critical parts. Each of these mandatory actions must be included in the Airworthiness Limitations Section of the ICA.

The applicant must provide a UAS Flight Manual with each UAS.

(a) The UAS Flight Manual must contain the following information:

(1) UAS operating limitations;

(2) UAS normal and emergency operating procedures;

(3) Performance information;

(4) Loading information; and

(5) Other information that is necessary for safe operation because of design, operating, or handling characteristics.

(b) Those portions of the UAS Flight Manual containing the information specified in paragraphs (a)(1) through (4) of this section must be approved by the FAA.

The applicant must prepare ICA for the UAS in accordance with Appendix A to Part 23, as appropriate, that are acceptable to the FAA. The ICA may be incomplete at type certification if a program exists to ensure their completion prior to delivery of the first UAS or issuance of a standard airworthiness certificate, whichever occurs later.

The UAS must be designed to be durable and reliable commensurate to the maximum population density specified in the operating limitations. The durability and reliability must be demonstrated by flight test in accordance with the requirements of this section and completed with no failures that result in a loss of flight, loss of control, loss of containment, or emergency landing outside the operator's recovery area.

(a) Once a UAS has begun testing to show compliance with this section, all flights for that UA must be included in the flight test report.

(b) Tests must include an evaluation of the entire flight envelope across all phases of operation and must address, at a minimum, the following:

(1) Flight distances;

(2) Flight durations;

(3) Route complexity;

(4) Weight;

(5) Center of gravity;

(6) Density altitude;

(7) Outside air temperature;

(8) Airspeed;

(9) Wind;

(10) Weather;

(11) Operation at night, if requested;

(12) Energy storage system capacity; and

(13) Aircraft to pilot ratio.

(c) Tests must include the most adverse combinations of the conditions and configurations in paragraph (b) of this section.

(d) Tests must show a distribution of the different flight profiles and routes representative of the type of operations identified in the CONOPS.

(e) Tests must be conducted in conditions consistent with the expected environmental conditions identified in the CONOPS, including electromagnetic interference (EMI) and High Intensity Radiated Fields (HIRF).

(f) Tests must not require exceptional piloting skill or alertness.

(g) Any UAS used for testing must be subject to the same worst-case ground handling, shipping, and transportation loads as those allowed in service.

(h) Any UAS used for testing must be maintained and operated in accordance with the ICA and UAS Flight Manual. No maintenance beyond the intervals established in the ICA will be allowed to show compliance with this section.

(i) If cargo operations or external-load operations are requested, tests must show, throughout the flight envelope and with the cargo or external-load at the most critical combinations of weight and center of gravity, that—

(1) the UA is safely controllable and maneuverable; and

(2) the cargo or external-load are retainable and transportable.

The UAS must be designed such that a probable failure will not result in a loss of containment or control of the UA. This must be demonstrated by test.

(a) Probable failures related to the following equipment, at a minimum, must be addressed.

(1) Propulsion systems;

(2) C2 link;

(3) Global Positioning System (GPS);

(4) Critical flight control components with a single point of failure;

(5) Control station; and

(6) Any other equipment identified by the applicant.

(b) Any UAS used for testing must be operated in accordance with the UAS Flight Manual.

(c) Each test must occur at the critical phase and mode of flight, and at the highest aircraft-to-pilot ratio.

(a) All of the following required UAS capabilities and functions must be demonstrated by test:

(1) Capability to regain command and control of the UA after the C2 link has been lost.

(2) Capability of the electrical system to power all UA systems and payloads.

(3) Ability for the pilot to safely discontinue the flight.

(4) Ability for the pilot to dynamically re-route the UA.

(5) Ability to safely abort a takeoff.

(6) Ability to safely abort a landing and initiate a go-around.

(b) The following UAS capabilities and functions, if requested for approval, must be demonstrated by test:

(1) Continued flight after degradation of the propulsion system.

(2) Geo-fencing that contains the UA within a designated area, in all operating conditions.

(3) Positive transfer of the UA between control stations that ensures only one control station can control the UA at a time.

(4) Capability to release an external cargo load to prevent loss of control of the UA.

(5) Capability to detect and avoid other aircraft and obstacles.

(c) The UAS must be designed to safeguard against inadvertent discontinuation of the flight and inadvertent release of cargo or external-load.

The structure of the UA must be shown to be able to withstand the repeated loads expected during its service life without failure. A life limit for the airframe must be established, demonstrated by test, and included in the ICA.

The performance, maneuverability, stability, and control of the UA within the flight envelope described in the UAS Flight Manual must be demonstrated at a minimum of 5% over maximum gross weight with no loss of control or loss of flight.

The FAA invites interested people to take part in the development of these airworthiness criteria by sending written comments, data, or views. The most helpful comments reference a specific portion of the airworthiness criteria, explain the reason for any recommended change, and include supporting data. Comments on operational, pilot certification, and maintenance requirements would address issues that are beyond the scope of this document.

Except for Confidential Business Information as described in the following paragraph, and other information as described in 14 CFR 11.35, the FAA will file in the docket all comments received, as well as a report summarizing each substantive public contact with FAA personnel concerning these proposed airworthiness criteria. Before acting on this proposal, the FAA will consider all comments received on or before the closing date for comments. The FAA will consider comments filed late if it is possible to do so without incurring delay. The FAA may change these airworthiness criteria based on received comments.

Confidential Business Information (CBI) is commercial or financial information that is both customarily and actually treated as private by its owner. Under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) (5 U.S.C. 552), CBI is exempt from public disclosure. If your comments responsive to this NPRM contain commercial or financial information that is customarily treated as private, that you actually treat as private, and that is relevant or responsive to this notice, it is important that you clearly designate the submitted comments as CBI. Please mark each page of your submission containing CBI as “PROPIN.” The FAA will treat such marked submissions as confidential under the FOIA, and they will not be placed in the public docket of this notice. Submissions containing CBI should be sent to the individual listed under For Further Information Contact . Any commentary that the FAA receives which is not specifically designated as CBI will be placed in the public docket for this notice.

Airobotics Inc. (Airobotics) applied to the FAA on September 25, 2019, for a special class type certificate under Title 14, Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR) 21.17(b) for the Model OPTIMUS 1-EX UAS.

The Model OPTIMUS 1-EX consists of an unmanned aircraft (UA) and its associated elements that include communication links and the components that control the UA. The Model OPTIMUS 1-EX UA has a maximum gross takeoff weight of 23 pounds. It is approximately 70 inches in width, 70 inches in length, and 13 inches in height. The Model OPTIMUS 1-EX UA is battery powered using electric motors for vertical takeoff, landing, and forward flight. The UAS operations would rely on high levels of automation and may include multiple UA operated by a single pilot, up to a ratio of 20 UA to 1 pilot. Airobotics anticipates operators will use the Model OPTIMUS 1-EX for surveying, mapping, inspection of critical infrastructure, and patrolling. The proposed concept of operations for the Model OPTIMUS 1-EX identifies a maximum operating altitude of 400 feet above ground level, a maximum cruise speed of 27 knots, operations beyond the visual line of sight of the pilot, and operations over human beings. Airobotics has not requested type certification for flight into known icing for the Model OPTIMUS 1-EX.

The FAA establishes airworthiness criteria to ensure the safe operation of aircraft in accordance with 49 U.S.C. 44701(a) and 44704. UAS are type certificated by the FAA as special class aircraft for which airworthiness standards have not been established by regulation. Under the provisions of 14 CFR 21.17(b), the airworthiness standards for special class aircraft are those the FAA finds to be appropriate and applicable to the specific type design.

The applicant has proposed a design with constraints upon its operations and an unusual design characteristic: The pilot is remotely located. The FAA developed existing airworthiness standards to establish an appropriate level of safety for each product and its intended use. The FAA's existing airworthiness standards did not envision aircraft with no pilot in the cockpit and the technologies associated with that capability.

The FAA has reviewed the proposed design and assessed the potential risk to the National Airspace System. The FAA considered the size of the proposed aircraft, its maximum airspeed and altitude, and operational limitations to address the number of unmanned aircraft per operator and to address operations in which the aircraft would operate beyond the visual line of sight of the pilot. These factors allowed the FAA to assess the potential risk the aircraft could pose to other aircraft and to human beings on the ground. Using these parameters, the FAA developed airworthiness criteria to address those potential risks to ensure the aircraft remains reliable, controllable, safe, and airworthy.

The proposed criteria focus on mitigating hazards by establishing safety outcomes that must be achieved, rather than by establishing prescriptive requirements that must be met. This is in contrast to many current airworthiness standards, used to certificate traditional aircraft systems, which prescribe specific indicators and instruments for a pilot in a cockpit that would be inappropriate for UAS. The FAA finds that the proposed criteria are appropriate and applicable for the UAS design, based on the intended operational concepts for the UAS as identified by the applicant.

The FAA selected the particular airworthiness criteria proposed by this notice for the following reasons:

General: In order to determine appropriate and applicable airworthiness standards for UAS as a special class of aircraft, the FAA determined that the applicant must provide information describing the characteristics and capabilities of the UAS and how it will be used.

UAS.001 Concept of Operations: To assist the FAA in identifying and analyzing the risks and impacts associated with integrating the proposed UAS design into the National Airspace System, the applicant would be required to submit a Concept of Operations (CONOPS). The proposed criteria would require the applicant's CONOPS to identify the intended operational concepts for the UAS and describe the UAS and its operation. The information in the CONOPS would determine parameters and extent of testing, as well as operating limitations that will be placed in the UAS Flight Manual.

Design and Construction: The FAA selected the design and construction criteria in this section to address airworthiness requirements where the flight testing demonstration alone may not be sufficient to demonstrate an appropriate level of safety.

UAS.100 Control Station: The control station, which is located separately from the UA, is a unique feature to UAS. As a result, no regulatory airworthiness standards exist that directly apply to this part of the system. The FAA based some of the proposed criteria on existing regulations that address the information that must be provided to a pilot in the cockpit of a manned aircraft, and modified them as appropriate to this UAS. Thus, to address the risks associated with loss of control of the UAS, the applicant would be required to design the control station to provide the pilot with the information necessary for continued safe flight and operation. The proposed criteria contain the specific minimum types of information the FAA finds are necessary for this requirement; however, the applicant must determine whether additional parameters are necessary.

UAS.110 Software: Software for manned aircraft is certified under the regulations applicable to systems, equipment, and installations ( e.g., §§ 23.2510, 25.1309, 27. 1309, or 29.1309). There are two regulations that specifically prescribe airworthiness standards for software: Engine airworthiness standards (§ 33.28) and propeller airworthiness standards (§ 35.23). The proposed UAS software criteria was based on these regulations and tailored for the risks posed by UAS software.

UAS.115 Cyber Security: The location of the pilot separate from the UA requires a continuous wireless connection (command and control link) with the UA for the pilot to monitor and control it. Because the purpose of this link is to control the aircraft, this makes the UAS susceptible to cyber security threats in a unique way.

The current regulations for the certification of systems, equipment, and installations ( e.g., §§ 23.2510, 25.1309, 27. 1309, and 29.1309) do not adequately address potential security vulnerabilities that could be exploited by unauthorized access to aircraft systems, data buses, and services. For manned aircraft, the FAA therefore issues special conditions for particular designs with network security vulnerabilities.

To address the risks to the UAS associated with intentional unauthorized electronic interactions, the applicant would be required to design the UAS's systems and networks to protect against intentional unauthorized electronic interactions and mitigate potential adverse effects. The FAA based the language for the proposed criteria on recommendations in the final report dated August 22, 2016, from the Aircraft System Information Security/Protection (ASISP) working group, under the FAA's Aviation Rulemaking Advisory Committee. Although the recommendations pertained to manned aircraft, the FAA has reviewed the report and determined the recommendations are also appropriate for UAS. The wireless connections used by UAS make these aircraft susceptible to the same cyber security risks, and therefore require similar criteria, as manned aircraft.

UAS.120 Contingency Planning: The location of the pilot and the controls for the UAS, separate from the UA, is a unique feature to UAS. As a result, no regulatory airworthiness standards exist that directly apply to this feature of the system.

To address the risks associated with loss of communication between the pilot and the UA, and thus the pilot's inability to control the UA, the proposed criteria would require that the UAS be designed to automatically execute a predetermined action. Because the pilot needs to be aware of the particular predetermined action the UA will take when there is a loss of communication between the pilot and the UA, the proposed criteria would require that the applicant identify the predetermined action in the UAS Flight Manual. The proposed criteria would also include requirements for preventing takeoff when quality of service is inadequate.

UAS.125 Lightning: Because of the size and physical limitations of this UAS, it would be unlikely that this UAS would incorporate traditional lightning protection features. To address the risks that would result from a lightning strike, the proposed criteria would require an operating limitation in the UAS Flight Manual that prohibits flight into weather conditions conducive to lightning. The proposed criteria would also allow design characteristics to protect the UAS from lightning as an alternative to the prohibition.

UAS.130 Adverse Weather Conditions: Because of the size and physical limitations of this UAS, adverse weather such as rain, snow, and icing pose a greater hazard to the UAS than to manned aircraft. For the same reason, it would be unlikely that this UAS would incorporate traditional protection features from icing. The FAA based the proposed criteria on the icing requirements in 14 CFR 23.2165(b) and (c), and applied them to all of these adverse weather conditions. The proposed criteria would allow design characteristics to protect the UAS from adverse weather conditions. As an alternative, the proposed criteria would require an operating limitation in the UAS Flight Manual that prohibits flight into known adverse weather conditions, and either also prevent inadvertent flight into adverse weather or provide a means to detect and to avoid or exit adverse weather conditions.

UAS.135 Critical Parts: The proposed criteria for critical parts are substantively the same as that in § 27.602, with changes to reflect UAS terminology and failure condition.

Operating Limitations and Information: Similar to manned aircraft, the FAA determined that the UAS applicant must provide airworthiness instructions, operating limitations, and flight and performance information necessary for the safe operation and continued operational safety of the UAS.

UAS.200 Flight Manual: The proposed criteria for the UAS Flight Manual are substantively the same as that in § 23.2620, with minor changes to reflect UAS terminology.

UAS.205 Instructions for Continued Airworthiness: The proposed criteria for the Instructions for Continued Airworthiness (ICA) are substantively the same as that in § 23.1529, with minor changes to reflect UAS terminology.

Testing: Traditional certification methodologies for manned aircraft are based on design requirements verified at the component level by inspection, analysis, demonstration, or test. Due to the difference in size and complexity, the FAA determined testing methodologies that demonstrate reliability at the aircraft (UAS) level, in addition to the design and construction criteria identified in this proposal, will achieve the same safety objective. The proposed testing criteria in sections UAS.300 through UAS.320 utilize these methodologies.

UAS.300 Durability and Reliability: The FAA intends the proposed testing criteria in this section to cover key design aspects and prevent unsafe features at an appropriate level tailored for this UAS. The proposed durability and reliability testing would require the applicant to demonstrate safe flight of the UAS across the entire operational envelope and up to all operational limitations, for all phases of flight and all aircraft configurations. The UAS would only be certificated for operations within the limitations, and for flight over the maximum population density, as demonstrated by test. The proposed criteria would require that all flights during the testing be completed with no failures that result in a loss of flight, loss of control, loss of containment, or emergency landing outside of the operator's recovery zone.

For some aircraft design requirements imposed by existing airworthiness standards ( e.g., §§ 23.2135, 23.2600, 25.105, 25.125, 27.141, 27.173, 29.51, 29.177) the aircraft must not require exceptional piloting skill or alertness. These rules recognize that pilots have varying levels of ability and attention. In a similar manner, the proposed criteria would require that the durability and reliability flight testing be performed by a pilot with average skill and alertness.

Flight testing will be used to determine the aircraft's ability to withstand flight loads across the range of operating limits and the flight envelope. Because small UAS may be subjected to significant ground loads when handled, lifted, carried, loaded, maintained, and transported physically by hand, the proposed criteria would require that the aircraft used for testing endure the same worst-case ground loads as those the UAS will experience in operation after type certification.

UAS.305 Probable Failures: The FAA intends the proposed testing criteria to evaluate how the UAS functions after failures that are probable to occur. The applicant will test the UAS by inducing certain failures and demonstrating that the failure will not result in a loss of containment or control of the UA. The proposed criteria contain the minimum types of failures the FAA finds are probable; however, the applicant must determine the probable failures related to any other equipment that will be addressed for this requirement.

UAS.310 Capabilities and Functions: The proposed criteria for this section address the minimum capabilities and functions the FAA finds are necessary in the design of the UAS and would require the applicant to demonstrate these capabilities and functions by test. Due to the location of the pilot and the controls for UAS, separate from the UA, communication between the pilot and the UA is significant to the design. Thus, the proposed criteria would require the applicant to demonstrate the capability of the UAS to regain command and control after a loss. As with manned aircraft, the electrical system of the UAS must have a capacity sufficient for all anticipated loads; the proposed criteria would require the applicant to demonstrate this by test.

The proposed criteria contain functions that would allow the pilot to command the UA to deviate from its flight plan or from its pre-programmed flight path. For example, in the event the pilot needs to deconflict the airspace, the UA must be able to respond to pilot inputs that override any pre-programming.

In the event an applicant requests approval for certain features, such as geo-fencing or external cargo, the proposed criteria contain requirements to address the associated risks. The proposed criteria in this section would also require design of the UAS to safeguard against an unintended discontinuation of flight or release of cargo, whether by human action or malfunction.

UAS.315 Fatigue: The FAA intends the proposed criteria in this section to address the risks from reduced structural integrity and structural failure due to fatigue. The proposed criteria would require the applicant to establish an airframe life limit and demonstrate that loss of flight or loss of control due to structural failure will be avoided throughout the operational life of the UA. These proposed criteria would require the applicant to demonstrate this by test, while maintaining the UA in accordance with the ICA.

UAS.320 Verification of Limits: This section would evaluate structural safety and address the risks associated with inadequate structural design. While the proposed criteria in UAS.300 address testing to demonstrate that the UAS structure adequately supports expected loads throughout the flight and operational envelopes, the proposed criteria in this section would require an evaluation of the performance, maneuverability, stability, and control of the UA with a factor of safety.

The FAA proposes to establish the following airworthiness criteria for type certification of the Airobotics Model OPTIMUS 1-EX. The FAA proposes that compliance with the following would mitigate the risks associated with the proposed design and Concept of Operations appropriately and would provide an equivalent level of safety to existing rules:

The applicant must define and submit to the FAA a concept of operations (CONOPS) proposal describing the Unmanned Aircraft System (UAS) operation in the National Airspace System for which certification is requested. The CONOPS proposal must include, at a minimum, a description of the following information.

(a) The intended type of operations;

(b) Unmanned aircraft (UA) specifications;

(c) Meteorological conditions;

(d) Operators, pilots, and personnel responsibilities;

(e) Control station and support equipment;

(f) Command, control, and communication functions; and

(g) Operational parameters, such as population density, geographic operating boundaries, airspace classes, launch and recovery area, congestion of proposed operating area, communications with air traffic control, line of sight, and aircraft separation.

The control station must be designed to provide the pilot with all information required for continued safe flight and operation. This information includes, at a minimum, the following:

(a) Alerts, such as an alert following the loss of the command and control (C2) link and function.

(b) The status of all critical parameters for all energy storage systems.

(c) The status of all critical parameters for all propulsion systems.

(d) Flight and navigation information as appropriate, such as airspeed, heading, altitude, and location.

(e) C2 link signal strength, quality, or status.

To minimize the existence of errors, the applicant must:

(a) Verify by test all software that may impact the safe operation of the UAS;

(b) Utilize a configuration management system that tracks, controls, and preserves changes made to software throughout the entire life cycle; and

(c) Implement a problem reporting system that captures and records defects and modifications to the software.

(a) UAS equipment, systems, and networks, addressed separately and in relation to other systems, must be protected from intentional unauthorized electronic interactions that may result in an adverse effect on the security or airworthiness of the UAS. Protection must be ensured by showing that the security risks have been identified, assessed, and mitigated as necessary.

(b) When required by paragraph (a) of this section, procedures and instructions to ensure security protections are maintained must be included in the Instructions for Continued Airworthiness (ICA).

(a) The UAS must be designed so that, in the event of a loss of the C2 link, the UA will automatically and immediately execute a safe predetermined flight, loiter, landing, or termination.

(b) The applicant must establish the predetermined action in the event of a loss of the C2 link and include it in the UAS Flight Manual.

(c) The UAS Flight Manual must include the minimum performance requirements for the C2 data link defining when the C2 link is degraded to a level where remote active control of the UA is no longer ensured. Takeoff when the C2 link is degraded below the minimum link performance requirements must be prevented by design or prohibited by an operating limitation in the UAS Flight Manual.

(a) Except as provided in paragraph (b) of this section, the UAS must have design characteristics that will protect the UAS from loss of flight or loss of control due to lightning.

(b) If the UAS has not been shown to protect against lightning, the UAS Flight Manual must include an operating limitation to prohibit flight into weather conditions conducive to lightning activity.

(a) For purposes of this section, “adverse weather conditions” means rain, snow, and icing.

(b) Except as provided in paragraph (c) of this section, the UAS must have design characteristics that will allow the UAS to operate within the adverse weather conditions specified in the CONOPS without loss of flight or loss of control.

(c) For adverse weather conditions for which the UAS is not approved to operate, the applicant must develop operating limitations to prohibit flight into known adverse weather conditions and either:

(1) Develop operating limitations to prevent inadvertent flight into adverse weather conditions; or

(2) Provide a means to detect any adverse weather conditions for which the UAS is not certificated to operate and show the UAS's ability to avoid or exit those conditions.

(a) A critical part is a part, the failure of which could result in a loss of flight or unrecoverable loss of UAS control.

(b) If the type design includes critical parts, the applicant must establish a critical parts list. The applicant must develop and define mandatory maintenance instructions or life limits, or a combination of both, to prevent failures of critical parts. Each of these mandatory actions must be included in the Airworthiness Limitations Section of the ICA.

The applicant must provide a UAS Flight Manual with each UAS.

(a) The UAS Flight Manual must contain the following information:

(1) UAS operating limitations;

(2) UAS normal and emergency operating procedures;

(3) Performance information;

(4) Loading information; and

(5) Other information that is necessary for safe operation because of design, operating, or handling characteristics.

(b) Those portions of the UAS Flight Manual containing the information specified in paragraphs (a)(1) through (4) of this section must be approved by the FAA.

The applicant must prepare ICA for the UAS in accordance with Appendix A to Part 23, as appropriate, that are acceptable to the FAA. The ICA may be incomplete at type certification if a program exists to ensure their completion prior to delivery of the first UAS or issuance of a standard airworthiness certificate, whichever occurs later.

The UAS must be designed to be durable and reliable commensurate to the maximum population density specified in the operating limitations. The durability and reliability must be demonstrated by flight test in accordance with the requirements of this section and completed with no failures that result in a loss of flight, loss of control, loss of containment, or emergency landing outside the operator's recovery area.

(a) Once a UAS has begun testing to show compliance with this section, all flights for that UA must be included in the flight test report.

(b) Tests must include an evaluation of the entire flight envelope across all phases of operation and must address, at a minimum, the following:

(1) Flight distances;

(2) Flight durations;

(3) Route complexity;

(4) Weight;

(5) Center of gravity;

(6) Density altitude;

(7) Outside air temperature;

(8) Airspeed;

(9) Wind;

(10) Weather;

(11) Operation at night, if requested;

(12) Energy storage system capacity; and

(13) Aircraft to pilot ratio.

(c) Tests must include the most adverse combinations of the conditions and configurations in paragraph (b) of this section.

(d) Tests must show a distribution of the different flight profiles and routes representative of the type of operations identified in the CONOPS.

(e) Tests must be conducted in conditions consistent with the expected environmental conditions identified in the CONOPS, including electromagnetic interference (EMI) and High Intensity Radiated Fields (HIRF).

(f) Tests must not require exceptional piloting skill or alertness.

(g) Any UAS used for testing must be subject to the same worst-case ground handling, shipping, and transportation loads as those allowed in service.

(h) Any UAS used for testing must be maintained and operated in accordance with the ICA and UAS Flight Manual. No maintenance beyond the intervals established in the ICA will be allowed to show compliance with this section.

(i) If cargo operations or external-load operations are requested, tests must show, throughout the flight envelope and with the cargo or external-load at the most critical combinations of weight and center of gravity, that—

(1) the UA is safely controllable and maneuverable; and

(2) the cargo or external-load are retainable and transportable.

The UAS must be designed such that a probable failure will not result in a loss of containment or control of the UA. This must be demonstrated by test.

(a) Probable failures related to the following equipment, at a minimum, must be addressed.

(1) Propulsion systems;

(2) C2 link;

(3) Global Positioning System (GPS);

(4) Critical flight control components with a single point of failure;

(5) Control station; and

(6) Any other equipment identified by the applicant.

(b) Any UAS used for testing must be operated in accordance with the UAS Flight Manual.

(c) Each test must occur at the critical phase and mode of flight, and at the highest aircraft-to-pilot ratio.

(a) All of the following required UAS capabilities and functions must be demonstrated by test:

(1) Capability to regain command and control of the UA after the C2 link has been lost.

(2) Capability of the electrical system to power all UA systems and payloads.

(3) Ability for the pilot to safely discontinue the flight.

(4) Ability for the pilot to dynamically re-route the UA.

(5) Ability to safely abort a takeoff.

(6) Ability to safely abort a landing and initiate a go-around.

(b) The following UAS capabilities and functions, if requested for approval, must be demonstrated by test:

(1) Continued flight after degradation of the propulsion system.

(2) Geo-fencing that contains the UA within a designated area, in all operating conditions.

(3) Positive transfer of the UA between control stations that ensures only one control station can control the UA at a time.

(4) Capability to release an external cargo load to prevent loss of control of the UA.

(5) Capability to detect and avoid other aircraft and obstacles.

(c) The UAS must be designed to safeguard against inadvertent discontinuation of the flight and inadvertent release of cargo or external-load.

The structure of the UA must be shown to be able to withstand the repeated loads expected during its service life without failure. A life limit for the airframe must be established, demonstrated by test, and included in the ICA.

The performance, maneuverability, stability, and control of the UA within the flight envelope described in the UAS Flight Manual must be demonstrated at a minimum of 5% over maximum gross weight with no loss of control or loss of flight.

The FAA invites interested people to take part in the development of these airworthiness criteria by sending written comments, data, or views. The most helpful comments reference a specific portion of the airworthiness criteria, explain the reason for any recommended change, and include supporting data. Comments on operational, pilot certification, and maintenance requirements would address issues that are beyond the scope of this document.

Except for Confidential Business Information as described in the following paragraph, and other information as described in 14 CFR 11.35, the FAA will file in the docket all comments received, as well as a report summarizing each substantive public contact with FAA personnel concerning these proposed airworthiness criteria. Before acting on this proposal, the FAA will consider all comments received on or before the closing date for comments. The FAA will consider comments filed late if it is possible to do so without incurring delay. The FAA may change these airworthiness criteria based on received comments.

Confidential Business Information (CBI) is commercial or financial information that is both customarily and actually treated as private by its owner. Under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) (5 U.S.C. 552), CBI is exempt from public disclosure. If your comments responsive to this NPRM contain commercial or financial information that is customarily treated as private, that you actually treat as private, and that is relevant or responsive to this notice, it is important that you clearly designate the submitted comments as CBI. Please mark each page of your submission containing CBI as “PROPIN.” The FAA will treat such marked submissions as confidential under the FOIA, and they will not be placed in the public docket of this notice. Submissions containing CBI should be sent to the individual listed under “For Further Information Contact.” Any commentary that the FAA receives which is not specifically designated as CBI will be placed in the public docket for this notice.

Zipline International Inc. (Zipline) applied to the FAA on March 25, 2019, for a special class type certificate under Title 14, Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR) 21.17(b) for the Model Zip UAS.

The Model Zip consists of an unmanned aircraft (UA) and its associated elements that include communication links and the components that control the UA. The Model Zip UA has a maximum gross takeoff weight of 50 pounds. It has a wingspan of approximately 11 feet, is approximately 6 feet in length, and 2 feet in height. The Model Zip UA is battery powered using electric motors for takeoff, landing, and forward flight. The UAS operations would rely on high levels of automation and may include multiple UA operated by a single pilot, up to a ratio of 20 UA to 1 pilot. Zipline anticipates operators will use the Model Zip for transporting medical materials. The proposed concept of operations for the Model Zip identifies a maximum operating altitude of 400 feet above ground level, a maximum cruise speed of 56 knots, operations beyond visual line of sight of the pilot, and operations over human beings. Zipline has not requested type certification for flight into known icing for the Model Zip.

The FAA establishes airworthiness criteria to ensure the safe operation of aircraft in accordance with 49 U.S.C. 44701(a) and 44704. UAS are type certificated by the FAA as special class aircraft for which airworthiness standards have not been established by regulation. Under the provisions of 14 CFR 21.17(b), the airworthiness standards for special class aircraft are those the FAA finds to be appropriate and applicable to the specific type design.

The applicant has proposed a design with constraints upon its operations and an unusual design characteristic: The pilot is remotely located. The FAA developed existing airworthiness standards to establish an appropriate level of safety for each product and its intended use. The FAA's existing airworthiness standards did not envision aircraft with no pilot in the cockpit and the technologies associated with that capability.

The FAA has reviewed the proposed design and assessed the potential risk to the National Airspace System. The FAA considered the size of the proposed aircraft, its maximum airspeed and altitude, and operational limitations to address the number of unmanned aircraft per operator and to address operations in which the aircraft would operate beyond the visual line of sight of the pilot. These factors allowed the FAA to assess the potential risk the aircraft could pose to other aircraft and to human beings on the ground. Using these parameters, the FAA developed airworthiness criteria to address those potential risks to ensure the aircraft remains reliable, controllable, safe, and airworthy.

The proposed criteria focus on mitigating hazards by establishing safety outcomes that must be achieved, rather than by establishing prescriptive requirements that must be met. This is in contrast to many current airworthiness standards, used to certificate traditional aircraft systems, which prescribe specific indicators and instruments for a pilot in a cockpit that would be inappropriate for UAS. The FAA finds that the proposed criteria are appropriate and applicable for the UAS design, based on the intended operational concepts for the UAS as identified by the applicant.

The FAA selected the particular airworthiness criteria proposed by this notice for the following reasons:

General: In order to determine appropriate and applicable airworthiness standards for UAS as a special class of aircraft, the FAA determined that the applicant must provide information describing the characteristics and capabilities of the UAS and how it will be used.

UAS.001 Concept of Operations: To assist the FAA in identifying and analyzing the risks and impacts associated with integrating the proposed UAS design into the National Airspace System, the applicant would be required to submit a Concept of Operations (CONOPS). The proposed criteria would require the applicant's CONOPS to identify the intended operational concepts for the UAS and describe the UAS and its operation. The information in the CONOPS would determine parameters and extent of testing, as well as operating limitations that will be placed in the UAS Flight Manual.

Design and Construction: The FAA selected the design and construction criteria in this section to address airworthiness requirements where the flight testing demonstration alone may not be sufficient to demonstrate an appropriate level of safety.

UAS.100 Control Station: The control station, which is located separately from the UA, is a unique feature to UAS. As a result, no regulatory airworthiness standards exist that directly apply to this part of the system. The FAA based some of the proposed criteria on existing regulations that address the information that must be provided to a pilot in the cockpit of a manned aircraft, and modified them as appropriate to this UAS. Thus, to address the risks associated with loss of control of the UAS, the applicant would be required to design the control station to provide the pilot with the information necessary for continued safe flight and operation. The proposed criteria contain the specific minimum types of information the FAA finds are necessary for this requirement; however, the applicant must determine whether additional parameters are necessary.

UAS.110 Software: Software for manned aircraft is certified under the regulations applicable to systems, equipment, and installations ( e.g., §§ 23.2510, 25.1309, 27.1309, or 29.1309). There are two regulations that specifically prescribe airworthiness standards for software: Engine airworthiness standards (§ 33.28) and propeller airworthiness standards (§ 35.23). The proposed UAS software criteria was based on these regulations and tailored for the risks posed by UAS software.

UAS.115 Cyber Security: The location of the pilot separate from the UA requires a continuous wireless connection (command and control link) with the UA for the pilot to monitor and control it. Because the purpose of this link is to control the aircraft, this makes the UAS susceptible to cyber security threats in a unique way.

The current regulations for the certification of systems, equipment, and installations ( e.g., §§ 23.2510, 25.1309, 27.1309, and 29.1309) do not adequately address potential security vulnerabilities that could be exploited by unauthorized access to aircraft systems, data buses, and services. For manned aircraft, the FAA therefore issues special conditions for particular designs with network security vulnerabilities.

To address the risks to the UAS associated with intentional unauthorized electronic interactions, the applicant would be required to design the UAS's systems and networks to protect against intentional unauthorized electronic interactions and mitigate potential adverse effects. The FAA based the language for the proposed criteria on recommendations in the final report dated August 22, 2016, from the Aircraft System Information Security/Protection (ASISP) working group, under the FAA's Aviation Rulemaking Advisory Committee. Although the recommendations pertained to manned aircraft, the FAA has reviewed the report and determined the recommendations are also appropriate for UAS. The wireless connections used by UAS make these aircraft susceptible to the same cyber security risks, and therefore require similar criteria, as manned aircraft.

UAS.120 Contingency Planning: The location of the pilot and the controls for the UAS, separate from the UA, is a unique feature to UAS. As a result, no regulatory airworthiness standards exist that directly apply to this feature of the system.

To address the risks associated with loss of communication between the pilot and the UA, and thus the pilot's inability to control the UA, the proposed criteria would require that the UAS be designed to automatically execute a predetermined action. Because the pilot needs to be aware of the particular predetermined action the UA will take when there is a loss of communication between the pilot and the UA, the proposed criteria would require that the applicant identify the predetermined action in the UAS Flight Manual. The proposed criteria would also include requirements for preventing takeoff when quality of service is inadequate.

UAS.125 Lightning: Because of the size and physical limitations of this UAS, it would be unlikely that this UAS would incorporate traditional lightning protection features. To address the risks that would result from a lightning strike, the proposed criteria would require an operating limitation in the UAS Flight Manual that prohibits flight into weather conditions conducive to lightning. The proposed criteria would also allow design characteristics to protect the UAS from lightning as an alternative to the prohibition.

UAS.130 Adverse Weather Conditions: Because of the size and physical limitations of this UAS, adverse weather such as rain, snow, and icing pose a greater hazard to the UAS than to manned aircraft. For the same reason, it would be unlikely that this UAS would incorporate traditional protection features from icing. The FAA based the proposed criteria on the icing requirements in 14 CFR 23.2165(b) and (c), and applied them to all of these adverse weather conditions. The proposed criteria would allow design characteristics to protect the UAS from adverse weather conditions. As an alternative, the proposed criteria would require an operating limitation in the UAS Flight Manual that prohibits flight into known adverse weather conditions, and either also prevent inadvertent flight into adverse weather or provide a means to detect and to avoid or exit adverse weather conditions.

UAS.135 Critical Parts: The proposed criteria for critical parts are substantively the same as that in § 27.602, with changes to reflect UAS terminology and failure condition.

Operating Limitations and Information: Similar to manned aircraft, the FAA determined that the UAS applicant must provide airworthiness instructions, operating limitations, and flight and performance information necessary for the safe operation and continued operational safety of the UAS.

UAS.200 Flight Manual: The proposed criteria for the UAS Flight Manual are substantively the same as that in § 23.2620, with minor changes to reflect UAS terminology.

UAS.205 Instructions for Continued Airworthiness: The proposed criteria for the Instructions for Continued Airworthiness (ICA) are substantively the same as that in § 23.1529, with minor changes to reflect UAS terminology.

Testing: Traditional certification methodologies for manned aircraft are based on design requirements verified at the component level by inspection, analysis, demonstration, or test. Due to the difference in size and complexity, the FAA determined testing methodologies that demonstrate reliability at the aircraft (UAS) level, in addition to the design and construction criteria identified in this proposal, will achieve the same safety objective. The proposed testing criteria in sections UAS.300 through UAS.320 utilize these methodologies.

UAS.300 Durability and Reliability: The FAA intends the proposed testing criteria in this section to cover key design aspects and prevent unsafe features at an appropriate level tailored for this UAS. The proposed durability and reliability testing would require the applicant to demonstrate safe flight of the UAS across the entire operational envelope and up to all operational limitations, for all phases of flight and all aircraft configurations. The UAS would only be certificated for operations within the limitations, and for flight over the maximum population density, as demonstrated by test. The proposed criteria would require that all flights during the testing be completed with no failures that result in a loss of flight, loss of control, loss of containment, or emergency landing outside of the operator's recovery zone.

For some aircraft design requirements imposed by existing airworthiness standards ( e.g., §§ 23.2135, 23.2600, 25.105, 25.125, 27.141, 27.173, 29.51, 29.177) the aircraft must not require exceptional piloting skill or alertness. These rules recognize that pilots have varying levels of ability and attention. In a similar manner, the proposed criteria would require that the durability and reliability flight testing be performed by a pilot with average skill and alertness.

Flight testing will be used to determine the aircraft's ability to withstand flight loads across the range of operating limits and the flight envelope. Because small UAS may be subjected to significant ground loads when handled, lifted, carried, loaded, maintained, and transported physically by hand, the proposed criteria would require that the aircraft used for testing endure the same worst-case ground loads as those the UAS will experience in operation after type certification.

UAS.305 Probable Failures: The FAA intends the proposed testing criteria to evaluate how the UAS functions after failures that are probable to occur. The applicant will test the UAS by inducing certain failures and demonstrating that the failure will not result in a loss of containment or control of the UA. The proposed criteria contain the minimum types of failures the FAA finds are probable; however, the applicant must determine the probable failures related to any other equipment that will be addressed for this requirement.

UAS.310 Capabilities and Functions: The proposed criteria for this section address the minimum capabilities and functions the FAA finds are necessary in the design of the UAS and would require the applicant to demonstrate these capabilities and functions by test. Due to the location of the pilot and the controls for UAS, separate from the UA, communication between the pilot and the UA is significant to the design. Thus, the proposed criteria would require the applicant to demonstrate the capability of the UAS to regain command and control after a loss. As with manned aircraft, the electrical system of the UAS must have a capacity sufficient for all anticipated loads; the proposed criteria would require the applicant to demonstrate this by test.

The proposed criteria contain functions that would allow the pilot to command the UA to deviate from its flight plan or from its pre-programmed flight path. For example, in the event the pilot needs to deconflict the airspace, the UA must be able to respond to pilot inputs that override any pre-programming.

In the event an applicant requests approval for certain features, such as geo-fencing or external cargo, the proposed criteria contain requirements to address the associated risks. The proposed criteria in this section would also require design of the UAS to safeguard against an unintended discontinuation of flight or release of cargo, whether by human action or malfunction.

UAS.315 Fatigue: The FAA intends the proposed criteria in this section to address the risks from reduced structural integrity and structural failure due to fatigue. The proposed criteria would require the applicant to establish an airframe life limit and demonstrate that loss of flight or loss of control due to structural failure will be avoided throughout the operational life of the UA. These proposed criteria would require the applicant to demonstrate this by test, while maintaining the UA in accordance with the ICA.

UAS.320 Verification of Limits: This section would evaluate structural safety and address the risks associated with inadequate structural design. While the proposed criteria in UAS.300 address testing to demonstrate that the UAS structure adequately supports expected loads throughout the flight and operational envelopes, the proposed criteria in this section would require an evaluation of the performance, maneuverability, stability, and control of the UA with a factor of safety.

The FAA proposes to establish the following airworthiness criteria for type certification of the Zipline Model Zip. The FAA proposes that compliance with the following would mitigate the risks associated with the proposed design and Concept of Operations appropriately and would provide an equivalent level of safety to existing rules:

The applicant must define and submit to the FAA a concept of operations (CONOPS) proposal describing the Unmanned Aircraft System (UAS) operation in the National Airspace System for which certification is requested. The CONOPS proposal must include, at a minimum, a description of the following information.

(a) The intended type of operations;

(b) Unmanned aircraft (UA) specifications;

(c) Meteorological conditions;

(d) Operators, pilots, and personnel responsibilities;

(e) Control station and support equipment;

(f) Command, control, and communication functions; and

(g) Operational parameters, such as population density, geographic operating boundaries, airspace classes, launch and recovery area, congestion of proposed operating area, communications with air traffic control, line of sight, and aircraft separation.

The control station must be designed to provide the pilot with all information required for continued safe flight and operation. This information includes, at a minimum, the following:

(a) Alerts, such as an alert following the loss of the command and control (C2) link and function.

(b) The status of all critical parameters for all energy storage systems.

(c) The status of all critical parameters for all propulsion systems.

(d) Flight and navigation information as appropriate, such as airspeed, heading, altitude, and location.

(e) C2 link signal strength, quality, or status.

To minimize the existence of errors, the applicant must:

(a) Verify by test all software that may impact the safe operation of the UAS;

(b) Utilize a configuration management system that tracks, controls, and preserves changes made to software throughout the entire life cycle; and

(c) Implement a problem reporting system that captures and records defects and modifications to the software.

(a) UAS equipment, systems, and networks, addressed separately and in relation to other systems, must be protected from intentional unauthorized electronic interactions that may result in an adverse effect on the security or airworthiness of the UAS. Protection must be ensured by showing that the security risks have been identified, assessed, and mitigated as necessary.

(b) When required by paragraph (a) of this section, procedures and instructions to ensure security protections are maintained must be included in the Instructions for Continued Airworthiness (ICA).

(a) The UAS must be designed so that, in the event of a loss of the C2 link, the UA will automatically and immediately execute a safe predetermined flight, loiter, landing, or termination.

(b) The applicant must establish the predetermined action in the event of a loss of the C2 link and include it in the UAS Flight Manual.

(c) The UAS Flight Manual must include the minimum performance requirements for the C2 data link defining when the C2 link is degraded to a level where remote active control of the UA is no longer ensured. Takeoff when the C2 link is degraded below the minimum link performance requirements must be prevented by design or prohibited by an operating limitation in the UAS Flight Manual.

(a) Except as provided in paragraph (b) of this section, the UAS must have design characteristics that will protect the UAS from loss of flight or loss of control due to lightning.

(b) If the UAS has not been shown to protect against lightning, the UAS Flight Manual must include an operating limitation to prohibit flight into weather conditions conducive to lightning activity.

(a) For purposes of this section, “adverse weather conditions” means rain, snow, and icing.

(b) Except as provided in paragraph (c) of this section, the UAS must have design characteristics that will allow the UAS to operate within the adverse weather conditions specified in the CONOPS without loss of flight or loss of control.

(c) For adverse weather conditions for which the UAS is not approved to operate, the applicant must develop operating limitations to prohibit flight into known adverse weather conditions and either:

(1) Develop operating limitations to prevent inadvertent flight into adverse weather conditions; or

(2) Provide a means to detect any adverse weather conditions for which the UAS is not certificated to operate and show the UAS's ability to avoid or exit those conditions.

(a) A critical part is a part, the failure of which could result in a loss of flight or unrecoverable loss of UAS control.

(b) If the type design includes critical parts, the applicant must establish a critical parts list. The applicant must develop and define mandatory maintenance instructions or life limits, or a combination of both, to prevent failures of critical parts. Each of these mandatory actions must be included in the Airworthiness Limitations Section of the ICA.

The applicant must provide a UAS Flight Manual with each UAS.

(a) The UAS Flight Manual must contain the following information:

(1) UAS operating limitations;

(2) UAS normal and emergency operating procedures;

(3) Performance information;

(4) Loading information; and

(5) Other information that is necessary for safe operation because of design, operating, or handling characteristics.

(b) Those portions of the UAS Flight Manual containing the information specified in paragraphs (a)(1) through (4) of this section must be approved by the FAA.

The applicant must prepare ICA for the UAS in accordance with Appendix A to Part 23, as appropriate, that are acceptable to the FAA. The ICA may be incomplete at type certification if a program exists to ensure their completion prior to delivery of the first UAS or issuance of a standard airworthiness certificate, whichever occurs later.

The UAS must be designed to be durable and reliable commensurate to the maximum population density specified in the operating limitations. The durability and reliability must be demonstrated by flight test in accordance with the requirements of this section and completed with no failures that result in a loss of flight, loss of control, loss of containment, or emergency landing outside the operator's recovery area.

(a) Once a UAS has begun testing to show compliance with this section, all flights for that UA must be included in the flight test report.

(b) Tests must include an evaluation of the entire flight envelope across all phases of operation and must address, at a minimum, the following:

(1) Flight distances;

(2) Flight durations;

(3) Route complexity;

(4) Weight;

(5) Center of gravity;

(6) Density altitude;

(7) Outside air temperature;

(8) Airspeed;

(9) Wind;

(10) Weather;

(11) Operation at night, if requested;

(12) Energy storage system capacity; and

(13) Aircraft to pilot ratio.

(c) Tests must include the most adverse combinations of the conditions and configurations in paragraph (b) of this section.

(d) Tests must show a distribution of the different flight profiles and routes representative of the type of operations identified in the CONOPS.

(e) Tests must be conducted in conditions consistent with the expected environmental conditions identified in the CONOPS, including electromagnetic interference (EMI) and High Intensity Radiated Fields (HIRF).

(f) Tests must not require exceptional piloting skill or alertness.

(g) Any UAS used for testing must be subject to the same worst-case ground handling, shipping, and transportation loads as those allowed in service.

(h) Any UAS used for testing must be maintained and operated in accordance with the ICA and UAS Flight Manual. No maintenance beyond the intervals established in the ICA will be allowed to show compliance with this section.

(i) If cargo operations or external-load operations are requested, tests must show, throughout the flight envelope and with the cargo or external-load at the most critical combinations of weight and center of gravity, that—

(1) the UA is safely controllable and maneuverable; and

(2) the cargo or external-load are retainable and transportable.

The UAS must be designed such that a probable failure will not result in a loss of containment or control of the UA. This must be demonstrated by test.

(a) Probable failures related to the following equipment, at a minimum, must be addressed.

(1) Propulsion systems;

(2) C2 link;

(3) Global Positioning System (GPS);

(4) Critical flight control components with a single point of failure;

(5) Control station; and

(6) Any other equipment identified by the applicant.

(b) Any UAS used for testing must be operated in accordance with the UAS Flight Manual.

(c) Each test must occur at the critical phase and mode of flight, and at the highest aircraft-to-pilot ratio.

(a) All of the following required UAS capabilities and functions must be demonstrated by test:

(1) Capability to regain command and control of the UA after the C2 link has been lost.

(2) Capability of the electrical system to power all UA systems and payloads.

(3) Ability for the pilot to safely discontinue the flight.

(4) Ability for the pilot to dynamically re-route the UA.

(5) Ability to safely abort a takeoff.

(6) Ability to safely abort a landing and initiate a go-around.

(b) The following UAS capabilities and functions, if requested for approval, must be demonstrated by test:

(1) Continued flight after degradation of the propulsion system.

(2) Geo-fencing that contains the UA within a designated area, in all operating conditions.

(3) Positive transfer of the UA between control stations that ensures only one control station can control the UA at a time.

(4) Capability to release an external cargo load to prevent loss of control of the UA.

(5) Capability to detect and avoid other aircraft and obstacles.

(c) The UAS must be designed to safeguard against inadvertent discontinuation of the flight and inadvertent release of cargo or external-load.

The structure of the UA must be shown to be able to withstand the repeated loads expected during its service life without failure. A life limit for the airframe must be established, demonstrated by test, and included in the ICA.

The performance, maneuverability, stability, and control of the UA within the flight envelope described in the UAS Flight Manual must be demonstrated at a minimum of 5% over maximum gross weight with no loss of control or loss of flight.

The FAA invites interested people to take part in the development of these airworthiness criteria by sending written comments, data, or views. The most helpful comments reference a specific portion of the airworthiness criteria, explain the reason for any recommended change, and include supporting data. Comments on operational, pilot certification, and maintenance requirements would address issues that are beyond the scope of this document.

Except for Confidential Business Information as described in the following paragraph, and other information as described in 14 CFR 11.35, the FAA will file in the docket all comments received, as well as a report summarizing each substantive public contact with FAA personnel concerning these proposed airworthiness criteria. Before acting on this proposal, the FAA will consider all comments received on or before the closing date for comments. The FAA will consider comments filed late if it is possible to do so without incurring delay. The FAA may change these airworthiness criteria based on received comments.

Confidential Business Information (CBI) is commercial or financial information that is both customarily and actually treated as private by its owner. Under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) (5 U.S.C. 552), CBI is exempt from public disclosure. If your comments responsive to this NPRM contain commercial or financial information that is customarily treated as private, that you actually treat as private, and that is relevant or responsive to this notice, it is important that you clearly designate the submitted comments as CBI. Please mark each page of your submission containing CBI as “PROPIN.” The FAA will treat such marked submissions as confidential under the FOIA, and they will not be placed in the public docket of this notice. Submissions containing CBI should be sent to the individual listed under “For Further Information Contact.” Any commentary that the FAA receives which is not specifically designated as CBI will be placed in the public docket for this notice.

TELEGRID Technologies, Inc., (TELEGRID) applied to the FAA on February 24, 2020, for a special class type certificate under Title 14, Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR) 21.17(b) for the Model TELEGRID DE2020 UAS.

The Model TELEGRID DE2020 consists of an unmanned aircraft (UA) and its associated elements that include communication links and the components that control the UA. The Model TELEGRID DE2020 UA has a maximum gross takeoff weight of 24 pounds. It is approximately 39 inches in width, 39 inches in length, and 17 inches in height. The Model TELEGRID DE2020 UA is battery powered using electric motors for vertical takeoff, landing, and forward flight. The UAS operations would rely on high levels of automation and may include multiple UA operated by a single pilot, up to a ratio of 20 UA to 1 pilot. TELEGRID anticipates operators will use the Model TELEGRID DE2020 for delivering packages. The proposed concept of operations for the Model TELEGRID DE2020 identifies a maximum operating altitude of 400 feet above ground level, a maximum cruise speed of 22 knots (25 mph), operations beyond visual line of sight of the pilot, and operations over human beings. TELEGRID has not requested type certification for flight into known icing for the Model TELEGRID DE2020.

The FAA establishes airworthiness criteria to ensure the safe operation of aircraft in accordance with 49 U.S.C. 44701(a) and 44704. UAS are type certificated by the FAA as special class aircraft for which airworthiness standards have not been established by regulation. Under the provisions of 14 CFR 21.17(b), the airworthiness standards for special class aircraft are those the FAA finds to be appropriate and applicable to the specific type design.

The applicant has proposed a design with constraints upon its operations and an unusual design characteristic: The pilot is remotely located. The FAA developed existing airworthiness standards to establish an appropriate level of safety for each product and its intended use. The FAA's existing airworthiness standards did not envision aircraft with no pilot in the cockpit and the technologies associated with that capability.

The FAA has reviewed the proposed design and assessed the potential risk to the National Airspace System. The FAA considered the size of the proposed aircraft, its maximum airspeed and altitude, and operational limitations to address the number of unmanned aircraft per operator and to address operations in which the aircraft would operate beyond the visual line of sight of the pilot. These factors allowed the FAA to assess the potential risk the aircraft could pose to other aircraft and to human beings on the ground. Using these parameters, the FAA developed airworthiness criteria to address those potential risks to ensure the aircraft remains reliable, controllable, safe, and airworthy.

The proposed criteria focus on mitigating hazards by establishing safety outcomes that must be achieved, rather than by establishing prescriptive requirements that must be met. This is in contrast to many current airworthiness standards, used to certificate traditional aircraft systems, which prescribe specific indicators and instruments for a pilot in a cockpit that would be inappropriate for UAS. The FAA finds that the proposed criteria are appropriate and applicable for the UAS design, based on the intended operational concepts for the UAS as identified by the applicant.

The FAA selected the particular airworthiness criteria proposed by this notice for the following reasons:

General: In order to determine appropriate and applicable airworthiness standards for UAS as a special class of aircraft, the FAA determined that the applicant must provide information describing the characteristics and capabilities of the UAS and how it will be used.

UAS.001 Concept of Operations: To assist the FAA in identifying and analyzing the risks and impacts associated with integrating the proposed UAS design into the National Airspace System, the applicant would be required to submit a Concept of Operations (CONOPS). The proposed criteria would require the applicant's CONOPS to identify the intended operational concepts for the UAS and describe the UAS and its operation. The information in the CONOPS would determine parameters and extent of testing, as well as operating limitations that will be placed in the UAS Flight Manual.

Design and Construction: The FAA selected the design and construction criteria in this section to address airworthiness requirements where the flight testing demonstration alone may not be sufficient to demonstrate an appropriate level of safety.

UAS.100 Control Station: The control station, which is located separately from the UA, is a unique feature to UAS. As a result, no regulatory airworthiness standards exist that directly apply to this part of the system. The FAA based some of the proposed criteria on existing regulations that address the information that must be provided to a pilot in the cockpit of a manned aircraft, and modified them as appropriate to this UAS. Thus, to address the risks associated with loss of control of the UAS, the applicant would be required to design the control station to provide the pilot with the information necessary for continued safe flight and operation. The proposed criteria contain the specific minimum types of information the FAA finds are necessary for this requirement; however, the applicant must determine whether additional parameters are necessary.

UAS.110 Software: Software for manned aircraft is certified under the regulations applicable to systems, equipment, and installations ( e.g., §§ 23.2510, 25.1309, 27.1309, or 29.1309). There are two regulations that specifically prescribe airworthiness standards for software: Engine airworthiness standards (§ 33.28) and propeller airworthiness standards (§ 35.23). The proposed UAS software criteria was based on these regulations and tailored for the risks posed by UAS software.

UAS.115 Cyber Security: The location of the pilot separate from the UA requires a continuous wireless connection (command and control link) with the UA for the pilot to monitor and control it. Because the purpose of this link is to control the aircraft, this makes the UAS susceptible to cyber security threats in a unique way.

The current regulations for the certification of systems, equipment, and installations ( e.g., §§ 23.2510, 25.1309, 27.1309, and 29.1309) do not adequately address potential security vulnerabilities that could be exploited by unauthorized access to aircraft systems, data buses, and services. For manned aircraft, the FAA therefore issues special conditions for particular designs with network security vulnerabilities.

To address the risks to the UAS associated with intentional unauthorized electronic interactions, the applicant would be required to design the UAS's systems and networks to protect against intentional unauthorized electronic interactions and mitigate potential adverse effects. The FAA based the language for the proposed criteria on recommendations in the final report dated August 22, 2016, from the Aircraft System Information Security/Protection (ASISP) working group, under the FAA's Aviation Rulemaking Advisory Committee. Although the recommendations pertained to manned aircraft, the FAA has reviewed the report and determined the recommendations are also appropriate for UAS. The wireless connections used by UAS make these aircraft susceptible to the same cyber security risks, and therefore require similar criteria, as manned aircraft.

UAS.120 Contingency Planning: The location of the pilot and the controls for the UAS, separate from the UA, is a unique feature to UAS. As a result, no regulatory airworthiness standards exist that directly apply to this feature of the system.

To address the risks associated with loss of communication between the pilot and the UA, and thus the pilot's inability to control the UA, the proposed criteria would require that the UAS be designed to automatically execute a predetermined action. Because the pilot needs to be aware of the particular predetermined action the UA will take when there is a loss of communication between the pilot and the UA, the proposed criteria would require that the applicant identify the predetermined action in the UAS Flight Manual. The proposed criteria would also include requirements for preventing takeoff when quality of service is inadequate.

UAS.125 Lightning: Because of the size and physical limitations of this UAS, it would be unlikely that this UAS would incorporate traditional lightning protection features. To address the risks that would result from a lightning strike, the proposed criteria would require an operating limitation in the UAS Flight Manual that prohibits flight into weather conditions conducive to lightning. The proposed criteria would also allow design characteristics to protect the UAS from lightning as an alternative to the prohibition.

UAS.130 Adverse Weather Conditions: Because of the size and physical limitations of this UAS, adverse weather such as rain, snow, and icing pose a greater hazard to the UAS than to manned aircraft. For the same reason, it would be unlikely that this UAS would incorporate traditional protection features from icing. The FAA based the proposed criteria on the icing requirements in 14 CFR 23.2165(b) and (c), and applied them to all of these adverse weather conditions. The proposed criteria would allow design characteristics to protect the UAS from adverse weather conditions. As an alternative, the proposed criteria would require an operating limitation in the UAS Flight Manual that prohibits flight into known adverse weather conditions, and either also prevent inadvertent flight into adverse weather or provide a means to detect and to avoid or exit adverse weather conditions.

UAS.135 Critical Parts: The proposed criteria for critical parts are substantively the same as that in § 27.602, with changes to reflect UAS terminology and failure condition.

Operating Limitations and Information: Similar to manned aircraft, the FAA determined that the UAS applicant must provide airworthiness instructions, operating limitations, and flight and performance information necessary for the safe operation and continued operational safety of the UAS.

UAS.200 Flight Manual: The proposed criteria for the UAS Flight Manual are substantively the same as that in § 23.2620, with minor changes to reflect UAS terminology.

UAS.205 Instructions for Continued Airworthiness: The proposed criteria for the Instructions for Continued Airworthiness (ICA) are substantively the same as that in § 23.1529, with minor changes to reflect UAS terminology.

Testing: Traditional certification methodologies for manned aircraft are based on design requirements verified at the component level by inspection, analysis, demonstration, or test. Due to the difference in size and complexity, the FAA determined testing methodologies that demonstrate reliability at the aircraft (UAS) level, in addition to the design and construction criteria identified in this proposal, will achieve the same safety objective. The proposed testing criteria in sections UAS.300 through UAS.320 utilize these methodologies.

UAS.300 Durability and Reliability: The FAA intends the proposed testing criteria in this section to cover key design aspects and prevent unsafe features at an appropriate level tailored for this UAS. The proposed durability and reliability testing would require the applicant to demonstrate safe flight of the UAS across the entire operational envelope and up to all operational limitations, for all phases of flight and all aircraft configurations. The UAS would only be certificated for operations within the limitations, and for flight over the maximum population density, as demonstrated by test. The proposed criteria would require that all flights during the testing be completed with no failures that result in a loss of flight, loss of control, loss of containment, or emergency landing outside of the operator's recovery zone.

For some aircraft design requirements imposed by existing airworthiness standards ( e.g., §§ 23.2135, 23.2600, 25.105, 25.125, 27.141, 27.173, 29.51, 29.177) the aircraft must not require exceptional piloting skill or alertness. These rules recognize that pilots have varying levels of ability and attention. In a similar manner, the proposed criteria would require that the durability and reliability flight testing be performed by a pilot with average skill and alertness.

Flight testing will be used to determine the aircraft's ability to withstand flight loads across the range of operating limits and the flight envelope. Because small UAS may be subjected to significant ground loads when handled, lifted, carried, loaded, maintained, and transported physically by hand, the proposed criteria would require that the aircraft used for testing endure the same worst-case ground loads as those the UAS will experience in operation after type certification.

UAS.305 Probable Failures: The FAA intends the proposed testing criteria to evaluate how the UAS functions after failures that are probable to occur. The applicant will test the UAS by inducing certain failures and demonstrating that the failure will not result in a loss of containment or control of the UA. The proposed criteria contain the minimum types of failures the FAA finds are probable; however, the applicant must determine the probable failures related to any other equipment that will be addressed for this requirement.

UAS.310 Capabilities and Functions: The proposed criteria for this section address the minimum capabilities and functions the FAA finds are necessary in the design of the UAS and would require the applicant to demonstrate these capabilities and functions by test. Due to the location of the pilot and the controls for UAS, separate from the UA, communication between the pilot and the UA is significant to the design. Thus, the proposed criteria would require the applicant to demonstrate the capability of the UAS to regain command and control after a loss. As with manned aircraft, the electrical system of the UAS must have a capacity sufficient for all anticipated loads; the proposed criteria would require the applicant to demonstrate this by test.

The proposed criteria contain functions that would allow the pilot to command the UA to deviate from its flight plan or from its pre-programmed flight path. For example, in the event the pilot needs to deconflict the airspace, the UA must be able to respond to pilot inputs that override any pre-programming.

In the event an applicant requests approval for certain features, such as geo-fencing or external cargo, the proposed criteria contain requirements to address the associated risks. The proposed criteria in this section would also require design of the UAS to safeguard against an unintended discontinuation of flight or release of cargo, whether by human action or malfunction.

UAS.315 Fatigue: The FAA intends the proposed criteria in this section to address the risks from reduced structural integrity and structural failure due to fatigue. The proposed criteria would require the applicant to establish an airframe life limit and demonstrate that loss of flight or loss of control due to structural failure will be avoided throughout the operational life of the UA. These proposed criteria would require the applicant to demonstrate this by test, while maintaining the UA in accordance with the ICA.

UAS.320 Verification of Limits: This section would evaluate structural safety and address the risks associated with inadequate structural design. While the proposed criteria in UAS.300 address testing to demonstrate that the UAS structure adequately supports expected loads throughout the flight and operational envelopes, the proposed criteria in this section would require an evaluation of the performance, maneuverability, stability, and control of the UA with a factor of safety.

The FAA proposes to establish the following airworthiness criteria for type certification of the TELEGRID Model TELEGRID DE2020. The FAA proposes that compliance with the following would mitigate the risks associated with the proposed design and Concept of Operations appropriately and would provide an equivalent level of safety to existing rules:

The applicant must define and submit to the FAA a concept of operations (CONOPS) proposal describing the Unmanned Aircraft System (UAS) operation in the National Airspace System for which certification is requested. The CONOPS proposal must include, at a minimum, a description of the following information.

(a) The intended type of operations;

(b) Unmanned aircraft (UA) specifications;

(c) Meteorological conditions;

(d) Operators, pilots, and personnel responsibilities;

(e) Control station and support equipment;

(f) Command, control, and communication functions; and

(g) Operational parameters, such as population density, geographic operating boundaries, airspace classes, launch and recovery area, congestion of proposed operating area, communications with air traffic control, line of sight, and aircraft separation.

The control station must be designed to provide the pilot with all information required for continued safe flight and operation. This information includes, at a minimum, the following:

(a) Alerts, such as an alert following the loss of the command and control (C2) link and function.

(b) The status of all critical parameters for all energy storage systems.

(c) The status of all critical parameters for all propulsion systems.

(d) Flight and navigation information as appropriate, such as airspeed, heading, altitude, and location.

(e) C2 link signal strength, quality, or status.

To minimize the existence of errors, the applicant must:

(a) Verify by test all software that may impact the safe operation of the UAS;

(b) Utilize a configuration management system that tracks, controls, and preserves changes made to software throughout the entire life cycle; and

(c) Implement a problem reporting system that captures and records defects and modifications to the software.

(a) UAS equipment, systems, and networks, addressed separately and in relation to other systems, must be protected from intentional unauthorized electronic interactions that may result in an adverse effect on the security or airworthiness of the UAS. Protection must be ensured by showing that the security risks have been identified, assessed, and mitigated as necessary.

(b) When required by paragraph (a) of this section, procedures and instructions to ensure security protections are maintained must be included in the Instructions for Continued Airworthiness (ICA).

(a) The UAS must be designed so that, in the event of a loss of the C2 link, the UA will automatically and immediately execute a safe predetermined flight, loiter, landing, or termination.

(b) The applicant must establish the predetermined action in the event of a loss of the C2 link and include it in the UAS Flight Manual.

(c) The UAS Flight Manual must include the minimum performance requirements for the C2 data link defining when the C2 link is degraded to a level where remote active control of the UA is no longer ensured. Takeoff when the C2 link is degraded below the minimum link performance requirements must be prevented by design or prohibited by an operating limitation in the UAS Flight Manual.

(a) Except as provided in paragraph (b) of this section, the UAS must have design characteristics that will protect the UAS from loss of flight or loss of control due to lightning.

(b) If the UAS has not been shown to protect against lightning, the UAS Flight Manual must include an operating limitation to prohibit flight into weather conditions conducive to lightning activity.

(a) For purposes of this section, “adverse weather conditions” means rain, snow, and icing.

(b) Except as provided in paragraph (c) of this section, the UAS must have design characteristics that will allow the UAS to operate within the adverse weather conditions specified in the CONOPS without loss of flight or loss of control.

(c) For adverse weather conditions for which the UAS is not approved to operate, the applicant must develop operating limitations to prohibit flight into known adverse weather conditions and either:

(1) Develop operating limitations to prevent inadvertent flight into adverse weather conditions; or

(2) Provide a means to detect any adverse weather conditions for which the UAS is not certificated to operate and show the UAS's ability to avoid or exit those conditions.

(a) A critical part is a part, the failure of which could result in a loss of flight or unrecoverable loss of UAS control.

(b) If the type design includes critical parts, the applicant must establish a critical parts list. The applicant must develop and define mandatory maintenance instructions or life limits, or a combination of both, to prevent failures of critical parts. Each of these mandatory actions must be included in the Airworthiness Limitations Section of the ICA.

The applicant must provide a UAS Flight Manual with each UAS.

(a) The UAS Flight Manual must contain the following information:

(1) UAS operating limitations;

(2) UAS normal and emergency operating procedures;

(3) Performance information;

(4) Loading information; and

(5) Other information that is necessary for safe operation because of design, operating, or handling characteristics.

(b) Those portions of the UAS Flight Manual containing the information specified in paragraphs (a)(1) through (4) of this section must be approved by the FAA.

The applicant must prepare ICA for the UAS in accordance with Appendix A to Part 23, as appropriate, that are acceptable to the FAA. The ICA may be incomplete at type certification if a program exists to ensure their completion prior to delivery of the first UAS or issuance of a standard airworthiness certificate, whichever occurs later.

The UAS must be designed to be durable and reliable commensurate to the maximum population density specified in the operating limitations. The durability and reliability must be demonstrated by flight test in accordance with the requirements of this section and completed with no failures that result in a loss of flight, loss of control, loss of containment, or emergency landing outside the operator's recovery area.

(a) Once a UAS has begun testing to show compliance with this section, all flights for that UA must be included in the flight test report.

(b) Tests must include an evaluation of the entire flight envelope across all phases of operation and must address, at a minimum, the following:

(1) Flight distances;

(2) Flight durations;

(3) Route complexity;

(4) Weight;

(5) Center of gravity;

(6) Density altitude;

(7) Outside air temperature;

(8) Airspeed;

(9) Wind;

(10) Weather;

(11) Operation at night, if requested;

(12) Energy storage system capacity; and

(13) Aircraft to pilot ratio.

(c) Tests must include the most adverse combinations of the conditions and configurations in paragraph (b) of this section.

(d) Tests must show a distribution of the different flight profiles and routes representative of the type of operations identified in the CONOPS.

(e) Tests must be conducted in conditions consistent with the expected environmental conditions identified in the CONOPS, including electromagnetic interference (EMI) and High Intensity Radiated Fields (HIRF).

(f) Tests must not require exceptional piloting skill or alertness.

(g) Any UAS used for testing must be subject to the same worst-case ground handling, shipping, and transportation loads as those allowed in service.

(h) Any UAS used for testing must be maintained and operated in accordance with the ICA and UAS Flight Manual. No maintenance beyond the intervals established in the ICA will be allowed to show compliance with this section.

(i) If cargo operations or external-load operations are requested, tests must show, throughout the flight envelope and with the cargo or external-load at the most critical combinations of weight and center of gravity, that—

(1) the UA is safely controllable and maneuverable; and

(2) the cargo or external-load are retainable and transportable.

The UAS must be designed such that a probable failure will not result in a loss of containment or control of the UA. This must be demonstrated by test.

(a) Probable failures related to the following equipment, at a minimum, must be addressed.

(1) Propulsion systems;

(2) C2 link;

(3) Global Positioning System (GPS);

(4) Critical flight control components with a single point of failure;

(5) Control station; and

(6) Any other equipment identified by the applicant.

(b) Any UAS used for testing must be operated in accordance with the UAS Flight Manual.

(c) Each test must occur at the critical phase and mode of flight, and at the highest aircraft-to-pilot ratio.

(a) All of the following required UAS capabilities and functions must be demonstrated by test:

(1) Capability to regain command and control of the UA after the C2 link has been lost.

(2) Capability of the electrical system to power all UA systems and payloads.

(3) Ability for the pilot to safely discontinue the flight.

(4) Ability for the pilot to dynamically re-route the UA.

(5) Ability to safely abort a takeoff.

(6) Ability to safely abort a landing and initiate a go-around.

(b) The following UAS capabilities and functions, if requested for approval, must be demonstrated by test:

(1) Continued flight after degradation of the propulsion system.

(2) Geo-fencing that contains the UA within a designated area, in all operating conditions.

(3) Positive transfer of the UA between control stations that ensures only one control station can control the UA at a time.

(4) Capability to release an external cargo load to prevent loss of control of the UA.

(5) Capability to detect and avoid other aircraft and obstacles.

(c) The UAS must be designed to safeguard against inadvertent discontinuation of the flight and inadvertent release of cargo or external-load.

The structure of the UA must be shown to be able to withstand the repeated loads expected during its service life without failure. A life limit for the airframe must be established, demonstrated by test, and included in the ICA.

The performance, maneuverability, stability, and control of the UA within the flight envelope described in the UAS Flight Manual must be demonstrated at a minimum of 5% over maximum gross weight with no loss of control or loss of flight.

Comments Invited

The FAA invites interested people to take part in the development of these airworthiness criteria by sending written comments, data, or views. The most helpful comments reference a specific portion of the airworthiness criteria, explain the reason for any recommended change, and include supporting data. Comments on operational, pilot certification, and maintenance requirements would address issues that are beyond the scope of this document.

Except for Confidential Business Information as described in the following paragraph, and other information as described in 14 CFR 11.35, the FAA will file in the docket all comments received, as well as a report summarizing each substantive public contact with FAA personnel concerning these proposed airworthiness criteria. Before acting on this proposal, the FAA will consider all comments received on or before the closing date for comments. The FAA will consider comments filed late if it is possible to do so without incurring delay. The FAA may change these airworthiness criteria based on received comments.

Confidential Business Information (CBI) is commercial or financial information that is both customarily and actually treated as private by its owner. Under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) (5 U.S.C. 552), CBI is exempt from public disclosure. If your comments responsive to this NPRM contain commercial or financial information that is customarily treated as private, that you actually treat as private, and that is relevant or responsive to this notice, it is important that you clearly designate the submitted comments as CBI. Please mark each page of your submission containing CBI as “PROPIN.” The FAA will treat such marked submissions as confidential under the FOIA, and they will not be placed in the public docket of this notice. Submissions containing CBI should be sent to the individual listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT . Any commentary that the FAA receives which is not specifically designated as CBI will be placed in the public docket for this notice.

Matternet, Inc. (Matternet) applied to the FAA on May 21, 2018, for a special class type certificate under Title 14, Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR) 21.17(b) for the Model M2 UAS.

The Model M2 consists of an unmanned aircraft (UA) and its associated elements that include communication links and the components that control the UA. The Model M2 UA has a maximum gross takeoff weight of 29 pounds. It is approximately 50 inches in width, 50 inches in length, and 10 inches in height. The Model M2 UA is battery powered using electric motors for vertical takeoff, landing, and forward flight. The UAS operations would rely on high levels of automation and may include multiple UA operated by a single pilot, up to a ratio of 20 UA to 1 pilot. Matternet anticipates operators will use the Model M2 for transporting medical materials. The proposed concept of operations for the Model M2 identifies a maximum operating altitude of 400 feet above ground level, a maximum cruise speed of 39 knots (45 mph), operations beyond visual line of sight of the pilot, and operations over human beings. Matternet has not requested type certification for flight into known icing for the Model M2.

The FAA establishes airworthiness criteria to ensure the safe operation of aircraft in accordance with 49 U.S.C. 44701(a) and 44704. UAS are type certificated by the FAA as special class aircraft for which airworthiness standards have not been established by regulation. Under the provisions of 14 CFR 21.17(b), the airworthiness standards for special class aircraft are those the FAA finds to be appropriate and applicable to the specific type design.

The applicant has proposed a design with constraints upon its operations and an unusual design characteristic: The pilot is remotely located. The FAA developed existing airworthiness standards to establish an appropriate level of safety for each product and its intended use. The FAA's existing airworthiness standards did not envision aircraft with no pilot in the cockpit and the technologies associated with that capability.

The FAA has reviewed the proposed design and assessed the potential risk to the National Airspace System. The FAA considered the size of the proposed aircraft, its maximum airspeed and altitude, and operational limitations to address the number of unmanned aircraft per operator and to address operations in which the aircraft would operate beyond the visual line of sight of the pilot. These factors allowed the FAA to assess the potential risk the aircraft could pose to other aircraft and to human beings on the ground. Using these parameters, the FAA developed airworthiness criteria to address those potential risks to ensure the aircraft remains reliable, controllable, safe, and airworthy.

The proposed criteria focus on mitigating hazards by establishing safety outcomes that must be achieved, rather than by establishing prescriptive requirements that must be met. This is in contrast to many current airworthiness standards, used to certificate traditional aircraft systems, which prescribe specific indicators and instruments for a pilot in a cockpit that would be inappropriate for UAS. The FAA finds that the proposed criteria are appropriate and applicable for the UAS design, based on the intended operational concepts for the UAS as identified by the applicant.

The FAA selected the particular airworthiness criteria proposed by this notice for the following reasons:

General: In order to determine appropriate and applicable airworthiness standards for UAS as a special class of aircraft, the FAA determined that the applicant must provide information describing the characteristics and capabilities of the UAS and how it will be used.

UAS.001 Concept of Operations: To assist the FAA in identifying and analyzing the risks and impacts associated with integrating the proposed UAS design into the National Airspace System, the applicant would be required to submit a Concept of Operations (CONOPS). The proposed criteria would require the applicant's CONOPS to identify the intended operational concepts for the UAS and describe the UAS and its operation. The information in the CONOPS would determine parameters and extent of testing, as well as operating limitations that will be placed in the UAS Flight Manual.

Design and Construction: The FAA selected the design and construction criteria in this section to address airworthiness requirements where the flight testing demonstration alone may not be sufficient to demonstrate an appropriate level of safety.

UAS.100 Control Station: The control station, which is located separately from the UA, is a unique feature to UAS. As a result, no regulatory airworthiness standards exist that directly apply to this part of the system. The FAA based some of the proposed criteria on existing regulations that address the information that must be provided to a pilot in the cockpit of a manned aircraft, and modified them as appropriate to this UAS. Thus, to address the risks associated with loss of control of the UAS, the applicant would be required to design the control station to provide the pilot with the information necessary for continued safe flight and operation. The proposed criteria contain the specific minimum types of information the FAA finds are necessary for this requirement; however, the applicant must determine whether additional parameters are necessary.

UAS.110 Software: Software for manned aircraft is certified under the regulations applicable to systems, equipment, and installations ( e.g., §§ 23.2510, 25.1309, 27.1309, or 29.1309). There are two regulations that specifically prescribe airworthiness standards for software: Engine airworthiness standards (§ 33.28) and propeller airworthiness standards (§ 35.23). The proposed UAS software criteria was based on these regulations and tailored for the risks posed by UAS software.

UAS.115 Cyber Security: The location of the pilot separate from the UA requires a continuous wireless connection (command and control link) with the UA for the pilot to monitor and control it. Because the purpose of this link is to control the aircraft, this makes the UAS susceptible to cyber security threats in a unique way.

The current regulations for the certification of systems, equipment, and installations ( e.g., §§ 23.2510, 25.1309, 27.1309, and 29.1309) do not adequately address potential security vulnerabilities that could be exploited by unauthorized access to aircraft systems, data buses, and services. For manned aircraft, the FAA therefore issues special conditions for particular designs with network security vulnerabilities.

To address the risks to the UAS associated with intentional unauthorized electronic interactions, the applicant would be required to design the UAS's systems and networks to protect against intentional unauthorized electronic interactions and mitigate potential adverse effects. The FAA based the language for the proposed criteria on recommendations in the final report dated August 22, 2016, from the Aircraft System Information Security/Protection (ASISP) working group, under the FAA's Aviation Rulemaking Advisory Committee. Although the recommendations pertained to manned aircraft, the FAA has reviewed the report and determined the recommendations are also appropriate for UAS. The wireless connections used by UAS make these aircraft susceptible to the same cyber security risks, and therefore require similar criteria, as manned aircraft.

UAS.120 Contingency Planning: The location of the pilot and the controls for the UAS, separate from the UA, is a unique feature to UAS. As a result, no regulatory airworthiness standards exist that directly apply to this feature of the system.

To address the risks associated with loss of communication between the pilot and the UA, and thus the pilot's inability to control the UA, the proposed criteria would require that the UAS be designed to automatically execute a predetermined action. Because the pilot needs to be aware of the particular predetermined action the UA will take when there is a loss of communication between the pilot and the UA, the proposed criteria would require that the applicant identify the predetermined action in the UAS Flight Manual. The proposed criteria would also include requirements for preventing takeoff when quality of service is inadequate.

UAS.125 Lightning: Because of the size and physical limitations of this UAS, it would be unlikely that this UAS would incorporate traditional lightning protection features. To address the risks that would result from a lightning strike, the proposed criteria would require an operating limitation in the UAS Flight Manual that prohibits flight into weather conditions conducive to lightning. The proposed criteria would also allow design characteristics to protect the UAS from lightning as an alternative to the prohibition.

UAS.130 Adverse Weather Conditions: Because of the size and physical limitations of this UAS, adverse weather such as rain, snow, and icing pose a greater hazard to the UAS than to manned aircraft. For the same reason, it would be unlikely that this UAS would incorporate traditional protection features from icing. The FAA based the proposed criteria on the icing requirements in 14 CFR 23.2165(b) and (c), and applied them to all of these adverse weather conditions. The proposed criteria would allow design characteristics to protect the UAS from adverse weather conditions. As an alternative, the proposed criteria would require an operating limitation in the UAS Flight Manual that prohibits flight into known adverse weather conditions, and either also prevent inadvertent flight into adverse weather or provide a means to detect and to avoid or exit adverse weather conditions.

UAS.135 Critical Parts: The proposed criteria for critical parts are substantively the same as that in § 27.602, with changes to reflect UAS terminology and failure condition.

Operating Limitations and Information: Similar to manned aircraft, the FAA determined that the UAS applicant must provide airworthiness instructions, operating limitations, and flight and performance information necessary for the safe operation and continued operational safety of the UAS.

UAS.200 Flight Manual: The proposed criteria for the UAS Flight Manual are substantively the same as that in § 23.2620, with minor changes to reflect UAS terminology.

UAS.205 Instructions for Continued Airworthiness : The proposed criteria for the Instructions for Continued Airworthiness (ICA) are substantively the same as that in § 23.1529, with minor changes to reflect UAS terminology.

Testing: Traditional certification methodologies for manned aircraft are based on design requirements verified at the component level by inspection, analysis, demonstration, or test. Due to the difference in size and complexity, the FAA determined testing methodologies that demonstrate reliability at the aircraft (UAS) level, in addition to the design and construction criteria identified in this proposal, will achieve the same safety objective. The proposed testing criteria in sections UAS.300 through UAS.320 utilize these methodologies.

UAS.300 Durability and Reliability: The FAA intends the proposed testing criteria in this section to cover key design aspects and prevent unsafe features at an appropriate level tailored for this UAS. The proposed durability and reliability testing would require the applicant to demonstrate safe flight of the UAS across the entire operational envelope and up to all operational limitations, for all phases of flight and all aircraft configurations. The UAS would only be certificated for operations within the limitations, and for flight over the maximum population density, as demonstrated by test. The proposed criteria would require that all flights during the testing be completed with no failures that result in a loss of flight, loss of control, loss of containment, or emergency landing outside of the operator's recovery zone.

For some aircraft design requirements imposed by existing airworthiness standards ( e.g., §§ 23.2135, 23.2600, 25.105, 25.125, 27.141, 27.173, 29.51, 29.177) the aircraft must not require exceptional piloting skill or alertness. These rules recognize that pilots have varying levels of ability and attention. In a similar manner, the proposed criteria would require that the durability and reliability flight testing be performed by a pilot with average skill and alertness.

Flight testing will be used to determine the aircraft's ability to withstand flight loads across the range of operating limits and the flight envelope. Because small UAS may be subjected to significant ground loads when handled, lifted, carried, loaded, maintained, and transported physically by hand, the proposed criteria would require that the aircraft used for testing endure the same worst-case ground loads as those the UAS will experience in operation after type certification.

UAS.305 Probable Failures: The FAA intends the proposed testing criteria to evaluate how the UAS functions after failures that are probable to occur. The applicant will test the UAS by inducing certain failures and demonstrating that the failure will not result in a loss of containment or control of the UA. The proposed criteria contain the minimum types of failures the FAA finds are probable; however, the applicant must determine the probable failures related to any other equipment that will be addressed for this requirement.

UAS.310 Capabilities and Functions: The proposed criteria for this section address the minimum capabilities and functions the FAA finds are necessary in the design of the UAS and would require the applicant to demonstrate these capabilities and functions by test. Due to the location of the pilot and the controls for UAS, separate from the UA, communication between the pilot and the UA is significant to the design. Thus, the proposed criteria would require the applicant to demonstrate the capability of the UAS to regain command and control after a loss. As with manned aircraft, the electrical system of the UAS must have a capacity sufficient for all anticipated loads; the proposed criteria would require the applicant to demonstrate this by test.

The proposed criteria contain functions that would allow the pilot to command the UA to deviate from its flight plan or from its pre-programmed flight path. For example, in the event the pilot needs to deconflict the airspace, the UA must be able to respond to pilot inputs that override any pre-programming.

In the event an applicant requests approval for certain features, such as geo-fencing or external cargo, the proposed criteria contain requirements to address the associated risks. The proposed criteria in this section would also require design of the UAS to safeguard against an unintended discontinuation of flight or release of cargo, whether by human action or malfunction.

UAS.315 Fatigue: The FAA intends the proposed criteria in this section to address the risks from reduced structural integrity and structural failure due to fatigue. The proposed criteria would require the applicant to establish an airframe life limit and demonstrate that loss of flight or loss of control due to structural failure will be avoided throughout the operational life of the UA. These proposed criteria would require the applicant to demonstrate this by test, while maintaining the UA in accordance with the ICA.

UAS.320 Verification of Limits: This section would evaluate structural safety and address the risks associated with inadequate structural design. While the proposed criteria in UAS.300 address testing to demonstrate that the UAS structure adequately supports expected loads throughout the flight and operational envelopes, the proposed criteria in this section would require an evaluation of the performance, maneuverability, stability, and control of the UA with a factor of safety.

The FAA proposes to establish the following airworthiness criteria for type certification of the Matternet Model M2. The FAA proposes that compliance with the following would mitigate the risks associated with the proposed design and Concept of Operations appropriately and would provide an equivalent level of safety to existing rules:

The applicant must define and submit to the FAA a concept of operations (CONOPS) proposal describing the Unmanned Aircraft System (UAS) operation in the National Airspace System for which certification is requested. The CONOPS proposal must include, at a minimum, a description of the following information.

(a) The intended type of operations;

(b) Unmanned aircraft (UA) specifications;

(c) Meteorological conditions;

(d) Operators, pilots, and personnel responsibilities;

(e) Control station and support equipment;

(f) Command, control, and communication functions; and

(g) Operational parameters, such as population density, geographic operating boundaries, airspace classes, launch and recovery area, congestion of proposed operating area, communications with air traffic control, line of sight, and aircraft separation.

The control station must be designed to provide the pilot with all information required for continued safe flight and operation. This information includes, at a minimum, the following:

(a) Alerts, such as an alert following the loss of the command and control (C2) link and function.

(b) The status of all critical parameters for all energy storage systems.

(c) The status of all critical parameters for all propulsion systems.

(d) Flight and navigation information as appropriate, such as airspeed, heading, altitude, and location.

(e) C2 link signal strength, quality, or status.

To minimize the existence of errors, the applicant must:

(a) Verify by test all software that may impact the safe operation of the UAS;

(b) Utilize a configuration management system that tracks, controls, and preserves changes made to software throughout the entire life cycle; and

(c) Implement a problem reporting system that captures and records defects and modifications to the software.

(a) UAS equipment, systems, and networks, addressed separately and in relation to other systems, must be protected from intentional unauthorized electronic interactions that may result in an adverse effect on the security or airworthiness of the UAS. Protection must be ensured by showing that the security risks have been identified, assessed, and mitigated as necessary.

(b) When required by paragraph (a) of this section, procedures and instructions to ensure security protections are maintained must be included in the Instructions for Continued Airworthiness (ICA).

(a) The UAS must be designed so that, in the event of a loss of the C2 link, the UA will automatically and immediately execute a safe predetermined flight, loiter, landing, or termination.

(b) The applicant must establish the predetermined action in the event of a loss of the C2 link and include it in the UAS Flight Manual.

(c) The UAS Flight Manual must include the minimum performance requirements for the C2 data link defining when the C2 link is degraded to a level where remote active control of the UA is no longer ensured. Takeoff when the C2 link is degraded below the minimum link performance requirements must be prevented by design or prohibited by an operating limitation in the UAS Flight Manual.

(a) Except as provided in paragraph (b) of this section, the UAS must have design characteristics that will protect the UAS from loss of flight or loss of control due to lightning.

(b) If the UAS has not been shown to protect against lightning, the UAS Flight Manual must include an operating limitation to prohibit flight into weather conditions conducive to lightning activity.

(a) For purposes of this section, “adverse weather conditions” means rain, snow, and icing.

(b) Except as provided in paragraph (c) of this section, the UAS must have design characteristics that will allow the UAS to operate within the adverse weather conditions specified in the CONOPS without loss of flight or loss of control.

(c) For adverse weather conditions for which the UAS is not approved to operate, the applicant must develop operating limitations to prohibit flight into known adverse weather conditions and either:

(1) Develop operating limitations to prevent inadvertent flight into adverse weather conditions; or

(2) Provide a means to detect any adverse weather conditions for which the UAS is not certificated to operate and show the UAS's ability to avoid or exit those conditions.

(a) A critical part is a part, the failure of which could result in a loss of flight or unrecoverable loss of UAS control.

(b) If the type design includes critical parts, the applicant must establish a critical parts list. The applicant must develop and define mandatory maintenance instructions or life limits, or a combination of both, to prevent failures of critical parts. Each of these mandatory actions must be included in the Airworthiness Limitations Section of the ICA.

The applicant must provide a UAS Flight Manual with each UAS.

(a) The UAS Flight Manual must contain the following information:

(1) UAS operating limitations;

(2) UAS normal and emergency operating procedures;

(3) Performance information;

(4) Loading information; and

(5) Other information that is necessary for safe operation because of design, operating, or handling characteristics.

(b) Those portions of the UAS Flight Manual containing the information specified in paragraphs (a)(1) through (4) of this section must be approved by the FAA.

The applicant must prepare ICA for the UAS in accordance with Appendix A to Part 23, as appropriate, that are acceptable to the FAA. The ICA may be incomplete at type certification if a program exists to ensure their completion prior to delivery of the first UAS or issuance of a standard airworthiness certificate, whichever occurs later.

The UAS must be designed to be durable and reliable commensurate to the maximum population density specified in the operating limitations. The durability and reliability must be demonstrated by flight test in accordance with the requirements of this section and completed with no failures that result in a loss of flight, loss of control, loss of containment, or emergency landing outside the operator's recovery area.

(a) Once a UAS has begun testing to show compliance with this section, all flights for that UA must be included in the flight test report.

(b) Tests must include an evaluation of the entire flight envelope across all phases of operation and must address, at a minimum, the following:

(1) Flight distances;

(2) Flight durations;

(3) Route complexity;

(4) Weight;

(5) Center of gravity;

(6) Density altitude;

(7) Outside air temperature;

(8) Airspeed;

(9) Wind;

(10) Weather;

(11) Operation at night, if requested;

(12) Energy storage system capacity; and

(13) Aircraft to pilot ratio.

(c) Tests must include the most adverse combinations of the conditions and configurations in paragraph (b) of this section.

(d) Tests must show a distribution of the different flight profiles and routes representative of the type of operations identified in the CONOPS.

(e) Tests must be conducted in conditions consistent with the expected environmental conditions identified in the CONOPS, including electromagnetic interference (EMI) and High Intensity Radiated Fields (HIRF).

(f) Tests must not require exceptional piloting skill or alertness.

(g) Any UAS used for testing must be subject to the same worst-case ground handling, shipping, and transportation loads as those allowed in service.

(h) Any UAS used for testing must be maintained and operated in accordance with the ICA and UAS Flight Manual. No maintenance beyond the intervals established in the ICA will be allowed to show compliance with this section.

(i) If cargo operations or external-load operations are requested, tests must show, throughout the flight envelope and with the cargo or external-load at the most critical combinations of weight and center of gravity, that—

(1) the UA is safely controllable and maneuverable; and

(2) the cargo or external-load are retainable and transportable.

The UAS must be designed such that a probable failure will not result in a loss of containment or control of the UA. This must be demonstrated by test.

(a) Probable failures related to the following equipment, at a minimum, must be addressed.

(1) Propulsion systems;

(2) C2 link;

(3) Global Positioning System (GPS);

(4) Critical flight control components with a single point of failure;

(5) Control station; and

(6) Any other equipment identified by the applicant.

(b) Any UAS used for testing must be operated in accordance with the UAS Flight Manual.

(c) Each test must occur at the critical phase and mode of flight, and at the highest aircraft-to-pilot ratio.

(a) All of the following required UAS capabilities and functions must be demonstrated by test:

(1) Capability to regain command and control of the UA after the C2 link has been lost.

(2) Capability of the electrical system to power all UA systems and payloads.

(3) Ability for the pilot to safely discontinue the flight.

(4) Ability for the pilot to dynamically re-route the UA.

(5) Ability to safely abort a takeoff.

(6) Ability to safely abort a landing and initiate a go-around.

(b) The following UAS capabilities and functions, if requested for approval, must be demonstrated by test:

(1) Continued flight after degradation of the propulsion system.

(2) Geo-fencing that contains the UA within a designated area, in all operating conditions.

(3) Positive transfer of the UA between control stations that ensures only one control station can control the UA at a time.

(4) Capability to release an external cargo load to prevent loss of control of the UA.

(5) Capability to detect and avoid other aircraft and obstacles.

(c) The UAS must be designed to safeguard against inadvertent discontinuation of the flight and inadvertent release of cargo or external-load.

The structure of the UA must be shown to be able to withstand the repeated loads expected during its service life without failure. A life limit for the airframe must be established, demonstrated by test, and included in the ICA.

The performance, maneuverability, stability, and control of the UA within the flight envelope described in the UAS Flight Manual must be demonstrated at a minimum of 5% over maximum gross weight with no loss of control or loss of flight.

The FAA invites you to send any written relevant data, views, or arguments about this proposal. Send your comments to an address listed under the ADDRESSES section. Include “Docket No. FAA-2020-1029; Project Identifier MCAI-2020-01126-T” at the beginning of your comments. The most helpful comments reference a specific portion of the proposal, explain the reason for any recommended change, and include supporting data. The FAA will consider all comments received by the closing date and may amend the proposal because of those comments.

Except for Confidential Business Information (CBI) as described in the following paragraph, and other information as described in 14 CFR 11.35, the FAA will post all comments received, without change, to https://www.regulations.gov, including any personal information you provide. The agency will also post a report summarizing each substantive verbal contact received about this proposed AD.

CBI is commercial or financial information that is both customarily and actually treated as private by its owner. Under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) (5 U.S.C. 552), CBI is exempt from public disclosure. If your comments responsive to this NPRM contain commercial or financial information that is customarily treated as private, that you actually treat as private, and that is relevant or responsive to this NPRM, it is important that you clearly designate the submitted comments as CBI. Please mark each page of your submission containing CBI as “PROPIN.” The FAA will treat such marked submissions as confidential under the FOIA, and they will not be placed in the public docket of this NPRM. Submissions containing CBI should be sent to Sanjay Ralhan, Aerospace Engineer, Large Aircraft Section, International Validation Branch, FAA, 2200 South 216th St., Des Moines, WA 98198; phone and fax: 206-231-3223; email: sanjay.ralhan@faa.gov. Any commentary that the FAA receives which is not specifically designated as CBI will be placed in the public docket for this rulemaking.

The FAA issued AD 2019-21-10, Amendment 39-19776 (84 FR 63794, November 19, 2019) (“AD 2019-21-10”), which applies to all Airbus SAS Model A321-111, -112, -131, -211, -212, -213, -231, and -232 airplanes. AD 2019-21-10 requires a one-time eddy current conductivity measurement of certain structural parts of the outer flaps to determine if the incorrect alloy was used, and replacement if necessary. The FAA issued AD 2019-21-10 to address structural parts made of incorrect aluminum alloy, which could result in reduced structural integrity of the outer flaps and reduced controllability of the airplane.

Since the FAA issued AD 2019-21-10, the DAH has issued an updated list of suspected parts, including those that may have been improperly heat treated and the FAA determined that more airplanes are affected by the unsafe condition.

The EASA, which is the Technical Agent for the Member States of the European Union, has issued EASA AD 2020-0174, dated August 5, 2020 (“EASA AD 2020-0174”) (also referred to as the Mandatory Continuing Airworthiness Information, or “the MCAI”), to correct an unsafe condition for all Airbus SAS Model A318-111, -112, -121, and -122 airplanes; Model A319-111, -112, -113, -114, -115, -131, -132, and -133 airplanes; Model A320-211, -212, -214, -215, -216, -231, -232, and -233 airplanes; and Model A321-111, -112, -131, -211, -212, -213, -231, and -232 airplanes. EASA AD 2020-0174 supersedes EASA AD 2019-0012 (which corresponds to FAA AD 2019-21-10). Model A320-215 airplanes are not certificated by the FAA and are not included on the U.S. type certificate data sheet; this AD therefore does not include those airplanes in the applicability.

This proposed AD was prompted by a quality control review, which determined that the wrong aluminum alloy was used to manufacture several structural parts and by the issuance of an updated list of suspected parts, including those that may have been improperly heat treated. The FAA is proposing this AD to address structural parts that may not meet the certified life limit, which could result in failure of the flap trailing edge and reduced controllability of the airplane. See the MCAI for additional background information.

Although this proposed AD does not explicitly restate the requirements of AD 2019-21-10, this proposed AD would retain all of the requirements of AD 2019-21-10. Those requirements are referenced in EASA AD 2020-0174, which, in turn, is referenced in paragraph (g) of this proposed AD.

EASA AD 2020-0174 describes procedures for a one-time eddy current conductivity measurement of certain structural parts of the outer flaps to determine if the incorrect alloy was used, and replacement if necessary, and a one-time eddy current conductivity measurement of certain other structural parts of the outer flaps to determine if the parts were properly heat treated, and replacement if necessary. This material is reasonably available because the interested parties have access to it through their normal course of business or by the means identified in the ADDRESSES section.

This product has been approved by the aviation authority of another country, and is approved for operation in the United States. Pursuant to the FAA's bilateral agreement with the State of Design Authority, the FAA has been notified of the unsafe condition described in the MCAI referenced above. The FAA is proposing this AD because the FAA evaluated all pertinent information and determined an unsafe condition exists and is likely to exist or develop on other products of the same type design.

This proposed AD would require accomplishing the actions specified in EASA AD 2020-0174 described previously, as incorporated by reference, except for any differences identified as exceptions in the regulatory text of this AD.

In the FAA's ongoing efforts to improve the efficiency of the AD process, the FAA initially worked with Airbus and EASA to develop a process to use certain EASA ADs as the primary source of information for compliance with requirements for corresponding FAA ADs. The FAA has since coordinated with other manufacturers and civil aviation authorities (CAAs) to use this process. As a result, EASA AD 2020-0174 will be incorporated by reference in the FAA final rule. This proposed AD would, therefore, require compliance with EASA AD 2020-0174 in its entirety, through that incorporation, except for any differences identified as exceptions in the regulatory text of this proposed AD. Using common terms that are the same as the heading of a particular section in the EASA AD does not mean that operators need comply only with that section. For example, where the AD requirement refers to “all required actions and compliance times,” compliance with this AD requirement is not limited to the section titled “Required Action(s) and Compliance Time(s)” in the EASA AD. Service information specified in EASA AD 2020-0174 that is required for compliance with EASA AD 2020-0174 will be available on the internet at https://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2020-1029 after the FAA final rule is published.

The FAA estimates that this proposed AD affects 63 airplanes of U.S. registry. The FAA estimates the following costs to comply with this proposed AD:

The FAA estimates that it would take about 1 work-hour per product to comply with the proposed reporting requirement in this proposed AD. The average labor rate is $85 per hour. Based on these figures, the FAA estimates the cost of reporting the inspection results on U.S. operators to be $5,355, or $85 per product.

The FAA has received no definitive data on which to base the cost estimates for the on-condition replacement specified in this proposed AD.

According to the manufacturer, some or all of the costs of this proposed AD may be covered under warranty, thereby reducing the cost impact on affected individuals. The FAA does not control warranty coverage for affected individuals. As a result, the FAA has included all known costs in the cost estimate.

A federal agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, nor shall a person be subject to penalty for failure to comply with a collection of information subject to the requirements of the Paperwork Reduction Act unless that collection of information displays a current valid OMB control number. The control number for the collection of information required by this proposed AD is 2120-0056. The paperwork cost associated with this proposed AD has been detailed in the Costs of Compliance section of this document and includes time for reviewing instructions, as well as completing and reviewing the collection of information. Therefore, all reporting associated with this proposed AD is mandatory. Comments concerning the accuracy of this burden and suggestions for reducing the burden should be directed to Information Collection Clearance Officer, Federal Aviation Administration, 10101 Hillwood Parkway, Fort Worth, TX 76177-1524.

Title 49 of the United States Code specifies the FAA's authority to issue rules on aviation safety. Subtitle I, section 106, describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII: Aviation Programs, describes in more detail the scope of the Agency's authority.

The FAA is issuing this rulemaking under the authority described in Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart III, Section 44701: General requirements. Under that section, Congress charges the FAA with promoting safe flight of civil aircraft in air commerce by prescribing regulations for practices, methods, and procedures the Administrator finds necessary for safety in air commerce. This regulation is within the scope of that authority because it addresses an unsafe condition that is likely to exist or develop on products identified in this rulemaking action.

The FAA determined that this proposed AD would not have federalism implications under Executive Order 13132. This proposed AD would not have a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship between the national Government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government.

For the reasons discussed above, I certify this proposed regulation:

(1) Is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866,

(2) Will not affect intrastate aviation in Alaska, and

(3) Will not have a significant economic impact, positive or negative, on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.

Accordingly, under the authority delegated to me by the Administrator, the FAA proposes to amend 14 CFR part 39 as follows:

The FAA's authority to issue rules regarding aviation safety is found in Title 49 of the United States Code. Subtitle I, Section 106 describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII, Aviation Programs, describes in more detail the scope of the agency's authority. This rulemaking is promulgated under the authority described in Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart I, Section 40103. Under that section, the FAA is charged with prescribing regulations to assign the use of airspace necessary to ensure the safety of aircraft and the efficient use of airspace. This regulation is within the scope of that authority as it would amend the Class E surface airspace and the Class E airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface at Bradford Regional Airport, Bradford, PA, to support instrument flight rule operations at this airport.

Interested parties are invited to participate in this proposed rulemaking by submitting such written data, views, or arguments, as they may desire. Comments that provide the factual basis supporting the views and suggestions presented are particularly helpful in developing reasoned regulatory decisions on the proposal. Comments are specifically invited on the overall regulatory, aeronautical, economic, environmental, and energy-related aspects of the proposal. Communications should identify both docket numbers and be submitted in triplicate to the address listed above. Commenters wishing the FAA to acknowledge receipt of their comments on this notice must submit with those comments a self-addressed, stamped postcard on which the following statement is made: “Comments to Docket No. FAA-2020-1015/Airspace Docket No. 20-AEA-20.” The postcard will be date/time stamped and returned to the commenter.

All communications received before the specified closing date for comments will be considered before taking action on the proposed rule. The proposal contained in this notice may be changed in light of the comments received. A report summarizing each substantive public contact with FAA personnel concerned with this rulemaking will be filed in the docket.

An electronic copy of this document may be downloaded through the internet at https://www.regulations.gov. Recently published rulemaking documents can also be accessed through the FAA's web page at https://www.faa.gov/air_traffic/publications/airspace_amendments/.

You may review the public docket containing the proposal, any comments received, and any final disposition in person in the Dockets Office (see the ADDRESSES section for the address and phone number) between 9:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m., Monday through Friday, except federal holidays. An informal docket may also be examined during normal business hours at the Federal Aviation Administration, Air Traffic Organization, Central Service Center, Operations Support Group, 10101 Hillwood Parkway, Fort Worth, TX 76177.

This document proposes to amend FAA Order 7400.11E, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, dated July 21, 2020, and effective September 15, 2020. FAA Order 7400.11E is publicly available as listed in the ADDRESSES section of this document. FAA Order 7400.11E lists Class A, B, C, D, and E airspace areas, air traffic service routes, and reporting points.

The FAA is proposing an amendment to Title 14 Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR) part 71 by:

Amending the Class E surface area airspace to within a 4.1-mile (decreased from a 4.3-mile) radius of Bradford Regional Airport, Bradford, PA; removing the Bradford VORTAC and the associated extension from the airspace legal description; adding an extension to 1 mile each side of the 134° bearing from the airport extending from the 4.1-mile radius of the airport to 4.2 miles southeast of the airport; and replacing the outdated term “Airport/Facility Directory” with “Chart Supplement”;

And amending the Class E airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface to within a 6.6-mile (increased from a 6.5-mile) radius of Bradford Regional Airport; removing the Bradford VORTAC and the associated extension from the airspace legal description; removing the BRAFO LOM and the associated extension from the airspace legal description; and removing the city associated with the airport to comply with changes to FAA Order 7400.2M, Procedures for Handling Airspace Matters.

This action is the result of an airspace review caused by the decommissioning of the Bradford VOR, which provided navigation information for the instrument procedures at this airport, as part of the VOR MON Program.

Class E airspace designations are published in paragraph 6002 and 6005, respectively, of FAA Order 7400.11E, dated July 21, 2020, and effective September 15, 2020, which is incorporated by reference in 14 CFR 71.1. The Class E airspace designations listed in this document will be published subsequently in the Order.

FAA Order 7400.11, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, is published yearly and effective on September 15.

The FAA has determined that this regulation only involves an established body of technical regulations for which frequent and routine amendments are necessary to keep them operationally current, is non-controversial and unlikely to result in adverse or negative comments. It, therefore: (1) Is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866; (2) is not a “significant rule” under DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034; February 26, 1979); and (3) does not warrant preparation of a regulatory evaluation as the anticipated impact is so minimal. Since this is a routine matter that will only affect air traffic procedures and air navigation, it is certified that this rule, when promulgated, would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.

This proposal will be subject to an environmental analysis in accordance with FAA Order 1050.1F, “Environmental Impacts: Policies and Procedures” prior to any FAA final regulatory action.

Accordingly, pursuant to the authority delegated to me, the Federal Aviation Administration proposes to amend 14 CFR part 71 as follows:

Under section 721(d)(1) of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (21 U.S.C. 379e(d)(1)), we are giving notice that we have filed a color additive petition (CAP 0C0318), submitted by Colorcon, Inc., 275 Ruth Rd., Harleysville, PA 19438. The petition proposes to amend the color additive regulations in 21 CFR 73.70, “Calcium carbonate,” to expand the use of calcium carbonate to include use in dietary supplement tablets and capsules, including coatings and printing inks, in amounts consistent with good manufacturing practice.

The petitioner has claimed that this action is categorically excluded under 21 CFR 25.32(k) because the substance is intended to remain in food through ingestion by consumers and is not intended to replace macronutrients in food. In addition, the petitioner has stated that, to their knowledge, no extraordinary circumstances exist. If FDA determines a categorical exclusion applies, neither an environmental assessment nor an environmental impact statement is required. If FDA determines a categorical exclusion does not apply, we will request an environmental assessment and make it available for public inspection.

Under section 721(d)(1) of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (21 U.S.C. 379e(d)(1)), we are giving notice that we have filed a color additive petition (CAP 0C0317), submitted by Ecoflora, SAS, c/o Exponent, Inc., 1150 Connecticut Ave. NW, Suite 1100, Washington, DC 20036. The petition proposes to amend the color additive regulations in part 73 (21 CFR part 73, “Listing of Color Additives Exempt From Certification”) to provide for the safe use of jagua (genipin-glycine) blue derived from jagua fruit pulp ( Genipa americana ) as a color additive in: (1) Flavored milk; (2) dairy drinks and substitutes (milk shakes, milk substitutes, and other dairy drinks); (3) yogurt (dairy and non-dairy); (4) desserts (ice cream and frozen dairy and non-dairy desserts; pudding; gelatins, ices, and sorbets); (5) ready-to-eat cereals; (6) savory snacks (flavored potato chips; tortilla, corn, other chips); (7) candy and chewing gum; (8) non-alcoholic beverages (fruit drinks; nutritional beverages; smoothies); (9) flavored cream cheese-based spread; and (10) jams, syrups, icings, frostings, and fruit toppings and fillings, at levels consistent with good manufacturing practice.

The petitioner has claimed that this action is categorically excluded under 21 CFR 25.32(k) because the substance is intended to remain in food through ingestion by consumers and is not intended to replace macronutrients in food. In addition, the petitioner has stated that, to their knowledge, no extraordinary circumstances exist. If FDA determines a categorical exclusion applies, neither an environmental assessment nor an environmental impact statement is required. If FDA determines a categorical exclusion does not apply, we will request an environmental assessment and make it available for public inspection.

The Escape from Managaha swim event is a recurring annual event. We have established safety zones for this swim event in past years.

The purpose of this rule is to ensure the safety of the participants and the navigable waters in the safety zone before, during, and after the scheduled swim event. The Coast Guard is proposing this rulemaking under authority in 46 U.S.C. 70034 (previously codified in 33 U.S.C. 1231).

The COTP is proposing to establish a safety zone from 5:00 a.m. to 8:30 a.m. for one day on a Saturday or Sunday occurring annually between February and April. This safety zone is necessary to protect all persons and vessels participating in this marine event from potential safety hazards associated with vessel traffic in the area. Race participants, chase boats, and organizers of the event will be exempt from the safety zone. Entry of persons or vessels into this safety zone is prohibited unless authorized by the COTP. The regulatory text we are proposing appears at the end of this document.

We developed this proposed rule after considering numerous statutes and Executive Orders related to rulemaking. Below we summarize our analyses based on a number of these statutes and Executive Orders, and we discuss First Amendment rights of protestors.

Executive Orders 12866 and 13563 direct agencies to assess the costs and benefits of available regulatory alternatives and, if regulation is necessary, to select regulatory approaches that maximize net benefits. Executive Order 13771 directs agencies to control regulatory costs through a budgeting process. This NPRM has not been designated a “significant regulatory action,” under Executive Order 12866. Accordingly, the NPRM has not been reviewed by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB), and pursuant to OMB guidance it is exempt from the requirements of Executive Order 13771.

This regulatory action determination is based on the size, location, duration, and time-of-day of the safety zone. Vessel traffic will be able to safely transit around this safety zone, which will impact a small designated area of Tanapag Harbor for 2 hours. Moreover, the Coast Guard will issue a Broadcast Notice to Mariners via VHF-FM marine channel 16 about the zone, and the rule allows vessels to seek permission to enter the zone.

The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980, 5 U.S.C. 601-612, as amended, requires Federal agencies to consider the potential impact of regulations on small entities during rulemaking. The term “small entities” comprises small businesses, not-for-profit organizations that are independently owned and operated and are not dominant in their fields, and governmental jurisdictions with populations of less than 50,000. The Coast Guard certifies under 5 U.S.C. 605(b) that this proposed rule would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.

While some owners or operators of vessels intending to transit the safety zone may be small entities, for the reasons stated in section IV.A above, this proposed rule would not have a significant economic impact on any vessel owner or operator.

If you think that your business, organization, or governmental jurisdiction qualifies as a small entity and that this rule would have a significant economic impact on it, please submit a comment (see ADDRESSES ) explaining why you think it qualifies and how and to what degree this rule would economically affect it.

Under section 213(a) of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 (Pub. L. 104-121), we want to assist small entities in understanding this proposed rule. If the rule would affect your small business, organization, or governmental jurisdiction and you have questions concerning its provisions or options for compliance, please call or email the person listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section. The Coast Guard will not retaliate against small entities that question or complain about this proposed rule or any policy or action of the Coast Guard.

This proposed rule would not call for a new collection of information under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520).

A rule has implications for federalism under Executive Order 13132 (Federalism), if it has a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship between the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government. We have analyzed this proposed rule under that Executive Order and have determined that it is consistent with the fundamental federalism principles and preemption requirements described in Executive Order 13132.

Also, this proposed rule does not have tribal implications under Executive Order 13175 (Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments) because it would not have a substantial direct effect on one or more Indian tribes, on the relationship between the Federal Government and Indian tribes, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities between the Federal Government and Indian tribes. If you believe this proposed rule has implications for federalism or Indian tribes, please call or email the person listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section.

The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (2 U.S.C. 1531-1538) requires Federal agencies to assess the effects of their discretionary regulatory actions. In particular, the Act addresses actions that may result in the expenditure by a State, local, or tribal government, in the aggregate, or by the private sector of $100,000,000 (adjusted for inflation) or more in any one year. Though this proposed rule would not result in such an expenditure, we do discuss the effects of this rule elsewhere in this preamble.

We have analyzed this proposed rule under Department of Homeland Security Directive 023-01, Rev. 1, associated implementing instructions, and Environmental Planning COMDTINST 5090.1 (series), which guide the Coast Guard in complying with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321-4370f), and have made a preliminary determination that this action is one of a category of actions that do not individually or cumulatively have a significant effect on the human environment. This proposed rule involves a safety zone lasting for 2 hours that will prohibit entry within 100-yards of swim participants. Normally such actions are categorically excluded from further review under paragraph L60(a) of Appendix A, Table 1 of DHS Instruction Manual 023-01-001-01, Rev. 1. A preliminary Record of Environmental Consideration supporting this determination is available in the docket. For instructions on locating the docket, see the ADDRESSES section of this preamble. We seek any comments or information that may lead to the discovery of a significant environmental impact from this proposed rule.

The Coast Guard respects the First Amendment rights of protesters. Protesters are asked to call or email the person listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section to coordinate protest activities so that your message can be received without jeopardizing the safety or security of people, places, or vessels.

We view public participation as essential to effective rulemaking, and will consider all comments and material received during the comment period. Your comment can help shape the outcome of this rulemaking. If you submit a comment, please include the docket number for this rulemaking, indicate the specific section of this document to which each comment applies, and provide a reason for each suggestion or recommendation.

We encourage you to submit comments through the Federal eRulemaking Portal at https://www.regulations.gov. If your material cannot be submitted using https://www.regulations.gov, call or email the person in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section of this document for alternate instructions.

We accept anonymous comments. All comments received will be posted without change to https://www.regulations.gov and will include any personal information you have provided. For more about privacy and submissions in response to this document, see DHS's Correspondence System of Records notice (84 FR 48645, September 26, 2018).

Documents mentioned in this NPRM as being available in the docket, and all public comments, will be in our online docket at https://www.regulations.gov and can be viewed by following that website's instructions. Additionally, if you go to the online docket and sign up for email alerts, you will be notified when comments are posted or a final rule is published.

For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Coast Guard is proposing to amend 33 CFR part 165 as follows:

EPA is issuing a Notice of Intent to partially delete four sites from the National Priorities List (NPL) and requests public comments on this proposed action. The NPL constitutes Appendix B of 40 CFR part 300 which is the NCP, which EPA created under section 105 of the CERCLA statute of 1980, as amended. EPA maintains the NPL as those sites that appear to present a significant risk to public health, welfare, or the environment. Sites on the NPL may be the subject of remedial actions financed by the Hazardous Substance Superfund (Fund). These partial deletions are proposed in accordance with 40 CFR 300.425(e) and is consistent with the Notice of Policy Change: Partial Deletion of Sites Listed on the National Priorities List. 60 FR 55466 (Nov. 1, 1995). As described in 300.425(e)(3) of the NCP, a portion of a site deleted from the NPL remains eligible for Fund-financed remedial action if future conditions warrant such actions.

EPA will accept comments on the proposal to partially delete this site for thirty (30) days after publication of this document in the Federal Register .

Section II of this document explains the criteria for deleting sites from the NPL. Section III discusses procedures that EPA is using for this action. Section IV discusses the portion of each site proposed for deletion and demonstrates how it meets the deletion criteria, including reference documents with the rationale and data principally relied upon by the EPA to determine that the Superfund response is complete.

The NCP establishes the criteria that EPA uses to delete sites from the NPL. In accordance with 40 CFR 300.425(e), sites may be deleted from the NPL where no further response is appropriate. In making such a determination pursuant to 40 CFR 300.425(e), EPA will consider, in consultation with the State, whether any of the following criteria have been met:

i. Responsible parties or other persons have implemented all appropriate response actions required;

ii. all appropriate Fund-financed response under CERCLA has been implemented, and no further response action by responsible parties is appropriate; or

iii. the remedial investigation has shown that the release poses no significant threat to public health or the environment and, therefore, the taking of remedial measures is not appropriate.

Pursuant to CERCLA section 121(c) and the NCP, EPA conducts five-year reviews to ensure the continued protectiveness of remedial actions where hazardous substances, pollutants, or contaminants remain at a site above levels that allow for unlimited use and unrestricted exposure. EPA conducts such five-year reviews even if a site is deleted from the NPL. EPA may initiate further action to ensure continued protectiveness at a deleted site if new information becomes available that indicates it is appropriate. Whenever there is a significant release from a site deleted from the NPL, the deleted site may be restored to the NPL without application of the hazard ranking system.

The following procedures apply to the partial deletion of each of the four sites in this proposed rule:

(1) EPA consulted with the respective state before developing this Notice of Intent for partial deletion.

(2) EPA has provided the state 30 working days for review of this proposed action prior to publication of it today.

(3) In accordance with the criteria discussed above, EPA has determined that no further response is appropriate.

(4) The states, through their designated state agencies, have concurred with the proposed partial deletion action.

(5) Concurrently, with the publication of this Notice of Intent for partial deletion in the Federal Register , a notice is being published in a major local newspaper of general circulation near each of the four sites. The newspaper announces the 30-day public comment period concerning the Notice of Intent for partial deletion.

(6) The EPA placed copies of documents supporting the proposed partial deletion in the deletion dockets, made these items available for public inspection, and copying at the Regional Records Centers identified above.

If comments are received within the 30-day comment period on this document, EPA will evaluate and respond accordingly to the comments before making a final decision to partially delete each site. If necessary, EPA will prepare a Responsiveness Summary to address any significant public comments received. After the public comment period, if EPA determines it is still appropriate to partially delete the site, the EPA will publish a final Notice of Partial Deletion in the Federal Register . Public notices, public submissions and copies of the Responsiveness Summary, if prepared, will be made available to interested parties and included in the site information repositories listed above.

Deletion of a portion of a site from the NPL does not itself create, alter, or revoke any individual's rights or obligations. Deletion of a portion of a site from the NPL does not in any way alter EPA's right to take enforcement actions, as appropriate. The NPL is designed primarily for informational purposes and to assist EPA management. Section 300.425(e)(3) of the NCP states that the deletion of a site from the NPL does not preclude eligibility for future response actions, should future conditions warrant such actions.

The sites to be partially deleted from the NPL, the location of the site, and docket number with information including reference documents with the rationale and data principally relied upon by the EPA to determine that the Superfund response is complete are specified in Table 1. The NCP permits activities to occur at a deleted site or that media or parcel of a partially deleted site, including operation and maintenance of the remedy, monitoring, and five-year reviews. These activities for the site are entered in Table 1, if applicable, under Footnote such that; 1 = site has continued operation and maintenance of the remedy, 2 = site receives continued monitoring, and 3 = site five-year reviews are conducted.