[Federal Register Volume 86, Number 10 (Friday, January 15, 2021)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 4314-4387]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2020-28947]



[[Page 4313]]

Vol. 86

Friday,

No. 10

January 15, 2021

Part III

Book 2 of 2 Books

Pages 4313-4874





Department of Transportation





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



Federal Aviation Administration



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



14 CFR Parts 11, 21, et al.



Operation of Small Unmanned Aircraft Systems Over People; Final Rule

  Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 10 / Friday, January 15, 2021 / Rules 
and Regulations  

[[Page 4314]]


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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Parts 11, 21, 43, and 107

[Docket No.: FAA-2018-1087; Amdt. Nos. 11-64, 21-105, 43-51, 107-8]
RIN 2120-AK85


Operation of Small Unmanned Aircraft Systems Over People

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) and Office of the 
Secretary of Transportation (OST), Department of Transportation (DOT).

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: This rule finalizes the February 13, 2019 notice of proposed 
rulemaking titled ``Operation of Small Unmanned Aircraft Systems over 
People'' (the NPRM). In June 2016, the FAA published remote pilot 
certification and operating rules for civil small unmanned aircraft 
weighing less than 55 pounds. Those rules did not permit small unmanned 
aircraft operations at night or over people without a waiver. The NPRM 
proposed to modify these regulations to permit routine operations of 
small unmanned aircraft over people and at night under certain 
conditions, in addition to changing the recurrent training framework, 
expanding the list of persons who may request the presentation of a 
remote pilot certificate, and making other minor changes.

DATES: This rule is effective March 16, 2021, except for the amendments 
to Sec. Sec.  107.61, 107.63, 107.65, 107.73, and 107.74 which are 
effective March 1, 2021.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Michael Machnik, General Aviation and 
Commercial Division, Flight Standards Service, Federal Aviation 
Administration, 55 M Street SE, 8th Floor, Washington, DC 20003; 
telephone 1-844-FLY-MYUAS; email: [email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Table of Contents

I. Executive Summary
    A. Purpose of the Final Rule
    B. Overview of the Final Rule
    C. Summary of Benefits and Costs
II. Legal Authority
III. Background
    A. Related FAA and DOT Actions
    B. Micro UAS Aviation Rulemaking Committee
IV. Operations Over People: General Discussion
    A. Safety Concerns
    B. Comments in Support of Additional Requirements
    C. Requests for Clarification
    D. Minimum Stand-Off Distances
V. Category 1 Operations
    A. Weight Threshold
    B. Prohibition Against Exposed Rotating Parts
    C. Prohibition on Sustained Flight Over Open-Air Assemblies for 
Catergory 1
VI. Category 2 and 3 Operations
    A. Eligibility of Small UAS to Conduct Category 2 and Category 3 
Operations: Design and Production Requirements
    B. Means of Compliance
    C. Declaration of Compliance
    D. Small Unmanned Aircraft Manufactured Previous to the 
Effective Date of This Rule
    E. Remote Pilot Operating Requirements
    F. Variable Modes and Variable Configurations of Small UAS
    G. Record Retention Requirements
VII. Category 4: Operations Based on Airworthiness
    A. Remote Pilot in Command Operating Requirements for Category 4
    B. Small Unmanned Aircraft System Requirements and Continued 
Airworthiness for Category 4
    C. Maintenance Records
VIII. Operations Over Moving Vehicles
    A. Proposed Prohibition and Comments Received
    B. Response to Comments for Determination
IX. Operations at Night
    A. Proposed Requirements and Comments Received
    B. Knowledge Requirements for Remote Pilots Conducting 
Operations at Night
    C. Anti-Collision Lighting
    D. Position Lighting Not Required
    E. Miscellaneous Night Operations Considerations
    F. Effect on Human Activity
X. Part 107 Remote Pilot Knowledge Testing and Training
    A. Recurrent Training and Aeronautical Knowledge Recency
    B. Other Comments Related to Initial Testing or Recurrent 
Training
XI. Other Amendments to Part 107
    A. Presentation of Remote Pilot in Command Certificate
    B. UAS Exemption-Holders
    C. Remote Pilot in Command
    D. Operation of Multiple Small UAS
XII. Section 44807 Statutory Findings
    A. Hazards to Users of the NAS or the Public
    B. Certificate Requirements
XIII. Other Considerations
    A. Liability
    B. Privacy
    C. Noise From Unmanned Aircraft
    D. Other Comments
    E. Regulatory Analysis--Benefits and Costs
XIV. Effective and Compliance Dates
    A. Implementation Timeline for Night Operations and Recurrent 
Training Requirements
    B. Compliance With Remote Identification
XV. Regulatory Notices and Analyses
    A. Regulatory Evaluation
    B. Regulatory Flexibility Act
    C. International Trade Impact Assessment
    D. Unfunded Mandates Assessment
    E. Paperwork Reduction Act
    F. International Compatibility and Cooperation
    G. Environmental Analysis
XVI. Executive Order Determinations
    A. Executive Order 13132, Federalism
    B. Executive Order 13211, Regulations That Significantly Affect 
Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use
    C. Executive Order 13609, Promoting International Regulatory 
Cooperation
    D. Executive Order 13175, Consultation and Coordination With 
Indian Tribal Governments
    E. Executive Order 13771, Reducing Regulation and Controlling 
Regulatory Costs
XVII. Additional Information
    A. Availability of Rulemaking Documents
    B. Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act

I. Executive Summary

A. Purpose of the Final Rule

    This rule amends title 14 of the Code of Federal Regulations part 
107 (14 CFR part 107) by permitting the routine operation of small UAS 
at night \1\ or over people under certain conditions.\2\ This rule is 
the next step in the FAA's incremental approach to integrating UAS into 
the national airspace system (NAS), based on demands for increased 
operational flexibility and the experience the FAA has gained since it 
initially published part 107. This rule also builds on the performance-
based regulatory philosophy established in part 107.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ See Sec.  107.29. An operation at night was defined as an 
operation conducted between the end of evening civil twilight and 
the beginning of morning civil twilight, as published in the Air 
Almanac, converted to local time.
    \2\ See Sec.  107.39. An operation over people was established 
as one in which a small unmanned aircraft passes over any part of 
any person who is not directly participating in the operation and 
who is not located under a covered structure or inside a stationary 
vehicle.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

B. Overview of the Final Rule

1. Operations Over People
    This rule allows expanded routine operations of small unmanned 
aircraft over people without a waiver or exemption under certain 
conditions. Prior to this final rule, small UAS operations over people 
were limited to operations over people who are directly participating 
in the operation, located under a covered structure, or inside a 
stationary vehicle. This rule expands the ability to conduct operations 
over people, provided that the operation meets the requirements of one 
of four operational categories. This rule establishes subpart D to part 
107, which sets forth the aircraft eligibility and operating 
requirements for the four categories of operations over people.

[[Page 4315]]

The first three categories of operations over people, which the Agency 
proposed in the NPRM (84 FR 3856, Feb. 13, 2019), are based on the risk 
of injury they present to people on the ground. In response to public 
comments, this rule also establishes a fourth category, which is based 
on the small unmanned aircraft having an airworthiness certificate. The 
FAA maintains the prohibition on open-air assemblies for Category 3, as 
proposed. Additionally, in response to comments, remote pilots are 
prohibited from operating a small unmanned aircraft as a Category 1, 2, 
or 4 operation in sustained flight over open-air assemblies unless the 
operation meets the requirements of Sec.  89.110 or Sec.  89.115(a) 
(remote identification operational and broadcast requirements for 
standard remote identification unmanned aircraft or unmanned aircraft 
with remote identification broadcast modules). To conduct operations 
involving sustained flight over open-air assemblies for Category 1, 2, 
and 4, remote pilots must voluntarily comply with the operating and 
broadcast requirements of Sec.  89.110 or Sec.  89.115(a) prior to the 
operational compliance date of the final rule for Remote Identification 
of Unmanned Aircraft. Following the operational compliance date for the 
final rule for Remote Identification of Unmanned Aircraft, all unmanned 
aircraft required to register must meet the operating requirements of 
the remote identification rule. Sustained flight over an open-air 
assembly includes hovering above the heads of persons gathered in an 
open-air assembly, flying back and forth over an open-air assembly, or 
circling above the assembly in such a way that the small unmanned 
aircraft remains above some part the assembly. `Sustained flight' over 
an open-air assembly of people in a Category 1, 2, or 4 operation does 
not include a brief, one-time transiting over a portion of the 
assembled gathering, where the transit is merely incidental to a point-
to-point operation unrelated to the assembly Examples of open-air 
assemblies are described later in the preamble in Section VI.E.1. The 
FAA may waive compliance with this provision as appropriate. However, 
conditions of any waiver issued may require the operator to notify 
local law enforcement prior to the operation.
a. Category 1 Operations
    Category 1 operations over people are permitted using a small 
unmanned aircraft that: (a) Weighs 0.55 pounds or less, including 
everything that is on board or otherwise attached to the aircraft at 
the time of takeoff and throughout the duration of each operation; and 
(b) does not contain any exposed rotating parts that would lacerate \3\ 
human skin on impact with a human being. Remote pilots are responsible 
for determining that their small unmanned aircraft does not exceed the 
weight threshold and ensuring that their small unmanned aircraft does 
not contain any exposed rotating parts that would lacerate human skin. 
Furthermore, no remote pilot in command may operate a small unmanned 
aircraft as a Category 1 operation in sustained flight over open-air 
assemblies unless the operation meets the applicable remote 
identification requirements. The requirements for Category 1 operations 
over people are discussed in Section V of this preamble.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ As explained in the NPRM, the FAA's decision to ensure 
protection of skin from lacerating injuries is similar to the logic 
the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration employs. See 
Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards: Glazing Materials, 65 FR 
44710, 44711 (July 19, 2000) (explaining NHTSA's decision to assess 
whether ``advanced glazings'' are more likely to cause lacerations 
than ``current glass,'' and stating, ``[a]lthough facial lacerations 
injuries are relatively minor (AIS 1 or 2), they . . . can be 
disfiguring'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

b. Category 2 Operations
    Category 2 provides performance-based eligibility and operating 
requirements when conducting operations over people using unmanned 
aircraft that weigh more than 0.55 pounds but do not have an 
airworthiness certificate under part 21. To be eligible for Category 2 
operations, a small unmanned aircraft must comply with the following 
three safety requirements.\4\ First, the small unmanned aircraft must 
be designed, produced, or modified such that it will not cause injury 
to a human being that is equivalent to or greater than the severity of 
injury caused by a transfer of 11 foot-pounds (ft-lbs) of kinetic 
energy upon impact from a rigid object. A small unmanned aircraft will 
only be eligible to conduct Category 2 operations if the person 
submitting the declaration of compliance (the applicant) can 
demonstrate that the injury resulting from an impact between the small 
unmanned aircraft and a person on the ground is less than this injury 
severity limit.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ The Agency used the term ``safety level'' in the NPRM to 
refer to the ``limitation of injury severity caused by transfers of 
kinetic energy from a rigid object, exposed rotating parts, or 
safety defects.'' The term referred generally to the grouping of 
these three safety requirements for Categories 2 and 3 operations 
over people. Proposed Sec.  107.125, ``Means of Compliance,'' also 
contained the term ``safety level,'' to require ``justification, 
including any substantiating material, showing the means of 
compliance establishes achievement of or equivalency to the safety 
level identified in Sec. Sec.  107.115(b)(1) and 107.120(b)(1).''
    Since ``safety level'' implies a number or threshold on a scale 
as opposed to an overall level of safety afforded to the public 
based on a set of safety regulations, the FAA has decided instead to 
use the term ``safety requirements'' applicable to the specific 
category of operation. Further, the FAA clarifies that a means of 
compliance need only address the limitation of injury severity 
caused by impacts with small unmanned aircraft and exposed rotating 
parts capable of lacerating skin.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Second, the small unmanned aircraft must not contain any exposed 
rotating parts that would lacerate human skin on impact with a human 
being. Third, the small unmanned aircraft must not contain any safety 
defects.
    As a point of clarification, this rule uses the term ``applicant'' 
to refer to the person \5\ who submits a declaration of compliance to 
the FAA for review and acceptance. An applicant for a declaration of 
compliance may be anyone who designs, produces, or modifies a small 
unmanned aircraft.\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ As defined in Sec.  1.1, a person is an individual, firm, 
partnership, corporation, company, association, joint-stock 
association, or governmental entity. It includes a trustee, 
receiver, assignee, or similar representative of any of them.
    \6\ As explained in Section VI.C., in the final rule the FAA has 
replaced the term ``manufacturer'' with applicant in order to make 
it clear that anyone may submit a declaration of compliance to the 
FAA, provided they can meet all the requirements of a declaration of 
compliance.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Furthermore, a small unmanned aircraft eligible to conduct Category 
2 operations must: (1) Display a label on the aircraft indicating 
eligibility to conduct Category 2 operations; (2) have current remote 
pilot operating instructions that apply to the operation of the small 
unmanned aircraft; and (3) be subject to a product support and 
notification process. The eligibility requirements for Category 2 are 
discussed in Section VI.A. of this preamble.
    This rule also sets forth certain operating requirements for remote 
pilots who conduct Category 2 operations. Specifically, a remote pilot 
must use a small unmanned aircraft that is: (1) Eligible for Category 2 
operations; (2) listed on an FAA-accepted declaration of compliance as 
eligible for Category 2 operations; and (3) labeled as eligible to 
conduct Category 2 operations. Additionally, no remote pilot in command 
may operate a small unmanned aircraft as a Category 2 operation in 
sustained flight over open-air assemblies unless the operation meets 
the remote identification operational and broadcast requirements for 
standard remote identification unmanned aircraft or unmanned aircraft 
with remote identification broadcast modules even prior to the 
operational compliance date for remote

[[Page 4316]]

identification. The operating requirements for Category 2 are discussed 
in Section VI.E. of this preamble.
c. Category 3 Operations
    Similar to Category 2, to be eligible for Category 3 operations a 
small unmanned aircraft must meet certain safety requirements. Although 
Category 3 operations are subject to a higher injury severity limit 
than Category 2, the risk of injury to an individual is mitigated by 
applying operating limitations.
    To be eligible for Category 3 operations, a small unmanned aircraft 
must comply with the following three safety requirements. First, the 
small unmanned aircraft must be designed, produced, or modified such 
that it will not cause injury to a human being that is equivalent to or 
greater than the severity of injury caused by a transfer of 25 ft-lbs 
of kinetic energy upon impact from a rigid object. Second, the small 
unmanned aircraft must not contain any exposed rotating parts that 
would lacerate human skin on impact with a human being. Third, the 
small unmanned aircraft must not contain any safety defects.
    Furthermore, a small unmanned aircraft eligible to conduct Category 
3 operations must: (1) Display a label on the aircraft indicating 
eligibility to conduct Category 3 operations; (2) have current remote 
pilot operating instructions that apply to the operation of the small 
unmanned aircraft; and (3) be subject to a product support and 
notification process. The eligibility requirements for Category 3 are 
discussed in Section VI.A. of this preamble.
    This rule also sets forth certain operating requirements for remote 
pilots who conduct Category 3 operations. Specifically, a remote pilot 
must use a small unmanned aircraft that is: (1) Eligible for Category 3 
operations; (2) listed on an FAA-accepted declaration of compliance; 
and (3) labeled as eligible to conduct Category 3 operations. Category 
3 also includes additional operating limitations not applicable to 
Category 2. These operating limitations are necessary to mitigate the 
increased risk of injury associated with the higher injury severity 
limit allowed for small unmanned aircraft conducting Category 3 
operations. Specifically, Category 3 operations are prohibited over 
open-air assemblies of human beings and are only permitted if: (1) The 
operation is within or over closed- or restricted-access sites and 
everyone within that site has been notified that a small unmanned 
aircraft may fly over them; or (2) the small unmanned aircraft does not 
maintain sustained flight over a person not directly participating in 
the operation or located under a covered structure or inside a 
stationary vehicle that can provide reasonable protection from a 
falling small unmanned aircraft. Sustained flight includes hovering 
above any person's head, flying back and forth over an open-air 
assembly, or circling above an uninvolved person in such a way that the 
small unmanned aircraft remains above some part of that person. 
Additionally, a closed- or restricted-access site could be an area that 
contains physical barriers, personnel, or both, as appropriate, to 
ensure no inadvertent or unauthorized access can occur. The operating 
requirements for Category 3 operations over people are discussed in 
Section VI.E. of this preamble.
d. Demonstrating Compliance With Safety Requirements
    Before a small unmanned aircraft can be used for Category 2 or 
Category 3 operations, this rule requires the applicant to declare 
compliance with the applicable injury severity limit and the exposed 
rotating parts prohibition. The rule also requires the applicant to 
declare the small unmanned aircraft does not contain any safety defects 
and is subject to a product support and notification process. The 
applicant will be required to submit to the FAA a declaration of 
compliance in which the applicant declares it has demonstrated, using 
an FAA-accepted means of compliance, that the small unmanned aircraft, 
or specific configurations of that aircraft, satisfies the injury 
severity limit and exposed rotating parts prohibition. This rule also 
includes a record retention requirement for a person who either submits 
a declaration of compliance or a means of compliance. The FAA uses the 
term ``means of compliance'' to refer to the method the applicant uses 
to show that its small unmanned aircraft would not exceed the 
applicable injury severity limit on impact with a human being and does 
not contain any exposed rotating parts that could cause lacerations. 
The FAA must accept a means of compliance before an applicant can rely 
on it to declare compliance with the requirements of this rule.
    This rule allows anyone to develop and submit to the FAA for 
acceptance any means of compliance that fulfills the Category 2 or 
Category 3 requirements. In the NPRM, the FAA provided a means of 
compliance for small unmanned aircraft to demonstrate that they do not 
have exposed rotating parts that could lacerate human skin on impact 
with a human being. This means of compliance is not applicable to all 
types of small unmanned aircraft. The FAA anticipates that industry 
will develop and submit for FAA acceptance more comprehensive means of 
compliance that give credit for innovative materials and designs. The 
requirements related to means of compliance are discussed in Section 
VI.B. of this preamble.
    This rule also requires an applicant to provide remote pilot 
operating instructions on sale or transfer of the small unmanned 
aircraft, or use of the aircraft by someone other than the applicant. 
The applicant must also establish and maintain a process to notify the 
public and FAA of any safety defects that cause the small unmanned 
aircraft to no longer meet the requirements of Category 2 or Category 
3.
e. Category 4 Operations
    The FAA received comments in response to the NPRM that criticized 
the Agency for insufficiently considering the reliability of the 
unmanned aircraft in determining whether a small unmanned aircraft 
could be operated safely over people. The FAA also received comments 
stating that if small unmanned aircraft were issued an airworthiness 
certificate, that certification should be sufficient to permit the 
small unmanned aircraft to operate over people. The FAA agrees that 
demonstrable reliability of the small unmanned aircraft is an 
alternative path for operations over people. Therefore, this final rule 
includes a fourth category to allow small unmanned aircraft issued an 
airworthiness certificate under part 21 \7\ to operate over people in 
accordance with part 107, so long as the operating limitations 
specified in the approved Flight Manual or as otherwise specified by 
the Administrator, do not prohibit operations over human beings.\8\

[[Page 4317]]

Additionally, no remote pilot in command may operate a small unmanned 
aircraft as a Category 4 operation in sustained flight over open-air 
assemblies unless the operation meets the remote identification 
operational and broadcast requirements for standard remote 
identification unmanned aircraft or unmanned aircraft with remote 
identification broadcast modules even prior to the operational 
compliance date for remote identification.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ See 14 CFR part 21, which provides the procedural 
requirements for airworthiness certification.
    \8\ Small unmanned aircraft that receive an airworthiness 
certificate from another country will be treated in the same manner 
as other aircraft with a foreign airworthiness certificate. 
Currently, however, such aircraft will not be able to obtain 
recognition based on their certificating authority meeting an 
international standard because no international standards currently 
exist for the airworthiness certification of small unmanned 
aircraft. Individuals who wish to operate such aircraft in 
accordance with Category 4 will need to deregister their aircraft 
from the foreign authority's registry, and the FAA must receive 
notification of deregistration from the foreign authority. These 
individuals must also register their aircraft in the United States, 
apply for and receive an airworthiness certificate issued under part 
21, and operate the small UAS in accordance with the operating 
limitations, which must not prohibit operations over people or over 
moving vehicles.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    To preserve the continued airworthiness of the small unmanned 
aircraft and continue to meet a level of reliability that the FAA finds 
acceptable for flying over people in accordance with Category 4, 
certain additional requirements apply. The person performing any 
maintenance, preventive maintenance, or alterations must use the 
methods, techniques, and practices prescribed in the manufacturer's 
current maintenance manual or Instructions for Continued Airworthiness 
that are acceptable to the Administrator, or other methods, techniques, 
and practices acceptable to the Administrator. In addition, the person 
must have the knowledge, skill, and appropriate equipment to perform 
the work. The owner must, unless they have entered into an agreement 
with another entity to operate the small unmanned aircraft, maintain 
records of maintenance performed on the aircraft as well as records 
documenting the status of life-limited parts, compliance with 
airworthiness directives, and inspection compliance of the small UAS. 
The requirements for Category 4 operations over people are discussed in 
Section VII of this preamble.
2. Operations Over Moving Vehicles
    While small unmanned aircraft operations over people in moving 
vehicles were prohibited in Sec.  107.39, the NPRM proposed to add a 
new section that made it clear that such operations were expressly 
prohibited. The FAA considered, however, allowing the operation of 
small unmanned aircraft over people in moving vehicles without a waiver 
and sought public comment on this proposal. After considering the 
comments received, the FAA finds that operations over people in moving 
vehicles can be conducted safely, subject to certain conditions. 
Therefore, this rule allows small unmanned aircraft operations over 
people inside moving vehicles, subject to the following conditions. 
First, the small unmanned aircraft operation must either meet the 
requirements for a Category 1, 2, or 3 operation under the new subpart 
D of part 107 or meet the requirements for Category 4 small unmanned 
aircraft. Second, for Category 1, 2, or 3, the operation must meet one 
of the following conditions: (1) The small unmanned aircraft must be 
within or over a closed- or restricted-access site where any human 
being located inside a moving vehicle within the closed- or restricted-
access site is on notice that a small unmanned aircraft may fly over 
them; or (2) if the operation is not within or over a closed- or 
restricted-access site, the small unmanned aircraft must not maintain 
sustained flight over moving vehicles. The requirements for operations 
over moving vehicles are discussed in Section VIII of this preamble.
3. Operations at Night
    This rule allows routine operations of small UAS at night under two 
conditions. First, the remote pilot in command must complete a current 
initial knowledge test or recurrent training, as applicable, to ensure 
familiarity with the risks and appropriate mitigations for nighttime 
operations. Second, the small unmanned aircraft must have lighted anti-
collision lighting visible for at least 3 statute miles that has a 
flash rate sufficient to avoid a collision. The requirements for 
operations at night are discussed in Section IX of this preamble.
4. Other Changes to Part 107
    In addition to permitting routine operations over people and at 
night, this rule also amends part 107 to address the following 
subjects.
Remote Pilot Testing and Training Requirements
    Part 107 previously required initial small UAS remote pilot 
applicants and small UAS remote pilots to complete either an initial 
aeronautical knowledge test or a recurrent aeronautical knowledge test 
within the previous 24 calendar months prior to operating a small UAS. 
This final rule revises these regulations to require recurrent training 
instead of a recurrent aeronautical knowledge test. This final rule 
maintains, as proposed, the provision that people who hold a part 61 
pilot certificate (other than holders of a student pilot certificate) 
and have completed a flight review within the previous 24 calendar 
months in accordance with Sec.  61.56 may continue to complete either 
initial training or recurrent training. The final rule also harmonizes 
the subjects covered in the testing and training. The FAA is updating 
the related testing and training materials to add new information about 
night operations. The changes to the remote pilot testing and training 
requirements are discussed in Section X of this preamble.
Inspection, Testing, and Demonstration of Compliance
    Section 107.7 contains certain requirements pertaining to 
inspection, testing, and demonstrations of compliance. In accordance 
with Sec.  107.7(a), remote pilots must present their remote pilot 
certificate and identification on request from the Administrator. This 
rule extends that obligation to require remote pilots to present their 
remote pilot certificate and identification on request from: The 
Administrator; an authorized representative of the National 
Transportation Safety Board (NTSB); any Federal, State, or local law 
enforcement officer; and any authorized representative of the 
Transportation Safety Administration (TSA). In addition, the final rule 
requires that the person operating the small UAS must have their remote 
pilot certificate and identification in their possession when 
operating.
    This rule also adds requirements to Sec.  107.7 for any person 
holding an FAA-accepted declaration of compliance under subpart D. 
Under this rule, any person holding an FAA-accepted declaration of 
compliance must, on request, provide to the FAA such declaration and 
any other document, record, or report required to be kept in accordance 
with the regulations of this chapter. Furthermore, this rule allows the 
FAA to inspect the person's facilities, technical data, and small 
unmanned aircraft covered by the declaration of compliance to determine 
compliance. The amendments to Sec.  107.7 are discussed in Section 
XI.A. of this preamble.

[[Page 4318]]

    The FAA has used the terms ``unmanned aircraft system'' and ``UAS'' 
broadly when discussing UAS regulations. While this term is correct 
under many circumstances, it is imprecise in others. A small unmanned 
aircraft is simply the aircraft itself, while ``unmanned aircraft 
system'' refers also to the aircraft, the ground control station, 
communication links, and other components. In the case of operating 
over people, the remote pilot flies the aircraft over people, not the 
ground control station. In an effort to remediate any confusion the use 
of the term ``small UAS'' may have caused, this final rule uses the 
term ``small unmanned aircraft'' in any section discussing operations 
over people and moving vehicles, with the exception of where that term 
overlaps with existing requirements in part 107 that use ``small UAS.'' 
For example, the rule refers to small unmanned aircraft when discussing 
the requirements to operate over people and moving vehicles, but refers 
to small UAS when discussing the remote pilot operating instructions, 
as the regulations that refer to remote pilot responsibilities use 
``small UAS.'' Additionally, the FAA maintained instances where ``small 
UAS'' was used by commenters or in existing references (e.g., UAS 
Sightings Report).
    This rule also makes minor clarifying amendments to several other 
sections of part 107, as described in Section XI of this preamble. In 
addition, to improve clarity, the FAA also made some organizational 
changes to the proposed regulatory sections, including renumbering of 
sections and restructuring the regulatory text.

C. Summary of Benefits and Costs

    The FAA analyzed the impacts of this rule and expects the benefits 
to exceed the costs. The rule enables further operations of small UAS 
that will benefit the economy and facilitate innovation and growth 
across a variety of sectors, such as construction, education, 
infrastructure inspection, insurance, marketing, and event photography. 
Operations currently allowed under part 107 will become less onerous 
and, in many instances, more efficient with this rule because, in 
general, remote pilots would not necessarily need to avoid flying over 
people or clear an area of non-participating people in advance of 
flying.\9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ The rule does not permit Category 3 operations over open-air 
assemblies of people. Operations that occur pursuant to Category 1 
and Category 2, however, would not be subject to this prohibition.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The costs of this rule include the FAA converting the 
administration of tests to administration of training; manufacturers 
conducting testing, analysis, or inspection to comply with the 
requirements of manufacturing a small unmanned aircraft for operations 
over people; and remote pilots studying additional subject matter 
related to activities enabled by the final rule. The cost savings of 
this rule include relief provided through online training for remote 
pilots and relief from time the FAA expends in processing waivers.
    The FAA bases the analysis of this rule on a fleet forecast for 
small unmanned aircraft that includes base, low, and high scenarios. 
Accordingly, this analysis provides a range of net impacts from low to 
high based on these forecast scenarios. The FAA considers the base 
scenario as the primary estimate of net impacts of this rule. For the 
primary estimate, over a 10-year period of analysis this rule will 
result in present value net cost savings (savings less costs) of 
$688.27 million at a three percent discount rate, with annualized net 
cost savings of $80.69 million. At a seven percent discount rate, this 
rule will result in present value net cost savings of $551.31 million, 
with annualized net cost savings of $78.49 million. The following table 
summarizes the quantified costs and cost savings of this rule for the 
three forecast scenarios.

                                  Table 1--Costs and Cost Savings of Final Rule
                                                  [$millions] *
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                      10-Year                         10-Year
                Forecast scenario                  present value    Annualized     present value    Annualized
                                                       (3%)            (3%)            (7%)            (7%)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Base Scenario--Primary Estimate:
    Costs.......................................          146.44           17.17          119.98           17.08
    Cost Savings................................        (834.71)         (97.85)        (671.28)         (95.58)
                                                 ---------------------------------------------------------------
        Net Cost Savings........................        (688.27)         (80.69)        (551.31)         (78.49)
Low Scenario:
    Costs.......................................          102.96           12.07           85.32           12.15
    Cost Savings................................        (616.60)         (72.28)        (501.51)         (71.40)
                                                 ---------------------------------------------------------------
        Net Cost Savings........................        (513.64)         (60.21)        (416.19)         (59.26)
High Scenario:
    Costs.......................................          207.17           24.29          169.27           24.10
    Cost Savings................................      (1,158.84)        (135.85)        (927.41)        (132.04)
                                                 ---------------------------------------------------------------
        Net Cost Savings........................        (951.67)        (111.56)        (758.14)        (107.94)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* Table notes: Columns may not sum to total due to rounding. Savings are shown in parenthesis to distinguish
  from costs. Estimates are provided at three and seven percent discount rates per Office of Management and
  Budget (OMB) guidance.

    The operation of small unmanned aircraft over people may result in 
an increased safety risk. Although the FAA expects the probability of 
injuries that may occur from an operation of a small unmanned aircraft 
over people to be small, when that low probability is multiplied by an 
increased number of operations, some additional risk of injury exists. 
This final rule's performance-based requirements establish four 
categories of small unmanned aircraft operations defined primarily by 
injury severity level posed. Compliance with the manufacturer and 
operating requirements that apply to these categories would mitigate 
the level of risk when operating over people.

[[Page 4319]]

II. Legal Authority

    The primary authority for this rulemaking is based on 49 U.S.C. 
44807, which permits the Secretary of Transportation to determine 
whether ``certain unmanned aircraft systems may operate safely in the 
national airspace system.'' Section 44807 directs the Secretary to use 
a risk-based approach in making such determinations.\10\ Section 
44807(b) establishes a specific list of factors the Secretary must 
consider in determining which types of UAS may operate safely: Size, 
weight, speed, operational capability, proximity to airports and 
populated areas, operation over people, operation within visual line of 
sight, or operation during the day or night. The Secretary must 
determine, based on these factors, which types of UAS do not create a 
hazard to users of the NAS or the public. If the Secretary determines 
that certain unmanned aircraft systems may operate safely in the NAS, 
then the Secretary must ``establish requirements for the safe operation 
of such aircraft systems in the national airspace system.'' 49 U.S.C. 
44807(c). Although the authority of the Secretary to make 
determinations under Section 44807 whether certain unmanned aircraft 
systems may operate safely in the national airspace system terminates 
on September 30, 2023, the statute itself remains in effect after that 
date as a continuing source of specific authority for part 107.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ The predecessor to 49 U.S.C. 44807 was section 333 of Pub. 
L. 112-95 (section 333), which the Agency identified as the source 
of authority for 14 CFR part 107. The FAA Reauthorization Act of 
2018 clarifies that, notwithstanding the repeal of section 333, all 
determinations and regulations issued under section 333 would 
continue in effect until modified or revoked. Section 44807(d) 
states the authority to make determinations under 49 U.S.C. 44807 
will terminate on September 30, 2023. By this final rule, which the 
Agency publishes before the aforementioned sunset date, the 
Secretary determines that the small unmanned aircraft to which part 
107 applies may continue to operate pursuant to part 107.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Furthermore, this rulemaking is promulgated pursuant to 49 U.S.C. 
40103(b)(1) and (2), which directs the FAA to issue regulations: (1) To 
ensure the safety of aircraft and the efficient use of airspace; and 
(2) to govern the flight of aircraft for purposes of navigating, 
protecting and identifying aircraft, and protecting individuals and 
property on the ground. In addition, 49 U.S.C. 44701(a)(5) charges the 
FAA with promoting safe flight of civil aircraft by prescribing 
regulations the FAA finds necessary for safety in air commerce and 
national security.
    This rulemaking is also promulgated under 49 U.S.C. 44703(a), which 
requires the Administrator to prescribe regulations for the issuance of 
airman certificates when the Administrator finds, after investigation, 
that an individual is qualified for, and physically able to perform the 
duties related to the position authorized by the certificate.
    Finally, this rulemaking is also being issued consistent with DOT's 
regulatory policy which requires that DOT regulations ``be 
technologically neutral, and, to the extent feasible, they should 
specify performance objectives, rather than prescribing specific 
conduct that regulated entities must adopt.'' \11\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ 49 CFR 5.5(e).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

III. Background

    As technology improves and the utility of small UAS for activities 
that previously required manned aircraft increases, the FAA anticipates 
an increased demand for flexibility in small UAS operations. This 
rulemaking is one of a number of regulatory steps the FAA is taking to 
allow for this growth. This rule permits small unmanned aircraft 
operations to operate over people, moving vehicles, and at night, 
allowing greater operational flexibility for uses such as motion 
picture filming, newsgathering, law enforcement, aerial photography, 
sports photography, and construction or surveying. This rule enables 
further operations integration of small UAS, which will benefit the 
economy by increasing opportunities for small UAS operations.
    The FAA received over 900 comments in response to publication of 
the NPRM on February 13, 2019. The FAA considered the comments 
carefully, as described in this final rule.\12\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ 84 FR 3856. Also on February 13, 2019, the FAA published 
two UAS-related rulemakings, in addition to the Operation of Small 
UAS Over People NPRM: The External Marking of Small Unmanned 
Aircraft Interim Final Rule (84 FR 3669) and the Safe and Secure 
Operations of Small Unmanned Aircraft Systems Advance Notice of 
Proposed Rulemaking (84 FR 3732).
    The FAA notes that, as three rules were published related to UAS 
on the same day, a number of commenters submitted comments regarding 
a particular rule to another rule's docket. Where a comment 
submitted to one docket clearly addressed only provisions contained 
in another rule, the FAA moved that comment to the appropriate 
docket and addressed it in the appropriate rule. Where a comment 
submitted to only one docket addressed more than one rule, the FAA 
left that comment in the docket to which the commenter had 
originally submitted the comment. The FAA has ensured that all 
comments addressing topics in each rule have been appropriately 
considered, regardless of the docket to which the comment was 
originally submitted.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

A. Related FAA and DOT Actions

    The FAA is incorporating the operation of small UAS into the NAS 
using a phased, incremental, and risk-based approach.\13\ In 2012, 
Congress passed the FAA Modernization and Reform Act of 2012 (Pub. L. 
112-95). Section 333 of Public Law 112-95 directed the Secretary to 
determine which types of UAS do not create a hazard to users of the NAS 
or the public or pose a threat to national security. Based on such 
findings, Congress directed the Secretary to establish requirements for 
the safe operation of such UAS.\14\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ For more information regarding the operation of small UAS, 
see http://www.faa.gov/uas.
    \14\ Section 347 of Public Law 115-254 repealed Section 333, but 
replaced the relevant substantive provisions, codified at 49 U.S.C. 
44807.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

1. Registration and Marking Requirements for Small Unmanned Aircraft
    On December 16, 2015, the FAA published the Registration and 
Marking Requirements for Small Unmanned Aircraft interim final rule 
(Registration Rule).\15\ The Registration Rule established, at 14 CFR 
part 48, a streamlined, web-based registration system for small 
unmanned aircraft. The FAA provided this process as an alternative to 
the registration requirements for manned aircraft found in 14 CFR part 
47. The Registration Rule required all small UAS owners to register 
under part 47 or part 48 by March 31, 2016.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \15\ 80 FR 78594.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Registration Rule also established marking requirements for 
small unmanned aircraft. In accordance with that rule, all small 
unmanned aircraft must display a unique identifier. Each small UAS 
operated in accordance with part 107 must display a unique registration 
number, visible on inspection of the small unmanned aircraft. 
Additionally, the FAA published the External Marking Requirement for 
Small Unmanned Aircraft interim final rule (External Marking Rule) on 
February 13, 2019.\16\ The External Marking Rule, effective February 
25, 2019, requires all small unmanned aircraft owners display the FAA 
registration number on an external surface of the aircraft, rather than 
enclosing it in a compartment of the aircraft.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \16\ 84 FR 3669.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

2. Operation and Certification of Small Unmanned Aircraft Systems
    On June 28, 2016, the FAA and DOT jointly issued the Operation and 
Certification of Small Unmanned Aircraft Systems (hereinafter, ``2016

[[Page 4320]]

final rule'').\17\ That rule, codified at 14 CFR part 107, allows small 
UAS operations without requiring airworthiness certification, 
exemption, waiver, or certificate of authorization (COA). Part 107 sets 
forth a framework of operational rules to permit routine civil 
operation of small UAS in the NAS in a safe manner.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \17\ 81 FR 42064.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    To mitigate risk to people on the ground and other users of the 
airspace, the 2016 final rule limited small UAS to daylight and civil 
twilight operations, confined areas of operation, and visual line-of-
sight operations. The 2016 final rule also established airspace 
restrictions, remote pilot certification, visual observer requirements 
that apply when a remote pilot in command opts to use a visual 
observer, and operating limitations, to maintain the safety of the NAS 
and ensure small UAS do not pose a threat to national security. 
Finally, the 2016 final rule included a waiver provision, which allows 
individual operations to deviate from several applicable operating 
limitations if the Administrator finds the applicant could safely 
conduct the proposed operation under the terms of the certificate of 
waiver.
3. Secure Operations of Small Unmanned Aircraft Systems
    The FAA has engaged in extensive outreach with Federal, State, 
local, and tribal law enforcement entities on the subject of small UAS 
operations. The FAA recognizes law enforcement officials are often in 
the best position to detect and deter unsafe and unauthorized UAS 
operations. The FAA works closely with these agencies to provide 
information regarding the evidence the FAA needs when taking 
enforcement actions and to share information in a timely manner.
    As part of the FAA's commitment to working with security partners, 
the Agency published the Safe and Secure Operations of Small Unmanned 
Aircraft Systems advance notice of proposed rulemaking (ANPRM) on 
February 13, 2019.\18\ In that publication, the FAA sought comment on 
whether, and in what circumstances, the Agency should promulgate new 
rules to require stand-off distances, additional operating and 
performance restrictions, the use of UAS Traffic Management (UTM), and 
payload restrictions. The FAA also sought comment on whether it should 
prescribe design requirements and require unmanned aircraft to have 
critical safety systems. The FAA received over 1,800 comments in 
response to the ANPRM.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \18\ 84 FR 3732.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In addition, the FAA is establishing requirements for the remote 
identification of UAS. On May 4, 2017, the FAA convened an Aviation 
Rulemaking Committee (ARC) of industry stakeholders and observers from 
relevant government agencies to provide recommendations regarding 
technologies available for remote identification and tracking of UAS 
(UAS-ID ARC). The UAS-ID ARC's objectives included identifying and 
recommending emerging technology as well as identifying requirements 
for fulfilling security and public safety needs of law enforcement, 
homeland defense, and national security communities. The UAS-ID ARC's 
members included experts with knowledge and experience in electronic 
data capture, law enforcement, and public safety, among other areas. 
The working groups presented their findings and conclusions to the full 
UAS-ID ARC for consideration in making its recommendations. The UAS-ID 
ARC submitted its report to the FAA on September 30, 2017.\19\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \19\ The UAS Identification and Tracking Aviation Rulemaking 
Committee charter is available at https://www.faa.gov/news/updates/media/UAS_ID_and_Tracking_ARC_Charter.pdf. The UAS ID and Tracking 
ARC report is available at https://www.faa.gov/regulations_policies/rulemaking/committees/documents/media/UAS%20ID%20ARC%20Final%20Report%20with%20Appendices.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The FAA published the Remote Identification of Unmanned Aircraft 
Systems NPRM (Remote ID NPRM) on December 31, 2019,\20\ in which the 
FAA discussed the ARC's report.\21\ The Remote Identification of 
Unmanned Aircraft Systems final rule (Remote ID final rule) is 
published in the same edition of the Federal Register as this final 
rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \20\ 84 FR 72438.
    \21\ 84 FR at 72456.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

4. Limited Recreational Operations of Unmanned Aircraft
    This rule amends part 107 and applies only to operations conducted 
under that part. Although this rule does not apply to operations that 
flyers conduct under 49 U.S.C. 44809 (``Exception for Limited 
Recreational Operations of Unmanned Aircraft''), the FAA received 
comments concerning recreational operations. This section establishes 
an ``exception for limited recreational operations of unmanned 
aircraft''. It allows a person to fly an unmanned aircraft without 
specific certification or operating authority if the operation fulfills 
certain criteria.

B. Micro UAS Aviation Rulemaking Committee

    On February 24, 2016, the FAA chartered the Micro UAS Aviation 
Rulemaking Committee (ARC) (hereinafter ``the Micro ARC'') on the 
subject of enabling operations of small UAS over people. On April 2, 
2016, the Micro ARC provided a final report with recommendations \22\ 
to establish four categories for operations over people with small UAS, 
defined primarily by level of risk of injury posed. For each category, 
the Micro ARC recommended the FAA adopt a risk threshold that 
correlates to either a weight or an impact energy equivalent. The Micro 
ARC also recommended implementation of performance-based standards and 
operational restrictions to the extent necessary to minimize the risks 
associated with the operations.\23\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \22\ A copy of the Micro ARC's final report has been placed in 
the docket for this rulemaking.
    \23\ 84 FR 3856, 3866-3867.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

IV. Operations Over People: General Discussion

    This final rule allows routine operations over people in accordance 
with part 107 and under certain conditions without a waiver or 
exemption.\24\ Consistent with the FAA's proposal, the requirements for 
routine operations over people vary depending on the level of risk that 
operations of small unmanned aircraft present to people on the ground. 
The FAA proposed three categories of permissible operations over people 
based on the risk of injury they present: Category 1, Category 2, and 
Category 3. This rule finalizes those three categories as described in 
the following sections and adds a fourth category to permit operations 
over people that occur with small unmanned aircraft that have an 
airworthiness certificate. The following sections describe the 
requirements and limitations that mitigate the risks associated with 
operations over people. The discussion below also includes responses to 
comments received to the NPRM.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \24\ Title 14 CFR 107.200 states that the Administrator may 
issue a certificate of waiver authorizing a deviation from any 
regulation specified in Sec.  107.205 if the Administrator finds 
that a proposed small UAS operation can safely be conducted under 
the terms of that certificate of waiver. Section 107.205(g) 
currently lists the operations over people prohibition as a 
regulation that is subject to waiver. The Administrator also 
maintains authority to issue exemptions from regulations promulgated 
under 49 U.S.C. 44701(a) or (b) or any of sections 44702-44706 of 
title 49, if the Administrator finds the exemption is in the public 
interest. Title 14 CFR 11.81-11.103 details the process for 
obtaining such an exemption.

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

[[Page 4321]]

A. Safety Concerns

1. Risks of Operation
    Some commenters expressed concern that the proposed rule was too 
permissive, not enforceable, and would have a negative effect on public 
safety. Chicago's First Lady Cruises, the International Association of 
Amusement Parks and Attractions (IAAPA), and numerous individuals 
expressed concerns about the proposed rulemaking because of the 
potential risks. The National Agricultural Aviation Association (NAAA) 
opposed allowing operations over people without a waiver because there 
is a lack of safety data, among other reasons addressed elsewhere in 
this rule. The commenter was concerned that the widespread use of small 
UAS has caused several incidents over the last two years, and allowing 
operations over people to become routine would open the floodgates to 
operators conducting unsafe operations. A few commenters opposed the 
proposed rule because they believe there is no way to properly enforce 
the rule. One commenter opposed operations over crowds, towns, and 
cities because of the lack of redundancy and safety infrastructure. 
Another individual cited unmanned aircraft interference with aerial 
firefighting activities as an example of the negative impact. One 
commenter noted a single unmanned aircraft can damage an aircraft or 
structure and expressed concern about unskilled remote pilots.
    Between 2016 and September 2020, the Agency has issued 175 waivers 
for operations over people. The FAA issued these waivers based on a 
wide range of safety cases and has utilized available research, 
including the ASSURE reports. None of the 175 operations over people 
waiver holders have reported injuries to persons on the ground, nor 
have they reported damage to any property on the ground in excess of 
$500.00, events that are required to be reported by Sec.  107.9. 
Considering the safety record of these waivers for operations over 
people, the available safety data supports the determination that 
operations over people can occur safely in accordance with this rule.
    Compliance with manufacturer and operating requirements as 
established for Categories 1, 2, and 3 and the airworthiness 
certification requirements of Category 4 will mitigate the safety risks 
of operating over people to a level the FAA finds acceptable. Moreover, 
the FAA has a carefully structured Compliance Program and an 
Enforcement Program to handle all statutory and regulatory violations, 
including violations of part 107. The FAA establishes regulatory 
standards to ensure safe operations in the NAS. The FAA's system is 
largely based on, and dependent on, voluntary compliance with 
regulatory standards. FAA personnel use compliance, administrative, or 
legal enforcement actions to uphold the public's safety interest in 
ensuring that all regulated persons conform their conduct to statutory 
and regulatory requirements. FAA Order 8000.373A, FAA Compliance 
Program, and Order 2150.3, as amended, Compliance and Enforcement 
Program, are used to address safety concerns and actual or apparent 
deviations from regulations or standards. Public law and agency policy 
allow FAA program offices to use discretion when taking action to 
resolve safety issues in the NAS. FAA Orders 8000.373A and 2150.3, as 
amended, and the policies and procedures issued by program offices, 
guide agency personnel in the exercise of prosecutorial discretion, 
including the use of compliance, administrative, and legal enforcement 
action, to best ensure that regulated persons conform their conduct to 
statutory and regulatory requirements. Noncompliances by regulated 
persons willing and able to comply and willing to cooperate in 
corrective actions may be addressed with compliance actions, except 
when legal enforcement action is required or is preferred under agency 
policy. Under the Compliance and Enforcement Program, FAA program 
offices, such as Flight Standards Service, are policy owners for 
compliance actions. The FAA anticipates that in situations where law 
enforcement personnel need to ascertain whether an unmanned aircraft 
operating over people under this rule are compliant, the serial numbers 
broadcast by unmanned aircraft as required in the Remote ID final rule 
will allow law enforcement to expeditiously determine the make and 
model in the FAA database. Noncompliances by regulated persons 
unwilling or unable to comply or not cooperative in corrective actions 
are addressed with enforcement action.
    Finally, the FAA notes that this rule prohibits Category 3 over 
open-air assemblies. Additionally, in response to comments, remote 
pilots are prohibited from operating a small unmanned aircraft as a 
Category 1, 2, or 4 operation in sustained flight over open-air 
assemblies unless the operation meets the requirements of Sec.  89.110 
or Sec.  89.115(a) (remote identification operational and broadcast 
requirements for standard remote identification unmanned aircraft or 
unmanned aircraft with remote identification broadcast modules). The 
FAA may waive compliance with this provision as appropriate. However, 
conditions of any waiver issued may require the operator to notify 
local law enforcement prior to the operation. All small unmanned 
aircraft operations are subject to remote identification requirements 
upon the applicable remote identification compliance date, as specified 
in the Remote Identification for Unmanned Aircraft final rule. This 
prohibition is discussed in more detail in Section XIV.B. For a further 
explanation of open-air assemblies and sustained flight, please see 
Section VI.E.
2. Risks of Small UAS Operations
    Several commenters generally supported small UAS operations over 
people, and offered various suggestions. A commenter supported 
operations over people by those who conduct pre- and post-flight 
inspections of the small UAS and operate in a safe manner. Another 
commenter supported operations over people if the regulations mirror 
those of general aviation aircraft operating in a similar capacity. One 
commenter also expressed concerns about remote communication for UAS 
operations, stating that the U.S. must take steps to protect the ``RF 
spectrum.'' In response to these comments, the FAA notes that the 
requirement to conduct safe operations exists in Sec. Sec.  107.15, 
107.19, and 107.23 and the requirement to conduct a preflight 
inspection is codified at Sec.  107.49; moreover, small UAS and manned 
aircraft have different safety requirements and operational 
considerations, which the FAA has addressed in distinct regulations. As 
for protection of radio frequencies (RF) for small unmanned aircraft 
operations, the Remote Identification of Unmanned Aircraft Systems 
rule, which appears in this same issue of the Federal Register, 
addresses concerns about radio frequencies and UAS operations.
    The Motion Picture Association of America (MPAA) and NCTA--the 
Internet & Television Association (NCTA) urged the FAA to use 
conditions and limitations of current film and television waivers as a 
baseline for professional newsgathering and closed-set small UAS 
operations over people. The FAA has reviewed and processed numerous 
requests for relief from the prohibition of operating small unmanned 
aircraft over people and has considered this information in finalizing 
this rule.
    For Category 2 or Category 3 operations over people, a commenter 
asked whether the FAA would require

[[Page 4322]]

a second- or third-class medical certificate or BasicMed and suggested 
compliance with Sec.  61.53(b). The FAA did not propose Categories 2 
and 3 operations to require medical certification. Section 107.61(c) 
states that, to be eligible for a remote pilot certificate with a small 
UAS rating, the applicant must not know or have reason to know that 
they have a physical or mental condition that would interfere with the 
safe operation of the small UAS. The responsibility for knowing the 
effects of medication resides with the remote pilot and the FAA has 
many publications that are informative regarding remote pilots' use of 
medications.
3. Commenters Favoring Fewer Restrictions
    Other commenters opposed regulations or restrictions for UAS, in 
general. DJI commented that flights over people are already occurring 
without serious consequences. DJI and the Commercial Drone Alliance 
(CDA) both believe proposing this rule for all unmanned aircraft under 
55 pounds is too strict in consideration of the risks the operations 
present. CDA wrote that the proposed rules would impose undue costs 
without a corresponding safety or security benefit, and that there 
would be ``no meaningful or scalable expansion of commercial small UAS 
operations, which would be limited to the smallest and lightest 
unmanned aircraft and narrowly-drawn operational areas.'' CDA asserts 
such an absence of expansion will result in the United States 
surrendering its leadership in innovation and aviation safety.
    The FAA disagrees with these commenters, as this rule facilitates 
routine operations over people by implementing performance-based 
requirements, eliminating the burden of applying for a waiver, while 
still ensuring the safety of the public. In addition, the four 
categories of small unmanned aircraft operations over people allows for 
a significant expansion in the commercial utility of small UAS in the 
United States. All four categories of small UAS under 55 pounds may 
operate over people under certain conditions, which do not inherently 
limit operations to the lightest aircraft, nor do they result in 
narrowly-drawn operational areas. This rule supports innovation and 
allows the United States to continue to be a leader in UAS integration.
4. Airspace Comments
    The FAA received some comments concerning operations over people in 
certain types of airspace. The City of New York (NYC) objected to 
``open ended'' Category 1 and Category 2 operations over people due to 
the complexity of NYC's airspace. NYC wrote that it ``is home to huge 
volumes of manned air traffic, skyscrapers which block and reflect 
signals, and one of the most complex and noisy radio frequency 
environments.'' NYC reported it also faces heightened security and 
safety issues due to its dense population and critical infrastructure. 
Similarly, Metropolitan Airports Commission (MAC) expressed concerns 
regarding operations over people in and around areas with airports.
    Most of the airspace in and around NYC is either class B, C, D, or 
E and includes Special Flight Rules Areas (SFRA) and Temporary Flight 
Restrictions (TFR), both of which require operators to receive specific 
authorizations to operate. For example, Sec.  107.41 requires remote 
pilots to obtain airspace authorization from the FAA prior to operating 
in Class B, C, or D airspace or within the lateral boundaries of the 
surface area of Class E airspace adjacent to an airport. The FAA finds 
that the existing requirements for authorizations coupled with the 
operations over people requirements of this final rule are sufficient 
to mitigate risks in airport environments. The FAA disagrees with NYC's 
comment that Category 1 and Category 2 operations are ``open ended.'' 
Category 1 restricts operation by weight and prohibits small unmanned 
aircraft from having any exposed rotating parts that would lacerate 
human skin. Aircraft eligible for Category 2 operations must comply 
with injury severity limits and are subject to the exposed rotating 
parts prohibition and a prohibition on having safety defects.
    NYC also argued that NYC agencies must be permitted to provide 
input on whether specific waivers should be granted for small UAS 
operations over people in their airspace. The FAA does not agree and 
finds this request outside the scope of this rule. The FAA will 
evaluate all requests for waiver of the requirements finalized in this 
rule based on information the applicant provides.
    A commenter stated the FAA should allow operations over people if 
there are no manned aircraft in the area, and suggested the operations 
should occur directly over the operator. Section 107.37(b) already 
prohibits operations of small unmanned aircraft so close to another 
aircraft as to create a collision hazard. In addition, Sec.  107.39 
continues to permit operations over a person who is directly 
participating in the operation.
    The National Football League (NFL), Major League Baseball (MLB), 
the National Association for Stock Car Auto Racing (NASCAR), and the 
National Collegiate Athletic Association (NCAA), responding together, 
noted the NPRM does not specify that ``all other existing aviation 
restrictions, such as the sporting event temporary flight restriction, 
restrain the operations identified in the rule.'' These organizations 
asked FAA to specify that the authorizations provided in the proposed 
rules remain subject to rules generally applicable to aircraft. The FAA 
continues to restrict operations over sporting events by issuing TFRs 
and will not discontinue these restrictions with the implementation of 
this rule.

B. Comments in Support of Additional Requirements

    Numerous commenters generally supported allowing operations over 
people without a waiver only if the FAA imposed requirements on the 
remote pilot, the small UAS, or restricted the operating environment.
    Some commenters recommended allowing operations over people only if 
the remote pilot has an emergency plan to land the small unmanned 
aircraft safely away from people. Section 107.23 currently prohibits 
operating a small UAS in a manner so as to endanger the life or 
property of another. Although the FAA declines to require remote pilots 
to have an emergency plan, contingency planning may be necessary to 
mitigate the potential risks of undue hazards that could endanger 
persons or property on the ground. Section 107.49(a) requires that, 
prior to flight, the remote pilot must assess the operating environment 
and consider the risks to persons and property in the immediate 
vicinity. The FAA recommends that, as part of this assessment, remote 
pilots utilize a risk mitigation process prior to the initiation of 
every small UAS operation to control or eliminate hazards.\25\ This may 
include emergency landing contingency planning. Additionally, remote 
pilots may only operate over people if they have an eligible small 
unmanned aircraft.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \25\ The FAA provides material on how to develop effective risk 
management processes in numerous Aviation Handbooks and Manuals, 
available on the FAA website, https://www.faa.gov/. In addition, the 
Advisory Circular (AC) associated with this rule, AC 107-2, provides 
additional information on risk management processes.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Several commenters recommended requiring additional training or 
testing for certain categories of operations over people. One commenter 
recommended hands-on training and stated a pilot should know how to fly 
proficiently, without the assistance of automation. A

[[Page 4323]]

commenter also wrote that training pilots to identify and assess the 
risks of an operation is only worthwhile if pilots, in conducting 
operations over people, are trained to respond to (1) the loss of a 
Global Positioning System (GPS) signal, (2) the loss of communications 
links, (3) wind shears and other wind events, and (4) low-altitude 
weather events. As pilots are required to remain up to date on the 
current regulations, they should expect that required training and 
testing will include the regulatory requirements to fly over people. 
Additionally, Sec. Sec.  107.73 and 107.74 include knowledge areas on 
adverse weather and emergency planning,
    Great Midwestern Home Inspections, LLC suggested requiring onboard 
safety devices such as obstacle avoidance and GPS for a small unmanned 
aircraft used in operations over people. Another commenter wrote that a 
drone purchased off the shelf for $29.95 should not be flown over 
people and that it would be preferable for the FAA to support 
responsible pilots through education and certification, and to work 
with manufacturers to design and equip a small UAS capable of avoiding 
accidents. Several commenters stated the FAA should not oversee or 
impose requirements on all small UAS in the same manner, but did not 
agree on which types of small UAS the FAA should regulate more closely 
than others. Several commenters asserted off-the-shelf ``toys'' 
presented safety problems. Other commenters opined the proposed rule 
favored ``high-quality'' small UAS equipped with safety features. In 
contrast, another commenter thought the FAA should regulate ``over-the-
counter'' small UAS less than custom, commercial, and specialized small 
UAS. The FAA declines to require in this rule specific safety devices 
or prescriptive requirements based on perceived consumer quality. The 
FAA does not consider the cost of a small UAS is an indicator of its 
safety; rather, as described in this preamble, treatment under this 
rule turns on whether a small unmanned aircraft fulfills the 
requirements of one of the four categories.
    Some commenters recommended significantly restricting operations 
over people. A few commenters suggested the FAA only allow remote 
pilots to operate small UAS over people when the operation occurs 
within a closed site within which all human beings wear protective 
equipment. Regarding the comments on the requirement for a closed or 
restricted access site, please see the discussion about closed sites in 
greater detail in Section VI.E. below. Category 3 operations must 
comply with such restrictions, which are not necessary for operations 
conducted in Category 1 or Category 2, as those operations are lower 
risk. As discussed later in Section VII, Category 4 small unmanned 
aircraft have demonstrated reliability through airworthiness 
certification; as a result, they do not require applicability of a 
regulation that restricts the operation to certain types of sites. 
However, Category 1, 2, or 4 operations that are not compliant with 
remote identification are prohibited from sustained flight over open 
air assemblies. Lastly, while the NPRM did not suggest wearing personal 
safety equipment, remote pilots and other personnel are not prohibited 
from wearing safety equipment.
    Several commenters suggested the inclusion of limitations on who 
would be eligible to operate over people. One commenter suggested the 
FAA require (1) an active membership with the Academy of Model 
Aeronautics (AMA), and (2) that small unmanned aircraft be registered, 
have tracking lights, and be marked with numbers from both the FAA and 
AMA. These commenters recommended that pilots have a remote pilot 
certificate under part 107 for all commercial operations and that any 
failure to follow the rules result in heavy fines. The Agency disagrees 
with these recommendations. Requiring membership in an organization 
places an unnecessary burden on operators when multiple safety measures 
codified in part 107 already exist. Small unmanned aircraft 
registration is currently required under parts 47 and 48 and all part 
107 operators are required to have a current remote pilot certificate. 
No regulatory changes are necessary for the FAA to take action in 
response to non-compliance with these rules.
    Another commenter recommended imposing an age minimum for remote 
pilots allowed to conduct operations over people because the commenter 
believed young pilots cause problems that result in restrictions for 
responsible operators. Section 107.61 already requires applicants for 
remote pilot certificates to be at least 16 years old, and the FAA does 
not have data indicating that additional age restrictions are necessary 
at this time.
    Several commenters asked the FAA to develop separate rules or 
requirements for specific types of operations. A commenter who opposed 
the NPRM suggested allowing operations over people only if the 
operations are necessary and occur pursuant to permission from the FAA, 
which should consider the operator's training and liability insurance. 
This commenter recommended a 24-hour hotline exist for operators to 
call for permission to fly over people.
    Several commenters opposed operations over people except for 
commercial reasons, such as making a movie. PrecisionHawk, Inc. 
suggested the FAA create a separate category for operations over people 
to permit such operations when they occur to save lives or reduce 
exposure to hazardous situations. Similarly, a few commenters asked the 
FAA to establish a new category for low-risk operations and exempt such 
operations from certain rules; these commenters suggested this approach 
would obviate the need for waivers and thereby reduce the burden on the 
FAA. Part 107 does not distinguish between the purpose or type of the 
operation. This rule establishes minimum requirements for safe 
operations over people; these requirements apply to all part 107 
operations. Amending the requirements based on purposes of operations 
would be inconsistent with the framework of part 107 and the risk 
assessment model on which it is based.
    Small UAV Coalition commented that the FAA should add references to 
the section titled ``Limitations on operations over human beings'' to 
include other regulatory references because operations over people can 
also be authorized by waiver or exemption. The FAA does not believe 
this addition is necessary, as the opportunity to apply for and receive 
waivers and exemptions is clearly defined within the current regulatory 
framework.

C. Requests for Clarification

    Some commenters supported allowing operations over people but 
believed the rules are too complicated or need clarification. A 
commenter suggested removing the double negative in the proposed draft 
of Sec.  107.120(a)(3)(ii) to make it easier to read and to remove any 
potential textual ambiguity. This rule includes an update to the text 
of Sec.  107.125(c)(2) [formerly Sec.  107.120(a)(3)(ii)], for clarity.
    A commenter noted that proposed Sec.  107.39(a) is missing the 
``or'' before paragraph (b), which the commenter believed is an error. 
The FAA notes that the language in this, and all regulations, states 
that (a), (b), or (c) applies, and is understood that in a continuous 
list that the ``or'' applies to all items previously listed.
    Several commenters questioned how one could determine whether a 
small unmanned aircraft is flying directly over an individual. Section 
107.31 requires all operations to be within visual line of

[[Page 4324]]

sight, specifically requiring that the remote pilot or visual observer 
(if used), must (1) know the unmanned aircraft's location; (2) 
determine the unmanned aircraft's attitude, altitude, and direction of 
flight; (3) observe the airspace for other air traffic hazards; and (4) 
determine that the unmanned aircraft does not endanger the life or 
property of another. Therefore, as the remote pilot or visual observer 
are required to have a holistic and complete view of the operating 
environment, they should be able to ascertain whether the unmanned 
aircraft is flying over people. Since part 107 became effective in 
2016, remote pilots and visual observers have refrained from flying 
over people by keeping the small unmanned aircraft within visual line 
of sight. This requirement to maintain visual line of sight continues 
to apply to small UAS operations that occur under part 107.
    Several commenters suggested the FAA consider population density in 
the development of this rule and categorize approvals of operations on 
this basis.\26\ The FAA developed the eligibility requirements for 
Categories 1 and 2 to mitigate the risk of injury, regardless of 
population density in the operating area. Similarly, the eligibility 
requirements for Category 3 mitigate the risk of injury with both 
design elements and operating limitations, as described in Section 
VI.E. Finally, Category 4 small unmanned aircraft may operate over a 
variety of population densities, subject to the operating limitations 
associated with their airworthiness certification. With the risk 
mitigation measures this rule established for each category, 
limitations based on population density are unnecessary. Furthermore, 
Category 1, 2, or 4 operations that are not compliant with remote 
identification are prohibited from sustained flight over open air 
assemblies.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \26\ Commenters suggested the FAA consider population density 
for a multitude of reasons. A commenter noted to consider population 
density to assist in the risk analysis of ``hover versus transit 
only operations.'' Another commenter suggested the level of 
mitigation requirements should increase as the density of people in 
the operation area increases. One commenter stated Augusta, Georgia 
has an ordinance that includes a definition of highly populated area 
that they believe will help reduce the risk of accidents from 
unmanned operations over people. Another commenter asserted the FAA 
has not considered increasingly unpredictable weather patterns or 
population density leading to increasing accident rates.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

D. Minimum Stand-Off Distances

    In the NPRM, the Agency requested comment on whether a prescriptive 
standard should exist for a minimum vertical or horizontal distance, 
and whether it should apply for operations of small unmanned aircraft 
over people.\27\ The FAA also requested commenters provide data to 
support any comments identifying a prescriptive standard.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \27\ 84 FR at 3888-89.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Several commenters responded to this request, including the 
Association for Unmanned Vehicle Systems International (AUVSI); 
Motorola Solutions; the American Public Power Association (APPA), the 
Edison Electric Institute (EEI), and the National Rural Electric 
Cooperative Association (NRECA), responding together; and the Republic 
of China. These commenters supported the FAA's decision not to require 
specific minimum stand-off distances for operations over people. 
Droneport Texas, LLC commented that because the pilot only has access 
to the first 400 feet above the ground, further restrictions on the 
available airspace would ``serve to handcuff remote pilots by reducing 
the latitude of operations.'' The National League of Cities (NLC) 
raised concerns that potential horizontal or vertical stand-off 
distances would be unachievable when combined with the safety 
requirements in the proposed rule. NLC stated this inability to comply 
might create incentives for small unmanned aircraft to operate at lower 
altitudes above people and property. Many commenters agreed that stand-
off distances would reduce the number of locations that would be 
acceptable for small UAS operations.
    Several commenters, including the Air Line Pilots Association, 
International (ALPA); the National Association of Counties; the 
National Association of State Aviation Officials (NASAO); the Air 
Medical Operators Association (AMOA) and the Association of Air Medical 
Services (AAMS), responding together; and the Metropolitan Airports 
Commission (MAC), supported the establishment of stand-off distances. 
Commenters encouraged stand-off distances as a way to prevent 
accidental collision, but did not agree on what those distances should 
be. Although APPA, EEI, and NRECA stated they do not support across-
the-board mandatory standoff distances, they expressed support for 
creating a stand-off distance for non-utility unmanned aircraft 
operated near electric infrastructure. These commenters referred to the 
requirements of Section 2209 of the FAA Extension, Safety, and Security 
Act of 2016 (FESSA 2016) \28\ and stated imposing such a restriction 
would protect infrastructure from unmanned aircraft interference and 
any potential harm.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \28\ Section 2209 requires ``the Secretary of Transportation to 
establish a process to allow applicants to petition the 
Administrator of the Federal Aviation Administration to prohibit or 
restrict the operation of an unmanned aircraft in close proximity to 
a fixed site facility.'' The FAA Extension, Safety and Security Act 
of 2016, Public Law 114-190, sec. 2209, 130 Stat. 615, 633-635 
(2016). The FAA has determined that operations over moving vehicles 
can be conducted safely when following the requirements of this 
rule. A separate rulemaking action will address the process by which 
entities can submit a request to the FAA to restrict the airspace 
over a fixed site.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Flytcam Motion Pictures was undecided about stand-off distances, 
but suggested that if they were required, the FAA should quantify the 
stand-off distance based on the size of the aircraft, its potential 
velocity, weight, and size of rotating edges. Another commenter 
suggested the FAA establish specific stand-off distances that consider 
the performance, size, and payload capabilities of small unmanned 
aircraft.
    On further review, the FAA has determined that the framework of 
part 107 as codified in the final rule will maintain safety in the NAS. 
Mandatory minimum stand-off distances for small unmanned aircraft are 
not appropriate at this time. Part 107 already requires the remote 
pilot to ensure the small UAS operation does not pose an undue hazard 
to other aircraft, people, or property in the event of a loss of 
control of the aircraft. A prescriptive stand-off distance would not 
increase the level of safety of small UAS operations beyond the level 
that compliance with part 107, as amended by this rule, already 
achieves.

V. Category 1 Operations

    The NPRM proposed to establish a category of operations over people 
using small unmanned aircraft that weigh 0.55 pounds or less, including 
everything that is on board or otherwise attached to the aircraft at 
the time of takeoff. The FAA determined that operations of small 
unmanned aircraft weighing 0.55 pounds or less, subject to all of the 
existing requirements governing operations in part 107, pose a low risk 
of injury when operating over people. The NPRM referred to this 
category of small unmanned aircraft operations as Category 1.
    The NPRM explained that remote pilots in command would be 
responsible for determining that their small unmanned aircraft does not 
exceed 0.55 pounds and would therefore be eligible for operations in 
this category. The weight limit would apply from takeoff to landing, 
meaning that any cargo attached to the small unmanned aircraft must not 
cause the aggregate weight (unmanned aircraft

[[Page 4325]]

plus cargo) to exceed 0.55 pounds. The NPRM did not propose any design 
standards for Category 1. The FAA invited public comment, however, on 
any available data on the risk of injury to persons posed by operations 
using small unmanned aircraft that weigh 0.55 pounds or less. The FAA 
also invited public comment on whether operations of small unmanned 
aircraft eligible to operate pursuant to Category 1 should be subjected 
to a performance-based requirement for exposed rotating parts.

A. Weight Threshold

    The FAA received many comments on the proposed 0.55-pound weight 
threshold for small unmanned aircraft to qualify for Category 1 
operations over people. Several commenters, including Droneport Texas, 
LLC, ALPA, Small UAV Coalition, and others supported the proposed 
weight threshold for Category 1. Many commenters supported having a 
weight-based category for low risk unmanned aircraft, but found the 
proposed weight limit too conservative and recommended to increase the 
threshold to 1 pound. Other commenters recommended weight thresholds 
ranging from 0.70 pounds to 8 pounds.
    A number of commenters specifically cited the ASSURE study and 
recommended the Agency consider it for setting the weight threshold for 
Category 1 operations. As discussed in Section VI.A., the ASSURE study 
is consistent with the safety requirements the FAA proposed for small 
unmanned aircraft above 0.55 pounds. The FAA finds that small unmanned 
aircraft above 0.55 pounds must demonstrate compliance with the safety 
requirements to operate over people. Commenters also frequently cited 
the 0.55 pound weight limit as a stop-gap weight pulled from other 
studies in the early stages of UAS development that is now 
outdated.\29\ DJI cited a June 2018 report from the National Academies 
of Science, Engineering, and Medicine, which opined that the FAA has an 
``overly conservative approach to safety risk assessments'' and ``tends 
to overestimate the severity and likelihood of risks from many types of 
drone operations.'' The June 2018 National Academies of Science, 
Engineering, and Medicine report referenced by DJI was delivered prior 
to the publication of this proposed rule, and as such did not address 
the proposed requirements. The report provided recommendations on how 
the FAA could better facilitate the integration of small UAS by making 
changes to the management and approval structure and did not opine on 
the specific requirements the FAA should consider for new regulations.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \29\ ARC, Registration Task Force ARC Report, 84 FR 3856, 3866-
3867.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The 0.55 pound weight threshold as proposed is appropriate for a 
low-risk, weight-based category for small unmanned aircraft operations 
over people. Although several commenters recommended an increase in the 
weight threshold to 1 pound or more, the FAA reiterates that nothing in 
this rule precludes small unmanned aircraft weighing above 0.55 pounds 
from operating over people, as long as these small unmanned aircraft 
demonstrate that they do not pose an unacceptable risk to people on the 
ground by meeting the requirements for a Category 2, Category 3, or 
Category 4 operation.\30\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \30\ While the FAA did not receive compelling data that the 
Category 1 weight limit should increase, the FAA will undertake a 
study to determine if the limit should be raised and perform a 
retrospective review of the rule. The timing of the retrospective 
review is based on conducting research on the safety of increasing 
the Category 1 limit in the future and collecting and analyzing cost 
and benefit data after the compliance date of the rule (i.e., over 
enough of a time period to adequately collect and measure impacts 
from implementation). In addition, as part of the retrospective 
review, the FAA will undertake a study to determine whether the 
prohibition on exposed rotating parts that would lacerate human skin 
should be maintained or modified.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As noted earlier, DJI and other commenters referenced the 
recommendations of the UAS Registration Task Force, which originally 
proposed the 0.55-pound weight threshold as a basis for determining the 
need to register a small unmanned aircraft, and stated this weight 
should not apply in the form of an operational safety requirement. When 
developing their recommendations for a weight-based threshold for 
Category 1 operations, the Micro UAS ARC considered the stipulations 
from the UAS Registration Task Force concerning use of the 0.55-pound 
threshold for anything other than a requirement to register the 
aircraft.
    The FAA does not find that DJI's report is specifically relevant to 
Category 1, as their analysis reviewed the small unmanned aircraft 
holistically, rather than the specifics of operations over people. 
While the FAA does not find the RTF report to be outdated, the FAA did 
not rely solely on it in determining the weight limit, as DJI implied. 
Instead, the FAA took the recommendation from the Micro UAS ARC report 
and the FAA analysis as described in the proposed rule and determined 
that the 0.55-pound weight limit was an appropriate limit for Category 
1. The FAA has updated its analysis of Category 1 small unmanned 
aircraft based on comments received, as discussed further in Section 
V.B.
    A commenter suggested the category should be based more on speed 
than weight. This commenter said that ``physics teaches that as speed 
increases it's actually momentum or inertia that doubles.'' Other 
commenters similarly suggested alternatives for the altitude or speed 
requirements for Category 1 small unmanned aircraft. Specifically, a 
commenter suggested the Agency permit Category 1 small unmanned 
aircraft to operate over people if they do not exceed 10 to 15 mph. 
This commenter believed the risk of injury increases as speed 
increases.
    Although Boeing supported the 0.55-pound weight limit, it advocated 
for inclusion of a kinetic energy limit as well, which the company said 
would be consistent with FAA's risk-based approach of regulating small 
UAS operations. To that end, Boeing recommended the rule include both a 
0.55-pound weight limit and a requirement that the aircraft ``will not 
cause injury to a human being that is equivalent to or greater than the 
severity of injury caused by a transfer of 10 foot-pounds of kinetic 
energy upon impact from a rigid object.''
    The FAA proposed Category 1 to provide remote pilots with a low-
risk category that is simple and straightforward. Remote pilots can 
determine compliance by simply weighing the aircraft and everything 
onboard or otherwise attached, which does not require any specialized 
equipment to measure. A category based on speed or injury limitation 
based on kinetic energy on impact would require a means of compliance 
to show how technology or other solutions would comply with the 
limitation. The 0.55-pound weight threshold represents an acceptable 
level of risk for Category 1. Any additional speed or altitude 
limitations beyond what is already required under part 107 would be 
inconsistent with the objective of having a lower-risk category.

B. Prohibition Against Exposed Rotating Parts

    Due to comments received, this rule now prohibits from Category 1 
eligibility all small unmanned aircraft with any exposed rotating parts 
that would lacerate human skin. The proposed rule did not include such 
a prohibition for Category 1. ALPA and the Coalition of Airline Pilots 
Association (CAPA) both stated that the Category 1 weight threshold 
alone is not sufficient for mitigating the potential risk of injury 
from exposed rotating parts. ALPA recommended prohibiting

[[Page 4326]]

exposed rotating parts that could lacerate human skin for Category 1 
operations. Other commenters believed propeller guards and other 
mitigations should be required equipment for operations over people, 
referring to potential serious eye injuries that exposed rotating parts 
could cause.
    In contrast, Droneport Texas, LLC wrote that rotating parts on a 
small unmanned aircraft weighing 0.55 pounds or less are generally made 
of materials and rotate at speeds that could result in injuries rated 
at an abbreviated injury scale (AIS) level of 3 only if the operator 
conducted the operation in an extremely careless manner. This commenter 
asserted the probability of injury of this magnitude appears to be 
insufficient to justify a prohibition on exposed rotating parts.
    The Agency agrees with the commenters who stated that exposed 
rotating parts on small unmanned aircraft weighing 0.55 pounds or less 
could be capable of causing lacerations even if the operator takes 
precautions. In addition, as small unmanned aircraft technology 
advances and high levels of performance are achieved with materials of 
construction that are lighter and stiffer than materials used today, 
small unmanned aircraft weighing 0.55 pounds or less will continue to 
experience performance improvements, which could increase the risks of 
laceration from exposed rotating parts. Category 1 operations must pose 
only a low risk of injury; therefore, it is the responsibility of the 
remote pilot to fly at appropriate altitudes and speeds to prevent 
their aircraft from causing injury to persons on the ground in the 
event of a mishap or collision. Finally, these small unmanned aircraft 
must not contain any exposed rotating parts that would lacerate human 
skin.
    Category 1 provides a means for small unmanned aircraft to operate 
over people with minimal burden to the operator. As a result, in 
contrast to Categories 2 and 3, this rule does not require the 
submission of a declaration of compliance. Instead, this rule requires 
remote pilots of small unmanned aircraft to ensure that the rotating 
parts, if exposed, would not cause lacerations to human skin. Remote 
pilots may accomplish this by installing protective devices before 
operating over people. The original unmanned aircraft manufacturer 
could make available protective devices, purchased as aftermarket 
parts, or the owner or operator could design and install them. 
Regardless of the source of any protective device, the remote pilot 
must ensure the small unmanned aircraft does not contain exposed 
rotating parts that would lacerate human skin and does not exceed the 
weight-based limitation of Category 1.

C. Prohibition on Sustained Flight Over Open-Air Assemblies for 
Category 1

    While the NPRM did not propose any additional operating 
requirements for Category 1 beyond the existing regulations in part 
107, the FAA received comments that necessitate an additional operating 
requirement. As discussed in Section XIV.B., remote pilots are 
prohibited from operating a small unmanned aircraft as a Category 1 
operation in sustained flight over open-air assemblies unless the 
operation fulfills the remote identification operational and broadcast 
requirements for standard remote identification unmanned aircraft or 
unmanned aircraft with remote identification broadcast modules. 
Sustained flight over an open-air assembly includes hovering above the 
heads of persons gathered in an open-air assembly, flying back and 
forth over an open-air assembly, or circling above the assembly in such 
a way that the small unmanned aircraft remains above some part of the 
assembly.

VI. Category 2 and 3 Operations

    To conduct operations over people using small unmanned aircraft 
that weigh more than 0.55 pounds, the Agency proposed two categories of 
aircraft eligibility based on the risk of significant human injury. To 
be eligible for operations over people in either of these categories, a 
small unmanned aircraft would first have to demonstrate compliance with 
the safety requirements applicable to the specific category of 
operation. These requirements set injury severity limits that impacts 
from a small unmanned aircraft might cause, prohibit lacerations from 
exposed rotating parts, and prohibit safety defects. Category 3 
aircraft would be subject to additional operating limitations as a 
mitigation for allowing a higher level of injury severity than Category 
2.
    The FAA developed this rule under the framework of performance-
based rulemaking, which allows for the greatest flexibility in meeting 
minimum safety requirements. The FAA anticipates that industry will 
utilize a wide variety of designs, configurations, materials, and 
methods to meet the safety requirements established by this rule. Small 
unmanned aircraft that meet the requirements and adhere to applicable 
limitations of Category 2 or Category 3, paired with the operating 
requirements of the respective categories, provide for a level of 
safety the Administrator has determined is acceptable.

A. Eligibility of Small UAS To Conduct Category 2 and Category 3 
Operations: Design and Production Requirements

    To be eligible for Category 2 or Category 3 operations, the FAA 
proposed to require a small unmanned aircraft be designed, produced, or 
modified such that it does not exceed the applicable injury severity 
limit; does not contain any exposed rotating parts that would lacerate 
human skin on impact with a human being; and does not contain any 
safety defects identified by the Administrator. Additionally, the FAA 
proposed that an applicant would have to ensure that a small unmanned 
aircraft eligible for use in Category 2 or Category 3 operations would 
also have to display a label indicating which category or categories of 
operations it is eligible to conduct, have current remote pilot 
operating instructions, be subject to a product support and 
notification process, and that the applicant has received notification 
that the FAA has accepted the declaration of compliance.
    As a point of clarification, this rule uses the term applicant to 
refer to the person who submits a declaration of compliance to the FAA 
for review and acceptance. An applicant for a declaration of compliance 
may be anyone who designs, produces, or modifies a small unmanned 
aircraft and is responsible for ensuring it meets all eligibility 
requirements to operate over people.
    The FAA is finalizing most of these same eligibility requirements. 
The small unmanned aircraft must be designed, produced, or modified 
such that it does not exceed the applicable injury severity limit; does 
not contain any exposed rotating parts that could lacerate human skin 
on impact with a human being; and does not contain any safety defects 
to be eligible to operate over people in Category 2 or Category 3.
    While the NPRM referred to these safety defects as being 
``identified by the Administrator,'' the FAA recognizes that this 
phrasing could be misleading for both applicants and remote pilots. The 
FAA did not intend to limit who can identify a safety defect. While 
this list is not exhaustive, any safety defect identified by the 
Administrator, the applicant, a remote pilot, or a member of the public 
could affect the small unmanned aircraft's eligibility for Category 2 
or Category 3. Additionally, the safety defect could result in the FAA 
initiating the process to rescind a declaration of compliance, as 
discussed in Section VI.C.9-12. The FAA has resolved this in the 
regulatory text,

[[Page 4327]]

which reads ``has verified that the unmanned aircraft does not contain 
any safety defects,'' for both Categories 2 and 3.\31\ Additionally, 
the FAA changed ``could cause lacerations'' to ``would cause 
lacerations'' to better reflect the requirement the applicant must 
meet.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \31\ See Sec. Sec.  107.120(a)(3) and 107.130(a)(3).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The FAA adopts the requirement that an applicant must ensure that a 
small unmanned aircraft eligible for use in Category 2 or Category 3 
displays a label indicating which category or categories of operations 
it is eligible to conduct, has remote pilot operating instructions, and 
is subject to a product support and notification process. While the 
small unmanned aircraft must still be listed on a declaration of 
compliance, the FAA removed the eligibility requirement that the 
applicant must be notified, because the requirement as written implied 
that the applicant had a persistent need to check the declaration of 
compliance to ensure continued eligibility.
    The Agency received numerous comments regarding the proposed 
eligibility requirements for Category 2 and Category 3 operations. As 
discussed in the following sections, commenters were concerned that the 
injury severity limits and the safety risk assessment were too 
conservative. Other commenters criticized the FAA for not considering 
the probability of an impact and focusing only on injury severity. 
Additionally, as discussed in greater detail in Section VII, several 
commenters faulted the FAA for failing to consider aircraft 
reliability. In consideration of the comments, the Agency adopts the 
proposed safety requirements for eligibility, but provides 
clarification in this preamble with respect to injury severity limits, 
the means of compliance process, and the declaration of compliance 
requirement.
    The responsibility for ensuring eligibility of the small unmanned 
aircraft falls to the applicant. The applicant for a declaration of 
compliance must ensure his or her small unmanned aircraft complies with 
the eligibility requirements for Category 2 or Category 3, or both in 
accordance with Sec. Sec.  107.120 and 107.130, as applicable. The 
applicant for a declaration of compliance must follow the process 
required by Sec.  107.160, described in VI.C. of this preamble. The 
applicant must submit a declaration of compliance and receive 
acceptance from the FAA in order for its small unmanned aircraft to be 
eligible for operations over people. An applicant whose declaration of 
compliance has been accepted by the FAA must continuously fulfill the 
requirements in Sec. Sec.  107.120 and 107.130, as applicable, for the 
subject small unmanned aircraft to continue to be eligible for use in 
Category 2 or Category 3 operations.
1. Must Not Exceed Applicable Injury Severity Limit
    The prohibition on exceeding the injury severity limit of the 
applicable category of eligibility is a critical component of the 
safety requirements. For Category 2 operations, the small unmanned 
aircraft must not be capable of causing an injury to a human being that 
is more severe than an injury caused by a transfer of 11 ft-lbs of 
kinetic energy from a rigid object. For Category 3 operations, the 
small unmanned aircraft must not be capable of causing an injury to a 
human being that is more severe than an injury caused by a transfer of 
25 ft-lbs of kinetic energy from a rigid object. As discussed in 
Section VI.B., the applicant seeking to demonstrate eligibility of a 
small unmanned aircraft for Category 2 or Category 3 operations must 
use an FAA-accepted means of compliance, such as a test procedure 
contained in an industry consensus standard, to show that the small 
unmanned aircraft does not exceed the applicable injury severity limit.
    Several commenters specifically addressed the injury severity limit 
based on a rigid object with 11 ft-lb of kinetic energy proposed for 
Category 2. A few commenters suggested that 11 ft-lbs of kinetic energy 
from a rigid object on collision with a person might not provide 
sufficient protection for children, the elderly, people with 
disabilities, or even the average citizen. The City of New York said a 
point of concern is the acceptability of a ``Scale level 3'' injury and 
``what that truly means relative to infants, elderly persons, during 
mass gatherings, and the effect on agitating a confined crowd.'' 
Another individual opposed operations over people because the proposed 
rule did not address blunt force trauma and the varying impacts it 
could have, based on the existing condition of the individual who is 
hit or the part of the body that is hit.
    The proposed rule stated the 11 ft-lb kinetic energy level 
``considers variations for all parts of the body for both adults and 
children, including when people are in various positions, such as 
standing, sitting, and prone.'' \32\ The 11 ft-lb impact kinetic energy 
value that forms part of the injury severity limit for small unmanned 
aircraft impacts considers risks to various populations and averages 
these risks across those populations. An injury that a small unmanned 
aircraft could cause to a person depends on many factors, including the 
person's age, condition, or disability. The severity of injury also 
depends on additional factors such as the point of impact, the angle of 
impact, and the unmanned aircraft's kinetic energy at the time of 
impact. For the reasons discussed in the following section, the injury 
severity limits provide an acceptable level of injury risk to all 
persons; accordingly, this rule finalizes the standards for Categories 
2 and 3 as proposed, with no changes.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \32\ 84 FR at 3875.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

a. Range Commanders Council (RCC) Standards
    As stated in the NPRM, the Agency based the proposed injury 
severity limits for operations under Categories 2 and 3 on extensive 
government research of human injury risk discussed in the Range 
Commanders Council's (RCC) Common Risk Criteria Standards for National 
Test Ranges and existing FAA commercial space regulations for public 
safety. The RCC standards inform public safety risk from commercial 
space launches, government space launches, and aircraft operations at 
national test ranges. These standards are based on impacts from inert 
debris and other types of rigid objects and assume these rigid objects 
transfer all their kinetic energy on impact with a person. As explained 
in the NPRM, however, research conducted by the UAS Center for 
Excellence under the Alliance for System Safety of UAS through Research 
Excellence (ASSURE) establishes that small unmanned aircraft do not 
always impact a person or surface in the same manner that metallic 
fragments impact them.\33\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \33\ Arterburn, et al., FAA UAS Center of Excellence Task A4: 
UAS Ground Collision Severity Evaluation: Revision 2 (Apr. 28, 2017) 
(hereinafter ``A4 Report''). The final report underwent peer review 
of researchers from FAA, the National Aeronautics and Space 
Administration, and industry participants. The report is available 
in the docket for this rulemaking.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    To account for the disparity between impacts from rigid objects 
such as metallic fragments and small unmanned aircraft, the FAA 
proposed using injury severity caused by an impact from a rigid object 
as a threshold, rather than using an impact kinetic energy threshold 
alone. This standard aligns with existing risk acceptance policies for 
falling debris from commercial space launches,\34\ and limits the risk 
of injury to the public, but expresses the safety limit in a way that 
allows small

[[Page 4328]]

unmanned aircraft to take advantage of design features that limit the 
amount of kinetic energy that is ultimately transferred to a person on 
impact.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \34\ See Licensing and Safety Requirements for Launch, 
Supplemental Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, 67 FR 49456 (July 30, 
2002), which the FAA finalized on August 25, 2006. 71 FR 50508.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In the NPRM, the FAA specifically solicited comments on whether 
establishing an impact kinetic energy threshold and using kinetic 
energy transferred on impact is the appropriate method to measure the 
potential injury a small unmanned aircraft could cause on impact with a 
person. The FAA also solicited comments on the methods, processes, 
procedures used in the studies on which the FAA based its proposed 
standards.
    Multiple commenters took issue with the FAA's reliance on RCC 
thresholds. CDA commented that, given the critical difference between 
commercial space vehicles or missiles and unmanned aircraft, the 
kinetic energy impact thresholds for commercial space have no relevant 
application to UAS. In its comment, ASSURE pointed out that it 
previously determined that the ``RCC probability of fatality data is 
overly conservative and largely not applicable to elastic UAS.'' \35\ 
Virginia Tech Mid-Atlantic Aviation Partnership (MAAP) stated rigid 
object energy thresholds are an overly conservative characterization of 
risk and commented that ``an inelastic object impacting a person does 
not emulate UAS impact events.'' MAAP stated the generalization in the 
NPRM based on ``the range commander data,'' which analyzed the impact 
of rigid shrapnel, is distinct from the impact of unmanned aircraft. 
MAAP asserted the reasons for the distinction are impact duration, 
contact area, and its energy transfer. MAAP explained these reasons in 
detail and concluded that ``[a] straightforward and more transparent 
approach to defining thresholds can be achieved by establishing 
acceptable risk limits using biomechanical metrics applicable to the 
generalized UAS impact conditions.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \35\ David Arterburn, ASSURE Public Comment on the Notice of 
Proposed Rulemaking for Operations of Small Unmanned Aircraft 
Systems Over People 25 (February 27, 2019). Arterburn, et al., FAA 
UAS Center of Excellence Task A14: UAS Ground Collision Severity 
Evaluation 2017-2019 (August 15, 2019) (hereinafter ``A14 Report'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    AUVSI stated the proposed rule's injury threshold for Categories 2 
and 3, and its basis on existing commercial space safety regulations 
and the RCC standards, was ``fundamentally flawed.'' AUVSI asserted 
that the use of RCC standards would impose unnecessary burdens on UAS 
manufacturers because small UAS manufacturers would be forced to 
conduct testing and present data on the injury risk presented by both 
the aircraft and energy transfer from a rigid object. AUVSI wrote there 
is no ``record basis'' for FAA proposing to use the RCC guidelines and 
declining to use the automotive injury criteria proposed by ASSURE or 
identifying an acceptable percentage-based risk as proposed in the ARC 
Report.
    Several commenters also took issue with FAA's proposal to use 
injury thresholds based on kinetic energy measurements that are the 
same as those that apply to debris and shrapnel impacts from a 
commercial space launch operation, guided and unguided missiles, 
missile intercepts, and space reentry vehicles. Several of these 
individuals remarked, ``[t]his is not the appropriate standard for 
small drones because no small drone has the characteristics of rocket 
shrapnel, and the FAA's injury assumptions are based on outdated 
studies from the 1960's.'' Like AUVSI, these commenters recommended 
instead that the FAA ``make use of the research conducted by the ASSURE 
program, and use impact measurements, standards, and injury severity 
testing from the automotive industry, which are far more appropriate 
and informative.''
    The News Media Coalition was concerned that some of the specific 
kinetic energy thresholds rely on data and testing that is not 
available to consumers, including the journalist in the Coalition. The 
commenter wrote that industry ``will be slow in rolling out new models 
that comply with the proposed rules'' and journalists will not be able 
to conduct operations over people. The FAA expects manufacturers 
generally will conduct the required testing and declare compliance with 
the requirements of Category 2 or Category 3, rather than operators and 
remote pilots. The FAA envisions most journalists would simply purchase 
a small unmanned aircraft that has an FAA-accepted declaration of 
compliance and follow the applicable operating rules for the category 
of operation over people being conducted.
    The FAA carefully reviewed comments related to the applicability of 
the RCC impact kinetic energy thresholds and reiterates certain key 
aspects of the Agency's policy. First, the FAA agrees with commenters 
that the RCC impact kinetic energy thresholds are applicable to impacts 
from inert debris and that small unmanned aircraft do not behave like 
inert debris when impacting a person. The Agency addressed this 
disparity by proposing injury severity limitations rather than kinetic 
energy thresholds, and notes that applicants must demonstrate through 
test, analysis, or inspection that the small unmanned aircraft does not 
exceed the applicable injury severity limits. An FAA-accepted means of 
compliance will address the minimum testing, inspection, or analysis 
necessary to demonstrate compliance with the safety requirements. While 
some commenters objected to conducting tests, it is not appropriate to 
permit operations over people without applicants demonstrating 
compliance to the applicable regulations. This rule does not permit 
injuries caused by impacts of small unmanned aircraft that would be 
more severe than the injuries that could occur under commercial space 
regulations. It is unclear whether the commenters are advocating for 
higher risk to the general public when small unmanned aircraft are 
operating over them. Using biomechanical metrics does not align with 
the FAA's objective of creating performance-based safety requirements. 
However, any applicant could submit a means of compliance to the FAA 
for acceptance that utilized biomechanical metrics to show compliance 
with the safety requirements of this rule.
b. ASSURE Research Findings
    The FAA sponsored ASSURE Tasks A4 and A14: UAS Ground Collision 
Severity Evaluation research to study and address several questions: 
(1) What should the hazard severity criteria be for a UAS collision? 
(2) What is the severity of a UAS collision with people on the ground? 
(3) What are the design characteristics of a UAS that could minimize 
the potential injury during a ground collision? and (4) Can the 
severity of UAS collision with a person be characterized into 
categories based on the UAS? ASSURE conducted research in consideration 
of such questions between 2015 and 2019, performing over 512 impact 
tests and simulations with 16 different fixed-wing and multi-rotor UAS, 
as well as various objects and payloads with weights ranging from 0.75 
lbs. to 13.2 lbs. at a range of low to terminal velocities. ASSURE used 
impact testing with wood blocks to assess the injury that would result 
from an impact kinetic energy transfer from a rigid object at different 
kinetic energy levels (such as the levels for Categories 2 and 3). The 
ASSURE research team initially performed testing using crash test 
dummies to review and determine thresholds of serious but non-lethal 
injury utilizing the AIS. ASSURE then increased the fidelity of the 
injury modeling and testing by utilizing Post Mortem Human Subjects 
(PMHS) and compared the thresholds for serious but non-lethal injury 
established using the crash test dummies with the injury thresholds 
yielded from PMHS testing.

[[Page 4329]]

    Based on the FAA's experience evaluating waiver applications for 
operations over people and in consideration of the ASSURE research 
findings (Task A14: UAS Ground Collision Severity Evaluation 2017-
2019), the Agency concludes a typical small unmanned aircraft can 
impact a person with significantly more than 11 or 25 ft-lbs of pre-
impact kinetic energy and still not exceed the injury severity limits 
in the proposed rule. When discussing the ASSURE report and its 
definition of kinetic energy,\36\ the FAA refers to the potential to 
cause injury due to the vehicle's mass and speed just prior to the 
collision as pre-impact kinetic energy. A portion of this pre-impact 
kinetic energy is transferred to a person during impact.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \36\ The A14 Report at vii states, ``KE--Kinetic Energy (The 
impact KE forms the potential to cause injury due to the vehicle's 
mass and speed just prior to the collision while the material and 
structural response of the vehicle influence its ability to transfer 
KE to an impacted person and cause injury).''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    For example, the FAA analyzed the ASSURE research and found that, 
for a certain impact orientation, a DJI Phantom 3 unmanned aircraft can 
impact a person with up to 130 ft-lbs of pre-impact kinetic energy 
before exceeding the Category 2 injury threshold proposed in the NPRM. 
This situation demonstrates that an unmanned aircraft can impact a 
person with up to 11 times more pre-impact kinetic energy than a rigid 
object (130 ft-lbs vs. 11 ft-lbs) and result in the same level of 
injury severity. The FAA finds this example and other examples 
contained in the ASSURE research demonstrate that the injury severity 
limits based on transfers of impact kinetic energy from rigid objects 
will ensure that small unmanned aircraft meeting these requirements 
pose no greater risk to the general public than operations currently 
allowed under existing, relevant commercial space regulations.\37\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \37\ A14 Report at 7, 18; David Arterburn, ASSURE Public Comment 
on the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking for Operations of Small 
Unmanned Aircraft Systems Over People at 25 (February 27, 2019).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The ASSURE research also found that small changes in small unmanned 
aircraft impact orientation, Center of Gravity (CG) alignment of the 
skull, and small unmanned aircraft impact location cause large changes 
in impact energy transfer. Addressing different impact orientations is 
relevant when assessing small unmanned aircraft typical failure modes 
for a means of compliance, as discussed in the following section.
    Many commenters, including ParaZero Drone Safety Systems, AUVSI, 
CDA, AiRXOS, Inc., AIA, Small UAV Coalition, New Mexico State 
University Physical Science Laboratory, PrecisionHawk, Inc., MAAP, 
Deseret UAS, DJI, and numerous individuals considered and discussed 
research, particularly the ASSURE research, and contended that the 
FAA's analysis results in overly conservative kinetic energy impact 
thresholds. These commenters suggested the FAA should have more closely 
followed the findings of the Center of Excellence ASSURE's UAS Ground 
Collision Severity Evaluation. ASSURE wrote:

    The NPRM's proposed performance-based metric of injury resulting 
from the impact of a rigid object at 11 ft-lbs and 25 ft-lbs . . . 
are overly conservative based upon the result of [Anthropomorphic 
Test Dummy (ATD)] and [Post-Mortem Human Surrogate (PMHS)] testing 
and lead to ambiguity in how to test sUAS to achieve Category 2 and 
Category 3 approvals.\38\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \38\ David Arterburn, ASSURE Public Comment on the Notice of 
Proposed Rulemaking for Operations of Small Unmanned Aircraft 
Systems Over People, 1 (February 27, 2019).

    ASSURE noted that its Task A14 team proposes the use of automotive 
injury performance-based metrics ``consistent with the extensive FAA 
sponsored and funded testing conducted over the last two years to 
enable the use of standardized automotive based test methods and 
increase the number of aircraft capable of achieving [Category 2 and 3 
operations] while still achieving the casualty definitions outlined in 
the NPRM.''
    The Agency developed the performance-based injury severity limits 
to allow industry to develop unique means of compliance. The FAA 
anticipates that the methodologies ASSURE highlighted in its comment to 
measure injury severity will be included in means of compliance 
submitted to the FAA for acceptance. Developers of means of compliance 
can use any measurable human injury scales as long as they demonstrate 
that small unmanned aircraft impacts do not cause injuries more severe 
than those caused by impact of a rigid object. Further, applicants must 
explain how the injury scales address the most severe types of injuries 
that would likely occur from a small unmanned aircraft impact. The FAA 
expects a means of compliance might consider a suite of injury scales 
to cover the likely types of injuries from a small unmanned aircraft 
impact. The FAA anticipates that organizations, including industry 
consensus standards bodies, may develop means of compliance by 
conducting rigid object testing against existing injury scales to meet 
the injury severity limits of this final rule and that the FAA would 
accept these means of compliance. Applicants submitting a declaration 
of compliance may then use this FAA-accepted means of compliance 
without themselves having to conduct the rigid object testing.
    The FAA carefully considered the findings of ASSURE. The ASSURE 
research confirms that the injury severity limits for Categories 2 and 
3 the Agency proposed in the NPRM provide an acceptable level of 
safety. Many commenters focused on the perception that the Categories 2 
and 3 injury severity limits in the NPRM were too restrictive, without 
observing that the NPRM uses the injury severity caused by the impact 
of a rigid object at certain energy levels as the threshold for 
acceptability. The ASSURE research, summarized in the Task A14: UAS 
Ground Collision Severity Evaluation 2017-2019 report, provides data, 
injury metrics, and a test method to assess the injuries caused by the 
impacts of rigid objects with humans at the kinetic energy levels 
proposed in the NPRM and compares them to the injuries caused by small 
unmanned aircraft impacts with humans. Through the use of their test 
methods and injury analysis metrics, the ASSURE results show that a 
small unmanned aircraft can impact a human being with a much higher 
kinetic energy while causing a comparable level of injury as the injury 
that would result from an impact with a rigid object at the proposed 
kinetic energy levels. The ASSURE research establishes that small 
unmanned aircraft do not behave like rigid objects during an impact and 
have greater flexibility, frangibility, and so on.
    Data provided in ASSURE's reports as well as in ASSURE's comment on 
the NPRM demonstrate that small unmanned aircraft do not behave like 
rigid objects during an impact. For example, Figure 10 of ASSURE's 
comment in response to the NPRM shows ASSURE's data and evaluation 
results for the DJI Phantom 3 using the ATD Impact Head Injury Criteria 
(HIC15).\39\ The FAA's analysis of the results show that to 
cause equivalent HIC15 injury level as the injury caused by 
a rigid object at 11 ft-lbs, the Phantom 3 would need to achieve an 
pre-impact kinetic energy of 130 ft-lbs. The same figure shows that to 
cause equivalent HIC15 injury level as the injury caused by 
a rigid object at 25 ft-lbs, the Phantom 3 would need to

[[Page 4330]]

achieve a pre-impact kinetic energy of 220 ft-lbs. These examples, as 
well as other data in ASSURE's reports and comment on the NPRM, show 
that ASSURE tested small UAS that could meet the injury severity limits 
of the NPRM by placing some reasonable operating limitations on the 
small UAS, such as altitude or speed restrictions. Additionally, the 
small unmanned aircraft used in ASSURE's testing were all manufactured 
prior to the publication of the NPRM, and may not have design features 
that limit or reduce the amount of kinetic energy transferred on 
impact.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \39\ A4 Report.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    With the publication of this rule, manufacturers may take this 
opportunity to design new small unmanned aircraft of similar size, 
weight, and capability as the existing small unmanned aircraft designs 
ASSURE tested. ASSURE tested existing models of small unmanned aircraft 
to determine the severity of injuries potentially caused by impact. The 
FAA found that, in reviewing the ASSURE report, many existing models 
could, potentially with modifications, meet the injury severity limits 
of the proposed rule.
    The FAA does not agree with ASSURE and other commenters that the 
requirements of this rule are too conservative. This final rule is 
performance-based, therefore the FAA anticipates that applicants would 
be able to use a variety of injury scales in a means of compliance 
including the injury scales identified by ASSURE and other commenters. 
The FAA finds that the requirements for Categories 2 and 3 as finalized 
in this rule set an appropriate balance between allowing small unmanned 
aircraft to operate over people without an airworthiness certificate 
while also limiting the risks of small unmanned aircraft operations to 
the general public.
    The FAA also tasked ASSURE to develop a repeatable and simplified 
test methodology for assessing the level of injury severity of small 
unmanned aircraft to people on the ground in the event of a collision. 
The test methodology ASSURE produced from this research utilizes the 
lessons learned from their high fidelity crash test dummy and PMHS 
testing.\40\ The methodology is a comprehensive means to perform impact 
testing and assess the severity of injury in a manner that is not cost 
prohibitive. The FAA would likely find acceptable a means of compliance 
based on ASSURE's test method, as described in the A14 Report. For 
further discussion about means of compliance, see Section VI.B.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \40\ A14 Report, Scope p.1-5.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

c. Other Methodologies To Evaluate Injury Severity
    The Small UAV Coalition said the FAA's narrow focus on kinetic 
energy is inconsistent with other risk assessment models, such as the 
Specific Operations Risk Assessment (SORA) model adopted by the 
European Commission, based on its development by the Joint Authorities 
for Rulemaking on Unmanned Systems (JARUS). CDA similarly recommended 
adopting the JARUS-SORA model. The SORA provides a qualitative 
methodology to determine the intrinsic operational risk and a means to 
apply strategic and tactical mitigations to reduce risk to an 
acceptable level as determined by the approving authority. The SORA 
also recommends types of risk mitigations or controls that address 
common threats, scalable to the level of risk, to ensure the safety of 
the UAS operation. Under the SORA methodology, an operation over a 
gathering of people would require airworthiness certification or a 
mitigation or control acceptable to the approving authority. Operations 
under Categories 2 and 3, conducted in accordance with the requirements 
and the declaration of compliance process are consistent with the 
recommendations of the SORA. Further, the FAA has added a Category 4 to 
this rule, which enables small unmanned aircraft with an airworthiness 
certificate to operate over people in accordance with part 107. The FAA 
anticipates that waiver and exemption applicants will continue to use 
the SORA methodology to support waivers and exemptions including for 
activities not permitted under this rule, such as beyond visual line of 
sight operations. An individual commenter said operations over people 
should be governed by an equation that considers: (1) Probability of 
crash (considering weather, condition of UAS, proximity to buildings, 
etc.); (2) angle of flight path relative to people; (3) speed 
(including whether it will hover or just transition over people); and 
(4) height. The FAA acknowledges that considering the probability of a 
crash, angle of flight path, and speed is one method to determine risk 
to persons on the ground. However, this approach requires the FAA to 
evaluate each element for each operation to determine acceptability, 
which would increase the burden on applicants and the FAA. The 
commenter's equation does not provide specific performance-based 
requirements. The performance-based injury severity limits, exposed 
rotating parts prohibition, and operating limitations that this rule 
establishes provides an acceptable level of safety while allowing 
flexibility for industry to develop varying ways to comply with the 
applicable requirements.
d. Injury Severity and Failure Rate Uncertainty
    The European Union Aviation Safety Agency (EASA) recommended 
aligning the criteria to allow small UAS operations over people as much 
as possible between the United States and Europe. EASA noted that 
Category 3 ``identifies a maximum KE threshold of 25 feet-lbs (about 34 
Joules) for impact with a solid object.'' The requirements for the 
proposed 34 joules applicable to Category 3 small UAS and the 80 joules 
applicable to the new EASA Class 1 unmanned aircraft refer to 
transferred kinetic energy, address the effects of blunt trauma, limit 
operations over uninvolved people, and include additional technical 
requirements. Because they are quantitatively different, however, EASA 
was concerned ``they could set Europe and the US on different 
regulatory courses for `fly over people' operations.'' EASA stated the 
data from the RCC standard described in the proposed rule are too 
conservative. EASA reported that it had reviewed, in particular, the 
Gurdjian experiments to recalculate the energy values.\41\ As described 
in their comment, EASA asserts the ASSURE Ground Collision Severity 
Evaluation final report supports its recommendation to include a 
kinetic energy threshold of 80 joules.\42\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \41\ EASA's comment cited Gurdjian, ES., Webster J.E., and 
Lisnner, H.R. (1949) Studies on skull fracture with particular 
reference to engineering factors. American Journal of Surgery, 
78(5), 736-751. https://doi.org/10.1016/0002-9610(49)90315-3.
    \42\ EASA, https://www.regulations.gov/document?D=FAA-2018-1087-0415.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Category 3 operation in this rule and EASA's Class 1 unmanned 
aircraft operation share similarities, but have important differences. 
In particular, the EASA Sub-category C1, which includes the limitation 
of 80 joules of energy transfer on impact, also contains noise, 
alerting, structural, navigation, and datalink requirements that are 
not included in the FAA's Category 2 or Category 3 eligibility 
requirements. The design requirements addressing topics such as 
structural integrity and navigational performance are better suited for 
the aircraft certification process and are not appropriate for non-
certificated aircraft. Because small unmanned aircraft under Categories 
2 and 3 are not required to have an airworthiness certificate or meet 
design requirements such as those adopted by

[[Page 4331]]

EASA, an increase in the kinetic energy values would allow injuries 
that are significantly more severe than the injuries that could occur 
under Category 2 or Category 3 of this rule. Both the ASSURE research 
and the Gurdjian experiments support the fact that an increase in the 
kinetic energy from the proposed requirement, without any mitigating 
design requirements such as those required under EASA's regulations, 
increases the injury severity limit beyond an acceptable level. The FAA 
envisions that the variety of the four different categories will likely 
provide greater flexibility than what EASA has provided. Without 
including additional design or certification requirements, the change 
EASA suggests would result in an unacceptable level of safety for the 
general public. The injury severity limits and exposed rotating parts 
prohibition are an appropriate set of regulations for enabling aircraft 
without airworthiness certification to operate over people in 
accordance with an acceptable level of safety.
    The Agency, however, agrees that conformity to design requirements 
is another way to enable small unmanned aircraft operations over 
people, and has thus added a Category 4 to accommodate certificated 
aircraft. The proposed rule included a request for comments regarding 
how the FAA should approach the uncertainties regarding failure rates 
and injury severity. Several commenters contended that the FAA relied 
too heavily on the injury severity limits and did not adequately 
consider the reliability of the small UAS or the probability of 
failure. With regard to probability of failure, the Agency received 
several divergent comments: Some believe probability of failure was 
inherently low, while others thought probability of failure could be 
high. Although the reliability of the small unmanned aircraft is one 
factor in determining whether an operation over people is safe, the 
FAA's process for considering the reliability of aircraft is the 
airworthiness certification process. Given that operations under part 
107 do not need to occur with small unmanned aircraft that have an 
airworthiness certificate, probability of failure is a less appropriate 
measurement than the combination of injury severity limits and 
restrictions on exposed rotating parts and safety defects for 
Categories 2 and 3, in addition to the operating limitations in 
Category 3 that reduce likelihood of impact to a human being. To 
address these comments, this rule allows aircraft that have an 
airworthiness certificate that does not prohibit operations over people 
to be used for operations over people. These Category 4 eligibility 
requirements are discussed in Section VII of this preamble.
    One commenter asked why the Agency did not distinguish between 
rotorcraft and fixed-wing aircraft. The commenter stated, ``[t]hey fall 
differently, but we have the same rules for both.'' Although rotary-
wing and fixed-wing small unmanned aircraft have unique flight 
characteristics and the manner in which they could impact a person 
could be different, any small unmanned aircraft must not exceed the 
injury severity limits, regardless of whether it is a rotary-wing, 
fixed-wing, or any other type aircraft. An acceptable means of 
compliance must account for the variations in aircraft configurations, 
unique failure modes, most probable impact orientations, impact 
trajectory angles, and velocities from flight test and dynamic modeling 
for different types of small unmanned aircraft to demonstrate 
compliance. A few commenters said the categories should be based on the 
flight altitude for the same small unmanned aircraft. A commenter 
suggested that a ``Mavic Air'' would be rated Category 2 up to 50 feet 
and Category 3 up to 80 feet.\43\ The NPRM discussed the possibility of 
individual small unmanned aircraft being eligible for operations in 
more than one category through the use of variable modes or 
configurations. The FAA would consider a design feature that limits the 
altitude of a small unmanned aircraft to the maximum altitude 
associated with compliance as an example of a variable mode; for 
example, when not operating over people, a certain small unmanned 
aircraft would not need to limit its altitude. However, to operate over 
people, the remote pilot would operate in a mode that limits the 
aircraft's altitude to comply with the requirements for operating over 
people. To use variable modes or configurations, the remote pilot must 
not be able to inadvertently change the mode or configuration and 
instructions for how to change between modes or configurations must be 
available in the remote pilot operating instructions. Variable modes 
and configurations are discussed in Section VI.F.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \43\ The Mavic Air is a small unmanned aircraft that weighs in 
the range of 0.95-1.25 pounds, depending on the model and series.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

2. Must Not Have Exposed Rotating Parts
    To be eligible to conduct Category 2 or Category 3 operations over 
people, the Agency proposed prohibiting a small unmanned aircraft from 
being designed, produced, or modified such that it contains exposed 
rotating parts that could lacerate human skin on impact with a human 
being. As stated in the proposed rule, exposed rotating parts could 
cause lacerations or other serious injuries if these parts were to come 
into contact with a person. Such parts are a common feature to small 
unmanned aircraft on the market today. Due to the hazards this feature 
can pose, the Agency proposed restricting eligibility for Categories 2 
and 3 to small unmanned aircraft that do not contain any exposed 
rotating parts that could lacerate human skin on impact. While the NPRM 
acknowledged that exposed rotating parts could be capable of injuries 
beyond just lacerations (e.g., injuries to hair, teeth, and eyes), the 
Agency determined this prohibition, combined with the other 
limitations, were sufficient to mitigate the risk of injuries.
    Several commenters asserted that protections for exposed rotating 
parts are not necessary for small unmanned aircraft. One of these 
commenters pointed out that data shows fewer injuries to uninvolved 
parties result from exposed propellers on small unmanned aircraft than 
the number of annual fatalities that occur from rotorcraft and 
operations that occur under part 103.\44\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \44\ Title 14 CFR part 103 (``Ultralight Vehicles'') applies to 
manned vehicles that only a single occupant operates for recreation 
or sport and, if unpowered, weigh less than 155 pounds. Part 103 
applies to powered vehicles that weigh less than 254 pounds empty 
weight that meet other criteria. See 14 CFR 103.1.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Manned aircraft with approved designs do not require shrouded 
rotors because compliance with applicable certification standards and 
operating limitations reduce the likelihood of an impact with a human 
being and therefore do not present a significant hazard to persons on 
the ground. Operating a small unmanned aircraft under Category 2 or 
Category 3 does not require airworthiness certification but, as 
described in this rule, design features such as shrouded propellers can 
mitigate the risk of laceration to persons on the ground. Ultralight 
vehicles operating in accordance with part 103 do not have 
airworthiness certificates. However, to mitigate the risk to persons on 
the ground, these vehicles are prohibited from operations over any 
congested area of a city, town, or settlement, or over any open-air 
assembly of persons.\45\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \45\ See 14 CFR 103.15 (``Operations over congested areas'').

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

[[Page 4332]]

    Many commenters suggested the prohibition on exposed rotating parts 
is too restrictive. The Small UAV Coalition commented that while the 
preamble of the NPRM refers to the prohibition on exposed rotating 
parts as a performance standard, it appears to result in requiring 
installing guards or shrouds to ensure that rotating parts are not 
exposed on impact. Uber Technologies asserted that the exposed rotating 
parts prohibition strictly based on any skin laceration, without 
consideration of severity or probability, creates an additional blanket 
prohibition on aircraft with any exposed rotating parts. If the 
restriction remains in the final rule, Uber Technologies recommended 
including a waiver process for exposed rotating parts, with appropriate 
inclusion of risk- and performance-based metrics. AeroVista Drone 
Academy believed the requirement for a manufacturer to establish that 
an aircraft design would not have exposed rotating parts that could 
lacerate human skin is ``materially infeasible'' without specific 
guidance as to what would meet this threshold. The Academy wrote that 
manufacturers would have to conduct prohibitively expensive and costly 
testing. A-Cam Aerials asked the Agency to reword the requirement so 
that small unmanned aircraft eligible for operations in Categories 2 
and 3 be designed such that they ``minimize'' lacerations to human skin 
on impact with a person.
    The FAA clarifies the primary safety objective of the exposed 
rotating parts prohibition is to protect human beings on the ground 
from lacerations upon impact with a small unmanned aircraft in typical 
human encounters and unmanned aircraft operational scenarios (including 
potential failure modes). The FAA distinguishes between a laceration, 
meaning a cut that goes all the way through the skin and may require 
emergent medical attention, and an abrasion, meaning a superficial 
injury to the skin. Additionally, the FAA uses the expression ``typical 
human encounter'' to describe normal impacts, such as an unmanned 
aircraft impacting a human being due to a loss of control, small UAS 
failures, or remote pilot error. Exposed rotating parts may pose a 
significant laceration hazard if they contact human skin, which is 
unacceptable for the safety of the general public. The performance-
based standards for Categories 2 and 3 will protect persons on the 
ground from potentially serious injury. This rule does not prohibit the 
applicant from using exposed rotating parts, but only prohibits the 
presence of rotating parts capable of lacerating human skin in typical 
human encounters. The FAA has issued waivers to companies for 
operations over people that employed combinations of motor stop 
technology and exposed rotating parts materials that could cause 
abrasions, but not lacerations. The technology and the testing 
methodologies these companies used could be utilized in a means of 
compliance accepted by the FAA.
    The FAA anticipates that organizations, including industry 
consensus standards bodies, may develop means of compliance for an 
unmanned aircraft with exposed rotating parts that meet the prohibition 
on exposed rotating parts that would cause lacerations. Once those 
standards are accepted by the FAA, applicants submitting a declaration 
of compliance may then use that means of compliance without themselves 
having to develop the testing methodology or technology. Such a means 
of compliance may include specific material requirements, rotor 
specifications, or additional mitigating technologies.
    As for the waiver process, Sec.  107.39 will remain subject to 
waiver and the FAA will continue to review waiver applications on a 
case-by-case basis. With regard to the costs of complying with the 
prohibition, a summary of impacts is in the regulatory impact analysis 
available in the public docket for this rule.
    Commenters were also concerned about installing shrouds that would 
guard propellers. An individual wrote that propeller guards and full 
body cages can ``adversely affect flight characteristics'' and that 
propeller guards could increase the likelihood of loss of control for 
some quadcopters. In addition, DJI said shrouding an entire rotating 
part, if that part is involved in propulsion, can affect the 
aerodynamics and performance of the aircraft.
    This rule is performance-based and allows exposed rotating parts as 
long as they do not lacerate human skin. Adding rotor shrouds, full 
body cages, or other safety features might be ways to fulfill the 
requirement. The rule permits applicants to employ propeller guards or 
full body cages in consideration of maintaining appropriate flight 
characteristics for the small unmanned aircraft. Designs that use 
propeller guards that prevent the exposure of rotating parts in typical 
human encounters, would be acceptable to the FAA. The FAA acknowledges 
that lacerations to human skin may not be entirely preventable in every 
encounter scenario. The means of compliance will address how this 
requirement is met, and may contain design characteristics and test 
methods to ensure that the applicant has taken all reasonable measures 
to mitigate the possibility of lacerations upon impact with a human 
being. While the inclusion of propeller guards or full body cages could 
adversely affect the flight performance of the small unmanned aircraft, 
the safety benefits provided by the prohibition outweigh the potential 
loss of performance.
    An individual noted that lacerations from propellers and other 
parts do not rise to the level of AIS level 3. Not all lacerating 
injuries will result in severe injury, but rotating propellers and 
rotors could pose a significant laceration hazard if they come in 
contact with human skin. Overall, protection from lacerating injuries 
is necessary to mitigate the risk to the general public.
    Droneport Texas, LLC said the FAA should be open to timely 
consideration and acceptance of alternatives to ducting or shrouding 
rotors, such as rotor shedding, in which lightweight rotors are 
jettisoned and drift to the ground, and rotor braking, in which all 
exposed rotating parts are mechanically or electrically stopped prior 
to impact. Ducting or shrouding of rotating parts is only one method of 
design implementation to protect from laceration. This rule does not 
prescribe specific design features to provide protection from exposed 
rotating parts; any such design features that Droneport Texas, LLC 
identified will be acceptable if they meet an FAA-accepted means of 
compliance.
    DJI said it supports protecting people from sharp moving parts 
during operations where risks of lacerations exist, but notes this 
could exist with respect to operations near, not necessarily over, 
people. Section 107.19(c) states, ``the remote pilot in command must 
ensure that the small unmanned aircraft will pose no undue hazard to 
other people, other aircraft, or other property in the event of a loss 
of control of the small unmanned aircraft for any reason.'' \46\ As 
stated in the NPRM, for small unmanned aircraft with exposed rotating 
parts that could cause a laceration, the remote pilot is responsible 
for determining the appropriate stand-off distance to ensure the small 
unmanned aircraft does not pose a hazard to other people when operating 
near them.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \46\ In the NPRM, the FAA proposed clarifying Sec.  107.19, as 
discussed in Section XII.C of this preamble.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    A few commenters urged the FAA to consider the likelihood of a 
laceration if a blade were to come into contact with human skin. Skydio 
said propeller

[[Page 4333]]

guards are not necessary in all occasions because blade design and 
construction (e.g., size, speed, angles, and ability to retract) have a 
large impact on the likelihood of a laceration if a blade were to come 
into contact with a person. Additionally, Skydio said emergency 
propeller stopping mechanisms in software can shut down the rotors if 
they come close to or contact a person. Skydio advocated for a 
performance-based standard that allows exposed rotating parts, ``so 
long as it can be demonstrated that the design heavily mitigates the 
chances and severity of the blades hurting people.'' A commenter 
asserted folding propellers should be a mitigation factor for 
operations over people in deciding if a small unmanned aircraft could 
be used under Sec.  107.39.
    Under this rule, blade guards or shrouds on exposed rotating parts 
are not required if applicants can demonstrate, by a means acceptable 
to the FAA, that unprotected exposed rotating parts are incapable of 
lacerating human skin. Implementing a rotor brake or similar approach 
to stop the exposed rotating part before it makes contact with a person 
may be effective in protecting from lacerations, but this requires the 
applicant to demonstrate their effectiveness in all likely small 
unmanned aircraft failure scenarios. Similarly, folding propellers 
would be acceptable if the design is shown incapable of causing 
lacerations in accordance with an FAA-accepted means of compliance.
    NASAO noted that some small unmanned aircraft have guards on the 
rotors, but stated it is not clear if this would meet the eligibility 
requirement. AUVSI and MAAP requested clarification that the 
prohibition on parts that can lacerate human skin applies only during 
the operating envelope of the aircraft or during failure mode. Several 
commenters supported the proposed rule if the small unmanned aircraft 
has propeller guards or some other piece of safety equipment, or is 
recognized as reliable, to mitigate the risk of a falling small 
unmanned aircraft. A commenter would give ``professional-level'' small 
UAS more latitude to conduct operations over groups of people, ``while 
restricting toy drones that are less capable.''
    The FAA agrees that the regulations should provide safety 
protection from propellers that could cause lacerations. This rule 
finalizes the prohibition on exposed rotating parts that could cause 
lacerations for Categories 2 and 3 as proposed, with no changes. 
Moreover, existing small unmanned aircraft designs will have to show 
compliance with these requirements. Small unmanned aircraft that 
already incorporate rotor guards would need to demonstrate the 
effectiveness of the rotor guard to protect from lacerating human skin 
when impacting a person by following an FAA-accepted means of 
compliance. The applicability of the exposed rotating parts prohibition 
is limited to small unmanned aircraft operating over people under 
Categories 1, 2, and 3. To be eligible for Category 2 or Category 3 
operations over people, the applicant must use an FAA-accepted means of 
compliance and demonstrate the design does not contain any exposed 
rotating parts that would lacerate human skin on impact.
3. Must Not Contain Safety Defects
    To be eligible to conduct operations over people in accordance with 
Category 2 or Category 3, the Agency proposed requiring each small 
unmanned aircraft be designed, produced, or modified such that it does 
not contain any safety defects identified by the Administrator. As 
discussed previously, the FAA has removed ``identified by the 
Administrator'' for the sake of clarity. The NPRM explained the Agency 
considers a safety defect to be a material, component, or feature of a 
small unmanned aircraft that increases the likelihood that the small 
unmanned aircraft could cause a casualty or fatality to a person during 
an operation over people. As defined in the proposed rule, a safety 
defect in a small unmanned aircraft eligible for conducting Category 2 
operations would cause the unmanned aircraft to exceed a low 
probability of causing a casualty to a person during an operation over 
people. A safety defect in a small unmanned aircraft eligible for 
conducting Category 3 operations would cause a small unmanned aircraft 
to exceed a low probability of causing a fatality to a person during an 
operation over people.
    The NPRM proposed to define a casualty to be a serious injury, 
which corresponds to a level 3 injury on the AIS. While the FAA still 
finds the AIS to be a valuable tool in determining the severity of an 
injury, the FAA concludes that it is not necessary to define it 
strictly. Furthermore, several commenters suggested the FAA use AIS in 
lieu of the injury severity limits adopted in this rule. As discussed 
in the NPRM, the FAA did not find the use of AIS in measuring injury 
severity appropriate.\47\ In order to eliminate confusion, the FAA 
finds it prudent to remove any regulatory references to AIS. The 
dictionary definition of ``casualty''--a serious or fatal accident 
\48\--provides sufficient clarity as to the safety defect requirement. 
As such, the definition of ``casualty'' proposed in the NPRM has been 
removed from the final rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \47\ 84 FR 3856 at 3873.
    \48\ ``Casualty.'' Merriam-Webster.com Dictionary, Merriam-
Webster, https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/casualty. 
Accessed 12 Aug. 2020.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The NPRM provided the following examples of safety defects: Exposed 
wires or hot surfaces on a small unmanned aircraft that could cause 
electrocution or burns to a person on impact; damaged or defective 
lithium polymer or lithium-ion batteries that could cause casualties 
from battery fires or explosions; and sharp edges or projections that 
could cause lacerations or punctures as a result of an impact with a 
person. The NPRM also noted that as small unmanned aircraft designs 
evolve over time, potentially hazardous features or characteristics, 
unknown at the present time, could emerge.
    One commenter noted the FAA did not provide an objective standard 
or process for discerning what constitutes a safety defect. Another 
commenter asked how egregious a safety defect would need to be to 
result in action on the part of the FAA.
    To ensure this rule remains flexible and responsive to the changes 
in technology, this rule does not contain an exhaustive list of all 
potential safety defects or issues. An identified safety defect or 
issue will require action on the part of the FAA if the probability of 
serious injury or fatality exceeds the parameters of acceptable risk 
for Category 2 or Category 3. As discussed in Section VI.C., 
Declaration of Compliance, the FAA has implemented a process by which 
it will work with applicants on addressing and resolving any identified 
safety defects or issues that would render the small unmanned aircraft 
ineligible to operate over people. This rule adopts the prohibition of 
safety defects in small unmanned aircraft eligible to conduct 
operations in accordance with Categories 2 and 3, without change.
4. Must Display a Label
    To qualify for operations over people in accordance with Category 2 
or Category 3, the Agency proposed requiring the display of a label on 
each small unmanned aircraft, indicating the category or categories for 
which the small unmanned aircraft is eligible to conduct operations. 
The Agency explained that such labeling will assist the FAA in its 
oversight role by providing a simple and efficient way to determine 
whether a small unmanned

[[Page 4334]]

aircraft is eligible to conduct operations over people. In addition, it 
will provide notice to remote pilots which category of operations they 
are eligible to conduct using that aircraft.
    The Agency did not propose a prescriptive labeling requirement that 
specifies exactly how an applicant \49\ must label an aircraft, what 
size font to use, specific location, and so on. Due to the large 
variety of small unmanned aircraft models that exist, the Agency 
explained that such a prescriptive requirement would be unnecessary. 
Instead, the proposed rule stated the small unmanned aircraft could be 
labeled by any means as long as the label is in English, legible, 
prominent, and permanently affixed to the aircraft. Given that a small 
unmanned aircraft could be eligible to conduct operations in more than 
one category of operations over people, the small unmanned aircraft 
would have to be labeled with each category of operations for which the 
small unmanned aircraft is eligible. The NPRM noted that some small 
unmanned aircraft that are manufactured prior to final publication of 
this rule may qualify for one or more categories of operations over 
people. If the FAA has accepted a declaration of compliance for one of 
these previously-manufactured small unmanned aircraft, the proposed 
rule would allow a remote pilot in command to operate the small 
unmanned aircraft over people, provided the unmanned aircraft is 
labeled for the appropriate category or categories of operation. This 
final rule requires a remote pilot to label a previously-manufactured 
small unmanned aircraft in accordance with the declaration of 
compliance. Also, if a label degrades such that it is no longer legible 
or attached to the aircraft, the proposed rule included a requirement 
that the remote pilot relabel the small unmanned aircraft. In response 
to the proposed labeling requirement, an individual commenter asked for 
an explanation of the purpose of the labeling requirement, saying he 
would personally prefer not to add additional markings to the aircraft. 
The FAA requires the label for two purposes. For the remote pilot, the 
purpose of the label is to list the categories of operations over 
people the small unmanned aircraft is eligible to conduct, as indicated 
on the FAA-accepted declaration of compliance. The other purpose of the 
label is for the FAA and other agencies to determine that the small 
unmanned aircraft is eligible to conduct the operation.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \49\ As described in Section VII.C., this rule identifies the 
person who submits a declaration of compliance as an applicant, 
rather than a manufacturer. An applicant is anyone who can attest to 
the ability that they meet all the requirements of the declaration 
of compliance.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    AUVSI commented that the proposal would benefit from further 
clarification about who is responsible for labeling. AUVSI stated the 
NPRM is inconsistent about whether manufacturers or operators must 
label the aircraft. AUVSI noted that the proposed rule did not 
affirmatively require manufacturers to label unmanned aircraft, but 
that labeling is a prerequisite for a small unmanned aircraft to be 
eligible to conduct Category 2 or Category 3 operations. AUVSI 
interpreted this as placing the burden on the operators who want to 
conduct such operations. An individual commenter requested clarity on 
what responsibility the remote pilot in command has for ensuring that 
the small unmanned aircraft is properly labeled for Category 2 or 
Category 3.
    This rule requires the applicant to label the small unmanned 
aircraft. Under this rule, the label must remain affixed to the small 
unmanned aircraft to remain eligible for Category 2 or Category 3 
operations. For small unmanned aircraft manufactured prior to the 
effective date of this rule and listed on a declaration of compliance, 
the remote pilot has the responsibility of labeling the small unmanned 
aircraft before he or she may conduct operations under Category 2 or 
Category 3. Once the small unmanned aircraft is in the possession of 
the remote pilot, it becomes his or her responsibility to ensure the 
label remains clear, legible, and affixed to the aircraft. DJI opposed 
the proposed labeling requirement, expressing concern that the 
requirements for manufacturers would be too burdensome and that if the 
FAA rescinds a declaration of compliance, the labeling may become 
erroneous or outdated. The FAA does not consider the labeling 
requirement to be unduly burdensome, given the performance-based nature 
of the requirement. Additionally, because the remote pilot is 
ultimately responsible for ensuring the unmanned aircraft is both 
labeled appropriately and listed on an FAA-accepted declaration of 
compliance, per the applicable operating requirements, the risk of 
erroneously-labeled small unmanned aircraft being used for operations 
over people is low. The FAA encourages industry to develop a standard 
for the label to promote consistency and ease of understanding.
    DJI recommended the FAA maintain a database of aircraft, similar to 
that instituted by Transport Canada, and allow this to inform potential 
small UAS buyers of the accepted products that currently meet the 
requirements for their mission needs. The FAA will make available on 
the FAA website the status of each applicant's declaration of 
compliance for public access, to enable remote pilots to determine 
which small unmanned aircraft are eligible for operations over people. 
The FAA anticipates listing the aircraft by make, model and series, if 
applicable, serial number, and category.\50\ This database will be the 
primary source of the eligibility of the small unmanned aircraft, while 
the label provides a simple and efficient way to indicate eligibility 
for operations over people.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \50\ The NPRM proposed to list the aircraft by make and model, 
but did not list series. This rule contains the phrase ``series, if 
applicable'' to allow for both flexibility to applicants and for 
refined specificity in identifying small UAS eligible to operate 
over people.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    DJI also expressed concern that operators may modify a 
manufacturer's small UAS, rendering the label ``outdated''. The FAA 
emphasizes the remote pilot is responsible for ensuring any 
modifications to the small UAS are in accordance with the remote pilot 
operating instructions in order for the small UAS to remain eligible 
under the FAA-accepted declaration of compliance. This rule requires 
the applicant to provide remote pilot operating instructions, on sale 
or transfer of the small unmanned aircraft, or use of the small 
unmanned aircraft by someone other than that person. The operating 
instructions should address, among other things, modifications that 
will not change the eligibility of the small unmanned aircraft to 
operate over people. To be eligible to operate over people, the 
applicant is required to label the small unmanned aircraft, however, 
this rule does not preclude remote pilots from labeling their own 
aircraft. Finally, the remote pilot is responsible for verifying the 
small unmanned aircraft is properly labeled before each flight and 
knowing the type of operations for which the small UAS is eligible.
    Finally, Section 107.5, which prohibits any fraudulent or 
intentionally false record from being made, kept, or used to show 
compliance with any requirement of part 107, applies to records, which 
includes labels. In this regard, falsifying any part of any record 
intended to constitute proof of compliance with applicable requirements 
could subject the person who submitted the record to a civil penalty 
and could be a basis for rescinding a declaration of compliance if the 
FAA determined that the applicant falsified the records.
    A clear and legible label will enable straightforward means of 
identification of the operations for which the small

[[Page 4335]]

unmanned aircraft is eligible. The FAA clarifies the language for the 
labeling requirement to include the word ``missing'' to ensure that 
remote pilots label previously manufactured small unmanned aircraft. As 
a result, this rule adopts the labeling requirement with this 
clarification.
5. Must Have Remote Pilot Operating Instructions
    The Agency proposed requiring applicants to provide remote pilot 
operating instructions with product-specific information for operations 
in Category 2 or Category 3, including system description and system 
limitations and the category or categories of operations over people 
for which the applicant has declared compliance. The proposed rule 
stated that a person who submits a declaration of compliance for a 
small UAS for Category 2 or Category 3 should provide remote pilot 
operating instructions upon sale or transfer of the small unmanned 
aircraft, or use of the small unmanned aircraft by someone other than 
that person. Instructions would need to remain up-to-date to account 
for any modifications the applicant makes to the small UAS for as long 
as the declaration of compliance remains valid. Specifically, the 
proposed rule included a requirement to include all modifications the 
applicant determined do not change the ability of the small UAS to meet 
the requirements for the category of operation for which the applicant 
declared compliance in the remote pilot operating instructions. For a 
small unmanned aircraft that has variable modes or configurations, the 
applicant would provide instructions on how to verify the mode or 
configuration that the small UAS is in and how to switch between modes 
or configurations.
    The FAA received a few comments related to the contents of the 
remote pilot operating instructions, which are addressed in Section 
VI.C. This rule finalizes the requirement, without change, that in 
order for the small unmanned aircraft to be eligible to operate over 
people, the applicant must provide remote pilot operation instruction 
requirements.
6. Must Be Subject to Product Support and Notification Process
    The NPRM proposed requiring applicants certify on the declaration 
of compliance that a process exists to notify the public and the FAA if 
the applicant identifies a safety defect or condition with its small 
unmanned aircraft that would render the small UAS ineligible for 
operations over people. The proposed rule did not suggest the FAA would 
automatically rescind a declaration of compliance if such notification 
occurred. The proposed rule stated the FAA would evaluate the report 
and correspond with an applicant to determine whether taking corrective 
action or rescinding the acceptance of the declaration would be 
appropriate. This process is described in more detail in VII.C.8-12.
    Reporting safety issues will assist the FAA in both discovering 
product hazards and identifying risks of injury the FAA could address 
through direct communication with applicants, publication of Notices of 
Availability in the Federal Register, or education. Applicants' 
reporting will be a timely and effective source of information because 
applicants often learn of potential product safety problems at an early 
stage. For this reason, the NPRM proposed to require applicants to 
develop a system for maintaining and reviewing information about their 
products. This system will identify when an applicant's product might 
have a safety defect that increases the probability of causing serious 
injury or fatality during operations over people.
    Subsequent to an applicant's discovery of noncompliance, the Agency 
proposed to require an applicant who submits a declaration of 
compliance to notify the FAA and the public of the existence of the 
safety defect. The notification to the FAA will describe the nature of 
the noncompliance and how the applicant plans to address it.
    Notification to the public and owners of that make/model and 
series, if applicable, is a critical step in ensuring continued safety. 
Such notification could take the form of a notice on an applicant's 
website, electronic notification to owners who have registered the 
small unmanned aircraft with the applicant, or an update to the 
software used for the small unmanned aircraft, which advises the remote 
pilot of the change in status. Applicants should exercise diligence to 
ensure the intended audience receives communications involving any 
potential safety issues that would render the aircraft ineligible for 
operations over people. In this regard, the FAA expects applicants to 
design and utilize a system that will facilitate communication between 
the applicants and the owners of the small unmanned aircraft and could 
also inform the public at large.
    The Small UAV Coalition supported the requirement that 
manufacturers establish a product support and notification process. 
APPA, EEI, and NRECA, commenting jointly, supported the need for 
manufacturer accountability, but believed the FAA should require 
manufacturers to contact registered UAS owners directly by electronic 
means or by unmanned aircraft software updates. Commenters wrote that 
the need to avoid inefficient methods is critical when responding to an 
outage or other emergency. Commenters further stated ``electric 
industry UAS operators require a uniform, reliable, predictable way of 
receiving information to ensure they can quickly and accurately 
identify information that would affect [their] compliance.''
    While believing the requirements for the notification process to be 
generally sufficient, a commenter wrote that manufacturers should make 
it easier for pilots to know when a small unmanned aircraft is no 
longer compliant. This commenter suggested manufacturers provide 
instructions in their product manuals directing pilots to their 
websites to learn of safety defects. This commenter also suggested 
notifying purchasers through software or by email. A commenter also 
thought the FAA should require each pilot to register their small UAS 
when taking the mandated bi-annual knowledge test; that way, pilots 
could go no more than 24 months without receiving notification that a 
small UAS is non-compliant.
    Another commenter stated the proposed rule did not provide a way 
for the FAA to identify and inform a specific fleet that a safety issue 
exists. The commenter believed the manufacturer has no responsibility 
to notify customers of safety issues, and that this is neither prudent 
nor scalable. This commenter suggested requiring manufacturers keep a 
list of customers and communicate directly with them and post notices 
of deficiencies on their websites.
    The FAA disagrees with the commenter who believed that the proposed 
regulation was unclear regarding whether an applicant has a 
responsibility to provide notice of product issues to owners. The 
responsibility rests with applicants who submit declarations of 
compliance for the small unmanned aircraft, as they are in the best 
position to identify issues in a timely manner and to communicate with 
the owners. Additionally, the FAA may take action to inform the public 
in certain circumstances, in addition to the applicant's notification.
    It is critical that applicants notify small unmanned aircraft 
owners of any product issues. The FAA declines to specify how the 
notification must occur. Applicants may have numerous ways of

[[Page 4336]]

contacting owners of small unmanned aircraft; the FAA declines to 
prescribe the manner of contact, particularly as technology evolves. 
This rule requires the applicant who submitted the declaration of 
compliance to notify the owners of safety deficiencies in a timely 
manner. The FAA agrees with commenters that it is important for this 
information to be received quickly so that owners and remote pilots can 
take appropriate action as necessary regarding use of their small 
unmanned aircraft. Therefore, the FAA finalizes the product 
notification requirements as proposed.

B. Means of Compliance

1. Means of Compliance
    The Agency proposed to require an applicant producing a small 
unmanned aircraft eligible for Category 2 or Category 3 operations 
declare compliance with the safety requirements for the chosen category 
by using an FAA-accepted means of compliance. Demonstrating compliance 
with safety requirements includes verifying there are no safety 
defects, as described in Section VI.A.3. Under the proposed rule, a 
voluntary consensus standards body or an individual could develop an 
acceptable means of compliance, the latter of which the NPRM referred 
to as a custom means of compliance. Once the FAA accepts a means of 
compliance, any person submitting a declaration of compliance could use 
it to establish their small unmanned aircraft fulfills the requirements 
of the rule.
    Several commenters suggested the means of compliance proposal was 
onerous, putting overly restrictive requirements on manufacturers. 
Commenters were concerned the proposed rule did not allow for 
innovation, would be too costly to implement, or would require 
manufacturers to create a system to a set of standards that seem 
arbitrary. In contrast, some commenters believed operators should be 
required to prove the small unmanned aircraft are safe to operate. The 
Agency carefully considered these comments and has determined the 
flexible, performance-based requirements combined with the means of 
compliance and declaration of compliance processes provide an effective 
and cost-efficient way to establish which small unmanned aircraft meet 
the appropriate eligibility requirements for operations over people.
    Some commenters expressed concern that the requirements do not 
provide sufficient clarity as to how manufacturers would safely 
establish their small unmanned aircraft would not exceed the injury 
severity limitations. One commenter believed standardized procedures 
should exist, possibly involving impacting test dummies, showing the 
impact effects of a small unmanned aircraft collision so that minor or 
negligent testing by manufacturers cannot be used to show compliance. 
The FAA agrees standardized test procedures could be an effective way 
to demonstrate applicants have fulfilled the applicable standards, but 
notes the rule allows for wide variance in the operating criteria and 
designs of small unmanned aircraft. The performance-based nature of 
this rule allows industry to develop new or innovative standardized 
methods, which might include test dummies, that will be effective in 
demonstrating compliance.
    Some commenters asked whether owners of self-built small UAS can 
test their own aircraft. The FPVFC volunteered to create a checklist 
for small UAS self-certification of compliance for safety testing, 
which anyone could use. Any person intending to operate a self-built 
small UAS over people must follow an FAA-accepted means of compliance 
to list the small UAS on the declaration of compliance submitted to the 
FAA. The FAA anticipates small unmanned aircraft manufacturers 
producing many small unmanned aircraft may find some means of 
compliance more appropriate than others, as some test procedures may 
involve destructive testing of multiple small unmanned aircraft to 
demonstrate compliance. This rule permits owners of self-built small 
unmanned aircraft to develop a means of compliance that does not 
involve destructive testing of multiple copies of a particular small 
unmanned aircraft. Anyone may submit a proposed means of compliance to 
the FAA for review.
    The News Media Coalition believed the Agency should rely on 
findings of the safety of certain models of small UAS and experience 
with waivers for operations over people to inform performance-based 
rulemaking that reflects the FAA's data. Until a final rule is 
published, the commenter wrote that the FAA should allow any subsequent 
operators of a model of small UAS that has already received a waiver to 
secure a waiver without undergoing new performance testing. Waivers are 
issued on a case-by-case basis in accordance with Sec.  107.200. The 
decision to renew or modify a waiver will continue to depend on the 
details of the proposed operation.
2. Submittal and Acceptance of a Means of Compliance
    As described previously, applicants submitting a declaration of 
compliance for acceptance must use an FAA-accepted means of compliance 
to establish compliance with the requirements. Any person may propose a 
means of compliance. A person who submits a means of compliance for FAA 
acceptance must provide a detailed description of the means of 
compliance and explain exactly how the testing, analysis, or inspection 
establishes the small UAS meets one or more of the safety requirements. 
When proposing the means of compliance for FAA acceptance, the 
applicant must include substantiating data, including studies or 
research reports, that supports the proposed means of compliance.
    The FAA will indicate acceptance of a means of compliance by 
publishing a Notice of Availability in the Federal Register identifying 
the means of compliance as accepted and by informing the applicant of 
its acceptance.\51\ If the FAA does not accept a means of compliance, 
the FAA will notify the applicant of the rationale for its decision. 
The FAA may rescind a previously accepted means of compliance on 
determining the means of compliance does not meet the applicable 
requirements for operations over people.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \51\ A means of compliance is not considered to be ``FAA-
accepted'' until the means of compliance has been evaluated by the 
FAA, the applicant has been notified of acceptance. The FAA will 
publish a Notice of Availiabity in the Federal Register identifying 
the means of compliance as accepted.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    When reviewing a means of compliance, the FAA will utilize a 
comprehensive set of criteria. The FAA will determine whether the 
testing, analysis, or inspection described in the means of compliance 
demonstrates that a small unmanned aircraft meets the appropriate 
regulatory requirements. A means of compliance must address the injury 
severity limits, the exposed rotating parts prohibition, or a 
combination of both, and verification that there are no safety defects. 
The FAA will determine whether the proposed means of compliance aligns 
with accepted methods used by the medical industry, consumer safety 
groups, or other peer-reviewed test methods. In addition, the FAA will 
consider whether the proposed means of compliance relies on exceptional 
remote pilot skill or excessive pilot workload to satisfy the 
requirements.
    The NPRM provided a means of compliance in which an applicant could 
use a drop test procedure to

[[Page 4337]]

demonstrate the small unmanned aircraft complies with the injury 
severity limits for Category 2 or Category 3. This FAA-provided means 
of compliance does not consider the effect of these aspects on an 
impact with a person because it assumes that the total kinetic energy 
of the small unmanned aircraft would be transferred to the person on 
impact.
    In reality, however, the small unmanned aircraft may transfer much 
less energy than this assumed maximum. In this regard, the Agency 
acknowledged structural configuration, materials of construction, or 
other design features may function to reduce the amount of the total 
kinetic energy that is transferred to a person from a small unmanned 
aircraft during an impact. For example, the presence of energy-
absorbing materials, or an energy-absorbing protective cage, may reduce 
the transfer of kinetic energy during an impact with a person. An 
applicant may provide data showing the amount of kinetic energy that is 
transferred to a person during an impact based on the impact-absorbing 
characteristics of the small unmanned aircraft. Some applicants might 
seek to use design features such as parachutes or other deployable 
devices that reduce impact velocity to establish a small unmanned 
aircraft would impact a person with a reduced amount of kinetic energy. 
Such design features will require the FAA's review to determine whether 
they assist in achieving an acceptable means of compliance if the small 
UAS relies on the proper functioning of these features.
    Any person may propose a new means of compliance to the FAA as a 
way to show compliance with the requirements. The NPRM had referred to 
this as a ``custom means of compliance,'' which several commenters 
found confusing. Commenters such as CDA and AirXOS remarked on the time 
and expense associated with the approval process for a custom means of 
compliance and were concerned that it would be difficult, time-
consuming, and costly. The Agency agrees that any individual creating a 
means of compliance would likely incur greater cost compared to using 
the FAA-provided means of compliance or an existing FAA-accepted means 
of compliance. The FAA encourages the development and use of 
standardized test procedures from a voluntary consensus standards body 
as a means of compliance. However, applicants are not required to use 
them.
    The NPRM only referred to ``custom means of compliance'' to 
distinguish the FAA-provided means of compliance or a means of 
compliance provided by a voluntary consensus standards body from any 
other type of means of compliance. The NPRM stated a means of 
compliance submitted by a voluntary consensus standards body may be 
accepted more quickly than those submitted independently. The FAA will 
evaluate means of compliance submitted by a voluntary consensus 
standards body and by an independent party with the same level of 
rigor. The FAA generally works with voluntary consensus standards 
bodies in the development of these standards. As a result, any means of 
compliance based on these standards will already have gone through a 
comprehensive review process during development.
    A commenter asked whether a deadline will exist for the means of 
compliance and if manufacturers could choose the methods to bring their 
small UAS into compliance. The FAA notes that there is no deadline for 
the submittal or acceptance of the means of compliance other than that 
it must be accepted by the FAA before an applicant can list it on a 
declaration of compliance. The NPRM stated a person submitting a means 
of compliance for FAA review could also submit the declaration of 
compliance listing that means of compliance at the same time. However, 
given that the FAA is no longer using the term ``custom means of 
compliance,'' the FAA clarifies that, to obtain acceptance of a 
declaration of compliance, an applicant must identify the FAA-accepted 
means of compliance that it used. The FAA will finalize the means of 
compliance acceptance process as described in this section.
3. Rescission Process for a Means of Compliance
    The NPRM proposed that it could rescind a means of compliance if 
the FAA determined from service history that the means of compliance 
did not meet the applicable standards for operations over people. 
However, the NPRM did not include regulatory text. In this final rule, 
the FAA has maintained the right to rescind a previously-accepted means 
of compliance and added regulatory text for clarity.
    Some commenters expressed concerns about the ability of applicants 
to demonstrate compliance with the safety requirements. While Vortezon, 
Inc. agreed that small UAS manufacturers should bear the burden of 
demonstrating compliance with the injury severity limits, the commenter 
wrote that FAA itself should independently and thoroughly test the data 
submitted to support any means of compliance applications. The 
commenter believed that delegating that responsibility might result in 
a lack of uniformity in establishing the standards under which the 
industry will operate. Vortezon wrote that the procedures the Federal 
Communications Commission (FCC) uses to approve radio frequency devices 
might provide a template for the FAA. Another commenter noted that the 
proposed rule sets up the FAA as the final authority in determining 
compliance with the requirements, which they considered an appropriate 
balance.
    To ensure the continued eligibility of small unmanned aircraft 
operating over people, the FAA finds it necessary to make clear that 
compliance is an ongoing process, and that the FAA maintains the 
authority to continuously evaluate that the applicant's means of 
compliance provides factual and correct data. The FAA can exercise its 
authority to rescind a means of compliance if the small unmanned 
aircraft does not meet any or all of the requirements of the subpart as 
a result of errors or deficiencies in the test, inspection, or 
analysis. As such, this final rule includes a regulatory provision to 
allow the FAA to rescind the means of compliance.
4. FAA-Provided Means of Compliance
    As described above, the FAA-provided means of compliance includes a 
test and inspection method in which applicants demonstrate their small 
unmanned aircraft will not exceed injury severity limitations or the 
exposed rotating parts prohibition. The FAA has not made any changes to 
the FAA-provided means of compliance discussed in the NPRM. The FAA 
anticipates applicants will submit for comprehensive means of 
compliance that include innovative materials and designs, unlike the 
FAA-provided means of compliance described in the NPRM.
a. FAA-Provided Injury Severity Limit Means of Compliance
    The FAA-provided means of compliance for the injury severity 
limitations entails an applicant's calculation of the small unmanned 
aircraft's maximum kinetic energy. This means of compliance does not 
account for impact dynamics or other factors, but consists of using 
only the formula the FAA describes to calculate the small unmanned 
aircraft maximum kinetic energy. Use of this formula alone establishes 
the small unmanned aircraft will not exceed one of the injury severity 
limits because, as described above in Section VI.A.1. of this

[[Page 4338]]

preamble, 11 ft-lbs (for Category 2 operations) and 25 ft-lbs (for 
Category 3 operations) are kinetic energy values that assume a limit on 
injury severity. Applicants interested in using this test may find more 
information about the FAA-provided means of compliance in the NPRM and 
the associated Advisory Circular (AC) for this rule, AC 107-2A.\52\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \52\ 84 FR 3877-3879. A copy of the AC 107-2A is available in 
the public docket for this rulemaking.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Several commenters specifically addressed the FAA-provided means of 
compliance. ASSURE stated, ``[u]sing this means of compliance, there 
will be no aircraft with a commercially viable payload that can meet 
the Sec.  107.115 Category 2 operations in the NPRM and as such this 
NPRM will do nothing to expand the operations of the sUAS in the U.S.'' 
The Small UAV Coalition and AirXOS both agreed with ASSURE's 
conclusion. The Small UAV Coalition urged the FAA to use the automotive 
injury metrics as ASSURE suggested. AirXOS and CDA both stated the FAA-
provided means of compliance does not sufficiently permit different 
materials or structural configurations, which can affect the damage 
resulting from a collision with a small unmanned aircraft. Both 
commenters were similarly concerned the FAA-provided means of 
compliance does not consider devices that may deploy and reduce the 
maximum impact speed or the reduced probability of failure or impact. 
These commenters stated the rule, if adopted, would impede innovation. 
CDA also believed the risk analysis should give operators credit for 
operational safeguards.
    The FAA acknowledges the limitations associated with the FAA-
provided means of compliance for the injury severity limits. The Agency 
intended to provide a test method that applicants could use to show 
compliance with the injury severity limitations, with the understanding 
that industry would develop more flexible means of compliance using 
consensus standards organizations. The FAA expects these industry 
standards to consider that small unmanned aircraft often have non-rigid 
structures, which can reduce the kinetic energy transferred to a person 
on impact. The FAA also expects industry consensus standards to address 
the use of deployable devices, such as parachutes, to demonstrate 
compliance with the injury severity limitations. Unlike the FAA-
provided means of compliance, those that industry provides could 
leverage variable modes and configurations. The FAA-provided means of 
compliance allows applicants to have a method of complying with the 
injury severity limitations prior to development of any other means of 
compliance.
    The FAA-provided means of compliance considers typical failures and 
environmental conditions during testing. Boeing asked the FAA to define 
what the NPRM meant in using the term ``typical.'' In this case, 
``typical'' describes a likely occurrence during normal operations of 
the small unmanned aircraft, (e.g., human error, systems failures, or 
environmental conditions that could lead to a loss of operational 
control). Because each small unmanned aircraft and its anticipated 
operating environment are different, the applicant is best-suited to 
determine what is typical. This rule requires the applicant to submit 
substantiating data that includes sufficient information concerning the 
environmental conditions and the maximum speeds the manufacturer 
utilized, as well as any unique test conditions for both the level 
flight and free-fall scenarios. This means of compliance is now 
available as an FAA-accepted means of compliance with the finalization 
of this rule.
b. FAA-Provided Exposed Rotating Parts Means of Compliance
    In the NPRM, the FAA provided a means of compliance for the exposed 
rotating parts prohibition, which would require an applicant to ensure 
the small unmanned aircraft does not have parts that are exposed. For 
example, if the propellers that provide lift and thrust for the small 
unmanned aircraft are internal to the unmanned aircraft, such as in a 
ducted fan configuration, and are incapable of making contact with a 
person as a result of an impact, then the parts would not be exposed. 
As a result, the aircraft would satisfy this requirement. An applicant 
must inspect the small unmanned aircraft to establish that it does not 
have any exposed rotating parts and determine that any rotating parts 
would not become exposed during an impact with a person.
    The NPRM noted an industry consensus organization could develop a 
standard for small unmanned aircraft that have rotating parts protected 
by safety features. If the applicant tests those safety features and 
establishes they remain effective during impact, this could demonstrate 
that exposed rotating parts would not be capable of lacerating human 
skin. If, however, a small unmanned aircraft has rotating parts that 
are exposed without any protective safety features, the NPRM proposed 
to permit applicants or others to show through testing, analysis, or 
inspection that the rotating parts would not be capable of lacerating 
human skin on impact with a person.
    Several commenters addressed the issue of using a means of 
compliance to establish compliance with the exposed rotating parts 
prohibition. One commenter stated the ability to create novel means of 
compliance would drive innovation in finding alternatives to exposed 
rotating parts. The commenter believed the FAA should clarify that a 
small unmanned aircraft without rotating parts should not be required 
to submit proof of compliance.
    To satisfy the eligibility requirements for Categories 2 and 3, a 
small unmanned aircraft must meet the performance-based requirements 
for exposed rotating parts by following an FAA-accepted means of 
compliance. A small unmanned aircraft that does not have any rotating 
parts would meet the FAA-provided means of compliance; the declaration 
of compliance would include an indication of this. Even if the small 
unmanned aircraft is designed to operate without rotating parts, the 
applicant must still submit a declaration of compliance to demonstrate 
the small unmanned aircraft complies with the exposed rotating parts 
prohibition and the injury severity limitation. This means of 
compliance is now available as an FAA-accepted means of compliance with 
the finalization of this rule.
5. Deployable Devices and Other Safety Mechanisms
    In the proposed rule, the Agency stated applicants may want to 
consider the use or testing of design features such as parachutes, 
ballistic recovery systems, or other deployable devices that create 
drag to reduce the maximum impact speed. While the FAA did not consider 
the use of a deployable device in the FAA-provided means of compliance, 
this rule does not prohibit anyone from submitting a means of 
compliance that considers deployable devices. The FAA will evaluate 
such design features to determine whether they assist in achieving an 
acceptable means of compliance.
    Several commenters submitted comments regarding the use of 
deployable devices. AirXOS said that, consistent with the FAA's Safety 
Risk Management Policy,\53\ the safety risk of a particular hazard 
should be assessed using a combination of the severity and likelihood 
(probability) of the potential

[[Page 4339]]

outcome of the hazard. AirXOS stated the FAA should consider 
comparative safety benefits when evaluating the overall risk for 
operations over people. In addition to technological mitigations, 
AirXOS said the risk analysis should also consider operational 
safeguards, such as an operator having a comprehensive safety 
management system and flight proficiency training. MPAA and NCTA, 
commenting jointly, stated design safety features such as frangible 
components, propeller cages, propeller guards, parachutes, or padding 
that may increase the weight of a small unmanned aircraft are also 
likely to minimize the risk of injury. Some commenters suggested small 
UAS could be equipped with a range of safety mechanisms, including 
visual and audible alerts, collision avoidance systems, and parachutes.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \53\ FAA Order 8040.4B, Safety Risk Management Policy (May 2, 
2017), available at https://www.faa.gov/documentLibrary/media/Order/FAA_Order_8040.4B.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Under this rule, applicants may choose to demonstrate compliance 
with the appropriate safety requirements of Category 2 or Category 3 
using designs with safety features such as frangible components, 
propeller cages, propeller guards, parachutes, or padding. To do so, 
they must use an FAA-accepted means of compliance that incorporates 
those safety features as a means to comply with the injury severity 
limitations.
    While use of other safety mechanisms (e.g., visual and audible 
alerts, collision avoidance systems, etc.) may decrease the likelihood 
of an impact with a person, the FAA will not factor in these devices in 
considering proposed means of compliance for Category 2 or Category 3 
because they do not address the injury severity limitations or exposed 
rotating parts prohibition. The FAA may consider these devices as part 
of the Category 4 process or in a waiver application, particularly for 
applicants considering reliability and likelihood.
    ParaZero and Indemnis both asserted that, even when equipped with a 
parachute, very few unmanned aircraft models will be capable of meeting 
the applicable kinetic energy limitation. A-Cam Aerials noted the 
proposed performance-based requirements would not permit certain 
operations even with mitigations, such as parachutes that adhere to the 
ASTM F3322-18 parachute standard.\54\ The commenter requested the FAA 
consider allowing operational mitigations instead of requiring design 
mitigations, asserting these design considerations would limit the 
number of manufacturers that could meet the injury severity 
limitations. The rule, however, does not require manufacturers to meet 
the requirements using the FAA-provided means of compliance. An 
applicant may choose to demonstrate compliance with the injury severity 
limitations using deployable devices, as long as the applicant 
describes the use of them in the proposed means of compliance. The 
Agency encourages industry to develop means of compliance that leverage 
existing and future industry standards for the design, maintenance, and 
testing of such devices.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \54\ ASTM F3322-18, Standard Specification for Small Unmanned 
Aircraft System (sUAS) Parachutes, ASTM International, West 
Conshohocken, PA, 2018, http://www.astm.org/cgi-bin/resolver.cgi?F3322.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    One commenter believed parachutes are not necessary based on the 
accident record for small unmanned aircraft or the ASSURE report. The 
UAS Program Leader for the Memphis Fire Department wrote that if 
parachutes are required, these systems are unable to be tested. He 
noted that the fire department performs a preflight safety inspection 
and flight check before every takeoff, but would be unable to test, 
check, or inspect a parachute system. The FAA clarifies that a 
deployable device system is not required. Applicants have the 
discretion to incorporate the use of a deployable device.

C. Declaration of Compliance

    The NPRM stated self-certification is the appropriate method for 
manufacturers to declare compliance with a performance standard. Self-
certification, combined with the Agency's determination that the means 
of compliance the manufacturer has used is acceptable, will ensure the 
small unmanned aircraft, when operated over people, will afford the 
public an appropriate level of safety.
1. Persons Who May Submit a Declaration of Compliance
    The NPRM proposed that any person or entity that designs, produces, 
or modifies a small unmanned aircraft for use in Category 2 or Category 
3 operations must submit a declaration of compliance to the FAA for 
acceptance. The NPRM characterized any person who designs, produces, or 
modifies a small unmanned aircraft for such operations as a 
``manufacturer'' for purposes of this rule.
    Several commenters, including AUVSI, FPVFC, and several other 
individuals, commented on the use of the term ``manufacturer.'' AUVSI 
indicated the FAA did not account for the entire range of entities that 
may wish to submit a declaration of compliance and recommended the 
Agency clarify that non-manufacturer third parties and operators that 
do not alter a small UAS would be eligible to submit a declaration of 
compliance in order for that small UAS to become eligible for Category 
2 or Category 3 operations, regardless of whether the entity originally 
manufactured or modified the small UAS. The person who submits the 
declaration of compliance must be able to demonstrate they have used an 
FAA-accepted means of compliance to fulfill the standard. Although the 
FAA does not expect the resale of small unmanned aircraft by non-
manufacturer third parties to be a typical occurrence, if the applicant 
wishing to make the small unmanned aircraft eligible for operations 
under Category 2 or Category 3 is able to submit a declaration of 
compliance with all required elements, the FAA would accept that 
declaration even though that person has not designed, produced, or 
modified the small unmanned aircraft. To reduce confusion, the final 
rule clarifies that the responsible party is the applicant.
    To be eligible to operate in accordance with Category 2 or Category 
3, the small unmanned aircraft must be listed on an FAA-accepted 
declaration of compliance. The FAA does not restrict who may submit a 
declaration of compliance and anticipates entities that produce and 
sell a complete and operable small unmanned aircraft to submit the most 
declarations of compliance. Other persons who may submit a declaration 
of compliance include designers or producers of kits that contain all 
the components and parts from which to build an operable small unmanned 
aircraft eligible for Category 2 or Category 3 operations. One 
commenter stated the FAA should not consider someone who assembles a 
kit to be a manufacturer. A small unmanned aircraft listed on an FAA-
accepted declaration of compliance could be sold as a kit. The person 
who assembles such kit per the provided instructions is not required to 
submit a declaration of compliance; however, in order for the small 
unmanned aircraft assembled from that kit to be eligible for Category 2 
or Category 3 operations, the producer of the kit must have submitted a 
declaration of compliance and received from the FAA acceptance of the 
declaration.
    Any person who builds a small unmanned aircraft from parts not in a 
complete kit or who modifies a small unmanned aircraft to be compliant 
with Category 2 or Category 3 must submit a declaration of compliance 
and receive FAA acceptance of it before the small unmanned aircraft 
would be eligible for operations under the applicable category. For 
example, a person who modifies a small unmanned aircraft that

[[Page 4340]]

was originally produced prior to the effective date of this rule so 
that the small unmanned aircraft becomes eligible to conduct Category 2 
or Category 3 operations must submit a declaration of compliance.
    A small unmanned aircraft is not covered by a declaration of 
compliance if it has been modified outside the configurations and 
modifications allowed in the remote pilot operating instructions for 
that small UAS. For example, the person who submitted the declaration 
of compliance for the Category 2 operation would not be responsible for 
the new configuration of the small unmanned aircraft after 
modification. The person who modified the unmanned aircraft would be 
responsible for submitting a new declaration of compliance describing 
the new configuration and receiving acceptance of it to establish 
eligibility for the appropriate category before the small unmanned 
aircraft can be operated over people.
    A few commenters suggested people who build their own small 
unmanned aircraft should not be considered manufacturers and therefore 
not be required to submit a declaration of compliance. Another 
commenter asserted a primary reason people choose to build their own 
small unmanned aircraft is to save money and these people will not have 
the financial resources or access to testing equipment to demonstrate 
compliance. The FAA disagrees with the assertion that a distinction 
should exist between home-built small unmanned aircraft and other small 
unmanned aircraft. The four categories this rule establishes are not 
based on the purpose for which the small unmanned aircraft was built. 
Any person designing and building a small unmanned aircraft and 
intending to operate over people under Categories 2 or 3 must submit a 
declaration of compliance.
    The FAA finalizes the term ``applicant'' to describe the person who 
submits the declaration of compliance. The applicant refers to the 
person who declares that the small unmanned aircraft meets the 
eligibility requirements for operations over people.
2. Submission of Declaration of Compliance for FAA Acceptance
    For a small unmanned aircraft to be eligible to conduct operations 
over people in accordance with Category 2 or Category 3, the Agency 
proposed to require the applicant to declare that the small unmanned 
aircraft complies with the applicable performance-based requirements 
through use of an FAA-accepted means of compliance. The applicant would 
do this by submitting a declaration of compliance via an electronic 
form available on the FAA's website.
    By submitting a declaration of compliance, an applicant would 
declare that it: (1) Established and maintained a process to notify 
owners of small unmanned aircraft and the FAA of any unsafe conditions 
that render those small unmanned aircraft non-compliant with subpart D; 
(2) would correct any safety defects the FAA identified; and (3) would 
allow the Administrator to inspect its facilities, technical data, and 
any manufactured small unmanned aircraft and witness any tests 
necessary to determine compliance with this subpart.
    In response to the proposed declaration of compliance requirements, 
one commenter believed the assumption of liability must be inherent to 
the concept of a declaration of compliance. The existence of a 
declaration of compliance, however, does not automatically release the 
applicant or the remote pilot from any potential liability. For 
example, if a remote pilot were to operate the small unmanned aircraft 
over people in a configuration not specified in the remote pilot 
operating instructions, in an unsafe condition, or in a careless or 
reckless manner, a valid declaration of compliance does not release the 
remote pilot from responsibility. This commenter also asked how the 
declaration of compliance relates to section 345 of the FAA 
Reauthorization Act of 2018, which deals with self-certification.\55\ 
This rule is consistent with the statutory requirements in section 345 
of the 2018 FAA Reauthorization Act This statute requires FAA to 
develop a process for accepting ``risk-based consensus safety standards 
relating to the design, production, or modification of small unmanned 
aircraft systems.'' Public Law 115-254, sec. 345(a)(1). In 
consideration of these requirements, this rule allows an applicant to 
request FAA acceptance of a means of compliance that is based on 
consensus safety standards.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \55\ Public Law 115-254, sec. 345 (Oct. 5, 2018) (``Small 
Unmanned Aircraft Safety Standards'') requires the FAA to establish 
a process for acceptance and use of consensus safety standards for 
the design, production, and modification of small UAS.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Small UAV Coalition supported the proposal to allow ``self-
certification'' of compliance with the applicable standards; however, 
because the FAA will accept declarations of compliance on determining 
the manufacturer has demonstrated compliance with the requirements of 
the rule, the Coalition noted the requirements seem similar to the 
means of compliance. The means of compliance and declaration of 
compliance go hand in hand. The means of compliance answers the 
question of how a person or entity meets the requirements of the rule. 
The declaration of compliance establishes the applicant is declaring it 
has met the applicable injury severity limitations, the exposed 
rotating parts prohibition, or a combination of these requirements 
through an FAA-accepted means of compliance.
    DJI urged the Agency to allow manufacturers to demonstrate 
compliance to certain regulations through the declaration of compliance 
and recommended using Transport Canada's ``Remotely Piloted Aircraft 
Systems Safety Assurance Advisory Circular'' (AC 922-001) as a model. 
While the FAA did not accept this recommendation to incorporate 
Transport Canada's AC, the FAA notes that this rule allows applicants 
to show compliance with the requirements by submitting a declaration of 
compliance and receiving FAA acceptance.
    While generally supporting the proposed framework for the 
declaration of compliance, AUVSI recommended the FAA ensure the 
framework operates flexibly to avoid undue burden on small UAS 
operators who modify their small UAS and on non-manufacturers that wish 
to certify a small UAS. AUVSI asked the FAA to ensure the framework 
would permit manufacturers to certify a ``wide variety'' of payloads 
and configurations without the need for re-certification as long as 
modifications were within a certain range. The Coalition asked the FAA 
to ensure compatibility between the rules allowing night operations and 
operations over people, including any modifications for night 
operations.
    Operations of small unmanned aircraft under Category 1, Category 2, 
or Category 3 must adhere to the applicable performance-based 
eligibility requirements, regardless of any modifications. The FAA will 
permit applicants to identify acceptable modifications, including 
payloads and configurations, in the remote pilot operating instructions 
as part of their declaration of compliance. Because the injury caused 
by an impact from the small unmanned aircraft could be different for 
each modification that changes the small unmanned aircraft 
configuration or properties, they must fulfill the applicable standard 
through an FAA-accepted means of compliance. This rule allows such 
evaluation by test, analysis, or inspection. For example, an applicant 
may not have to conduct

[[Page 4341]]

separate evaluations for two different brands of propellers if they are 
the same diameter, pitch, weight, and material. If, through analysis, 
an applicant proves the propellers will behave the same, he or she 
would only have to conduct the impact test with one brand of propeller, 
but could list both brands of propellers as approved equipment in the 
remote pilot operating instructions.
    A commenter recommended including a requirement in the declaration 
of compliance that all ``written communications be written in proper 
English and follow standards for plain language.'' The FAA declines to 
accept this recommendation, as the Agency finds it unnecessary to 
provide prescriptive writing requirements.
    This rule adopts the declaration of compliance submission as 
proposed, with the clarification that any person may submit a 
declaration of compliance for FAA acceptance. The Agency has determined 
accepting declarations of compliance is appropriately risk-based and 
suitable for allowing operations over people, as it is sufficient for 
the level of risk involved.
3. Contents of Declaration of Compliance
    The NPRM proposed that an applicant intending to list a small 
unmanned aircraft as eligible for operations over people in accordance 
with Category 2 or Category 3 would submit a declaration of compliance 
to the FAA. A template for the declaration of compliance will be 
available in an electronic form on the FAA's website. A completed 
declaration of compliance will include information the Administrator 
would require for both determining that a small unmanned aircraft 
complies with the applicable requirement and for tracking those models 
of small unmanned aircraft that were declared compliant. Applicants 
will declare they have met the requirements of the rule through an FAA-
accepted means of compliance and include the following information:
     FAA-accepted means of compliance used.
     Name of the applicant.
     Physical address of the applicant.
     Email address of the applicant.
     Small unmanned aircraft make, model and series, if 
applicable.
     Serial number or range of serial numbers for the small 
unmanned aircraft (open-ended are permitted).
     Whether the declaration of compliance was an initial or an 
amended declaration of compliance and, if amended, the reason for the 
resubmittal.
     Declaration that the applicant:
    [cir] Has demonstrated the small unmanned aircraft meets the injury 
severity limitations of Category 2, Category 3, or both, and the 
exposed rotating parts prohibition;
    [cir] Has demonstrated the small unmanned aircraft does not have 
any safety defects;
    [cir] Has satisfied the requirement to maintain a product support 
and notification process; and
    [cir] Will, upon request, allow the Administrator to inspect its 
facilities and its technical data.
     Any other information as required by the Administrator.
    If an applicant amends an FAA-accepted declaration of compliance, 
the applicant must include the reason for the amendment. For example, 
the amendment could be to identify a different means of compliance, 
update an address, or correct a misspelling.
    This final rule states the applicant must make a declaration for 
the items in the declaration of compliance instead of a certification. 
This change in the regulatory text does not change items required in 
the declaration of compliance; instead, it simply removes any potential 
confusion associated with the airworthiness certification process.
    Information contained in declarations of compliance will be 
publicly available. By posting the declarations or otherwise making the 
information in the declarations publicly available, the FAA and the 
public will be able to determine which make, model, and series, if 
applicable of small unmanned aircraft are eligible to conduct 
operations over people pursuant to Categories 2 and 3.
    No comments specifically addressed the contents of the declaration 
of compliance. The Agency also did not receive any comments regarding 
its proposal to make information about accepted declarations of 
compliance available to the public through an FAA website. This rule 
adopts the requirements related to contents of the declaration of 
compliance, as proposed.
    Some commenters addressed the requirement that applicants allow the 
FAA to inspect their facilities. A commenter stated that the 
requirement for facility inspections seems difficult for overseas 
manufacturers and generally unnecessary. Access to each applicant's 
facilities provides a mechanism for the FAA to validate procedures, 
processes, and methods as well as the data used to demonstrate 
compliance with the safety requirements. The FAA regularly performs 
routine inspections of facilities of those who hold type certificates 
and production certificates overseas. The FAA maintains authority to 
inspect overseas facilities at which a manufacturer designs, produces, 
or modifies small unmanned aircraft for operations under Category 2 or 
Category 3.
    One commenter found the proposed rule unclear regarding whether a 
person who either designed or modified a small unmanned aircraft would 
be subject to the on-site inspections proposal. An applicant who 
submits a declaration of compliance to operate over people would be 
subject to the onsite inspection requirement. On request, the person 
who submits the declaration of compliance must be prepared to 
demonstrate how they can validate that they are in compliance with 
their declaration of compliance and this rule.
    The Agency adopts the list of information that must be included in 
the declaration of compliance as proposed, with no changes.
4. Accountability for Persons Submitting Declarations of Compliance
    After an applicant declares a specific small unmanned aircraft 
meets the requirements of a particular category, the Agency proposed to 
require the applicant to monitor the small unmanned aircraft to ensure 
it complies with the applicable requirements. Specifically, an 
applicant would monitor the validity of the means of compliance used 
and verify it does not exceed the injury severity limitations and 
complies with the exposed rotating parts prohibition. The applicant 
would track the construction, related safety analysis, and service 
history to ensure they do not reveal any hazardous conditions or safety 
defects that could increase the risk of a small unmanned aircraft 
operation over people. Moreover, the applicant must continue to ensure 
that the remote pilot operating instructions satisfy the regulatory 
requirements. To satisfy these obligations, an applicant may have to 
monitor its manufacturing processes, small unmanned aircraft 
operational usage, and collection of accident and incident data. 
Monitoring could also include information that owners and operators of 
the small unmanned aircraft provide. Should the FAA identify a safety 
issue that warrants review of an applicant's data, records, or 
facilities, this rule requires applicants to grant access to facilitate 
such review.
    Furthermore, the Agency proposed to require applicants submit an 
actual record declaring compliance. Section 107.5, which prohibits any 
fraudulent or intentionally false record from being made, kept, or used 
to show compliance with any requirement of part 107, will apply to such 
records. In this regard,

[[Page 4342]]

falsifying any part of any record intended to constitute proof of 
compliance with applicable requirements could subject the person who 
submitted the record to a civil penalty and would be a basis for 
rescinding a declaration of compliance.
    The Agency did not receive any comments regarding the falsification 
provisions proposed and adopts those provisions without change.
5. Declaring Compliance for Multiple Small Unmanned Aircraft With the 
Same Make and Model
    In the NPRM, the Agency recognized that applicants producing the 
same make and model of small UAS on a large scale may not wish to 
perform individual unit testing to demonstrate that each small unmanned 
aircraft fulfills the applicable requirements. The Agency clarified 
that the proposed rule text would allow applicants to declare 
compliance for a make and model of small unmanned aircraft, rather than 
declaring compliance for each small unmanned aircraft an applicant 
designs, produces, or modifies.\56\ The NPRM stated the applicant could 
establish and maintain a production quality system and design 
configuration control system to provide for consistent repeatability, 
to confirm each small unmanned aircraft fulfills the applicable 
standard for which the applicant declared compliance. As a result, an 
applicant could avoid testing every aircraft it constructs. Using a 
quality assurance system could confirm each aircraft subsequently 
manufactured would meet the performance-based requirements of this 
rule. The FAA received no comments on this policy and adopts the 
inclusion of ``make and model'' in the regulatory text of the section 
that sets forth the requirements for declarations of compliance, as 
proposed.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \56\ 84 FR at 3882.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

6. Declaring Compliance for a Small Unmanned Aircraft That Is Eligible 
for Multiple Categories of Operations
    If an applicant conducts testing or engages in analysis or 
inspection to determine a small unmanned aircraft could meet the 
requirements for operations in both Categories 2 and 3 in the 
appropriate modes or configurations, the NPRM proposed to require the 
applicant to submit only one declaration of compliance. On that 
declaration of compliance, the applicant would identify the categories 
of operation for which it determined the small unmanned aircraft was 
compliant and the means of compliance used for each category. The 
Agency did not receive any comments regarding this proposal and adopts 
it without change. For more information on the requirements for small 
unmanned aircraft with variable modes and configurations, see Section 
VI.F. of this preamble.
7. FAA Acceptance of a Declaration of Compliance
    The NPRM proposed to require an applicant to provide information on 
its declaration of compliance regarding whether it has used an FAA-
accepted means of compliance or a means of compliance the FAA has not 
yet accepted. If an applicant uses a means of compliance that the FAA 
has not yet accepted, the FAA must review and accept the means of 
compliance before the FAA can accept the declaration of compliance. The 
FAA will notify the applicant of its decision regarding acceptance of 
the means of compliance and declaration of compliance. Once the FAA 
accepts a declaration of compliance, the FAA will make the declaration 
of compliance, or information from the declaration, publicly available. 
The Small UAV Coalition commented that the NPRM does not describe what 
the FAA review will entail or how long it will take. The Small UAV 
Coalition further commented that, because the Agency did not describe 
whether it would undertake any discretionary review of the declaration 
of compliance, it expects a quick acceptance or denial.
    The FAA will use its discretion to review and validate that the 
applicant meets the requirements of the FAA-accepted means of 
compliance through test data, third party validation, or the like, 
before rendering a decision on the declaration of compliance. Because 
means of compliance will vary in complexity, the FAA cannot provide 
estimates regarding the time needed for considering declarations. The 
FAA may request additional information from the applicant to determine 
whether the small unmanned aircraft listed in the declaration of 
compliance meets the listed FAA-accepted means of compliance. The FAA 
will respond to declaration of compliance submissions once it completes 
its review.
    The proposed rule provides a sufficient framework for the Agency's 
approach for overseeing compliance with the proposed standards. The FAA 
adopts the process for accepting the declaration of compliance as 
proposed, with no changes.
8. Submitting a New Declaration of Compliance for a Modified Small 
Unmanned Aircraft
    The Agency proposed to require any person who modifies a small 
unmanned aircraft in a way that could affect the eligibility of the 
small unmanned aircraft to operate over people under Category 2 or 
Category 3 to submit a new declaration of compliance and receive FAA 
acceptance of it before anyone operates the small unmanned aircraft 
over people. If an individual modifies the small unmanned aircraft in a 
manner that the original applicant identifies in the remote pilot 
operating instructions as an allowable change, the individual will not 
need to submit a new declaration of compliance. When a person submits a 
declaration of compliance for a small unmanned aircraft that was not 
previously eligible for operations over people, the FAA would verify 
the small unmanned aircraft fulfills the applicable standard.
    The News Media Coalition stated this requirement imposes an 
unnecessary and unreasonable burden and suggested the FAA require any 
buyer of a secondhand small UAS to be solely responsible for 
determining their own compliance with the rules, rather than requiring 
the seller of secondhand small UAS to provide remote pilot operating 
instructions or meet other requirements. Before operating over people, 
the remote pilot is responsible for ensuring that the small unmanned 
aircraft they intend to use is eligible to conduct operations over 
people. Prior to purchasing a small unmanned aircraft for the purpose 
of operations over people, buyers should verify the small unmanned 
aircraft has current remote pilot operating instructions and is listed 
on a valid declaration of compliance.
    Some applicants may choose to provide criteria that describes 
acceptable modifications in their remote pilot operating instructions, 
rather than specific acceptable parts. In this regard, several 
commenters were concerned that adding or changing a camera could result 
in a disqualifying modification. Applicants can determine which 
payloads or modifications would be permitted and still meet the 
standard of Category 2 or Category 3.
    Another commenter asked the FAA to specify that ``modifying the 
firmware'' would be exempt from the requirement, as the commenter 
stated several manufacturers install firmware that is more restrictive 
than the regulations. Updates to small unmanned aircraft firmware would 
be acceptable as long as they occur in accordance with the remote pilot 
operating instructions.

[[Page 4343]]

    APPA, EEI, and NRECA, commenting jointly, applauded the FAA's 
recognition of the need for operational flexibility and supported the 
proposal ``as an appropriate balance between operators' needs and 
public safety with minor clarification.'' Specifically, the commenters 
recommended the rule require manufacturers to identify permissible 
modifications in terms of weight, size, and shape, as opposed to 
specific identification of a make or model of equipment. The Agency 
declines to include this prescriptive requirement, as such detail is 
unnecessary and market forces will incentivize manufacturers to craft 
operating instructions that address the needs of prospective buyers and 
users of the small unmanned aircraft.
9. Notification of a Safety Issue
    The NPRM stated the FAA would notify an applicant that submitted a 
declaration of compliance if it determines the small unmanned aircraft 
is not compliant with the injury severity limits or prohibition on 
exposed rotating parts or because the small unmanned aircraft has a 
potential safety defect. The FAA would identify such safety issues 
through a variety of means. The FAA may receive consumer complaints, 
industry safety bulletins, or an individual applicant's notification 
that a safety issue has arisen. Applicants would have the opportunity 
to discuss potential safety issues with the FAA. As a result of such 
discussion, the FAA may determine a safety issue does not actually 
exist, that the applicant has incorporated an adequate mitigation to 
address and correct the safety issue, or that a safety issue still 
exists.
    To correct a safety issue, an applicant could develop a correction 
and test the aircraft to ensure the aircraft no longer has a safety 
issue. The applicant must correct any safety issues they identify after 
manufacturing the small unmanned aircraft on an ongoing basis to ensure 
continued eligibility for Category 2 or Category 3 operations.
    The Agency proposed to require resolution of any identified safety 
issue. In the absence of acceptable resolution, the rule indicates the 
FAA would commence rescission proceedings, as explained below. A 
commenter stated, that as the NPRM is written, the FAA has no way of 
identifying, then informing a specific fleet that there is a safety 
issue. This commenter further stated there is no requirement for 
manufacturer responsibility to keep a list of customers and both 
communicate directly and post notices of defects and rescission on 
their website. As noted previously, there are multiple ways by which 
the FAA could become aware of a safety issue. The FAA must inform the 
applicant of any known safety issues. Additionally, the holder of the 
declaration of compliance must establish and maintain a product support 
and notification process to ensure that safety issues are communicated 
to the public and the FAA. This rule adopts the safety issue process, 
as proposed.
10. Notice of Rescission of a Declaration of Compliance
    The NPRM proposed to rescind a declaration of compliance if the FAA 
becomes aware that a small unmanned aircraft for which an applicant has 
declared compliance is no longer qualified for operations over people. 
The FAA proposed new procedural rules to govern any action to rescind a 
declaration of compliance; therefore, the FAA's rules under 14 CFR part 
13 would not apply.
    The proposed rule stated the FAA may rescind a declaration of 
compliance if any of the following conditions exist: (i) A small 
unmanned aircraft for which a declaration of compliance was accepted no 
longer complies with the applicable safety requirements; (ii) the FAA 
finds a declaration of compliance violates Sec.  107.5(a); or (iii) the 
Administrator determines a safety emergency exists.
    The proposed rule set forth a procedure for rescission that begins 
with the FAA sending the applicant a notice of proposed rescission. The 
notice would set forth the Agency's basis for the proposed rescission 
and provide the applicant 10 business days to submit evidentiary 
information to refute the proposed notice of rescission. DJI commented 
on the proposed timeline for submitting information, stating 10 days is 
not sufficient to understand the notice and gather and provide 
information to FAA. DJI suggested 30 calendar days. The FAA agrees that 
10 days might be insufficient. This rule extends the notice period to 
30 calendar days.
    If an applicant does not contest the allegation that a safety issue 
exists, or if the applicant fails to respond within the required time 
period, the NPRM proposed to issue a notice rescinding the declaration 
of compliance. The FAA would publish the final rescission on the FAA 
website and specify the category of small unmanned aircraft to which 
the rescinded declaration applies. If the FAA rescinds a declaration of 
compliance as a result of an unresolved safety issue, the FAA proposed 
to allow an applicant to petition for reconsideration of the decision 
or modify the small unmanned aircraft such that the safety issue is 
resolved, at which point the applicant could submit a new declaration 
of compliance, which the FAA may accept.
    As noted in the NPRM, a rescission of a declaration of compliance 
would not render a small unmanned aircraft inoperable, but rather no 
longer eligible for operations over people in Category 2 or Category 3. 
The small unmanned aircraft could resume operations over people only 
after the FAA reinstates acceptance of the declaration of compliance or 
accepts a new declaration that applies to the small unmanned aircraft. 
Either the original or a subsequent applicant could submit a new 
declaration of compliance.
    In addition to publishing any final rescission of a declaration of 
compliance on the FAA website, the Agency stated the FAA would publish 
notification of any applicable safety defects in the Federal Register 
as a Notice of Availability. Such a notice will inform remote pilots 
that the identified aircraft are no longer eligible to conduct 
operations over people and would notify applicants not to incorporate 
the defective material, component, or feature into any upcoming designs 
without appropriate mitigations. The NPRM also proposed that, on 
rescinding a declaration of compliance, the FAA would publish the makes 
and models of small unmanned aircraft that are no longer eligible to 
operate over people. Remote pilots would be prohibited from using those 
aircraft to operate over people until the issue is resolved. On 
correcting a safety defect, the applicant would submit a new 
declaration of compliance to the FAA identifying the means of 
compliance the applicant used to correct the safety defect.
    Additionally, the NPRM proposed to permit the owner or remote pilot 
of a small unmanned aircraft to correct a safety defect associated with 
their aircraft. Any person who chooses this option must submit a 
declaration of compliance to the FAA identifying the means of 
compliance used to correct the safety defect. By modifying the small 
unmanned aircraft such that it is again in compliance with the 
applicable requirements, that person would become the responsible 
person listed on the declaration of compliance for their specific small 
unmanned aircraft.
    The FAA sought comment on whether this process provides sufficient 
opportunities for applicants to resolve safety issues and whether the 
procedure would adequately inform the public of safety defects. The FAA 
received a few comments regarding the process. DJI

[[Page 4344]]

expressed general support, saying it agrees it is important for the FAA 
to have a mechanism for serious safety issues to be discussed and 
addressed by the applicant in collaboration with FAA for operations 
over people.
    The National Association of Mutual Insurance Companies (NAMIC) 
stated publication of the rescission on the FAA website and the Notice 
of Availability in the Federal Register are insufficient to notify 
pilots that operations over people are no longer safe. NAMIC 
recommended the FAA use the contact information it has for registered 
small unmanned aircraft to notify registered operators of safety 
defects and rescissions. Another commenter stated that, as written, the 
proposed rule does not give the FAA a means to identify a safety issue 
and then inform a specific fleet of that issue; nor does it impose a 
responsibility on the manufacturer to do so. The commenter questioned 
why the proposed rule would not require the manufacturer to communicate 
directly with its customers and post notices of defects and rescissions 
on their website. The commenter also questioned whether the Federal 
Register is an effective means of communication, suggesting that 
``while it may satisfy the legal concept of the FAA's obligation, it is 
not a useful way to reach operators.''
    Publication in the Federal Register and on the FAA website are 
sufficient notification. This process of notification is similar to 
what the FAA uses for airworthiness directives and resolution of safety 
issues. The Federal Register and the FAA website are an effective and 
timely means of communicating aviation-related safety considerations to 
the public. The FAA may consider using the registration system as an 
additional way to notify registered owners of small unmanned aircraft. 
The rule allows the FAA to request compliance documentation and to 
inspect facilities as appropriate. Further, members of the public, 
including applicants and owners, may inform the FAA of potential safety 
defects. With regard to notification to owners and operators, each 
applicant must maintain a notification process and is required to 
inform the public and the FAA of safety defects. Although the rule does 
not specify how applicants would comply with this requirement, 
applicants may find posting on their websites an effective way to 
notify owners of any small unmanned aircraft safety defects. The FAA 
expects applicants to use their notification processes to disseminate 
this information.
    Aside from increasing the notification period before the rescission 
from 10 business days to 30 calendar days, the Agency adopts the 
rescission procedure as proposed.
11. Emergency Rescission of a Declaration of Compliance
    The NPRM proposed an emergency rescission process for a declaration 
of compliance. Prior to rescission of a declaration of compliance, the 
FAA would typically initiate the safety issue notification process with 
the applicant. However, if the Administrator determines an emergency 
exists and safety of persons requires an immediate rescission of a 
declaration of compliance, the FAA may exercise its authority under 49 
U.S.C. 46105(c) \57\ to issue an emergency order rescinding a 
declaration of compliance. Under these circumstances, rescission would 
go into effect immediately, without the FAA initiating the notification 
process or the rescission procedures previously described. The order 
would remain in effect until the basis for issuing the order no longer 
exists. The emergency order would be considered a final agency 
decision; as such, an applicant may appeal the decision as provided in 
49 U.S.C. 46110 following the issuance of the order. The FAA did not 
receive any comments about the emergency rescission process. This rule 
adopts the process as proposed, with no changes.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \57\ When the Administrator determines that an emergency exists 
related to safety in air commerce and requires immediate action, the 
Administrator may issue an immediately effective order to meet the 
emergency, with or without notice, under 49 U.S.C. 46105(c).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

12. Petition for Reconsideration of a Rescission of a Declaration of 
Compliance
    Once a declaration of compliance is rescinded, the FAA proposed 
that an applicant would have the opportunity to petition the FAA for 
reconsideration. An applicant seeking reconsideration must petition the 
FAA within 60 days of the date of issuance of the notice of rescission. 
The petition would have to show: (1) The lack of a material fact in the 
original response to the notification of the safety issue and address 
why that fact was not present in the original response; (2) an 
important factual error existed in the decision to rescind the 
declaration of compliance; or (3) that the FAA did not correctly 
interpret a law, regulation, or precedent. The FAA would consider this 
petition and issue a final agency decision either affirming or 
withdrawing the rescission of the declaration of compliance. An 
applicant could appeal the final agency decision as provided in 49 
U.S.C. 46110.
    The FAA did not receive comments concerning the reconsideration 
process. The FAA adopts the reconsideration process, as proposed, with 
no changes.

D. Small Unmanned Aircraft Manufactured Previous to the Effective Date 
of This Rule

    Some remote pilots and manufacturers of small unmanned aircraft may 
wish to use existing small unmanned aircraft to conduct operations over 
people. The Agency does not seek to preclude existing small unmanned 
aircraft from conducting operations over people. Instead, the proposed 
rule included procedures to establish the eligibility of existing small 
unmanned aircraft to operate over people. As explained in the NPRM, an 
applicant with a previously manufactured small unmanned aircraft may 
establish eligibility to operate over people by listing the applicable 
aircraft serial numbers for the identified small unmanned aircraft on 
the declaration of compliance submitted to the FAA. An applicant 
requesting acceptance would be responsible for developing remote pilot 
operating instructions for the existing aircraft and making those 
instructions available to remote pilots or owners of the small UAS.
    The NPRM did not propose to require that an applicant locate owners 
or remote pilots operating existing small unmanned aircraft and provide 
the remote pilot operating instructions personally to them. Rather, if 
a remote pilot owns an existing aircraft that an applicant has 
identified on a declaration of compliance as eligible for Category 2 or 
Category 3 operations and the remote pilot intends to conduct 
operations over people using that aircraft, the remote pilot would be 
able to access the remote pilot operating instructions if the applicant 
posted them online.
    The proposed rule did not identify an applicant seeking FAA 
acceptance of a declaration of compliance as the only person who could 
label a small unmanned aircraft manufactured prior to the effective 
date of the rule. Requiring an applicant to contact all remote pilots 
of a particular make and model of small unmanned aircraft and provide 
them with labels would be unreasonable. The NPRM noted that an 
applicant could make a label available to remote pilots, either as a 
website download or for cost. Overall, remote pilots could choose to 
label their existing aircraft in any manner that meets the requirements 
of the proposed rule.
    The American Petroleum Institute (API) and other commenters 
suggested the FAA ensure small UAS owners are not required to buy new 
aircraft that are appropriately labeled or submit their

[[Page 4345]]

own declaration of compliance. The News Media Coalition wrote that its 
members had made significant investments in their current fleets of 
small unmanned aircraft and do not wish to see them become 
``immediately obsolete.'' An individual commenter said they should be 
allowed to make modifications to allow their small UAS to become 
eligible to be used for Category 2 or Category 3 operations. A 
commenter stated small unmanned aircraft might need upgrades to make 
the blades safer, but believed the FAA should leave those owners alone. 
Another commenter asked for guidance on how the use of shrouds applies 
to existing models. A commenter sought a simple way for everyday 
operators to determine whether existing equipment can safely operate 
over people. This commenter wrote that while `certified' equipment may 
accomplish this going forward, there is a large gap for existing small 
UAS. This commenter recommended the example of the European notice of 
proposed amendment (NPA), which specifies certain altitude limits, 
speeds, and weights.
    Small UAS designs that can currently operate under the provisions 
of part 107 will continue to be able to operate in accordance with part 
107 after this rule becomes effective. When the remote pilot wishes to 
conduct operations over people, however, that person must ensure his or 
her existing small unmanned aircraft is eligible for the operation. For 
operations in accordance with Category 2 or Category 3, this involves 
verifying the FAA has accepted a declaration of compliance concerning 
the small unmanned aircraft. For Category 1, the remote pilot must 
verify the aircraft complies with the weight and exposed rotating parts 
standards. Anyone with a previously manufactured small unmanned 
aircraft may follow an existing FAA-accepted means of compliance and 
submit and request acceptance of a declaration of compliance verifying 
the aircraft is eligible to operate over people.
    News Media Coalition believed the FAA should encourage 
manufacturers to test and certify currently available models, both 
newly manufactured models and recently sold models. The News Media 
Coalition asked the FAA to encourage manufacturers to offer a way to 
upgrade existing small UAS so that they are compliant with any new 
rules. The News Media Coalition said manufacturers could accomplish 
this through either a kit or a software or firmware upgrade.
    The Agency declines to specify how or if small unmanned aircraft 
manufactured prior to the effective date of this rule may meet the 
requirements of this rule, but notes that an applicant may follow an 
FAA-accepted means of compliance that incorporates any number of 
mitigations, including software or firmware updates.
    The Small UAV Coalition supported the proposal to apply the 
requirements of this rule to existing small unmanned aircraft models, 
such that operations over people with those models may not occur until 
the FAA has accepted a declaration of compliance for them. The Small 
UAV Coalition suggested the rulemaking explicitly recognize that an 
operation with an existing small unmanned aircraft model may occur 
pursuant to a waiver or exemption, without a declaration of compliance. 
This rule does not eliminate the ability for a person to submit a 
waiver under part 107. The FAA evaluates such requests on a case-by-
case basis.
    The Security Industry Association opined that the proposed rule's 
certification process for manufacturers and users seeking to acquire a 
means of compliance was reasonable. The commenter, however, asked the 
FAA to provide guidance to small businesses that manufacture small UAS 
on writing service agreements that comply with the rulemaking and do 
not subject the small business owners to frivolous lawsuits. However, 
such agreements are outside the scope of this rulemaking.
    The FAA included the previously manufactured small unmanned 
aircraft section in the NPRM to ensure the requirement for labeling of 
such small unmanned aircraft would be clear. Given the reorganization 
of the regulatory text, that specific section is no longer necessary 
and therefore, the final rule does not include this section.

E. Remote Pilot Operating Requirements

    The NPRM proposed to apply several operating limitations and 
requirements to operations under Categories 2 and 3. Several of the 
operating requirements apply to both Categories 2 and 3, while Category 
3 operations are also subject to additional operating limitations and 
requirements. This rule adopts the requirements as proposed and 
clarifies that the remote pilot must verify that the declaration of 
compliance associated with the small unmanned aircraft is valid. It is 
the remote pilot's responsibility to ensure that the small unmanned 
aircraft is eligible for the intended operation, which the remote pilot 
can determine by checking the FAA website.
    To conduct operations over people under Category 2 or Category 3, 
remote pilots must ensure their small unmanned aircraft is eligible for 
the applicable category or categories of operations. The remote pilot 
must ensure that the small unmanned aircraft meets the injury severity 
limits, exposed rotating parts prohibition, and the prohibition on 
safety defects. The FAA does not expect, nor does it require the remote 
pilots to inspect the means of compliance or to verify the product 
support and notification system. However, the remote pilot has a 
requirement to check that the small UAS is in a condition for safe 
operation, per Sec.  107.15. The most effective way for a remote pilot 
to verify that the small unmanned aircraft meets the safety 
requirements is to ensure it is listed on an FAA-accepted declaration 
of compliance.
    Remote pilots must also ensure their small unmanned aircraft is 
labeled to indicate the category of eligibility. If a label degrades 
such that it is no longer legible or attached to the aircraft, the 
remote pilot must ensure the small unmanned aircraft is relabeled in 
English such that the label is legible, prominent, and will remain on 
the small unmanned aircraft for the duration of the operation before 
operating the aircraft over people. The FAA received a few comments on 
the labeling requirement, one of which expressed support for it. 
Several commenters asked the FAA to clarify who is responsible for 
labeling the small unmanned aircraft. An individual commenter believed 
the labeling provision could force current UAS owners to buy future 
systems that are already labeled for operations over people, in the 
event that the UAS manufacturer chooses not to submit a declaration of 
compliance for those systems currently in the market. Finally, another 
commenter opposed making the manufacturer responsible for labeling the 
small unmanned aircraft. The applicant must meet the eligibility 
requirements for the small unmanned aircraft if he or she wishes to 
obtain FAA acceptance of a declaration of compliance to operate over 
people. Furthermore, if the remote pilot wishes to use a small unmanned 
aircraft that is listed on a FAA-accepted declaration of compliance, 
but does not possess a label because the small unmanned aircraft was 
produced prior to the effective date of this rule, the remote pilot 
must ensure the small unmanned aircraft is labeled in accordance with 
the terms of the declaration of compliance before using the aircraft 
for operations under Category 2 or Category 3.
    The proposed rule did not restrict the areas in which operations 
under Category 1 or Category 2 may occur

[[Page 4346]]

because these categories present a lower risk of causing severe 
injuries. The proposed rule did, however, restrict the areas in which 
Category 3 operations may occur, due to the increased injury severity 
limits of Category 3. Specifically, the FAA proposed to prohibit 
Category 3 operations over open-air assemblies of human beings. The FAA 
also proposed to limit Category 3 operations as follows: The operation 
is within or over closed- or restricted-access sites after anyone 
within that site is on notice that a small unmanned aircraft may fly 
over them; or, if not in a closed- or restricted-access site, the small 
unmanned aircraft does not sustain flight over a person not either 
directly participating in the operation, located under a covered 
structure, or inside a stationary vehicle. Furthermore, in response to 
comments, remote pilots are prohibited from operating a small unmanned 
aircraft as a Category 1, 2, or 4 operation in sustained flight over 
open-air assemblies unless the operation meets the requirements of 
Sec.  89.110 or Sec.  89.115(a) (remote identification operational and 
broadcast requirements for standard remote identification unmanned 
aircraft or unmanned aircraft with remote identification broadcast 
modules). Sustained flight over an open-air assembly includes hovering 
above the heads of persons gathered in an open-air assembly, flying 
back and forth over an open-air assembly, or circling above the 
assembly in such a way that the small unmanned aircraft remains above 
some part the assembly. The FAA may waive compliance with this 
provision as appropriate and is discussed in more detail in Section 
XIV.B. However, conditions of any waiver issued may require the 
operator to notify local law enforcement prior to the operation. All 
small unmanned aircraft operations are subject to remote identification 
requirements upon the applicable compliance date, as specific in the 
Remote Identification for Unmanned Aircraft final rule.
1. Operations Over Open-Air Assemblies of Human Beings
    The FAA received a few comments addressing the proposal to prohibit 
Category 3 operations over open-air assemblies of people. One commenter 
recommended the FAA clarify what it means by an ``assembly of people'' 
and provide a quantity or density of people that constitute a 
significant risk. The FAA has declined to define this term by 
regulation; rather, the FAA employs a case-by-case approach in 
determining how to apply the term ``open-air assembly.'' \58\ Whether 
an operational area is an open-air assembly is evaluated by considering 
the density of people who are not directly participating in the 
operation of the small unmanned aircraft and the size of the 
operational area. Such assemblies are usually associated with public 
spaces. The FAA considers some potential examples of open-air 
assemblies may include sporting events, concerts, parades, protests, 
political rallies, community festivals, or parks and beaches during 
certain events. Some potential examples that are less likely to be 
considered open-air assemblies include individual persons or families 
exiting a shopping center, athletes participating in friendly sports in 
an open area without spectators, individuals or small groups taking 
leisure in a park or on a beach, or individuals walking or riding a 
bike along a bike path, but whether an open-air assembly exists depends 
on a case-by-case determination based on the facts and circumstances of 
each case. The remote pilot must assess whether the operational area 
would be considered an open-air assembly prior to conducting flight 
operations. Legal interpretations and opinions regarding open-air 
assemblies may be found on the FAA website.\59\ The FAA will continue 
to provide education opportunities and outreach to remote pilots on 
conducting safe operations. Additional resources for operators can be 
found on the FAA website.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \58\ Rebecca MacPherson, Legal Definition of ``Densely 
Populated'' and ``Congested Airway,'' FAA Office of Chief Counsel, 
Regulations Division (August 28, 2012); Rebecca MacPherson, Response 
to December 4, 2009 Letter, FAA Office of Chief Counsel, Regulations 
Division (March 3, 2010).
    \59\ https://www.faa.gov/about/office_org/headquarters_offices/agc/practice_areas/regulations/Interpretations/.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Washington Progress Group stated the prohibition on Category 3 
operations over open-air assemblies is reasonable for operators who are 
satisfied with restricting flights to unpopulated areas, or who are 
able and willing to control the ground environment over which they are 
flying, but asserted the restriction is too limiting for most 
commercial missions that operate in populated open areas and may need 
to hover. The commenter suggested the FAA consider allowing operations 
to occur in airspace the public assumes is safe.\60\ To implement this 
standard, the commenter suggested the FAA require a proponent for UAS 
operations to proffer a safety case.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \60\ The commenter cited Matthews, et al., ``An Achievable Path 
to UAS Integration in the NAS'', https://www.safeaccess4uas.com/paperuas-integration-nas.html; FAA Sponsored Sense and Avoid 
Workshop, ``Sense and Avoid (SAA) for Unmanned Aircraft Systems 
(UAS), Second Caucus Workshop Report,'' January 18, 2013. The 
commenter refers to measurements of accident levels in certain 
airspace as a ``Target Level of Safety.'' The commenter also cited 
FAA Order 1100.161 CHG 1, https://www.faa.gov/documentLibrary/media/Order/Order_1100.161_CHG_1.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The FAA maintains its prohibition on Category 3 small unmanned 
aircraft operations over open-air assemblies of people, as the 
limitation will be a means for the FAA to maintain an appropriate level 
of safety for such operations. This prohibition is subject to waiver. 
An applicant who proposes risk mitigation measures that would achieve 
an acceptable level of safety when operating over open-air assemblies 
may qualify for and receive a waiver. Alternatively, a person choosing 
to demonstrate the reliability of their small unmanned aircraft may 
choose to obtain an airworthiness certificate and be eligible for 
Category 4 operations.
    The Electronic Privacy Information Center (EPIC) provided 
statistics from a 2017 Pew survey \61\ that the commenter believed are 
``directly relevant to the proposal to allow drones to operate over 
people.'' EPIC argued that the limitations proposed for Category 3 
operations should apply to all operations. For flying over open-air 
assemblies of people, EPIC believed the FAA should require operators 
obtain and hold a permit that would ``allow for press or photography 
drones,'' as a means of accountability.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \61\ Hitlin, Paul, ``8% of Americans Say They Own a Drone, While 
More than Half Have Seen One in Operation,'' Pew Research Center 
(Dec. 19, 2017), available at https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2017/12/19/8-of-americans-say-they-owna-drone-while-more-than-half-have-seen-one-in-operation/.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The FAA developed the limitations for Category 3 operations as a 
way to mitigate the level of risk associated with the increased injury 
severity limitations. The FAA does not find it necessary to apply the 
limitations to operations under Categories 1 and 2, as those categories 
are sufficiently safe to operate over open-air assemblies without prior 
notification to persons not directly participating in the operation. 
However, in response to security concerns raised in comments, remote 
pilots are prohibited from operating a small unmanned aircraft as a 
Category 1, 2, or 4 operation in sustained flight over open-air 
assemblies unless the operation meets the requirements of Sec.  89.110 
or Sec.  89.115(a) (remote identification operational and broadcast 
requirements for standard remote identification unmanned aircraft or 
unmanned aircraft with remote identification broadcast modules). See 
Section VI.E.3. for a description of sustained flight and open-

[[Page 4347]]

air assemblies. The FAA may waive compliance with this provision as 
appropriate. The FAA similarly does not issue permits for specific 
operations, such as small unmanned aircraft operated by the press, 
because the FAA's statutory obligations concerning aviation safety do 
not require differentiating between the purposes for operations that 
may occur under part 107.
    The Agency did not propose training or testing requirements for 
persons operating a small unmanned aircraft eligible to operate in 
either Category 2 or Category 3. With regard to Category 3 operations, 
the NPRM requested responses to several questions related to whether 
the Agency should require pilot training and testing requirements 
before allowing Category 3 operations over open-air assemblies. 
Specifically, the FAA requested comment on the following questions:
     To conduct operations over open-air assemblies using a 
small unmanned aircraft that can transfer up to 25 ft-lbs kinetic 
energy to a person on impact, should the remote pilot-in-command have 
additional skills, experience, or currency beyond what part 107 
currently requires?
     If so, what kind of skill, experience, or currency should 
be required (e.g., minimum time operating the small UAS to be used, 
minimum number of take offs and landings, etc.)?
     How should that skill, experience, or currency be 
documented?
    Several commenters responded to these questions. Commenters did not 
agree on the path forward with regard to open-air assemblies and 
Category 3. One commenter recommended the FAA consider training 
requirements to conduct Category 3 operations over open-air assemblies 
of people. Motorola Solutions stated public safety officials should be 
allowed to conduct operations over open-air assemblies without a waiver 
using a Category 3 small unmanned aircraft if the remote pilot in 
command has additional skills, experience, and currency beyond what 
part 107 currently requires. In contrast, the News Media Coalition said 
the FAA should not require training based on the number of people on 
the ground, but should focus on ensuring remote pilots are trained and 
knowledgeable in all circumstances. Another commenter opined that, 
until the FAA requires a practical test with specified minimum skills, 
experience, and currency for remote pilots, any additional requirements 
for Category 3 operations over open-air assemblies should be left to 
market forces to create industry-accepted standards.
    This rule does not require additional training, skills, experience, 
or currency for Category 3 operations. Although pilot experience might 
be relevant in determining whether an operation under either category 
meets the level of safety required for operations over people, the FAA 
lacks sufficient information and data to assess whether any training or 
time spent piloting a particular aircraft would be appropriate for 
ensuring safety.
2. Operations Within or Over Closed- or Restricted-Access Site
    The FAA proposed allowing Category 3 operations at closed- or 
restricted-access sites in which access to the site is restricted and 
when those people who are permitted access to the sites are advised of 
the occurrence of the operation. The FAA anticipates that a closed- or 
restricted-access site could be an area that contains physical 
barriers, personnel, or both, as appropriate, to ensure no inadvertent 
or unauthorized access can occur. For example, an operator should 
ensure that access is restricted through public notices and signage, 
flagging and barricading, erecting temporary fencing, or posting 
personnel at points of entry, as appropriate. In addition, issuing 
notice that a small unmanned aircraft may operate over people within 
the site will enhance the situational awareness of people within it. 
Notice could be written and posted at the entry point of the restricted 
area or be in a letter or contract prior to the operation. Verbal 
notice in addition to the written notice might be appropriate in some 
cases. Operators may want to consider whether providing written 
notification could be helpful to meet operators' own evidentiary needs. 
In accordance with this limitation, remote pilots must ensure no 
inadvertent or unauthorized access to the site occurs. The FAA expects 
adequate assurance could include receiving assistance from personnel, 
or placing physical barriers such as barricading and fencing or 
monitoring personnel to ensure inadvertent or unauthorized access to a 
closed- or restricted-access site does not occur. Geographical 
boundaries, such as rivers, canals, cliffs, and heavily wooded areas 
may also serve as effective barriers to restrict access. In some 
circumstances, it may not be possible for a small unmanned aircraft to 
take off and land inside a closed- or restricted-access site. The 
proposed limitations on Category 3 operations would therefore allow for 
takeoffs and landings to occur outside the site. In such circumstances, 
small unmanned aircraft could then transit to the site to conduct the 
desired operation, provided the aircraft does not maintain sustained 
flight over persons not directly participating when outside the site.
    The FAA received several comments relevant to the restriction of 
Category 3 operations from sustaining flight over people unless those 
people are within a closed- or restricted-access site and have received 
notice that a small unmanned aircraft may fly over them. One commenter 
stated consent, rather than notice, would be most appropriate in 
restricted spaces because the public would likely be more amenable to 
the use of larger unmanned aircraft over them if consent was first 
required. This commenter recommended the FAA create another category 
for small UAS that require only consent and not notice. ALPA said a 
single, one-time notification to people not directly involved in the 
small UAS flight operation is not sufficient to reduce the risk of the 
operation. ALPA added this is true when an operation of small unmanned 
aircraft occurs in an open area where the zone of operations cannot 
easily be defined or depicted.
    The FAA declines to require consent for Category 3 operations over 
people in a closed- or restricted-set because notice is sufficient for 
persons who choose to assume the risk of being present in the area of 
operation. With regard to ALPA's concerns about Category 3 operations 
in dynamic airport environments, the FAA is aware that areas like a 
non-movement area at an airport do not permit public access and are an 
appropriately closed- or restricted-sites. If an airport authority 
chooses to conduct Category 3 operations at the airport, they must 
provide notification prior to the operation. The FAA encourages 
providing frequent and timely notification to ensure the safety and 
awareness of all persons in the environment of operation.
    The National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH) 
invited the FAA to join it in developing a performance-based, tiered 
approach for operations of small unmanned aircraft near people at 
worksites to minimize the occupational risks. NIOSH believes additional 
research and proactive risk mitigation measures are necessary. NIOSH 
also encouraged the FAA to collaborate with the Occupational Safety and 
Health Administration (OSHA). The FAA declines to require additional 
standards specific to construction sites. Part 107 does not place any 
additional burden or restrictions on any workplace. The wide variety of 
small unmanned aircraft types and operations make it impractical to set 
specific criteria, including stand-off

[[Page 4348]]

distances, speed limits, mass, altitude, and the like, for operations 
over people. Workplace personnel responsible for safety rules should 
consider developing operating conditions to ensure remote pilots 
conduct safe small unmanned aircraft operations.
    Flytcam Motion Pictures agreed that having restricted sites for 
Category 3 operations was reasonable, particularly around construction 
sites, agricultural fields, oil fields, and areas of search and rescue 
operations. The commenter noted these sites already have established 
safety measures in place and many of the personnel wear hard hats or 
helmets. The commenter did not, however, believe Category 3 operations 
are appropriate on closed-set motion picture and television 
productions. The commenter also pointed out that personnel on motion 
picture and television sets are unlikely to be wearing equipment to 
protect them. The commenter recommended that closed-set motion picture 
filming still require the user to go through the waiver process to 
describe how they can conduct operations safely. Additionally, ALPA 
recommended that small unmanned aircraft operations in these areas be 
restricted to Category 1 or Category 2. For operations over people at a 
construction site, the Associated General Contractors (AGC) of America 
asked FAA to clarify in this rulemaking that workers at the 
construction site qualify as ``participating in the operation.''
    The injury severity limits, exposed rotating parts prohibition, and 
the operating restrictions for Category 3 operations are sufficient 
risk mitigations for all closed- and restricted-access sites. Under 
these requirements, operation of the small unmanned aircraft itself 
presents a sufficiently low risk, particularly when combined with a 
notification requirement that allows people in the vicinity of the 
operation to assume the risk or to leave the area when the operation is 
taking place. Construction sites are often closed- or restricted-access 
sites in which people within the sites might not directly participate 
in the small unmanned aircraft operation. Under these circumstances, 
operations over people can still occur over these individuals in 
accordance with this rule. The FAA discussed the distinction between 
people directly participating and not participating in the final rule 
for part 107.\62\ This final rule for operations over people does not 
change that policy.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \62\ 81 FR 42064, 42128 (June 28, 2016).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

3. Operations Not Within or Over Closed- or Restricted-Access Sites
    For Category 3 operations over people not located within a closed- 
or restricted-access site, the Agency proposed to prohibit sustained 
flight, as doing so reduces the likelihood of injury by limiting 
protracted duration of a flight over a person. Additionally, the Agency 
proposed to prohibit remote pilots from operating a Category 3 aircraft 
over open-air assemblies of people.
    In response to the proposal concerning Category 3 operations over 
people not located within closed- or restricted-access sites, the Small 
UAV Coalition pointed out the proposed rule did not include a 
definition of ``sustained'' operation. The Coalition stated the FAA 
should consider hovering or circling over persons to be ``sustained,'' 
in contrast to merely transiting over a person. The FAA maintains the 
prohibition on sustained flight for Category 3 operations outside of a 
closed- or restricted-access site, in addition to prohibiting all 
operations over open-air assemblies. Sustained flight includes hovering 
above any person's head, including any person in an open-air assembly; 
flying back and forth over a person or open-air assembly; or circling 
above an uninvolved person or open-air assembly in such a way that the 
small unmanned aircraft remains above some part of that person or open-
air assembly. Operations conducted under Category 3 only permit 
sustained operations over people directly participating in the 
operation or under a covered structure or inside a stationary vehicle. 
Category 1, 2, or 4 operations that are not compliant with remote 
identification are also prohibited from sustained flight over open-air 
assemblies.
    The AeroVista Drone Academy recommended allowing ``transient 
overflight'' of non-participating persons who are equipped with 
hardhats and other equipment or non-participants who have provided 
informed consent. In addition, AeroVista recommended the establishment 
of a new category of ``active participants,'' which would consist of 
persons involved in an operation, are informed of the risks, have 
provided informed consent, and can carry out appropriate emergency 
procedures. These active participants would be identified by special 
clothing or being in a closed-access site.
    This rule provides flexibility for operating over people not 
directly participating in the operation, unless it is a sustained 
flight over an open-air assembly for Category 1, 2, or 4. This rule 
allows operations under Category 1 or Category 2 to occur over all 
people, including sustained flight over people not directly 
participating in the operation, unless that sustained flight is over an 
open-air assembly. The FAA finalizes the requirement to permit Category 
3 over people only if: (i) The operation is within or over closed- or 
restricted-access sites and anyone within that site has been notified 
that a small unmanned aircraft may fly over them; or (ii) the small 
unmanned aircraft does not maintain sustained flight over a person not 
either directly participating in the operation, located under a covered 
structure, or inside a stationary vehicle with no changes. Such 
restrictions are consistent with the risk-based framework for this 
rulemaking.

F. Variable Modes and Variable Configurations of Small UAS

    The Agency proposed to allow small unmanned aircraft configured to 
conduct operations in more than one category. For example, an aircraft 
may be designed in such a way that it would be eligible to conduct 
Category 2 operations in one mode or configuration and Category 3 
operations in another. Alternatively, a small unmanned aircraft could 
meet the requirements to operate over people only when in one 
particular mode or configuration.
    Using different modes or configurations, an applicant could design 
a small unmanned aircraft to meet the performance requirements of 
multiple categories of operations over people. The NPRM explained that, 
to transition between various modes or configurations, an applicant 
could use a variety of methods, such as software-enabled performance 
limitations or hardware configurations. The Agency proposed that a 
small unmanned aircraft would only be eligible for operation in more 
than one category if the remote pilot in command cannot inadvertently 
change the mode or configuration. A change of mode or configuration, 
therefore, could only result from a deliberate action on the part of 
the remote pilot in command. The applicant should test the small 
unmanned aircraft in the mode or configuration to which the applicant 
wishes to declare compliance. The declaration of compliance must 
include each category for which the applicant has tested or analyzed 
the small unmanned aircraft.
    The Agency sought comment on means of compliance that address 
incorporation of software, including software updates or changes, to 
enable performance limitations and variable modes or configurations to 
meet the

[[Page 4349]]

proposed safety level. The FAA also sought comment in the NPRM on how 
it should review means of compliance for the impact kinetic energy or 
exposed rotating parts safety thresholds to address the appropriateness 
of using software to limit or establish safe performance of the small 
unmanned aircraft. In response, the Agency received general comments on 
variable modes and configurations.
    Flytcam Motion Pictures expressed concern that many pilots lack 
both the technical understanding of various systems and procedures 
required to operate safely and to understand the regulations in part 
107. While agreeing the pilot should not be able to change the mode 
inadvertently, Flytcam was concerned the Agency had ``a lot of 
confidence that the pilot will ensure the aircraft is configured 
properly.'' The FAA does not share these concerns because the 
regulations require remote pilot operating instructions to describe how 
to verify and change the mode or configuration of the small unmanned 
aircraft. Remote pilots who hold certificates under part 107 are 
capable of using the remote pilot operating instructions to determine 
how to employ the appropriate mode or configuration for the intended 
operation. The remote pilot in command is also responsible for 
complying with all applicable regulations, including conducting a 
preflight inspection.
    The Agency adopts the proposal as drafted to allow small unmanned 
aircraft to be configured in more than one category.

G. Record Retention Requirements

    The Agency proposed requiring applicants to maintain small unmanned 
aircraft records related to their declarations of compliance for a 
minimum of two years after ceasing production and requiring applicants 
to retain all supporting information for a means of compliance for as 
long as the means of compliance remains accepted. The NPRM explained 
that, in the event of a safety defect, or if the FAA initiated an 
action to address a compliance issue, this information would be 
critical to determine the cause, scope, and severity of the defect or 
infraction.
    For applicants submitting a means of compliance for FAA acceptance, 
the submitter would be required to retain and make available to the 
Administrator, on request, and for as long as the means of compliance 
remains accepted, the detailed description of the means of compliance 
and justification showing how the means of compliance meets the 
requirements. When submitting a declaration of compliance, the 
applicant must retain all supporting information used to meet the 
safety requirements. The applicant must retain this information for 2 
years after the cessation of production of the small unmanned aircraft 
listed on the declaration of compliance. Furthermore, if the applicant 
designs or modifies the small unmanned aircraft, they must retain the 
supporting information for 2 years after they submit the declaration of 
compliance. The FAA has modified the text of the regulatory 
requirements for record retention as they were proposed in the NPRM to 
provide clarity.
    NAMIC and the Small UAV Coalition supported the proposal to require 
the holder of a declaration of compliance to retain records for a 
minimum of 2 years. In contrast, two individual commenters opposed the 
2-year record retention requirement, arguing that it should be longer. 
One of these commenters wrote that, to accommodate lawyers and 
lawsuits, the Agency should extend the record retention period to match 
the statute of limitations, which the commenter stated is 10 years. The 
other commenter similarly suggested that records be retained for the 
length of all statutes of limitation, because the recordkeeping 
requirements will benefit the injured party. This commenter also stated 
that the NPRM did not provide a reason for treating the document 
retention and inspection requirements for the declaration of compliance 
and the means of compliance differently. The commenter asserted that if 
the method of proving compliance cannot be investigated and verified, 
``the Certificates of Declaration are suspect.'' The Agency finds that 
the record retention requirements are appropriate: It is not necessary 
to retain records that are the bases for declarations of compliance 
longer than 2 years, although the FAA notes that individuals may find 
it in their interest to retain the records for a longer period of time.
    The Small UAV Coalition also commented in support of the proposal 
to require the holder of a means of compliance retain records for as 
long as the means of compliance remains acceptable to the FAA. 
Commenting on the proposed retention requirement for substantiating 
data related to custom means of compliance, an individual commented 
that, so long as the manufacturers are the only entities using their 
own custom means of compliance, it makes sense for them to keep 
substantiating data ``with no caveats. ``The commenter stated, 
``however, given that other manufacturers may rely on [another] 
manufacturer's custom means of compliance . . . the rule should provide 
some means whereby a creator of a custom means of compliance can notify 
those who use it that they will no longer utilize it.'' Data would then 
either be deleted or transferred to entities that wish to continue 
using the means of compliance. The commenter noted that, without this 
exception, a person who creates and submits for FAA acceptance a means 
of compliance must bear the cost of maintaining substantiating data 
related to that means of compliance even if the manufacturer no longer 
makes use of it.
    An individual commenter expressed support for the proposed 
amendment to require any person holding an FAA-accepted declaration of 
compliance to make available to the Administrator, on request, the 
declaration of compliance and any other document, record, or report 
required to be kept. The commenter suggested the FAA clarify that only 
the person(s) required to keep the record must produce the record.
    The proposed language sufficiently affirms that the person who is 
required to keep the record must be the one to produce the record on 
request. Further, the Agency adopts the record retention requirements 
as proposed, with minor clarifying amendments to ensure sufficient 
information is available to the FAA on request. These requirements are 
consistent with the level of oversight that is appropriate for small 
unmanned aircraft eligible to conduct operations in accordance with 
Category 2 or Category 3.

VII. Category 4: Operations Based on Airworthiness

    The proposed rule included only three categories of aircraft that 
could conduct operations over people under part 107. In response, 
several commenters stated the Agency had not considered the reliability 
of aircraft. Other commenters stated a small UAS issued an 
airworthiness certificate should be allowed to operate over people.
    The Agency designed part 107 to encompass small UAS that were not 
certificated, allowing for expansion of UAS operations in the NAS 
without requiring airworthiness certification. In response to 
commenters' suggestions, this rule considers reliability of small UAS 
by establishing a fourth category of small unmanned aircraft eligible 
to operate over people. This final rule allows small unmanned aircraft 
issued an airworthiness certificate under part 21 to operate over 
people in accordance with part 107. An appropriate airworthiness 
certificate would be one

[[Page 4350]]

which does not prohibit operations over people or over moving vehicles. 
Operating limitations may be specified in the approved Flight Manual or 
as otherwise specified by the Administrator. Certification is how the 
FAA manages risk through safety assurance. It provides the FAA 
confidence that a proposed product or operation will meet FAA safety 
expectations to protect the public. Certification affirms that FAA 
requirements have been met. Small unmanned aircraft that have obtained 
airworthiness certification will be allowed to operate over people and 
over moving vehicles in accordance with part 107, so long as the 
operating limitations applicable to that aircraft do not prohibit those 
operations. Consistent with other regulatory frameworks, such as part 
91 and part 135, the owner is responsible for the maintenance and 
records retention requirements for small unmanned aircraft operated in 
accordance with Category 4 under part 107, unless the owner has entered 
into an agreement with another entity to operate the small unmanned 
aircraft. It is expected that most operators of Category 4 small 
unmanned aircraft operated under part 107 will also be the owner, or 
operating under direction of the owner. In this case, the owner is 
responsible for compliance with the Category 4 small unmanned aircraft 
maintenance and records retention requirements. However, to maintain 
flexibility for those owners of a Category 4 small unmanned aircraft 
who wish to enter in to a lease agreement with another entity for the 
operation of their small unmanned aircraft without the owner's 
intervention or control, this rule provides the means for the 
responsibility for the maintenance requirements and retention of 
records to be clearly defined in such an agreement. If so specified in 
the agreement, the FAA would hold the operator responsible for 
compliance with the Category 4 small unmanned aircraft maintenance and 
records retention requirements. An agreement between an owner and an 
operator may be in the form of a written lease or contract, verbal 
agreement, or other agreement. If any agreement is found invalid or 
unenforceable, then the owner has the responsibility to meet these 
requirements. The provisions of any agreement should address, at a 
minimum, the requirements of Sec.  107.140(c).
    The UAS Program Leader for the Memphis Fire Department stated the 
FAA or the manufacturer should certify small UAS that are reliable 
aircraft for use in operations over people. AIA asked the Agency to 
consider the probability of a small unmanned aircraft hitting a moving 
vehicle or a human. A commenter wrote that there are currently no clear 
data on this topic and such data is critical to industry and public 
acceptance of this rule. AIA stated the Agency should consider the risk 
of UAS operations as consistent with the risks posed by traditional 
manned aviation as well as the other risks that the public faces daily. 
Airworthiness certification is not necessary for operations over 
people; as a result, the proposed rule did not require it for 
operations under any of the three proposed categories of operation.
    Flytcam Motion Pictures surmised the risk of unmanned aircraft 
mishap would be higher with increased operations and suggested the 
creation of a fourth category that would include all the systems 
outside Category 3. Rising Tide Cinema proposed three classes of small 
UAS: Operations that occur under waiver, small UAS with technological 
advantages approved by the FAA, and a third category of small UAS with 
an ``airworthiness release.'' Another commenter recommended several 
specific requirements for small UAS type certification, including a 
``demonstrated hover stability rating,'' pilot notification, and 
cybersecurity requirements. Drone Safe Communities suggested 
manufacturer requirements for protocol to apply during a loss of signal 
experience.
    The Agency agrees with the commenters that demonstrable reliability 
should be an alternative path for operations over people. This rule 
includes several updates to regulatory text to allow aircraft with 
airworthiness certification to operate under part 107 and to be 
eligible to operate over people. This rule also removes the phrase, 
``[e]xcept for aircraft subject to the provisions of part 107'' from 
Sec.  21.1, to clarify small UAS may seek airworthiness certification 
even if part 107 applies to the intended aircraft operation. This final 
rule includes a new provision, Sec.  107.2, which clarifies that, 
notwithstanding the change to Sec.  21.1, small unmanned aircraft 
operating under part 107 are not required to obtain airworthiness 
certification. Except where the airworthiness certification is used as 
a basis for operating over people in accordance with Category 4, the 
provisions of part 21 will continue to be inapplicable to small 
unmanned aircraft subject to part 107. This final rule also revises 
Sec.  107.1 to clarify that part 107 does not apply to any operation 
that an operator elects to conduct under part 91 with a small unmanned 
aircraft that has been issued an airworthiness certificate: an operator 
may conduct small unmanned aircraft operations under either part 107 or 
part 91 when the operation and small unmanned aircraft meet the 
applicable requirements.

A. Remote Pilot in Command Operating Requirements for Category 4

    To operate under Category 4, the remote pilot in command must use a 
small unmanned aircraft that has an FAA-issued airworthiness 
certificate. Operating limitations may be specified in the approved 
Flight Manual or as otherwise specified by the Administrator and must 
not prohibit operations over people or moving vehicles. When using a 
small unmanned aircraft with an airworthiness certificate issued under 
part 21, remote pilots must operate in accordance with all operating 
limitations, which the FAA specifies for each aircraft when issuing the 
airworthiness certificate. Operating limitations are prescribed to 
ensure that the aircraft is operated within an acceptable level of risk 
to maintain the safety of the NAS and to protect persons and property 
on the ground. To ensure this safety, remote pilots must adhere to any 
operating limitations, especially those specific to operations over 
people. Any noncompliance with operating limitations increases risk.
    Additionally, in response to comments, remote pilots are prohibited 
from operating a small unmanned aircraft as a Category 4 operation in 
sustained flight over open-air assemblies unless the operation meets 
the requirements of Sec.  89.110 or Sec.  89.115(a). Sustained flight 
over an open-air assembly includes hovering above the heads of persons 
gathered in an open-air assembly, flying back and forth over an open-
air assembly, or circling above the assembly in such a way that the 
small unmanned aircraft remains above some part the assembly. The FAA 
may waive compliance with this requirement as appropriate. For more 
information on this requirement, please see Sections VI.E. and XIV.B.

B. Small Unmanned Aircraft System Requirements and Continued 
Airworthiness for Category 4

    The aircraft must be maintained or altered in a manner using the 
methods, techniques, and practices prescribed in the current 
manufacturer's maintenance manual or Instructions for Continued 
Airworthiness prepared by its manufacturer, or other methods, 
techniques, and practices acceptable to the Administrator. 
Additionally, the

[[Page 4351]]

small unmanned aircraft must be inspected in accordance with either the 
manufacturer's instructions or instructions acceptable to the 
Administrator. The small unmanned aircraft must also be maintained or 
altered using parts of such a quality that the condition of the 
aircraft will be at least equal to its original or properly altered 
condition.
    The person performing any maintenance, preventive maintenance, or 
alterations must use the methods, techniques, and practices prescribed 
in the current manufacturer's maintenance manual or Instructions for 
Continued Airworthiness that are acceptable to the Administrator, or 
other methods, techniques, and practices acceptable to the 
Administrator. In addition they must have the knowledge, skill, and 
appropriate equipment to perform the work. While this rule does not 
require the person performing maintenance to hold a mechanic 
certificate, it is incumbent on the owner or operator to ensure that 
maintenance occurs in a manner that ensures that the small unmanned 
aircraft remains in a condition eligible to be operated over people in 
accordance with Category 4. If the small unmanned aircraft is operated, 
and subsequently crashes due to improperly performed maintenance, the 
small unmanned aircraft owner or operator could be held responsible. 
The person performing the maintenance must have the basic skills and 
knowledge to follow the manufacturer's instructions and use the tools 
that the manufacturer recommends. Or, if adequate instructions are not 
available, or if an alternative process is desired, then the 
maintenance provider may use instructions acceptable to the 
Administrator in lieu of the manufacturer's instructions.
    Many of these requirements are similar to the requirements of part 
43 that apply to maintenance of aircraft. The FAA has long relied on 
maintenance providers' compliance with these requirements to ensure the 
aircraft remains in an airworthy condition. In this regard, the 
requirements ensure the small unmanned aircraft retains the 
capabilities and characteristics the small unmanned aircraft had at the 
time of certification and that the certification determination remains 
valid. The conclusion that the aircraft will remain safe is critical in 
determining the aircraft is suitable for operating over people in 
accordance with Category 4, as it is consistent with the risk-based 
framework the Agency uses in establishing the appropriate policy for 
small UAS operations over people.

C. Maintenance Records

    This rule requires the owner or operator to retain maintenance 
records for aircraft eligible for operations under Category 4 for at 
least 1 year from when the work is performed, or until the maintenance 
is repeated or superseded by other work. Furthermore, the owner or 
operator must retain and transfer records documenting the status of 
life-limited parts, compliance with airworthiness directives, and 
inspection status of the small unmanned aircraft when ownership of the 
small unmanned aircraft transfers. The records must be specific to the 
small unmanned aircraft and be made available to the Administrator on 
request. All records of maintenance, preventive maintenance, and 
alterations performed on the small unmanned aircraft must be documented 
in a manner acceptable to the Administrator. The records must contain 
the description of the work performed, the date the work was completed, 
and the name of the person who performed the work.
    The FAA will use these records to verify that the small unmanned 
aircraft has been maintained in a manner that assures it remains in a 
condition eligible for operations over people in accordance with 
Category 4. In addition, while the Agency does not establish a process 
of requiring a small unmanned aircraft be removed from service, 
repaired, and returned to service by a certificated mechanic, the small 
unmanned aircraft must be properly maintained to ensure it remains in a 
safe condition. Appropriate record-keeping will verify compliance with 
this requirement.
    When a remote pilot operates a small unmanned aircraft in 
accordance with part 107 that has been issued an airworthiness 
certificate under part 21, the requirements of part 43 and part 91 do 
not apply. However, a small unmanned aircraft that has been issued an 
airworthiness certificate may also be eligible to operate under part 
91, under certain circumstances. This rule contains necessary updates 
to the regulatory text, to reflect the applicability of operating 
rules. Due to the differences in the regulations about how aircraft 
must be maintained under each suite of operating rules, it may be 
difficult for an owner or operator to switch back and forth between 
operating rules. In particular, a small unmanned aircraft that has been 
operated and maintained in accordance with part 107 may find it 
difficult to show compliance with the requirements of part 43 and 91. 
To address this concern, an owner or operator can elect to comply with 
the relevant part 43 and 91 requirements, even while operating in 
accordance with part 107. Under these circumstances, electing to comply 
with the relevant part 43 and 91 requirements may help facilitate 
moving back and forth between operational parts, if desired, because 
the requirements of parts 43 and 91 are more stringent than those of 
Sec.  107.140 with regard to maintenance and airworthiness.

VIII. Operations Over Moving Vehicles

A. Proposed Prohibition and Comments Received

    The Agency proposed to prohibit the operation of small unmanned 
aircraft over people in moving vehicles; however, the proposed rule 
stated the FAA could waive the proposed prohibition if a person 
demonstrates the small unmanned aircraft operation could occur safely 
under the terms of a waiver. In the proposed rule, the Agency stated 
the moving vehicle operating environment is dynamic and the remote 
pilot in command could not control it directly. The Agency considered, 
however, allowing the operation of small unmanned aircraft over people 
in moving vehicles without a waiver and sought public comment on 
whether it should take this action.
    Many comments addressed operations of small UAS over people who are 
in moving vehicles. Several comments supported the prohibition and said 
the FAA should not consider allowing such operations without a waiver. 
A few comments only addressed the proposal to allow small unmanned 
aircraft operations over people in moving vehicles through the part 107 
waiver process. Most commenters opposed the prohibition and said the 
FAA should allow small unmanned aircraft operations over moving 
vehicles without a waiver in all or limited circumstances.
    Some commenters, including the CAPA, the Association of American 
Railroads, the Minnesota Department of Transportation (MnDOT), IAAPA, 
and EPIC, supported the prohibition as proposed in the NPRM. Both the 
Association of American Railroads and IAAPA asked the Agency to clarify 
what constitutes a moving vehicle and further requested clarity about 
whether the prohibition would apply to trains and amusement park rides.
    IAAPA urged the Agency ``to prohibit the flight of any unauthorized 
small UAS over fixed site amusement parks,'' citing concerns over small 
unmanned aircraft operating over amusement park rides. IAAPA stated 
operators who receive a waiver will be more familiar

[[Page 4352]]

with the higher level of risk associated with operating over an 
amusement park. IAAPA asked the Agency to recognize the need to 
prohibit flight over, and in close proximity to, amusement parks by 
clarifying that amusement park rides are ``moving vehicles'' for 
purposes of the prohibition. Alternatively, the commenter asked the 
Agency to address the prohibition through Section 2209 of the FAA 
Extension, Safety, and Security Act of 2016.\63\ The commenter asserted 
the kinetic energy of a small unmanned aircraft hitting an exposed 
individual on even a relatively slow-moving ride poses a substantial 
safety risk to the rider who is hit, to those around him or her, and 
potentially to all the riders on a ride.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \63\ Section 2209 requires ``the Secretary of Transportation to 
establish a process to allow applicants to petition the 
Administrator of the Federal Aviation Administration to prohibit or 
restrict the operation of an unmanned aircraft in close proximity to 
a fixed site facility.'' The FAA Extension, Safety and Security Act 
of 2016, Public Law 114-190, sec. 2209, 130 Stat. 615, 633-635 
(2016). The FAA has determined that operations over moving vehicles 
can be conducted safely when following the requirements of this 
rule. A separate rulemaking action will address the process by which 
entities can submit a request to the FAA to restrict the airspace 
over a fixed site.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Chicago's First Lady Cruises wrote that the inconvenience of the 
current regulation is outweighed by reasonable safety and liability 
concerns. The commenter noted that their open-air vessels provide their 
customers with unobstructed views of the Chicago skyline and could be 
considered an open-air assembly of people.
    Several commenters supported the prohibition on operations over 
moving vehicles as long as it remains subject to waiver. MnDOT 
recommended the FAA require applicants for a waiver explain how they 
considered the safety of the combinations of altitude, speed, and 
distance from a roadway exist to avoid distracting drivers.\64\ One 
commenter recommended the FAA differentiate between operations over 
people in moving vehicles with knowledge of the operation (e.g., 
vehicles being filmed) and operations over people in moving vehicles 
without knowledge of the operation (e.g., vehicles on public roads). 
Another individual commenter suggested the Agency only allow operations 
of small unmanned aircraft over moving vehicles with a waiver, hands-on 
training, and rules preventing operation over roadways where vehicles 
travel above certain speeds. The commenter said testing would be 
necessary to determine appropriate speeds, and would likely be similar 
to the testing conducted for this NPRM to set UAS categories, 
considering the likelihood of harm to bystanders that may occur at 
various speeds. The commenter also stated a small unmanned aircraft 
that causes a driver of a car or truck to lose control of a vehicle 
would create much greater havoc than that contemplated by this NPRM.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \64\ The commenter cited the following Oregon Department of 
Transportation study, which investigated driver distraction caused 
by UAS: Hurwitz, D., Olsen, M., & Barlow, Z. (2018) ``Driver 
Distraction Due to Drones,'' Oregon Department of Transportation 
(ODOT), Salem, OR, 1-100, available at http://www.davidhurwitz.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/02/Driving_Distraction_due_to_Drones.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Some commenters recommended a prohibition against hovering or 
sustained flight over moving vehicles. NAMIC said it recognizes 
sustained operation of a small unmanned aircraft over moving vehicles 
can present safety issues and should not be permitted without a waiver, 
but ``temporarily transiting over roads with moving vehicles during 
normal operations'' should be permitted. A couple of commenters stated 
small unmanned aircraft operations should only be permitted without a 
waiver for purposes of transiting over moving vehicles or when the 
flight is done at certain angle, for example, perpendicular to the 
roadway or at a 90-degree angle. One commenter said any prohibition on 
hovering or sustained flights over moving vehicles should not apply to 
lifesaving or search-and-rescue efforts.
    In contrast, many comments opposed the prohibition on small 
unmanned aircraft operations over moving vehicles and recommended the 
FAA allow such operations without a waiver. Most of these commenters 
cited at least one of the following reasons: (1) A small unmanned 
aircraft that malfunctions is unlikely to collide with a moving vehicle 
operating below it because both vehicles are in motion; (2) in the 
event of a collision, the risk of injury to people inside the moving 
vehicle is low because they are protected by the structure of the car; 
and (3) the risk of distraction to drivers is low. Commenters stated 
the small unmanned aircraft will operate directly overhead and 
therefore not be visible to the drivers, who must focus on distractions 
that are equal to or greater than a small unmanned aircraft operating 
overhead. Commenters also stated the FAA failed to consider the 
benefits of allowing small unmanned aircraft operations over moving 
vehicles and failed to provide sufficient evidence or data to support 
the Agency's stated concerns regarding risks to people in vehicles. 
Commenters asserted a blanket restriction on small unmanned aircraft 
operations over moving vehicles would severely limit small unmanned 
aircraft operations, especially in urban areas, and will negatively 
impact various industries, public safety operations, and emerging 
technologies. A few commenters noted helicopters and ultralight 
vehicles routinely operate over moving vehicles and present a greater 
risk to people in moving vehicles than small unmanned aircraft 
operating overhead. Other commenters opposed the prohibition due to 
concerns with the burden on the FAA and small UAS operators of using 
the part 107 waiver process to allow the operations.
    Commenters also pointed to the difficulty of having to interrupt an 
operation by landing the unmanned aircraft, crossing the roadway, then 
resuming the operation. Utah Department of Transportation (UDOT) noted 
that, to avoid operating over moving vehicles, it closes lanes of 
traffic to conduct bridge, sign, and other infrastructure inspections 
via UAS, causing delays and incurring cost to society. Several 
commenters, including DJI, suggested allowing operations of small 
unmanned aircraft over moving vehicles without a waiver using a risk-
based approach and to consider factors such as the speed and density of 
traffic, minimum altitude requirements, the location, type, and speed 
limit on the roadway or site being overflown, and the weight of the 
small unmanned aircraft. A few commenters suggested the rule include 
weather restrictions.
    Some commenters recommended allowing such operations only in 
certain circumstances. A commenter recommended requiring operators to 
comply with reporting requirements, such as reporting property damage 
to local and State departments of motor vehicles. Commenters generally 
supported allowing operations over low-speed and low-density traffic 
when vehicles are in closed or restricted sites. Commenters also 
recommended that small unmanned aircraft operations be permitted over 
moving vehicles if the drivers are part of, or are aware of and consent 
to, the operations or when the operators are ``professionally trained, 
certified, and insured.'' A few commenters who support such operations 
at construction sites asserted the nature of heavy equipment at such 
sites, the added protection of personal protective equipment, and the 
additional training for workers and operators would mitigate the risks 
of the operation. A commenter recommended viewing each operating 
environment on a case-by-case basis to allow operations where deemed 
safe and responsible, based on a variety of factors.

[[Page 4353]]

B. Response to Comments for Determination

    The Agency agrees with the commenters who stated operations over 
people in moving vehicles could be conducted safely, subject to certain 
conditions. Although small unmanned aircraft operations over moving 
vehicles may present additional risks due to the potential speeds of 
such vehicles, the Agency has determined operations of small unmanned 
aircraft over people who are inside moving vehicles can be conducted 
safely, under limited circumstances. Therefore, this rule will allow 
small unmanned aircraft operations over people inside moving vehicles 
subject to specific conditions. The rule contains a new section 
describing the conditions under which small unmanned aircraft may be 
operated over people inside moving vehicles.
    This rule allows operations over people inside moving vehicles 
under the following conditions. First, the small unmanned aircraft 
operation must meet the requirements for a Category 1, 2, or 3 
operation under subpart D. Second, regardless of the category of 
operation, the operation must meet either of the following conditions: 
(1) The operation must be within or over a closed- or restricted-access 
site where any human being located inside a moving vehicle within the 
closed- or restricted-access site is on notice that a small unmanned 
aircraft may fly over them, or (2) if the operation is not within or 
over a closed- or restricted-access site, the small unmanned aircraft 
must not maintain sustained flight over moving vehicles.
    The application of the requirements of Categories 1, 2, or 3 will 
reduce the risk of injury to human beings. The weight limitation and 
exposed rotating parts prohibition for Category 1 and the injury 
severity limitations and exposed rotating parts prohibition for 
Categories 2 and 3 reduce the risk of injury to human beings located in 
or on moving vehicles, as well as the severity of damage to a moving 
vehicle if an impact occurs. Having a single set of conditions for 
Categories 1, 2, and 3 to operate over moving vehicles also simplifies 
the requirement while achieving an acceptable level of safety.
    Category 4 small UAS may be eligible to operate over moving 
vehicles as long as the applicable operating limitations in the FAA-
approved Flight Manual or as otherwise specified by the Administrator 
do not prohibit such operation. For the reasons described in the 
discussion of Category 4 in Section VII. of this preamble, operation of 
a Category 4 small unmanned aircraft over a person in a moving vehicle 
is consistent with the level of safety that operations of small 
unmanned aircraft under Categories 1, 2, and 3 achieve.
    For the purpose of this rule, the Agency considers a vehicle to be 
any means of transportation, regardless of whether it is motorized. For 
example, cars, trucks, buses, trains, motorcycles, scooters, and 
rollercoasters are all vehicles. In addition, non-motorized means of 
transportation such as bicycles would also be considered vehicles 
because they have the potential to move at speeds the Agency did not 
contemplate when establishing the requirements for operations over 
people. Watercraft such as sightseeing vessels, motorboats, and 
personal watercraft are also vehicles for the purpose of this rule.
    The closed- or restricted-access site restrictions that apply to 
some operations over moving vehicles are similar to the restrictions 
for Category 3 operations over people and will apply to all operations 
over moving vehicles. For example, a Category 2 operation over people 
is not restricted to closed- or restricted-access sites, but if the 
operation involves operations over moving vehicles, then this 
restriction will apply. When operating within a closed- or restricted-
access site, no limitations apply concerning the duration of sustained 
flight or hover over any moving vehicle. Small unmanned aircraft 
operations over moving vehicles within or over closed- or restricted-
access sites have the most flexibility for operating over moving 
vehicles.
    As with the operating limitations that apply to operations pursuant 
to Category 3, as discussed in Section VI.E., remote pilots must ensure 
no inadvertent or unauthorized access to the closed- or restricted-
access site can occur. Such a site could be an area that contains 
physical barriers, personnel, or both, to ensure no inadvertent or 
unauthorized access is possible.
    In addition, this rule requires that a remote pilot verify that 
people operating vehicles within the closed- or restricted-access site 
are provided notice that a small unmanned aircraft may operate over 
them within the site, to enhance the situational awareness of the 
people operating vehicles within the site. Public notices, signage, and 
flagging are some effective means of notifying people within the site, 
as are written notices posted at the entry point to the restricted area 
or a briefing between the small unmanned aircraft operator and the 
vehicle operators. When a person operating a vehicle receives a letter 
or contract stating small unmanned aircraft operations may occur over 
him or her, this would serve as sufficient actual notice, no matter the 
amount of time that passes between receipt of the information and the 
small unmanned aircraft operation, as long as the receipt of the notice 
occurs before the operation begins. Small UAS operators should provide 
verbal notice in addition to a written notice in cases in which a 
verbal notification is necessary to ensure the information is received 
and understood. Operators may want to consider whether providing 
written notification could be helpful to meet operators' own 
evidentiary needs. The notice should describe precautions or other 
recommended actions to ensure safety during a small unmanned aircraft 
operation. The remote pilot in command must verify that people in or on 
vehicles within the closed- or restricted-access site have received 
notice.
    If the operation over moving vehicles takes place outside a closed- 
or restricted-access site, the small unmanned aircraft is prohibited 
from sustained flight over moving vehicles. This prohibition applies to 
holding above, hovering, or maintaining sustained flight above moving 
vehicles. This requirement should ensure only momentary exposure to any 
moving vehicle in which occupants do not have the benefit of awareness 
and coordination that operators of vehicles on closed- or restricted-
access sites have. Limiting the amount of time the small unmanned 
aircraft operates over moving vehicles reduces the likelihood of an 
impact with a moving vehicle. Small unmanned aircraft operators who 
want to conduct sustained operations over moving vehicles not in a 
closed- or restricted-access site must apply for a certificate of 
waiver.
    The remote pilot in command remains responsible for ensuring the 
operation does not create a hazard to anyone, including a person in a 
moving vehicle. The FAA will rely on fulfillment of this responsibility 
especially when the small unmanned aircraft crosses an active roadway 
or waterway, as the Agency declines to limit crossing roadways to 
particular angles, such as perpendicular to the roadway, or at certain 
altitudes. The remote pilot in command is best suited to evaluate the 
moving vehicle environment to determine a safe manner for crossing an 
active roadway or waterway to not present a hazard to the moving 
vehicles underneath. The remote pilot in command should consider the 
type of roadway or waterway; the types of vehicles; the small unmanned 
aircraft design and performance characteristics;

[[Page 4354]]

obstructions to flight such as buildings, trees, powerlines, roadway 
signs; and any other aspect of the operating environment that could 
influence the safety of the operation.
    The Agency also agrees with the commenters who supported the 
availability of waivers of the prohibition on operating small unmanned 
aircraft over moving vehicles. This rule will allow an applicant to 
seek a waiver from these provisions by adding Sec.  107.145 to the list 
of provisions subject to waiver in Sec.  107.205. Small UAS operators 
may receive waivers to allow them to deviate from the conditions for 
operating small unmanned aircraft over moving vehicles as long as they 
can demonstrate that the operation can occur safely pursuant to the 
terms of a certificate of waiver.

IX. Operations at Night

A. Proposed Requirements and Comments Received

    The NPRM proposed to permit routine operations of small UAS at 
night, subject to specific requirements. The FAA proposed to amend 
Sec.  107.29 to permit operations at night when: (1) The small unmanned 
aircraft has an anti-collision light that is visible for 3 statute 
miles, and (2) the remote pilot in command has completed an updated 
knowledge test or recurrent training, as applicable, to ensure 
familiarity with the risks and appropriate mitigations for nighttime 
operations. Additionally, the FAA proposed adding the anti-collision 
lighting requirement to the list of regulations subject to waiver in 
Sec.  107.205.
    Many commenters supported the proposal to allow small UAS 
operations at night without a waiver. Comments in favor of routine 
night operations significantly outnumbered comments in opposition to 
the proposed change. Several commenters expressed concern about the 
risk of midair collisions between manned and unmanned aircraft. 
Commenters referred to the inherent lack of situational awareness in 
night operations and stated remote pilots were insufficiently trained 
to address adequately the complexity of the airspace. After reviewing 
these concerns about midair collisions and situational awareness, the 
FAA determined several existing operating requirements of part 107 
combined with the requirements of this final rule provide a sufficient 
level of safety to allow for night operations. Similar to the NPRM, the 
final rule requires that remote pilots operating at night equip their 
small unmanned aircraft with an anti-collision light visible for 3 
statute miles, but adds the requirement for the anti-collision lights 
to flash at a rate sufficient to avoid a collision.
    Many commenters appeared to misunderstand the purpose of anti-
collision lighting. The purpose of anti-collision lighting is not for 
the remote pilot to maintain visual line of sight and see the 
orientation of their small unmanned aircraft, but for the awareness of 
other pilots operating in the same airspace. Section 107.29(b) already 
requires that anti-collision lighting be visible for 3 statute miles 
for civil twilight operations to help prevent midair collisions.
    AMOA and AAMS, commenting jointly, questioned whether the FAA had 
examined the available sightings data and confirmed its reliability as 
its basis for expanding small UAS operations at night. The commenter 
noted that data collected from 1998-2017 indicates 36% of all 
helicopter air medical flights were conducted at night and 49% of the 
accidents from 1998-2017 occurred during night operations, and that 
routine night operations could put air medical flights at greater risk. 
The commenter asserted the FAA did not adequately address the potential 
threats posed by increased small unmanned aircraft activity in the 
NPRM, particularly to helicopter air medical flights.
    The FAA analyzed available data, including thousands of waivers 
allowing night operations, and determined allowing routine small UAS 
operations at night, subject to compliance with certain requirements, 
will be safe. Although the FAA reviews small unmanned aircraft sighting 
reports, the FAA did not rely on those reports as justification for 
this rule, because many of those reports are unverifiable due to a lack 
of detailed information provided by the reporter of a small unmanned 
aircraft sighting. Because small UAS operations under part 107 are 
limited to 400ft AGL and below, the effect on helicopters of night 
operations is minimal. Although the introduction of routine night 
operations could introduce more complexity to the airspace,\65\ 
compliance with sufficient mitigations will provide for safe 
operations.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \65\ See: U.S. Helicopter Safety Team (USHST) Report Helicopter 
Safety Enhancements; October 3, 2017. http://www.ushst.org/Portals/0/PDF/USHST%20LOCI%20UIMC%20LALT%20Final%20Report_2017Oct3.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In addition, other risk mitigation measures limiting the risk of 
midair collisions at night exist: Fewer general aviation aircraft fly 
at the altitudes in which small unmanned aircraft operate. Manned 
aircraft have restrictions on minimum safe altitudes, which places the 
majority of operations well above the 400 ft AGL limit for part 107 
operations. Pilots authorized to operate manned aircraft below 400 ft 
AGL during daylight hours can visually see the terrain and obstacles to 
navigate the airspace. At night, these visual cues do not exist and 
many general aviation aircraft that could operate during daylight at 
lower altitudes lack sophisticated equipment like night vision goggles, 
a radar altimeter, Forward Looking Infrared, Radar, or a Heads Up 
Display, typically found on military or emergency service aircraft. 
Because general aviation aircraft may lack electrical systems such as 
aircraft lighting, or other necessary safety features, operating such 
aircraft at night would cause a significant increase in the level of 
risk of the operation.
    NAAA voiced concern about pilot difficulty of spotting a small 
unmanned aircraft while the pilot is operating at a very low altitude 
in what is already a high task load environment. They pointed to a 2015 
test conducted by the Colorado Agricultural Aviation Association, which 
determined that it was difficult for pilots who conduct agricultural 
aviation operations to detect and track a small unmanned aircraft at 
the same time as maneuvering their aircraft for agricultural 
operations. Pilots operating manned aircraft at low altitudes would 
experience difficulty in identifying small unmanned aircraft operating 
at night, but, as discussed previously, numerous mitigations exist to 
decrease the likelihood of a midair collision. With regard to the 
report made by the Colorado Agricultural Aviation Association, while 
the study provided data, the report only tested four pilots operating 
during daylight hours. In addition, the Agency disagrees with NAAA's 
determination that night operations would be difficult to identify, as 
operating with an anti-collision light at night would increase the 
visibility of the small unmanned aircraft.
    Several commenters expressed concern about the risk small unmanned 
aircraft pose for commercial aircraft. The period of flight in which a 
manned, commercial aircraft is at or below 400 ft AGL is just prior to 
landing and seconds after takeoff. These phases of flight occur in the 
immediate vicinity of the runway, an area of airspace in which small 
UAS operations under part 107 are prohibited from flying without 
authorization. The requirement for anti-collision lights that are 
visible for 3 statute miles and that have a flash rate sufficient to 
avoid a collision, along with the existing requirements to maintain 
visual line of sight, give way

[[Page 4355]]

to manned aircraft, and obtain authorization to operate in controlled 
airspace are all practical mitigations to address the risks posed by 
small UAS operations at night.

B. Knowledge Requirements for Remote Pilots Conducting Operations at 
Night

    Only remote pilots who complete an updated aeronautical knowledge 
test or updated training will meet the remote pilot qualification 
requirements to act as pilot in command of a small UAS at night. As 
with all persons who received their remote pilot certificate prior to 
the enactment of this rule, part 61 pilots previously holding a remote 
pilot certificate will also need to complete the updated training 
before acting as pilot in command of a small UAS at night.
    The Agency proposed to revise the regulations to require that the 
remote pilot complete a knowledge test or training concerning small UAS 
operations at night. This rule finalizes those additions, as proposed. 
Applicants who are eligible to obtain a remote pilot certificate must 
complete an updated knowledge test prior to conducting operations at 
night. This rule also requires existing holders of a part 107 remote 
pilot certificate to complete updated training prior to operating as a 
remote pilot at night.
    The updated knowledge test and training will assess applicants' and 
pilots' knowledge of risks and situations that are not present during 
daylight operations. The new testing and training will include 
questions on anti-collision light requirements, when the anti-collision 
light is allowed to be dimmed, how to determine aircraft position, 
obstacle avoidance with lack of visual cues, what aircraft may be 
conducting low level night operations, night physiology, circadian 
rhythm effects, and other topics. Through this education, the remote 
pilot will have the knowledge to operate a small UAS at night safely 
and implement the appropriate protocols and tools to mitigate risks 
they have identified for their operation.
    The updated testing and recurrent training required to conduct 
night operations will be made available on the FAA website on March 1, 
2021. This date provides a 15 day period for new applicants or current 
Remote Pilot Certificate holders to complete the updated testing or 
training, as applicable, for those who seek to conduct night operations 
on the effective date of this rule.
    After the effective date of this rule, remote pilots operating 
under a waiver received prior to the effective date will be allowed to 
continue to operate at night under the provisions of that waiver 
without meeting the updated recurrent training requirement for a period 
of 60 days. All night waivers issued prior to the effective date of 
this rule that authorize deviation from Sec.  107.29 Daylight Operation 
terminate on May 17, 2021. This date provides time for waiver holders 
to come into compliance with this rule and allow the holder to request 
a new certificate of waiver, if applicable, prior to the termination 
date.
    Several commenters suggested the night operation testing and 
training be separate from the general part 107 training. One commenter 
suggested the FAA offer incentive licensing endorsements, in which a 
certain minimum score on the night operations section of the part 107 
knowledge test would allow the remote pilot to operate a small UAS at 
night. Some commenters, including Airlines for America (A4A), 
recommended the FAA impose a nighttime practical training requirement 
for remote pilot certification, particularly for pilots who do not hold 
a part 61 certificate or related nighttime endorsement. The inclusion 
of night operations does not introduce a level of complexity to the 
operations conducted under part 107 that would necessitate practical 
training. A single curriculum for both the aeronautical knowledge test 
and recurrent training will cover all necessary topics for operations 
under part 107. To operate at night, all remote pilots must either take 
the updated initial knowledge test or complete the applicable recurrent 
training that includes the new subject areas on night operations. In 
this regard, it is necessary to standardize the training and testing; 
incentive licensing endorsements the FAA issues for other skills are 
not appropriate for knowledge testing or training. The standardization 
this rule provides is appropriate for small UAS operations at night.
    A few commenters requested the Agency decline to require pilots who 
have certificates under part 61 to complete recurrent training specific 
to night operations. The Agency disagrees. Small UAS operations at 
night have operational needs and safety requirements that differ from 
manned aircraft operations at night. This rule requires part 61 pilots 
to take the recurrent training in its entirety, including those 
sections pertinent to night operations, despite having taken manned-
aircraft-specific nighttime training for their part 61 certification. 
Several commenters made suggestions regarding the content of the test 
and course material. Some commenters, including AOPA, AMOA, and AAMS, 
suggested the initial testing, initial training, and recurrent training 
for night operations emphasize collision avoidance with other unmanned 
aircraft and manned aircraft. They asked whether the additional testing 
for night operations will specifically address limited depth perception 
and difficulty of perceiving reference points during night operations. 
Under this rule, in addition to the existing testing and training that 
addresses collision avoidance, additional subject areas will address 
night physiology, lighting requirements, and night illusions from the 
perspective of the remote pilot.
    One commenter suggested the FAA produce a study guide with subject 
matter specific to small UAS operations at night. The FAA plans to 
publish a revised Small Unmanned Aircraft Systems Airman Certification 
Standard (ACS) and a revised iteration of Advisory Circular (AC) 107-2 
to address changes pertaining to the certification of small UAS remote 
pilots. This AC will also provide updated guidance for conducting small 
UAS operations in accordance with part 107. In response to the 
suggestion that the FAA produce a UAS-specific study guide with subject 
matter relevant to operating at night, the FAA has updated the Remote 
Pilot--Small Unmanned Aircraft Systems Study Guide (FAA-G-8082-22), and 
renamed it Small Unmanned Aircraft Systems Operating Handbook (FAA-H-
8083-24).\66\ Furthermore, applicants may supplement through self-
study, which could include taking an industry-offered online training 
course, an in-person training course, or any combination thereof.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \66\ See ``Part 107 Knowledge Test Suggested Study Materials,'' 
available at FAA Policy Document Library, at https://www.faa.gov/uas/resources/policy_library/.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    One commenter suggested the Agency require one or more visual 
observers who have taken the night vision test to participate in 
operations at night. The visual line of sight requirement in part 107, 
combined with other requirements, is sufficient to address the risk 
associated with night operations; therefore, this rule does not require 
a night vision test for remote pilots or visual observers. One 
commenter said the proposal would impose more cost on the operator and 
increase the barriers to UAS night operations. Another stated the 
additional testing and training requirements would not improve the 
safety of night operations. This rule establishes the recurrent 
training process, the completion of which will be free of cost to 
remote pilots. This rule

[[Page 4356]]

does not impose any changes to the costs of the initial knowledge test.

C. Anti-Collision Lighting

    The NPRM stated the small size of most small unmanned aircraft (as 
compared to their manned counterparts), combined with reduced 
visibility during darkness, favors requiring anti-collision lighting to 
reduce the risk involved with small UAS operations at night. The Agency 
stated it anticipated the presence of anti-collision lights would 
provide other aircraft with awareness of a small unmanned aircraft's 
presence. As stated in the NPRM, the anti-collision light is not the 
sole means of avoiding midair collisions between a manned aircraft and 
a small unmanned aircraft. Prior to and throughout the operation, this 
rule requires the remote pilot to ensure the anti-collision lights are 
operating, are visible for 3 statute miles, and have a flash rate 
sufficient to avoid a collision at the operating location. The anti-
collision light also does not relieve the remote pilot from complying 
with the remaining requirements of part 107, which include yielding 
right of way to all other aircraft. Although the risk of a midair 
collision at night is low due to the altitude and volume of aircraft 
operating at night, additional risk mitigation measures are appropriate 
for the safety of other aircraft that may be operating at night. The 
requirement to have an anti-collision light for night operations is 
also consistent with the requirements in part 107 for small UAS 
operations during civil twilight.
1. Flash Rate
    As noted in the proposed rule, the FAA's requirement for anti-
collision lights for twilight operations under the final rule for part 
107 was based on the daylight operations requirements for ultralight 
vehicles.\67\ Such vehicles may only operate during civil twilight 
hours as long as they are equipped with ``an operating anti-collision 
light visible for at least 3 statute miles.'' \68\ When promulgating 
that requirement, the FAA clarified that such anti-collision lights are 
``any flashing or stroboscopic device that is of sufficient intensity 
so as to be visible for at least 3 statute miles.'' \69\ Given the 
comments received in response to the NPRM, this rule provides 
additional clarification concerning the anti-collision light 
requirement. As demonstrated by the comparison to ultralight anti-
collision lights above, requiring anti-collision lights for operations 
during both civil twilight and at night to flash, rather than be 
static, is appropriate. This rule requires anti-collision lights used 
in accordance with Sec.  107.29 to flash at a sufficient rate to avoid 
a collision.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \67\ 81 FR 42064, 42103 (citing 14 CFR 103.11, which states no 
person may operate an ultralight vehicle except between the hours of 
sunrise and sunset, but permitting operations during certain periods 
of twilight).
    \68\ 14 CFR 103.11(b)(1).
    \69\ 47 FR 38770, 38773 (September 2, 1982).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Many commenters expressed support for the proposed anti-collision 
lighting requirement, with some commenters recommending changes or 
additions to the requirement. Some commenters opposed the requirement. 
Several commenters addressed specific characteristics of the anti-
collision lighting, including flash rate.
    The Helicopter Association International (HAI), along with A4A, 
AGC, NAAA, the Experimental Aircraft Association (EAA), and the 
American Association of Airport Executives (AAAE), stressed the need 
for standardization in unmanned aircraft anti-collision lighting, with 
respect to flash rate, signature, visibility requirement, intensity, 
type of lighting, and configuration. A few commenters recommended the 
FAA work with industry to develop standards specific to small unmanned 
aircraft or rely on existing standards for manned aircraft. A commenter 
recommended clarifying the requirement in the proposed rule.
    While the NPRM only proposed small unmanned aircraft have an anti-
collision light, the Agency has since determined the anti-collision 
lights should flash. In addition to the requirement for the light to be 
visible for 3 statute miles, anti-collision lighting with a sufficient 
flash rate to avoid a collision will aid in creating awareness to all 
pilots of the presence of the small unmanned aircraft.
    Under this rule, the remote pilot is responsible for ensuring the 
anti-collision lights are operating, are visible for 3 statute miles, 
and have a flash rate sufficient to avoid a collision at the operating 
location, both prior to conducting and during each night operation. The 
performance-based requirements for anti-collision lighting--with regard 
to intensity, flash rate, fields of coverage, and other relevant 
characteristics--will ensure the small unmanned aircraft is 
sufficiently visible to other aircraft. The remote pilot may rely on 
manufacturer statements indicating the anti-collision lighting is 
visible for 3 statute miles and has a flash rate that is sufficient to 
comply with the requirements of this rule. However, the remote pilot 
ultimately remains responsible for verifying that anti-collision 
lighting is operational, visible for 3 statute miles, and has a flash 
rate sufficient to avoid a collision at the operating location.
    The FAA does not require manned aircraft pilots to distinguish 
between the lights for airplanes and rotorcraft, or antennas and 
windmills, but only to avoid those obstacles. This requirement, 
therefore, will result in the small unmanned aircraft becoming more 
conspicuous to other operators, regardless of whether other operators 
identify it as a small unmanned aircraft. A manned aircraft pilot would 
be most likely to distinguish movement of external lighting against a 
stagnant, dark background rather than specific lighting 
characteristics.
2. Design of Anti-Collision Lights
    The Agency proposed to require small unmanned aircraft operating at 
night to have an anti-collision lighting component visible for 3 
statute miles, rather than a light that fulfills prescriptive design 
criteria. The proposed rule requested comments regarding whether a 
specific color or type requirement should apply to the anti-collision 
light, as well as an explanation of how a prescriptive standard might 
ensure safety of the small UAS operations.
    The FAA received numerous comments addressing a color requirement 
for the anti-collision lights. Comments in support of performance-based 
requirements for anti-collision lights outnumbered those in favor of 
more prescriptive requirements. Many commenters opposed the idea of 
specific anti-collision lighting color or type requirements, including 
Small UAV Coalition, AUVSI, News Media Coalition, the U.S. Chamber of 
Commerce, APPA, EEI, and NRECA, commenting jointly; the People's 
Republic of China; DJI; Skydio; and numerous individuals.
    Commenters opposed to a specific color standard generally noted a 
prescriptive requirement could stifle innovation without providing any 
safety benefits. A number of individual commenters stated no specific 
color or type of lighting should be required, as the FAA has not 
included such a requirement for waivers that permit operations at 
night. DJI commented that a different, or additional, lighting 
requirement from those provided in the part 107 waivers would require 
manufacturers to develop new designs and equipment without apparent 
benefit. Both DJI and the People's Republic of China asked for 
scientific data in the event the Agency requires specific colors for 
anti-collision lights.
    Several commenters explicitly supported requiring some kind of 
color

[[Page 4357]]

or type requirement for anti-collision lights. Some commenters 
suggested requirements for plain red and white lights would suffice, 
but emphasized the FAA should not require color definitions as detailed 
as those codified at Sec.  23.1397. AOPA noted the proposed rule does 
not identify whether the Agency considers white strobe lights, red 
beacon lights, or if any color or lighting configuration as sufficient 
for anti-collision lights that are visible for at least 3 statute 
miles. Another commenter similarly recommended a red (front) and white 
(rear) color pattern. Several commenters recommended following the 
existing practices of manned aviation operators regarding the colors of 
lights. Other commenters recommended the FAA impose specific colors or 
color patterns for certain situations, such as when an aircraft 
descends or experiences an operational system failure. One commenter 
recommended the FAA consider requiring colors that are compatible with 
color-blindness. NIOSH stated specifying an anti-collision light color 
would improve safety, given that color is a significant factor for 
improving the visibility of an object.
    Prescriptive color requirements would unnecessarily restrict 
design. Since August of 2016, the FAA has issued over 4,000 waivers 
that permit operations at night. While none of these waivers include 
color or type requirements, many of these small unmanned aircraft 
utilize white anti-collision lights to meet the 3 statute mile 
visibility requirement. No commenters explained how a prescriptive 
color requirement would mitigate the risk of operations at night. 
Overall, requiring a specific color or type of light is unnecessary. 
This rule's performance-based requirement is appropriate for the level 
of risk associated with night operations and allows for flexibility as 
technology evolves.
    The NAAA stated some small unmanned aircraft may be equipped with 
anti-collision lights that are not compatible with the Night Vision 
Goggles (NVG) that agricultural pilots typically wear. In these cases, 
the pilot would not see the small unmanned aircraft at night while 
looking through the NVG. The FAA recognizes the NVG incompatibility 
with certain lighting may be an issue for agriculture and medical 
helicopters. Existing operational regulations specific to the use of 
NVGs for manned pilots limit hazards to manned aircraft, making 
specific color or design elements for small unmanned aircraft 
unnecessary. While this rule does not require specific characteristics 
of the anti-collision lighting, remote pilots remain obligated, before 
each operation, to consider the environment in which they are 
operating, particularly in areas that are known to have regular 
agricultural operations at night.\70\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \70\ See 14 CFR 107.49(a), which requires remote pilots in 
command to assess the operating environment and consider risks to 
persons and property in the immediate vicinity of the intended 
operation, prior to each operation.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

3. Waivers
    The NPRM proposed making the anti-collision lighting requirement 
for small UAS night operations subject to waiver and invited comments 
on this aspect of the proposal. The Agency stated it would consider 
granting a certificate of waiver allowing nighttime small unmanned 
aircraft operations without an anti-collision light visible for 3 
statute miles if an applicant demonstrates sufficient measures to 
mitigate the risk associated with the proposed operation. As discussed 
later in this section, allowing waivers of the anti-collision lighting 
requirement will accommodate unique operational circumstances without 
reducing safety.
    EPIC opposed allowing waivers of the anti-collision lighting 
requirement for small UAS operations at night, noting concerns about 
security, privacy, and the potential for nefarious use. Neither this 
rule nor any potential waivers from the anti-collision requirement 
authorize the use of small unmanned aircraft for criminal activities. 
All persons requesting a waiver from the anti-collision requirement 
must include a description of the proposed operation and explain how 
they will mitigate any risks. The FAA will only issue waivers for 
operations that can occur safely.
    AMOA and AAMS, commenting jointly, asked the Agency to clarify 
under what conditions it would grant a waiver of the anti-collision 
lighting requirement. The FAA expects waiver applicants to establish a 
deviation from the anti-collision lighting requirement would not reduce 
the level of safety of the operation. The FAA declines to prescribe 
specific criteria that would apply to all applications for waiver, as 
doing so would be impractical. In response to comments suggesting the 
FAA should develop separate processes for law enforcement and first 
responders, the FAA declines to create a separate process for a 
particular subset of part 107 operators.

D. Position Lighting Not Required

    The proposed rule did not provide a requirement for position 
lighting. The Agency invited comments from the public, however, on 
whether it should require position lighting, in addition to the anti-
collision lighting.
    Several commenters, including AOPA, EPIC, and AMOA and AAMS, 
commenting jointly, recommended requiring position lighting for night 
operations. Several of these commenters said the position lighting 
should be similar to those found on manned aircraft. AOPA noted that 
night operations are inherently challenging and visual line of sight 
would be better maintained with lights that aid in determining 
directional movement of the aircraft. EPIC agreed that small unmanned 
aircraft position lighting would be important for collision avoidance 
and to convey the position of the small unmanned aircraft to manned 
aircraft. The Director of the Autonomous Aerial Systems Office at the 
University of Montana encouraged the FAA to require position lighting 
in addition to anti-collision lighting that is consistent with current 
navigational standards, stating this requirement would improve safety 
in see-and-avoid situations in addition to improving remote pilots' 
situational awareness of aircraft position.
    Many commenters supported the FAA's decision to not require 
position lighting for small unmanned aircraft. For example, DJI stated 
position lighting should not be required ``because in many 
circumstances the remote pilot has the ability to determine the 
position, direction and orientation of the drone in other ways at 
night.'' DJI also noted it might be helpful at times to turn off the 
position lighting to capture the type of data required for the 
operation without interference of these lights, which are typically 
more visible to the on-board camera or sensor than other lights because 
they are located at the ends of motor arms. Several commenters noted 
that, although position lighting may provide a visual reference to 
determine the location of the small unmanned aircraft, it may not 
provide accurate information about the orientation of the small 
unmanned aircraft in flight.
    Position lighting might assist a remote pilot in meeting the 
applicable visual line-of-sight requirements in Sec.  107.31(a), such 
as knowing the unmanned aircraft's location, attitude, altitude, and 
direction of flight. However, this rule does not require position 
lighting because it is not the only means by which a remote pilot could 
meet these requirements. Although position lighting is not necessary 
for safe operation, a remote pilot may use position lighting if he or 
she determines

[[Page 4358]]

it would be the best solution for safe operation.

E. Miscellaneous Night Operations Considerations

    AMOA and AAMS also noted the NPRM does not discuss testing for the 
acuity of a remote pilot's night vision and said they believe remote 
pilots should be required to attest annually to this visual capability. 
As discussed in the 2016 final rule, operations under part 107 do not 
require airman medical certificates, given the low risk associated with 
small UAS operations, the limited operational range of visual line of 
sight operations, and the requirement that the remote pilot may operate 
only within their capabilities.\71\ As stated in the part 107 final 
rule, even with normal vision, a small unmanned aircraft might be so 
small that the operational space must be reduced to meet the visual 
line-of-sight requirements of Sec.  107.31. Furthermore, the FAA 
prohibits a person from manipulating the flight controls of a small UAS 
or acting as a remote pilot in command or visual observer if he or she 
knows or has reason to know that he or she has a physical or mental 
condition that would interfere with the safe operation of a small 
UAS.\72\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \71\ 81 FR 42064, 42159-42160.
    \72\ 14 CFR 107.17.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Some commenters requested the rule include additional requirements 
on the remote pilot, on the small unmanned aircraft, or on the 
operating environment for operations at night. MAC said regulations 
allowing night operations must ensure the safety of all aircraft 
operations in both the airport environment and the NAS. They also said 
the FAA should establish measures to identify clearly a small unmanned 
aircraft at similar distances to those that apply to manned aircraft. 
Exclusions from these requirements could include the use of small UAS 
for the purposes of airport safety, security, and operation activities, 
especially in situations of emergency response. A commenter suggested 
requiring remote pilots perform their intended night operations during 
the day prior to execution, map out the flight path, and ensure 
awareness of any obstacles. Commenters requested altitude restrictions, 
speed restrictions, and distance or operational radius limitations for 
night operations. A commenter also suggested requiring the remote pilot 
to have a radio on the appropriate frequency to detect any air traffic 
in the area. The current regulations under part 107, combined with the 
requirements in this final rule, contain adequate restrictions for 
operations at night.\73\ As discussed earlier, as of September 2020, 
the FAA has issued over 4,000 waivers allowing nighttime small UAS 
operations since August 2016. These operations have been conducted 
safely and the Agency does not have data indicating that the 
restrictions in this rule would be inadequate.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \73\ See 14 CFR 107.19, 107.31, 107.37, 107.41, 107.43, 107.49, 
107.51.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    A commenter believed the FAA should require that remote pilots 
operating at night be AMA members, register their small unmanned 
aircraft with the FAA, and use ``tracking'' lighting for both day and 
night operations. The FAA requires registration for all small unmanned 
aircraft that operate under part 107. This requirement is sufficient 
for providing the FAA an avenue for oversight. Furthermore, as noted 
earlier, remote pilots are not prohibited from using position (or 
``tracking'') lighting to assist in meeting the visual line-of-sight 
requirement; however, for the reasons stated above, this rule does not 
require position lighting.
    NAAA recommended all small UAS be equipped with ``ADS-B In-like'' 
technology. NAAA and an individual commenter both suggested all small 
UAS operating under part 107 be equipped with technology that would 
allow them to sense the presence of and avoid manned aircraft. Part 107 
requires remote pilots to maintain visual line of sight of the small 
unmanned aircraft at all times and give the right of way to all 
aircraft. Manned aircraft are not required to be equipped with ADS-B 
Out in all classes of airspace. For example, ADS-B Out is not required 
in Class G airspace. Therefore, requiring ADS-B In for small unmanned 
aircraft would not be sufficient in all circumstances to aid the remote 
pilot in detecting manned aircraft. Given this existing requirement, 
requiring ADS-B In-like technology is not necessary.
    NAAA also suggested, to operate safely at night, small unmanned 
aircraft should have a registered N-number on an indestructible and 
unmovable plate attached to the small unmanned aircraft and should have 
an electronic identification and tracking technology so that it can be 
tracked by law enforcement. The registration and marking requirements 
as implemented by the Registration and Marking Requirements for Small 
Unmanned Aircraft rule, and amended by the External Marking 
Requirements for Small Unmanned Aircraft interim final rule, are 
sufficient for operations conducted under part 107. The Agency declines 
to impose additional registration requirements that would apply to 
operations at night, as no safety benefit would result from such 
requirements.

F. Effect on Human Activity

    The NPRM invited comments on whether characteristics or effects of 
anti-collision lighting at low altitude could have an effect on normal 
human activities, and if so, potential mitigations or alternatives the 
FAA should consider. Some commenters stated anti-collision lighting 
could affect human activities.
    NIOSH stated, ``[i]t is reasonable to assume that in some 
situations anti-collision lights could distract people'' who are 
working and that, depending on their activities, this effect could have 
significant safety risks. NIOSH said it is not aware of any evidence 
supporting a mitigation strategy and recommended ``exploring potential 
mitigation methods that follow the hierarchy of controls.'' This rule 
does not require use of the hierarchy of controls for small UAS 
operations at night because considering every possible scenario or 
assessing how distracting anti-collision lights may be to non-
participants is not possible. Anti-collision lighting in night 
operations is a critical component in making small unmanned aircraft 
sufficiently conspicuous when operating under part 107. The safety need 
for such lighting outweighs the concerns these comments present.
    Motorola Solutions stated anti-collision lighting at low altitudes 
could affect normal human activities associated with lights coming from 
unidentified sources and with unknown justification. The commenter said 
operations performed by public safety officers can mitigate the effect 
of unidentified unmanned aircraft light sources by replacing or 
augmenting the anti-collision lights with other lights such as those 
officers use for public safety operations. Requiring specific colors or 
additional lights for certain types of operations will not reduce the 
effect on human activity.
    Droneport Texas, LLC said anti-collision lighting might startle or 
distract those engaged in normal human activities. To mitigate such 
distractions, the commenter recommended a remote pilot be allowed to 
reduce the intensity of the anti-collision lights that are ``observable 
uniquely from the bottom side'' of the aircraft and change them from 
flashing to a steady display. This rule requires all anti-collision 
lights to flash at a rate sufficient to avoid a collision. Furthermore, 
the remote pilot may use their discretion to determine

[[Page 4359]]

the circumstances under which they could safely reduce the intensity 
of, but not extinguish, the anti-collision lighting.
    DJI commented that, to mitigate the effects of anti-collision 
lighting on human activities, the FAA could encourage lights be placed 
on top of the small unmanned aircraft where it is most visible to 
manned traffic above and less bothersome to people below; however, DJI 
said it is unaware of complaints from the public about lighting, so 
such guidance should not be made a requirement. This rule does not 
include any prescriptive design criteria for anti-collision lighting. 
However, no provision of this rule precludes the placement of anti-
collision lights on the top of a small unmanned aircraft.
    One commenter suggested anti-collision lights could have an effect 
on the public due to light pollution and visual disturbances caused by 
the high intensity light and said the strobe effect could distract 
manned aircraft. Another commenter stated the purpose of the anti-
collision lighting requirement is to call attention to the small 
unmanned aircraft, ``in effect to distract the viewer.'' The commenter 
further stated that, depending on the frequency and density of 
operations, blinking or strobe lights could disturb people engaging in 
traditional outdoor activities or even normal activities in their 
homes. The Agency anticipates anti-collision lighting will be no more 
distracting to individuals engaging in outdoor activities at night than 
the light from various other artificial sources. Red and white lights 
are often used at night, on vehicle headlights and taillights, street 
lights, school bus strobes, and other sources. The benefits of allowing 
small UAS operations at night in accordance with these requirements 
outweigh the potential drawback of distracting people on the ground. 
The FAA has carefully considered these concerns, however, and has 
prepared a finding of the categorical exclusion that applies to this 
rule, which assesses light emissions and visual impacts, and is 
available in the public docket for this rulemaking.
    One commenter asked the FAA to consider allowing municipalities to 
designate certain public, open spaces as night flight zones. One 
commenter opposed operations at night and the use of anti-collision 
lighting over parklands and ``Dark Sky'' communities where 
municipalities restrict artificial lighting and suggested the FAA 
follow restrictions on train horns and allow communities to request 
prohibitions of night operations within the municipality. This 
commenter further noted the FAA has responsibilities under the 
Department of Transportation Act, Sec. 4(f), for any lighting if it 
impairs in any way night skies, vistas, and contemplative recreation in 
protected areas such as wilderness and parks.
    The National Conference of State Legislature and the National 
Association of Counties stated the importance of State and local 
authorities' ability to regulate UAS on a State and county level. One 
commenter suggested allowing different UAS regulations in different 
states. Other commenters expressed concerns about local entities 
placing requirements on the airspace and operating requirements.
    States and municipalities may use their police powers, such as 
those relating to land use, zoning, privacy, anti-voyeurism, trespass, 
and law enforcement operations, to address small UAS operations in the 
community. Through their land use and zoning power, municipalities have 
authority to determine the placement of aircraft takeoff and landing 
areas within the community. However, municipalities do not have 
authority to enact operational restrictions on aviation safety or the 
efficiency of the navigable airspace, including regulation of unmanned 
aircraft flight altitude, flight paths or operational bans. The 
applicability of the Department of Transportation Act, Section 4(f), is 
discussed in the supporting documentation for the categorical exclusion 
documentation, which is included in the public docket for this 
rulemaking.
    All aircraft operations in the navigable airspace, whether manned 
or unmanned, and whether during the day or at night, are regulated by 
the Federal government. Congress has long vested the FAA with authority 
to regulate the areas of airspace use, management, and efficiency; air 
traffic control; safety; navigational facilities; and aircraft noise at 
its source.\74\ In addition, a citizen of the United States has a 
statutory public right of transit through the navigable airspace.\75\ 
The FAA is aware of the International Dark-Sky Association and its work 
in encouraging communities, parks, and protected areas to preserve and 
protect dark sites through responsible lighting policies and public 
education. Designated dark sky communities would be free to request UAS 
operators minimize nighttime operations, citing their community's 
dedication to the preservation of the sky through the implementation 
and enforcement of outdoor lighting ordinances to promote responsible 
lighting and dark sky stewardship. However, under the Federal statutory 
and regulatory framework, communities would not have the authority to 
prohibit small UAS operations at night or regulate small unmanned 
aircraft lighting.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \74\ See 49 U.S.C. 40103, 44502, and 44701-44738.
    \75\ See 49 U.S.C. 40103(a)(2).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

X. Part 107 Remote Pilot Knowledge Testing and Training

    The NPRM proposed to maintain the initial knowledge test 
requirement and initial training requirement for persons seeking to 
obtain a remote pilot certificate with a small UAS rating.\76\ However, 
with respect to recency of experience requirements, the FAA proposed to 
require recurrent training every 24 calendar months in lieu of the 
recurrent knowledge testing.\77\ Additionally, the NPRM proposed to add 
a knowledge area covering operations at night for the initial knowledge 
test, initial training, and recurrent training. The NPRM also proposed 
to revise the list of knowledge areas for remote pilots, requiring 
inclusion of the same list of knowledge areas on both the initial 
knowledge test and the recurrent training for pilots who hold a remote 
pilot certificate under Sec.  107.65(b). As for pilots who already hold 
a pilot certificate under part 61 as described in Sec.  107.65(c), the 
NPRM proposed to require the initial and recurrent training to cover 
identical knowledge areas. For the reasons discussed below, the Agency 
adopts these proposed amendments without change.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \76\ Under Sec.  107.61, to be eligible to apply for a remote 
pilot certificate, a person must pass an initial aeronautical 
knowledge test covering the areas of knowledge specified in Sec.  
107.73(a). Alternatively, if a person holds a pilot certificate 
(other than a student pilot certificate) issued under part 61 and 
meets the flight review requirements specified in Sec.  61.56, that 
person may complete initial training covering the areas of knowledge 
specified in Sec.  107.74(a).
    \77\ Recurrent training was already an option for any person 
holding a pilot certificate (other than a student pilot certificate) 
issued under part 61 provided the person also meets the flight 
review requirements specified in Sec.  61.56.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

A. Recurrent Training and Aeronautical Knowledge Recency

    Prior to this final rule, Sec.  107.65(a) and (b) required persons 
to complete either an initial aeronautical knowledge test or a 
recurrent aeronautical knowledge test within the previous 24 calendar 
months prior to operating a small UAS. This final rule revises Sec.  
107.65(b) to allow remote pilots to take recurrent training instead of 
a recurrent aeronautical knowledge test. People who hold a part 61 
pilot certificate (other than a student pilot certificate) who have 
completed a

[[Page 4360]]

flight review within the previous 24 calendar months in accordance with 
Sec.  61.56 may continue, under Sec.  107.65(c), to complete either 
initial or recurrent training covering the areas of knowledge specified 
in Sec.  107.74.
    Recurrent training ensures remote pilots maintain ongoing 
familiarity with small UAS operations and the provisions of part 107. 
Moreover, remote pilots can complete recurrent training online, which 
provides a less costly option and results in the remote pilot 
maintaining a level of knowledge comparable to receiving recurrent 
testing. The FAA's use of online training enables the FAA to adapt the 
training as necessary as technology or regulations change.
    The rule continues to allow an eligible person who holds a part 61 
pilot certificate (other than a student pilot certificate) to complete 
training on the knowledge areas specified in Sec.  107.74 when seeking 
a remote pilot certificate.\78\ Furthermore, the rule allows all remote 
pilots to complete recurrent training online every 24 calendar months, 
in place of a recurrent knowledge test. The rule amends the 
aeronautical knowledge test and training requirements for remote pilots 
provided in Sec. Sec.  107.73 and 107.74 to include a new knowledge 
area related to operating a small UAS at night. For more information 
about the testing and training on the night operations knowledge area, 
please see Section IX.B.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \78\ In order to be eligible to obtain a remote pilot 
certificate under Sec.  107.65(c), the person must satisfy the 
flight review requirements of Sec.  61.56.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    This final rule requires the initial knowledge test and the 
recurrent training cover identical areas of knowledge under Sec.  
107.73. Similarly, for eligible part 61 pilots, the initial training 
and recurrent training will cover the same knowledge areas under Sec.  
107.74. The FAA is concurrently updating the part 107 Airman 
Certification Standards (ACS), the initial aeronautical knowledge test, 
the part 107 certification course for eligible part 61 pilots, and the 
recurrent training.\79\ The updated aeronautical knowledge test and 
updated training replaces the current knowledge test and training after 
the effective date of the rule. Both the updated aeronautical knowledge 
test and the updated training will be available on March 1, 2021.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \79\ https://www.faa.gov/training_testing/testing/acs/.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    NASAO asked that the recurrent education make pilots aware of 
updates to operating rules, rather than retesting the initial knowledge 
test. One commenter believed there should be a ``grading scale'' to 
ensure pilots have stayed current on operations and regulations. 
Another commenter agreed that it was likely that operators would need 
to take refresher training, but suggested that if an individual scores 
above a certain level on their initial knowledge test, the FAA exclude 
that person from having to take recurrent training. Several commenters 
objected to the current 24-month interval for the testing and recurrent 
training process. Commenters recommended a range of intervals for 
recurrent training from 36 months to 5 years, or eliminating altogether 
for ``professional operators.''
    Part 107 requires the recurrent training to cover applicable 
regulations relating to small UAS rating privileges, limitations, and 
flight operation. As a result, recurrent training will ensure remote 
pilots are aware of current and updated operating rules. While a high 
score on an initial aeronautical knowledge test may demonstrate initial 
competency, knowledge is perishable and degrades over time. Online 
recurrent training allows remote pilots to maintain critical knowledge 
and keep abreast of dynamic issues, including changes to regulations, 
that arise while ultimately completing the updated knowledge 
requirements related to operating small UAS. Additionally, the Agency 
finds the 24-month interval an appropriate time period. This recurrent 
training interval is consistent with the requirement for manned 
aircraft pilots meeting the requirement to complete a flight review as 
required by Sec.  61.56. On completion of this recurrent training, a 
printable completion certificate is available to demonstrate 
aeronautical knowledge recency in accordance with the revisions to 
Sec.  107.65. The FAA provides educational material on the FAA website 
about updates to operating rules. AOPA commented that the FAA should 
not be the exclusive provider of the required knowledge training 
because there are numerous training courses offered by industry that 
might be more effective and better meet the needs of the unmanned 
aircraft operator. Another commenter asked the FAA to clarify what 
training would qualify.
    The Coalition of Airline Pilots Association suggested the FAA 
require all small UAS operators to meet the same operational recency 
and testing requirements that are currently in place for manned 
commercial airman certificates. ALPA noted that a person who 
manipulates the flight controls of a small UAS should be a certified 
pilot and pass a knowledge test, but objected that the proposed 
requirement would allow an individual to be granted a remote pilot 
certificate without assurance of practical experience with a small UAS. 
Several commenters recommended specific practical training 
requirements, including flight training for operations over people and 
at night. One commenter believed an unprepared remote pilot may have to 
resort to manual flight operation and may not be qualified for that 
operation. AUVSI commented that any mandatory training involving 
operations over people should be competency-based. They also 
recommended the FAA consider how industry initiatives could support a 
new training requirement to help ensure that small UAS operations occur 
safely and in accordance with the rules. Another commenter wrote a 
higher level of training should be required to operate a small UAS 
commercially.
    The Agency continues to find that formal training, a practical test 
for the issuance of a part 107 remote pilot certificate, and testing 
requirements similar to those for part 61 commercial pilot 
certificates, are not necessary. As discussed in the 2016 final rule, 
the limitations of many small unmanned aircraft (e.g., size, ease of 
landing, lack of people on board), combined with the operational 
restrictions of part 107, minimize the need for flight proficiency 
testing or formal training. A prescriptive formal training requirement 
is not necessary for part 107 operations. Instead, this rule allows 
remote pilot certificate applicants to attain the necessary 
aeronautical knowledge through any number of different methods, 
including self-study, enrolling in a training seminar or online course, 
or through one-on-one instruction with a trainer familiar with small 
UAS operations and part 107. This performance-based approach is 
preferable because it allows individuals to select a method of study 
that works best for them.\80\ The FAA maintains this rationale for 
operations over people and night operations. While the introduction of 
operations over people and night operations may introduce additional 
complexity to the NAS, the FAA developed the design and operational 
requirements of this rule to balance the risk associated with the 
incremental integration of small UAS. This rule discusses those risk 
mitigations in more detail in Sections VI and IX, respectively.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \80\ 81 FR 42064, 42160-42161.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The FAA understands formal training would be overly burdensome to 
an applicant. By requiring a person to only take a knowledge test for 
certification, allowing online recurrent training, and not requiring 
formal training, the FAA anticipates that this will result in cost

[[Page 4361]]

savings for remote pilots, as discussed in the regulatory impact 
analysis. In addition, requiring formal training and a practical test 
would not be consistent with the original framework of part 107.\81\ 
The FAA does not find it necessary to require practical testing to 
obtain a remote pilot certificate. This approach is consistent with the 
risk-based framework the 2016 final rule established.\82\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \81\ For further discussion of rationale, please see 84 FR 3856, 
3891-3892; 81 FR 42064, 42160-42171.
    \82\ 81 FR 42161.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    One commenter expressed concern that requiring the recurrent 
training to be identical to the initial training for part 61 pilots 
would be duplicative. Commenters asked the FAA to review the areas 
already covered in the Private Pilot Airman Certification Standards and 
keep duplicative or conflicting subject areas to a minimum. Another 
commenter suggested that part 61 should include certification to be a 
remote pilot.
    As discussed previously, knowledge degrades over time and requiring 
recurrent training provides assurances that experienced remote pilots 
remain aware of the specifics of operating a small UAS. Additionally, 
as noted in the NPRM, the FAA finds it necessary to ensure consistency 
in remote pilots' knowledge of the topic areas for the safe operation 
of small UAS. To compensate for the differences between manned aircraft 
and small unmanned aircraft, the list of knowledge areas includes 
topics that are specific to small UAS operations. For example, 
determining the performance of a manned aircraft is distinct from the 
manner in which a pilot should determine the performance of a small 
UAS; in this regard, the preflight check requirements of Sec.  107.49 
are distinct from those codified in part 91 and in other, similar 
regulations specific to manned aircraft.
    Several commenters objected to the cost associated with the initial 
knowledge test and other commenters recommended the FAA lower the test 
costs. However, one commenter wrote that everyone who owns a small UAS 
should have to pass the initial knowledge test and recurrent testing to 
eliminate the threat of people flying dangerously. One commenter 
objected to having to pay a third party for recurrent testing. Some 
commenters wrote that section 44809 of the FAA Reauthorization Act of 
2018 requires the FAA to develop a test for recreational operations 
that can be administered online and that this should be extended to 
part 107 remote pilot certification, thereby reducing the cost to $50 
associated with the initial knowledge test.
    The FAA clarifies that part 107 does not mandate formal training to 
obtain a remote pilot certificate, and any cost that a part 107 
applicant incurs for formal training is at their discretion. 
Additionally, on March 1, 2021 the FAA will provide free, online 
recurrent training to all remote pilots. The FAA enters into contracts 
for testing delivery through a third party vendor. The FAA's rationale 
to contract the initial test through knowledge testing centers remains 
the same as it was in the 2016 final rule.\83\ This delivery model 
allows the FAA to enter into a contract that provides a zero cost model 
to the U.S. government and to the taxpayers. The testing vendor has 
many locations throughout the United States that are close to large and 
small population centers, therefore the requirement to take a knowledge 
test at a testing location is not an undue burden on applicants. The 
third party vendor is allowed to charge the contract rate to administer 
a knowledge test; however, that amount is not to exceed $160. The FAA 
Reauthorization Bill of 2018 requirement for the FAA to have an online 
test for limited recreational operators does not apply to part 107 
remote pilot certification.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \83\ 81 FR 42064, 42169-70.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

B. Other Comments Related to Initial Testing or Recurrent Training

    Several commenters expressed concern about the risks of people 
without certification or training operating small UAS. Other 
commenters, referencing certification of pilots and mandatory 
registration for equipment, stated that all operators should be 
licensed regardless of size or weight of small unmanned aircraft. The 
FAA agrees that persons operating small UAS in the NAS should have 
appropriate aeronautical safety knowledge, knowledge of applicable 
rules, and knowledge of airspace constraints before operating in the 
NAS. Part 107 rules require that all small unmanned aircraft are 
registered and operated by a certificated remote pilot. The FAA 
currently requires initial testing or training before the issuance of a 
remote pilot certificate with a small UAS rating for operations under 
part 107.
    Multiple commenters requested that both testing and training be 
provided online, with several commenters specifically recommending that 
the initial knowledge test be available online. The FAA agrees that in-
person recurrent testing under part 107 is no longer necessary for part 
107 certificate holders. Therefore, to meet the recency requirements 
under Sec.  107.65, any person who holds a part 107 certificate may 
maintain recency of experience by completing an online training course. 
For security reasons, the initial knowledge testing must be done in 
person, similar to the regulatory framework for training under part 61.
    A commenter suggested that test questions for each online test be 
pulled randomly from a larger set of questions so an applicant cannot 
take the same test over and over until the applicant achieves a score 
of 100 percent and would be required to learn the material. The part 
107 knowledge tests are created from a large bank of questions that 
were specifically drafted for small UAS remote pilot certification. 
Although it is possible that a person could take the part 107 knowledge 
test enough times that they would eventually see all of the questions, 
and possibly get them all correct, this is not very probable especially 
given the mandatory 14-day waiting period required before a person can 
retake the knowledge test after a failure.\84\ In addition, a person 
who is not prepared for the test, and does not have a working knowledge 
of the material, will have a very low probability of passing the test. 
The FAA will continue to administer knowledge testing in the same form 
and manner that has proven effective for many years.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \84\ Section 107.71.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    A commenter recommended the FAA define minimum standards for 
training that would allow certain people to conduct operations without 
requiring a waiver to operate over people or at night. This rule adopts 
routine night operations and operations over people without the need 
for waivers. Additionally, under part 107, the FAA does not maintain 
minimum standards for training like those in part 61. For example, an 
applicant for a remote pilot certificate with a small UAS rating does 
not have to show that they have received formal training from a 
certified instructor on the National Airspace System. As there are two 
pathways for remote pilot certification, an applicant will have either 
met a minimum testing standard via a knowledge test or they will have 
taken training which will also test their knowledge. All persons who 
hold a remote pilot certificate will also need to maintain currency by 
taking currency training every 24 months from the month in which they 
take and pass the knowledge test or training for certification. The 
updated knowledge areas for the testing and training

[[Page 4362]]

requirements are the minimum standard for small UAS operations 
conducted under part 107.
    Some commenters proposed the Agency tailor the part 107 knowledge 
test to specific types of operators or certain topics and have 
different tests based on the type of operation. A few commenters 
recommended the part 107 knowledge test be redesigned to better test 
commercial small UAS pilots piloting skills and safe operations. These 
commenters noted the part 107 knowledge test appeared to derive from 
manned pilot standards and the Pilot Handbook of Aeronautical Knowledge 
(PHAK), which the commenters argued do not apply directly to small UAS 
flights. Another commenter asked for knowledge and testing specific to 
small UAS operations over people, such as first aid training. A 
commenter suggested the FAA have two separate knowledge tests: A basic 
test for hobbyists and small businesses, etc., and a more complex test 
for large commercial operations, large, fixed-wing small unmanned 
aircraft, or those flying in urban areas or all over the country.
    All test questions were developed specifically for the part 107 
remote pilot certification. Some of the required test questions, 
however, are also applicable to manned aircraft, such as questions 
related to airspace regulations that apply to all aircraft. The FAA 
carefully evaluated the knowledge test areas to ensure they remain 
comprehensive. The small UAS Airman Certification Standards and 
knowledge test contain each of the topics required for knowledge and 
testing, and the Agency does not consider remote pilot first aid 
training a necessary requirement for such low-risk operations. The 
requirements are the same for anyone flying under part 107; therefore, 
the knowledge and training should be the same for all certificated 
remote pilots under part 107.
    Some commenters suggested passing the part 107 knowledge test or 
the level of the remote pilot's training and experience should permit 
them certain privileges. A commenter wrote that passing the part 107 
test should grant part 107 pilots the ability to fly over people and 
beyond line of sight. A commenter requested the FAA add levels of 
additional authorization for a remote pilot to fly over people, carry 
payloads, or fly at night based on their levels of training and 
experience added as ratings to the certificate. One commenter stated 
that part 61 pilots should have more ``capability and freedom,'' as 
they have already demonstrated their responsibility by obtaining a part 
61 certificate. Another commenter asked the FAA to educate businesses 
that use remote pilots without a part 107 certificate to conduct 
commercial small UAS operations.
    The FAA declines to add authorizations or ratings to the remote 
pilot certification in this final rule. A person who holds a remote 
pilot certificate is afforded all privileges of the certificate. The 
FAA has taken the approach of tailoring its requirements for night 
operations and operations over people with the expectation that all 
part 107 pilots have the same level of certification. The Agency did 
not propose authorizing routine beyond visual line of sight operations 
in this rulemaking; therefore, adding authorizations or ratings to 
address such operations is beyond the scope of the rule. Additionally, 
part 107 does not prohibit payload-bearing operations, but the small 
unmanned aircraft and any payload must be less than 55 pounds and must 
follow all applicable regulations for safe operation. Remote pilots who 
operate a small UAS under part 107 without an FAA-issued pilot 
certificate are subject to the FAA's Compliance and Enforcement Policy. 
Additional educational material is available on the FAA website.\85\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \85\ https://www.faa.gov/uas.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

XI. Other Amendments to Part 107

A. Presentation of Remote Pilot in Command Certificate

    The Agency proposed to add to Sec.  107.7 the requirement for 
remote pilots to present their remote pilot in command certificate with 
a small UAS rating as well as a form of identification to authorized 
individuals on request. This update aligns the text of Sec.  107.7 with 
Sec.  61.3(l). The existing rule requires the remote pilot in command, 
owner, or person manipulating the controls of the small UAS to present 
to the Administrator, on request, the remote pilot certificate with 
small UAS rating and any other document, record, or report required 
under part 107. The proposed change to Sec.  107.7 expanded the list of 
authorized individuals who might request the information, to include 
authorized representatives of the National Transportation Safety Board 
(NTSB) or Transportation Security Administration (TSA); or any Federal, 
State, or local law enforcement officer. Under the proposed rule, the 
form of identification would include any identification containing the 
person's photograph, signature, date of birth, and permanent mailing 
address.
    Several commenters expressed support for the proposed changes to 
Sec.  107.7. These commenters stated the proposal aligns with Sec.  
61.3(l) requirements, would help enforce a safe UAS operating 
environment, or would aid investigations into violations of Federal and 
State rules. Other commenters indicated Sec.  107.7 should include 
modifications or additional requirements. Individual commenters 
recommended the FAA allow for the use of electronic credentials to 
facilitate compliance with the requirement in a convenient manner. The 
Agency declines to allow electronic credentials as a form of 
identification, as the lack of standardization in electronic 
credentials in the United States eliminates the ability of authorized 
persons to verify the identity of the remote pilot. A commenter also 
encouraged the Agency to allow a passport to be used as an 
identification document even though it does not include a mailing 
address. According to this commenter, allowing the use of a passport 
would more closely match the part 61 identification regulation.\86\ 
Part 61 and the text the Agency proposed for Sec.  107.7 differ because 
part 61 does not require identification for the purpose of Sec.  
61.3(l) to include a mailing address. Although part 107 requires a 
mailing address for the purpose of being eligible to take a knowledge 
test under part 107,\87\ the Agency has determined a mailing address is 
not necessary for adequate identification of a remote pilot in command 
under Sec.  107.7. This rule, therefore, contains a revision to the 
regulatory text to permit forms of identification that do not contain a 
mailing address for the purpose of presenting identification in 
accordance with Sec.  107.7.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \86\ Section 61.3(l) requires presentation of an airman 
certificate or other, specific type of certificate along with 
``photo identification as described in [Sec.  61.3(a)(2)].'' Section 
61.3(a)(2) does not specifically require the form of photo 
identification include the person's mailing address.
    \87\ See 14 CFR 107.67(b).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Two commenters suggested the FAA require the remote pilot in 
command to present his or her certificate and identification only when 
it is safe to do so, and does not pose a danger or hazard to persons, 
property, or public safety. The FAA declines to impose requirements 
based on prescriptive circumstances. However, authorized officials 
should allow ample time for the remote pilot to provide a form of 
identification and remote pilot certificate in a safe manner.
    NFL, MLB, NASCAR, and NCAA, in a joint submission, expressed their 
support for the proposed changes to

[[Page 4363]]

Sec.  107.7, noting it is essential that local law enforcement 
officials have the authority to request remote pilot certificates 
because local law enforcement provides security services at the 
sporting events. The sports organizations also recommended adding 
private security officials who work with local law enforcement to 
enforce a temporary flight restriction or section 2209 designation to 
the list of individuals authorized to request remote pilot certificates 
and identification. Federal, State, and local law enforcement officers 
hold the appropriate authority to verify the identity of a remote 
pilot. The Agency declines to speculate on the division of authority 
within Federal, State, and local law enforcement organizations.
    A few commenters opposed the FAA's proposal to require UAS 
operators to present their pilot certification and identification to 
officials outside the FAA on request. These commenters supported the 
requirement to present their credentials to an FAA official who 
understands the regulations, but noted officials outside the FAA are 
not trained or supervised by the FAA, and were concerned about their 
ability to properly handle situations involving small UAS operations as 
a result. Another commenter suggested the small UAS operator should be 
required to present the documents if an incident occurs. Other 
individual commenters did not oppose the proposed provision, but 
recommended that the FAA work on educating law enforcement officials 
about who may operate UAS, and where, how and when they may operate. 
NASAO asked for clarification regarding Federal, State, or local 
officials requesting proof of an operator's license and requested the 
Agency provide a clearer definition of the intent for enforcement.
    The Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) and the News Media 
Coalition commented that remote pilots in command should only be 
required to present their credentials when officials have reasonable 
suspicion that the remote pilot in command is engaging in criminal 
activity or violating FAA regulations. EFF asserted the proposed rule 
conflicts with existing Fourth Amendment law and to bring the proposal 
in line with the FAA's rationale, EFF recommended the Agency amend 
Sec.  107.7 to include the reasonable suspicion standard. The News 
Media Coalition indicated it does not oppose providing law enforcement 
with their certification papers under narrow and well-defined 
circumstances. However, the Coalition expressed concern that blanket 
authorization for local law enforcement to demand immediate 
presentation of papers would interfere with journalists' First 
Amendment rights to lawfully gather the news without unwarranted 
government interference. The Coalition also recommended that the FAA 
provide law enforcement with training on the regulations to avoid 
government overreach.
    To maintain the safety and security of the airspace, it is vital to 
know who is operating in the NAS.\88\ The FAA implements these 
regulatory inspection requirements as a measure to ensure this safety 
and security. The amended regulation neither abrogates the protections 
of the Fourth Amendment nor the responsibility to comply with it. The 
ability to identify remote pilots provides critical information to the 
Administrator, the NTSB, and law enforcement officials charged with 
ensuring public safety. Moreover, the amended regulation aligns the 
list of authorized individuals in Sec.  107.7 with not only Sec.  
61.3(l), but other longstanding FAA regulations with similar 
requirements.\89\ The FAA has continuously conducted outreach efforts 
with Federal, State, and local law enforcement on small UAS operations. 
Additionally, the FAA has the Law Enforcement Assistance Program 
(LEAP), which provides, as appropriate, aviation-related support and 
education to law enforcement agencies.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \88\ See Section III., Background A. Related FAA and DOT Actions 
4. Secure Operations of Small Unmanned Aircraft Systems.
    \89\ 14 CFR 65.49, 65.89, 65.95, 65.111.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

B. UAS Exemption-Holders

    The existing text of Sec.  107.1 excludes from the applicability of 
part 107 remote pilots who hold an exemption for a UAS operation 
pursuant to section 333 of Public Law 112-95. The text identifies the 
remote pilot as the person who is excluded from the applicability of 
part 107. This identification is imprecise, as the text should identify 
the excluded party as the exemption-holder, rather than the remote 
pilot. In addition, on October 5, 2018, the President signed the FAA 
Reauthorization Act of 2018. The statute codified within title 49 of 
the United States Code the authority previously provided in section 333 
of Public Law 112-95. As a result, the citation within Sec.  
107.1(b)(3) should reflect 49 U.S.C. 44807 as the exemption authority. 
The NPRM proposed rephrasing the text of Sec.  107.1(b)(3), 
accordingly. The Agency did not receive any comments on this change and 
adopts it, as proposed.

C. Remote Pilot in Command

    Section 107.19 outlines the responsibilities of the remote pilot in 
command under part 107. Following the promulgation of part 107, the FAA 
identified the need for a minor edit to paragraph (c) of Sec.  107.19, 
which currently requires each remote pilot in command to ``ensure the 
small unmanned aircraft will pose no undue hazard to other people, 
other aircraft, or other property in the event of a loss of control of 
the aircraft for any reason.'' The Agency proposed to amend the phrase 
``loss of control of the aircraft'' to say ``loss of control of the 
small unmanned aircraft,'' for clarity.\90\ The Agency did not receive 
any comments on this change and adopts it, as proposed.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \90\ 84 FR 3856, 3893.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

D. Operation of Multiple Small UAS

    The proposed rule included an amendment to the existing text of 
Sec.  107.35, which prohibits contemporaneous operation of more than 
one small unmanned aircraft. Following the promulgation of part 107, 
the FAA realized the use of the term ``operate'' in Sec.  107.35 could 
result in the perception that a single company or operator was 
prohibited from employing more than one remote pilot in command and 
conducting more than one small UAS operation at the same time. The 
proposed change to this section will allow companies to run two or more 
simultaneous small UAS operations, provided each aircraft is under the 
control of its own remote pilot in command.
    Two commenters addressed the proposed change to Sec.  107.35. ALPA 
supported the proposed change, saying it clarifies the difference 
between flight operations by a company and the remote pilot in command. 
ALPA also strongly supported the restriction that each small UAS remote 
pilot only be in control of one small unmanned aircraft at any given 
time. The Small UAV Coalition said it does not object to this 
provision; however, it noted that the prohibition is subject to a 
waiver under Sec.  107.205. The Agency adopts the amendatory language, 
as proposed.

XII. Section 44807 Statutory Findings

    To determine whether certain UAS may operate safely in the NAS 
pursuant to 49 U.S.C. 44807, the Secretary must find that the operation 
of the UAS would not create a hazard to users of the NAS or the public. 
The Secretary must also determine whether a certificate under 49 U.S.C. 
44703 (``Airman certificates'') or section 44704 (``Type

[[Page 4364]]

certificates, production certificates, and airworthiness certificates, 
and design and production organization certificates''), or a 
certificate of waiver or certificate of authorization, is required for 
the operation of UAS, which includes small UAS subject to this rule. In 
the NPRM, the Secretary proposed to determine, using a risk-based 
approach, that small UAS operations under this rule would operate 
safely in the NAS; the individual findings that section 44807 requires 
are as follows.

A. Hazards to Users of the NAS or the Public

    Section 44807(b)(1) requires the Secretary to determine which types 
of small UAS operations do not create a hazard to users of the NAS or 
the public. In the NPRM, the Secretary proposed to find that small UAS 
operations subject to this rule would not create a hazard to users of 
the NAS or the public. The FAA invited comments on this proposed 
finding.
    Several commenters expressed general concerns about introducing 
small UAS into the NAS. Other commenters were concerned about potential 
risks that small UAS would pose to the manned aircraft operating at the 
same low level altitude. HAI, American Airlines, A4A, NAAA all stated 
they supported the expansion of small UAS operations, but requested the 
FAA specifically consider the potential risk of small UAS operations to 
manned aircraft, particularly those operating in low-altitude airspace. 
American Airlines referred the FAA to its comments submitted to the 
docket for the Safe and Secure Operations of Small Unmanned Aircraft 
Systems ANPRM for a discussion on its safety and security concerns. 
AMOA and AAMS, commenting jointly, also expressed concern that the 
proposed rule does not fully acknowledge the collision risk posed by an 
increase in UAS operations to low-altitude manned aircraft and ``relies 
too heavily and without adequate foundation on the skills of the UAS 
remote pilot to avoid conflict.'' NAAA noted UAS present a hazard to 
low-flying pilots similar to that presented by birds, which is 
significant because, according to NAAA, aircraft-wildlife strikes are 
the second leading cause of aviation related fatalities.
    Drone Safe Communities stated the NPRM fails to address ``the risks 
posed by unauthorized UAS operations by negligent or malicious users.'' 
As such, the commenter asserted the FAA should focus on including 
unauthorized users in its analysis and in developing counter UAS 
technologies to enforce UAS regulations and integrate UAS into the NAS. 
The commenter criticized the FAA for providing guidance that tells 
facility owners to call local law enforcements during such sightings 
rather than dealing with these disruptions as an agency, especially 
because local enforcement agencies may not have the resources to deal 
with such risks.
    In contrast to commenters who felt the FAA did not adequately 
consider the risks associated with introducing small UAS operations to 
the NAS, Precision Hawk stated the FAA was ``singularly focused'' on 
such risks, while failing to consider all the benefits small UAS 
operations would bring related to worker safety. This commenter noted 
that small UAS offer multiple opportunities to enhance employee and 
public safety and save lives by obviating the need for manned aircraft 
flight in particularly hazardous mission situations.
    Through this rule, the Secretary addresses commenters' safety 
concerns and suggestions for considering increased opportunities that 
small UAS operations present. The requirements of part 107 mitigate the 
risks to manned aircraft by requiring the remote pilot to maintain 
visual line of sight of the small unmanned aircraft and to give way to 
manned aircraft at all times. In addition, this rule includes 
requirements that mitigate the risks associated with an increase in 
small UAS operations. For example, the anti-collision lighting required 
for nighttime operations, as discussed in detail in Section IX, 
increases operators' awareness of a small UAS operating within the same 
airspace. Moreover, this rule publishes concurrently with the final 
rule for Remote Identification of Unmanned Aircraft Systems, which 
addresses the security considerations raised. The FAA has developed 
relationships of mutual interest with law enforcement to address the 
safety and security concerns prompted by the proliferation of small UAS 
operations. To facilitate the safe integration of small UAS, the Agency 
must develop regulatory pathways for operation. This rule is an 
important step in enabling safe operations by balancing the risk of 
those operations with operational and design requirements that mitigate 
it. As previously discussed in Section IV.A.1., the safety record of 
175 waiver holders, as of September 2020, to conduct operations over 
people have reported no injuries to persons on the ground and no damage 
to property on the ground exceeding $500.00. Considering the safety 
record of these waivers for operations over people, the available 
safety data supports the determination that operations over people can 
occur safely in accordance with this rule.

B. Certificate Requirements

    Additionally, 49 U.S.C. 44807(b)(2) requires the Secretary to 
determine whether small UAS operations subject to this proposed rule 
pose a safety risk sufficient to require airworthiness certification or 
airman certification. The Secretary proposed to find, pursuant to 49 
U.S.C. 44807(b)(2), that airworthiness certification is unnecessary for 
small UAS subject to this proposed rule and that a certificate under 49 
U.S.C. 44703 should remain a requirement.
    AMOA and AAMS, commenting jointly, stated the lack of discussion in 
the NPRM section pertaining to Section 44807 Statutory Findings made it 
difficult to determine what the significance of this proposed 
requirement will be. They sought clarification on what this requirement 
would mean for part 107 pilots, inquiring whether remote pilots would 
need medical certificates or be listed in the national pilot database.
    The findings of the Secretary are based on compliance with the 
requirements outlined in this rule. The requirements and limitations of 
part 107, as amended by this rule, indicate small UAS operations can 
occur safely without the small UAS having an airworthiness certificate. 
For example, under the existing requirements of part 107, a remote 
pilot must conduct a pre-flight inspection in accordance with Sec.  
107.49. The remote pilot would, if operating over people, ensure that 
the aircraft meets the eligibility requirements to operate over people, 
as discussed in the preamble of this rule. Similarly, operations at 
night may only occur after the remote pilot has taken the updated 
knowledge test or training that includes content on night operations 
and when the small unmanned aircraft maintains an illuminated and 
flashing anti-collision light. This rule does not require pilots 
conducting operations under part 107 to hold a medical certificate. 
Remote pilots who hold a part 107 certificate, however, will remain 
included in the national pilot database; such inclusion is a necessary 
means of oversight. Moreover, the Secretary finds small UAS operations 
can occur safely under part 107 as long as the remote pilot holds a 
remote pilot certificate, pursuant to Sec.  107.12.

[[Page 4365]]

XIII. Other Considerations

A. Liability

    Several commenters suggested the FAA should require UAS operators 
hold valid liability insurance or require that operators be liable for 
property damage or personal injury arising out of an accident involving 
UAS, especially for operations of small UAS at night. Some commenters 
stated the FAA should set the minimum coverage standards. Another 
commenter addressed product liability, stating manufacturers should not 
be liable for the misuse of their products.
    In response to commenters' suggestions that there be an insurance 
requirement for operations over people or at night, the FAA notes that 
it lacks jurisdiction to mandate the purchase of liability insurance. 
Similarly, OST also lacks authority to impose liability insurance 
requirements on small UAS operations covered by this rule because those 
operations do not rise to the level of air transportation.\91\ However, 
the Department emphasizes that remote pilots who offer these types of 
services are responsible for the operation, and could be held liable 
for any injury or damage that could result. Prudent remote pilots 
should evaluate their existing insurance policies to determine whether 
they have appropriate coverage for these operations.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \91\ As discussed in the part 107 final rule, air carriers 
(which are not included in this rule) are subject to liability 
insurance requirements. 81 FR 42064 at 42074-75. See 49 U.S.C. 41112 
(noting that the Secretary may issue a certificate to a citizen of 
the United States to provide air transportation as an air carrier 
only if the citizen complies with the Secretary's orders and 
regulations governing the filing of an insurance policy or self-
insurance plan).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Finally, this rule did not propose operators obtain insurance 
coverage for operations subject to this rule. The Agency considers 
comments concerning insurance and liability as outside the scope of the 
rule.

B. Privacy

    Commenters cited privacy issues as reasons for opposing the 
proposed rule. The FAA acknowledges that privacy issues could be a 
concern with operations over people; however, the proposed performance-
based rule focuses on the risk of injury involved with operations over 
people and does not address privacy issues. EPIC believed that the 
unrestricted use of small unmanned aircraft over protests could have a 
chilling effect on free speech. They also stated people over whom a 
small unmanned aircraft flies should receive advance warning, both at 
public events and in closed or restricted-access sites. Similarly, the 
News Media Coalition wrote that restrictions on operations over people 
raise First Amendment concerns, such as when police departments set a 
perimeter around an accident or incident site that prevents a fly-over. 
An individual commenter recommended that the FAA conduct an information 
campaign to reduce the concerns the public might have related to 
privacy.
    Although the Agency is not authorized to impose regulations based 
on privacy concerns, the FAA has collaborated with the public, 
stakeholders, and other agencies with authority and subject matter 
expertise in privacy law and policy. As stated in the 2016 final rule, 
the FAA's mission is to provide the safest, most efficient aerospace 
system in the world, and does not include regulating privacy or free 
speech.\92\ Privacy issues are outside the focus and scope of the rule. 
The FAA emphasizes, however, that this rule does not relieve the 
operator from complying with other laws or regulations that are 
applicable to the purposes for which the operator is using the small 
UAS.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \92\ 81 FR 42064 at 42190-42192.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

C. Noise From Unmanned Aircraft

    Several commenters state that noise was potentially an issue with 
operations over people. The comments were mostly general, citing 
concerns about nighttime operations disturbing sleep, noise that might 
be created in recreational areas that people visit to get away from 
noise, and that small UAS should generally be banned in residential 
areas. A few suggestions were more specific, such as limiting small UAS 
operations to an unspecified straight-line distance from structures and 
people to alleviate noise and privacy concerns, prohibiting operations 
within 30 feet of people, allowing operations over roadways to lessen 
impacts on noise-sensitive locations like schools and hospitals, and 
education of remote pilots as to local noise ordinances for nighttime 
operation. A few commenters conclude that compared to current ambient 
noise levels of cars, large aircraft, and ``heavy lift UAS,'' small UAS 
operations would not contribute noticeably to noise. One commenter 
states that the FAA said the Agency did not have authority over noise; 
that statement is an incorrect reading of the proposed rule.
    The FAA primarily manages aircraft source noise as a matter of 
aircraft certification rather than operational restrictions. The FAA is 
aware that limited data are available quantifying the acoustics of most 
unmanned aircraft and almost none relating to the effect on people when 
unmanned aircraft of any size are operated in close proximity. When the 
FAA promulgated part 107, it determined that it would not impose any 
noise requirements (in the form of testing individual aircraft) because 
of the limited size of small unmanned aircraft and the scope of 
operations that were allowed under that part. In the years since the 
adoption of part 107, however, the number of UAS operating has 
increased, the FAA has granted operational waivers, and the Agency is 
now expanding part 107 operations outside of the initial operational 
box. The expansion of the number of unmanned aircraft and their 
operations has outpaced FAA certification actions to measure and 
analyze noise from these aircraft, and the FAA has recently added UAS 
to its noise reporting portal workflow in response to increasing public 
awareness and concern for UAS operations near them. The FAA continues 
to seek and collect available noise data on more unmanned aircraft 
models, however, the efforts have faced challenges due to the rapid 
expansion of operations under part 107 with unmanned aircraft that are 
not required to be certificated under part 36.
    When an aircraft is presented for type certification under part 21, 
the FAA undertakes noise certification in accordance with part 36 
standards. To date, the Agency has treated unmanned aircraft as either 
small airplanes or rotorcraft depending on their means of flight. 
Manufacturers who seek type certification for unmanned aircraft--either 
because they exceed the 55 pound weight limit of part 107 or seek to 
operate outside part 107 limits (such as under part 91 or part 135)--
are tested and their noise levels measured, but the few already 
certificated have resulted in only incremental increases in the FAA's 
noise database on these aircraft. In addition, as larger unmanned 
aircraft are added to the fleet, there is increased potential for noise 
impacts. Accordingly, the FAA has begun to apply more relevant test 
procedures and noise limits for new unmanned aircraft models presented 
for type certification under part 21.\93\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \93\ These standards are being applied to individual 
certification projects as they are presented and found appropriate, 
with the complementary intent of informing future standards of 
general applicability for UAS noise in part 36.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The forecasted proliferation of unmanned aircraft that weigh less 
than 55 pounds has led the FAA to assess its future ability to analyze 
and understand the noise impacts of unmanned aircraft. As the operating 
environment expands to include more operations over people that are not 
directly participating in the operation, the FAA will need to address

[[Page 4366]]

eventual test procedures and the criteria for determining which of 
these aircraft would require noise testing. Current part 36 
certification test procedures and noise standards were not developed 
for aircraft that are designed to take off, land, or operate (including 
hover) close to people not directly participating in the operation.
    The FAA has broad authority to address the noise of all 
aircraft.\94\ This authority applies whether the aircraft are presented 
for traditional type certification under part 21 or, as small unmanned 
aircraft may, seek some other operational authority such as special 
airworthiness certification. Consequently, the FAA has begun to 
consider proposing test requirements and noise limits for unmanned 
aircraft that are not type certificated under part 21. The FAA is aware 
that expanding noise requirements beyond the category of traditional 
type certification applicants may have broad impacts on aircraft models 
newly subject to noise certification requirements. The FAA is also 
aware that a new regulatory framework might be necessary to identify 
the aircraft that would be included in noise certification, the limits 
of the noise they would be allowed to generate, and what entities would 
be responsible for testing and compliance, such as the manufacturer or 
the end user. Because this is a complex topic and will need to focus on 
issues of testing and certification that have yet to be proposed, the 
FAA has chosen not to promulgate any certification requirements as part 
of this rulemaking, but is considering future rulemaking actions that 
will present the available data and noise concerns for full public 
input.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \94\ See 49 U.S.C. 44715(a) and (b).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

D. Other Comments

    Several comments were not explicitly relevant to the requirements 
of the proposed rule. For example, several commenters requested the FAA 
modify the requirements for small UAS operations under part 107, to 
address operations at or over National Parks and to reduce the number 
of ``no-fly zones.'' Other commenters suggested amending the 
requirements applicable to operating beyond visual line-of-sight, 
altitude restrictions, and speed limits under part 107. Some commenters 
suggested imposing equipage and design requirements, including 
transponders and ``lock down mechanisms.'' A few commenters believed 
certificated pilots should have more freedom to fly where they want. 
Another commenter opined small UAS should be able to fly ``whenever and 
wherever,'' except near airports and other sensitive places. One 
commenter wrote that everyone should have some type of certificate 
indicating ``they know the rules of the airspace,'' and it should be 
easy for these small UAS pilots to fly close to airports.
    This rule expands operations over people and at night, as proposed, 
with the addition of allowing operations over moving vehicles. The 
Agency did not propose to amend other restrictions codified in part 
107, such as the requirement that the small unmanned aircraft remain 
within visual line of sight and restrictions regarding airspace in 
which the operation occurs. Likewise, the proposed rule did not 
consider requiring equipage such as transponders or mechanisms to stop 
a small unmanned aircraft from operating. While the Agency may consider 
amending existing limitations or requirements in future rulemakings, 
these matters are outside the scope of the NPRM for this rule.
    One commenter stated the Agency should not finalize the proposed 
rule until manufacturers design a jet engine that would not result in 
loss of engine performance if it ingests a small unmanned aircraft. 
This comment is beyond the scope of the proposed rule, as this rule did 
not propose to develop engine certification standards for manned 
aircraft.
    A commenter wrote that commercial pilots and ``licensed pilots'' 
must not be granted operating privileges different from those allowed 
any individual or hobbyist operator. This rule only addresses 
operations conducted under part 107, which does not differentiate 
between the types of operations conducted. As a result, this comment is 
outside the scope of the NPRM for this rule.
    Although this rule does not apply to operations that flyers conduct 
under 49 U.S.C. 44809 (``Exception for Limited Recreational Operations 
of Unmanned Aircraft''), the FAA received comments concerning 
recreational operations. Several commenters, indicating they are 
recreational operators or hobbyists, stated the proposed regulations 
are unreasonable, do nothing to improve safety, would stifle innovation 
of technology and sales of UAS, and would destroy the recreational UAS 
market. First Person View Freedom Coalition (FPVFC) recommended the FAA 
waive certain requirements in this rule for recreational pilots and 
their small UAS. Others recommended FAA establish a different set of 
rules for recreational operators than commercial operators. Part 107 
does not specify purposes of operation to which the part applies. All 
persons operating under part 107 must meet all requirements of part 107 
for the operation. To the extent that FPVFC suggests the rule should 
not apply to recreational operations, this comment is out of scope 
because any person operating a small UAS for recreational purposes may 
operate under the Limited Exception for Recreational Aircraft, as long 
as the operation fulfills all criteria of 49 U.S.C. 44809(a).

E. Regulatory Analysis--Benefits and Costs

    Several commenters provided comments on the general and specific 
benefits and costs of the proposed rule. Commenting generally on the 
benefits of the commercial UAS industry, AUVSI stated, ``investment in 
the commercial UAS industry is growing significantly and is projected 
to increase rapidly in the coming years, contributing to the U.S. 
economy and creating tens of thousands of jobs.'' AUVSI also quoted a 
Department of the Interior (DOI) observation that, ``[a]cross nearly 
19,000 drone flights flown to date, [DOI] has observed a rule of thumb 
that a drone can complete a given task in 1/7th the time and at 1/10th 
the cost of traditional means of accomplishing the same task.''
    The FAA thanks AUVSI for providing statistics pertaining to the 
Department of the Interior UAS program. The FAA continues to work 
toward the integration of unmanned aircraft in the NAS and enabling 
economic opportunity for manufacturers of unmanned aircraft, part 107 
operators, and providers of UAS-related services.
    Deseret UAS pointed to a Morgan Stanley report which estimates that 
the market for Urban Air Mobility (UAM) could be at $1.5 trillion by 
2040. The commenter also pointed to a Goldman Sachs report which 
estimates that the global UAM is expected to surpass $100 billion in 
the next 5 years. The commenter stated that operations over people and 
at night are necessary for UAM.
    The FAA recognizes the market potential for UAM, and is in the 
process of type certification for six urban air mobility aircraft.\95\ 
While these aircraft would operate over people and at night, it would 
not be under part 107 regulations. As currently written, part 107 
regulates the operation and certification of unmanned aircraft 
weighting less than 55 pounds (including payload), thus UAM aircraft

[[Page 4367]]

would not operate in accordance with part 107.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \95\ https://www.aviationtoday.com/2020/01/14/six-urban-air-mobility-aircraft-well-along-type-certification-faas-merkle-says/.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    CDA stated that the NPRM failed to properly weigh risk against 
benefits and that the public benefits of expanding commercial UAS 
operations has had, and will continue to have, a significant economic 
impact on the United States. CDA reported that with UAS activity rising 
from $40 million in 2012 to a projected annual impact of $31--$46 
billion in 2026, the benefits are substantial.
    The FAA continues rulemaking efforts to provide relief from part 
107 regulations by allowing operations that pose minimal risk. 
Accordingly, this rulemaking enables small UAS operations at night, 
over people, and over moving vehicles, therefore encouraging economic 
activity to occur that would otherwise only take place through a more 
costly and time-consuming waiver process.
    The Consumer Technology Association (CTA) states it is imperative 
for the FAA to strike the appropriate risk-based balance between 
innovation and safety. CTA asserted that the cost-benefit analysis 
contained in the NPRM does not adequately account for many benefits 
associated with small UAS operations over people, including lives that 
could be saved by less restrictive rules governing small UAS operations 
over people. CTA asserted that it ``is undisputed that sUAS 
operations--whether search and rescue, medical supply delivery, or 
other--will save a substantial number of lives and pose a risk of 
injury to the public.'' CTA said these factors must be balanced when 
evaluating whether to restrict small UAS operations over people and, to 
date, such an analysis has not been undertaken. CTA encouraged the FAA 
to revisit the cost-benefit analysis to account for such benefits 
properly. CTA also noted that the FAA is required to consider ``all 
costs and benefits of available regulatory alternatives'' (under 
Executive Order 12866) and to support its analysis by ``the best 
available science'' and to ``identify and use the best, most 
innovative, and least burdensome tools for achieving regulatory ends'' 
(under Executive Order 13563). CTA asserted that, although the NPRM 
lessens regulatory burdens, the FAA did not meet these required 
standards, because less restrictive alternatives exist and because the 
safety ``analysis'' includes ``presumptions not supported by scientific 
data.''
    In its comments, DJI similarly pointed to lives saved by UAS. Based 
on news reports, DJI estimated that small UAS have saved at least 227 
people ``from life-threatening peril'' in situations involving floods, 
fires, and missing persons. DJI also stated that it has learned from 
its customers that UAS make dangerous jobs--such as tower inspections, 
roof inspections, and firefighting--substantially safer. DJI wrote that 
regulations with a near-zero tolerance for minor risk will stifle 
innovation, impede beneficial operations, and be a net loss to public 
safety. CDA and an individual commenter similarly said that the risk-
benefit calculus should account for the risks associated with the 
activities that commercial small UAS operations would replace--i.e., 
the FAA should compare the safety benefit of using a small UAS rather 
than risking a human life.
    In response to these commenters, in the part 107 final rule 
published in June 2016, the FAA qualitatively discussed the safety 
benefits and cost savings resulting from the substitution of small 
unmanned aircraft for manned activities, such as climbing towers or 
inspecting infrastructure, and for activities traditionally performed 
by manned aircraft. Thus, many of the safety benefits identified by 
commenters were enabled on publication of the part 107 final rule. 
Nevertheless, this final rule will aid rescue personnel to perform 
operations with more efficiency and expediency since they will no 
longer be required to avoid operations over people and over moving 
vehicles, so long as the operations are conducted with eligible small 
unmanned aircraft.
    Also, the FAA agrees that enabling small UAS operations at night 
will result in lives saved. This final rule eliminates the burden of 
first obtaining a waiver before operating a small UAS at night, 
potentially enabling rescue operations that would otherwise not occur. 
DJI reports that 15 out of 65 rescues over a one-year period occurred 
at night using drones with thermal imaging capability.
    The AMOA and AAMS, commenting jointly, noted that the FAA's cost-
benefit discussion did not address the increased risk of proliferating 
numbers of small unmanned aircraft to low-altitude manned aircraft, 
such as rotorcraft. The commenter asked if FAA has concluded that there 
is no increased risk of harm to manned aircraft, crews, and passengers 
should the NPRM be finalized.
    The FAA agrees that this final rule will result in an increase in 
the number of small unmanned aircraft operating in the airspace, 
particularly at night. However, this risk is mitigated by existing 
regulations finalized in the 2016 rule. Regulations contained in part 
107 stipulate that: (1) Small unmanned aircraft must yield the right of 
way to all other users of the NAS and requires that the small unmanned 
aircraft always be the one to initiate an avoidance maneuver to avoid 
collision with any other user of the NAS, and (2) the operation of a 
small unmanned aircraft cannot be so close to another aircraft as to 
create a collision hazard.
    Some commenters wrote that section 44809 of the FAA Reauthorization 
Act of 2018 requires FAA to develop a test for recreational operations 
that can be administered online and that this should be extended to 
part 107 remote pilot certification, thereby reducing the cost 
associated with the initial knowledge test.
    The FAA notes that an application for a certificate must be in a 
form and manner prescribed by the Administrator under 49 U.S.C. 44702. 
A person who seeks to obtain a remote pilot certificate, with a small 
UAS rating that does not hold a part 61 certificate (other than a 
student pilot certificate) must take the part 107 aeronautical 
knowledge test at an approved knowledge testing center. Because of the 
need for testing security and applicant identification, part 107 
initial knowledge testing for certification cannot be administered 
through an online testing platform. The requirement for a knowledge 
test applicant to verify their identity in person at a test center will 
remain, as will the requirement for a test proctor. Both of these 
requirements are consistent with part 107 and other regulatory 
frameworks for knowledge testing. The FAA Reauthorization Bill of 2018 
requirement for the FAA to have an online test for limited recreational 
operators does not statutorily extend to part 107 remote pilot 
certification. The FAA clarifies that part 107 does not mandate formal 
training to obtain a remote pilot certificate, and any cost that a part 
107 applicant incurs is at their discretion. The FAA contracts its 
testing delivery through a third party vendor that allows the FAA to 
enter into a contract that provides a zero cost model to the U.S. 
government and to the taxpayers. The testing vendor has many locations 
throughout the United States that are close to large and small 
population centers, therefore the requirement to take a knowledge test 
at a testing location is not an undue burden on applicants.
    An individual commenter pointed out that the FAA notes the safety 
risk of the proposed rule to the public in the benefits section of the 
regulatory analysis, and then invites comments to speculate on the 
associated costs. Absent those comments, the commenter

[[Page 4368]]

asserted, ``the FAA assumes its safety precautions will be 
sufficient.'' The commenter also pointed out that the FAA said it may 
revise its regulatory impact analysis based on the data and comments it 
receives on the safety risks of the proposed rule. The commenter 
believed that the cost-benefit analysis could change ``tremendously'' 
if this negative externality were included. Another commenter 
acknowledged that there is a public need for the intended regulation, 
to encourage innovation and growth, but argued that it must be balanced 
against safety concerns. The commenter believed FAA has not addressed 
safety concerns in-depth. Specifically, the commenter said FAA has not 
established guidelines on how it will take account of life into its 
regulatory analysis. With respect to operations over people, the 
commenter said the FAA cannot focus on kinetic energy alone as an 
indicator of overall risk because it will not reflect real-world risks 
and disincentivize advancements in UAS technology that would otherwise 
increase safety. The commenter argued that FAA needs to factor in 
operational and technical mitigations in addition to kinetic energy. 
Another commenter encouraged the FAA to find a balance between safety 
and the cost of qualification for rules requiring qualification of 
manufactured UAS. The commenter asserted that inflated certification/
qualification costs will serve as a barrier to entry that will stunt 
innovation.
    The FAA acknowledges the commenters' concerns. However, the 
performance based requirements contained in this rule for the 
manufacture of small UAS would mitigate the risk of injury to 
individuals. Specifically, the four categories established by this rule 
mitigate the risks associated with operations over people. The lowest 
risk category, Category 1, sets a weight limit of 0.55 pounds for the 
small unmanned aircraft and everything otherwise attached and prohibits 
exposed rotating parts that could cause lacerations. Categories 2 and 3 
similarly prohibit the small unmanned aircraft from having any exposed 
rotating parts that could cause lacerations, in addition to injury 
severity limits and prohibition on safety defects. Finally, in response 
to commenters' concerns that the FAA did not sufficiently consider 
reliability or probability, this final rule includes Category 4, which 
would allow small UAS with an airworthiness certificate to operate over 
people. While the FAA requested public comment for data concluding that 
the injury severity limits should be changed, no such comments with 
supporting data were provided. The FAA acknowledges commenter concerns 
that inflated qualification/certification costs will serve as a barrier 
to entry that will stunt innovation. However, the FAA is confident that 
innovative manufacturers are capable of recovering the costs associated 
with designing aircraft that will mitigate risk of injury to persons on 
the ground.
    One commenter asked whether the analysis for the remote pilot 
operating instructions included instructions in multiple languages. The 
commenter suggested that, to address operational safety fully, manuals 
could provide instructions in multiple languages, which may change the 
FAA's page estimates for the remote pilot operating instructions. The 
commenter noted that requiring instructions in multiple languages would 
impose additional costs on manufacturers but would also provide 
benefits to operations and perhaps increase safety of the public.
    The FAA values the commenters concerns that manufacturers would 
need to provide remote pilot operating instructions in multiple 
languages. The FAA is not requiring the applicant to provide remote 
pilot operating instructions in a particular format, nor is it 
prescribing the method for making the instructions available. For 
example, an applicant could choose to provide the remote pilot 
operating instructions as part of the packaging of a small UAS, make 
them available electronically, or provide them in some other way. 
Applicants with products currently on the market are free to choose 
whether to incorporate the instructions into existing materials, or 
create a new set of instructions that are specific to operations over 
people.
    ASSURE commented on the cost of test methods related to operations 
over people. The commenter estimated that it would cost manufacturers 
between $30,000 and $35,000 to execute Transport Canada's 
Anthropomorphic Test Devices (ATD) tests and report results for certain 
multirotor and fixed-wing platforms ``up to the practical limitations 
of launchers that may or may not be able to reach vehicle terminal 
velocities especially for vehicles weighing more than 5lb and fixed-
wing platforms.'' ASSURE stated that, while Transport Canada's approach 
is a ``solid first attempt at approaching a consistent and standardized 
use of automotive test techniques and injury metrics,'' the approach 
requires refinement that could potentially reduce costs and align with 
the ASSURE Task A14 injury metrics. ASSURE also wrote that the NPRM's 
performance-based metrics ``may cost similar amounts of funding before 
standardized injury metrics are established for energy based test 
methods.'' ASSURE stated that energy-based test methods have been used 
for some of the Pathfinder Programs; however, the test methods have 
little correlation to skull fracture, head injury or neck injury that 
is required to assess injury severity due to the wide variety of 
vehicle and individual impact orientations that could potentially 
result for small unmanned aircraft impacts.
    The FAA thanks ASSURE for their comments and notes that ASSURE 
estimates the cost for a manufacturer to conduct its own means of 
compliance testing to be $55,000.\96\ This cost includes approximately 
$35,000 for an ATD Hybrid III head and neck, $16,800 for a National 
Instruments data acquisition system, $1,400 for MiniTech extrusions and 
hardware, and approximately $950 for additional materials and supplies. 
While the FAA-provided test method that was also used during the 
Pathfinder Programs did not directly correlate to a particular type of 
injury risk, the method meets the requirements of a means of compliance 
for the injury severity limits. A commenter noted that the FAA provides 
a comprehensive regulatory evaluation to help determine the benefits, 
costs, and cost savings, but said the Agency could do more to 
facilitate a plan to evaluate the proposed rule once it is issued. 
Specifically, the commenter recommended that FAA conduct two 
evaluations of the NPRM to see if the rule generates cost savings as 
predicted in the economic analysis and maintains overall safety. The 
first evaluation would focus on implementation (to ensure the resources 
and requirements of the rule are being implemented) and the second 
evaluation would focus on the impact of the rule to determine whether 
it achieved its intended outcomes. The commenter also stated that 
safety standards and injury measures should be identified, collected, 
and assessed to measure outcomes accurately, and that the rule should 
be periodically reviewed as technology continues to change.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \96\ http://www.assureuas.org/projects/deliverables/a14/ASSURE_A14_Final_Report_UAS_Ground_Collision_Severity_Evaluation_2017-2019.pdf. Testing method is described in Appendix C of Annex A: pp 
204-208.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The FAA values the commenter's suggestion to evaluate this rule 
after publication. In response, the FAA notes that post reviews of 
rulemakings and regulations are conducted in response to Congressional 
and presidential requirements, or directives. The Section

[[Page 4369]]

610 review (required by the Regulatory Flexibility Act) \97\ is one 
such review that occurs every ten years. The purpose of this review is 
to reexamine whether (1) the expected outcomes of the regulation have 
been achieved; (2) the Agency should retain, amend, or rescind the 
regulation; and/or (3) the actual benefits and costs of the implemented 
regulation correspond with estimates prepared at the time the 
regulation was issued. Reviews could occur more frequently as a result 
of petitions from parties affected, or in light of changes to specific 
technologies, industries or underlying standards.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \97\ Public Law 96-354, 94 Stat. 1164, 1169 (Sept. 16, 1980) 
codified at 5 U.S.C. 610. These reviews are referred to as Section 
610 reviews.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    DJI asserted generally that regulations that increase the cost of 
equipment or operational approvals will disproportionately impact small 
business.
    The FAA acknowledges DJIs comment that regulations can 
disproportionately impact costs to small businesses. According to the 
Small Business Administration (SBA), smaller firms bear a regulatory 
cost 36 percent greater than the cost of regulatory compliance carried 
by larger firms.\98\ These cost burdens include compliance, reporting, 
and recordkeeping.\99\ According to part 107 waiver analysis conducted 
by AUVSI, from the time the part 107 rule was finalized in June 2016 
through March 2020, the FAA granted 4,144 waivers.\100\ A vast majority 
of the waivers were for Sec.  107.29, daylight operations (3,813 
waivers granted), followed by Sec.  107.39 operations over people (125 
waivers granted). These two categories account for 95 percent of the 
waivers granted to date, and demonstrates the desire among entities to 
be able to conduct these types of operations. The AUVSI analysis 
indicates that a majority of the waivers granted were for entities with 
fewer than 10 employees that generate a revenue of under $1 million 
annually. While this final rule creates additional costs to operators, 
it also creates costs savings. These cost savings and the enabling 
activities allowed by this rule are anticipated to outweigh costs 
imposed on smaller and larger entities alike.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \98\ Nicole V. Crain and W. Mark Crain, ``The Impact of 
Regulatory Costs on Small Firms,'' U.S. Small Business 
Administration, September 2010. Page. iv. https://www.sba.gov/sites/default/files/The%20Impact%20of%20Regulatory%20Costs%20on%20Small%20Firms%20(Full).
pdf. Accessed January 22, 2020.
    \99\ U.S. Chamber of Commerce Foundation. The Regulatory Impact 
on Small Business: Complex. Cumbersome. Costly. Final Report. March 
2017. https://www.uschamberfoundation.org/smallbizregs/assets/files/Small_Business_Regulation_Study.pdf. Accessed January 22, 2020.
    \100\ https://www.auvsi.org/sites/default/files/PDFs/Waiver%20Update%20Mar%202020_v3_PDF%20%281%29.pdf, https://public.tableau.com/shared/RBFRZM9PP?:display_count=y&:origin=viz_share_link&:showVizHome=no#1. 
Accessed April 10, 2020.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Approximately 23 commenters, including the National Agricultural 
Aviation Association and the Golden Gate Bridge Highway and 
Transportation District, said either that they approve of an insurance 
requirement for small UAS operators or that operators should be liable 
in the case of an accident. Approximately 16 of the 23 commenters said 
that insurance should be required. Seven of these commenters specified 
that insurance should be required for small UAS operations over people 
or at night. One of those commenters said that the FAA should set the 
minimum coverage standards. Two commenters believed FAA should require 
$1 million in insurance. One commenter said that manufacturers should 
not be liable for the misuse of their products.

XIV. Effective and Compliance Dates

A. Implementation Timeline for Night Operations and Recurrent Training 
Requirements

    Operations over people are permitted on the effective date of this 
rule, as long as the small UAS meets all eligibility requirements for 
the appropriate category. For example, an unmanned aircraft weighing 
less than 0.55 pounds, including everything attached, and with no 
exposed rotating parts that would cause a laceration may operate on the 
effective date. Section V discusses the requirements for Category 1 
small unmanned aircraft. Similarly, as discussed in Section VII, small 
UAS with an airworthiness certificate issued under part 21 would be 
able to operate under part 107 on the effective date of the rule, 
provided the operating limitations for the small UAS do not prohibit 
operations over people.
    Given that Categories 2 and 3 require a multi-step process to meet 
the eligibility requirements, the FAA does not anticipate that many, if 
any, small UAS will be able to operate immediately on the effective 
date. Means of compliance applicants may submit the means of compliance 
to the FAA either by email or through the U.S. mail. Applicants may 
submit their declaration of compliance through an online portal on the 
FAA website. On receipt, the FAA would review the submitted declaration 
of compliance for acceptance and notify the applicants of their 
acceptance status. Incomplete declarations of compliance will not be 
accepted. Section VI discusses the requirements for Categories 2 and 3. 
With regard to the operations over people waivers issued prior to the 
effective date of this rule, the FAA will review these on a case-by-
case basis and determine next steps as appropriate.
    On the effective date of this rule, persons are permitted to 
conduct operations at night, provided they successfully complete the 
updated initial aeronautical knowledge test, initial training, and 
recurrent training, as applicable, which addresses the requirements of 
operating at night and that the small unmanned aircraft has lighted 
anti-collision lighting visible for at least 3 statute miles that has a 
flash rate sufficient to avoid a collision. Section IX.B. of this 
preamble provides a discussion of this requirement. The updated 
knowledge area on night operations for initial and recurrent training 
will be available on March 1, 2021, and will be accessible through the 
FAA website. The initial aeronautical knowledge test will have the 
updated knowledge area on night operations and will be available on 
March 1, 2021 at the knowledge testing centers. However, remote pilots 
without a waiver from Sec.  107.29 will need to wait until March 16, 
2021 before operating at night.
    Sixty days after the effective date of the rule, no person may 
operate a small UAS at night in accordance with a certificate of waiver 
issued prior to the effective date of the rule. Existing waivers from 
Sec.  107.29 granted prior to the effective date will terminate 60 days 
after the effective date of the rule. Similarly, on the effective date 
of this rule, pilots will be subject to the recurrent training 
requirement finalized in this rule, rather than the recurrent knowledge 
test. Remote pilots conducting operations in accordance with a current 
night waiver will need to complete the updated night operations 
knowledge area either by retaking the initial aeronautical knowledge 
test or completing the recurrent online training within 60 days from 
the effective date of this rule. The other amendments described in 
Section XI will also take effect on the effective date of this rule. 
The FAA did not receive any comments specific to the effective and 
compliance dates of this final rule, with the exception of comments 
that discussed coordination with the Remote Identification final rule, 
as discussed in the following section.

B. Compliance With Remote Identification

    The NPRM noted the FAA planned to finalize its policy concerning 
remote identification of UAS before finalizing

[[Page 4370]]

the proposed changes in this rulemaking that pertain to operations over 
people and operations at night. Concurrent with publication of this 
final rule, this edition of the Federal Register also includes the 
Remote ID final rule.
    Several commenters, including A4A, Vigilent, and NAAA, suggested 
implementing the requirements of the Remote ID rule before finalizing 
this rule. APPA, EEI, and NRECA, commenting together, agreed the FAA 
should expedite the release of a Remote ID rulemaking. However, APPA, 
EEI, and NRECA were concerned the utility industry would not benefit 
from the ``advances'' of small UAS operations over people due to the 
delays associated with the Remote ID rulemaking. A commenter believed 
this rule should be delayed until the FAA has implemented remote 
identification requirements and increased the number of operations over 
people waivers with the goal of gathering more data.
    The NFL, MLB, NASCAR, and NCAA commented that the FAA should deploy 
a comprehensive ``Remote ID framework'' as soon as possible. The sports 
organizations strongly encouraged the ``agency's efforts to implement a 
Remote ID requirement for all drones that present any risk of use at a 
sporting event.'' API believed that without the capability of remote 
identification and tracking, the FAA and law enforcement will face 
serious challenges in locating offenders. EPIC argued that the open-air 
assembly prohibition should apply to all categories, and not just 
Category 3. It specifically stated that a ``modified version'' of this 
prohibition should apply to all operations over people.
    In response to these comments, and others, this final rule 
prohibits sustained flight over open-air assemblies for Categories 1, 
2, and 4, unless the operation is conducted using a standard remote 
identification unmanned aircraft or a remote identification broadcast 
module in compliance with Sec.  89.110 or Sec.  89.115(a) (remote 
identification operational and broadcast requirements for standard 
remote identification unmanned aircraft or unmanned aircraft with 
remote identification broadcast modules). The FAA may waive this 
requirement as appropriate. However, conditions of any waiver issued 
may require the operator to notify local law enforcement prior to the 
operation. All small unmanned aircraft operations are subject to remote 
identification requirements upon the applicable remote identification 
compliance date, as specified in the Remote Identification for Unmanned 
Aircraft final rule. Airzus, Inc. believed that, until remote 
identification or other operational awareness efforts are codified, the 
FAA should consider the success of the LAANC system as a ``model for 
how self-reporting technologies can aid in furthering economic growth 
in the industry, while still emphasizing safety and flight awareness.'' 
A commenter recommended a public portal for reporting intended 
operations involving flights over people or at night without the need 
for special permission. Several commenters suggested requiring remote 
pilots to file a flight plan prior to operating over people: Flytcam 
suggested pilots should submit the locations and times of their 
operations into the DroneZone.\101\ Concerned the elimination of 
waivers would erode the FAA's ability to identify operators of small 
UAS, a commenter recommended requiring an ``electronic license plate--
basically a simple signal that broadcasts identifying information.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \101\ https://faadronezone.faa.gov/.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    DJI and AUVSI both commented that there should be no more delay, 
stating the Agency should issue Remote ID and this rulemaking 
simultaneously to keep pace with the integration of small UAS into the 
NAS. DJI, along with several individuals, wanted the rules allowing 
Category 1 operations to finalize as soon as possible, noting they 
should be excluded from Remote ID requirements as they would likely 
impose negligible risk.
    As discussed previously, the FAA is publishing the Remote ID final 
rule simultaneously with this final rule, with the added open-air 
assembly prohibition as described in this section.

XV. Regulatory Notices and Analyses

    Changes to Federal regulations must undergo several economic 
analyses. First, Executive Order 12866 and Executive Order 13563 direct 
that each Federal agency shall propose or adopt a regulation only on a 
reasoned determination that the benefits of the intended regulation 
justify its costs. In addition, DOT rulemaking procedures in subpart B 
of 49 CFR part 5 instruct DOT agencies to issue a regulation on a 
reasoned determination that benefits exceed costs. Second, the 
Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 (Pub. L. 96-354) requires agencies 
to analyze the economic impact of regulatory changes on small entities. 
Third, the Trade Agreements Act (Pub. L. 96-39) prohibits agencies from 
setting standards that create unnecessary obstacles to the foreign 
commerce of the United States. In developing U.S. standards, this Trade 
Act requires agencies to consider international standards and, where 
appropriate, that they be the basis of U.S. standards. Fourth, the 
Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4) requires agencies 
to prepare a written assessment of the costs, benefits, and other 
effects of proposed or final rules that include a Federal mandate 
likely to result in the expenditure by State, local, or tribal 
governments, in the aggregate, or by the private sector, of $100 
million or more annually (adjusted for inflation with base year of 
1995). The FAA has provided a more detailed Regulatory Impact Analysis 
of this final rule in the docket of this rulemaking. This portion of 
the preamble summarizes the FAA's analysis of the economic impacts of 
this rule.
    In conducting these analyses, FAA has determined that this rule: 
(1) Has benefits that justify its costs, (2) is an economically 
``significant regulatory action'' as defined in section 3(f) of 
Executive Order 12866, (3) is not ``significant'' as defined in DOT's 
Regulatory Policies and Procedures; (4) will have a significant 
economic impact on a substantial number of small entities; (5) will not 
create unnecessary obstacles to the foreign commerce of the United 
States; and (6) will not impose an unfunded mandate on state, local, or 
tribal governments, or on the private sector by exceeding the threshold 
identified previously. These analyses are summarized in this section.

A. Regulatory Evaluation

1. Assumptions and Data
    The analysis of benefits and costs for the regulatory evaluation is 
based on the following assumptions.
     The analysis is conducted in 2020 constant dollars. Year 1 
of the period of analysis, which would correlate with the effective 
date of the final rule, is used as the base year.
     The FAA uses a 10-year period of analysis to capture the 
recurring effects of the rule.
     The FAA uses a three percent and seven percent discount 
rate for the costs and benefits as prescribed by OMB in Circular A-
4.\102\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \102\ OMB Circular A-4 (Sept. 17, 2003), https://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/whitehouse.gov/files/omb/circulars/A4/a-4.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

     The costs and cost savings of this rule are based on the 
fleet forecast for small UAS published in the Federal Aviation 
Administration's FAA Aerospace Forecast 2020-2040.\103\ Additionally, 
fleet forecasts for Category

[[Page 4371]]

1 small UAS and Category 4 small UAS are derived to more accurately 
reflect costs and cost savings for the final rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \103\ FAA Aerospace Forecast Fiscal Years 2020-2040 at 52, 
available at http://www.faa.gov/data_research/aviation/aerospace_forecasts/media/FY2020-40_FAA_Aerospace_Forecast.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

     Under the final rule, a means of compliance must be 
accepted by the FAA before it could be used by applicants to build UAS 
for operations over people and moving vehicles. Means of compliance are 
developed by persons or organizations to describe methods by which a 
UAS could be designed and produced to meet the performance requirements 
of this rule. The FAA anticipates that other entities, such as UAS 
manufacturers, could also submit a means of compliance to the FAA for 
acceptance and will incur additional costs. Further details on the 
costs to develop means of compliance are provided in the Regulatory 
Impact Analysis of this final rule in the docket of this rulemaking.
     The FAA estimates 31 existing models may satisfy the 
performance-based requirements of the rule for Categories 2 and 3 small 
UAS operations over people with little or no modification.\104\ 
Applicants of these models would be subject to the cost of submitting a 
declaration of compliance to the FAA. The FAA estimates that applicants 
would likely submit declarations of compliance for eight additional 
models in each of the subsequent years of the analysis.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \104\ The proposed rule assumed a cutoff weight of 4.4 lbs based 
on the Micro UAS Aviation Rulemaking Committee (ARC) final report. 
Since publication of the ARC final report, the FAA has granted 109 
waivers for operations of small UAS over people (as of 3/2/2020). 
These waivers give insight as to the type of vehicles conducting 
operations over people and show that a majority of the waivers 
granted have been for UA weighing 11.68 pounds or less. The part 107 
aircraft registry was analyzed for the number of models in this 
weight range. Based on this analysis, 31 of the models registered 
(for those models in the registry that could be identified by 
model), weighed 11.68 pounds or less. A copy of the ARC's final 
report is available in the public docket for this rulemaking.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

     The FAA assigns the United States Department of 
Transportation guidance on the hourly value of time and hourly value of 
travel time savings equal to $27.89 for the analysis period.\105\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \105\ Time savings is estimated to be median hourly wage plus 
benefits as described in the U.S. Department of Transportation 
Revised Departmental Guidance on Valuation of Travel Time in 
Economic Analysis (Sept. 27, 2016).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

     The FAA notes the analysis of this rule reflects industry 
conditions that predate the public health emergency concerning the 
coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). While there is currently a lack of 
data to forecast the timing of recovery relative to implementation of 
the rule, the analysis provides information on the types of impacts 
that may be experienced in the future as the economy returns to 
baseline levels. The FAA also notes the expanded operations enabled by 
this rule will benefit the economy and provide regulatory relief for 
remote pilots.
2. Summary of Benefits
    This rule will further integrate small UAS into the NAS by enabling 
operations over people and nighttime operations. These operations will 
benefit the economy and encourage innovation and growth across a 
variety of sectors, such as construction, education, infrastructure 
inspection, insurance, marketing, and event, film and sports 
photography.
    Today, remote pilots who comply with part 107 can fly a small 
unmanned aircraft within a safe distance from people, but are not able 
to operate over people who are not participating in the operation. 
Without this rule, the only entities allowed to operate small unmanned 
aircraft over people in the NAS are public entities holding an active 
certificate of waiver or authorization (COA), entities with an FAA-
issued exemption, entities that hold a waiver to the prohibition on 
operations over people provision of part 107, or small UAS that have 
received an airworthiness certificate from the FAA that does not 
prohibit operations over people who also operate with a COA. This rule 
will allow individuals to conduct operations of a small UAS over people 
in the NAS and at night under part 107, so long as the activity is 
conducted with a small UAS that complies with the provisions. The FAA 
quantifies cost savings from this rule in the following section along 
with a summary of important unquantified savings.
3. Summary of Costs and Savings
    The costs of this rule include the FAA converting the 
administration of recurrent tests to administration of training; 
manufacturers conducting testing, analysis, or inspection to comply 
with the requirements relevant to manufacturing a small UAS for 
operations over people; and, remote pilots studying additional subject 
matter related to activities enabled by the final rule. The cost 
savings of this rule includes relief provided through online training 
for remote pilots, and relief from time expended by the FAA for 
processing waivers.
    The FAA bases the analysis of this rule on a fleet forecast for 
small unmanned aircraft that includes base, low, and high scenarios. 
Accordingly, this analysis provides a range of net impacts from low to 
high based on these forecast scenarios. The FAA considers the base 
scenario as the primary estimate of net impacts of this rule. For the 
primary estimate, over a 10-year period of analysis this rule will 
result in present value net cost savings (savings less costs) of 
$688.27 million at a three percent discount rate, with annualized net 
cost savings of $80.69 million. At a seven percent discount rate, this 
rule will result in present value net cost savings of $551.31 million, 
with annualized net cost savings of $78.49 million. The following table 
summarizes the quantified costs and cost savings of this rule for the 
three forecast scenarios.

                          Table 2--Costs and Savings of Final Rule by Forecast Scenario
                                                  [$Millions] *
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                10-Year present    Annualized    10-Year present    Annualized
               Forecast scenario                   value (3%)         (3%)          value (7%)         (7%)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Base Scenario--Primary Estimate:
    Costs.....................................           146.44           17.17           119.98           17.08
    Cost Savings..............................         (834.71)         (97.85)         (671.28)         (95.58)
                                               -----------------------------------------------------------------
        Net Cost Savings......................         (688.27)         (80.69)         (551.31)         (78.49)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Low Scenario:
    Costs.....................................           102.96           12.07            85.32           12.15
    Cost Savings..............................         (616.60)         (72.28)         (501.51)         (71.40)
                                               -----------------------------------------------------------------

[[Page 4372]]

 
        Net Cost Savings......................         (513.64)         (60.21)         (416.19)         (59.26)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
High Scenario:
    Costs.....................................           207.17           24.29           169.27           24.10
    Cost Savings..............................       (1,158.84)        (135.85)         (927.41)        (132.04)
                                               -----------------------------------------------------------------
        Net Cost Savings......................         (951.67)        (111.56)         (758.14)        (107.94)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* Table notes: Columns may not sum to total due to rounding. Savings are shown in parenthesis to distinguish
  from costs.

    The following tables summarize quantified costs and cost savings by 
provision category for the three forecast scenarios.

                 Table 3.a--Costs and Savings of Final Rule by Provision Category ($Millions) *
                                        [Base scenario--Primary estimate]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                10-Year present  Annualized (at  10-Year present  Annualized (at
                   Category                      value (at 3%)         3%)        value (at 7%)         7%)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Costs:
    Standards Development Costs for MOC.......             3.18            0.37             2.88            0.41
    Applicant Costs for Testing and DOC.......             4.39            0.51             3.76            0.54
    Remote Pilot Costs--Additional Content for           138.57           16.24           113.06           16.10
     Tests....................................
    FAA Costs.................................             0.31            0.04             0.28            0.04
                                               -----------------------------------------------------------------
        Total Costs...........................           146.44           17.17           119.98           17.08
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Cost Savings:
    Remote Pilot Savings--Training in lieu of          (593.73)         (69.60)         (479.17)         (68.22)
     Testing..................................
    Part 107 Operators--Reduced Waiver                 (209.58)         (24.57)         (167.10)         (23.79)
     Requests.................................
    FAA--Reduced Waiver Processing............          (31.40)          (3.68)          (25.01)          (3.56)
                                               -----------------------------------------------------------------
        Total Cost Savings....................         (834.71)         (97.85)         (671.28)         (95.58)
        Net Cost Savings......................         (688.27)         (80.69)         (551.31)         (78.49)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* Table notes: For this and the following tables, columns may not sum to total due to rounding. Savings are
  shown in parenthesis to distinguish from costs.


                  Table 3.b--Costs and Savings of Final Rule by Provision Category ($Millions)
                                                 [Low scenario]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                10-Year present  Annualized (at  10-Year present  Annualized (at
                   Category                      value (at 3%)         3%)        value (at 7%)         7%)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Costs:
    Standards Development Costs for MOC.......             3.18            0.37             2.88            0.41
    Applicant Costs for Testing and DOC.......             4.39            0.51             3.76            0.54
    Remote Pilot Costs--Additional Content for            95.09           11.15            78.40           11.16
     Tests....................................
    FAA Costs.................................             0.31            0.04             0.28            0.04
                                               -----------------------------------------------------------------
        Total Costs...........................           102.96           12.07            85.32           12.15
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Cost Savings:
    Remote Pilot Savings--Training in lieu of          (443.11)         (51.95)         (362.47)         (51.61)
     Testing..................................
    Part 107 Operators--Reduced Waiver                 (151.01)         (17.70)         (121.04)         (17.23)
     Requests.................................
    FAA--Reduced Waiver Processing............          (22.48)          (2.63)          (18.00)          (2.56)
                                               -----------------------------------------------------------------
        Total Cost Savings....................         (616.60)         (72.28)         (501.51)         (71.40)
        Net Cost Savings......................         (513.64)         (60.21)         (416.19)         (59.26)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


[[Page 4373]]


                  Table 3.c--Costs and Savings of Final Rule by Provision Category ($Millions)
                                                 [High scenario]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                10-Year present  Annualized (at  10-Year present  Annualized (at
                   Category                      value (at 3%)         3%)        value (at 7%)         7%)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Costs:
    Standards Development Costs for MOC.......             3.18            0.37             2.88            0.41
    Applicant Costs for Testing and DOC.......             4.39            0.51             3.76            0.54
    Remote Pilot Costs--Additional Content for           199.30           23.36           162.35           23.12
     Tests....................................
    FAA Costs.................................             0.31            0.04             0.28            0.04
                                               -----------------------------------------------------------------
        Total Costs...........................           207.17           24.29           169.27           24.10
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Cost Savings:
    Remote Pilot Savings--Training in lieu of          (822.92)         (96.47)         (659.49)         (93.90)
     Testing..................................
    Part 107 Operators--Reduced Waiver                 (291.98)         (34.23)         (232.90)         (33.16)
     Requests.................................
    FAA--Reduced Waiver Processing............          (43.95)          (5.15)          (35.02)          (4.99)
                                               -----------------------------------------------------------------
        Total Cost Savings....................       (1,158.84)        (135.85)         (927.41)        (132.04)
        Net Cost Savings......................         (951.67)        (111.56)         (758.14)        (107.94)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The FAA also expects this rule will provide industry with important 
unquantified savings and efficiencies from reduced operational costs. 
The FAA did not identify data to quantify these operational cost 
savings due to the wide variety of small UAS applications and 
operations enabled by this rule. In addition, the rule provides 
flexibility and scalability through performance-based requirements that 
will support future industry innovation. The following table summarizes 
unquantified savings from the final rule.

                      Table 4--Unquantified Savings
------------------------------------------------------------------------
           Savings                              Summary
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Clearing people from areas of  Reduced burden and costs for certain
 operations.                    operators that will no longer need to
                                clear people from an area of operation
                                to avoid flight over people.
Circuitous routes............  Reduced operational costs for certain
                                operators that will no longer need to
                                perform circuitous routing to avoid
                                flight over people.
Fly over moving vehicles.....  Operational flexibility and reduced costs
                                for certain operators that will no
                                longer need to avoid operations over
                                moving vehicles.
Special conditions in waivers  In addition to the administrative cost
                                savings from operating without waivers
                                (i.e., reduced costs of submitting and
                                processing waiver requests), certain
                                operators may receive reduced operating
                                costs from avoided special conditions
                                often included in waivers that will not
                                be required under this rule.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Operations of small UAS over people may result in an increased risk 
to safety. Although the FAA expects the probability of injuries that 
may occur from operations of small UAS over people is low, when that 
low probability is multiplied by an increased number of operations, 
some additional risk of injury exists. This final rule's performance-
based requirements establish four categories of small UAS operations 
defined primarily by level of risk of injury posed. Compliance with the 
eligibility and operational requirements that apply to these categories 
mitigates the risks of operating over people.

B. Regulatory Flexibility Act

    The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 (Pub. L. 96-354) (RFA) 
establishes ``as a principle of regulatory issuance that agencies shall 
endeavor, consistent with the objectives of the rule and of applicable 
statutes, to fit regulatory and informational requirements to the scale 
of the businesses, organizations, and governmental jurisdictions 
subject to regulation. To achieve this principle, agencies are required 
to solicit and consider flexible regulatory proposals and to explain 
the rationale for their actions to assure that such proposals are given 
serious consideration.'' The RFA covers a wide-range of small entities, 
including small businesses, not-for-profit organizations, and small 
governmental jurisdictions.
    Agencies must perform a review to determine whether a rule will 
have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small 
entities. If the Agency determines that it will, the Agency must 
prepare a regulatory flexibility analysis as described in the RFA.
    Agencies must perform a review to determine whether a rule will 
have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small 
entities. If the Agency determines that it will, Section 604 of the Act 
requires agencies to prepare a Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis 
describing the impact of final rules on small entities.
    The FAA has determined this final rule will have a significant 
economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. Therefore, 
under the requirements in Section 604 of the RFA, the Final Regulatory 
Flexibility Analysis must address:
    (1) A statement of the need for, and objectives of, the rule;
    (2) A statement of the significant issues raised by the public 
comments in response to the initial regulatory flexibility analysis, a 
statement of the assessment of the Agency of such issues, and a 
statement of any changes made in the proposed rule as a result of such 
comments;
    (3) The response of the Agency to any comments filed by the Chief 
Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business Administration in response 
to the proposed rule, and a detailed statement of any change made to 
the proposed rule

[[Page 4374]]

in the final rule as a result of the comments;
    (4) A description of and an estimate of the number of small 
entities to which the rule will apply or an explanation of why no such 
estimate is available;
    (5) A description of the projected reporting, recordkeeping and 
other compliance requirements of the rule, including an estimate of the 
classes of small entities which will be subject to the requirement and 
the type of professional skills necessary for preparation of the report 
or record; and,
    (6) A description of the steps the Agency has taken to minimize the 
significant economic impact on small entities consistent with the 
stated objectives of applicable statutes, including a statement of the 
factual, policy, and legal reasons for selecting the alternative 
adopted in the final rule and why each one of the other significant 
alternatives to the rule considered by the Agency which affect the 
impact on small entities was rejected.
    Based on these requirements, the FAA has prepared the following 
Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis.
    (1) A statement of the need for, and objectives of, the rule.
    The FAA publishes this rule pursuant to the authority set forth in 
49 U.S.C. 44807. Section 44807 directs the Secretary of Transportation 
to determine whether ``certain unmanned aircraft systems may operate 
safely in the national airspace system.'' If the Secretary determines 
that certain unmanned aircraft systems may operate safely in the NAS, 
then the Secretary must ``establish requirements for the safe operation 
of such aircraft systems in the national airspace system, including 
operation related to research, development, and testing of proprietary 
systems.'' \106\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \106\ 49 U.S.C. 44807(c).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The FAA also publishes this rule pursuant to 49 U.S.C. 40103(b)(1) 
and (2), which charge the FAA with issuing regulations: (1) To ensure 
the safety of aircraft and the efficient use of airspace; and (2) to 
govern the flight of aircraft for purposes of navigating, protecting 
and identifying aircraft, and protecting individuals and property on 
the ground. In addition, 49 U.S.C. 44701(a)(5) charges the FAA with 
prescribing regulations that the FAA finds necessary for safety in air 
commerce and national security. Lastly, 49 U.S.C. 46105(c) allows the 
Administrator to issue immediate orders to address an emergency related 
to safety in air commerce.
    This rule is an important step in further integrating small UAS 
operations into the NAS. The FAA's overall objective in this rule is to 
ensure safety while encouraging new uses of small UAS in the NAS. This 
rulemaking finalizes performance-based requirements to allow small UAS 
to operate over people or at night under part 107 without obtaining a 
waiver or exemption. Currently under part 107, a remote pilot must 
obtain a waiver or exemption explicitly allowing operations over people 
or at night. As of February 14, 2020, the FAA has received 9,698 
requests for waiver to permit operation at night, 3,555 requests to 
permit operating over people, and 1,623 requests to permit operating 
over people at night.\107\ For operations over people, the FAA's 
performance-based requirements establish four categories of small UAS 
operations defined primarily by level of risk of injury posed. 
Additional eligibility requirements and operating limitations beyond 
those already in part 107 apply to certain categories of small UAS to 
mitigate the risks associated with each category.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \107\ As of April 6, 2020, part 107 Non-Airspace Waivers totaled 
36,130. Of these, 15,777 have been disapproved and 4,155 have been 
approved. Of the remaining waivers, 15,067 are in process, with 
another 1,131 withdrawn.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    This rule also removes the requirement for completing a recurrent 
aeronautical knowledge test at a knowledge testing center and replaces 
it with a requirement for online training. As a result, the remote 
pilot in command who does not also hold a certificate issued under part 
61 would be relieved of costs associated with recurrent knowledge 
testing every 24 calendar months. This rule also requires a remote 
pilot applicant to either pass a knowledge test or complete online 
training containing knowledge areas on night operations, before 
undertaking these types of operations.\108\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \108\ Testing or training is contingent upon whether the remote 
pilot applicant is a part 61 or non-part 61 remote pilot. Non-part 
61 remote pilot applicants are required to pass an initial knowledge 
test to be able to conduct night operations; part-61 remote pilot 
applicants have the flexibility to successfully complete either the 
knowledge test or online training to be able to conduct operations 
at night. For those individuals that have already received a remote 
pilot airman's certificate, online knowledge training is required 
before conducting night operations.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    (2) A statement of the significant issues raised by the public 
comments in response to the initial regulatory flexibility analysis, a 
statement of the assessment of the Agency of such issues, and a 
statement of any changes made in the proposed rule as a result of such 
comments.
    While there were no public comments specific to the initial 
regulatory flexibility analysis, one commenter asserted regulations 
that increase the cost of equipment or operational approvals will 
disproportionately impact small business. The FAA acknowledges that 
regulations disproportionately impact costs to small businesses, and 
cites an SBA sponsored study stating small firms bear a regulatory cost 
36 percent greater than the cost of regulatory compliance carried by 
larger firms.\109\ These cost burdens include compliance, reporting, 
and recordkeeping.\110\ In this particular rule, it follows that 
smaller applicants for a declaration of compliance will be 
disproportionately affected versus their larger counterparts in terms 
of costs associated with means of compliance testing. For the final 
rule, these costs are estimated to average between $11,000 to $26,000.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \109\ Nicole V. Crain and W. Mark Crain, ``The Impact of 
Regulatory Costs on Small Firms,'' U.S. Small Business 
Administration, September 2010. Page. iv. https://www.sba.gov/sites/default/files/The%20Impact%20of%20Regulatory%20Costs%20on%20Small%20Firms%20(Full).
pdf. Accessed January 22, 2020.
    \110\ U.S. Chamber of Commerce Foundation. The Regulatory Impact 
on Small Business: Complex. Cumbersome. Costly. Final Report. March 
2017. https://www.uschamberfoundation.org/smallbizregs/assets/files/Small_Business_Regulation_Study.pdf. Accessed January 22, 2020.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Other entities affected by the final rule are entities/operators of 
small UAS. AUVSI conducted an analysis on part 107 waivers issued by 
entity size. This analysis shows that over 87 percent of the waivers 
issued were issued to entities with fewer than 10 employees.\111\ 
Assuming that the share of small entities granted waivers is similar to 
the distributional share of all entities operating under part 107, this 
final rule will have a positive impact on small entities by allowing 
night operations, operations over people, and operations over moving 
vehicles without waiver.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \111\ For those waivers that AUVSI was able to find information 
on entity size, 1,365 were issued to entities with less than ten 
employees; 107 were issued to entities with 10 to 99 employees; 67 
were issued to entities with 100 to 999 employees; 20 were issued to 
entities with 1,000 to 9,999 employees, and 3 waivers were issued to 
entities with 100,000 or more employees.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    (3) The response of the Agency to any comments filed by the Chief 
Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business Administration in response 
to the proposed rule, and a detailed statement of any change made to 
the proposed rule in the final rule as a result of the comments.
    The Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business did not submit 
comments to the proposed rule.

[[Page 4375]]

    (4) A description of and an estimate of the number of small 
entities to which the rule will apply or an explanation of why no such 
estimate is available.
    This final rule impacts applicants seeking acceptance of a 
declaration of compliance from the FAA for small UAS eligible to 
conduct operations over people. The FAA analyzed the part 107 unmanned 
aircraft registry for aircraft weighing less than or equal to 11.68 
pounds, which aligns with the weight of small unmanned aircraft that 
have been granted waivers for operating over people.\112\ The registry 
indicates that small unmanned aircraft in this weight class are 
comprised of 31 different models which are built by eleven different 
manufacturers that are located in three different countries.\113\ Using 
the AUVSI business size standard, one manufacturer is identified as 
small (fewer than 50 employees); two manufacturers are identified as 
medium (50-499 employees); and five manufacturers are identified as 
large (more than 499 employees). Entity size was not known for three of 
the manufacturers.\114\ The table below shows key statistics for the 
eleven manufacturers by country of origin.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \112\ https://www.faa.gov/uas/commercial_operators/part_107_waivers/waivers_issued/. As of 3/2/2020, 109 waivers have 
been granted for operations over people. A majority of these waivers 
were for unmanned aircraft weighing 11.68 pounds or less.
    \113\ Source: AUVSI Air Platform Database (accessed April 2020).
    \114\ The Small Business Administration has not defined the 
number of employees that would indicate that a manufacturer of small 
UAS is a small entity. The NAICS code for Unmanned Aircraft 
Manufacturing is 336411, which falls under the broad category of 
``Aircraft Manufacturing.'' SBA defines entities with NAICS 336411 
as small if it employs 1,500 employees or less. Based on the SBA 
definition all entities are small ones.

                                 Table 5--Select Statistics for Part 107 Unmanned Aircraft Weighing 11.68 Pounds or Less
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                    Number of      Number of                                            Number of UA in    Share of UA
         Manufacturer country of origin           manufacturers      models                 Entity size *                 FAA registry   <=11.68 lbs (%)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
China..........................................                4           18  2 large, 1 medium, 1 unknown...........          226,785             86.6
France.........................................                1            3  unknown................................            4,649              1.8
United States..................................                6           10  3 large, 1 medium, 1 small, 1 unknown..           30,572             11.7
                                                --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Total......................................               11           31  5 large, 2 medium, 1 small, 3 unknown..          262,006            100.0
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* Source: AUVSI Air Platform Data. AUVSI defines entity size as follows: Large entities have more than 500 employees; medium entities have between 50
  and 499 employees; small entities have less than 50 employees.
Note: This information is based on records in the unmanned aircraft registry as of October 2019 that weigh 11.68 pounds or less. The remaining records
  did not contain readily identifiable make/model information and are excluded from the analysis.

    The final rule enables entities to conduct operations over people 
and at night using eligible small UAS. Part 107 waiver analysis by 
AUVSI shows that between June 2016 and March 2020, a total of 4,144 
waivers have been granted by the FAA.\115\ A vast majority of the 
waivers granted are for Sec.  107.29, daylight operations (3,813 
waivers granted), followed by Sec.  107.39 operations over people (125 
waivers granted). These two waiver categories account for 95 percent of 
the waivers granted to date, and demonstrates the desire among entities 
to be able to conduct these types of operations. The AUVSI analysis 
shows a majority of the waivers granted have been for entities with 
fewer than 10 employees that generate a revenue of under $1 million 
annually.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \115\ https://www.auvsi.org/sites/default/files/PDFs/Waiver%20Update%20Mar%202020_v3_PDF%20%281%29.pdf, https://public.tableau.com/shared/RBFRZM9PP?:display_count=y&:origin=viz_share_link&:showVizHome=no#1. 
Accessed April 10, 2020. June 2016 marks the date for the 
publication of the final part 107 rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The final rule impacts the entire population of part 107 remote 
pilots, many of whom work for small entities or own their own business, 
by requiring all part 107 remote pilots to be tested or knowledge 
checked on additional subject matter. The rule also relieves a subset 
of the remote pilot population (i.e., non-part 61 remote pilots) from 
the recurrent knowledge testing requirement. Instead of taking 
recurrent knowledge testing, this affected group will take recurrency 
training every 24 calendar months to maintain the privileges of the 
remote pilot airmen certificate. This is expected to create a cost 
savings for approximately 90% of the current remote pilot population.
    (5) A description of the projected reporting, recordkeeping and 
other compliance requirements of the rule, including an estimate of the 
classes of small entities which will be subject to the requirement and 
the type of professional skills necessary for preparation of the report 
or record.
    In order for the FAA to accept a declaration of compliance, this 
rule requires the applicant to declare that a small UAS meets 
applicable performance-based safety requirements by using a means of 
compliance by test, analysis, or inspection, or any combination of 
these options accepted by the FAA. An applicant could perform any 
necessary tests contained in the means of compliance in-house or they 
could rent a testing facility with the necessary equipment to show 
compliance with the injury limitation based on the transfer of kinetic 
energy on impact. The applicant would certify the results from this 
means of compliance testing on its declaration of compliance to the 
FAA. The FAA estimates approximately eleven entities could be affected 
by compliance requirements in year 1 of the rule. Using the AUVSI 
business size standard for UAS manufacturers, one manufacturer is 
identified as small (fewer than 50 employees); two manufacturers are 
identified as medium (50-499 employees); and five manufacturers are 
identified as large (more than 499 employees). Entity size could not be 
determined for three of the manufacturers. The rule also requires 
applicants of small UAS eligible for Category 2 or Category 3 
operations to make available to the Administrator an FAA-accepted 
declaration of compliance and any other document, record, or report 
that the final rule requires, on request. The rule provides record 
retention requirements for manufacturers who submit either a 
declaration of compliance or a means of compliance to the FAA. With 
today's minimal cost of producing electronic documents and mass storage 
hardware devices, the FAA expects applicants would keep all relevant 
documents, records, or reports required in an electronic format and 
properly back up their storage systems. Therefore, this requirement 
would add minimal to no costs to the applicants because they

[[Page 4376]]

would already have computer systems, with sufficient memory available, 
to store and produce the documents this rule requires.
    For Categories 2 and 3, this rule requires an applicant to label a 
small unmanned aircraft with each category for which the small UAS is 
eligible to operate. The applicant must ensure that the label is in 
English, legible, prominent, and affixed onto the small unmanned 
aircraft by some permanent means. In addition, remote pilots are 
required to ensure their small unmanned aircraft are properly labeled 
before conducting any operations over people. The FAA believes the cost 
of adding the labeling information for the category for which the small 
UAS is eligible to operate would be minimal, given that small unmanned 
aircraft typically come with a label containing information such as the 
name of the manufacturer, serial number, and model name or number. If 
the label has worn out due to use or age, the remote pilot could 
satisfy the rule by using a permanent marker, or etching the category 
into the body of the small unmanned aircraft.
    The rule requires a small UAS applicant to establish and maintain a 
product support and notification process to notify the public and the 
FAA of any safety issues that would render the aircraft ineligible for 
operations over people. The FAA believes manufacturers of small UAS 
would have such a system already developed and in place to handle their 
warranties and to inform users of their small UAS about new 
developments and new products they are bringing to the marketplace. 
This rule does not require the owner of a small UAS to send in a 
warranty card or provide the manufacturer any personal contact 
information. Therefore, the FAA believes the cost of this requirement 
would be minimal. The FAA notes an applicant could be an individual 
that modifies a small UAS and then sells it. According to the rule, 
this individual would also be required to have a notification and 
support process in place. The FAA envisions this process would be 
scaled to production, so the individual who sells a single aircraft 
could establish a much smaller scale process. For example, the 
applicant could simply email the owner of the small UAS and advise them 
of any safety issues. The FAA also believes for a small-scale 
manufacturer or a modifier, the requirement to maintain a product 
support and notification process would also result in minimal costs.
    The rule requires owners or operators of small UAS issued an 
airworthiness certificate under part 21 operating under part 107 to 
retain records of all maintenance performed on their aircraft and 
records documenting the status of life-limited parts, compliance with 
airworthiness directives, and inspection status of the aircraft. The 
records must be kept for the time specified in Sec.  107.140 and must 
be available to the FAA and NTSB on request. This requirement only 
affects operations conducted under Category 4, and would result in 
minimal costs.
    (6) A description of the steps the Agency has taken to minimize the 
significant economic impact on small entities consistent with the 
stated objectives of applicable statutes, including a statement of the 
factual, policy, and legal reasons for selecting the alternative 
adopted in the final rule and why each one of the other significant 
alternatives to the rule considered by the Agency which affect the 
impact on small entities was rejected.
    The FAA considered both more and less costly alternatives as part 
of its NPRM because the RFA requires the Agency to consider significant 
regulatory alternatives that meet the Agency's statutory objectives and 
minimize the costs to small entities. The FAA rejected the costlier 
alternatives due to policy considerations and the undue burden imposed 
on small UAS operators. The less costly alternatives and the FAA's 
reasons for either rejecting those alternatives, or adopting them for 
the final rule, are discussed below. In addition, the FAA discusses 
performance-based means of compliance that may provide additional 
flexibility and minimize costs to small entities.
    The FAA considered hands-on remote pilot flight training as part of 
the requirements for operating a small unmanned aircraft over people. 
The FAA has determined that it is unnecessary to require additional 
knowledge testing or training for operations over people beyond the 
initial testing and initial or recurrent training requirements of part 
107. Questions and training specific to operations over people may be 
added to the testing and training in the existing areas of knowledge in 
Sec. Sec.  107.73 and 107.74 without the need for an additional 
knowledge area. As stated previously, the FAA declines to require 
practical training for part 107 remote pilots. Additionally, the FAA 
does not find it necessary to tailor the subject areas to specific 
small UAS, because existing systems vary widely. Furthermore, the 
remote pilot is already required to comply with all applicable 
regulations, including the preflight familiarization and inspection 
requirements, to ensure that their small UAS is in proper working 
condition prior to operation.
    The FAA considered allowing Category 3 operations on a closed- or 
restricted-access site without requiring notice that the operation was 
taking place. The FAA rejected this alternative due to the increased 
severity of an injury resulting from a small unmanned aircraft 
impacting a person with up to 25 ft-lbs of kinetic energy.
    The FAA considered proposing a Category 4 to include operations in 
which a small UAS may operate over people, including flights over 
crowds or dense concentrations of people, if: (1) The manufacturer of 
the small UAS certifies the aircraft satisfies the same impact energy 
threshold as small UAS eligible to conduct Category 3 operations; (2) 
the small UAS complies with industry consensus standards; and (3) the 
operation is conducted in compliance with a documented risk mitigation 
plan. The FAA rejected this alternative due to the increased severity 
of an injury resulting from a small unmanned aircraft impacting a 
person with up to 25 foot-pounds of kinetic energy. However, comments 
to the proposed rule stated that demonstrable reliability of the small 
UAS should be an alternative path for operations over people. The FAA 
agrees. Therefore, this final rule includes a fourth category to allow 
small UAS that have been issued an airworthiness certificate under part 
21 to operate over people under part 107, so long as the operating 
limitations of that airworthiness certification do not prohibit 
operations over people.
    The FAA considered incorporating the standards of Sec. Sec.  
23.1401 or 27.1401 (``Anti-collision light system'') for night 
operations under part 107. Part 107 does not contain aircraft 
certification rules or standards, and the FAA concludes the reduced 
risk small UAS operations pose does not warrant application of such 
standards. In addition, the diverse range of aircraft that may operate 
under part 107 render prescriptive lighting requirements for all types 
of operations at night impractical. Prescriptive lighting requirements 
would be overly burdensome for both the FAA and manufacturers of small 
UAS, because they would be forced to make tradeoffs that affect both 
the weight of the aircraft and the aircraft's power source and supply. 
In response to comments to the proposed rule, the FAA always intended 
that the anti-collision lights for both civil twilight and night 
operations

[[Page 4377]]

should flash, rather than be static. Costs for anti-collision lights 
that flash at a sufficient rate to avoid a collision were included in 
the 2016 final rule.

C. International Trade Impact Assessment

    The Trade Agreements Act of 1979 (Pub. L. 96-39), as amended by the 
Uruguay Round Agreements Act (Pub. L. 103-465), prohibits Federal 
agencies from establishing standards or engaging in related activities 
that create unnecessary obstacles to the foreign commerce of the United 
States. Pursuant to these Acts, the establishment of standards is not 
considered an unnecessary obstacle to the foreign commerce of the 
United States, so long as the standard has a legitimate domestic 
objective, such as the protection of safety, and does not operate in a 
manner that excludes imports that meet this objective. The statute also 
requires consideration of international standards and, where 
appropriate, that they be the basis for U.S. standards. The FAA has 
considered the ongoing work of international organizations and other 
countries. No international standards currently exist for the types of 
operations the FAA finalizes in this rule. In addition, this final rule 
would not create any obstacle to foreign commerce. The FAA will 
maintain its awareness of other countries' and international 
organizations' work in developing potential standards relevant to UAS 
operations.

D. Unfunded Mandates Assessment

    Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-
4) requires each Federal agency to prepare a written statement 
assessing the effects of any Federal mandate in a proposed or final 
agency rule that may result in an expenditure of $100 million or more 
(in 1995 dollars) in any one year by State, local, and tribal 
governments, in the aggregate, or by the private sector; such a mandate 
is deemed to be a ``significant regulatory action.'' The FAA currently 
uses an inflation-adjusted value of $155 million in lieu of $100 
million.
    This rule does not contain a mandate that would result in 
expenditure by State, local, or Tribal governments or impose costs on 
the private sector of more than $155 million annually.\116\ As a 
result, the requirements of Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform 
Act of 1995 do not apply.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \116\ The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 defines ``Federal 
private sector mandate'' as ``any provision in legislation, statute, 
or regulation that . . . would impose an enforceable duty upon the 
private sector . . . or would reduce or eliminate the amount of 
authorization of appropriations for Federal financial assistance 
that will be provided to the private sector for the purposes of 
ensuring compliance with such duty.'' Public Law 104-4 section 658 
(1995).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

E. Paperwork Reduction Act

    The Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3507(d)) requires 
that the FAA consider the impact of paperwork and other information 
collection burdens imposed on the public. According to the 1995 
amendments to the Paperwork Reduction Act (as implemented by 5 CFR 
1320.8(b)(2)(vi)), an agency may not collect or sponsor the collection 
of information, nor may it impose an information collection 
requirement, unless it displays a currently valid Office of Management 
and Budget (OMB) control number.
    This rule adds a new information collection, which includes the 
estimated burdens for the declaration of compliance, means of 
compliance, the development of remote pilot operating instructions, and 
recordkeeping to reflect compliance with applicable maintenance 
requirements. This rule eliminates information collection requirements 
from the 2016 final rule as a result of changes to the recurrent 
knowledge testing requirements. As previously discussed, this rule may 
also reduce the number of waiver applications that the FAA receives.
    A detailed discussion of each of these information-collection 
requirements is included in this section. As required by the Paperwork 
Reduction Act of 1995, the FAA has submitted these information 
collection amendments to OMB for its review.\117\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \117\ The recordkeeping requirements prescribed by Sec.  
107.140(c)(2) through (5) will be submitted to OMB for review upon 
publication of this final rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

1. Declaration of Compliance and Means of Compliance
    Summary: The information collection addresses the submission of the 
declaration of compliance and the means of compliance to the FAA for 
the purpose of demonstrating that the small UAS fulfills the applicable 
standards for Category 2 and 3 operations. It also addresses 
applicants' compliance with the record retention requirements 
associated with submitting justification to establish compliance.
    The declaration of compliance must include the following 
information:
     The applicant's name, physical address, and email address.
     The small UAS make and model name, and series, if 
applicable and serial number or range of serial numbers.
     Whether the declaration of compliance is an initial 
declaration or an amended declaration, and if amended, the reason for 
resubmittal.
     A process for notifying customers of conditions that could 
render the small UAS ineligible for operations over people.
     A certification that the applicant has demonstrated that 
the small unmanned aircraft satisfies the applicable requirements 
through an accepted means of compliance and will permit the 
Administrator to inspect its facilities, technical data, and any 
manufactured small UAS.
    The means of compliance demonstrates through test, analysis, or 
inspection that the small UAS is eligible for operations pursuant to 
Category 2 or 3 or both. The applicant submitting the means of 
compliance must include the following information:
     The name of the person or entity submitting the means of 
compliance, the name of the main point of contact for communications 
with the FAA, the physical address, email address, and other contact 
information.
     A detailed description of the means of compliance.
     An explanation of how the means of compliance establishes 
achievement of the requirements identified in either Sec.  
107.120(a)(1) and (2) for Category 2 small unmanned aircraft or Sec.  
107.130(a)(1) and (2) for Category 3 small unmanned aircraft so that 
any small unmanned aircraft system designed, produced, or modified in 
accordance with such means of compliance meets those requirements.
     Any substantiating material the person wishes the FAA to 
consider as part of the request.
     A means of compliance submitted for acceptance by the FAA 
must include testing and validation procedures for persons responsible 
for the production or modification of the Category 2 or Category 3 
small unmanned aircraft system to demonstrate how the small unmanned 
aircraft system meets the requirements of either Sec.  107.120(a)(1) 
and (2) for Category 2 small unmanned aircraft or Sec.  107.130(a)(1) 
and (2) for Category 3 small unmanned aircraft.
    Use: The FAA will use the declaration of compliance and means of 
compliance to either accept or not accept that the manufacturer has 
demonstrated compliance with the requirements applicable to Category 2 
or 3 or both operations.

[[Page 4378]]

    Estimated Annual Burden: The table below shows the annual 
information collection burden in hours.

              Table 6--Annual Burden Estimate for Declaration of Compliance and Means of Compliance
                                                   [In hours]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                      Year                            Initial          Pages      Hours per page   Hourly burden
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1...............................................           32.55              50               1           1,628
2...............................................            8.40              50               1             420
3...............................................            8.40              50               1             420
                                                 ---------------------------------------------------------------
    Total.......................................  ..............  ..............  ..............           2,468
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The cost for the information collection on an hourly basis is a 
fully-burdened wage of $96.92, for an annual cost of $157,737 in year 1 
and $40,706 in each of years 2 and 3 for the small UAS manufacturers to 
submit their declarations. Over the 3-year analysis period, the total 
cost is approximately $239,150 in 2020 dollars.
2. Remote Pilot Operating Instructions
    Summary: The information collection addresses the manufacturer's 
recordkeeping associated with the development and maintenance of remote 
pilot operating instructions for small UAS operating over people. The 
remote pilot operating instructions must address, at a minimum, all of 
the following:
     A system description that includes the required small UAS 
components, any system limitations, and the declared category or 
categories of operation.
     Modifications that will not change the ability of the 
small UAS to meet the requirements for the category or categories of 
operation the small UAS is eligible to conduct.
     Instructions for how to verify and change the mode or 
configuration of the small UAS, if they are variable.
    Use: To operate a small unmanned aircraft safely over people, 
remote pilots would be responsible for knowing what category of 
operations their small UAS are eligible to conduct, and what technical 
and operational limitations apply to the operations. Accordingly, this 
rule requires manufacturers to provide remote pilot operating 
instructions with product-specific information.
    Estimated Annual Burden: The table below shows the annual 
information collection burden in hours.

                  Table 7--Three-Year Burden Estimates for Remote Pilot Operating Instructions
                                                   [In hours]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                     Operating
                      Year                         instructions        Pages      Hours per page   Hourly burden
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1...............................................              31               6              25           4,650
2...............................................               8               6              25           1,200
3...............................................               8               6              25           1,200
                                                 ---------------------------------------------------------------
    Total.......................................  ..............  ..............  ..............           7,050
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The cost per hour for the information collection is a wage of 
$96.92, for an annual cost of $450,678 in year 1 and $116,304 in each 
of years 2 and 3 for small UAS manufacturers to develop and maintain 
remote pilot operating instructions. Over the 3-year analysis period, 
the total cost is approximately $683,286 in 2020 dollars.
3. Labeling of Unmanned Aircraft
    Summary: Because a small UAS could be qualified to conduct more 
than one category of operations over people, this rule requires 
manufacturers to label small unmanned aircraft with each category of 
operations the small UAS is eligible to conduct. For example, a small 
UAS that is eligible to conduct both Category 2 and Category 3 
operations would be labeled with both categories, as follows: ``Cat. 2, 
3'' or ``Category 2, 3.'' The label could be painted onto, etched into, 
or affixed to the aircraft by some other permanent means.
    Use: There are two purposes for the label. For the remote pilot, 
the purpose of the label is to list the categories of operations over 
people the small UAS is eligible to conduct, as indicated on the 
manufacturer's declaration of compliance. The other purpose of the 
label is for the FAA and law enforcement agencies to determine whether 
an operation is consistent with the requirements of the regulation. The 
labeling requirement will help remote pilots know what category of 
operations their small unmanned aircraft is eligible to conduct, and 
what technical and operational limitations apply to the operations. The 
labeling requirement will also assist the FAA in its oversight role 
because labeling provides an efficient means for an inspector to 
evaluate whether an operation is consistent with the category or 
categories of operation the small unmanned aircraft may conduct. 
Because Category 3 operations entail unique operating limitations, the 
label on small unmanned aircraft eligible to conduct Category 3 
operations will indicate to remote pilots that they must

[[Page 4379]]

adhere to the applicable operating limitations.\118\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \118\ The labeling requirement is not the sole means by which a 
remote pilot in command will be aware of the operating limitations 
applicable to Category 3 operations. Remote pilots in command must 
maintain awareness of updated regulations, as required by proposed 
Sec. Sec.  107.73(a) and 107.74(a) in this rule. As a result, 
initial aeronautical knowledge testing and recurrent training 
implemented after the effective date of this final rule would 
include operations over people as a subject area on both the test 
and training.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Estimated Annual Burden: The table below shows the annual 
information collection burden in hours.

                       Table 8--Three-Year Burden Estimates for Labeling Unmanned Aircraft
                                                   [In hours]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                     Number of       Hours per
                              Year                                   platforms       redesign      Hourly burden
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1...............................................................              31               2              62
2...............................................................               8               2              16
3...............................................................               8               2              16
                                                                 -----------------------------------------------
    Total.......................................................  ..............  ..............              94
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The FAA assumes that manufacturers will redesign labels already 
affixed to the unmanned aircraft, and that the label redesign and 
redesign approval will take a maximum of two hours at an hourly wage of 
$96.92, for an annual cost of $6,009 in year 1 and $1,551 in each of 
years 2 and 3. Over the 3-year analysis period, the total cost is 
approximately $9,110 in 2020 dollars.
4. Maintenance Records
    Summary: Owners of small UAS issued an airworthiness certificate 
under part 21 must retain records of all maintenance performed on their 
aircraft and records documenting the status of life-limited parts, 
compliance with airworthiness directives, and inspection status of the 
aircraft. The records must be kept for the time specified in Sec.  
107.140, and they must be available to the FAA and law enforcement 
personnel upon request.
    Use: These records will be used to validate that the aircraft has 
been maintained in a manner that assures that it remains in a condition 
eligible to be operated over people in accordance with Category 4.
    Estimated Annual Burden: The table below shows the annual 
information collection burden in hours.

               Table 9--Three-Year Burden Estimates for Recordkeeping Associated With Maintenance
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                              Number of    Affected small    Hourly burden (0.5
                           Year                              respondents         UAS           per small UAS)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1........................................................               1             100                     50
2........................................................               2             200                    100
3........................................................               3             300                    150
                                                          ------------------------------------------------------
    Total................................................  ..............  ..............                    300
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Rows and Columns may not sum to total due to rounding.

    The FAA expects remote pilots will engage in maintenance record 
upkeep and documentation. The fully-burdened hourly wage for a remote 
pilot is estimated to be $47.66.\119\ Multiplying the total combined 
hourly burden of 300 hours by the fully burdened hourly wage of $47.66 
yields a total cost of approximately $14,298 in 2020 dollars for the 
three year period.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \119\ SeAverage is based on information found at https://www.thedroneu.com/blog/part-107-faq-drone-license/. Accessed 6/17/
2020.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The FAA will publish separate notice in the Federal Register 
seeking comment regarding this new information collection.

F. International Compatibility and Cooperation

    In keeping with U.S. obligations under the Convention on 
International Civil Aviation, it is FAA policy to conform to ICAO 
Standards and Recommended Practices to the maximum extent practicable. 
The FAA has reviewed the corresponding ICAO Standards and Recommended 
Practices and has identified no differences with these regulations.

G. Environmental Analysis

    FAA Order 1050.1F identifies FAA actions that are categorically 
excluded from preparation of an environmental assessment or 
environmental impact statement under the National Environmental Policy 
Act in the absence of extraordinary circumstances. The FAA determined 
that the categorical exclusion in FAA Order 1050.1F, paragraph 5-6.6.f. 
applies to this action. The FAA conducted analysis as part of its 
evaluation of this action to support the application of the categorical 
exclusion. The FAA has determined that none of the extraordinary 
circumstances in FAA Order 1050.1F, paragraph 5-2 exist.
    The FAA has placed a copy of supporting documentation in the docket 
for this rule.

XVI. Executive Order Determinations

A. Executive Order 13132, Federalism

    The FAA has analyzed this rule under the principles and criteria of 
Executive Order 13132, Federalism.\120\ The Agency has determined that 
this action will not have a substantial direct effect on the States, or 
the relationship between the Federal Government and the States, or on 
the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels 
of government, and, therefore, does not have federalism implications.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \120\ 64 FR 43255 (Aug. 4, 1999).

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

[[Page 4380]]

B. Executive Order 13211, Regulations that Significantly Affect Energy 
Supply, Distribution, or Use

    The FAA analyzed this rule under Executive Order 13211, Actions 
Concerning Regulations that Significantly Affect Energy Supply, 
Distribution, or Use.\121\ The Agency has determined that it will not 
be a ``significant energy action'' under the executive order and is not 
likely to have a significant adverse effect on the supply, 
distribution, or use of energy.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \121\ 66 FR 28355 (May 18, 2001).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

C. Executive Order 13609, Promoting International Regulatory 
Cooperation

    Executive Order 13609, Promoting International Regulatory 
Cooperation, promotes international regulatory cooperation to meet 
shared challenges involving health, safety, labor, security, 
environmental, and other issues and to reduce, eliminate, or prevent 
unnecessary differences in regulatory requirements.\122\ The FAA has 
analyzed this action under the policies and agency responsibilities of 
Executive Order 13609 and has determined that this action will have no 
effect on international regulatory cooperation. The European Union 
Aviation Safety Agency commented that it is available for discussion 
and alignment of regulations, concerned that the proposed regulations 
could ``set Europe and the US on different regulatory courses.'' One 
commenter expressed concern that Canada's current limitations on small 
UAS operations near people, buildings, or animals must not be adopted 
by the FAA. One commenter wrote that ``we need a training standard that 
is applicable across the globe,'' in order to ensure harmonization of 
the certification requirements.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \122\ 77 FR 26413 (May 4, 2012).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The FAA participates in international discussions and regulatory 
meetings, but does not assume that all international regulations should 
be identical. Each State has its own individual and unique 
characteristics that shape its regulatory framework. The U.S. is 
working closely with its international partners to harmonize 
International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO) policy. The FAA has 
determined that the safety requirements of this rule are not overly 
restrictive and allow operations over people with reasonable limits on 
those operations to mitigate risk and provide a level of safety for 
operations of small UAS within the airspace of the United States.

D. Executive Order 13175, Consultation and Coordination With Indian 
Tribal Governments

    Consistent with Executive Order 13175, Consultation and 
Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments,\123\ and FAA Order 
1210.20, American Indian and Alaska Native Tribal Consultation Policy 
and Procedures,\124\ the FAA ensures that Federally Recognized Tribes 
(Tribes) are given the opportunity to provide meaningful and timely 
input regarding proposed Federal actions that have the potential to 
have substantial direct effects 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; or to affect uniquely or significantly 
their respective Tribes. At this point, the FAA has not identified any 
substantial direct effects or any unique or significant effects on 
tribes resulting from this rule. As the FAA contemplated in the 2016 
final rule, the FAA has conducted outreach to tribes and responded to 
those tribes seeking information about small UAS operations conducted 
within their territory.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \123\ 65 FR 67249 (Nov. 6, 2000).
    \124\ FAA Order No. 1210.20 (Jan. 28, 2004), available at http://www.faa.gov/documentLibrary/media/1210.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The FAA continues to develop its involvement with tribes within the 
broader UAS integration effort.\125\ In particular, the FAA has 
partnered with the Choctaw Nation in a pilot program under which State, 
local, and tribal governments test and evaluate the integration of 
civil and public UAS operations into the low-altitude NAS to promote 
the safe operation of UAS and enable the development of UAS 
technologies and their use in agriculture, commerce, emergency 
management, human transportation, and other sectors.\126\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \125\ 81 FR 42064, 42189.
    \126\ Federal Aviation Administration, UAS Integration Pilot 
Program (May 7, 2018), available at https://www.faa.gov/uas/programs_partnerships/uas_integration_pilot_program/.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The FAA has also conducted outreach to tribes to ensure they are 
familiar with the provisions of part 107 and that they are aware of 
FAA's plans for additional rulemakings to integrate UAS into the NAS. 
As part of that outreach, the FAA has:
     Provided material on the 2016 final small UAS rule to 
participants at the mid-year conference of the National Congress of 
American Indians (Spokane, Washington, June 27-30, 2016);
     Presented at a workshop at the National Tribal 
Transportation Conference (Anaheim, California October 4, 2016);
     Responded to inquiries from the Shoshone-Bannock Tribes 
and Muscogee (Creek) Nation regarding use of UAS (September and October 
2016);
     Presented information on UAS at a meeting of the Tribal 
Transportation Self-Governance Program Negotiated Rulemaking Meeting 
(Shawnee, Oklahoma, October 18, 2016); and
     Presented information on UAS for public safety at the 
Osage Nation 2019 Public Safety Drone Conference (Tulsa, Oklahoma, 
November 5, 2019).
    The FAA will continue to respond to tribes that express interest in 
or concerns about UAS operations, and will engage in government-to-
government consultation with tribes as appropriate, in accordance with 
Executive Orders and FAA guidance.

E. Executive Order 13771, Reducing Regulation and Controlling 
Regulatory Costs

    This rule is an Executive Order 13771 deregulatory action. Details 
on the estimated cost savings of this rule can be found in the rule's 
economic analysis.

XVII. Additional Information

A. Availability of Rulemaking Documents

    An electronic copy of rulemaking documents may be obtained from the 
internet by--
     Searching the Federal eRulemaking Portal at https://www.regulations.gov;
     Visiting the FAA's Regulations and Policies web page at 
https://www.faa.gov/regulations_policies or
     Accessing the Government Publishing Office's web page at 
https://www.fdsys.gov.
    Copies may also be obtained by sending a request to the Federal 
Aviation Administration, Office of Rulemaking, ARM-1, 800 Independence 
Avenue SW, Washington, DC 20591, or by calling (202) 267-9677. 
Commenters must identify the docket or notice number of this 
rulemaking.
    All documents the FAA considered in developing this rule, including 
economic analyses and technical reports, may be accessed from the 
internet through the Federal eRulemaking Portal referenced earlier.

B. Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act

    The Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 
(SBREFA) requires FAA to comply with small entity requests for 
information or advice about compliance with statutes

[[Page 4381]]

and regulations within its jurisdiction. A small entity with questions 
regarding this document may contact its local FAA official, or the 
person listed under the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT heading at the 
beginning of the preamble. To find out more about SBREFA on the 
internet, visit http://www.faa.gov/regulations_policies/rulemaking/sbre_act/.

List of Subjects

14 CFR Part 11

    Administrative practice and procedure, Reporting and recordkeeping 
requirements.

14 CFR Part 21

    Aircraft, Aviation safety, Exports, Imports, Reporting and 
recordkeeping requirements.

14 CFR Part 43

    Aircraft, Aviation safety, Reporting and recordkeeping 
requirements.

14 CFR Part 107

    Aircraft, Airmen, Aviation safety, Reporting and recordkeeping 
requirements, Security measures, Signs and symbols.

The Amendment

    In consideration of the foregoing, the Federal Aviation 
Administration amends chapter I of title 14, Code of Federal 
Regulations as follows:

PART 11--GENERAL RULEMAKING PROCEDURES

0
1. The authority citation for part 11 continues to read as follows:

    Authority:  49 U.S.C. 106(f), 106(g), 40101, 40103, 40105, 
40109, 40113, 44110, 44502, 44701-44702, 44711, 46102, and 51 U.S.C. 
50901-50923.


0
2. Amend Sec.  11.201(b) by revising the entry ``Part 107'' to read as 
follows:


Sec.  11.201   Office of Management and Budget (OMB) control numbers 
assigned under the Paperwork Reduction Act.

* * * * *
    (b) * * *

------------------------------------------------------------------------
  14 CFR part or  section identified  and
                 described                     Current OMB control No.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
                                * * * * *
Part 107..................................  2120-0005, 2120-0021, 2120-
                                             0027, 2120-0767, 2120-0768,
                                             2120-0775.
 
                                * * * * *
------------------------------------------------------------------------

PART 21--CERTIFICATION PROCEDURES FOR PRODUCTS AND ARTICLES

0
3. The authority citation for part 21 continues to read as follows:

    Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7572; 49 U.S.C. 106(f), 106(g), 40105, 
40113, 44701-44702, 44704, 44707, 44709, 44711, 44713, 44715, 45303.


0
4. Amend Sec.  21.1 by revising paragraph (a) introductory text to read 
as follows:


Sec.  21.1  Applicability and definitions.

    (a) This part prescribes--
* * * * *

PART 43--MAINTENANCE, PREVENTATIVE MAINTENANCE, REBUILDING, AND 
ALTERATION

0
5. The authority citation for part 43 continues to read as follows:

    Authority:  42 U.S.C. 7572; 49 U.S.C. 106(f), 106(g), 40105, 
40113, 44701-44702, 44704, 44707, 44709, 44711, 44713, 44715, 45303.


0
6. Amend Sec.  43.1 by revising paragraph (b)(3) to read as follows:


Sec.  43.1  Applicability.

* * * * *
    (b) * * *
    (3) Any aircraft that is operated under part 107 of this chapter, 
except as described in Sec.  107.140(d).
* * * * *

PART 107--SMALL UNMANNED AIRCRAFT SYSTEMS

0
7. The authority citation for part 107 is revised to read as follows:

    Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(f), 40101 note, 40103(b), 44701(a)(5), 
46105(c), 46110, 44807.


0
8. Revise Sec.  107.1 to read as follows:


Sec.  107.1   Applicability.

    (a) Except as provided in paragraph (b) of this section, this part 
applies to the registration, airman certification, and operation of 
civil small unmanned aircraft systems within the United States. This 
part also applies to the eligibility of civil small unmanned aircraft 
systems to operate over human beings in the United States.
    (b) This part does not apply to the following:
    (1) Air carrier operations;
    (2) Any aircraft subject to the provisions of 49 U.S.C. 44809;
    (3) Any operation that the holder of an exemption under section 333 
of Public Law 112-95 or 49 U.S.C. 44807 elects to conduct pursuant to 
the exemption, unless otherwise specified in the exemption; or
    (4) Any operation that a person elects to conduct under part 91 of 
this chapter with a small unmanned aircraft system that has been issued 
an airworthiness certificate.

0
9. Add Sec.  107.2 to read as follows:


Sec.  107.2   Applicability of certification procedures for products 
and articles.

    The provisions of part 21 of this chapter do not apply to small 
unmanned aircraft systems operated under this part unless the small 
unmanned aircraft system will operate over human beings in accordance 
with Sec.  107.140.

0
10. Amend Sec.  107.3 by adding the definition of ``Declaration of 
compliance'' in alphabetical order to read as follows:


Sec.  107.3   Definitions.

* * * * *
    Declaration of compliance means a record submitted to the FAA that 
certifies the small unmanned aircraft conforms to the Category 2 or 
Category 3 requirements under subpart D of this part.
* * * * *

0
11. Amend Sec.  107.5 by revising the section heading and paragraph (b) 
to read as follows:


Sec.  107.5   Falsification, reproduction, or alteration.

* * * * *
    (b) The commission by any person of an act prohibited under 
paragraph (a) of this section is a basis for any of the following:
    (1) Denial of an application for a remote pilot certificate or a 
certificate of waiver;
    (2) Denial of a declaration of compliance;
    (3) Suspension or revocation of any certificate, waiver, or 
declaration of compliance issued or accepted by the Administrator under 
this part and held by that person; or
    (4) A civil penalty.

0
12. Revise Sec.  107.7 to read as follows:


Sec.  107.7   Inspection, testing, and demonstration of compliance.

    (a) A remote pilot in command, owner, or person manipulating the 
flight controls of a small unmanned aircraft system must--
    (1) Have in that person's physical possession and readily 
accessible the remote pilot certificate with a small UAS rating and 
identification when exercising the privileges of that remote pilot 
certificate.
    (2) Present his or her remote pilot certificate with a small UAS 
rating and identification that contains the

[[Page 4382]]

information listed at Sec.  107.67(b)(1) through (3) for inspection 
upon a request from--
    (i) The Administrator;
    (ii) An authorized representative of the National Transportation 
Safety Board;
    (iii) Any Federal, State, or local law enforcement officer; or
    (iv) An authorized representative of the Transportation Security 
Administration.
    (3) Make available, upon request, to the Administrator any 
document, record, or report required to be kept under the regulations 
of this chapter.
    (b) The remote pilot in command, visual observer, owner, operator, 
or person manipulating the flight controls of a small unmanned aircraft 
system must, upon request, allow the Administrator to make any test or 
inspection of the small unmanned aircraft system, the remote pilot in 
command, the person manipulating the flight controls of a small 
unmanned aircraft system, and, if applicable, the visual observer to 
determine compliance with this part.
    (c) Any person holding an FAA-accepted declaration of compliance 
under subpart D of this part must, upon request, make available to the 
Administrator:
    (1) The declaration of compliance required under subpart D of this 
part; and
    (2) Any other document, record, or report required to be kept under 
the regulations of this chapter.
    (d) Any person holding an FAA-accepted declaration of compliance 
under subpart D of this part must, upon request, allow the 
Administrator to inspect its facilities, technical data, and any 
manufactured small UAS and witness any tests necessary to determine 
compliance with that subpart.

0
13. Amend Sec.  107.19 by revising paragraph (c) to read as follows:


Sec.  107.19   Remote pilot in command.

* * * * *
    (c) The remote pilot in command must ensure that the small unmanned 
aircraft will pose no undue hazard to other people, other aircraft, or 
other property in the event of a loss of control of the small unmanned 
aircraft for any reason.
* * * * *

0
14. Amend Sec.  107.29 by revising the section heading and paragraphs 
(a) and (b) and adding paragraph (d) to read as follows:


Sec.  107.29   Operation at night.

    (a) Except as provided in paragraph (d) of this section, no person 
may operate a small unmanned aircraft system at night unless--
    (1) The remote pilot in command of the small unmanned aircraft has 
completed an initial knowledge test or training, as applicable, under 
Sec.  107.65 after March 1, 2021; and
    (2) The small unmanned aircraft has lighted anti-collision lighting 
visible for at least 3 statute miles that has a flash rate sufficient 
to avoid a collision. The remote pilot in command may reduce the 
intensity of, but may not extinguish, the anti-collision lighting if he 
or she determines that, because of operating conditions, it would be in 
the interest of safety to do so.
    (b) No person may operate a small unmanned aircraft system during 
periods of civil twilight unless the small unmanned aircraft has 
lighted anti-collision lighting visible for at least 3 statute miles 
that has a flash rate sufficient to avoid a collision. The remote pilot 
in command may reduce the intensity of, but may not extinguish, the 
anti-collision lighting if he or she determines that, because of 
operating conditions, it would be in the interest of safety to do so.
* * * * *
    (d) After May 17, 2021, no person may operate a small unmanned 
aircraft system at night in accordance with a certificate of waiver 
issued prior to March 16, 2021 under Sec.  107.200. The certificates of 
waiver issued prior to March 16, 2021 under Sec.  107.200 that 
authorize deviation from Sec.  107.29 terminate on May 17, 2021.

0
15. Revise Sec.  107.35 to read as follows:


Sec.  107.35   Operation of multiple small unmanned aircraft.

    A person may not manipulate flight controls or act as a remote 
pilot in command or visual observer in the operation of more than one 
unmanned aircraft at the same time.

0
16. Revise Sec.  107.39 to read as follows:


Sec.  107.39   Operation over human beings.

    No person may operate a small unmanned aircraft over a human being 
unless--
    (a) That human being is directly participating in the operation of 
the small unmanned aircraft;
    (b) That human being is located under a covered structure or inside 
a stationary vehicle that can provide reasonable protection from a 
falling small unmanned aircraft; or
    (c) The operation meets the requirements of at least one of the 
operational categories specified in subpart D of this part.

0
17. Amend Sec.  107.49 by revising paragraphs (d) and (e) and adding 
paragraph (f) to read as follows:


Sec.  107.49   Preflight familiarization, inspection, and actions for 
aircraft operation.

* * * * *
    (d) If the small unmanned aircraft is powered, ensure that there is 
enough available power for the small unmanned aircraft system to 
operate for the intended operational time;
    (e) Ensure that any object attached or carried by the small 
unmanned aircraft is secure and does not adversely affect the flight 
characteristics or controllability of the aircraft; and
    (f) If the operation will be conducted over human beings under 
subpart D of this part, ensure that the aircraft meets the requirements 
of Sec.  107.110, Sec.  107.120(a), Sec.  107.130(a), or Sec.  107.140, 
as applicable.

0
18. Effective March 1, 2021, amend Sec.  107.61 by revising paragraph 
(d) to read as follows:


Sec.  107.61   Eligibility.

* * * * *
    (d) Demonstrate aeronautical knowledge by satisfying one of the 
following conditions, in a manner acceptable to the Administrator:
    (1) Pass an initial aeronautical knowledge test covering the areas 
of knowledge specified in Sec.  107.73; or
    (2) If a person holds a pilot certificate (other than a student 
pilot certificate) issued under part 61 of this chapter and meets the 
flight review requirements specified in Sec.  61.56, complete training 
covering the areas of knowledge specified in Sec.  107.74.

0
19. Effective March 1, 2021, amend Sec.  107.63 by revising paragraph 
(a)(2) to read as follows:


Sec.  107.63   Issuance of a remote pilot certificate with a small UAS 
rating.

* * * * *
    (a) * * *
    (2) If a person holds a pilot certificate (other than a student 
pilot certificate) issued under part 61 of this chapter and meets the 
flight review requirements specified in Sec.  61.56, a certificate of 
completion of an initial training course under this part that covers 
the areas of knowledge specified in Sec.  107.74.
* * * * *

0
20. Effective March 1, 2021, revise Sec.  107.65 to read as follows:


Sec.  107.65   Aeronautical knowledge recency.

    A person may not exercise the privileges of a remote pilot in 
command with small UAS rating unless that person has accomplished one 
of the

[[Page 4383]]

following in a manner acceptable to the Administrator within the 
previous 24 calendar months:
    (a) Passed an initial aeronautical knowledge test covering the 
areas of knowledge specified in Sec.  107.73;
    (b) Completed recurrent training covering the areas of knowledge 
specified in Sec.  107.73; or
    (c) If a person holds a pilot certificate (other than a student 
pilot certificate) issued under part 61 of this chapter and meets the 
flight review requirements specified in Sec.  61.56, completed training 
covering the areas of knowledge specified in Sec.  107.74.
    (d) A person who has passed a recurrent aeronautical knowledge test 
in a manner acceptable to the Administrator or who has satisfied the 
training requirement of paragraph (c) of this section prior to March 1, 
2021 within the previous 24 calendar months is considered to be in 
compliance with the requirement of paragraph (b) or (c) of this 
section, as applicable.

0
21. Effective March 1, 2021, revise Sec.  107.73 to read as follows:


Sec.  107.73   Knowledge and training.

    An initial aeronautical knowledge test and recurrent training 
covers the following areas of knowledge:
    (a) Applicable regulations relating to small unmanned aircraft 
system rating privileges, limitations, and flight operation;
    (b) Airspace classification, operating requirements, and flight 
restrictions affecting small unmanned aircraft operation;
    (c) Aviation weather sources and effects of weather on small 
unmanned aircraft performance;
    (d) Small unmanned aircraft loading;
    (e) Emergency procedures;
    (f) Crew resource management;
    (g) Radio communication procedures;
    (h) Determining the performance of the small unmanned aircraft;
    (i) Physiological effects of drugs and alcohol;
    (j) Aeronautical decision-making and judgment;
    (k) Airport operations;
    (l) Maintenance and preflight inspection procedures; and
    (m) Operation at night.

0
22. Effective March 1, 2021, revise Sec.  107.74 to read as follows:


Sec.  107.74   Small unmanned aircraft system training.

    Training for pilots who hold a pilot certificate (other than a 
student pilot certificate) issued under part 61 of this chapter and 
meet the flight review requirements specified in Sec.  61.56 covers the 
following areas of knowledge:
    (a) Applicable regulations relating to small unmanned aircraft 
system rating privileges, limitations, and flight operation;
    (b) Effects of weather on small unmanned aircraft performance;
    (c) Small unmanned aircraft loading;
    (d) Emergency procedures;
    (e) Crew resource management;
    (f) Determining the performance of the small unmanned aircraft;
    (g) Maintenance and preflight inspection procedures; and
    (h) Operation at night.

Subpart D--[Redesignated as Subpart E]

0
23. Redesignate subpart D as subpart E.

0
24. Add new subpart D to read as follows:

Subpart D--Operations Over Human Beings

Sec.
107.100 Applicability.
107.105 Limitations on operations over human beings.
107.110 Category 1 operations.
107.115 Category 2 operations: Operating requirements.
107.120 Category 2 operations: Eligibility of small unmanned 
aircraft and other applicant requirements.
107.125 Category 3 operations: Operating requirements.
107.130 Category 3 operations: Eligibility of small unmanned 
aircraft and other applicant requirements.
107.135 Labeling by remote pilot in command for Category 2 and 3 
operations.
107.140 Category 4 operations.
107.145 Operations over moving vehicles.
107.150 Variable mode and variable configuration of small unmanned 
aircraft.
107.155 Means of compliance.
107.160 Declaration of compliance.
107.165 Record retention.


Sec.  107.100   Applicability.

    This subpart prescribes the eligibility and operating requirements 
for civil small unmanned aircraft to operate over human beings or over 
moving vehicles in the United States, in addition to those operations 
permitted by Sec.  107.39(a) and (b).


Sec.  107.105   Limitations on operations over human beings.

    Except as provided in Sec. Sec.  107.39(a) and (b) and 107.145, a 
remote pilot in command may conduct operations over human beings only 
in accordance with the following, as applicable: Sec.  107.110 for 
Category 1 operations; Sec. Sec.  107.115 and 107.120 for Category 2 
operations; Sec. Sec.  107.125 and 107.130 for Category 3 operations; 
or Sec.  107.140 for Category 4 operations.


Sec.  107.110   Category 1 operations.

    To conduct Category 1 operations--
    (a) A remote pilot in command must use a small unmanned aircraft 
that--
    (1) Weighs 0.55 pounds or less on takeoff and throughout the 
duration of each operation under Category 1, including everything that 
is on board or otherwise attached to the aircraft; and
    (b) Does not contain any exposed rotating parts that would lacerate 
human skin upon impact with a human being.
    (c) No remote pilot in command may operate a small unmanned 
aircraft in sustained flight over open-air assemblies of human beings 
unless the operation meets the requirements of either Sec.  89.110 or 
Sec.  89.115(a) of this chapter.


Sec.  107.115  Category 2 operations: Operating requirements.

    To conduct Category 2 operations--
    (a) A remote pilot in command must use a small unmanned aircraft 
that--
    (1) Is eligible for Category 2 operations pursuant to Sec.  
107.120(a);
    (2) Is listed on an FAA-accepted declaration of compliance as 
eligible for Category 2 operations in accordance with Sec.  107.160; 
and
    (3) Is labeled as eligible to conduct Category 2 operations in 
accordance with Sec.  107.120(b)(1).
    (b) No remote pilot in command may operate a small unmanned 
aircraft in sustained flight over open-air assemblies of human beings 
unless the operation meets the requirements of either Sec.  89.110 or 
Sec.  89.115(a) of this chapter.


Sec.  107.120   Category 2 operations: Eligibility of small unmanned 
aircraft and other applicant requirements.

    (a) To be eligible for use in Category 2 operations, the small 
unmanned aircraft must be designed, produced, or modified such that 
it--
    (1) Will not cause injury to a human being that is equivalent to or 
greater than the severity of injury caused by a transfer of 11 foot-
pounds of kinetic energy upon impact from a rigid object;
    (2) Does not contain any exposed rotating parts that would lacerate 
human skin upon impact with a human being; and
    (3) Does not contain any safety defects.
    (b) The applicant for a declaration of compliance for a small 
unmanned aircraft that is eligible for use in Category 2 operations in 
accordance with paragraph (a) of this section, must meet all of the 
following requirements

[[Page 4384]]

for the applicant's unmanned aircraft to be used in Category 2 
operations:
    (1) Display a label on the small unmanned aircraft indicating 
eligibility to conduct Category 2 operations. The label must be in 
English and be legible, prominent, and permanently affixed to the small 
unmanned aircraft.
    (2) Have remote pilot operating instructions that apply to the 
operation of the small unmanned aircraft system. The applicant for a 
declaration of compliance must make available these instructions upon 
sale or transfer of the aircraft or use of the aircraft by someone 
other than the applicant who submitted a declaration of compliance 
pursuant to Sec.  107.160. Such instructions must address, at a 
minimum--
    (i) A system description that includes the required small unmanned 
aircraft system components, any system limitations, and the declared 
category or categories of operation;
    (ii) Modifications that will not change the ability of the small 
unmanned aircraft system to meet the requirements for the category or 
categories of operation the small unmanned aircraft system is eligible 
to conduct; and
    (iii) Instructions for how to verify and change the mode or 
configuration of the small unmanned aircraft system, if they are 
variable.
    (3) Maintain a product support and notification process. The 
applicant for a declaration of compliance must maintain product support 
and notification procedures to notify the public and the FAA of--
    (i) Any defect or condition that causes the small unmanned aircraft 
to no longer meet the requirements of this subpart; and
    (ii) Any identified safety defect that causes the small unmanned 
aircraft to exceed a low probability of casualty.


Sec.  107.125   Category 3 operations: Operating requirements.

    To conduct Category 3 operations, a remote pilot in command--
    (a) Must use a small unmanned aircraft that--
    (1) Is eligible for Category 3 operations pursuant to Sec.  
107.130(a);
    (2) Is listed on a current declaration of compliance as eligible 
for Category 3 operations in accordance with Sec.  107.160; and
    (3) Is labeled as eligible for Category 3 operations in accordance 
with Sec.  107.130(b)(1);
    (b) Must not operate the small unmanned aircraft over open-air 
assemblies of human beings; and
    (c) May only operate the small unmanned aircraft above any human 
being if operation meets one of the following conditions:
    (1) The operation is within or over a closed- or restricted-access 
site and all human beings located within the closed- or restricted-
access site must be on notice that a small unmanned aircraft may fly 
over them; or
    (2) The small unmanned aircraft does not maintain sustained flight 
over any human being unless that human being is--
    (i) Directly participating in the operation of the small unmanned 
aircraft; or
    (ii) Located under a covered structure or inside a stationary 
vehicle that can provide reasonable protection from a falling small 
unmanned aircraft.


Sec.  107.130  Category 3 operations: Eligibility of small unmanned 
aircraft and other applicant requirements.

    (a) To be eligible for use in Category 3 operations, the small 
unmanned aircraft must be designed, produced, or modified such that 
it--
    (1) Will not cause injury to a human being that is equivalent to or 
greater than the severity of the injury caused by a transfer of 25 
foot-pounds of kinetic energy upon impact from a rigid object;
    (2) Does not contain any exposed rotating parts that would lacerate 
human skin upon impact with a human being; and
    (3) Does not contain any safety defects.
    (b) The applicant for a declaration of compliance for a small 
unmanned aircraft that is eligible for use in Category 3 operations in 
accordance with paragraph (a) of this section, must meet all of the 
following requirements for the applicant's small unmanned aircraft to 
be used in Category 3 operations:
    (1) Display a label on the small unmanned aircraft indicating 
eligibility to conduct Category 3 operations. The label must be in 
English and be legible, prominent, and permanently affixed to the small 
unmanned aircraft.
    (2) Have remote pilot operating instructions that apply to the 
operation of the small unmanned aircraft system. The applicant for a 
declaration of compliance must make available these instructions upon 
sale or transfer of the aircraft or use of the aircraft by someone 
other than the applicant who submitted a declaration of compliance 
pursuant to Sec.  107.160. Such instructions must address, at a 
minimum--
    (i) A system description that includes the required small unmanned 
aircraft system components, any system limitations, and the declared 
category or categories of operation;
    (ii) Modifications that will not change the ability of the small 
unmanned aircraft system to meet the requirements for the category or 
categories of operation the small unmanned aircraft system is eligible 
to conduct; and
    (iii) Instructions for how to verify and change the mode or 
configuration of the small unmanned aircraft system, if they are 
variable.
    (3) Maintain a product support and notification process. The 
applicant for a declaration of compliance must maintain product support 
and notification procedures to notify the public and the FAA of--
    (i) Any defect or condition that causes the small unmanned aircraft 
to no longer meet the requirements of this subpart; and
    (ii) Any identified safety defect that causes the small unmanned 
aircraft to exceed a low probability of fatality.


Sec.  107.135   Labeling by remote pilot in command for Category 2 and 
3 operations.

    If a Category 2 or Category 3 label affixed to a small unmanned 
aircraft is damaged, destroyed, or missing, a remote pilot in command 
must label the aircraft in English such that the label is legible, 
prominent, and will remain on the small unmanned aircraft for the 
duration of the operation before conducting operations over human 
beings. The label must correctly identify the category or categories of 
operation over human beings that the small unmanned aircraft is 
qualified to conduct in accordance with this subpart.


Sec.  107.140   Category 4 operations.

    (a) Remote pilot in command requirements. To conduct Category 4 
operations--
    (1) A remote pilot in command--
    (i) Must use a small unmanned aircraft that is eligible for 
Category 4 operations pursuant to paragraph (b) of this section; and
    (ii) Must operate the small unmanned aircraft in accordance with 
all operating limitations that apply to the small unmanned aircraft, as 
specified by the Administrator.
    (2) No remote pilot in command may operate a small unmanned 
aircraft in sustained flight over open-air assemblies of human beings 
unless the operation meets the requirements of either Sec.  89.110 or 
Sec.  89.115(a) of this chapter.
    (b) Small unmanned aircraft requirements for Category 4. To be 
eligible to operate over human beings under this section, the small 
unmanned aircraft must--
    (1) Have an airworthiness certificate issued under part 21 of this 
chapter.
    (2) Be operated in accordance with the operating limitations 
specified in

[[Page 4385]]

the approved Flight Manual or as otherwise specified by the 
Administrator. The operating limitations must not prohibit operations 
over human beings.
    (3) Have maintenance, preventive maintenance, alterations, or 
inspections performed in accordance with paragraph (c)(1) of this 
section.
    (c) Maintenance requirements for Category 4. The owner must (unless 
the owner enters into an agreement with an operator to meet the 
requirements of this paragraph (c), then the operator must) meet the 
requirements of this paragraph (c):
    (1) Ensure the person performing any maintenance, preventive 
maintenance, alterations, or inspections:
    (i) Uses the methods, techniques, and practices prescribed in the 
manufacturer's current maintenance manual or Instructions for Continued 
Airworthiness that are acceptable to the Administrator, or other 
methods, techniques, and practices acceptable to the Administrator;
    (ii) Has the knowledge, skill, and appropriate equipment to perform 
the work;
    (iii) Performs the maintenance, preventive maintenance, or 
alterations on the small unmanned aircraft in a manner using the 
methods, techniques, and practices prescribed in the manufacturer's 
current maintenance manual or Instructions for Continued Airworthiness 
prepared by its manufacturer, or other methods, techniques, and 
practices acceptable to the Administrator;
    (iv) Inspects the small unmanned aircraft in accordance with the 
manufacturer's instructions or other instructions acceptable to the 
Administrator; and
    (v) Performs the maintenance, preventive maintenance, or 
alterations using parts of such a quality that the condition of the 
aircraft will be at least equal to its original or properly altered 
condition.
    (2) Maintain all records of maintenance, preventive maintenance, 
and alterations performed on the aircraft and ensure the records are 
documented in a manner acceptable to the Administrator. The records 
must contain the description of the work performed, the date the work 
was completed, and the name of the person who performed the work.
    (3) Maintain all records containing--
    (i) The status of life-limited parts that are installed on, or part 
of, the small unmanned aircraft;
    (ii) The inspection status of the aircraft; and
    (iii) The status of applicable airworthiness directives including 
the method of compliance, the airworthiness directive number, and 
revision date. If the airworthiness directive involves recurring 
action, the record must contain the time and date of the next required 
action.
    (4) Retain the records required under paragraphs (c)(2) and (3) of 
this section, as follows:
    (i) The records documenting maintenance, preventive maintenance, or 
alterations performed must be retained for 1 year from when the work is 
completed or until the maintenance is repeated or superseded by other 
work.
    (ii) The records documenting the status of life-limited parts, 
compliance with airworthiness directives, and inspection status of the 
small unmanned aircraft must be retained and transferred with the 
aircraft upon change in ownership.
    (5) Ensure all records under paragraphs (c)(2) and (3) of this 
section are available for inspection upon request from the 
Administrator or any authorized representative of the National 
Transportation Safety Board (NTSB).
    (d) Compliance with parts 43 and 91 of this chapter. Compliance 
with part 43 and part 91, subpart E, of this chapter fulfills the 
requirements in paragraphs (b)(4) and (c) of this section.


Sec.  107.145   Operations over moving vehicles.

    No person may operate a small unmanned aircraft over a human being 
located inside a moving vehicle unless the following conditions are 
met:
    (a) The operation occurs in accordance with Sec.  107.110 for 
Category 1 operations; Sec.  107.115 for Category 2 operations; Sec.  
107.125 for Category 3 operations; or Sec.  107.140 for Category 4 
operations.
    (b) For an operation under Category 1, Category 2, or Category 3, 
the small unmanned aircraft, throughout the operation--
    (1) Must remain within or over a closed- or restricted-access site, 
and all human beings located inside a moving vehicle within the closed- 
or restricted-access site must be on notice that a small unmanned 
aircraft may fly over them; or
    (2) Must not maintain sustained flight over moving vehicles.
    (c) For a Category 4 operation, the small unmanned aircraft must--
    (1) Have an airworthiness certificate issued under part 21 of this 
chapter.
    (2) Be operated in accordance with the operating limitations 
specified in the approved Flight Manual or as otherwise specified by 
the Administrator. The operating limitations must not prohibit 
operations over human beings located inside moving vehicles.


Sec.  107.150  Variable mode and variable configuration of small 
unmanned aircraft systems.

    A small unmanned aircraft system may be eligible for one or more 
categories of operation over human beings under this subpart, as long 
as a remote pilot in command cannot inadvertently switch between modes 
or configurations.


Sec.  107.155   Means of compliance.

    (a) Establishment of compliance. To meet the requirements of Sec.  
107.120(a) for operations in Category 2, or the requirements of Sec.  
107.130(a) for operations in Category 3, the means of compliance must 
consist of test, analysis, or inspection.
    (b) Required information. An applicant requesting FAA acceptance of 
a means of compliance must submit the following information to the FAA 
in a manner specified by the Administrator:
    (1) Procedures. Detailed description of the means of compliance, 
including applicable test, analysis, or inspection procedures to 
demonstrate how the small unmanned aircraft meets the requirements of 
Sec.  107.120(a) for operations in Category 2 or the requirements of 
Sec.  107.130(a) for operations in Category 3. The description should 
include conditions, environments, and methods, as applicable.
    (2) Compliance explanation. Explanation of how application of the 
means of compliance fulfills the requirements of Sec.  107.120(a) for 
operations in Category 2 or the requirements of Sec.  107.130(a) for 
operations in Category 3.
    (c) FAA acceptance. If the FAA determines the applicant has 
demonstrated compliance with paragraphs (a) and (b) of this section, it 
will notify the applicant that it has accepted the means of compliance.
    (d) Rescission. (1) A means of compliance is subject to ongoing 
review by the Administrator. The Administrator may rescind its 
acceptance of a means of compliance if the Administrator determines 
that a means of compliance does not meet any or all of the requirements 
of this subpart.
    (2) The Administrator will publish a notice of rescission in the 
Federal Register.
    (e) Inapplicability of part 13, subpart D, of this chapter. Part 
13, subpart D, of

[[Page 4386]]

this chapter does not apply to the procedures of paragraph (a) of this 
section.


Sec.  107.160   Declaration of compliance.

    (a) Required information. In order for an applicant to declare a 
small unmanned aircraft is compliant with the requirements of this 
subpart for Category 2 or Category 3 operations, an applicant must 
submit a declaration of compliance for acceptance by the FAA, in a 
manner specified by the Administrator, that includes the following 
information:
    (1) Applicant's name;
    (2) Applicant's physical address;
    (3) Applicant's email address;
    (4) The small unmanned aircraft make and model name, and series, if 
applicable;
    (5) The small unmanned aircraft serial number or range of serial 
numbers that are the subject of the declaration of compliance;
    (6) Whether the declaration of compliance is an initial declaration 
or an amended declaration;
    (7) If the declaration of compliance is an amended declaration, the 
reason for the re-submittal;
    (8) The accepted means of compliance the applicant used to fulfill 
requirements of Sec.  107.120(a) or Sec.  107.130(a) or both;
    (9) A declaration that the applicant--
    (i) Has demonstrated that the small unmanned aircraft, or specific 
configurations of that aircraft, satisfies Sec.  107.120(a) or Sec.  
107.130(a) or both, through the accepted means of compliance identified 
in paragraph (a)(8) of this section;
    (ii) Has verified that the unmanned aircraft does not contain any 
safety defects;
    (iii) Has satisfied Sec.  107.120(b)(3) or Sec.  107.130(b)(3), or 
both; and
    (iv) Will, upon request, allow the Administrator to inspect its 
facilities, technical data, and any manufactured small unmanned 
aircraft and witness any tests necessary to determine compliance with 
this subpart; and
    (10) Other information as required by the Administrator.
    (b) FAA acceptance. If the FAA determines the applicant has 
demonstrated compliance with the requirements of this subpart, it will 
notify the applicant that it has accepted the declaration of 
compliance.
    (c) Notification of a safety issue. Prior to initiating rescission 
proceedings pursuant to paragraphs (d)(1) through (3) of this section, 
the FAA will notify the applicant if a safety issue has been identified 
for the declaration of compliance.
    (d) Rescission. (1) No person may operate a small unmanned aircraft 
identified on a declaration of compliance that the FAA has rescinded 
pursuant to this subpart while that declaration of compliance is 
rescinded.
    (2) The FAA may rescind a declaration of compliance if any of the 
following conditions occur:
    (i) A small unmanned aircraft for which a declaration of compliance 
was accepted no longer complies with Sec.  107.120(a) or Sec.  
107.130(a);
    (ii) The FAA finds a declaration of compliance is in violation of 
Sec.  107.5(a); or
    (iii) The Administrator determines an emergency exists related to 
safety in accordance with the authority in 49 U.S.C. 46105.
    (3) If a safety issue identified under paragraph (c) of this 
section has not been resolved, the FAA may rescind the declaration of 
compliance as follows:
    (i) The FAA will issue a notice proposing to rescind the 
declaration of compliance. The notice will set forth the Agency's basis 
for the proposed rescission and provide the holder of the declaration 
of compliance with 30 calendar days from the date of issuance of the 
proposed notice to submit evidentiary information to refute the 
proposed notice.
    (ii) The holder of the declaration of compliance must submit 
information demonstrating how the small unmanned aircraft meets the 
requirements of this subpart within 30 calendar days from the date of 
issuance of the proposed notice.
    (iii) If the FAA does not receive the information required by 
paragraph (d)(3)(ii) of this section within 30 calendar days from the 
date of the issuance of the proposed notice, the FAA will issue a 
notice rescinding the declaration of compliance.
    (4) If the Administrator determines that an emergency exists in 
accordance with paragraph (d)(2)(iii) of this section, the FAA will 
exercise its authority under 49 U.S.C. 46105(c) to issue an order 
rescinding a declaration of compliance without initiating the process 
in paragraph (d)(3) of this section.
    (e) Petition to reconsider the rescission of a declaration of 
compliance. A person subject to an order of rescission under paragraph 
(d)(3) of this section may petition the FAA to reconsider the 
rescission of a declaration of compliance by submitting a request to 
the FAA in a manner specified by the Administrator within 60 days of 
the date of issuance of the rescission.
    (1) A petition to reconsider the rescission of a declaration of 
compliance must demonstrate at least one of the following:
    (i) A material fact that was not present in the original response 
to the notification of the safety issue and an explanation for why it 
was not present in the original response;
    (ii) The FAA made a material factual error in the decision to 
rescind the declaration of compliance; or
    (iii) The FAA did not correctly interpret a law, regulation, or 
precedent.
    (2) Upon consideration of the information submitted under paragraph 
(e)(1) of this section, the FAA will issue a notice either affirming 
the rescission or withdrawing the rescission.
    (f) Inapplicability of part 13, subpart D, of this chapter. Part 
13, subpart D, of this chapter does not apply to the procedures of 
paragraphs (d) and (e) of this section.


Sec.  107.165   Record retention.

    (a) A person who submits a declaration of compliance under this 
subpart must retain and make available to the Administrator, upon 
request, the information described in paragraph (a)(1) of this section 
for the period of time described in paragraph (a)(2) of this section.
    (1) All supporting information used to demonstrate the small 
unmanned aircraft meets the requirements of Sec. Sec.  107.120(a), for 
operations in Category 2, and 107.130(a), for operations in Category 3.
    (2) The following time periods apply:
    (i) If the person who submits a declaration of compliance produces 
a small unmanned aircraft, that person must retain the information 
described in paragraph (a)(1) of this section for two years after the 
cessation of production of the small unmanned aircraft system for which 
the person declared compliance.
    (ii) If the person who submits a declaration of compliance designs 
or modifies a small unmanned aircraft, that person must retain the 
information described in paragraph (a)(1) of this section for two years 
after the person submitted the declaration of compliance.
    (b) A person who submits a means of compliance under this subpart 
must retain and make available to the Administrator, upon request, and 
for as long as the means of compliance remains accepted, the detailed 
description of the means of compliance and justification showing how 
the means of compliance meets the requirements of Sec. Sec.  
107.120(a), for operations in Category 2, and 107.130(a), for 
operations in Category 3.

[[Page 4387]]


0
25. Amend Sec.  107.205 by revising paragraph (b) and adding paragraph 
(j) to read as follows:


Sec.  107.205  List of regulations subject to waiver.

* * * * *
    (b) Section 107.29(a)(2) and (b)--Anti-collision light required for 
operations at night and during periods of civil twilight.
* * * * *
    (j) Section 107.145--Operations over moving vehicles.

    Issued under the authority provided by 49 U.S.C. 106(f), 40101 
note; and 44807, in Washington, DC.
Elaine L. Chao,
Secretary, Department of Transportation.
Steve Dickson,
Administrator, Federal Aviation Administration.
[FR Doc. 2020-28947 Filed 1-8-21; 4:15 pm]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P