[Federal Register Volume 87, Number 134 (Thursday, July 14, 2022)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 42100-42104]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2022-14872]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
NATIONAL TRANSPORTATION SAFETY BOARD
49 CFR Part 830
[Docket No.: NTSB-2021-0004]
RIN 3147-AA20
Amendment to the Definition of Unmanned Aircraft Accident
AGENCY: National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB).
ACTION: Final rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) is issuing a
final rule, amending the definition of ``Unmanned aircraft accident''
by removing the weight-based requirement and replacing it with an
airworthiness certificate requirement. The weight threshold is no
longer an appropriate criterion because unmanned aircraft systems (UAS)
under 300 lbs. are operating in high-risk environments, such as beyond
line-of-sight and over populated areas. The amended definition will
allow the NTSB to be notified of and quickly respond to UAS events with
safety significance. Since the notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM),
the agency considered comments and as a result eliminated the
``airworthiness approval,'' while keeping ``airworthiness
certification.''
DATES: This rule is effective August 15, 2022.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Kathleen Silbaugh, General Counsel,
(202) 314-6080, [email protected].
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
I. Background
The NTSB prescribes regulations governing the notification and
reporting of accidents involving civil aircraft. As an independent
Federal agency charged with investigating and establishing the facts,
circumstances, and probable cause of every civil aviation accident in
the United States, the NTSB has an interest in redefining a UAS
accident in light of recent developments in the industry.
For NTSB purposes, ``unmanned aircraft accident'' means an
occurrence associated with the operation of an unmanned aircraft that
takes place between the time that the system is activated with the
purpose of flight and the time that the system is deactivated at the
conclusion of its mission, and in which any person suffers death or
serious injury, or in which the aircraft has a maximum gross takeoff
weight of 300 lbs. or greater and receives substantial damage.
At the time this definition was contemplated, the weight-based
requirement was necessary because defining an accident solely on
``substantial damage'' would have required investigations of numerous
small UAS (sUAS) crashes with no significant safety issues. See final
rule, 75 FR 51953, 51954 (Aug. 24, 2010). Consequently, there is no
legal requirement to report or for the NTSB to investigate events
involving substantial damage to UAS weighing less than 300 lbs. because
these are not recognized ``unmanned aircraft accidents'' under the
NTSB's regulations. While this definition ensured that the NTSB
expended resources on UAS events involving the most significant risk to
public safety, the advent of higher capability UAS applications--such
as commercial drone delivery flights operating in a higher risk
environment (e.g., populated areas, beyond line-of-sight operations,
etc.)--has prompted the agency to propose an updated definition of
``unmanned aircraft accident.'' Moreover, in the August 24, 2010, final
rule, the NTSB anticipated future updates of the definition given the
evolving nature of UAS technology and operations. Id.
On May 21, 2021, the NTSB issued an NPRM announcing its intent to
issue a rule amending the definition of ``Unmanned aircraft accident''
by removing the weight-based requirement and replacing it with an
airworthiness certificate or airworthiness approval requirement. 86 FR
27550 (May 21, 2021). The weight threshold is no longer an appropriate
criterion because UAS under 300 lbs. are operating in high-risk
environments, such as beyond line-of-sight and over populated areas.
The NTSB explained that proposed definition will allow the NTSB to be
notified of and quickly respond to UAS events with safety significance.
During the comment period, the NTSB received 11 timely public comments
that are addressed by subject matter below.
II. Airworthiness Certification/Approval
The NTSB believes that an updated definition is necessary given the
changing UAS industry. Section 44807 of the Federal Aviation
Administration (FAA) Reauthorization Act of 2018 (Reauthorization Act)
directed the Department of Transportation to use a risk-based approach
to determine if certain UAS may operate safely in the national
airspace. A number of drone delivery operations, among other
applications, which need to operate beyond the provisions of the
existing regulation, 14 CFR part 107, have begun using: (1) FAA Special
Airworthiness Certificates--Experimental, or (2) approvals under the
exemption processes per section 44807 of the Reauthorization Act that
allows the FAA to grant exemptions on an individual basis. Because
airworthiness certification is necessary for operation of civil
aircraft outside of 14 CFR part 107 or without an exemption, as drone
delivery and other applications develop, airworthiness certification
will become more prevalent for certain unmanned aircraft of any size or
weight.
A substantially damaged delivery drone may uncover significant
safety issues, the investigation of which may enhance aviation safety
through the independent and established NTSB process. This amended
definition will treat a UAS with airworthiness certification in the
same manner as a manned aircraft with airworthiness certification,
thereby enabling the NTSB to immediately investigate, influence
corrective actions, and propose safety recommendations.
[[Page 42101]]
Accordingly, the definition will be flexible to account for changes
in the UAS industry and will allow the NTSB to respond quickly to UAS
events with safety significance, while not burdening the agency or
public with unnecessary responses.
III. Responses to Comments
The NTSB received 11 timely comments with some in support of the
proposed definition as amended, and others who have raised various
issues that the NTSB has addressed by subject further below. Although
the agency received one late-filed comment, the NTSB notes that the
commenter reiterated the comments received from those in opposition,
which are addressed below.
Those in support included Sheri Pippin, a private citizen, who
commented: ``The FAA is being put under enormous pressure to authorize
commercial UAS operations in reduced timeframes. Therefore, these
commercial UAS operations should be subject to the same scrutiny as
commercial manned operations. Allowing the NTSB to investigate
accidents involving commercial UAS operations will provide an
independent review of these operations which will hopefully improve the
safety of these operations.''
Another in support of the proposed amendment to the definition
included Airlines for America (A4A), which stated that it ``endorses
the NTSB extending the scope of the data being collected on UAS related
incidents because it will improve safety of operations by identifying
potential safety risks and providing safety improvement recommendations
and provide relevant data that can enhance security initiatives. In
addition, the proposed definition change would give the public
confidence that the criteria and standard used for UAS investigation
are no different than manned aircraft, which is essential to define
future safety controls and mitigations to the operation and design of
UAS. The reporting and investigating of UAS accidents and incidents can
assist in preventing future UAS encounter by providing informing and
increasing awareness about actual UAS collision risks. Given the
increased security threats posed by UAS, A4A believes that the data
collection will also help identify issues that affect security at
airports.''
An anonymous commenter stated that the agency ``should have the
authority to inspect, investigate, and provide safety recommendations
to owners and operators of small unmanned aircraft under the current
weight limit. It is a timely rule change that is in the best interest
of public safety.''
Jullian Lucas, another private citizen, agreed ``that UAS should be
regulated through a certification process depending on the mission the
aircraft would be performing. . . . UAS aircraft although generally
small can still be very dangerous if flown in a high[-] risk area and
that needs to be monitored consistently when possible and the change to
what can be investigated by the NTSB would help with that.''
The remaining comments are addressed by subject matter below:
A. Public Safety Operators
A commenter who identified themselves as Public Safety Flight
argued: ``There is no mandatory reporting system for UAS pilots
operating as commercial pilots under [14] CFR part 107 or in public
aircraft operations without NTSB awareness and attention. Without
including the reporting of all craft considered aircraft by the FAA, it
seems logically impossible to determine the risk trends of problems of
any particular UAS flying in the National Airspace System. The lack of
reporting creates a safety hazard, with the least safe aircraft not
being on the NTSB radar. This would leave the NTSB at odds with its
statement of its intention to be able to `respond quickly to UAS events
with safety significance.' '' The commenter continued: ``The proposed
change also appears to miss a technical issue that applies to all
organizations operating UAS as public aircraft. Under a Certificate of
Waiver or Authorization (COA), the government organization, operation,
or entity must certify the UAS are airworthy, even without an
Airworthiness Certificate. Since these UAS operated under a COA are
certified airworthy and flown as airworthy, any UAS operated under a
COA should be subject to the exact requirements as if it holds an
Airworthiness Certificate.''
NTSB Response. This comment pertains to increasing the scope to
capture sUAS that are operated by police and fire departments and other
similar governmental first response agencies. It appears that the
commenter requests that the rule include substantial damage events that
occur to first response operations, typically conducted under 14 CFR
part 107 or as Public Aircraft under the provisions of a COA. The
amended definition is intended to exclude the majority of part 107
events that do not result in injury or fatality. Otherwise, increasing
the scope of this rulemaking to capture public safety operators would
create complexity, confusion, and an excessive burden on the agency's
resources with little benefit to safety.
B. Public Certificate of Authority ``Airworthiness''
A number of commenters mentioned that public COA operators self-
certify their aircraft. Specifically, Keith C. Raley, Chief of Aviation
Safety, Training, Program Evaluations & Quality Management of the
Office of Aviation Services at the Department of the Interior, queried:
``whether it would apply to [F]ederal agencies already performing this
function or if it would be limited in its applicability to sUAS that
have received an FAA certification or approval and operating in a civil
capacity. If this new rule were to apply to [F]ederal agencies already
meeting the intended outcomes of the proposed regulation, it could
create needless duplicity in that [Federal Management Regulation] FMR
102-33 compliant agencies are already managing sUAS in a similar
manner. Additionally, the NTSB is often challenged with their ability
to process their existing workload in the manned environment and adding
this requirement will significantly increase their caseload resulting
in even greater delays.''
NTSB Response. The NTSB does not intend to capture these aircraft
and clarifies that ``airworthiness certificate'' has the same meaning
as that in 14 CFR part 21.
C. Section 44807 Approvals
A number of commenters noted that the section 44807 exemption
process is applied very broadly. Entitled ``Special authority for
certain unmanned aircraft systems,'' section 44807(b)(1) provides that
``the Secretary shall determine, at a minimum--which types of unmanned
aircraft systems, if any, as a result of their of their size, weight,
speed, operational capability, proximity to airports and populated
areas, operation over people, and operation within or beyond the visual
line of sight or operation during the day or night, do not create a
hazard to users of the national airspace system of the public.''
The Small UAV Coalition (Coalition) requested ``clarification that
the NTSB's use of the term `airworthiness approvals' means exceptions
under section 44807.'' The Coalition explained that ``Operations under
[p]art 107, even pursuant to a part 107 waiver, are not considered
flights in a high[-]risk environment, which we believe is the NTSB's
focus of this proposed rule.'' The Coalition continued, ``Operations of
a UAS that weighs over 55 lbs. may be authorized only by exemption
under
[[Page 42102]]
section 44807, and thus we believe that they would be covered by the
proposed definition if an exemption under section 44807 is considered
an `airworthiness approval' as the preamble suggests.'' The Coalition
recommended ``limiting the proposed definition, with respect to
substantial damage (revised to relate to property other than the drone)
where there is no death or serious injury, to exemptions issued under
section 44807, thus excluding any part 107 operation (including an
operation conducted under a part 107 waiver), unless that aircraft is
being operated under a section 44807 exemption.''
NTSB Response. The NTSB agrees and to keep the focus on the
operations most likely to be widespread in the National Airspace System
(NAS), the phrase ``or approval'' will be removed from the proposed
definition that was reflected in the NPRM, thereby clarifying that the
definition only applies to aircraft which hold an airworthiness
certificate under 14 CFR part 21.
D. Experimental Airworthiness Certificates
A number of commenters noted that Special Airworthiness
Certificates (SAC)--Experimental (or other categories of SAC) would be
captured by this rule, and that many of these such aircraft are
operated in remote test ranges posing low risk.
The Coalition, for example, argued that the ``term `holds an
airworthiness certificate' would cover experimental category
airworthiness certificates. Operations in the experimental category are
for research and development purposes; commercial operations are not
permitted. Thus, these operations are not conducted in a high[-] risk
environment. Therefore, the Coalition supports including any aircraft
that holds an airworthiness certificate other than in the experimental
category.''
NTSB Response. The NTSB acknowledges that Experimental test
aircraft pose little risk to the public in an immediate sense. However,
many of these aircraft are working toward certification to carry
passengers in the so-called Urban Air Mobility segment, or other
significant operations. Notification and investigation of such events
can uncover safety issues prior to widespread commercial use. The NTSB
notes this is in accordance with the practice for conventional manned
aircraft as well, in which test aircraft accidents are investigated.
E. Hobby/Modeler Operations
A number of commenters requested that the NTSB investigate
hobbyist/modeler events resulting in injury or death. The Coalition
noted that ``[m]any hobbyist/modeler operations under part 101 are
conducted by drones that are also used in commercial operations under
part 107. Given the language of the preamble, the Coalition seeks
confirmation from the Board that it will investigate hobbyist/modeler
aircraft accidents involving death or serious injury to a person.''
Another commenter who referenced themselves as ``Agricola Publius''
expressed his belief that modelers and hobbyists should be included
because a ``man in a garage could easily construct a drone that fits
the criteria for an airworthiness certificate would not be a concern if
it crashed. The notion that one could accidentally put a miniature
bomber through a car window and not be scrutinized by the NTSB is
absurd.''
NTSB Response. The NTSB does not now, nor does it plan to include
model aircraft events in the definition. This is also in accordance
with International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO) Circular 328:
``Model aircraft, generally recognized as intended for recreational
purposes only, fall outside the provisions of the Chicago Convention .
. . .''
The NTSB notes that it may optionally investigate any occurrence
which poses a threat to air safety, but requiring investigations of
model aircraft events is beyond the scope of this rulemaking.
F. Application to Part 107 and Harmonization With 14 CFR 107.9
A number of commenters discussed the applicability and
harmonization with UAS operated under the provisions of 14 CFR part 107
(Small Unmanned Aircraft Systems) and the FAA's notification
requirement in Sec. 107.9 for accident reporting of sUAS. Section
107.9, in pertinent part, requires a remote pilot to report any sUAS
operation involving property damage--other than the sUAS--unless the
cost of repair does not exceed $500, or the fair market value does not
exceed $500 in the event of total loss.
The Cargo Airline Association (CAA) ``proposes aligning the current
accident reporting threshold which provides a takeoff weight of 55 lbs.
and a minimum cost of repair and fair market value of any property
loss. (See 14 [CFR] 107.9). Doing so would align the [p]art 107
accident reporting requirements with NTSB's authority under [p]art
830.''
The Coalition ``urges the Board to adapt the FAA's definition that
refers to damage not to the drone but to property other than the drone.
`Substantial damage' in the NTSB's current and proposed definition
refers to damage to the aircraft, whereas the FAA's definition of
`unmanned aircraft accident' in 14 CFR 107.9 . . . refers to damage to
property `other than to the small unmanned aircraft.''' The Coalition
recommended that ``the NTSB adapt the $500 threshold in the FAA's
definition in 14 CFR 107.9 . . . .'' The Coalition asserted that ``UAS
that will hold an airworthiness certificate or section 44807 approval
are often small, lightweight, and designed with materials and features
that substantially absorb the energy and resultant damage of a
potential collision. The NTSB's proposed change would de-incentivize
the incorporation of such features by focusing on the level of damage
to the airframe instead of the much more relevant level of damage to
persons or property.'' In its footnote, the Coalition stated that it
``recognizes that 49 CFR 830.5 requires reporting of any incident in
which an aircraft causes $25,000 in damages to property other than
aircraft. This provision was likely drafted with legacy aircraft in
mind. While not in the scope of this rulemaking, the Coalition wishes
to refute the notion that because [the] NTSB already has a definition
of accident that includes damage to property in [Sec. ]830.5, the
definition of unmanned aircraft accident in section 830.2 must focus on
the damage to the aircraft.''
NTSB Response. The NTSB believes there is some misunderstanding of
language in the NPRM preamble, which may have caused confusion and
concern. The mention of part 107 in the NPRM is in the preamble section
entitled ``Unaffected Regulations.'' Except for a small segment of part
107 (subpart D, Operations Over Human Beings, Sec. 107.140 Category 4
operations), no small UAS operated under part 107 holds, or will hold,
airworthiness certifications, and therefore will not be affected by
this rule.
Thus, there is no reason to harmonize the NTSB regulation with
Sec. 107.9 as far as a non-injury event because they apply to
different aircraft and operations. The amendment applies to UAS of any
size, which operate under other parts of 14 CFR, such as 91 or 135, and
do so with airworthiness certification under 14 CFR part 21. Commenters
mentioned that some certified aircraft may be of small size or weight
and pose little risk. The NTSB does not intend to evaluate and
determine the risk level, and defers to the FAA requirement for
airworthiness certification for a given vehicle or operation, which the
NTSB believes is a more relevant harmonization. The
[[Page 42103]]
NTSB does not agree with comments which claim that sUAS with very low
risk exposure, but nonetheless receive airworthiness certification
should be exempted. The existing Category 1, 2, and 3 provisions--in
part 107 subpart D--capture many of the low-energy or physically-
protected aircraft and do not require airworthiness certification;
therefore, they are outside the scope of this rulemaking. This is also
in keeping with the definitions for manned aircraft. The end result of
the amendment will treat manned and unmanned aircraft identically for
accident notification and investigation purposes.
Similarly, some commenters mentioned the FAA Sec. 107.9 criteria
of $500 of damage to objects other than the UAS. Although NTSB does
have a notification requirement related to other damage, the current
definition of accidents of any kind of aircraft is not cost-based. The
NTSB believes the cost of other damage is an arbitrary outcome of a
particular event, which may not have any relation to safety issues.
Under Sec. 830.2, substantial damage is defined as ``damage or
failure which adversely affects the structural strength, performance,
or flight characteristics of the aircraft, and which would normally
require major repair or replacement of the affected component.'' Asking
the NTSB to revise its definition of ``substantial damage'' is beyond
the scope of this rulemaking; however, the following comment and
response partially covers this concern.
G. Frangible Components
A number of commenters requested that the NTSB not consider
frangible components or other features that by design may result in
damage to the aircraft, but do not pose a significant risk, e.g.,
parachute deployments.
The Association for Unmanned Vehicle Systems International (AUVSI)
noted that ``[n]ew technologies and construction materials, including
light-weight and frangible materials, ensure that small UAS are
purposefully built to lessen any impact and damage to the public, other
aircraft, or to property. Accordingly, AUVSI advises the NTSB to take
into consideration the FAA's risk-based requirements of aircraft that
receive an airworthiness certificate or approval and the extreme low-
risk categories that many of these aircraft fall into. For example, the
complete elimination of the weight standard may not be the best way to
achieve NTSB's intent. Instead, AUVSI suggests maintaining a maximum
takeoff weigh tied to the `substantial damage' clause, such as what the
. . . [FAA] defines as the . . . [sUAS] category, consisting of UAS of
less than 55 pounds. AUVSI also suggests refining the proposed language
to align with the FAA's [p]art 107 Rule (14 CFR [part] 107) accident
reporting language. Specifically, we propose the condition to specify
that these accident investigations are only undertaken if the cost of
repairs exceeds $500 and/or the fair market value of property damage
exceeds $500, as is this case in . . . Sec. 107.9. This will ensure
that the NTSB's authority is targeted in a cost effective manner that
yields true benefits to aviation safety.''
The CAA noted that ``[b]ecause of their small size and light
weight, most [sUAS] are made by frangible material, designed to break
down in the event of an accident, presenting little safety risk to the
general public. Requiring reporting of accidents of small UAS, solely
because they hold an airworthiness certificate or approval, could lead
to [the] NTSB being inundated with investigations that do not present a
high safety risk to the public. It could lead to further resource
constraints and divert essential resources with the agency.''
NTSB Response. The NTSB agrees with this concept and has operated
in this manner since the initial UAS definition in 2010. The NTSB notes
that damage to intentionally frangible components or other by-design
damage does not qualify as ``substantial damage'' for the purpose of
this rule.
H. Gender Neutral Terminology
Several commenters referenced recommendations by the FAA's Drone
Advisory Committee's (DAC) to revise drone terminology/language in
gender-neutral terms. Specifically, the Air Line Pilots Association,
International (ALPA) requested that the NTSB change the term ``Unmanned
Aircraft System'' to ``Remotely Piloted Aircraft System (RPAS)'' as
recommended by DAC. ALPA noted that using RPAS will align with ICAO's
standards and is a term also used by Transport Canada. ALPA noted that
DAC also recommended using ``uncrewed'' instead of ``unmanned''; ALPA
further recommended that the NTSB use such language in part 830. By
footnote, the CAA noted that on June 23, 2021, the FAA DAC presented
recommendations to the FAA for gender-neutral language, which included
using ``uncrewed'' in lieu of ``unmanned.''
NTSB Response. This proposal is beyond the scope of this
rulemaking,
I. Lead Agency
The Small UAV Coalition ``recommends the NTSB and FAA agree on
criteria to determine whether the NTSB or FAA should be the lead agency
of an UAS accident investigation, consistent with FAA Order 8020.11D.''
NTSB Response. Based on statutory authority, the NTSB is the
``lead'' agency for civil aviation accident investigations, which
covers UAS. Under 49 U.S.C. 1131(a)(1)(A), the NTSB shall investigate
or have investigated the facts, circumstances, and cause or probable
cause of an aircraft accident. Under section 1132(c), the NTSB provides
for FAA participation when necessary. FAA Order 8020.11D describes the
FAA's investigation procedures and responsibilities for aircraft
accident and incident notification, investigation, and reporting.
J. Intentional Crashing of the Drone
The Coalition argued, ``a remote pilot who intentionally decides to
crash the drone to avoid the risk of collision with a person or
property . . . . should not be reportable.''
NTSB Response. The NTSB agrees that in a similar manner to the
frangible component section above, a UAS that has been crashed or
sacrificed intentionally for safety purposes (as opposed to a nefarious
act) does not meet the definition of ``accident.'' However, operators
should be reminded that if the reason for the sacrifice is a listed
event in Sec. 830.5, a notification may still be required.
IV. Regulatory Analysis
Because the NTSB is an independent agency, this rule does not
require an assessment of its potential costs and benefits under section
6(a)(3) of Executive Order (E.O.) 12866, Regulatory Planning and
Review, 58 FR 51735 (Sept. 30, 1993). In addition, the NTSB has
considered whether this rule would have a significant economic impact
on a substantial number of small entities, under the Regulatory
Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601-612). The NTSB certifies under 5 U.S.C.
605(b) that this rule would not have a significant economic impact on a
substantial number of small entities.
The NTSB does not anticipate this rule will have a substantial,
direct effect on state or local governments or will preempt state law;
as such, this rule does not have implications for federalism under E.O.
13132, Federalism, 64 FR 43255 (Aug. 4, 1999).
This rule complies with all applicable standards in sections 3(a)
and 3(b)(2) of E.O. 12988, Civil Justice Reform, 61 FR 4729 (Feb. 5,
1996), to minimize litigation, eliminate ambiguity, and reduce burden.
The NTSB has evaluated this rule under: E.O. 12898, Federal
[[Page 42104]]
Actions to Address Environmental Judice in Minority Populations and
Low-Income Populations, 59 FR 7629 (Feb. 16, 1994); E.O. 13045,
Protection of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety
Risks, 62 FR 19885 (Apr. 21, 1997); E.O. 13175, Consultation and
Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments, 65 FR 67249 (Nov. 6,
2000); E.O. 13211, Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly
Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use, 66 FR 28355 (May 18, 2001);
and the National Environmental Policy Act, 42 U.S.C. 4321-47. Pursuant
to the Paperwork Reduction Act, the NTSB has determined that there is
no new requirement for information collection associated with this
final rule. Pursuant to the Congressional Review Act (5 U.S.C. 801 et
seq.), the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs designated this
rule as not a ``major rule,'' as defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2).
The NTSB has concluded that this final rule neither violates nor
requires further consideration under those orders and statutes.
List of Subjects in 49 CFR Part 830
Air transportation, Aircraft accidents, Aircraft incidents,
Airworthiness directives and standards, Aviation safety, Drones,
Investigations, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Safety,
Unmanned aircraft systems.
Accordingly, for the reasons stated in the preamble, the NTSB
amends 49 CFR part 830 as follows:
PART 830--NOTIFICATION AND REPORTING OF AIRCRAFT ACCIDENTS OR
INCIDENTS AND OVERDUE AIRCRAFT, AND PRESERVATION OF AIRCRAFT
WRECKAGE, MAIL, CARGO, AND RECORDS
0
1. The authority citation for part 830 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 49 U.S.C. 1101-1155; Pub. L. 85-726, 72 Stat. 731
(codified as amended at 49 U.S.C. 40101).
Sec. 830.2 [Amended]
0
2. Amend Sec. 830.2 in paragraph (2) of the definition of ``Unmanned
aircraft accident'' by removing the phrase ``has a maximum gross
takeoff weight of 300 pounds or greater'' and adding in its place
``holds an airworthiness certificate''.
Jennifer Homendy,
Chair.
[FR Doc. 2022-14872 Filed 7-13-22; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7533-01-P