[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