[Federal Register Volume 86, Number 10 (Friday, January 15, 2021)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 4314-4387]
[FR Doc No: 2020-28947]

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

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

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_ADDRESS>
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.

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

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\

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.

    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.

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

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.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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,

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

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.

    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

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