4314 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 10 / Friday, January 15, 2021 / Rules and Regulations 

1See § 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. 

2See § 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. 

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 

§§ 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: UASHelp@

faa.gov. 

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. 

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. 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES3
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 10 / Friday, January 15, 2021 / Rules and Regulations 4315 

3As 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’’). 

4The 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 § 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 

§§ 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. 

5As defined in § 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. 

6As 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. 

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 § 89.110 or 

§ 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 § 89.110 or § 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 openair 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. 

b. Category 2 Operations 

Category 2 provides performancebased 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. 

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

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 openair 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 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES3
4316 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 10 / Friday, January 15, 2021 / Rules and Regulations 

7See 14 CFR part 21, which provides the 

procedural requirements for airworthiness 

certification. 

8Small 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 

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 restrictedaccess 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


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES3
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 10 / Friday, January 15, 2021 / Rules and Regulations 4317 

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. 

Additionally, no remote pilot in 

command may operate a small 

unmanned aircraft as a Category 4 

operation in sustained flight over openair 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. 

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 lifelimited 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 § 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 restrictedaccess 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 § 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 

§ 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 

§ 107.7 for any person holding an FAAaccepted 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 § 107.7 

are discussed in Section XI.A. of this 

preamble. 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES3
4318 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 10 / Friday, January 15, 2021 / Rules and Regulations 

9The 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 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 nonparticipating people in advance of 

flying.9

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] * 

Forecast scenario 

10-Year 

present value 

(3%) 

Annualized 

(3%) 

10-Year 

present value 

(7%) 

Annualized 

(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. 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES3
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 10 / Friday, January 15, 2021 / Rules and Regulations 4319 

10The 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. 

11 49 CFR 5.5(e). 

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. 

13For more information regarding the operation 

of small UAS, see http://www.faa.gov/uas. 

14Section 347 of Public Law 115–254 repealed 

Section 333, but replaced the relevant substantive 

provisions, codified at 49 U.S.C. 44807. 

15 80 FR 78594. 

16 84 FR 3669. 

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. 

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

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

A. Related FAA and DOT Actions 

The FAA is incorporating the 

operation of small UAS into the NAS 

using a phased, incremental, and riskbased 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

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. 

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. 

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 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES3
4320 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 10 / Friday, January 15, 2021 / Rules and Regulations 

17 81 FR 42064. 

18 84 FR 3732. 

19The 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. 

20 84 FR 72438. 

21 84 FR at 72456. 

22A copy of the Micro ARC’s final report has been 

placed in the docket for this rulemaking. 

23 84 FR 3856, 3866–3867. 

24Title 14 CFR 107.200 states that the 

Administrator may issue a certificate of waiver 

authorizing a deviation from any regulation 

specified in § 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. 

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. 

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 standoff 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. 

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

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. 

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

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. 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES3
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 10 / Friday, January 15, 2021 / Rules and Regulations 4321 

A. Safety Concerns 

1. Risks of Operation 

Some commenters expressed concern 

that the proposed rule was too 

permissive, not enforceable, and would 

have a negative effect on public safety. 

Chicago’s First Lady Cruises, the 

International Association of Amusement 

Parks and Attractions (IAAPA), and 

numerous individuals expressed 

concerns about the proposed 

rulemaking because of the potential 

risks. The National Agricultural 

Aviation Association (NAAA) opposed 

allowing operations over people without 

a waiver because there is a lack of safety 

data, among other reasons addressed 

elsewhere in this rule. The commenter 

was concerned that the widespread use 

of small UAS has caused several 

incidents over the last two years, and 

allowing operations over people to 

become routine would open the 

floodgates to operators conducting 

unsafe operations. A few commenters 

opposed the proposed rule because they 

believe there is no way to properly 

enforce the rule. One commenter 

opposed operations over crowds, towns, 

and cities because of the lack of 

redundancy and safety infrastructure. 

Another individual cited unmanned 

aircraft interference with aerial 

firefighting activities as an example of 

the negative impact. One commenter 

noted a single unmanned aircraft can 

damage an aircraft or structure and 

expressed concern about unskilled 

remote pilots. 

Between 2016 and September 2020, 

the Agency has issued 175 waivers for 

operations over people. The FAA issued 

these waivers based on a wide range of 

safety cases and has utilized available 

research, including the ASSURE reports. 

None of the 175 operations over people 

waiver holders have reported injuries to 

persons on the ground, nor have they 

reported damage to any property on the 

ground in excess of $500.00, events that 

are required to be reported by § 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 § 89.110 or 

§ 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 §§ 107.15, 107.19, 

and 107.23 and the requirement to 

conduct a preflight inspection is 

codified at § 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 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES3
4322 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 10 / Friday, January 15, 2021 / Rules and Regulations 

25The 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. 

a second- or third-class medical 

certificate or BasicMed and suggested 

compliance with § 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, 

§ 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, § 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. 

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 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES3
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 10 / Friday, January 15, 2021 / Rules and Regulations 4323 

commenter also wrote that training 

pilots to identify and assess the risks of 

an operation is only worthwhile if 

pilots, in conducting operations over 

people, are trained to respond to (1) the 

loss of a Global Positioning System 

(GPS) signal, (2) the loss of 

communications links, (3) wind shears 

and other wind events, and (4) lowaltitude 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, §§ 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 offthe-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 ‘‘overthe-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 § 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 

§ 107.125(c)(2) [formerly 

§ 107.120(a)(3)(ii)], for clarity. 

A commenter noted that proposed 

§ 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 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES3
4324 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 10 / Friday, January 15, 2021 / Rules and Regulations 

26Commenters 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. 

27 84 FR at 3888–89. 

28Section 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. 

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. 

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. 

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 nonutility 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. 

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 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES3
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 10 / Friday, January 15, 2021 / Rules and Regulations 4325 

29ARC, Registration Task Force ARC Report, 84 

FR 3856, 3866–3867. 

30While 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. 

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. 

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

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 footpounds 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 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES3
4326 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 10 / Friday, January 15, 2021 / Rules and Regulations 

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 openair 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 openair 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, 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES3
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 10 / Friday, January 15, 2021 / Rules and Regulations 4327 

31See §§ 107.120(a)(3) and 107.130(a)(3). 32 84 FR at 3875. 

33Arterburn, 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. 

34See 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. 

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. 

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 

§§ 107.120 and 107.130, as applicable. 

The applicant for a declaration of 

compliance must follow the process 

required by § 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 §§ 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. 

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

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 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES3
4328 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 10 / Friday, January 15, 2021 / Rules and Regulations 

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’’). 

unmanned aircraft to take advantage of 

design features that limit the amount of 

kinetic energy that is ultimately 

transferred to a person on impact. 

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 MidAtlantic 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.’’ 

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 nonlethal 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. 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES3
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 10 / Friday, January 15, 2021 / Rules and Regulations 4329 

36The 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).’’ 

37A14 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). 

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). 39A4 Report. 

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 preimpact kinetic energy is transferred to a 

person during impact. 

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 ftlbs 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

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

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 FAAaccepted 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 ftlbs, the Phantom 3 would need to 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES3
4330 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 10 / Friday, January 15, 2021 / Rules and Regulations 

40A14 Report, Scope p.1–5. 

41EASA’s comment cited Gurdjian, ES., Webster 

J.E., and Lisnner, H.R. (1949) Studies on skull 

fracture with particular reference to engineering 

factors. American Journal of Surgery, 78(5), 736– 

751. https://doi.org/10.1016/0002-9610(49)90315-3. 

42EASA, https://www.regulations.gov/ 

document?D=FAA-2018-1087-0415. 

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. 

With the publication of this rule, 

manufacturers may take this 

opportunity to design new small 

unmanned aircraft of similar size, 

weight, and capability as the existing 

small unmanned aircraft designs 

ASSURE tested. ASSURE tested existing 

models of small unmanned aircraft to 

determine the severity of injuries 

potentially caused by impact. The FAA 

found that, in reviewing the ASSURE 

report, many existing models could, 

potentially with modifications, meet the 

injury severity limits of the proposed 

rule. 

The FAA does not agree with 

ASSURE and other commenters that the 

requirements of this rule are too 

conservative. This final rule is 

performance-based, therefore the FAA 

anticipates that applicants would be 

able to use a variety of injury scales in 

a means of compliance including the 

injury scales identified by ASSURE and 

other commenters. The FAA finds that 

the requirements for Categories 2 and 3 

as finalized in this rule set an 

appropriate balance between allowing 

small unmanned aircraft to operate over 

people without an airworthiness 

certificate while also limiting the risks 

of small unmanned aircraft operations 

to the general public. 

The FAA also tasked ASSURE to 

develop a repeatable and simplified test 

methodology for assessing the level of 

injury severity of small unmanned 

aircraft to people on the ground in the 

event of a collision. The test 

methodology ASSURE produced from 

this research utilizes the lessons learned 

from their high fidelity crash test 

dummy and PMHS testing.40 The 

methodology is a comprehensive means 

to perform impact testing and assess the 

severity of injury in a manner that is not 

cost prohibitive. The FAA would likely 

find acceptable a means of compliance 

based on ASSURE’s test method, as 

described in the A14 Report. For further 

discussion about means of compliance, 

see Section VI.B. 

c. Other Methodologies To Evaluate 

Injury Severity 

The Small UAV Coalition said the 

FAA’s narrow focus on kinetic energy is 

inconsistent with other risk assessment 

models, such as the Specific Operations 

Risk Assessment (SORA) model adopted 

by the European Commission, based on 

its development by the Joint Authorities 

for Rulemaking on Unmanned Systems 

(JARUS). CDA similarly recommended 

adopting the JARUS–SORA model. The 

SORA provides a qualitative 

methodology to determine the intrinsic 

operational risk and a means to apply 

strategic and tactical mitigations to 

reduce risk to an acceptable level as 

determined by the approving authority. 

The SORA also recommends types of 

risk mitigations or controls that address 

common threats, scalable to the level of 

risk, to ensure the safety of the UAS 

operation. Under the SORA 

methodology, an operation over a 

gathering of people would require 

airworthiness certification or a 

mitigation or control acceptable to the 

approving authority. Operations under 

Categories 2 and 3, conducted in 

accordance with the requirements and 

the declaration of compliance process 

are consistent with the 

recommendations of the SORA. Further, 

the FAA has added a Category 4 to this 

rule, which enables small unmanned 

aircraft with an airworthiness certificate 

to operate over people in accordance 

with part 107. The FAA anticipates that 

waiver and exemption applicants will 

continue to use the SORA methodology 

to support waivers and exemptions 

including for activities not permitted 

under this rule, such as beyond visual 

line of sight operations. An individual 

commenter said operations over people 

should be governed by an equation that 

considers: (1) Probability of crash 

(considering weather, condition of UAS, 

proximity to buildings, etc.); (2) angle of 

flight path relative to people; (3) speed 

(including whether it will hover or just 

transition over people); and (4) height. 

The FAA acknowledges that considering 

the probability of a crash, angle of flight 

path, and speed is one method to 

determine risk to persons on the ground. 

However, this approach requires the 

FAA to evaluate each element for each 

operation to determine acceptability, 

which would increase the burden on 

applicants and the FAA. The 

commenter’s equation does not provide 

specific performance-based 

requirements. The performance-based 

injury severity limits, exposed rotating 

parts prohibition, and operating 

limitations that this rule establishes 

provides an acceptable level of safety 

while allowing flexibility for industry to 

develop varying ways to comply with 

the applicable requirements. 

d. Injury Severity and Failure Rate 

Uncertainty 

The European Union Aviation Safety 

Agency (EASA) recommended aligning 

the criteria to allow small UAS 

operations over people as much as 

possible between the United States and 

Europe. EASA noted that Category 3 

‘‘identifies a maximum KE threshold of 

25 feet-lbs (about 34 Joules) for impact 

with a solid object.’’ The requirements 

for the proposed 34 joules applicable to 

Category 3 small UAS and the 80 joules 

applicable to the new EASA Class 1 

unmanned aircraft refer to transferred 

kinetic energy, address the effects of 

blunt trauma, limit operations over 

uninvolved people, and include 

additional technical requirements. 

Because they are quantitatively 

different, however, EASA was 

concerned ‘‘they could set Europe and 

the US on different regulatory courses 

for ‘fly over people’ operations.’’ EASA 

stated the data from the RCC standard 

described in the proposed rule are too 

conservative. EASA reported that it had 

reviewed, in particular, the Gurdjian 

experiments to recalculate the energy 

values.41 As described in their 

comment, EASA asserts the ASSURE 

Ground Collision Severity Evaluation 

final report supports its 

recommendation to include a kinetic 

energy threshold of 80 joules.42

The Category 3 operation in this rule 

and EASA’s Class 1 unmanned aircraft 

operation share similarities, but have 

important differences. In particular, the 

EASA Sub-category C1, which includes 

the limitation of 80 joules of energy 

transfer on impact, also contains noise, 

alerting, structural, navigation, and 

datalink requirements that are not 

included in the FAA’s Category 2 or 

Category 3 eligibility requirements. The 

design requirements addressing topics 

such as structural integrity and 

navigational performance are better 

suited for the aircraft certification 

process and are not appropriate for noncertificated aircraft. Because small 

unmanned aircraft under Categories 2 

and 3 are not required to have an 

airworthiness certificate or meet design 

requirements such as those adopted by 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES3
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 10 / Friday, January 15, 2021 / Rules and Regulations 4331 

43The Mavic Air is a small unmanned aircraft 

that weighs in the range of 0.95–1.25 pounds, 

depending on the model and series. 

44Title 14 CFR part 103 (‘‘Ultralight Vehicles’’) 

applies to manned vehicles that only a single 

occupant operates for recreation or sport and, if 

unpowered, weigh less than 155 pounds. Part 103 

applies to powered vehicles that weigh less than 

254 pounds empty weight that meet other criteria. 

See 14 CFR 103.1. 

45See 14 CFR 103.15 (‘‘Operations over congested 

areas’’). 

EASA, an increase in the kinetic energy 

values would allow injuries that are 

significantly more severe than the 

injuries that could occur under Category 

2 or Category 3 of this rule. Both the 

ASSURE research and the Gurdjian 

experiments support the fact that an 

increase in the kinetic energy from the 

proposed requirement, without any 

mitigating design requirements such as 

those required under EASA’s 

regulations, increases the injury severity 

limit beyond an acceptable level. The 

FAA envisions that the variety of the 

four different categories will likely 

provide greater flexibility than what 

EASA has provided. Without including 

additional design or certification 

requirements, the change EASA suggests 

would result in an unacceptable level of 

safety for the general public. The injury 

severity limits and exposed rotating 

parts prohibition are an appropriate set 

of regulations for enabling aircraft 

without airworthiness certification to 

operate over people in accordance with 

an acceptable level of safety. 

The Agency, however, agrees that 

conformity to design requirements is 

another way to enable small unmanned 

aircraft operations over people, and has 

thus added a Category 4 to 

accommodate certificated aircraft. The 

proposed rule included a request for 

comments regarding how the FAA 

should approach the uncertainties 

regarding failure rates and injury 

severity. Several commenters contended 

that the FAA relied too heavily on the 

injury severity limits and did not 

adequately consider the reliability of the 

small UAS or the probability of failure. 

With regard to probability of failure, the 

Agency received several divergent 

comments: Some believe probability of 

failure was inherently low, while others 

thought probability of failure could be 

high. Although the reliability of the 

small unmanned aircraft is one factor in 

determining whether an operation over 

people is safe, the FAA’s process for 

considering the reliability of aircraft is 

the airworthiness certification process. 

Given that operations under part 107 do 

not need to occur with small unmanned 

aircraft that have an airworthiness 

certificate, probability of failure is a less 

appropriate measurement than the 

combination of injury severity limits 

and restrictions on exposed rotating 

parts and safety defects for Categories 2 

and 3, in addition to the operating 

limitations in Category 3 that reduce 

likelihood of impact to a human being. 

To address these comments, this rule 

allows aircraft that have an 

airworthiness certificate that does not 

prohibit operations over people to be 

used for operations over people. These 

Category 4 eligibility requirements are 

discussed in Section VII of this 

preamble. 

One commenter asked why the 

Agency did not distinguish between 

rotorcraft and fixed-wing aircraft. The 

commenter stated, ‘‘[t]hey fall 

differently, but we have the same rules 

for both.’’ Although rotary-wing and 

fixed-wing small unmanned aircraft 

have unique flight characteristics and 

the manner in which they could impact 

a person could be different, any small 

unmanned aircraft must not exceed the 

injury severity limits, regardless of 

whether it is a rotary-wing, fixed-wing, 

or any other type aircraft. An acceptable 

means of compliance must account for 

the variations in aircraft configurations, 

unique failure modes, most probable 

impact orientations, impact trajectory 

angles, and velocities from flight test 

and dynamic modeling for different 

types of small unmanned aircraft to 

demonstrate compliance. A few 

commenters said the categories should 

be based on the flight altitude for the 

same small unmanned aircraft. A 

commenter suggested that a ‘‘Mavic 

Air’’ would be rated Category 2 up to 50 

feet and Category 3 up to 80 feet.43 The 

NPRM discussed the possibility of 

individual small unmanned aircraft 

being eligible for operations in more 

than one category through the use of 

variable modes or configurations. The 

FAA would consider a design feature 

that limits the altitude of a small 

unmanned aircraft to the maximum 

altitude associated with compliance as 

an example of a variable mode; for 

example, when not operating over 

people, a certain small unmanned 

aircraft would not need to limit its 

altitude. However, to operate over 

people, the remote pilot would operate 

in a mode that limits the aircraft’s 

altitude to comply with the 

requirements for operating over people. 

To use variable modes or configurations, 

the remote pilot must not be able to 

inadvertently change the mode or 

configuration and instructions for how 

to change between modes or 

configurations must be available in the 

remote pilot operating instructions. 

Variable modes and configurations are 

discussed in Section VI.F. 

2. Must Not Have Exposed Rotating 

Parts 

To be eligible to conduct Category 2 

or Category 3 operations over people, 

the Agency proposed prohibiting a 

small unmanned aircraft from being 

designed, produced, or modified such 

that it contains exposed rotating parts 

that could lacerate human skin on 

impact with a human being. As stated 

in the proposed rule, exposed rotating 

parts could cause lacerations or other 

serious injuries if these parts were to 

come into contact with a person. Such 

parts are a common feature to small 

unmanned aircraft on the market today. 

Due to the hazards this feature can pose, 

the Agency proposed restricting 

eligibility for Categories 2 and 3 to small 

unmanned aircraft that do not contain 

any exposed rotating parts that could 

lacerate human skin on impact. While 

the NPRM acknowledged that exposed 

rotating parts could be capable of 

injuries beyond just lacerations (e.g., 

injuries to hair, teeth, and eyes), the 

Agency determined this prohibition, 

combined with the other limitations, 

were sufficient to mitigate the risk of 

injuries. 

Several commenters asserted that 

protections for exposed rotating parts 

are not necessary for small unmanned 

aircraft. One of these commenters 

pointed out that data shows fewer 

injuries to uninvolved parties result 

from exposed propellers on small 

unmanned aircraft than the number of 

annual fatalities that occur from 

rotorcraft and operations that occur 

under part 103.44

Manned aircraft with approved 

designs do not require shrouded rotors 

because compliance with applicable 

certification standards and operating 

limitations reduce the likelihood of an 

impact with a human being and 

therefore do not present a significant 

hazard to persons on the ground. 

Operating a small unmanned aircraft 

under Category 2 or Category 3 does not 

require airworthiness certification but, 

as described in this rule, design features 

such as shrouded propellers can 

mitigate the risk of laceration to persons 

on the ground. Ultralight vehicles 

operating in accordance with part 103 

do not have airworthiness certificates. 

However, to mitigate the risk to persons 

on the ground, these vehicles are 

prohibited from operations over any 

congested area of a city, town, or 

settlement, or over any open-air 

assembly of persons.45


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES3
4332 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 10 / Friday, January 15, 2021 / Rules and Regulations 

46 In the NPRM, the FAA proposed clarifying 

§ 107.19, as discussed in Section XII.C of this 

preamble. 

Many commenters suggested the 

prohibition on exposed rotating parts is 

too restrictive. The Small UAV Coalition 

commented that while the preamble of 

the NPRM refers to the prohibition on 

exposed rotating parts as a performance 

standard, it appears to result in 

requiring installing guards or shrouds to 

ensure that rotating parts are not 

exposed on impact. Uber Technologies 

asserted that the exposed rotating parts 

prohibition strictly based on any skin 

laceration, without consideration of 

severity or probability, creates an 

additional blanket prohibition on 

aircraft with any exposed rotating parts. 

If the restriction remains in the final 

rule, Uber Technologies recommended 

including a waiver process for exposed 

rotating parts, with appropriate 

inclusion of risk- and performancebased metrics. AeroVista Drone 

Academy believed the requirement for a 

manufacturer to establish that an aircraft 

design would not have exposed rotating 

parts that could lacerate human skin is 

‘‘materially infeasible’’ without specific 

guidance as to what would meet this 

threshold. The Academy wrote that 

manufacturers would have to conduct 

prohibitively expensive and costly 

testing. A-Cam Aerials asked the Agency 

to reword the requirement so that small 

unmanned aircraft eligible for 

operations in Categories 2 and 3 be 

designed such that they ‘‘minimize’’ 

lacerations to human skin on impact 

with a person. 

The FAA clarifies the primary safety 

objective of the exposed rotating parts 

prohibition is to protect human beings 

on the ground from lacerations upon 

impact with a small unmanned aircraft 

in typical human encounters and 

unmanned aircraft operational scenarios 

(including potential failure modes). The 

FAA distinguishes between a laceration, 

meaning a cut that goes all the way 

through the skin and may require 

emergent medical attention, and an 

abrasion, meaning a superficial injury to 

the skin. Additionally, the FAA uses the 

expression ‘‘typical human encounter’’ 

to describe normal impacts, such as an 

unmanned aircraft impacting a human 

being due to a loss of control, small 

UAS failures, or remote pilot error. 

Exposed rotating parts may pose a 

significant laceration hazard if they 

contact human skin, which is 

unacceptable for the safety of the 

general public. The performance-based 

standards for Categories 2 and 3 will 

protect persons on the ground from 

potentially serious injury. This rule 

does not prohibit the applicant from 

using exposed rotating parts, but only 

prohibits the presence of rotating parts 

capable of lacerating human skin in 

typical human encounters. The FAA has 

issued waivers to companies for 

operations over people that employed 

combinations of motor stop technology 

and exposed rotating parts materials 

that could cause abrasions, but not 

lacerations. The technology and the 

testing methodologies these companies 

used could be utilized in a means of 

compliance accepted by the FAA. 

The FAA anticipates that 

organizations, including industry 

consensus standards bodies, may 

develop means of compliance for an 

unmanned aircraft with exposed 

rotating parts that meet the prohibition 

on exposed rotating parts that would 

cause lacerations. Once those standards 

are accepted by the FAA, applicants 

submitting a declaration of compliance 

may then use that means of compliance 

without themselves having to develop 

the testing methodology or technology. 

Such a means of compliance may 

include specific material requirements, 

rotor specifications, or additional 

mitigating technologies. 

As for the waiver process, § 107.39 

will remain subject to waiver and the 

FAA will continue to review waiver 

applications on a case-by-case basis. 

With regard to the costs of complying 

with the prohibition, a summary of 

impacts is in the regulatory impact 

analysis available in the public docket 

for this rule. 

Commenters were also concerned 

about installing shrouds that would 

guard propellers. An individual wrote 

that propeller guards and full body 

cages can ‘‘adversely affect flight 

characteristics’’ and that propeller 

guards could increase the likelihood of 

loss of control for some quadcopters. In 

addition, DJI said shrouding an entire 

rotating part, if that part is involved in 

propulsion, can affect the aerodynamics 

and performance of the aircraft. 

This rule is performance-based and 

allows exposed rotating parts as long as 

they do not lacerate human skin. 

Adding rotor shrouds, full body cages, 

or other safety features might be ways to 

fulfill the requirement. The rule permits 

applicants to employ propeller guards 

or full body cages in consideration of 

maintaining appropriate flight 

characteristics for the small unmanned 

aircraft. Designs that use propeller 

guards that prevent the exposure of 

rotating parts in typical human 

encounters, would be acceptable to the 

FAA. The FAA acknowledges that 

lacerations to human skin may not be 

entirely preventable in every encounter 

scenario. The means of compliance will 

address how this requirement is met, 

and may contain design characteristics 

and test methods to ensure that the 

applicant has taken all reasonable 

measures to mitigate the possibility of 

lacerations upon impact with a human 

being. While the inclusion of propeller 

guards or full body cages could 

adversely affect the flight performance 

of the small unmanned aircraft, the 

safety benefits provided by the 

prohibition outweigh the potential loss 

of performance. 

An individual noted that lacerations 

from propellers and other parts do not 

rise to the level of AIS level 3. Not all 

lacerating injuries will result in severe 

injury, but rotating propellers and rotors 

could pose a significant laceration 

hazard if they come in contact with 

human skin. Overall, protection from 

lacerating injuries is necessary to 

mitigate the risk to the general public. 

Droneport Texas, LLC said the FAA 

should be open to timely consideration 

and acceptance of alternatives to 

ducting or shrouding rotors, such as 

rotor shedding, in which lightweight 

rotors are jettisoned and drift to the 

ground, and rotor braking, in which all 

exposed rotating parts are mechanically 

or electrically stopped prior to impact. 

Ducting or shrouding of rotating parts is 

only one method of design 

implementation to protect from 

laceration. This rule does not prescribe 

specific design features to provide 

protection from exposed rotating parts; 

any such design features that Droneport 

Texas, LLC identified will be acceptable 

if they meet an FAA-accepted means of 

compliance. 

DJI said it supports protecting people 

from sharp moving parts during 

operations where risks of lacerations 

exist, but notes this could exist with 

respect to operations near, not 

necessarily over, people. Section 

107.19(c) states, ‘‘the remote pilot in 

command must ensure that the small 

unmanned aircraft will pose no undue 

hazard to other people, other aircraft, or 

other property in the event of a loss of 

control of the small unmanned aircraft 

for any reason.’’ 46 As stated in the 

NPRM, for small unmanned aircraft 

with exposed rotating parts that could 

cause a laceration, the remote pilot is 

responsible for determining the 

appropriate stand-off distance to ensure 

the small unmanned aircraft does not 

pose a hazard to other people when 

operating near them. 

A few commenters urged the FAA to 

consider the likelihood of a laceration if 

a blade were to come into contact with 

human skin. Skydio said propeller 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES3
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 10 / Friday, January 15, 2021 / Rules and Regulations 4333 

47 84 FR 3856 at 3873. 

48 ‘‘Casualty.’’ Merriam-Webster.com Dictionary, 

Merriam-Webster, https://www.merriamwebster.com/dictionary/casualty. Accessed 12 Aug. 

2020. 

guards are not necessary in all occasions 

because blade design and construction 

(e.g., size, speed, angles, and ability to 

retract) have a large impact on the 

likelihood of a laceration if a blade were 

to come into contact with a person. 

Additionally, Skydio said emergency 

propeller stopping mechanisms in 

software can shut down the rotors if 

they come close to or contact a person. 

Skydio advocated for a performancebased standard that allows exposed 

rotating parts, ‘‘so long as it can be 

demonstrated that the design heavily 

mitigates the chances and severity of the 

blades hurting people.’’ A commenter 

asserted folding propellers should be a 

mitigation factor for operations over 

people in deciding if a small unmanned 

aircraft could be used under § 107.39. 

Under this rule, blade guards or 

shrouds on exposed rotating parts are 

not required if applicants can 

demonstrate, by a means acceptable to 

the FAA, that unprotected exposed 

rotating parts are incapable of lacerating 

human skin. Implementing a rotor brake 

or similar approach to stop the exposed 

rotating part before it makes contact 

with a person may be effective in 

protecting from lacerations, but this 

requires the applicant to demonstrate 

their effectiveness in all likely small 

unmanned aircraft failure scenarios. 

Similarly, folding propellers would be 

acceptable if the design is shown 

incapable of causing lacerations in 

accordance with an FAA-accepted 

means of compliance. 

NASAO noted that some small 

unmanned aircraft have guards on the 

rotors, but stated it is not clear if this 

would meet the eligibility requirement. 

AUVSI and MAAP requested 

clarification that the prohibition on 

parts that can lacerate human skin 

applies only during the operating 

envelope of the aircraft or during failure 

mode. Several commenters supported 

the proposed rule if the small 

unmanned aircraft has propeller guards 

or some other piece of safety equipment, 

or is recognized as reliable, to mitigate 

the risk of a falling small unmanned 

aircraft. A commenter would give 

‘‘professional-level’’ small UAS more 

latitude to conduct operations over 

groups of people, ‘‘while restricting toy 

drones that are less capable.’’ 

The FAA agrees that the regulations 

should provide safety protection from 

propellers that could cause lacerations. 

This rule finalizes the prohibition on 

exposed rotating parts that could cause 

lacerations for Categories 2 and 3 as 

proposed, with no changes. Moreover, 

existing small unmanned aircraft 

designs will have to show compliance 

with these requirements. Small 

unmanned aircraft that already 

incorporate rotor guards would need to 

demonstrate the effectiveness of the 

rotor guard to protect from lacerating 

human skin when impacting a person 

by following an FAA-accepted means of 

compliance. The applicability of the 

exposed rotating parts prohibition is 

limited to small unmanned aircraft 

operating over people under Categories 

1, 2, and 3. To be eligible for Category 

2 or Category 3 operations over people, 

the applicant must use an FAA-accepted 

means of compliance and demonstrate 

the design does not contain any exposed 

rotating parts that would lacerate 

human skin on impact. 

3. Must Not Contain Safety Defects 

To be eligible to conduct operations 

over people in accordance with 

Category 2 or Category 3, the Agency 

proposed requiring each small 

unmanned aircraft be designed, 

produced, or modified such that it does 

not contain any safety defects identified 

by the Administrator. As discussed 

previously, the FAA has removed 

‘‘identified by the Administrator’’ for 

the sake of clarity. The NPRM explained 

the Agency considers a safety defect to 

be a material, component, or feature of 

a small unmanned aircraft that increases 

the likelihood that the small unmanned 

aircraft could cause a casualty or fatality 

to a person during an operation over 

people. As defined in the proposed rule, 

a safety defect in a small unmanned 

aircraft eligible for conducting Category 

2 operations would cause the unmanned 

aircraft to exceed a low probability of 

causing a casualty to a person during an 

operation over people. A safety defect in 

a small unmanned aircraft eligible for 

conducting Category 3 operations would 

cause a small unmanned aircraft to 

exceed a low probability of causing a 

fatality to a person during an operation 

over people. 

The NPRM proposed to define a 

casualty to be a serious injury, which 

corresponds to a level 3 injury on the 

AIS. While the FAA still finds the AIS 

to be a valuable tool in determining the 

severity of an injury, the FAA concludes 

that it is not necessary to define it 

strictly. Furthermore, several 

commenters suggested the FAA use AIS 

in lieu of the injury severity limits 

adopted in this rule. As discussed in the 

NPRM, the FAA did not find the use of 

AIS in measuring injury severity 

appropriate.47 In order to eliminate 

confusion, the FAA finds it prudent to 

remove any regulatory references to AIS. 

The dictionary definition of 

‘‘casualty’’—a serious or fatal 

accident 48—provides sufficient clarity 

as to the safety defect requirement. As 

such, the definition of ‘‘casualty’’ 

proposed in the NPRM has been 

removed from the final rule. 

The NPRM provided the following 

examples of safety defects: Exposed 

wires or hot surfaces on a small 

unmanned aircraft that could cause 

electrocution or burns to a person on 

impact; damaged or defective lithium 

polymer or lithium-ion batteries that 

could cause casualties from battery fires 

or explosions; and sharp edges or 

projections that could cause lacerations 

or punctures as a result of an impact 

with a person. The NPRM also noted 

that as small unmanned aircraft designs 

evolve over time, potentially hazardous 

features or characteristics, unknown at 

the present time, could emerge. 

One commenter noted the FAA did 

not provide an objective standard or 

process for discerning what constitutes 

a safety defect. Another commenter 

asked how egregious a safety defect 

would need to be to result in action on 

the part of the FAA. 

To ensure this rule remains flexible 

and responsive to the changes in 

technology, this rule does not contain 

an exhaustive list of all potential safety 

defects or issues. An identified safety 

defect or issue will require action on the 

part of the FAA if the probability of 

serious injury or fatality exceeds the 

parameters of acceptable risk for 

Category 2 or Category 3. As discussed 

in Section VI.C., Declaration of 

Compliance, the FAA has implemented 

a process by which it will work with 

applicants on addressing and resolving 

any identified safety defects or issues 

that would render the small unmanned 

aircraft ineligible to operate over people. 

This rule adopts the prohibition of 

safety defects in small unmanned 

aircraft eligible to conduct operations in 

accordance with Categories 2 and 3, 

without change. 

4. Must Display a Label 

To qualify for operations over people 

in accordance with Category 2 or 

Category 3, the Agency proposed 

requiring the display of a label on each 

small unmanned aircraft, indicating the 

category or categories for which the 

small unmanned aircraft is eligible to 

conduct operations. The Agency 

explained that such labeling will assist 

the FAA in its oversight role by 

providing a simple and efficient way to 

determine whether a small unmanned 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES3
4334 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 10 / Friday, January 15, 2021 / Rules and Regulations 

49As described in Section VII.C., this rule 

identifies the person who submits a declaration of 

compliance as an applicant, rather than a 

manufacturer. An applicant is anyone who can 

attest to the ability that they meet all the 

requirements of the declaration of compliance. 

50The NPRM proposed to list the aircraft by make 

and model, but did not list series. This rule 

contains the phrase ‘‘series, if applicable’’ to allow 

for both flexibility to applicants and for refined 

specificity in identifying small UAS eligible to 

operate over people. 

aircraft is eligible to conduct operations 

over people. In addition, it will provide 

notice to remote pilots which category 

of operations they are eligible to 

conduct using that aircraft. 

The Agency did not propose a 

prescriptive labeling requirement that 

specifies exactly how an applicant 49

must label an aircraft, what size font to 

use, specific location, and so on. Due to 

the large variety of small unmanned 

aircraft models that exist, the Agency 

explained that such a prescriptive 

requirement would be unnecessary. 

Instead, the proposed rule stated the 

small unmanned aircraft could be 

labeled by any means as long as the 

label is in English, legible, prominent, 

and permanently affixed to the aircraft. 

Given that a small unmanned aircraft 

could be eligible to conduct operations 

in more than one category of operations 

over people, the small unmanned 

aircraft would have to be labeled with 

each category of operations for which 

the small unmanned aircraft is eligible. 

The NPRM noted that some small 

unmanned aircraft that are 

manufactured prior to final publication 

of this rule may qualify for one or more 

categories of operations over people. If 

the FAA has accepted a declaration of 

compliance for one of these previouslymanufactured small unmanned aircraft, 

the proposed rule would allow a remote 

pilot in command to operate the small 

unmanned aircraft over people, 

provided the unmanned aircraft is 

labeled for the appropriate category or 

categories of operation. This final rule 

requires a remote pilot to label a 

previously-manufactured small 

unmanned aircraft in accordance with 

the declaration of compliance. Also, if a 

label degrades such that it is no longer 

legible or attached to the aircraft, the 

proposed rule included a requirement 

that the remote pilot relabel the small 

unmanned aircraft. In response to the 

proposed labeling requirement, an 

individual commenter asked for an 

explanation of the purpose of the 

labeling requirement, saying he would 

personally prefer not to add additional 

markings to the aircraft. The FAA 

requires the label for two purposes. For 

the remote pilot, the purpose of the 

label is to list the categories of 

operations over people the small 

unmanned aircraft is eligible to conduct, 

as indicated on the FAA-accepted 

declaration of compliance. The other 

purpose of the label is for the FAA and 

other agencies to determine that the 

small unmanned aircraft is eligible to 

conduct the operation. 

AUVSI commented that the proposal 

would benefit from further clarification 

about who is responsible for labeling. 

AUVSI stated the NPRM is inconsistent 

about whether manufacturers or 

operators must label the aircraft. AUVSI 

noted that the proposed rule did not 

affirmatively require manufacturers to 

label unmanned aircraft, but that 

labeling is a prerequisite for a small 

unmanned aircraft to be eligible to 

conduct Category 2 or Category 3 

operations. AUVSI interpreted this as 

placing the burden on the operators who 

want to conduct such operations. An 

individual commenter requested clarity 

on what responsibility the remote pilot 

in command has for ensuring that the 

small unmanned aircraft is properly 

labeled for Category 2 or Category 3. 

This rule requires the applicant to 

label the small unmanned aircraft. 

Under this rule, the label must remain 

affixed to the small unmanned aircraft 

to remain eligible for Category 2 or 

Category 3 operations. For small 

unmanned aircraft manufactured prior 

to the effective date of this rule and 

listed on a declaration of compliance, 

the remote pilot has the responsibility of 

labeling the small unmanned aircraft 

before he or she may conduct operations 

under Category 2 or Category 3. Once 

the small unmanned aircraft is in the 

possession of the remote pilot, it 

becomes his or her responsibility to 

ensure the label remains clear, legible, 

and affixed to the aircraft. DJI opposed 

the proposed labeling requirement, 

expressing concern that the 

requirements for manufacturers would 

be too burdensome and that if the FAA 

rescinds a declaration of compliance, 

the labeling may become erroneous or 

outdated. The FAA does not consider 

the labeling requirement to be unduly 

burdensome, given the performancebased nature of the requirement. 

Additionally, because the remote pilot 

is ultimately responsible for ensuring 

the unmanned aircraft is both labeled 

appropriately and listed on an FAAaccepted declaration of compliance, per 

the applicable operating requirements, 

the risk of erroneously-labeled small 

unmanned aircraft being used for 

operations over people is low. The FAA 

encourages industry to develop a 

standard for the label to promote 

consistency and ease of understanding. 

DJI recommended the FAA maintain a 

database of aircraft, similar to that 

instituted by Transport Canada, and 

allow this to inform potential small 

UAS buyers of the accepted products 

that currently meet the requirements for 

their mission needs. The FAA will make 

available on the FAA website the status 

of each applicant’s declaration of 

compliance for public access, to enable 

remote pilots to determine which small 

unmanned aircraft are eligible for 

operations over people. The FAA 

anticipates listing the aircraft by make, 

model and series, if applicable, serial 

number, and category.50 This database 

will be the primary source of the 

eligibility of the small unmanned 

aircraft, while the label provides a 

simple and efficient way to indicate 

eligibility for operations over people. 

DJI also expressed concern that 

operators may modify a manufacturer’s 

small UAS, rendering the label 

‘‘outdated’’. The FAA emphasizes the 

remote pilot is responsible for ensuring 

any modifications to the small UAS are 

in accordance with the remote pilot 

operating instructions in order for the 

small UAS to remain eligible under the 

FAA-accepted declaration of 

compliance. This rule requires the 

applicant to provide remote pilot 

operating instructions, on sale or 

transfer of the small unmanned aircraft, 

or use of the small unmanned aircraft by 

someone other than that person. The 

operating instructions should address, 

among other things, modifications that 

will not change the eligibility of the 

small unmanned aircraft to operate over 

people. To be eligible to operate over 

people, the applicant is required to label 

the small unmanned aircraft, however, 

this rule does not preclude remote pilots 

from labeling their own aircraft. Finally, 

the remote pilot is responsible for 

verifying the small unmanned aircraft is 

properly labeled before each flight and 

knowing the type of operations for 

which the small UAS is eligible. 

Finally, Section 107.5, which 

prohibits any fraudulent or intentionally 

false record from being made, kept, or 

used to show compliance with any 

requirement of part 107, applies to 

records, which includes labels. In this 

regard, falsifying any part of any record 

intended to constitute proof of 

compliance with applicable 

requirements could subject the person 

who submitted the record to a civil 

penalty and could be a basis for 

rescinding a declaration of compliance 

if the FAA determined that the 

applicant falsified the records. 

A clear and legible label will enable 

straightforward means of identification 

of the operations for which the small 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES3
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 10 / Friday, January 15, 2021 / Rules and Regulations 4335 

unmanned aircraft is eligible. The FAA 

clarifies the language for the labeling 

requirement to include the word 

‘‘missing’’ to ensure that remote pilots 

label previously manufactured small 

unmanned aircraft. As a result, this rule 

adopts the labeling requirement with 

this clarification. 

5. Must Have Remote Pilot Operating 

Instructions 

The Agency proposed requiring 

applicants to provide remote pilot 

operating instructions with productspecific information for operations in 

Category 2 or Category 3, including 

system description and system 

limitations and the category or 

categories of operations over people for 

which the applicant has declared 

compliance. The proposed rule stated 

that a person who submits a declaration 

of compliance for a small UAS for 

Category 2 or Category 3 should provide 

remote pilot operating instructions upon 

sale or transfer of the small unmanned 

aircraft, or use of the small unmanned 

aircraft by someone other than that 

person. Instructions would need to 

remain up-to-date to account for any 

modifications the applicant makes to 

the small UAS for as long as the 

declaration of compliance remains 

valid. Specifically, the proposed rule 

included a requirement to include all 

modifications the applicant determined 

do not change the ability of the small 

UAS to meet the requirements for the 

category of operation for which the 

applicant declared compliance in the 

remote pilot operating instructions. For 

a small unmanned aircraft that has 

variable modes or configurations, the 

applicant would provide instructions on 

how to verify the mode or configuration 

that the small UAS is in and how to 

switch between modes or 

configurations. 

The FAA received a few comments 

related to the contents of the remote 

pilot operating instructions, which are 

addressed in Section VI.C. This rule 

finalizes the requirement, without 

change, that in order for the small 

unmanned aircraft to be eligible to 

operate over people, the applicant must 

provide remote pilot operation 

instruction requirements. 

6. Must Be Subject to Product Support 

and Notification Process 

The NPRM proposed requiring 

applicants certify on the declaration of 

compliance that a process exists to 

notify the public and the FAA if the 

applicant identifies a safety defect or 

condition with its small unmanned 

aircraft that would render the small 

UAS ineligible for operations over 

people. The proposed rule did not 

suggest the FAA would automatically 

rescind a declaration of compliance if 

such notification occurred. The 

proposed rule stated the FAA would 

evaluate the report and correspond with 

an applicant to determine whether 

taking corrective action or rescinding 

the acceptance of the declaration would 

be appropriate. This process is 

described in more detail in VII.C.8–12. 

Reporting safety issues will assist the 

FAA in both discovering product 

hazards and identifying risks of injury 

the FAA could address through direct 

communication with applicants, 

publication of Notices of Availability in 

the Federal Register, or education. 

Applicants’ reporting will be a timely 

and effective source of information 

because applicants often learn of 

potential product safety problems at an 

early stage. For this reason, the NPRM 

proposed to require applicants to 

develop a system for maintaining and 

reviewing information about their 

products. This system will identify 

when an applicant’s product might have 

a safety defect that increases the 

probability of causing serious injury or 

fatality during operations over people. 

Subsequent to an applicant’s 

discovery of noncompliance, the 

Agency proposed to require an 

applicant who submits a declaration of 

compliance to notify the FAA and the 

public of the existence of the safety 

defect. The notification to the FAA will 

describe the nature of the 

noncompliance and how the applicant 

plans to address it. 

Notification to the public and owners 

of that make/model and series, if 

applicable, is a critical step in ensuring 

continued safety. Such notification 

could take the form of a notice on an 

applicant’s website, electronic 

notification to owners who have 

registered the small unmanned aircraft 

with the applicant, or an update to the 

software used for the small unmanned 

aircraft, which advises the remote pilot 

of the change in status. Applicants 

should exercise diligence to ensure the 

intended audience receives 

communications involving any potential 

safety issues that would render the 

aircraft ineligible for operations over 

people. In this regard, the FAA expects 

applicants to design and utilize a system 

that will facilitate communication 

between the applicants and the owners 

of the small unmanned aircraft and 

could also inform the public at large. 

The Small UAV Coalition supported 

the requirement that manufacturers 

establish a product support and 

notification process. APPA, EEI, and 

NRECA, commenting jointly, supported 

the need for manufacturer 

accountability, but believed the FAA 

should require manufacturers to contact 

registered UAS owners directly by 

electronic means or by unmanned 

aircraft software updates. Commenters 

wrote that the need to avoid inefficient 

methods is critical when responding to 

an outage or other emergency. 

Commenters further stated ‘‘electric 

industry UAS operators require a 

uniform, reliable, predictable way of 

receiving information to ensure they can 

quickly and accurately identify 

information that would affect [their] 

compliance.’’ 

While believing the requirements for 

the notification process to be generally 

sufficient, a commenter wrote that 

manufacturers should make it easier for 

pilots to know when a small unmanned 

aircraft is no longer compliant. This 

commenter suggested manufacturers 

provide instructions in their product 

manuals directing pilots to their 

websites to learn of safety defects. This 

commenter also suggested notifying 

purchasers through software or by 

email. A commenter also thought the 

FAA should require each pilot to 

register their small UAS when taking 

the mandated bi-annual knowledge test; 

that way, pilots could go no more than 

24 months without receiving 

notification that a small UAS is noncompliant. 

Another commenter stated the 

proposed rule did not provide a way for 

the FAA to identify and inform a 

specific fleet that a safety issue exists. 

The commenter believed the 

manufacturer has no responsibility to 

notify customers of safety issues, and 

that this is neither prudent nor scalable. 

This commenter suggested requiring 

manufacturers keep a list of customers 

and communicate directly with them 

and post notices of deficiencies on their 

websites. 

The FAA disagrees with the 

commenter who believed that the 

proposed regulation was unclear 

regarding whether an applicant has a 

responsibility to provide notice of 

product issues to owners. The 

responsibility rests with applicants who 

submit declarations of compliance for 

the small unmanned aircraft, as they are 

in the best position to identify issues in 

a timely manner and to communicate 

with the owners. Additionally, the FAA 

may take action to inform the public in 

certain circumstances, in addition to the 

applicant’s notification. 

It is critical that applicants notify 

small unmanned aircraft owners of any 

product issues. The FAA declines to 

specify how the notification must occur. 

Applicants may have numerous ways of 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES3
4336 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 10 / Friday, January 15, 2021 / Rules and Regulations 

51A means of compliance is not considered to be 

‘‘FAA-accepted’’ until the means of compliance has 

been evaluated by the FAA, the applicant has been 

notified of acceptance. The FAA will publish a 

Notice of Availiabity in the Federal Register 

identifying the means of compliance as accepted. 

contacting owners of small unmanned 

aircraft; the FAA declines to prescribe 

the manner of contact, particularly as 

technology evolves. This rule requires 

the applicant who submitted the 

declaration of compliance to notify the 

owners of safety deficiencies in a timely 

manner. The FAA agrees with 

commenters that it is important for this 

information to be received quickly so 

that owners and remote pilots can take 

appropriate action as necessary 

regarding use of their small unmanned 

aircraft. Therefore, the FAA finalizes the 

product notification requirements as 

proposed. 

B. Means of Compliance 

1. Means of Compliance 

The Agency proposed to require an 

applicant producing a small unmanned 

aircraft eligible for Category 2 or 

Category 3 operations declare 

compliance with the safety 

requirements for the chosen category by 

using an FAA-accepted means of 

compliance. Demonstrating compliance 

with safety requirements includes 

verifying there are no safety defects, as 

described in Section VI.A.3. Under the 

proposed rule, a voluntary consensus 

standards body or an individual could 

develop an acceptable means of 

compliance, the latter of which the 

NPRM referred to as a custom means of 

compliance. Once the FAA accepts a 

means of compliance, any person 

submitting a declaration of compliance 

could use it to establish their small 

unmanned aircraft fulfills the 

requirements of the rule. 

Several commenters suggested the 

means of compliance proposal was 

onerous, putting overly restrictive 

requirements on manufacturers. 

Commenters were concerned the 

proposed rule did not allow for 

innovation, would be too costly to 

implement, or would require 

manufacturers to create a system to a set 

of standards that seem arbitrary. In 

contrast, some commenters believed 

operators should be required to prove 

the small unmanned aircraft are safe to 

operate. The Agency carefully 

considered these comments and has 

determined the flexible, performancebased requirements combined with the 

means of compliance and declaration of 

compliance processes provide an 

effective and cost-efficient way to 

establish which small unmanned 

aircraft meet the appropriate eligibility 

requirements for operations over people. 

Some commenters expressed concern 

that the requirements do not provide 

sufficient clarity as to how 

manufacturers would safely establish 

their small unmanned aircraft would 

not exceed the injury severity 

limitations. One commenter believed 

standardized procedures should exist, 

possibly involving impacting test 

dummies, showing the impact effects of 

a small unmanned aircraft collision so 

that minor or negligent testing by 

manufacturers cannot be used to show 

compliance. The FAA agrees 

standardized test procedures could be 

an effective way to demonstrate 

applicants have fulfilled the applicable 

standards, but notes the rule allows for 

wide variance in the operating criteria 

and designs of small unmanned aircraft. 

The performance-based nature of this 

rule allows industry to develop new or 

innovative standardized methods, 

which might include test dummies, that 

will be effective in demonstrating 

compliance. 

Some commenters asked whether 

owners of self-built small UAS can test 

their own aircraft. The FPVFC 

volunteered to create a checklist for 

small UAS self-certification of 

compliance for safety testing, which 

anyone could use. Any person intending 

to operate a self-built small UAS over 

people must follow an FAA-accepted 

means of compliance to list the small 

UAS on the declaration of compliance 

submitted to the FAA. The FAA 

anticipates small unmanned aircraft 

manufacturers producing many small 

unmanned aircraft may find some 

means of compliance more appropriate 

than others, as some test procedures 

may involve destructive testing of 

multiple small unmanned aircraft to 

demonstrate compliance. This rule 

permits owners of self-built small 

unmanned aircraft to develop a means 

of compliance that does not involve 

destructive testing of multiple copies of 

a particular small unmanned aircraft. 

Anyone may submit a proposed means 

of compliance to the FAA for review. 

The News Media Coalition believed 

the Agency should rely on findings of 

the safety of certain models of small 

UAS and experience with waivers for 

operations over people to inform 

performance-based rulemaking that 

reflects the FAA’s data. Until a final rule 

is published, the commenter wrote that 

the FAA should allow any subsequent 

operators of a model of small UAS that 

has already received a waiver to secure 

a waiver without undergoing new 

performance testing. Waivers are issued 

on a case-by-case basis in accordance 

with § 107.200. The decision to renew 

or modify a waiver will continue to 

depend on the details of the proposed 

operation. 

2. Submittal and Acceptance of a Means 

of Compliance 

As described previously, applicants 

submitting a declaration of compliance 

for acceptance must use an FAAaccepted means of compliance to 

establish compliance with the 

requirements. Any person may propose 

a means of compliance. A person who 

submits a means of compliance for FAA 

acceptance must provide a detailed 

description of the means of compliance 

and explain exactly how the testing, 

analysis, or inspection establishes the 

small UAS meets one or more of the 

safety requirements. When proposing 

the means of compliance for FAA 

acceptance, the applicant must include 

substantiating data, including studies or 

research reports, that supports the 

proposed means of compliance. 

The FAA will indicate acceptance of 

a means of compliance by publishing a 

Notice of Availability in the Federal 

Register identifying the means of 

compliance as accepted and by 

informing the applicant of its 

acceptance.51 If the FAA does not accept 

a means of compliance, the FAA will 

notify the applicant of the rationale for 

its decision. The FAA may rescind a 

previously accepted means of 

compliance on determining the means 

of compliance does not meet the 

applicable requirements for operations 

over people. 

When reviewing a means of 

compliance, the FAA will utilize a 

comprehensive set of criteria. The FAA 

will determine whether the testing, 

analysis, or inspection described in the 

means of compliance demonstrates that 

a small unmanned aircraft meets the 

appropriate regulatory requirements. A 

means of compliance must address the 

injury severity limits, the exposed 

rotating parts prohibition, or a 

combination of both, and verification 

that there are no safety defects. The 

FAA will determine whether the 

proposed means of compliance aligns 

with accepted methods used by the 

medical industry, consumer safety 

groups, or other peer-reviewed test 

methods. In addition, the FAA will 

consider whether the proposed means of 

compliance relies on exceptional remote 

pilot skill or excessive pilot workload to 

satisfy the requirements. 

The NPRM provided a means of 

compliance in which an applicant could 

use a drop test procedure to 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES3
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 10 / Friday, January 15, 2021 / Rules and Regulations 4337 

demonstrate the small unmanned 

aircraft complies with the injury 

severity limits for Category 2 or 

Category 3. This FAA-provided means 

of compliance does not consider the 

effect of these aspects on an impact with 

a person because it assumes that the 

total kinetic energy of the small 

unmanned aircraft would be transferred 

to the person on impact. 

In reality, however, the small 

unmanned aircraft may transfer much 

less energy than this assumed 

maximum. In this regard, the Agency 

acknowledged structural configuration, 

materials of construction, or other 

design features may function to reduce 

the amount of the total kinetic energy 

that is transferred to a person from a 

small unmanned aircraft during an 

impact. For example, the presence of 

energy-absorbing materials, or an 

energy-absorbing protective cage, may 

reduce the transfer of kinetic energy 

during an impact with a person. An 

applicant may provide data showing the 

amount of kinetic energy that is 

transferred to a person during an impact 

based on the impact-absorbing 

characteristics of the small unmanned 

aircraft. Some applicants might seek to 

use design features such as parachutes 

or other deployable devices that reduce 

impact velocity to establish a small 

unmanned aircraft would impact a 

person with a reduced amount of kinetic 

energy. Such design features will 

require the FAA’s review to determine 

whether they assist in achieving an 

acceptable means of compliance if the 

small UAS relies on the proper 

functioning of these features. 

Any person may propose a new 

means of compliance to the FAA as a 

way to show compliance with the 

requirements. The NPRM had referred 

to this as a ‘‘custom means of 

compliance,’’ which several 

commenters found confusing. 

Commenters such as CDA and AirXOS 

remarked on the time and expense 

associated with the approval process for 

a custom means of compliance and were 

concerned that it would be difficult, 

time-consuming, and costly. The 

Agency agrees that any individual 

creating a means of compliance would 

likely incur greater cost compared to 

using the FAA-provided means of 

compliance or an existing FAA-accepted 

means of compliance. The FAA 

encourages the development and use of 

standardized test procedures from a 

voluntary consensus standards body as 

a means of compliance. However, 

applicants are not required to use them. 

The NPRM only referred to ‘‘custom 

means of compliance’’ to distinguish the 

FAA-provided means of compliance or 

a means of compliance provided by a 

voluntary consensus standards body 

from any other type of means of 

compliance. The NPRM stated a means 

of compliance submitted by a voluntary 

consensus standards body may be 

accepted more quickly than those 

submitted independently. The FAA will 

evaluate means of compliance 

submitted by a voluntary consensus 

standards body and by an independent 

party with the same level of rigor. The 

FAA generally works with voluntary 

consensus standards bodies in the 

development of these standards. As a 

result, any means of compliance based 

on these standards will already have 

gone through a comprehensive review 

process during development. 

A commenter asked whether a 

deadline will exist for the means of 

compliance and if manufacturers could 

choose the methods to bring their small 

UAS into compliance. The FAA notes 

that there is no deadline for the 

submittal or acceptance of the means of 

compliance other than that it must be 

accepted by the FAA before an 

applicant can list it on a declaration of 

compliance. The NPRM stated a person 

submitting a means of compliance for 

FAA review could also submit the 

declaration of compliance listing that 

means of compliance at the same time. 

However, given that the FAA is no 

longer using the term ‘‘custom means of 

compliance,’’ the FAA clarifies that, to 

obtain acceptance of a declaration of 

compliance, an applicant must identify 

the FAA-accepted means of compliance 

that it used. The FAA will finalize the 

means of compliance acceptance 

process as described in this section. 

3. Rescission Process for a Means of 

Compliance 

The NPRM proposed that it could 

rescind a means of compliance if the 

FAA determined from service history 

that the means of compliance did not 

meet the applicable standards for 

operations over people. However, the 

NPRM did not include regulatory text. 

In this final rule, the FAA has 

maintained the right to rescind a 

previously-accepted means of 

compliance and added regulatory text 

for clarity. 

Some commenters expressed concerns 

about the ability of applicants to 

demonstrate compliance with the safety 

requirements. While Vortezon, Inc. 

agreed that small UAS manufacturers 

should bear the burden of 

demonstrating compliance with the 

injury severity limits, the commenter 

wrote that FAA itself should 

independently and thoroughly test the 

data submitted to support any means of 

compliance applications. The 

commenter believed that delegating that 

responsibility might result in a lack of 

uniformity in establishing the standards 

under which the industry will operate. 

Vortezon wrote that the procedures the 

Federal Communications Commission 

(FCC) uses to approve radio frequency 

devices might provide a template for the 

FAA. Another commenter noted that the 

proposed rule sets up the FAA as the 

final authority in determining 

compliance with the requirements, 

which they considered an appropriate 

balance. 

To ensure the continued eligibility of 

small unmanned aircraft operating over 

people, the FAA finds it necessary to 

make clear that compliance is an 

ongoing process, and that the FAA 

maintains the authority to continuously 

evaluate that the applicant’s means of 

compliance provides factual and correct 

data. The FAA can exercise its authority 

to rescind a means of compliance if the 

small unmanned aircraft does not meet 

any or all of the requirements of the 

subpart as a result of errors or 

deficiencies in the test, inspection, or 

analysis. As such, this final rule 

includes a regulatory provision to allow 

the FAA to rescind the means of 

compliance. 

4. FAA-Provided Means of Compliance 

As described above, the FAAprovided means of compliance includes 

a test and inspection method in which 

applicants demonstrate their small 

unmanned aircraft will not exceed 

injury severity limitations or the 

exposed rotating parts prohibition. The 

FAA has not made any changes to the 

FAA-provided means of compliance 

discussed in the NPRM. The FAA 

anticipates applicants will submit for 

comprehensive means of compliance 

that include innovative materials and 

designs, unlike the FAA-provided 

means of compliance described in the 

NPRM. 

a. FAA-Provided Injury Severity Limit 

Means of Compliance 

The FAA-provided means of 

compliance for the injury severity 

limitations entails an applicant’s 

calculation of the small unmanned 

aircraft’s maximum kinetic energy. This 

means of compliance does not account 

for impact dynamics or other factors, 

but consists of using only the formula 

the FAA describes to calculate the small 

unmanned aircraft maximum kinetic 

energy. Use of this formula alone 

establishes the small unmanned aircraft 

will not exceed one of the injury 

severity limits because, as described 

above in Section VI.A.1. of this 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES3
4338 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 10 / Friday, January 15, 2021 / Rules and Regulations 

52 84 FR 3877–3879. A copy of the AC 107–2A is 

available in the public docket for this rulemaking. 

53FAA Order 8040.4B, Safety Risk Management 

Policy (May 2, 2017), available at https://

www.faa.gov/documentLibrary/media/Order/FAA_

Order_8040.4B.pdf. 

preamble, 11 ft-lbs (for Category 2 

operations) and 25 ft-lbs (for Category 3 

operations) are kinetic energy values 

that assume a limit on injury severity. 

Applicants interested in using this test 

may find more information about the 

FAA-provided means of compliance in 

the NPRM and the associated Advisory 

Circular (AC) for this rule, AC 107– 

2A.52

Several commenters specifically 

addressed the FAA-provided means of 

compliance. ASSURE stated, ‘‘[u]sing 

this means of compliance, there will be 

no aircraft with a commercially viable 

payload that can meet the § 107.115 

Category 2 operations in the NPRM and 

as such this NPRM will do nothing to 

expand the operations of the sUAS in 

the U.S.’’ The Small UAV Coalition and 

AirXOS both agreed with ASSURE’s 

conclusion. The Small UAV Coalition 

urged the FAA to use the automotive 

injury metrics as ASSURE suggested. 

AirXOS and CDA both stated the FAAprovided means of compliance does not 

sufficiently permit different materials or 

structural configurations, which can 

affect the damage resulting from a 

collision with a small unmanned 

aircraft. Both commenters were 

similarly concerned the FAA-provided 

means of compliance does not consider 

devices that may deploy and reduce the 

maximum impact speed or the reduced 

probability of failure or impact. These 

commenters stated the rule, if adopted, 

would impede innovation. CDA also 

believed the risk analysis should give 

operators credit for operational 

safeguards. 

The FAA acknowledges the 

limitations associated with the FAAprovided means of compliance for the 

injury severity limits. The Agency 

intended to provide a test method that 

applicants could use to show 

compliance with the injury severity 

limitations, with the understanding that 

industry would develop more flexible 

means of compliance using consensus 

standards organizations. The FAA 

expects these industry standards to 

consider that small unmanned aircraft 

often have non-rigid structures, which 

can reduce the kinetic energy 

transferred to a person on impact. The 

FAA also expects industry consensus 

standards to address the use of 

deployable devices, such as parachutes, 

to demonstrate compliance with the 

injury severity limitations. Unlike the 

FAA-provided means of compliance, 

those that industry provides could 

leverage variable modes and 

configurations. The FAA-provided 

means of compliance allows applicants 

to have a method of complying with the 

injury severity limitations prior to 

development of any other means of 

compliance. 

The FAA-provided means of 

compliance considers typical failures 

and environmental conditions during 

testing. Boeing asked the FAA to define 

what the NPRM meant in using the term 

‘‘typical.’’ In this case, ‘‘typical’’ 

describes a likely occurrence during 

normal operations of the small 

unmanned aircraft, (e.g., human error, 

systems failures, or environmental 

conditions that could lead to a loss of 

operational control). Because each small 

unmanned aircraft and its anticipated 

operating environment are different, the 

applicant is best-suited to determine 

what is typical. This rule requires the 

applicant to submit substantiating data 

that includes sufficient information 

concerning the environmental 

conditions and the maximum speeds the 

manufacturer utilized, as well as any 

unique test conditions for both the level 

flight and free-fall scenarios. This means 

of compliance is now available as an 

FAA-accepted means of compliance 

with the finalization of this rule. 

b. FAA-Provided Exposed Rotating Parts 

Means of Compliance 

In the NPRM, the FAA provided a 

means of compliance for the exposed 

rotating parts prohibition, which would 

require an applicant to ensure the small 

unmanned aircraft does not have parts 

that are exposed. For example, if the 

propellers that provide lift and thrust 

for the small unmanned aircraft are 

internal to the unmanned aircraft, such 

as in a ducted fan configuration, and are 

incapable of making contact with a 

person as a result of an impact, then the 

parts would not be exposed. As a result, 

the aircraft would satisfy this 

requirement. An applicant must inspect 

the small unmanned aircraft to establish 

that it does not have any exposed 

rotating parts and determine that any 

rotating parts would not become 

exposed during an impact with a 

person. 

The NPRM noted an industry 

consensus organization could develop a 

standard for small unmanned aircraft 

that have rotating parts protected by 

safety features. If the applicant tests 

those safety features and establishes 

they remain effective during impact, 

this could demonstrate that exposed 

rotating parts would not be capable of 

lacerating human skin. If, however, a 

small unmanned aircraft has rotating 

parts that are exposed without any 

protective safety features, the NPRM 

proposed to permit applicants or others 

to show through testing, analysis, or 

inspection that the rotating parts would 

not be capable of lacerating human skin 

on impact with a person. 

Several commenters addressed the 

issue of using a means of compliance to 

establish compliance with the exposed 

rotating parts prohibition. One 

commenter stated the ability to create 

novel means of compliance would drive 

innovation in finding alternatives to 

exposed rotating parts. The commenter 

believed the FAA should clarify that a 

small unmanned aircraft without 

rotating parts should not be required to 

submit proof of compliance. 

To satisfy the eligibility requirements 

for Categories 2 and 3, a small 

unmanned aircraft must meet the 

performance-based requirements for 

exposed rotating parts by following an 

FAA-accepted means of compliance. A 

small unmanned aircraft that does not 

have any rotating parts would meet the 

FAA-provided means of compliance; the 

declaration of compliance would 

include an indication of this. Even if the 

small unmanned aircraft is designed to 

operate without rotating parts, the 

applicant must still submit a declaration 

of compliance to demonstrate the small 

unmanned aircraft complies with the 

exposed rotating parts prohibition and 

the injury severity limitation. This 

means of compliance is now available as 

an FAA-accepted means of compliance 

with the finalization of this rule. 

5. Deployable Devices and Other Safety 

Mechanisms 

In the proposed rule, the Agency 

stated applicants may want to consider 

the use or testing of design features such 

as parachutes, ballistic recovery 

systems, or other deployable devices 

that create drag to reduce the maximum 

impact speed. While the FAA did not 

consider the use of a deployable device 

in the FAA-provided means of 

compliance, this rule does not prohibit 

anyone from submitting a means of 

compliance that considers deployable 

devices. The FAA will evaluate such 

design features to determine whether 

they assist in achieving an acceptable 

means of compliance. 

Several commenters submitted 

comments regarding the use of 

deployable devices. AirXOS said that, 

consistent with the FAA’s Safety Risk 

Management Policy,53 the safety risk of 

a particular hazard should be assessed 

using a combination of the severity and 

likelihood (probability) of the potential 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES3
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 10 / Friday, January 15, 2021 / Rules and Regulations 4339 

54ASTM F3322–18, Standard Specification for 

Small Unmanned Aircraft System (sUAS) 

Parachutes, ASTM International, West 

Conshohocken, PA, 2018, http://www.astm.org/cgibin/resolver.cgi?F3322. 

outcome of the hazard. AirXOS stated 

the FAA should consider comparative 

safety benefits when evaluating the 

overall risk for operations over people. 

In addition to technological mitigations, 

AirXOS said the risk analysis should 

also consider operational safeguards, 

such as an operator having a 

comprehensive safety management 

system and flight proficiency training. 

MPAA and NCTA, commenting jointly, 

stated design safety features such as 

frangible components, propeller cages, 

propeller guards, parachutes, or padding 

that may increase the weight of a small 

unmanned aircraft are also likely to 

minimize the risk of injury. Some 

commenters suggested small UAS could 

be equipped with a range of safety 

mechanisms, including visual and 

audible alerts, collision avoidance 

systems, and parachutes. 

Under this rule, applicants may 

choose to demonstrate compliance with 

the appropriate safety requirements of 

Category 2 or Category 3 using designs 

with safety features such as frangible 

components, propeller cages, propeller 

guards, parachutes, or padding. To do 

so, they must use an FAA-accepted 

means of compliance that incorporates 

those safety features as a means to 

comply with the injury severity 

limitations. 

While use of other safety mechanisms 

(e.g., visual and audible alerts, collision 

avoidance systems, etc.) may decrease 

the likelihood of an impact with a 

person, the FAA will not factor in these 

devices in considering proposed means 

of compliance for Category 2 or Category 

3 because they do not address the injury 

severity limitations or exposed rotating 

parts prohibition. The FAA may 

consider these devices as part of the 

Category 4 process or in a waiver 

application, particularly for applicants 

considering reliability and likelihood. 

ParaZero and Indemnis both asserted 

that, even when equipped with a 

parachute, very few unmanned aircraft 

models will be capable of meeting the 

applicable kinetic energy limitation. ACam Aerials noted the proposed 

performance-based requirements would 

not permit certain operations even with 

mitigations, such as parachutes that 

adhere to the ASTM F3322–18 

parachute standard.54 The commenter 

requested the FAA consider allowing 

operational mitigations instead of 

requiring design mitigations, asserting 

these design considerations would limit 

the number of manufacturers that could 

meet the injury severity limitations. The 

rule, however, does not require 

manufacturers to meet the requirements 

using the FAA-provided means of 

compliance. An applicant may choose 

to demonstrate compliance with the 

injury severity limitations using 

deployable devices, as long as the 

applicant describes the use of them in 

the proposed means of compliance. The 

Agency encourages industry to develop 

means of compliance that leverage 

existing and future industry standards 

for the design, maintenance, and testing 

of such devices. 

One commenter believed parachutes 

are not necessary based on the accident 

record for small unmanned aircraft or 

the ASSURE report. The UAS Program 

Leader for the Memphis Fire 

Department wrote that if parachutes are 

required, these systems are unable to be 

tested. He noted that the fire department 

performs a preflight safety inspection 

and flight check before every takeoff, 

but would be unable to test, check, or 

inspect a parachute system. The FAA 

clarifies that a deployable device system 

is not required. Applicants have the 

discretion to incorporate the use of a 

deployable device. 

C. Declaration of Compliance 

The NPRM stated self-certification is 

the appropriate method for 

manufacturers to declare compliance 

with a performance standard. Selfcertification, combined with the 

Agency’s determination that the means 

of compliance the manufacturer has 

used is acceptable, will ensure the small 

unmanned aircraft, when operated over 

people, will afford the public an 

appropriate level of safety. 

1. Persons Who May Submit a 

Declaration of Compliance 

The NPRM proposed that any person 

or entity that designs, produces, or 

modifies a small unmanned aircraft for 

use in Category 2 or Category 3 

operations must submit a declaration of 

compliance to the FAA for acceptance. 

The NPRM characterized any person 

who designs, produces, or modifies a 

small unmanned aircraft for such 

operations as a ‘‘manufacturer’’ for 

purposes of this rule. 

Several commenters, including 

AUVSI, FPVFC, and several other 

individuals, commented on the use of 

the term ‘‘manufacturer.’’ AUVSI 

indicated the FAA did not account for 

the entire range of entities that may 

wish to submit a declaration of 

compliance and recommended the 

Agency clarify that non-manufacturer 

third parties and operators that do not 

alter a small UAS would be eligible to 

submit a declaration of compliance in 

order for that small UAS to become 

eligible for Category 2 or Category 3 

operations, regardless of whether the 

entity originally manufactured or 

modified the small UAS. The person 

who submits the declaration of 

compliance must be able to demonstrate 

they have used an FAA-accepted means 

of compliance to fulfill the standard. 

Although the FAA does not expect the 

resale of small unmanned aircraft by 

non-manufacturer third parties to be a 

typical occurrence, if the applicant 

wishing to make the small unmanned 

aircraft eligible for operations under 

Category 2 or Category 3 is able to 

submit a declaration of compliance with 

all required elements, the FAA would 

accept that declaration even though that 

person has not designed, produced, or 

modified the small unmanned aircraft. 

To reduce confusion, the final rule 

clarifies that the responsible party is the 

applicant. 

To be eligible to operate in 

accordance with Category 2 or Category 

3, the small unmanned aircraft must be 

listed on an FAA-accepted declaration 

of compliance. The FAA does not 

restrict who may submit a declaration of 

compliance and anticipates entities that 

produce and sell a complete and 

operable small unmanned aircraft to 

submit the most declarations of 

compliance. Other persons who may 

submit a declaration of compliance 

include designers or producers of kits 

that contain all the components and 

parts from which to build an operable 

small unmanned aircraft eligible for 

Category 2 or Category 3 operations. 

One commenter stated the FAA should 

not consider someone who assembles a 

kit to be a manufacturer. A small 

unmanned aircraft listed on an FAAaccepted declaration of compliance 

could be sold as a kit. The person who 

assembles such kit per the provided 

instructions is not required to submit a 

declaration of compliance; however, in 

order for the small unmanned aircraft 

assembled from that kit to be eligible for 

Category 2 or Category 3 operations, the 

producer of the kit must have submitted 

a declaration of compliance and 

received from the FAA acceptance of 

the declaration. 

Any person who builds a small 

unmanned aircraft from parts not in a 

complete kit or who modifies a small 

unmanned aircraft to be compliant with 

Category 2 or Category 3 must submit a 

declaration of compliance and receive 

FAA acceptance of it before the small 

unmanned aircraft would be eligible for 

operations under the applicable 

category. For example, a person who 

modifies a small unmanned aircraft that 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES3
4340 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 10 / Friday, January 15, 2021 / Rules and Regulations 

55Public Law 115–254, sec. 345 (Oct. 5, 2018) 

(‘‘Small Unmanned Aircraft Safety Standards’’) 

requires the FAA to establish a process for 

acceptance and use of consensus safety standards 

for the design, production, and modification of 

small UAS. 

was originally produced prior to the 

effective date of this rule so that the 

small unmanned aircraft becomes 

eligible to conduct Category 2 or 

Category 3 operations must submit a 

declaration of compliance. 

A small unmanned aircraft is not 

covered by a declaration of compliance 

if it has been modified outside the 

configurations and modifications 

allowed in the remote pilot operating 

instructions for that small UAS. For 

example, the person who submitted the 

declaration of compliance for the 

Category 2 operation would not be 

responsible for the new configuration of 

the small unmanned aircraft after 

modification. The person who modified 

the unmanned aircraft would be 

responsible for submitting a new 

declaration of compliance describing 

the new configuration and receiving 

acceptance of it to establish eligibility 

for the appropriate category before the 

small unmanned aircraft can be 

operated over people. 

A few commenters suggested people 

who build their own small unmanned 

aircraft should not be considered 

manufacturers and therefore not be 

required to submit a declaration of 

compliance. Another commenter 

asserted a primary reason people choose 

to build their own small unmanned 

aircraft is to save money and these 

people will not have the financial 

resources or access to testing equipment 

to demonstrate compliance. The FAA 

disagrees with the assertion that a 

distinction should exist between homebuilt small unmanned aircraft and other 

small unmanned aircraft. The four 

categories this rule establishes are not 

based on the purpose for which the 

small unmanned aircraft was built. Any 

person designing and building a small 

unmanned aircraft and intending to 

operate over people under Categories 2 

or 3 must submit a declaration of 

compliance. 

The FAA finalizes the term 

‘‘applicant’’ to describe the person who 

submits the declaration of compliance. 

The applicant refers to the person who 

declares that the small unmanned 

aircraft meets the eligibility 

requirements for operations over people. 

2. Submission of Declaration of 

Compliance for FAA Acceptance 

For a small unmanned aircraft to be 

eligible to conduct operations over 

people in accordance with Category 2 or 

Category 3, the Agency proposed to 

require the applicant to declare that the 

small unmanned aircraft complies with 

the applicable performance-based 

requirements through use of an FAAaccepted means of compliance. The 

applicant would do this by submitting 

a declaration of compliance via an 

electronic form available on the FAA’s 

website. 

By submitting a declaration of 

compliance, an applicant would declare 

that it: (1) Established and maintained a 

process to notify owners of small 

unmanned aircraft and the FAA of any 

unsafe conditions that render those 

small unmanned aircraft non-compliant 

with subpart D; (2) would correct any 

safety defects the FAA identified; and 

(3) would allow the Administrator to 

inspect its facilities, technical data, and 

any manufactured small unmanned 

aircraft and witness any tests necessary 

to determine compliance with this 

subpart. 

In response to the proposed 

declaration of compliance requirements, 

one commenter believed the assumption 

of liability must be inherent to the 

concept of a declaration of compliance. 

The existence of a declaration of 

compliance, however, does not 

automatically release the applicant or 

the remote pilot from any potential 

liability. For example, if a remote pilot 

were to operate the small unmanned 

aircraft over people in a configuration 

not specified in the remote pilot 

operating instructions, in an unsafe 

condition, or in a careless or reckless 

manner, a valid declaration of 

compliance does not release the remote 

pilot from responsibility. This 

commenter also asked how the 

declaration of compliance relates to 

section 345 of the FAA Reauthorization 

Act of 2018, which deals with selfcertification.55 This rule is consistent 

with the statutory requirements in 

section 345 of the 2018 FAA 

Reauthorization Act This statute 

requires FAA to develop a process for 

accepting ‘‘risk-based consensus safety 

standards relating to the design, 

production, or modification of small 

unmanned aircraft systems.’’ Public Law 

115–254, sec. 345(a)(1). In consideration 

of these requirements, this rule allows 

an applicant to request FAA acceptance 

of a means of compliance that is based 

on consensus safety standards. 

The Small UAV Coalition supported 

the proposal to allow ‘‘self-certification’’ 

of compliance with the applicable 

standards; however, because the FAA 

will accept declarations of compliance 

on determining the manufacturer has 

demonstrated compliance with the 

requirements of the rule, the Coalition 

noted the requirements seem similar to 

the means of compliance. The means of 

compliance and declaration of 

compliance go hand in hand. The means 

of compliance answers the question of 

how a person or entity meets the 

requirements of the rule. The 

declaration of compliance establishes 

the applicant is declaring it has met the 

applicable injury severity limitations, 

the exposed rotating parts prohibition, 

or a combination of these requirements 

through an FAA-accepted means of 

compliance. 

DJI urged the Agency to allow 

manufacturers to demonstrate 

compliance to certain regulations 

through the declaration of compliance 

and recommended using Transport 

Canada’s ‘‘Remotely Piloted Aircraft 

Systems Safety Assurance Advisory 

Circular’’ (AC 922–001) as a model. 

While the FAA did not accept this 

recommendation to incorporate 

Transport Canada’s AC, the FAA notes 

that this rule allows applicants to show 

compliance with the requirements by 

submitting a declaration of compliance 

and receiving FAA acceptance. 

While generally supporting the 

proposed framework for the declaration 

of compliance, AUVSI recommended 

the FAA ensure the framework operates 

flexibly to avoid undue burden on small 

UAS operators who modify their small 

UAS and on non-manufacturers that 

wish to certify a small UAS. AUVSI 

asked the FAA to ensure the framework 

would permit manufacturers to certify a 

‘‘wide variety’’ of payloads and 

configurations without the need for recertification as long as modifications 

were within a certain range. The 

Coalition asked the FAA to ensure 

compatibility between the rules 

allowing night operations and 

operations over people, including any 

modifications for night operations. 

Operations of small unmanned 

aircraft under Category 1, Category 2, or 

Category 3 must adhere to the 

applicable performance-based eligibility 

requirements, regardless of any 

modifications. The FAA will permit 

applicants to identify acceptable 

modifications, including payloads and 

configurations, in the remote pilot 

operating instructions as part of their 

declaration of compliance. Because the 

injury caused by an impact from the 

small unmanned aircraft could be 

different for each modification that 

changes the small unmanned aircraft 

configuration or properties, they must 

fulfill the applicable standard through 

an FAA-accepted means of compliance. 

This rule allows such evaluation by test, 

analysis, or inspection. For example, an 

applicant may not have to conduct 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES3
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 10 / Friday, January 15, 2021 / Rules and Regulations 4341 

separate evaluations for two different 

brands of propellers if they are the same 

diameter, pitch, weight, and material. If, 

through analysis, an applicant proves 

the propellers will behave the same, he 

or she would only have to conduct the 

impact test with one brand of propeller, 

but could list both brands of propellers 

as approved equipment in the remote 

pilot operating instructions. 

A commenter recommended 

including a requirement in the 

declaration of compliance that all 

‘‘written communications be written in 

proper English and follow standards for 

plain language.’’ The FAA declines to 

accept this recommendation, as the 

Agency finds it unnecessary to provide 

prescriptive writing requirements. 

This rule adopts the declaration of 

compliance submission as proposed, 

with the clarification that any person 

may submit a declaration of compliance 

for FAA acceptance. The Agency has 

determined accepting declarations of 

compliance is appropriately risk-based 

and suitable for allowing operations 

over people, as it is sufficient for the 

level of risk involved. 

3. Contents of Declaration of 

Compliance 

The NPRM proposed that an applicant 

intending to list a small unmanned 

aircraft as eligible for operations over 

people in accordance with Category 2 or 

Category 3 would submit a declaration 

of compliance to the FAA. A template 

for the declaration of compliance will be 

available in an electronic form on the 

FAA’s website. A completed declaration 

of compliance will include information 

the Administrator would require for 

both determining that a small 

unmanned aircraft complies with the 

applicable requirement and for tracking 

those models of small unmanned 

aircraft that were declared compliant. 

Applicants will declare they have met 

the requirements of the rule through an 

FAA-accepted means of compliance and 

include the following information: 

• FAA-accepted means of compliance 

used. 

• Name of the applicant. 

• Physical address of the applicant. 

• Email address of the applicant. 

• Small unmanned aircraft make, 

model and series, if applicable. 

• Serial number or range of serial 

numbers for the small unmanned 

aircraft (open-ended are permitted). 

• Whether the declaration of 

compliance was an initial or an 

amended declaration of compliance 

and, if amended, the reason for the 

resubmittal. 

• Declaration that the applicant: 

Æ Has demonstrated the small 

unmanned aircraft meets the injury 

severity limitations of Category 2, 

Category 3, or both, and the exposed 

rotating parts prohibition; 

Æ Has demonstrated the small 

unmanned aircraft does not have any 

safety defects; 

Æ Has satisfied the requirement to 

maintain a product support and 

notification process; and 

Æ Will, upon request, allow the 

Administrator to inspect its facilities 

and its technical data. 

• Any other information as required 

by the Administrator. 

If an applicant amends an FAAaccepted declaration of compliance, the 

applicant must include the reason for 

the amendment. For example, the 

amendment could be to identify a 

different means of compliance, update 

an address, or correct a misspelling. 

This final rule states the applicant 

must make a declaration for the items in 

the declaration of compliance instead of 

a certification. This change in the 

regulatory text does not change items 

required in the declaration of 

compliance; instead, it simply removes 

any potential confusion associated with 

the airworthiness certification process. 

Information contained in declarations 

of compliance will be publicly 

available. By posting the declarations or 

otherwise making the information in the 

declarations publicly available, the FAA 

and the public will be able to determine 

which make, model, and series, if 

applicable of small unmanned aircraft 

are eligible to conduct operations over 

people pursuant to Categories 2 and 3. 

No comments specifically addressed 

the contents of the declaration of 

compliance. The Agency also did not 

receive any comments regarding its 

proposal to make information about 

accepted declarations of compliance 

available to the public through an FAA 

website. This rule adopts the 

requirements related to contents of the 

declaration of compliance, as proposed. 

Some commenters addressed the 

requirement that applicants allow the 

FAA to inspect their facilities. A 

commenter stated that the requirement 

for facility inspections seems difficult 

for overseas manufacturers and 

generally unnecessary. Access to each 

applicant’s facilities provides a 

mechanism for the FAA to validate 

procedures, processes, and methods as 

well as the data used to demonstrate 

compliance with the safety 

requirements. The FAA regularly 

performs routine inspections of facilities 

of those who hold type certificates and 

production certificates overseas. The 

FAA maintains authority to inspect 

overseas facilities at which a 

manufacturer designs, produces, or 

modifies small unmanned aircraft for 

operations under Category 2 or Category 

3. 

One commenter found the proposed 

rule unclear regarding whether a person 

who either designed or modified a small 

unmanned aircraft would be subject to 

the on-site inspections proposal. An 

applicant who submits a declaration of 

compliance to operate over people 

would be subject to the onsite 

inspection requirement. On request, the 

person who submits the declaration of 

compliance must be prepared to 

demonstrate how they can validate that 

they are in compliance with their 

declaration of compliance and this rule. 

The Agency adopts the list of 

information that must be included in 

the declaration of compliance as 

proposed, with no changes. 

4. Accountability for Persons 

Submitting Declarations of Compliance 

After an applicant declares a specific 

small unmanned aircraft meets the 

requirements of a particular category, 

the Agency proposed to require the 

applicant to monitor the small 

unmanned aircraft to ensure it complies 

with the applicable requirements. 

Specifically, an applicant would 

monitor the validity of the means of 

compliance used and verify it does not 

exceed the injury severity limitations 

and complies with the exposed rotating 

parts prohibition. The applicant would 

track the construction, related safety 

analysis, and service history to ensure 

they do not reveal any hazardous 

conditions or safety defects that could 

increase the risk of a small unmanned 

aircraft operation over people. 

Moreover, the applicant must continue 

to ensure that the remote pilot operating 

instructions satisfy the regulatory 

requirements. To satisfy these 

obligations, an applicant may have to 

monitor its manufacturing processes, 

small unmanned aircraft operational 

usage, and collection of accident and 

incident data. Monitoring could also 

include information that owners and 

operators of the small unmanned 

aircraft provide. Should the FAA 

identify a safety issue that warrants 

review of an applicant’s data, records, or 

facilities, this rule requires applicants to 

grant access to facilitate such review. 

Furthermore, the Agency proposed to 

require applicants submit an actual 

record declaring compliance. Section 

107.5, which prohibits any fraudulent or 

intentionally false record from being 

made, kept, or used to show compliance 

with any requirement of part 107, will 

apply to such records. In this regard, 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES3
4342 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 10 / Friday, January 15, 2021 / Rules and Regulations 

56 84 FR at 3882. 

falsifying any part of any record 

intended to constitute proof of 

compliance with applicable 

requirements could subject the person 

who submitted the record to a civil 

penalty and would be a basis for 

rescinding a declaration of compliance. 

The Agency did not receive any 

comments regarding the falsification 

provisions proposed and adopts those 

provisions without change. 

5. Declaring Compliance for Multiple 

Small Unmanned Aircraft With the 

Same Make and Model 

In the NPRM, the Agency recognized 

that applicants producing the same 

make and model of small UAS on a 

large scale may not wish to perform 

individual unit testing to demonstrate 

that each small unmanned aircraft 

fulfills the applicable requirements. The 

Agency clarified that the proposed rule 

text would allow applicants to declare 

compliance for a make and model of 

small unmanned aircraft, rather than 

declaring compliance for each small 

unmanned aircraft an applicant designs, 

produces, or modifies.56 The NPRM 

stated the applicant could establish and 

maintain a production quality system 

and design configuration control system 

to provide for consistent repeatability, 

to confirm each small unmanned 

aircraft fulfills the applicable standard 

for which the applicant declared 

compliance. As a result, an applicant 

could avoid testing every aircraft it 

constructs. Using a quality assurance 

system could confirm each aircraft 

subsequently manufactured would meet 

the performance-based requirements of 

this rule. The FAA received no 

comments on this policy and adopts the 

inclusion of ‘‘make and model’’ in the 

regulatory text of the section that sets 

forth the requirements for declarations 

of compliance, as proposed. 

6. Declaring Compliance for a Small 

Unmanned Aircraft That Is Eligible for 

Multiple Categories of Operations 

If an applicant conducts testing or 

engages in analysis or inspection to 

determine a small unmanned aircraft 

could meet the requirements for 

operations in both Categories 2 and 3 in 

the appropriate modes or 

configurations, the NPRM proposed to 

require the applicant to submit only one 

declaration of compliance. On that 

declaration of compliance, the applicant 

would identify the categories of 

operation for which it determined the 

small unmanned aircraft was compliant 

and the means of compliance used for 

each category. The Agency did not 

receive any comments regarding this 

proposal and adopts it without change. 

For more information on the 

requirements for small unmanned 

aircraft with variable modes and 

configurations, see Section VI.F. of this 

preamble. 

7. FAA Acceptance of a Declaration of 

Compliance 

The NPRM proposed to require an 

applicant to provide information on its 

declaration of compliance regarding 

whether it has used an FAA-accepted 

means of compliance or a means of 

compliance the FAA has not yet 

accepted. If an applicant uses a means 

of compliance that the FAA has not yet 

accepted, the FAA must review and 

accept the means of compliance before 

the FAA can accept the declaration of 

compliance. The FAA will notify the 

applicant of its decision regarding 

acceptance of the means of compliance 

and declaration of compliance. Once the 

FAA accepts a declaration of 

compliance, the FAA will make the 

declaration of compliance, or 

information from the declaration, 

publicly available. The Small UAV 

Coalition commented that the NPRM 

does not describe what the FAA review 

will entail or how long it will take. The 

Small UAV Coalition further 

commented that, because the Agency 

did not describe whether it would 

undertake any discretionary review of 

the declaration of compliance, it expects 

a quick acceptance or denial. 

The FAA will use its discretion to 

review and validate that the applicant 

meets the requirements of the FAAaccepted means of compliance through 

test data, third party validation, or the 

like, before rendering a decision on the 

declaration of compliance. Because 

means of compliance will vary in 

complexity, the FAA cannot provide 

estimates regarding the time needed for 

considering declarations. The FAA may 

request additional information from the 

applicant to determine whether the 

small unmanned aircraft listed in the 

declaration of compliance meets the 

listed FAA-accepted means of 

compliance. The FAA will respond to 

declaration of compliance submissions 

once it completes its review. 

The proposed rule provides a 

sufficient framework for the Agency’s 

approach for overseeing compliance 

with the proposed standards. The FAA 

adopts the process for accepting the 

declaration of compliance as proposed, 

with no changes. 

8. Submitting a New Declaration of 

Compliance for a Modified Small 

Unmanned Aircraft 

The Agency proposed to require any 

person who modifies a small unmanned 

aircraft in a way that could affect the 

eligibility of the small unmanned 

aircraft to operate over people under 

Category 2 or Category 3 to submit a 

new declaration of compliance and 

receive FAA acceptance of it before 

anyone operates the small unmanned 

aircraft over people. If an individual 

modifies the small unmanned aircraft in 

a manner that the original applicant 

identifies in the remote pilot operating 

instructions as an allowable change, the 

individual will not need to submit a 

new declaration of compliance. When a 

person submits a declaration of 

compliance for a small unmanned 

aircraft that was not previously eligible 

for operations over people, the FAA 

would verify the small unmanned 

aircraft fulfills the applicable standard. 

The News Media Coalition stated this 

requirement imposes an unnecessary 

and unreasonable burden and suggested 

the FAA require any buyer of a 

secondhand small UAS to be solely 

responsible for determining their own 

compliance with the rules, rather than 

requiring the seller of secondhand small 

UAS to provide remote pilot operating 

instructions or meet other requirements. 

Before operating over people, the remote 

pilot is responsible for ensuring that the 

small unmanned aircraft they intend to 

use is eligible to conduct operations 

over people. Prior to purchasing a small 

unmanned aircraft for the purpose of 

operations over people, buyers should 

verify the small unmanned aircraft has 

current remote pilot operating 

instructions and is listed on a valid 

declaration of compliance. 

Some applicants may choose to 

provide criteria that describes 

acceptable modifications in their remote 

pilot operating instructions, rather than 

specific acceptable parts. In this regard, 

several commenters were concerned 

that adding or changing a camera could 

result in a disqualifying modification. 

Applicants can determine which 

payloads or modifications would be 

permitted and still meet the standard of 

Category 2 or Category 3. 

Another commenter asked the FAA to 

specify that ‘‘modifying the firmware’’ 

would be exempt from the requirement, 

as the commenter stated several 

manufacturers install firmware that is 

more restrictive than the regulations. 

Updates to small unmanned aircraft 

firmware would be acceptable as long as 

they occur in accordance with the 

remote pilot operating instructions. 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES3
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 10 / Friday, January 15, 2021 / Rules and Regulations 4343 

APPA, EEI, and NRECA, commenting 

jointly, applauded the FAA’s 

recognition of the need for operational 

flexibility and supported the proposal 

‘‘as an appropriate balance between 

operators’ needs and public safety with 

minor clarification.’’ Specifically, the 

commenters recommended the rule 

require manufacturers to identify 

permissible modifications in terms of 

weight, size, and shape, as opposed to 

specific identification of a make or 

model of equipment. The Agency 

declines to include this prescriptive 

requirement, as such detail is 

unnecessary and market forces will 

incentivize manufacturers to craft 

operating instructions that address the 

needs of prospective buyers and users of 

the small unmanned aircraft. 

9. Notification of a Safety Issue 

The NPRM stated the FAA would 

notify an applicant that submitted a 

declaration of compliance if it 

determines the small unmanned aircraft 

is not compliant with the injury severity 

limits or prohibition on exposed 

rotating parts or because the small 

unmanned aircraft has a potential safety 

defect. The FAA would identify such 

safety issues through a variety of means. 

The FAA may receive consumer 

complaints, industry safety bulletins, or 

an individual applicant’s notification 

that a safety issue has arisen. Applicants 

would have the opportunity to discuss 

potential safety issues with the FAA. As 

a result of such discussion, the FAA 

may determine a safety issue does not 

actually exist, that the applicant has 

incorporated an adequate mitigation to 

address and correct the safety issue, or 

that a safety issue still exists. 

To correct a safety issue, an applicant 

could develop a correction and test the 

aircraft to ensure the aircraft no longer 

has a safety issue. The applicant must 

correct any safety issues they identify 

after manufacturing the small 

unmanned aircraft on an ongoing basis 

to ensure continued eligibility for 

Category 2 or Category 3 operations. 

The Agency proposed to require 

resolution of any identified safety issue. 

In the absence of acceptable resolution, 

the rule indicates the FAA would 

commence rescission proceedings, as 

explained below. A commenter stated, 

that as the NPRM is written, the FAA 

has no way of identifying, then 

informing a specific fleet that there is a 

safety issue. This commenter further 

stated there is no requirement for 

manufacturer responsibility to keep a 

list of customers and both communicate 

directly and post notices of defects and 

rescission on their website. As noted 

previously, there are multiple ways by 

which the FAA could become aware of 

a safety issue. The FAA must inform the 

applicant of any known safety issues. 

Additionally, the holder of the 

declaration of compliance must 

establish and maintain a product 

support and notification process to 

ensure that safety issues are 

communicated to the public and the 

FAA. This rule adopts the safety issue 

process, as proposed. 

10. Notice of Rescission of a Declaration 

of Compliance 

The NPRM proposed to rescind a 

declaration of compliance if the FAA 

becomes aware that a small unmanned 

aircraft for which an applicant has 

declared compliance is no longer 

qualified for operations over people. 

The FAA proposed new procedural 

rules to govern any action to rescind a 

declaration of compliance; therefore, the 

FAA’s rules under 14 CFR part 13 

would not apply. 

The proposed rule stated the FAA 

may rescind a declaration of compliance 

if any of the following conditions exist: 

(i) A small unmanned aircraft for which 

a declaration of compliance was 

accepted no longer complies with the 

applicable safety requirements; (ii) the 

FAA finds a declaration of compliance 

violates § 107.5(a); or (iii) the 

Administrator determines a safety 

emergency exists. 

The proposed rule set forth a 

procedure for rescission that begins 

with the FAA sending the applicant a 

notice of proposed rescission. The 

notice would set forth the Agency’s 

basis for the proposed rescission and 

provide the applicant 10 business days 

to submit evidentiary information to 

refute the proposed notice of rescission. 

DJI commented on the proposed 

timeline for submitting information, 

stating 10 days is not sufficient to 

understand the notice and gather and 

provide information to FAA. DJI 

suggested 30 calendar days. The FAA 

agrees that 10 days might be 

insufficient. This rule extends the notice 

period to 30 calendar days. 

If an applicant does not contest the 

allegation that a safety issue exists, or if 

the applicant fails to respond within the 

required time period, the NPRM 

proposed to issue a notice rescinding 

the declaration of compliance. The FAA 

would publish the final rescission on 

the FAA website and specify the 

category of small unmanned aircraft to 

which the rescinded declaration 

applies. If the FAA rescinds a 

declaration of compliance as a result of 

an unresolved safety issue, the FAA 

proposed to allow an applicant to 

petition for reconsideration of the 

decision or modify the small unmanned 

aircraft such that the safety issue is 

resolved, at which point the applicant 

could submit a new declaration of 

compliance, which the FAA may accept. 

As noted in the NPRM, a rescission of 

a declaration of compliance would not 

render a small unmanned aircraft 

inoperable, but rather no longer eligible 

for operations over people in Category 2 

or Category 3. The small unmanned 

aircraft could resume operations over 

people only after the FAA reinstates 

acceptance of the declaration of 

compliance or accepts a new declaration 

that applies to the small unmanned 

aircraft. Either the original or a 

subsequent applicant could submit a 

new declaration of compliance. 

In addition to publishing any final 

rescission of a declaration of 

compliance on the FAA website, the 

Agency stated the FAA would publish 

notification of any applicable safety 

defects in the Federal Register as a 

Notice of Availability. Such a notice 

will inform remote pilots that the 

identified aircraft are no longer eligible 

to conduct operations over people and 

would notify applicants not to 

incorporate the defective material, 

component, or feature into any 

upcoming designs without appropriate 

mitigations. The NPRM also proposed 

that, on rescinding a declaration of 

compliance, the FAA would publish the 

makes and models of small unmanned 

aircraft that are no longer eligible to 

operate over people. Remote pilots 

would be prohibited from using those 

aircraft to operate over people until the 

issue is resolved. On correcting a safety 

defect, the applicant would submit a 

new declaration of compliance to the 

FAA identifying the means of 

compliance the applicant used to 

correct the safety defect. 

Additionally, the NPRM proposed to 

permit the owner or remote pilot of a 

small unmanned aircraft to correct a 

safety defect associated with their 

aircraft. Any person who chooses this 

option must submit a declaration of 

compliance to the FAA identifying the 

means of compliance used to correct the 

safety defect. By modifying the small 

unmanned aircraft such that it is again 

in compliance with the applicable 

requirements, that person would 

become the responsible person listed on 

the declaration of compliance for their 

specific small unmanned aircraft. 

The FAA sought comment on whether 

this process provides sufficient 

opportunities for applicants to resolve 

safety issues and whether the procedure 

would adequately inform the public of 

safety defects. The FAA received a few 

comments regarding the process. DJI 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES3
4344 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 10 / Friday, January 15, 2021 / Rules and Regulations 

57When the Administrator determines that an 

emergency exists related to safety in air commerce 

and requires immediate action, the Administrator 

may issue an immediately effective order to meet 

the emergency, with or without notice, under 49 

U.S.C. 46105(c). 

expressed general support, saying it 

agrees it is important for the FAA to 

have a mechanism for serious safety 

issues to be discussed and addressed by 

the applicant in collaboration with FAA 

for operations over people. 

The National Association of Mutual 

Insurance Companies (NAMIC) stated 

publication of the rescission on the FAA 

website and the Notice of Availability in 

the Federal Register are insufficient to 

notify pilots that operations over people 

are no longer safe. NAMIC 

recommended the FAA use the contact 

information it has for registered small 

unmanned aircraft to notify registered 

operators of safety defects and 

rescissions. Another commenter stated 

that, as written, the proposed rule does 

not give the FAA a means to identify a 

safety issue and then inform a specific 

fleet of that issue; nor does it impose a 

responsibility on the manufacturer to do 

so. The commenter questioned why the 

proposed rule would not require the 

manufacturer to communicate directly 

with its customers and post notices of 

defects and rescissions on their website. 

The commenter also questioned 

whether the Federal Register is an 

effective means of communication, 

suggesting that ‘‘while it may satisfy the 

legal concept of the FAA’s obligation, it 

is not a useful way to reach operators.’’ 

Publication in the Federal Register 

and on the FAA website are sufficient 

notification. This process of notification 

is similar to what the FAA uses for 

airworthiness directives and resolution 

of safety issues. The Federal Register 

and the FAA website are an effective 

and timely means of communicating 

aviation-related safety considerations to 

the public. The FAA may consider using 

the registration system as an additional 

way to notify registered owners of small 

unmanned aircraft. The rule allows the 

FAA to request compliance 

documentation and to inspect facilities 

as appropriate. Further, members of the 

public, including applicants and 

owners, may inform the FAA of 

potential safety defects. With regard to 

notification to owners and operators, 

each applicant must maintain a 

notification process and is required to 

inform the public and the FAA of safety 

defects. Although the rule does not 

specify how applicants would comply 

with this requirement, applicants may 

find posting on their websites an 

effective way to notify owners of any 

small unmanned aircraft safety defects. 

The FAA expects applicants to use their 

notification processes to disseminate 

this information. 

Aside from increasing the notification 

period before the rescission from 10 

business days to 30 calendar days, the 

Agency adopts the rescission procedure 

as proposed. 

11. Emergency Rescission of a 

Declaration of Compliance 

The NPRM proposed an emergency 

rescission process for a declaration of 

compliance. Prior to rescission of a 

declaration of compliance, the FAA 

would typically initiate the safety issue 

notification process with the applicant. 

However, if the Administrator 

determines an emergency exists and 

safety of persons requires an immediate 

rescission of a declaration of 

compliance, the FAA may exercise its 

authority under 49 U.S.C. 46105(c) 57 to 

issue an emergency order rescinding a 

declaration of compliance. Under these 

circumstances, rescission would go into 

effect immediately, without the FAA 

initiating the notification process or the 

rescission procedures previously 

described. The order would remain in 

effect until the basis for issuing the 

order no longer exists. The emergency 

order would be considered a final 

agency decision; as such, an applicant 

may appeal the decision as provided in 

49 U.S.C. 46110 following the issuance 

of the order. The FAA did not receive 

any comments about the emergency 

rescission process. This rule adopts the 

process as proposed, with no changes. 

12. Petition for Reconsideration of a 

Rescission of a Declaration of 

Compliance 

Once a declaration of compliance is 

rescinded, the FAA proposed that an 

applicant would have the opportunity to 

petition the FAA for reconsideration. 

An applicant seeking reconsideration 

must petition the FAA within 60 days 

of the date of issuance of the notice of 

rescission. The petition would have to 

show: (1) The lack of a material fact in 

the original response to the notification 

of the safety issue and address why that 

fact was not present in the original 

response; (2) an important factual error 

existed in the decision to rescind the 

declaration of compliance; or (3) that 

the FAA did not correctly interpret a 

law, regulation, or precedent. The FAA 

would consider this petition and issue 

a final agency decision either affirming 

or withdrawing the rescission of the 

declaration of compliance. An applicant 

could appeal the final agency decision 

as provided in 49 U.S.C. 46110. 

The FAA did not receive comments 

concerning the reconsideration process. 

The FAA adopts the reconsideration 

process, as proposed, with no changes. 

D. Small Unmanned Aircraft 

Manufactured Previous to the Effective 

Date of This Rule 

Some remote pilots and 

manufacturers of small unmanned 

aircraft may wish to use existing small 

unmanned aircraft to conduct 

operations over people. The Agency 

does not seek to preclude existing small 

unmanned aircraft from conducting 

operations over people. Instead, the 

proposed rule included procedures to 

establish the eligibility of existing small 

unmanned aircraft to operate over 

people. As explained in the NPRM, an 

applicant with a previously 

manufactured small unmanned aircraft 

may establish eligibility to operate over 

people by listing the applicable aircraft 

serial numbers for the identified small 

unmanned aircraft on the declaration of 

compliance submitted to the FAA. An 

applicant requesting acceptance would 

be responsible for developing remote 

pilot operating instructions for the 

existing aircraft and making those 

instructions available to remote pilots or 

owners of the small UAS. 

The NPRM did not propose to require 

that an applicant locate owners or 

remote pilots operating existing small 

unmanned aircraft and provide the 

remote pilot operating instructions 

personally to them. Rather, if a remote 

pilot owns an existing aircraft that an 

applicant has identified on a declaration 

of compliance as eligible for Category 2 

or Category 3 operations and the remote 

pilot intends to conduct operations over 

people using that aircraft, the remote 

pilot would be able to access the remote 

pilot operating instructions if the 

applicant posted them online. 

The proposed rule did not identify an 

applicant seeking FAA acceptance of a 

declaration of compliance as the only 

person who could label a small 

unmanned aircraft manufactured prior 

to the effective date of the rule. 

Requiring an applicant to contact all 

remote pilots of a particular make and 

model of small unmanned aircraft and 

provide them with labels would be 

unreasonable. The NPRM noted that an 

applicant could make a label available 

to remote pilots, either as a website 

download or for cost. Overall, remote 

pilots could choose to label their 

existing aircraft in any manner that 

meets the requirements of the proposed 

rule. 

The American Petroleum Institute 

(API) and other commenters suggested 

the FAA ensure small UAS owners are 

not required to buy new aircraft that are 

appropriately labeled or submit their 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES3
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 10 / Friday, January 15, 2021 / Rules and Regulations 4345 

own declaration of compliance. The 

News Media Coalition wrote that its 

members had made significant 

investments in their current fleets of 

small unmanned aircraft and do not 

wish to see them become ‘‘immediately 

obsolete.’’ An individual commenter 

said they should be allowed to make 

modifications to allow their small UAS 

to become eligible to be used for 

Category 2 or Category 3 operations. A 

commenter stated small unmanned 

aircraft might need upgrades to make 

the blades safer, but believed the FAA 

should leave those owners alone. 

Another commenter asked for guidance 

on how the use of shrouds applies to 

existing models. A commenter sought a 

simple way for everyday operators to 

determine whether existing equipment 

can safely operate over people. This 

commenter wrote that while ‘certified’ 

equipment may accomplish this going 

forward, there is a large gap for existing 

small UAS. This commenter 

recommended the example of the 

European notice of proposed 

amendment (NPA), which specifies 

certain altitude limits, speeds, and 

weights. 

Small UAS designs that can currently 

operate under the provisions of part 107 

will continue to be able to operate in 

accordance with part 107 after this rule 

becomes effective. When the remote 

pilot wishes to conduct operations over 

people, however, that person must 

ensure his or her existing small 

unmanned aircraft is eligible for the 

operation. For operations in accordance 

with Category 2 or Category 3, this 

involves verifying the FAA has accepted 

a declaration of compliance concerning 

the small unmanned aircraft. For 

Category 1, the remote pilot must verify 

the aircraft complies with the weight 

and exposed rotating parts standards. 

Anyone with a previously manufactured 

small unmanned aircraft may follow an 

existing FAA-accepted means of 

compliance and submit and request 

acceptance of a declaration of 

compliance verifying the aircraft is 

eligible to operate over people. 

News Media Coalition believed the 

FAA should encourage manufacturers to 

test and certify currently available 

models, both newly manufactured 

models and recently sold models. The 

News Media Coalition asked the FAA to 

encourage manufacturers to offer a way 

to upgrade existing small UAS so that 

they are compliant with any new rules. 

The News Media Coalition said 

manufacturers could accomplish this 

through either a kit or a software or 

firmware upgrade. 

The Agency declines to specify how 

or if small unmanned aircraft 

manufactured prior to the effective date 

of this rule may meet the requirements 

of this rule, but notes that an applicant 

may follow an FAA-accepted means of 

compliance that incorporates any 

number of mitigations, including 

software or firmware updates. 

The Small UAV Coalition supported 

the proposal to apply the requirements 

of this rule to existing small unmanned 

aircraft models, such that operations 

over people with those models may not 

occur until the FAA has accepted a 

declaration of compliance for them. The 

Small UAV Coalition suggested the 

rulemaking explicitly recognize that an 

operation with an existing small 

unmanned aircraft model may occur 

pursuant to a waiver or exemption, 

without a declaration of compliance. 

This rule does not eliminate the ability 

for a person to submit a waiver under 

part 107. The FAA evaluates such 

requests on a case-by-case basis. 

The Security Industry Association 

opined that the proposed rule’s 

certification process for manufacturers 

and users seeking to acquire a means of 

compliance was reasonable. The 

commenter, however, asked the FAA to 

provide guidance to small businesses 

that manufacture small UAS on writing 

service agreements that comply with the 

rulemaking and do not subject the small 

business owners to frivolous lawsuits. 

However, such agreements are outside 

the scope of this rulemaking. 

The FAA included the previously 

manufactured small unmanned aircraft 

section in the NPRM to ensure the 

requirement for labeling of such small 

unmanned aircraft would be clear. 

Given the reorganization of the 

regulatory text, that specific section is 

no longer necessary and therefore, the 

final rule does not include this section. 

E. Remote Pilot Operating Requirements 

The NPRM proposed to apply several 

operating limitations and requirements 

to operations under Categories 2 and 3. 

Several of the operating requirements 

apply to both Categories 2 and 3, while 

Category 3 operations are also subject to 

additional operating limitations and 

requirements. This rule adopts the 

requirements as proposed and clarifies 

that the remote pilot must verify that the 

declaration of compliance associated 

with the small unmanned aircraft is 

valid. It is the remote pilot’s 

responsibility to ensure that the small 

unmanned aircraft is eligible for the 

intended operation, which the remote 

pilot can determine by checking the 

FAA website. 

To conduct operations over people 

under Category 2 or Category 3, remote 

pilots must ensure their small 

unmanned aircraft is eligible for the 

applicable category or categories of 

operations. The remote pilot must 

ensure that the small unmanned aircraft 

meets the injury severity limits, exposed 

rotating parts prohibition, and the 

prohibition on safety defects. The FAA 

does not expect, nor does it require the 

remote pilots to inspect the means of 

compliance or to verify the product 

support and notification system. 

However, the remote pilot has a 

requirement to check that the small 

UAS is in a condition for safe operation, 

per § 107.15. The most effective way for 

a remote pilot to verify that the small 

unmanned aircraft meets the safety 

requirements is to ensure it is listed on 

an FAA-accepted declaration of 

compliance. 

Remote pilots must also ensure their 

small unmanned aircraft is labeled to 

indicate the category of eligibility. If a 

label degrades such that it is no longer 

legible or attached to the aircraft, the 

remote pilot must ensure the small 

unmanned aircraft is relabeled in 

English such that the label is legible, 

prominent, and will remain on the small 

unmanned aircraft for the duration of 

the operation before operating the 

aircraft over people. The FAA received 

a few comments on the labeling 

requirement, one of which expressed 

support for it. Several commenters 

asked the FAA to clarify who is 

responsible for labeling the small 

unmanned aircraft. An individual 

commenter believed the labeling 

provision could force current UAS 

owners to buy future systems that are 

already labeled for operations over 

people, in the event that the UAS 

manufacturer chooses not to submit a 

declaration of compliance for those 

systems currently in the market. Finally, 

another commenter opposed making the 

manufacturer responsible for labeling 

the small unmanned aircraft. The 

applicant must meet the eligibility 

requirements for the small unmanned 

aircraft if he or she wishes to obtain 

FAA acceptance of a declaration of 

compliance to operate over people. 

Furthermore, if the remote pilot wishes 

to use a small unmanned aircraft that is 

listed on a FAA-accepted declaration of 

compliance, but does not possess a label 

because the small unmanned aircraft 

was produced prior to the effective date 

of this rule, the remote pilot must 

ensure the small unmanned aircraft is 

labeled in accordance with the terms of 

the declaration of compliance before 

using the aircraft for operations under 

Category 2 or Category 3. 

The proposed rule did not restrict the 

areas in which operations under 

Category 1 or Category 2 may occur 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES3
4346 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 10 / Friday, January 15, 2021 / Rules and Regulations 

58Rebecca MacPherson, Legal Definition of 

‘‘Densely Populated’’ and ‘‘Congested Airway,’’ 

FAA Office of Chief Counsel, Regulations Division 

(August 28, 2012); Rebecca MacPherson, Response 

to December 4, 2009 Letter, FAA Office of Chief 

Counsel, Regulations Division (March 3, 2010). 

59https://www.faa.gov/about/office_org/ 

headquarters_offices/agc/practice_areas/ 

regulations/Interpretations/. 

60The commenter cited Matthews, et al., ‘‘An 

Achievable Path to UAS Integration in the NAS’’, 

https://www.safeaccess4uas.com/paperuasintegration-nas.html; FAA Sponsored Sense and 

Avoid Workshop, ‘‘Sense and Avoid (SAA) for 

Unmanned Aircraft Systems (UAS), Second Caucus 

Workshop Report,’’ January 18, 2013. The 

commenter refers to measurements of accident 

levels in certain airspace as a ‘‘Target Level of 

Safety.’’ The commenter also cited FAA Order 

1100.161 CHG 1, https://www.faa.gov/ 

documentLibrary/media/Order/Order_1100.161_

CHG_1.pdf. 

61Hitlin, Paul, ‘‘8% of Americans Say They Own 

a Drone, While More than Half Have Seen One in 

Operation,’’ Pew Research Center (Dec. 19, 2017), 

available at https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/ 

2017/12/19/8-of-americans-say-they-owna-dronewhile-more-than-half-have-seen-one-in-operation/. 

because these categories present a lower 

risk of causing severe injuries. The 

proposed rule did, however, restrict the 

areas in which Category 3 operations 

may occur, due to the increased injury 

severity limits of Category 3. 

Specifically, the FAA proposed to 

prohibit Category 3 operations over 

open-air assemblies of human beings. 

The FAA also proposed to limit 

Category 3 operations as follows: The 

operation is within or over closed- or 

restricted-access sites after anyone 

within that site is on notice that a small 

unmanned aircraft may fly over them; 

or, if not in a closed- or restricted-access 

site, the small unmanned aircraft does 

not sustain flight over a person not 

either directly participating in the 

operation, located under a covered 

structure, or inside a stationary vehicle. 

Furthermore, in response to comments, 

remote pilots are prohibited from 

operating a small unmanned aircraft as 

a Category 1, 2, or 4 operation in 

sustained flight over open-air 

assemblies unless the operation meets 

the requirements of § 89.110 or 

§ 89.115(a) (remote identification 

operational and broadcast requirements 

for standard remote identification 

unmanned aircraft or unmanned aircraft 

with remote identification broadcast 

modules). Sustained flight over an openair assembly includes hovering above 

the heads of persons gathered in an 

open-air assembly, flying back and forth 

over an open-air assembly, or circling 

above the assembly in such a way that 

the small unmanned aircraft remains 

above some part the assembly. The FAA 

may waive compliance with this 

provision as appropriate and is 

discussed in more detail in Section 

XIV.B. However, conditions of any 

waiver issued may require the operator 

to notify local law enforcement prior to 

the operation. All small unmanned 

aircraft operations are subject to remote 

identification requirements upon the 

applicable compliance date, as specific 

in the Remote Identification for 

Unmanned Aircraft final rule. 

1. Operations Over Open-Air 

Assemblies of Human Beings 

The FAA received a few comments 

addressing the proposal to prohibit 

Category 3 operations over open-air 

assemblies of people. One commenter 

recommended the FAA clarify what it 

means by an ‘‘assembly of people’’ and 

provide a quantity or density of people 

that constitute a significant risk. The 

FAA has declined to define this term by 

regulation; rather, the FAA employs a 

case-by-case approach in determining 

how to apply the term ‘‘open-air 

assembly.’’ 58 Whether an operational 

area is an open-air assembly is 

evaluated by considering the density of 

people who are not directly 

participating in the operation of the 

small unmanned aircraft and the size of 

the operational area. Such assemblies 

are usually associated with public 

spaces. The FAA considers some 

potential examples of open-air 

assemblies may include sporting events, 

concerts, parades, protests, political 

rallies, community festivals, or parks 

and beaches during certain events. 

Some potential examples that are less 

likely to be considered open-air 

assemblies include individual persons 

or families exiting a shopping center, 

athletes participating in friendly sports 

in an open area without spectators, 

individuals or small groups taking 

leisure in a park or on a beach, or 

individuals walking or riding a bike 

along a bike path, but whether an openair assembly exists depends on a caseby-case determination based on the facts 

and circumstances of each case. The 

remote pilot must assess whether the 

operational area would be considered an 

open-air assembly prior to conducting 

flight operations. Legal interpretations 

and opinions regarding open-air 

assemblies may be found on the FAA 

website.59 The FAA will continue to 

provide education opportunities and 

outreach to remote pilots on conducting 

safe operations. Additional resources for 

operators can be found on the FAA 

website. 

The Washington Progress Group 

stated the prohibition on Category 3 

operations over open-air assemblies is 

reasonable for operators who are 

satisfied with restricting flights to 

unpopulated areas, or who are able and 

willing to control the ground 

environment over which they are flying, 

but asserted the restriction is too 

limiting for most commercial missions 

that operate in populated open areas 

and may need to hover. The commenter 

suggested the FAA consider allowing 

operations to occur in airspace the 

public assumes is safe.60 To implement 

this standard, the commenter suggested 

the FAA require a proponent for UAS 

operations to proffer a safety case. 

The FAA maintains its prohibition on 

Category 3 small unmanned aircraft 

operations over open-air assemblies of 

people, as the limitation will be a means 

for the FAA to maintain an appropriate 

level of safety for such operations. This 

prohibition is subject to waiver. An 

applicant who proposes risk mitigation 

measures that would achieve an 

acceptable level of safety when 

operating over open-air assemblies may 

qualify for and receive a waiver. 

Alternatively, a person choosing to 

demonstrate the reliability of their small 

unmanned aircraft may choose to obtain 

an airworthiness certificate and be 

eligible for Category 4 operations. 

The Electronic Privacy Information 

Center (EPIC) provided statistics from a 

2017 Pew survey 61 that the commenter 

believed are ‘‘directly relevant to the 

proposal to allow drones to operate over 

people.’’ EPIC argued that the 

limitations proposed for Category 3 

operations should apply to all 

operations. For flying over open-air 

assemblies of people, EPIC believed the 

FAA should require operators obtain 

and hold a permit that would ‘‘allow for 

press or photography drones,’’ as a 

means of accountability. 

The FAA developed the limitations 

for Category 3 operations as a way to 

mitigate the level of risk associated with 

the increased injury severity limitations. 

The FAA does not find it necessary to 

apply the limitations to operations 

under Categories 1 and 2, as those 

categories are sufficiently safe to operate 

over open-air assemblies without prior 

notification to persons not directly 

participating in the operation. However, 

in response to security concerns raised 

in comments, remote pilots are 

prohibited from operating a small 

unmanned aircraft as a Category 1, 2, or 

4 operation in sustained flight over 

open-air assemblies unless the operation 

meets the requirements of § 89.110 or 

§ 89.115(a) (remote identification 

operational and broadcast requirements 

for standard remote identification 

unmanned aircraft or unmanned aircraft 

with remote identification broadcast 

modules). See Section VI.E.3. for a 

description of sustained flight and openVerDate Sep<11>2014 05:48 Jan 15, 2021 Jkt 253001 PO 00000 Frm 00034 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\15JAR3.SGM 15JAR3

khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES3
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 10 / Friday, January 15, 2021 / Rules and Regulations 4347 

air assemblies. The FAA may waive 

compliance with this provision as 

appropriate. The FAA similarly does not 

issue permits for specific operations, 

such as small unmanned aircraft 

operated by the press, because the 

FAA’s statutory obligations concerning 

aviation safety do not require 

differentiating between the purposes for 

operations that may occur under part 

107. 

The Agency did not propose training 

or testing requirements for persons 

operating a small unmanned aircraft 

eligible to operate in either Category 2 

or Category 3. With regard to Category 

3 operations, the NPRM requested 

responses to several questions related to 

whether the Agency should require pilot 

training and testing requirements before 

allowing Category 3 operations over 

open-air assemblies. Specifically, the 

FAA requested comment on the 

following questions: 

• To conduct operations over openair assemblies using a small unmanned 

aircraft that can transfer up to 25 ft-lbs 

kinetic energy to a person on impact, 

should the remote pilot-in-command 

have additional skills, experience, or 

currency beyond what part 107 

currently requires? 

• If so, what kind of skill, experience, 

or currency should be required (e.g., 

minimum time operating the small UAS 

to be used, minimum number of take 

offs and landings, etc.)? 

• How should that skill, experience, 

or currency be documented? 

Several commenters responded to 

these questions. Commenters did not 

agree on the path forward with regard to 

open-air assemblies and Category 3. One 

commenter recommended the FAA 

consider training requirements to 

conduct Category 3 operations over 

open-air assemblies of people. Motorola 

Solutions stated public safety officials 

should be allowed to conduct 

operations over open-air assemblies 

without a waiver using a Category 3 

small unmanned aircraft if the remote 

pilot in command has additional skills, 

experience, and currency beyond what 

part 107 currently requires. In contrast, 

the News Media Coalition said the FAA 

should not require training based on the 

number of people on the ground, but 

should focus on ensuring remote pilots 

are trained and knowledgeable in all 

circumstances. Another commenter 

opined that, until the FAA requires a 

practical test with specified minimum 

skills, experience, and currency for 

remote pilots, any additional 

requirements for Category 3 operations 

over open-air assemblies should be left 

to market forces to create industryaccepted standards. 

This rule does not require additional 

training, skills, experience, or currency 

for Category 3 operations. Although 

pilot experience might be relevant in 

determining whether an operation 

under either category meets the level of 

safety required for operations over 

people, the FAA lacks sufficient 

information and data to assess whether 

any training or time spent piloting a 

particular aircraft would be appropriate 

for ensuring safety. 

2. Operations Within or Over Closed- or 

Restricted-Access Site 

The FAA proposed allowing Category 

3 operations at closed- or restrictedaccess sites in which access to the site 

is restricted and when those people who 

are permitted access to the sites are 

advised of the occurrence of the 

operation. The FAA anticipates that a 

closed- or restricted-access site could be 

an area that contains physical barriers, 

personnel, or both, as appropriate, to 

ensure no inadvertent or unauthorized 

access can occur. For example, an 

operator should ensure that access is 

restricted through public notices and 

signage, flagging and barricading, 

erecting temporary fencing, or posting 

personnel at points of entry, as 

appropriate. In addition, issuing notice 

that a small unmanned aircraft may 

operate over people within the site will 

enhance the situational awareness of 

people within it. Notice could be 

written and posted at the entry point of 

the restricted area or be in a letter or 

contract prior to the operation. Verbal 

notice in addition to the written notice 

might be appropriate in some cases. 

Operators may want to consider 

whether providing written notification 

could be helpful to meet operators’ own 

evidentiary needs. In accordance with 

this limitation, remote pilots must 

ensure no inadvertent or unauthorized 

access to the site occurs. The FAA 

expects adequate assurance could 

include receiving assistance from 

personnel, or placing physical barriers 

such as barricading and fencing or 

monitoring personnel to ensure 

inadvertent or unauthorized access to a 

closed- or restricted-access site does not 

occur. Geographical boundaries, such as 

rivers, canals, cliffs, and heavily 

wooded areas may also serve as effective 

barriers to restrict access. In some 

circumstances, it may not be possible 

for a small unmanned aircraft to take off 

and land inside a closed- or restrictedaccess site. The proposed limitations on 

Category 3 operations would therefore 

allow for takeoffs and landings to occur 

outside the site. In such circumstances, 

small unmanned aircraft could then 

transit to the site to conduct the desired 

operation, provided the aircraft does not 

maintain sustained flight over persons 

not directly participating when outside 

the site. 

The FAA received several comments 

relevant to the restriction of Category 3 

operations from sustaining flight over 

people unless those people are within a 

closed- or restricted-access site and have 

received notice that a small unmanned 

aircraft may fly over them. One 

commenter stated consent, rather than 

notice, would be most appropriate in 

restricted spaces because the public 

would likely be more amenable to the 

use of larger unmanned aircraft over 

them if consent was first required. This 

commenter recommended the FAA 

create another category for small UAS 

that require only consent and not notice. 

ALPA said a single, one-time 

notification to people not directly 

involved in the small UAS flight 

operation is not sufficient to reduce the 

risk of the operation. ALPA added this 

is true when an operation of small 

unmanned aircraft occurs in an open 

area where the zone of operations 

cannot easily be defined or depicted. 

The FAA declines to require consent 

for Category 3 operations over people in 

a closed- or restricted-set because notice 

is sufficient for persons who choose to 

assume the risk of being present in the 

area of operation. With regard to ALPA’s 

concerns about Category 3 operations in 

dynamic airport environments, the FAA 

is aware that areas like a non-movement 

area at an airport do not permit public 

access and are an appropriately closedor restricted-sites. If an airport authority 

chooses to conduct Category 3 

operations at the airport, they must 

provide notification prior to the 

operation. The FAA encourages 

providing frequent and timely 

notification to ensure the safety and 

awareness of all persons in the 

environment of operation. 

The National Institute for 

Occupational Safety and Health 

(NIOSH) invited the FAA to join it in 

developing a performance-based, tiered 

approach for operations of small 

unmanned aircraft near people at 

worksites to minimize the occupational 

risks. NIOSH believes additional 

research and proactive risk mitigation 

measures are necessary. NIOSH also 

encouraged the FAA to collaborate with 

the Occupational Safety and Health 

Administration (OSHA). The FAA 

declines to require additional standards 

specific to construction sites. Part 107 

does not place any additional burden or 

restrictions on any workplace. The wide 

variety of small unmanned aircraft types 

and operations make it impractical to 

set specific criteria, including stand-off 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES3
4348 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 10 / Friday, January 15, 2021 / Rules and Regulations 

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

distances, speed limits, mass, altitude, 

and the like, for operations over people. 

Workplace personnel responsible for 

safety rules should consider developing 

operating conditions to ensure remote 

pilots conduct safe small unmanned 

aircraft operations. 

Flytcam Motion Pictures agreed that 

having restricted sites for Category 3 

operations was reasonable, particularly 

around construction sites, agricultural 

fields, oil fields, and areas of search and 

rescue operations. The commenter 

noted these sites already have 

established safety measures in place and 

many of the personnel wear hard hats or 

helmets. The commenter did not, 

however, believe Category 3 operations 

are appropriate on closed-set motion 

picture and television productions. The 

commenter also pointed out that 

personnel on motion picture and 

television sets are unlikely to be 

wearing equipment to protect them. The 

commenter recommended that closedset motion picture filming still require 

the user to go through the waiver 

process to describe how they can 

conduct operations safely. Additionally, 

ALPA recommended that small 

unmanned aircraft operations in these 

areas be restricted to Category 1 or 

Category 2. For operations over people 

at a construction site, the Associated 

General Contractors (AGC) of America 

asked FAA to clarify in this rulemaking 

that workers at the construction site 

qualify as ‘‘participating in the 

operation.’’ 

The injury severity limits, exposed 

rotating parts prohibition, and the 

operating restrictions for Category 3 

operations are sufficient risk mitigations 

for all closed- and restricted-access 

sites. Under these requirements, 

operation of the small unmanned 

aircraft itself presents a sufficiently low 

risk, particularly when combined with a 

notification requirement that allows 

people in the vicinity of the operation 

to assume the risk or to leave the area 

when the operation is taking place. 

Construction sites are often closed- or 

restricted-access sites in which people 

within the sites might not directly 

participate in the small unmanned 

aircraft operation. Under these 

circumstances, operations over people 

can still occur over these individuals in 

accordance with this rule. The FAA 

discussed the distinction between 

people directly participating and not 

participating in the final rule for part 

107.62 This final rule for operations over 

people does not change that policy. 

3. Operations Not Within or Over 

Closed- or Restricted-Access Sites 

For Category 3 operations over people 

not located within a closed- or 

restricted-access site, the Agency 

proposed to prohibit sustained flight, as 

doing so reduces the likelihood of injury 

by limiting protracted duration of a 

flight over a person. Additionally, the 

Agency proposed to prohibit remote 

pilots from operating a Category 3 

aircraft over open-air assemblies of 

people. 

In response to the proposal 

concerning Category 3 operations over 

people not located within closed- or 

restricted-access sites, the Small UAV 

Coalition pointed out the proposed rule 

did not include a definition of 

‘‘sustained’’ operation. The Coalition 

stated the FAA should consider 

hovering or circling over persons to be 

‘‘sustained,’’ in contrast to merely 

transiting over a person. The FAA 

maintains the prohibition on sustained 

flight for Category 3 operations outside 

of a closed- or restricted-access site, in 

addition to prohibiting all operations 

over open-air assemblies. Sustained 

flight includes hovering above any 

person’s head, including any person in 

an open-air assembly; flying back and 

forth over a person or open-air 

assembly; or circling above an 

uninvolved person or open-air assembly 

in such a way that the small unmanned 

aircraft remains above some part of that 

person or open-air assembly. Operations 

conducted under Category 3 only permit 

sustained operations over people 

directly participating in the operation or 

under a covered structure or inside a 

stationary vehicle. Category 1, 2, or 4 

operations that are not compliant with 

remote identification are also prohibited 

from sustained flight over open-air 

assemblies. 

The AeroVista Drone Academy 

recommended allowing ‘‘transient 

overflight’’ of non-participating persons 

who are equipped with hardhats and 

other equipment or non-participants 

who have provided informed consent. 

In addition, AeroVista recommended 

the establishment of a new category of 

‘‘active participants,’’ which would 

consist of persons involved in an 

operation, are informed of the risks, 

have provided informed consent, and 

can carry out appropriate emergency 

procedures. These active participants 

would be identified by special clothing 

or being in a closed-access site. 

This rule provides flexibility for 

operating over people not directly 

participating in the operation, unless it 

is a sustained flight over an open-air 

assembly for Category 1, 2, or 4. This 

rule allows operations under Category 1 

or Category 2 to occur over all people, 

including sustained flight over people 

not directly participating in the 

operation, unless that sustained flight is 

over an open-air assembly. The FAA 

finalizes the requirement to permit 

Category 3 over people only if: (i) The 

operation is within or over closed- or 

restricted-access sites and anyone 

within that site has been notified that a 

small unmanned aircraft may fly over 

them; or (ii) the small unmanned 

aircraft does not maintain sustained 

flight over a person not either directly 

participating in the operation, located 

under a covered structure, or inside a 

stationary vehicle with no changes. 

Such restrictions are consistent with the 

risk-based framework for this 

rulemaking. 

F. Variable Modes and Variable 

Configurations of Small UAS 

The Agency proposed to allow small 

unmanned aircraft configured to 

conduct operations in more than one 

category. For example, an aircraft may 

be designed in such a way that it would 

be eligible to conduct Category 2 

operations in one mode or configuration 

and Category 3 operations in another. 

Alternatively, a small unmanned aircraft 

could meet the requirements to operate 

over people only when in one particular 

mode or configuration. 

Using different modes or 

configurations, an applicant could 

design a small unmanned aircraft to 

meet the performance requirements of 

multiple categories of operations over 

people. The NPRM explained that, to 

transition between various modes or 

configurations, an applicant could use a 

variety of methods, such as softwareenabled performance limitations or 

hardware configurations. The Agency 

proposed that a small unmanned aircraft 

would only be eligible for operation in 

more than one category if the remote 

pilot in command cannot inadvertently 

change the mode or configuration. A 

change of mode or configuration, 

therefore, could only result from a 

deliberate action on the part of the 

remote pilot in command. The applicant 

should test the small unmanned aircraft 

in the mode or configuration to which 

the applicant wishes to declare 

compliance. The declaration of 

compliance must include each category 

for which the applicant has tested or 

analyzed the small unmanned aircraft. 

The Agency sought comment on 

means of compliance that address 

incorporation of software, including 

software updates or changes, to enable 

performance limitations and variable 

modes or configurations to meet the 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES3
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 10 / Friday, January 15, 2021 / Rules and Regulations 4349 

proposed safety level. The FAA also 

sought comment in the NPRM on how 

it should review means of compliance 

for the impact kinetic energy or exposed 

rotating parts safety thresholds to 

address the appropriateness of using 

software to limit or establish safe 

performance of the small unmanned 

aircraft. In response, the Agency 

received general comments on variable 

modes and configurations. 

Flytcam Motion Pictures expressed 

concern that many pilots lack both the 

technical understanding of various 

systems and procedures required to 

operate safely and to understand the 

regulations in part 107. While agreeing 

the pilot should not be able to change 

the mode inadvertently, Flytcam was 

concerned the Agency had ‘‘a lot of 

confidence that the pilot will ensure the 

aircraft is configured properly.’’ The 

FAA does not share these concerns 

because the regulations require remote 

pilot operating instructions to describe 

how to verify and change the mode or 

configuration of the small unmanned 

aircraft. Remote pilots who hold 

certificates under part 107 are capable of 

using the remote pilot operating 

instructions to determine how to 

employ the appropriate mode or 

configuration for the intended 

operation. The remote pilot in command 

is also responsible for complying with 

all applicable regulations, including 

conducting a preflight inspection. 

The Agency adopts the proposal as 

drafted to allow small unmanned 

aircraft to be configured in more than 

one category. 

G. Record Retention Requirements 

The Agency proposed requiring 

applicants to maintain small unmanned 

aircraft records related to their 

declarations of compliance for a 

minimum of two years after ceasing 

production and requiring applicants to 

retain all supporting information for a 

means of compliance for as long as the 

means of compliance remains accepted. 

The NPRM explained that, in the event 

of a safety defect, or if the FAA initiated 

an action to address a compliance issue, 

this information would be critical to 

determine the cause, scope, and severity 

of the defect or infraction. 

For applicants submitting a means of 

compliance for FAA acceptance, the 

submitter would be required to retain 

and make available to the 

Administrator, on request, and for as 

long as the means of compliance 

remains accepted, the detailed 

description of the means of compliance 

and justification showing how the 

means of compliance meets the 

requirements. When submitting a 

declaration of compliance, the applicant 

must retain all supporting information 

used to meet the safety requirements. 

The applicant must retain this 

information for 2 years after the 

cessation of production of the small 

unmanned aircraft listed on the 

declaration of compliance. Furthermore, 

if the applicant designs or modifies the 

small unmanned aircraft, they must 

retain the supporting information for 2 

years after they submit the declaration 

of compliance. The FAA has modified 

the text of the regulatory requirements 

for record retention as they were 

proposed in the NPRM to provide 

clarity. 

NAMIC and the Small UAV Coalition 

supported the proposal to require the 

holder of a declaration of compliance to 

retain records for a minimum of 2 years. 

In contrast, two individual commenters 

opposed the 2-year record retention 

requirement, arguing that it should be 

longer. One of these commenters wrote 

that, to accommodate lawyers and 

lawsuits, the Agency should extend the 

record retention period to match the 

statute of limitations, which the 

commenter stated is 10 years. The other 

commenter similarly suggested that 

records be retained for the length of all 

statutes of limitation, because the 

recordkeeping requirements will benefit 

the injured party. This commenter also 

stated that the NPRM did not provide a 

reason for treating the document 

retention and inspection requirements 

for the declaration of compliance and 

the means of compliance differently. 

The commenter asserted that if the 

method of proving compliance cannot 

be investigated and verified, ‘‘the 

Certificates of Declaration are suspect.’’ 

The Agency finds that the record 

retention requirements are appropriate: 

It is not necessary to retain records that 

are the bases for declarations of 

compliance longer than 2 years, 

although the FAA notes that individuals 

may find it in their interest to retain the 

records for a longer period of time. 

The Small UAV Coalition also 

commented in support of the proposal 

to require the holder of a means of 

compliance retain records for as long as 

the means of compliance remains 

acceptable to the FAA. Commenting on 

the proposed retention requirement for 

substantiating data related to custom 

means of compliance, an individual 

commented that, so long as the 

manufacturers are the only entities 

using their own custom means of 

compliance, it makes sense for them to 

keep substantiating data ‘‘with no 

caveats. ‘‘The commenter stated, 

‘‘however, given that other 

manufacturers may rely on [another] 

manufacturer’s custom means of 

compliance . . . the rule should provide 

some means whereby a creator of a 

custom means of compliance can notify 

those who use it that they will no longer 

utilize it.’’ Data would then either be 

deleted or transferred to entities that 

wish to continue using the means of 

compliance. The commenter noted that, 

without this exception, a person who 

creates and submits for FAA acceptance 

a means of compliance must bear the 

cost of maintaining substantiating data 

related to that means of compliance 

even if the manufacturer no longer 

makes use of it. 

An individual commenter expressed 

support for the proposed amendment to 

require any person holding an FAAaccepted declaration of compliance to 

make available to the Administrator, on 

request, the declaration of compliance 

and any other document, record, or 

report required to be kept. The 

commenter suggested the FAA clarify 

that only the person(s) required to keep 

the record must produce the record. 

The proposed language sufficiently 

affirms that the person who is required 

to keep the record must be the one to 

produce the record on request. Further, 

the Agency adopts the record retention 

requirements as proposed, with minor 

clarifying amendments to ensure 

sufficient information is available to the 

FAA on request. These requirements are 

consistent with the level of oversight 

that is appropriate for small unmanned 

aircraft eligible to conduct operations in 

accordance with Category 2 or Category 

3. 

VII. Category 4: Operations Based on 

Airworthiness 

The proposed rule included only 

three categories of aircraft that could 

conduct operations over people under 

part 107. In response, several 

commenters stated the Agency had not 

considered the reliability of aircraft. 

Other commenters stated a small UAS 

issued an airworthiness certificate 

should be allowed to operate over 

people. 

The Agency designed part 107 to 

encompass small UAS that were not 

certificated, allowing for expansion of 

UAS operations in the NAS without 

requiring airworthiness certification. In 

response to commenters’ suggestions, 

this rule considers reliability of small 

UAS by establishing a fourth category of 

small unmanned aircraft eligible to 

operate over people. This final rule 

allows small unmanned aircraft issued 

an airworthiness certificate under part 

21 to operate over people in accordance 

with part 107. An appropriate 

airworthiness certificate would be one 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES3
4350 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 10 / Friday, January 15, 2021 / Rules and Regulations 

which does not prohibit operations over 

people or over moving vehicles. 

Operating limitations may be specified 

in the approved Flight Manual or as 

otherwise specified by the 

Administrator. Certification is how the 

FAA manages risk through safety 

assurance. It provides the FAA 

confidence that a proposed product or 

operation will meet FAA safety 

expectations to protect the public. 

Certification affirms that FAA 

requirements have been met. Small 

unmanned aircraft that have obtained 

airworthiness certification will be 

allowed to operate over people and over 

moving vehicles in accordance with part 

107, so long as the operating limitations 

applicable to that aircraft do not 

prohibit those operations. Consistent 

with other regulatory frameworks, such 

as part 91 and part 135, the owner is 

responsible for the maintenance and 

records retention requirements for small 

unmanned aircraft operated in 

accordance with Category 4 under part 

107, unless the owner has entered into 

an agreement with another entity to 

operate the small unmanned aircraft. It 

is expected that most operators of 

Category 4 small unmanned aircraft 

operated under part 107 will also be the 

owner, or operating under direction of 

the owner. In this case, the owner is 

responsible for compliance with the 

Category 4 small unmanned aircraft 

maintenance and records retention 

requirements. However, to maintain 

flexibility for those owners of a Category 

4 small unmanned aircraft who wish to 

enter in to a lease agreement with 

another entity for the operation of their 

small unmanned aircraft without the 

owner’s intervention or control, this 

rule provides the means for the 

responsibility for the maintenance 

requirements and retention of records to 

be clearly defined in such an agreement. 

If so specified in the agreement, the 

FAA would hold the operator 

responsible for compliance with the 

Category 4 small unmanned aircraft 

maintenance and records retention 

requirements. An agreement between an 

owner and an operator may be in the 

form of a written lease or contract, 

verbal agreement, or other agreement. If 

any agreement is found invalid or 

unenforceable, then the owner has the 

responsibility to meet these 

requirements. The provisions of any 

agreement should address, at a 

minimum, the requirements of 

§ 107.140(c). 

The UAS Program Leader for the 

Memphis Fire Department stated the 

FAA or the manufacturer should certify 

small UAS that are reliable aircraft for 

use in operations over people. AIA 

asked the Agency to consider the 

probability of a small unmanned aircraft 

hitting a moving vehicle or a human. A 

commenter wrote that there are 

currently no clear data on this topic and 

such data is critical to industry and 

public acceptance of this rule. AIA 

stated the Agency should consider the 

risk of UAS operations as consistent 

with the risks posed by traditional 

manned aviation as well as the other 

risks that the public faces daily. 

Airworthiness certification is not 

necessary for operations over people; as 

a result, the proposed rule did not 

require it for operations under any of 

the three proposed categories of 

operation. 

Flytcam Motion Pictures surmised the 

risk of unmanned aircraft mishap would 

be higher with increased operations and 

suggested the creation of a fourth 

category that would include all the 

systems outside Category 3. Rising Tide 

Cinema proposed three classes of small 

UAS: Operations that occur under 

waiver, small UAS with technological 

advantages approved by the FAA, and a 

third category of small UAS with an 

‘‘airworthiness release.’’ Another 

commenter recommended several 

specific requirements for small UAS 

type certification, including a 

‘‘demonstrated hover stability rating,’’ 

pilot notification, and cybersecurity 

requirements. Drone Safe Communities 

suggested manufacturer requirements 

for protocol to apply during a loss of 

signal experience. 

The Agency agrees with the 

commenters that demonstrable 

reliability should be an alternative path 

for operations over people. This rule 

includes several updates to regulatory 

text to allow aircraft with airworthiness 

certification to operate under part 107 

and to be eligible to operate over people. 

This rule also removes the phrase, 

‘‘[e]xcept for aircraft subject to the 

provisions of part 107’’ from § 21.1, to 

clarify small UAS may seek 

airworthiness certification even if part 

107 applies to the intended aircraft 

operation. This final rule includes a 

new provision, § 107.2, which clarifies 

that, notwithstanding the change to 

§ 21.1, small unmanned aircraft 

operating under part 107 are not 

required to obtain airworthiness 

certification. Except where the 

airworthiness certification is used as a 

basis for operating over people in 

accordance with Category 4, the 

provisions of part 21 will continue to be 

inapplicable to small unmanned aircraft 

subject to part 107. This final rule also 

revises § 107.1 to clarify that part 107 

does not apply to any operation that an 

operator elects to conduct under part 91 

with a small unmanned aircraft that has 

been issued an airworthiness certificate: 

an operator may conduct small 

unmanned aircraft operations under 

either part 107 or part 91 when the 

operation and small unmanned aircraft 

meet the applicable requirements. 

A. Remote Pilot in Command Operating 

Requirements for Category 4 

To operate under Category 4, the 

remote pilot in command must use a 

small unmanned aircraft that has an 

FAA-issued airworthiness certificate. 

Operating limitations may be specified 

in the approved Flight Manual or as 

otherwise specified by the 

Administrator and must not prohibit 

operations over people or moving 

vehicles. When using a small unmanned 

aircraft with an airworthiness certificate 

issued under part 21, remote pilots must 

operate in accordance with all operating 

limitations, which the FAA specifies for 

each aircraft when issuing the 

airworthiness certificate. Operating 

limitations are prescribed to ensure that 

the aircraft is operated within an 

acceptable level of risk to maintain the 

safety of the NAS and to protect persons 

and property on the ground. To ensure 

this safety, remote pilots must adhere to 

any operating limitations, especially 

those specific to operations over people. 

Any noncompliance with operating 

limitations increases risk. 

Additionally, in response to 

comments, remote pilots are prohibited 

from operating a small unmanned 

aircraft as a Category 4 operation in 

sustained flight over open-air 

assemblies unless the operation meets 

the requirements of § 89.110 or 

§ 89.115(a). Sustained flight over an 

open-air assembly includes hovering 

above the heads of persons gathered in 

an open-air assembly, flying back and 

forth over an open-air assembly, or 

circling above the assembly in such a 

way that the small unmanned aircraft 

remains above some part the assembly. 

The FAA may waive compliance with 

this requirement as appropriate. For 

more information on this requirement, 

please see Sections VI.E. and XIV.B. 

B. Small Unmanned Aircraft System 

Requirements and Continued 

Airworthiness for Category 4 

The aircraft must be maintained or 

altered in a manner using the methods, 

techniques, and practices prescribed in 

the current manufacturer’s maintenance 

manual or Instructions for Continued 

Airworthiness prepared by its 

manufacturer, or other methods, 

techniques, and practices acceptable to 

the Administrator. Additionally, the 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES3
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 10 / Friday, January 15, 2021 / Rules and Regulations 4351 

small unmanned aircraft must be 

inspected in accordance with either the 

manufacturer’s instructions or 

instructions acceptable to the 

Administrator. The small unmanned 

aircraft must also be maintained or 

altered using parts of such a quality that 

the condition of the aircraft will be at 

least equal to its original or properly 

altered condition. 

The person performing any 

maintenance, preventive maintenance, 

or alterations must use the methods, 

techniques, and practices prescribed in 

the current manufacturer’s maintenance 

manual or Instructions for Continued 

Airworthiness that are acceptable to the 

Administrator, or other methods, 

techniques, and practices acceptable to 

the Administrator. In addition they 

must have the knowledge, skill, and 

appropriate equipment to perform the 

work. While this rule does not require 

the person performing maintenance to 

hold a mechanic certificate, it is 

incumbent on the owner or operator to 

ensure that maintenance occurs in a 

manner that ensures that the small 

unmanned aircraft remains in a 

condition eligible to be operated over 

people in accordance with Category 4. If 

the small unmanned aircraft is operated, 

and subsequently crashes due to 

improperly performed maintenance, the 

small unmanned aircraft owner or 

operator could be held responsible. The 

person performing the maintenance 

must have the basic skills and 

knowledge to follow the manufacturer’s 

instructions and use the tools that the 

manufacturer recommends. Or, if 

adequate instructions are not available, 

or if an alternative process is desired, 

then the maintenance provider may use 

instructions acceptable to the 

Administrator in lieu of the 

manufacturer’s instructions. 

Many of these requirements are 

similar to the requirements of part 43 

that apply to maintenance of aircraft. 

The FAA has long relied on 

maintenance providers’ compliance 

with these requirements to ensure the 

aircraft remains in an airworthy 

condition. In this regard, the 

requirements ensure the small 

unmanned aircraft retains the 

capabilities and characteristics the small 

unmanned aircraft had at the time of 

certification and that the certification 

determination remains valid. The 

conclusion that the aircraft will remain 

safe is critical in determining the 

aircraft is suitable for operating over 

people in accordance with Category 4, 

as it is consistent with the risk-based 

framework the Agency uses in 

establishing the appropriate policy for 

small UAS operations over people. 

C. Maintenance Records 

This rule requires the owner or 

operator to retain maintenance records 

for aircraft eligible for operations under 

Category 4 for at least 1 year from when 

the work is performed, or until the 

maintenance is repeated or superseded 

by other work. Furthermore, the owner 

or operator must retain and transfer 

records documenting the status of lifelimited parts, compliance with 

airworthiness directives, and inspection 

status of the small unmanned aircraft 

when ownership of the small unmanned 

aircraft transfers. The records must be 

specific to the small unmanned aircraft 

and be made available to the 

Administrator on request. All records of 

maintenance, preventive maintenance, 

and alterations performed on the small 

unmanned aircraft must be documented 

in a manner acceptable to the 

Administrator. The records must 

contain the description of the work 

performed, the date the work was 

completed, and the name of the person 

who performed the work. 

The FAA will use these records to 

verify that the small unmanned aircraft 

has been maintained in a manner that 

assures it remains in a condition eligible 

for operations over people in 

accordance with Category 4. In addition, 

while the Agency does not establish a 

process of requiring a small unmanned 

aircraft be removed from service, 

repaired, and returned to service by a 

certificated mechanic, the small 

unmanned aircraft must be properly 

maintained to ensure it remains in a safe 

condition. Appropriate record-keeping 

will verify compliance with this 

requirement. 

When a remote pilot operates a small 

unmanned aircraft in accordance with 

part 107 that has been issued an 

airworthiness certificate under part 21, 

the requirements of part 43 and part 91 

do not apply. However, a small 

unmanned aircraft that has been issued 

an airworthiness certificate may also be 

eligible to operate under part 91, under 

certain circumstances. This rule 

contains necessary updates to the 

regulatory text, to reflect the 

applicability of operating rules. Due to 

the differences in the regulations about 

how aircraft must be maintained under 

each suite of operating rules, it may be 

difficult for an owner or operator to 

switch back and forth between operating 

rules. In particular, a small unmanned 

aircraft that has been operated and 

maintained in accordance with part 107 

may find it difficult to show compliance 

with the requirements of part 43 and 91. 

To address this concern, an owner or 

operator can elect to comply with the 

relevant part 43 and 91 requirements, 

even while operating in accordance 

with part 107. Under these 

circumstances, electing to comply with 

the relevant part 43 and 91 requirements 

may help facilitate moving back and 

forth between operational parts, if 

desired, because the requirements of 

parts 43 and 91 are more stringent than 

those of § 107.140 with regard to 

maintenance and airworthiness. 

VIII. Operations Over Moving Vehicles 

A. Proposed Prohibition and Comments 

Received 

The Agency proposed to prohibit the 

operation of small unmanned aircraft 

over people in moving vehicles; 

however, the proposed rule stated the 

FAA could waive the proposed 

prohibition if a person demonstrates the 

small unmanned aircraft operation 

could occur safely under the terms of a 

waiver. In the proposed rule, the 

Agency stated the moving vehicle 

operating environment is dynamic and 

the remote pilot in command could not 

control it directly. The Agency 

considered, however, allowing the 

operation of small unmanned aircraft 

over people in moving vehicles without 

a waiver and sought public comment on 

whether it should take this action. 

Many comments addressed operations 

of small UAS over people who are in 

moving vehicles. Several comments 

supported the prohibition and said the 

FAA should not consider allowing such 

operations without a waiver. A few 

comments only addressed the proposal 

to allow small unmanned aircraft 

operations over people in moving 

vehicles through the part 107 waiver 

process. Most commenters opposed the 

prohibition and said the FAA should 

allow small unmanned aircraft 

operations over moving vehicles 

without a waiver in all or limited 

circumstances. 

Some commenters, including the 

CAPA, the Association of American 

Railroads, the Minnesota Department of 

Transportation (MnDOT), IAAPA, and 

EPIC, supported the prohibition as 

proposed in the NPRM. Both the 

Association of American Railroads and 

IAAPA asked the Agency to clarify what 

constitutes a moving vehicle and further 

requested clarity about whether the 

prohibition would apply to trains and 

amusement park rides. 

IAAPA urged the Agency ‘‘to prohibit 

the flight of any unauthorized small 

UAS over fixed site amusement parks,’’ 

citing concerns over small unmanned 

aircraft operating over amusement park 

rides. IAAPA stated operators who 

receive a waiver will be more familiar 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES3
4352 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 10 / Friday, January 15, 2021 / Rules and Regulations 

63Section 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. 

64The commenter cited the following Oregon 

Department of Transportation study, which 

investigated driver distraction caused by UAS: 

Hurwitz, D., Olsen, M., & Barlow, Z. (2018) ‘‘Driver 

Distraction Due to Drones,’’ Oregon Department of 

Transportation (ODOT), Salem, OR, 1–100, 

available at http://www.davidhurwitz.org/wpcontent/uploads/2019/02/Driving_Distraction_due_

to_Drones.pdf. 

with the higher level of risk associated 

with operating over an amusement park. 

IAAPA asked the Agency to recognize 

the need to prohibit flight over, and in 

close proximity to, amusement parks by 

clarifying that amusement park rides are 

‘‘moving vehicles’’ for purposes of the 

prohibition. Alternatively, the 

commenter asked the Agency to address 

the prohibition through Section 2209 of 

the FAA Extension, Safety, and Security 

Act of 2016.63 The commenter asserted 

the kinetic energy of a small unmanned 

aircraft hitting an exposed individual on 

even a relatively slow-moving ride 

poses a substantial safety risk to the 

rider who is hit, to those around him or 

her, and potentially to all the riders on 

a ride. 

Chicago’s First Lady Cruises wrote 

that the inconvenience of the current 

regulation is outweighed by reasonable 

safety and liability concerns. The 

commenter noted that their open-air 

vessels provide their customers with 

unobstructed views of the Chicago 

skyline and could be considered an 

open-air assembly of people. 

Several commenters supported the 

prohibition on operations over moving 

vehicles as long as it remains subject to 

waiver. MnDOT recommended the FAA 

require applicants for a waiver explain 

how they considered the safety of the 

combinations of altitude, speed, and 

distance from a roadway exist to avoid 

distracting drivers.64 One commenter 

recommended the FAA differentiate 

between operations over people in 

moving vehicles with knowledge of the 

operation (e.g., vehicles being filmed) 

and operations over people in moving 

vehicles without knowledge of the 

operation (e.g., vehicles on public 

roads). Another individual commenter 

suggested the Agency only allow 

operations of small unmanned aircraft 

over moving vehicles with a waiver, 

hands-on training, and rules preventing 

operation over roadways where vehicles 

travel above certain speeds. The 

commenter said testing would be 

necessary to determine appropriate 

speeds, and would likely be similar to 

the testing conducted for this NPRM to 

set UAS categories, considering the 

likelihood of harm to bystanders that 

may occur at various speeds. The 

commenter also stated a small 

unmanned aircraft that causes a driver 

of a car or truck to lose control of a 

vehicle would create much greater 

havoc than that contemplated by this 

NPRM. 

Some commenters recommended a 

prohibition against hovering or 

sustained flight over moving vehicles. 

NAMIC said it recognizes sustained 

operation of a small unmanned aircraft 

over moving vehicles can present safety 

issues and should not be permitted 

without a waiver, but ‘‘temporarily 

transiting over roads with moving 

vehicles during normal operations’’ 

should be permitted. A couple of 

commenters stated small unmanned 

aircraft operations should only be 

permitted without a waiver for purposes 

of transiting over moving vehicles or 

when the flight is done at certain angle, 

for example, perpendicular to the 

roadway or at a 90-degree angle. One 

commenter said any prohibition on 

hovering or sustained flights over 

moving vehicles should not apply to 

lifesaving or search-and-rescue efforts. 

In contrast, many comments opposed 

the prohibition on small unmanned 

aircraft operations over moving vehicles 

and recommended the FAA allow such 

operations without a waiver. Most of 

these commenters cited at least one of 

the following reasons: (1) A small 

unmanned aircraft that malfunctions is 

unlikely to collide with a moving 

vehicle operating below it because both 

vehicles are in motion; (2) in the event 

of a collision, the risk of injury to 

people inside the moving vehicle is low 

because they are protected by the 

structure of the car; and (3) the risk of 

distraction to drivers is low. 

Commenters stated the small unmanned 

aircraft will operate directly overhead 

and therefore not be visible to the 

drivers, who must focus on distractions 

that are equal to or greater than a small 

unmanned aircraft operating overhead. 

Commenters also stated the FAA failed 

to consider the benefits of allowing 

small unmanned aircraft operations over 

moving vehicles and failed to provide 

sufficient evidence or data to support 

the Agency’s stated concerns regarding 

risks to people in vehicles. Commenters 

asserted a blanket restriction on small 

unmanned aircraft operations over 

moving vehicles would severely limit 

small unmanned aircraft operations, 

especially in urban areas, and will 

negatively impact various industries, 

public safety operations, and emerging 

technologies. A few commenters noted 

helicopters and ultralight vehicles 

routinely operate over moving vehicles 

and present a greater risk to people in 

moving vehicles than small unmanned 

aircraft operating overhead. Other 

commenters opposed the prohibition 

due to concerns with the burden on the 

FAA and small UAS operators of using 

the part 107 waiver process to allow the 

operations. 

Commenters also pointed to the 

difficulty of having to interrupt an 

operation by landing the unmanned 

aircraft, crossing the roadway, then 

resuming the operation. Utah 

Department of Transportation (UDOT) 

noted that, to avoid operating over 

moving vehicles, it closes lanes of traffic 

to conduct bridge, sign, and other 

infrastructure inspections via UAS, 

causing delays and incurring cost to 

society. Several commenters, including 

DJI, suggested allowing operations of 

small unmanned aircraft over moving 

vehicles without a waiver using a riskbased approach and to consider factors 

such as the speed and density of traffic, 

minimum altitude requirements, the 

location, type, and speed limit on the 

roadway or site being overflown, and 

the weight of the small unmanned 

aircraft. A few commenters suggested 

the rule include weather restrictions. 

Some commenters recommended 

allowing such operations only in certain 

circumstances. A commenter 

recommended requiring operators to 

comply with reporting requirements, 

such as reporting property damage to 

local and State departments of motor 

vehicles. Commenters generally 

supported allowing operations over lowspeed and low-density traffic when 

vehicles are in closed or restricted sites. 

Commenters also recommended that 

small unmanned aircraft operations be 

permitted over moving vehicles if the 

drivers are part of, or are aware of and 

consent to, the operations or when the 

operators are ‘‘professionally trained, 

certified, and insured.’’ A few 

commenters who support such 

operations at construction sites asserted 

the nature of heavy equipment at such 

sites, the added protection of personal 

protective equipment, and the 

additional training for workers and 

operators would mitigate the risks of the 

operation. A commenter recommended 

viewing each operating environment on 

a case-by-case basis to allow operations 

where deemed safe and responsible, 

based on a variety of factors. 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES3
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 10 / Friday, January 15, 2021 / Rules and Regulations 4353 

B. Response to Comments for 

Determination 

The Agency agrees with the 

commenters who stated operations over 

people in moving vehicles could be 

conducted safely, subject to certain 

conditions. Although small unmanned 

aircraft operations over moving vehicles 

may present additional risks due to the 

potential speeds of such vehicles, the 

Agency has determined operations of 

small unmanned aircraft over people 

who are inside moving vehicles can be 

conducted safely, under limited 

circumstances. Therefore, this rule will 

allow small unmanned aircraft 

operations over people inside moving 

vehicles subject to specific conditions. 

The rule contains a new section 

describing the conditions under which 

small unmanned aircraft may be 

operated over people inside moving 

vehicles. 

This rule allows operations over 

people inside moving vehicles under 

the following conditions. First, the 

small unmanned aircraft operation must 

meet the requirements for a Category 1, 

2, or 3 operation under subpart D. 

Second, regardless of the category of 

operation, the operation must meet 

either of the following conditions: (1) 

The operation must be within or over a 

closed- or restricted-access site where 

any human being located inside a 

moving vehicle within the closed- or 

restricted-access site is on notice that a 

small unmanned aircraft may fly over 

them, or (2) if the operation is not 

within or over a closed- or restrictedaccess site, the small unmanned aircraft 

must not maintain sustained flight over 

moving vehicles. 

The application of the requirements of 

Categories 1, 2, or 3 will reduce the risk 

of injury to human beings. The weight 

limitation and exposed rotating parts 

prohibition for Category 1 and the injury 

severity limitations and exposed 

rotating parts prohibition for Categories 

2 and 3 reduce the risk of injury to 

human beings located in or on moving 

vehicles, as well as the severity of 

damage to a moving vehicle if an impact 

occurs. Having a single set of conditions 

for Categories 1, 2, and 3 to operate over 

moving vehicles also simplifies the 

requirement while achieving an 

acceptable level of safety. 

Category 4 small UAS may be eligible 

to operate over moving vehicles as long 

as the applicable operating limitations 

in the FAA-approved Flight Manual or 

as otherwise specified by the 

Administrator do not prohibit such 

operation. For the reasons described in 

the discussion of Category 4 in Section 

VII. of this preamble, operation of a 

Category 4 small unmanned aircraft over 

a person in a moving vehicle is 

consistent with the level of safety that 

operations of small unmanned aircraft 

under Categories 1, 2, and 3 achieve. 

For the purpose of this rule, the 

Agency considers a vehicle to be any 

means of transportation, regardless of 

whether it is motorized. For example, 

cars, trucks, buses, trains, motorcycles, 

scooters, and rollercoasters are all 

vehicles. In addition, non-motorized 

means of transportation such as bicycles 

would also be considered vehicles 

because they have the potential to move 

at speeds the Agency did not 

contemplate when establishing the 

requirements for operations over people. 

Watercraft such as sightseeing vessels, 

motorboats, and personal watercraft are 

also vehicles for the purpose of this 

rule. 

The closed- or restricted-access site 

restrictions that apply to some 

operations over moving vehicles are 

similar to the restrictions for Category 3 

operations over people and will apply to 

all operations over moving vehicles. For 

example, a Category 2 operation over 

people is not restricted to closed- or 

restricted-access sites, but if the 

operation involves operations over 

moving vehicles, then this restriction 

will apply. When operating within a 

closed- or restricted-access site, no 

limitations apply concerning the 

duration of sustained flight or hover 

over any moving vehicle. Small 

unmanned aircraft operations over 

moving vehicles within or over closedor restricted-access sites have the most 

flexibility for operating over moving 

vehicles. 

As with the operating limitations that 

apply to operations pursuant to 

Category 3, as discussed in Section 

VI.E., remote pilots must ensure no 

inadvertent or unauthorized access to 

the closed- or restricted-access site can 

occur. Such a site could be an area that 

contains physical barriers, personnel, or 

both, to ensure no inadvertent or 

unauthorized access is possible. 

In addition, this rule requires that a 

remote pilot verify that people operating 

vehicles within the closed- or restrictedaccess site are provided notice that a 

small unmanned aircraft may operate 

over them within the site, to enhance 

the situational awareness of the people 

operating vehicles within the site. 

Public notices, signage, and flagging are 

some effective means of notifying 

people within the site, as are written 

notices posted at the entry point to the 

restricted area or a briefing between the 

small unmanned aircraft operator and 

the vehicle operators. When a person 

operating a vehicle receives a letter or 

contract stating small unmanned aircraft 

operations may occur over him or her, 

this would serve as sufficient actual 

notice, no matter the amount of time 

that passes between receipt of the 

information and the small unmanned 

aircraft operation, as long as the receipt 

of the notice occurs before the operation 

begins. Small UAS operators should 

provide verbal notice in addition to a 

written notice in cases in which a verbal 

notification is necessary to ensure the 

information is received and understood. 

Operators may want to consider 

whether providing written notification 

could be helpful to meet operators’ own 

evidentiary needs. The notice should 

describe precautions or other 

recommended actions to ensure safety 

during a small unmanned aircraft 

operation. The remote pilot in command 

must verify that people in or on vehicles 

within the closed- or restricted-access 

site have received notice. 

If the operation over moving vehicles 

takes place outside a closed- or 

restricted-access site, the small 

unmanned aircraft is prohibited from 

sustained flight over moving vehicles. 

This prohibition applies to holding 

above, hovering, or maintaining 

sustained flight above moving vehicles. 

This requirement should ensure only 

momentary exposure to any moving 

vehicle in which occupants do not have 

the benefit of awareness and 

coordination that operators of vehicles 

on closed- or restricted-access sites 

have. Limiting the amount of time the 

small unmanned aircraft operates over 

moving vehicles reduces the likelihood 

of an impact with a moving vehicle. 

Small unmanned aircraft operators who 

want to conduct sustained operations 

over moving vehicles not in a closed- or 

restricted-access site must apply for a 

certificate of waiver. 

The remote pilot in command remains 

responsible for ensuring the operation 

does not create a hazard to anyone, 

including a person in a moving vehicle. 

The FAA will rely on fulfillment of this 

responsibility especially when the small 

unmanned aircraft crosses an active 

roadway or waterway, as the Agency 

declines to limit crossing roadways to 

particular angles, such as perpendicular 

to the roadway, or at certain altitudes. 

The remote pilot in command is best 

suited to evaluate the moving vehicle 

environment to determine a safe manner 

for crossing an active roadway or 

waterway to not present a hazard to the 

moving vehicles underneath. The 

remote pilot in command should 

consider the type of roadway or 

waterway; the types of vehicles; the 

small unmanned aircraft design and 

performance characteristics; 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES3
4354 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 10 / Friday, January 15, 2021 / Rules and Regulations 

65See: U.S. Helicopter Safety Team (USHST) 

Report Helicopter Safety Enhancements; October 3, 

2017. http://www.ushst.org/Portals/0/PDF/ 

USHST%20LOCI%20UIMC%20LALT%20Final%20

Report_2017Oct3.pdf. 

obstructions to flight such as buildings, 

trees, powerlines, roadway signs; and 

any other aspect of the operating 

environment that could influence the 

safety of the operation. 

The Agency also agrees with the 

commenters who supported the 

availability of waivers of the prohibition 

on operating small unmanned aircraft 

over moving vehicles. This rule will 

allow an applicant to seek a waiver from 

these provisions by adding § 107.145 to 

the list of provisions subject to waiver 

in § 107.205. Small UAS operators may 

receive waivers to allow them to deviate 

from the conditions for operating small 

unmanned aircraft over moving vehicles 

as long as they can demonstrate that the 

operation can occur safely pursuant to 

the terms of a certificate of waiver. 

IX. Operations at Night 

A. Proposed Requirements and 

Comments Received 

The NPRM proposed to permit 

routine operations of small UAS at 

night, subject to specific requirements. 

The FAA proposed to amend § 107.29 to 

permit operations at night when: (1) The 

small unmanned aircraft has an anticollision light that is visible for 3 statute 

miles, and (2) the remote pilot in 

command has completed an updated 

knowledge test or recurrent training, as 

applicable, to ensure familiarity with 

the risks and appropriate mitigations for 

nighttime operations. Additionally, the 

FAA proposed adding the anti-collision 

lighting requirement to the list of 

regulations subject to waiver in 

§ 107.205. 

Many commenters supported the 

proposal to allow small UAS operations 

at night without a waiver. Comments in 

favor of routine night operations 

significantly outnumbered comments in 

opposition to the proposed change. 

Several commenters expressed concern 

about the risk of midair collisions 

between manned and unmanned 

aircraft. Commenters referred to the 

inherent lack of situational awareness in 

night operations and stated remote 

pilots were insufficiently trained to 

address adequately the complexity of 

the airspace. After reviewing these 

concerns about midair collisions and 

situational awareness, the FAA 

determined several existing operating 

requirements of part 107 combined with 

the requirements of this final rule 

provide a sufficient level of safety to 

allow for night operations. Similar to 

the NPRM, the final rule requires that 

remote pilots operating at night equip 

their small unmanned aircraft with an 

anti-collision light visible for 3 statute 

miles, but adds the requirement for the 

anti-collision lights to flash at a rate 

sufficient to avoid a collision. 

Many commenters appeared to 

misunderstand the purpose of anticollision lighting. The purpose of anticollision lighting is not for the remote 

pilot to maintain visual line of sight and 

see the orientation of their small 

unmanned aircraft, but for the 

awareness of other pilots operating in 

the same airspace. Section 107.29(b) 

already requires that anti-collision 

lighting be visible for 3 statute miles for 

civil twilight operations to help prevent 

midair collisions. 

AMOA and AAMS, commenting 

jointly, questioned whether the FAA 

had examined the available sightings 

data and confirmed its reliability as its 

basis for expanding small UAS 

operations at night. The commenter 

noted that data collected from 1998– 

2017 indicates 36% of all helicopter air 

medical flights were conducted at night 

and 49% of the accidents from 1998– 

2017 occurred during night operations, 

and that routine night operations could 

put air medical flights at greater risk. 

The commenter asserted the FAA did 

not adequately address the potential 

threats posed by increased small 

unmanned aircraft activity in the 

NPRM, particularly to helicopter air 

medical flights. 

The FAA analyzed available data, 

including thousands of waivers 

allowing night operations, and 

determined allowing routine small UAS 

operations at night, subject to 

compliance with certain requirements, 

will be safe. Although the FAA reviews 

small unmanned aircraft sighting 

reports, the FAA did not rely on those 

reports as justification for this rule, 

because many of those reports are 

unverifiable due to a lack of detailed 

information provided by the reporter of 

a small unmanned aircraft sighting. 

Because small UAS operations under 

part 107 are limited to 400ft AGL and 

below, the effect on helicopters of night 

operations is minimal. Although the 

introduction of routine night operations 

could introduce more complexity to the 

airspace,65 compliance with sufficient 

mitigations will provide for safe 

operations. 

In addition, other risk mitigation 

measures limiting the risk of midair 

collisions at night exist: Fewer general 

aviation aircraft fly at the altitudes in 

which small unmanned aircraft operate. 

Manned aircraft have restrictions on 

minimum safe altitudes, which places 

the majority of operations well above 

the 400 ft AGL limit for part 107 

operations. Pilots authorized to operate 

manned aircraft below 400 ft AGL 

during daylight hours can visually see 

the terrain and obstacles to navigate the 

airspace. At night, these visual cues do 

not exist and many general aviation 

aircraft that could operate during 

daylight at lower altitudes lack 

sophisticated equipment like night 

vision goggles, a radar altimeter, 

Forward Looking Infrared, Radar, or a 

Heads Up Display, typically found on 

military or emergency service aircraft. 

Because general aviation aircraft may 

lack electrical systems such as aircraft 

lighting, or other necessary safety 

features, operating such aircraft at night 

would cause a significant increase in the 

level of risk of the operation. 

NAAA voiced concern about pilot 

difficulty of spotting a small unmanned 

aircraft while the pilot is operating at a 

very low altitude in what is already a 

high task load environment. They 

pointed to a 2015 test conducted by the 

Colorado Agricultural Aviation 

Association, which determined that it 

was difficult for pilots who conduct 

agricultural aviation operations to detect 

and track a small unmanned aircraft at 

the same time as maneuvering their 

aircraft for agricultural operations. 

Pilots operating manned aircraft at low 

altitudes would experience difficulty in 

identifying small unmanned aircraft 

operating at night, but, as discussed 

previously, numerous mitigations exist 

to decrease the likelihood of a midair 

collision. With regard to the report 

made by the Colorado Agricultural 

Aviation Association, while the study 

provided data, the report only tested 

four pilots operating during daylight 

hours. In addition, the Agency disagrees 

with NAAA’s determination that night 

operations would be difficult to 

identify, as operating with an anticollision light at night would increase 

the visibility of the small unmanned 

aircraft. 

Several commenters expressed 

concern about the risk small unmanned 

aircraft pose for commercial aircraft. 

The period of flight in which a manned, 

commercial aircraft is at or below 400 ft 

AGL is just prior to landing and seconds 

after takeoff. These phases of flight 

occur in the immediate vicinity of the 

runway, an area of airspace in which 

small UAS operations under part 107 

are prohibited from flying without 

authorization. The requirement for anticollision lights that are visible for 3 

statute miles and that have a flash rate 

sufficient to avoid a collision, along 

with the existing requirements to 

maintain visual line of sight, give way 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES3
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 10 / Friday, January 15, 2021 / Rules and Regulations 4355 

66See ‘‘Part 107 Knowledge Test Suggested Study 

Materials,’’ available at FAA Policy Document 

Library, at https://www.faa.gov/uas/resources/ 

policy_library/. 

to manned aircraft, and obtain 

authorization to operate in controlled 

airspace are all practical mitigations to 

address the risks posed by small UAS 

operations at night. 

B. Knowledge Requirements for Remote 

Pilots Conducting Operations at Night 

Only remote pilots who complete an 

updated aeronautical knowledge test or 

updated training will meet the remote 

pilot qualification requirements to act as 

pilot in command of a small UAS at 

night. As with all persons who received 

their remote pilot certificate prior to the 

enactment of this rule, part 61 pilots 

previously holding a remote pilot 

certificate will also need to complete the 

updated training before acting as pilot 

in command of a small UAS at night. 

The Agency proposed to revise the 

regulations to require that the remote 

pilot complete a knowledge test or 

training concerning small UAS 

operations at night. This rule finalizes 

those additions, as proposed. 

Applicants who are eligible to obtain a 

remote pilot certificate must complete 

an updated knowledge test prior to 

conducting operations at night. This 

rule also requires existing holders of a 

part 107 remote pilot certificate to 

complete updated training prior to 

operating as a remote pilot at night. 

The updated knowledge test and 

training will assess applicants’ and 

pilots’ knowledge of risks and situations 

that are not present during daylight 

operations. The new testing and training 

will include questions on anti-collision 

light requirements, when the anticollision light is allowed to be dimmed, 

how to determine aircraft position, 

obstacle avoidance with lack of visual 

cues, what aircraft may be conducting 

low level night operations, night 

physiology, circadian rhythm effects, 

and other topics. Through this 

education, the remote pilot will have 

the knowledge to operate a small UAS 

at night safely and implement the 

appropriate protocols and tools to 

mitigate risks they have identified for 

their operation. 

The updated testing and recurrent 

training required to conduct night 

operations will be made available on the 

FAA website on March 1, 2021. This 

date provides a 15 day period for new 

applicants or current Remote Pilot 

Certificate holders to complete the 

updated testing or training, as 

applicable, for those who seek to 

conduct night operations on the 

effective date of this rule. 

After the effective date of this rule, 

remote pilots operating under a waiver 

received prior to the effective date will 

be allowed to continue to operate at 

night under the provisions of that 

waiver without meeting the updated 

recurrent training requirement for a 

period of 60 days. All night waivers 

issued prior to the effective date of this 

rule that authorize deviation from 

§ 107.29 Daylight Operation terminate 

on May 17, 2021. This date provides 

time for waiver holders to come into 

compliance with this rule and allow the 

holder to request a new certificate of 

waiver, if applicable, prior to the 

termination date. 

Several commenters suggested the 

night operation testing and training be 

separate from the general part 107 

training. One commenter suggested the 

FAA offer incentive licensing 

endorsements, in which a certain 

minimum score on the night operations 

section of the part 107 knowledge test 

would allow the remote pilot to operate 

a small UAS at night. Some 

commenters, including Airlines for 

America (A4A), recommended the FAA 

impose a nighttime practical training 

requirement for remote pilot 

certification, particularly for pilots who 

do not hold a part 61 certificate or 

related nighttime endorsement. The 

inclusion of night operations does not 

introduce a level of complexity to the 

operations conducted under part 107 

that would necessitate practical 

training. A single curriculum for both 

the aeronautical knowledge test and 

recurrent training will cover all 

necessary topics for operations under 

part 107. To operate at night, all remote 

pilots must either take the updated 

initial knowledge test or complete the 

applicable recurrent training that 

includes the new subject areas on night 

operations. In this regard, it is necessary 

to standardize the training and testing; 

incentive licensing endorsements the 

FAA issues for other skills are not 

appropriate for knowledge testing or 

training. The standardization this rule 

provides is appropriate for small UAS 

operations at night. 

A few commenters requested the 

Agency decline to require pilots who 

have certificates under part 61 to 

complete recurrent training specific to 

night operations. The Agency disagrees. 

Small UAS operations at night have 

operational needs and safety 

requirements that differ from manned 

aircraft operations at night. This rule 

requires part 61 pilots to take the 

recurrent training in its entirety, 

including those sections pertinent to 

night operations, despite having taken 

manned-aircraft-specific nighttime 

training for their part 61 certification. 

Several commenters made suggestions 

regarding the content of the test and 

course material. Some commenters, 

including AOPA, AMOA, and AAMS, 

suggested the initial testing, initial 

training, and recurrent training for night 

operations emphasize collision 

avoidance with other unmanned aircraft 

and manned aircraft. They asked 

whether the additional testing for night 

operations will specifically address 

limited depth perception and difficulty 

of perceiving reference points during 

night operations. Under this rule, in 

addition to the existing testing and 

training that addresses collision 

avoidance, additional subject areas will 

address night physiology, lighting 

requirements, and night illusions from 

the perspective of the remote pilot. 

One commenter suggested the FAA 

produce a study guide with subject 

matter specific to small UAS operations 

at night. The FAA plans to publish a 

revised Small Unmanned Aircraft 

Systems Airman Certification Standard 

(ACS) and a revised iteration of 

Advisory Circular (AC) 107–2 to address 

changes pertaining to the certification of 

small UAS remote pilots. This AC will 

also provide updated guidance for 

conducting small UAS operations in 

accordance with part 107. In response to 

the suggestion that the FAA produce a 

UAS-specific study guide with subject 

matter relevant to operating at night, the 

FAA has updated the Remote Pilot— 

Small Unmanned Aircraft Systems 

Study Guide (FAA–G–8082–22), and 

renamed it Small Unmanned Aircraft 

Systems Operating Handbook (FAA–H– 

8083–24).66 Furthermore, applicants 

may supplement through self-study, 

which could include taking an industryoffered online training course, an inperson training course, or any 

combination thereof. 

One commenter suggested the Agency 

require one or more visual observers 

who have taken the night vision test to 

participate in operations at night. The 

visual line of sight requirement in part 

107, combined with other requirements, 

is sufficient to address the risk 

associated with night operations; 

therefore, this rule does not require a 

night vision test for remote pilots or 

visual observers. One commenter said 

the proposal would impose more cost 

on the operator and increase the barriers 

to UAS night operations. Another stated 

the additional testing and training 

requirements would not improve the 

safety of night operations. This rule 

establishes the recurrent training 

process, the completion of which will 

be free of cost to remote pilots. This rule 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES3
4356 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 10 / Friday, January 15, 2021 / Rules and Regulations 

67 81 FR 42064, 42103 (citing 14 CFR 103.11, 

which states no person may operate an ultralight 

vehicle except between the hours of sunrise and 

sunset, but permitting operations during certain 

periods of twilight). 

68 14 CFR 103.11(b)(1). 

69 47 FR 38770, 38773 (September 2, 1982). 

does not impose any changes to the 

costs of the initial knowledge test. 

C. Anti-Collision Lighting 

The NPRM stated the small size of 

most small unmanned aircraft (as 

compared to their manned 

counterparts), combined with reduced 

visibility during darkness, favors 

requiring anti-collision lighting to 

reduce the risk involved with small 

UAS operations at night. The Agency 

stated it anticipated the presence of 

anti-collision lights would provide other 

aircraft with awareness of a small 

unmanned aircraft’s presence. As stated 

in the NPRM, the anti-collision light is 

not the sole means of avoiding midair 

collisions between a manned aircraft 

and a small unmanned aircraft. Prior to 

and throughout the operation, this rule 

requires the remote pilot to ensure the 

anti-collision lights are operating, are 

visible for 3 statute miles, and have a 

flash rate sufficient to avoid a collision 

at the operating location. The anticollision light also does not relieve the 

remote pilot from complying with the 

remaining requirements of part 107, 

which include yielding right of way to 

all other aircraft. Although the risk of a 

midair collision at night is low due to 

the altitude and volume of aircraft 

operating at night, additional risk 

mitigation measures are appropriate for 

the safety of other aircraft that may be 

operating at night. The requirement to 

have an anti-collision light for night 

operations is also consistent with the 

requirements in part 107 for small UAS 

operations during civil twilight. 

1. Flash Rate 

As noted in the proposed rule, the 

FAA’s requirement for anti-collision 

lights for twilight operations under the 

final rule for part 107 was based on the 

daylight operations requirements for 

ultralight vehicles.67 Such vehicles may 

only operate during civil twilight hours 

as long as they are equipped with ‘‘an 

operating anti-collision light visible for 

at least 3 statute miles.’’ 68 When 

promulgating that requirement, the FAA 

clarified that such anti-collision lights 

are ‘‘any flashing or stroboscopic device 

that is of sufficient intensity so as to be 

visible for at least 3 statute miles.’’ 69

Given the comments received in 

response to the NPRM, this rule 

provides additional clarification 

concerning the anti-collision light 

requirement. As demonstrated by the 

comparison to ultralight anti-collision 

lights above, requiring anti-collision 

lights for operations during both civil 

twilight and at night to flash, rather than 

be static, is appropriate. This rule 

requires anti-collision lights used in 

accordance with § 107.29 to flash at a 

sufficient rate to avoid a collision. 

Many commenters expressed support 

for the proposed anti-collision lighting 

requirement, with some commenters 

recommending changes or additions to 

the requirement. Some commenters 

opposed the requirement. Several 

commenters addressed specific 

characteristics of the anti-collision 

lighting, including flash rate. 

The Helicopter Association 

International (HAI), along with A4A, 

AGC, NAAA, the Experimental Aircraft 

Association (EAA), and the American 

Association of Airport Executives 

(AAAE), stressed the need for 

standardization in unmanned aircraft 

anti-collision lighting, with respect to 

flash rate, signature, visibility 

requirement, intensity, type of lighting, 

and configuration. A few commenters 

recommended the FAA work with 

industry to develop standards specific 

to small unmanned aircraft or rely on 

existing standards for manned aircraft. 

A commenter recommended clarifying 

the requirement in the proposed rule. 

While the NPRM only proposed small 

unmanned aircraft have an anticollision light, the Agency has since 

determined the anti-collision lights 

should flash. In addition to the 

requirement for the light to be visible for 

3 statute miles, anti-collision lighting 

with a sufficient flash rate to avoid a 

collision will aid in creating awareness 

to all pilots of the presence of the small 

unmanned aircraft. 

Under this rule, the remote pilot is 

responsible for ensuring the anticollision lights are operating, are visible 

for 3 statute miles, and have a flash rate 

sufficient to avoid a collision at the 

operating location, both prior to 

conducting and during each night 

operation. The performance-based 

requirements for anti-collision 

lighting—with regard to intensity, flash 

rate, fields of coverage, and other 

relevant characteristics—will ensure the 

small unmanned aircraft is sufficiently 

visible to other aircraft. The remote pilot 

may rely on manufacturer statements 

indicating the anti-collision lighting is 

visible for 3 statute miles and has a flash 

rate that is sufficient to comply with the 

requirements of this rule. However, the 

remote pilot ultimately remains 

responsible for verifying that anticollision lighting is operational, visible 

for 3 statute miles, and has a flash rate 

sufficient to avoid a collision at the 

operating location. 

The FAA does not require manned 

aircraft pilots to distinguish between the 

lights for airplanes and rotorcraft, or 

antennas and windmills, but only to 

avoid those obstacles. This requirement, 

therefore, will result in the small 

unmanned aircraft becoming more 

conspicuous to other operators, 

regardless of whether other operators 

identify it as a small unmanned aircraft. 

A manned aircraft pilot would be most 

likely to distinguish movement of 

external lighting against a stagnant, dark 

background rather than specific lighting 

characteristics. 

2. Design of Anti-Collision Lights 

The Agency proposed to require small 

unmanned aircraft operating at night to 

have an anti-collision lighting 

component visible for 3 statute miles, 

rather than a light that fulfills 

prescriptive design criteria. The 

proposed rule requested comments 

regarding whether a specific color or 

type requirement should apply to the 

anti-collision light, as well as an 

explanation of how a prescriptive 

standard might ensure safety of the 

small UAS operations. 

The FAA received numerous 

comments addressing a color 

requirement for the anti-collision lights. 

Comments in support of performancebased requirements for anti-collision 

lights outnumbered those in favor of 

more prescriptive requirements. Many 

commenters opposed the idea of 

specific anti-collision lighting color or 

type requirements, including Small 

UAV Coalition, AUVSI, News Media 

Coalition, the U.S. Chamber of 

Commerce, APPA, EEI, and NRECA, 

commenting jointly; the People’s 

Republic of China; DJI; Skydio; and 

numerous individuals. 

Commenters opposed to a specific 

color standard generally noted a 

prescriptive requirement could stifle 

innovation without providing any safety 

benefits. A number of individual 

commenters stated no specific color or 

type of lighting should be required, as 

the FAA has not included such a 

requirement for waivers that permit 

operations at night. DJI commented that 

a different, or additional, lighting 

requirement from those provided in the 

part 107 waivers would require 

manufacturers to develop new designs 

and equipment without apparent 

benefit. Both DJI and the People’s 

Republic of China asked for scientific 

data in the event the Agency requires 

specific colors for anti-collision lights. 

Several commenters explicitly 

supported requiring some kind of color 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES3
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 10 / Friday, January 15, 2021 / Rules and Regulations 4357 

70See 14 CFR 107.49(a), which requires remote 

pilots in command to assess the operating 

environment and consider risks to persons and 

property in the immediate vicinity of the intended 

operation, prior to each operation. 

or type requirement for anti-collision 

lights. Some commenters suggested 

requirements for plain red and white 

lights would suffice, but emphasized the 

FAA should not require color 

definitions as detailed as those codified 

at § 23.1397. AOPA noted the proposed 

rule does not identify whether the 

Agency considers white strobe lights, 

red beacon lights, or if any color or 

lighting configuration as sufficient for 

anti-collision lights that are visible for at 

least 3 statute miles. Another 

commenter similarly recommended a 

red (front) and white (rear) color 

pattern. Several commenters 

recommended following the existing 

practices of manned aviation operators 

regarding the colors of lights. Other 

commenters recommended the FAA 

impose specific colors or color patterns 

for certain situations, such as when an 

aircraft descends or experiences an 

operational system failure. One 

commenter recommended the FAA 

consider requiring colors that are 

compatible with color-blindness. 

NIOSH stated specifying an anticollision light color would improve 

safety, given that color is a significant 

factor for improving the visibility of an 

object. 

Prescriptive color requirements would 

unnecessarily restrict design. Since 

August of 2016, the FAA has issued 

over 4,000 waivers that permit 

operations at night. While none of these 

waivers include color or type 

requirements, many of these small 

unmanned aircraft utilize white anticollision lights to meet the 3 statute 

mile visibility requirement. No 

commenters explained how a 

prescriptive color requirement would 

mitigate the risk of operations at night. 

Overall, requiring a specific color or 

type of light is unnecessary. This rule’s 

performance-based requirement is 

appropriate for the level of risk 

associated with night operations and 

allows for flexibility as technology 

evolves. 

The NAAA stated some small 

unmanned aircraft may be equipped 

with anti-collision lights that are not 

compatible with the Night Vision 

Goggles (NVG) that agricultural pilots 

typically wear. In these cases, the pilot 

would not see the small unmanned 

aircraft at night while looking through 

the NVG. The FAA recognizes the NVG 

incompatibility with certain lighting 

may be an issue for agriculture and 

medical helicopters. Existing 

operational regulations specific to the 

use of NVGs for manned pilots limit 

hazards to manned aircraft, making 

specific color or design elements for 

small unmanned aircraft unnecessary. 

While this rule does not require specific 

characteristics of the anti-collision 

lighting, remote pilots remain obligated, 

before each operation, to consider the 

environment in which they are 

operating, particularly in areas that are 

known to have regular agricultural 

operations at night.70

3. Waivers 

The NPRM proposed making the anticollision lighting requirement for small 

UAS night operations subject to waiver 

and invited comments on this aspect of 

the proposal. The Agency stated it 

would consider granting a certificate of 

waiver allowing nighttime small 

unmanned aircraft operations without 

an anti-collision light visible for 3 

statute miles if an applicant 

demonstrates sufficient measures to 

mitigate the risk associated with the 

proposed operation. As discussed later 

in this section, allowing waivers of the 

anti-collision lighting requirement will 

accommodate unique operational 

circumstances without reducing safety. 

EPIC opposed allowing waivers of the 

anti-collision lighting requirement for 

small UAS operations at night, noting 

concerns about security, privacy, and 

the potential for nefarious use. Neither 

this rule nor any potential waivers from 

the anti-collision requirement authorize 

the use of small unmanned aircraft for 

criminal activities. All persons 

requesting a waiver from the anticollision requirement must include a 

description of the proposed operation 

and explain how they will mitigate any 

risks. The FAA will only issue waivers 

for operations that can occur safely. 

AMOA and AAMS, commenting 

jointly, asked the Agency to clarify 

under what conditions it would grant a 

waiver of the anti-collision lighting 

requirement. The FAA expects waiver 

applicants to establish a deviation from 

the anti-collision lighting requirement 

would not reduce the level of safety of 

the operation. The FAA declines to 

prescribe specific criteria that would 

apply to all applications for waiver, as 

doing so would be impractical. In 

response to comments suggesting the 

FAA should develop separate processes 

for law enforcement and first 

responders, the FAA declines to create 

a separate process for a particular subset 

of part 107 operators. 

D. Position Lighting Not Required 

The proposed rule did not provide a 

requirement for position lighting. The 

Agency invited comments from the 

public, however, on whether it should 

require position lighting, in addition to 

the anti-collision lighting. 

Several commenters, including 

AOPA, EPIC, and AMOA and AAMS, 

commenting jointly, recommended 

requiring position lighting for night 

operations. Several of these commenters 

said the position lighting should be 

similar to those found on manned 

aircraft. AOPA noted that night 

operations are inherently challenging 

and visual line of sight would be better 

maintained with lights that aid in 

determining directional movement of 

the aircraft. EPIC agreed that small 

unmanned aircraft position lighting 

would be important for collision 

avoidance and to convey the position of 

the small unmanned aircraft to manned 

aircraft. The Director of the 

Autonomous Aerial Systems Office at 

the University of Montana encouraged 

the FAA to require position lighting in 

addition to anti-collision lighting that is 

consistent with current navigational 

standards, stating this requirement 

would improve safety in see-and-avoid 

situations in addition to improving 

remote pilots’ situational awareness of 

aircraft position. 

Many commenters supported the 

FAA’s decision to not require position 

lighting for small unmanned aircraft. 

For example, DJI stated position lighting 

should not be required ‘‘because in 

many circumstances the remote pilot 

has the ability to determine the position, 

direction and orientation of the drone in 

other ways at night.’’ DJI also noted it 

might be helpful at times to turn off the 

position lighting to capture the type of 

data required for the operation without 

interference of these lights, which are 

typically more visible to the on-board 

camera or sensor than other lights 

because they are located at the ends of 

motor arms. Several commenters noted 

that, although position lighting may 

provide a visual reference to determine 

the location of the small unmanned 

aircraft, it may not provide accurate 

information about the orientation of the 

small unmanned aircraft in flight. 

Position lighting might assist a remote 

pilot in meeting the applicable visual 

line-of-sight requirements in § 107.31(a), 

such as knowing the unmanned 

aircraft’s location, attitude, altitude, and 

direction of flight. However, this rule 

does not require position lighting 

because it is not the only means by 

which a remote pilot could meet these 

requirements. Although position 

lighting is not necessary for safe 

operation, a remote pilot may use 

position lighting if he or she determines 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES3
4358 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 10 / Friday, January 15, 2021 / Rules and Regulations 

71 81 FR 42064, 42159–42160. 

72 14 CFR 107.17. 

73See 14 CFR 107.19, 107.31, 107.37, 107.41, 

107.43, 107.49, 107.51. 

it would be the best solution for safe 

operation. 

E. Miscellaneous Night Operations 

Considerations 

AMOA and AAMS also noted the 

NPRM does not discuss testing for the 

acuity of a remote pilot’s night vision 

and said they believe remote pilots 

should be required to attest annually to 

this visual capability. As discussed in 

the 2016 final rule, operations under 

part 107 do not require airman medical 

certificates, given the low risk 

associated with small UAS operations, 

the limited operational range of visual 

line of sight operations, and the 

requirement that the remote pilot may 

operate only within their capabilities.71

As stated in the part 107 final rule, even 

with normal vision, a small unmanned 

aircraft might be so small that the 

operational space must be reduced to 

meet the visual line-of-sight 

requirements of § 107.31. Furthermore, 

the FAA prohibits a person from 

manipulating the flight controls of a 

small UAS or acting as a remote pilot in 

command or visual observer if he or she 

knows or has reason to know that he or 

she has a physical or mental condition 

that would interfere with the safe 

operation of a small UAS.72

Some commenters requested the rule 

include additional requirements on the 

remote pilot, on the small unmanned 

aircraft, or on the operating 

environment for operations at night. 

MAC said regulations allowing night 

operations must ensure the safety of all 

aircraft operations in both the airport 

environment and the NAS. They also 

said the FAA should establish measures 

to identify clearly a small unmanned 

aircraft at similar distances to those that 

apply to manned aircraft. Exclusions 

from these requirements could include 

the use of small UAS for the purposes 

of airport safety, security, and operation 

activities, especially in situations of 

emergency response. A commenter 

suggested requiring remote pilots 

perform their intended night operations 

during the day prior to execution, map 

out the flight path, and ensure 

awareness of any obstacles. Commenters 

requested altitude restrictions, speed 

restrictions, and distance or operational 

radius limitations for night operations. 

A commenter also suggested requiring 

the remote pilot to have a radio on the 

appropriate frequency to detect any air 

traffic in the area. The current 

regulations under part 107, combined 

with the requirements in this final rule, 

contain adequate restrictions for 

operations at night.73 As discussed 

earlier, as of September 2020, the FAA 

has issued over 4,000 waivers allowing 

nighttime small UAS operations since 

August 2016. These operations have 

been conducted safely and the Agency 

does not have data indicating that the 

restrictions in this rule would be 

inadequate. 

A commenter believed the FAA 

should require that remote pilots 

operating at night be AMA members, 

register their small unmanned aircraft 

with the FAA, and use ‘‘tracking’’ 

lighting for both day and night 

operations. The FAA requires 

registration for all small unmanned 

aircraft that operate under part 107. This 

requirement is sufficient for providing 

the FAA an avenue for oversight. 

Furthermore, as noted earlier, remote 

pilots are not prohibited from using 

position (or ‘‘tracking’’) lighting to assist 

in meeting the visual line-of-sight 

requirement; however, for the reasons 

stated above, this rule does not require 

position lighting. 

NAAA recommended all small UAS 

be equipped with ‘‘ADS–B In-like’’ 

technology. NAAA and an individual 

commenter both suggested all small 

UAS operating under part 107 be 

equipped with technology that would 

allow them to sense the presence of and 

avoid manned aircraft. Part 107 requires 

remote pilots to maintain visual line of 

sight of the small unmanned aircraft at 

all times and give the right of way to all 

aircraft. Manned aircraft are not 

required to be equipped with ADS–B 

Out in all classes of airspace. For 

example, ADS–B Out is not required in 

Class G airspace. Therefore, requiring 

ADS–B In for small unmanned aircraft 

would not be sufficient in all 

circumstances to aid the remote pilot in 

detecting manned aircraft. Given this 

existing requirement, requiring ADS–B 

In-like technology is not necessary. 

NAAA also suggested, to operate 

safely at night, small unmanned aircraft 

should have a registered N-number on 

an indestructible and unmovable plate 

attached to the small unmanned aircraft 

and should have an electronic 

identification and tracking technology 

so that it can be tracked by law 

enforcement. The registration and 

marking requirements as implemented 

by the Registration and Marking 

Requirements for Small Unmanned 

Aircraft rule, and amended by the 

External Marking Requirements for 

Small Unmanned Aircraft interim final 

rule, are sufficient for operations 

conducted under part 107. The Agency 

declines to impose additional 

registration requirements that would 

apply to operations at night, as no safety 

benefit would result from such 

requirements. 

F. Effect on Human Activity 

The NPRM invited comments on 

whether characteristics or effects of anticollision lighting at low altitude could 

have an effect on normal human 

activities, and if so, potential 

mitigations or alternatives the FAA 

should consider. Some commenters 

stated anti-collision lighting could affect 

human activities. 

NIOSH stated, ‘‘[i]t is reasonable to 

assume that in some situations anticollision lights could distract people’’ 

who are working and that, depending on 

their activities, this effect could have 

significant safety risks. NIOSH said it is 

not aware of any evidence supporting a 

mitigation strategy and recommended 

‘‘exploring potential mitigation methods 

that follow the hierarchy of controls.’’ 

This rule does not require use of the 

hierarchy of controls for small UAS 

operations at night because considering 

every possible scenario or assessing how 

distracting anti-collision lights may be 

to non-participants is not possible. Anticollision lighting in night operations is 

a critical component in making small 

unmanned aircraft sufficiently 

conspicuous when operating under part 

107. The safety need for such lighting 

outweighs the concerns these comments 

present. 

Motorola Solutions stated anticollision lighting at low altitudes could 

affect normal human activities 

associated with lights coming from 

unidentified sources and with unknown 

justification. The commenter said 

operations performed by public safety 

officers can mitigate the effect of 

unidentified unmanned aircraft light 

sources by replacing or augmenting the 

anti-collision lights with other lights 

such as those officers use for public 

safety operations. Requiring specific 

colors or additional lights for certain 

types of operations will not reduce the 

effect on human activity. 

Droneport Texas, LLC said anticollision lighting might startle or 

distract those engaged in normal human 

activities. To mitigate such distractions, 

the commenter recommended a remote 

pilot be allowed to reduce the intensity 

of the anti-collision lights that are 

‘‘observable uniquely from the bottom 

side’’ of the aircraft and change them 

from flashing to a steady display. This 

rule requires all anti-collision lights to 

flash at a rate sufficient to avoid a 

collision. Furthermore, the remote pilot 

may use their discretion to determine 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES3
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 10 / Friday, January 15, 2021 / Rules and Regulations 4359 

74See 49 U.S.C. 40103, 44502, and 44701–44738. 

75See 49 U.S.C. 40103(a)(2). 

76Under § 107.61, to be eligible to apply for a 

remote pilot certificate, a person must pass an 

initial aeronautical knowledge test covering the 

areas of knowledge specified in § 107.73(a). 

Alternatively, if a person holds a pilot certificate 

(other than a student pilot certificate) issued under 

part 61 and meets the flight review requirements 

specified in § 61.56, that person may complete 

initial training covering the areas of knowledge 

specified in § 107.74(a). 

77Recurrent training was already an option for 

any person holding a pilot certificate (other than a 

student pilot certificate) issued under part 61 

provided the person also meets the flight review 

requirements specified in § 61.56. 

the circumstances under which they 

could safely reduce the intensity of, but 

not extinguish, the anti-collision 

lighting. 

DJI commented that, to mitigate the 

effects of anti-collision lighting on 

human activities, the FAA could 

encourage lights be placed on top of the 

small unmanned aircraft where it is 

most visible to manned traffic above and 

less bothersome to people below; 

however, DJI said it is unaware of 

complaints from the public about 

lighting, so such guidance should not be 

made a requirement. This rule does not 

include any prescriptive design criteria 

for anti-collision lighting. However, no 

provision of this rule precludes the 

placement of anti-collision lights on the 

top of a small unmanned aircraft. 

One commenter suggested anticollision lights could have an effect on 

the public due to light pollution and 

visual disturbances caused by the high 

intensity light and said the strobe effect 

could distract manned aircraft. Another 

commenter stated the purpose of the 

anti-collision lighting requirement is to 

call attention to the small unmanned 

aircraft, ‘‘in effect to distract the 

viewer.’’ The commenter further stated 

that, depending on the frequency and 

density of operations, blinking or strobe 

lights could disturb people engaging in 

traditional outdoor activities or even 

normal activities in their homes. The 

Agency anticipates anti-collision 

lighting will be no more distracting to 

individuals engaging in outdoor 

activities at night than the light from 

various other artificial sources. Red and 

white lights are often used at night, on 

vehicle headlights and taillights, street 

lights, school bus strobes, and other 

sources. The benefits of allowing small 

UAS operations at night in accordance 

with these requirements outweigh the 

potential drawback of distracting people 

on the ground. The FAA has carefully 

considered these concerns, however, 

and has prepared a finding of the 

categorical exclusion that applies to this 

rule, which assesses light emissions and 

visual impacts, and is available in the 

public docket for this rulemaking. 

One commenter asked the FAA to 

consider allowing municipalities to 

designate certain public, open spaces as 

night flight zones. One commenter 

opposed operations at night and the use 

of anti-collision lighting over parklands 

and ‘‘Dark Sky’’ communities where 

municipalities restrict artificial lighting 

and suggested the FAA follow 

restrictions on train horns and allow 

communities to request prohibitions of 

night operations within the 

municipality. This commenter further 

noted the FAA has responsibilities 

under the Department of Transportation 

Act, Sec. 4(f), for any lighting if it 

impairs in any way night skies, vistas, 

and contemplative recreation in 

protected areas such as wilderness and 

parks. 

The National Conference of State 

Legislature and the National Association 

of Counties stated the importance of 

State and local authorities’ ability to 

regulate UAS on a State and county 

level. One commenter suggested 

allowing different UAS regulations in 

different states. Other commenters 

expressed concerns about local entities 

placing requirements on the airspace 

and operating requirements. 

States and municipalities may use 

their police powers, such as those 

relating to land use, zoning, privacy, 

anti-voyeurism, trespass, and law 

enforcement operations, to address 

small UAS operations in the 

community. Through their land use and 

zoning power, municipalities have 

authority to determine the placement of 

aircraft takeoff and landing areas within 

the community. However, 

municipalities do not have authority to 

enact operational restrictions on 

aviation safety or the efficiency of the 

navigable airspace, including regulation 

of unmanned aircraft flight altitude, 

flight paths or operational bans. The 

applicability of the Department of 

Transportation Act, Section 4(f), is 

discussed in the supporting 

documentation for the categorical 

exclusion documentation, which is 

included in the public docket for this 

rulemaking. 

All aircraft operations in the 

navigable airspace, whether manned or 

unmanned, and whether during the day 

or at night, are regulated by the Federal 

government. Congress has long vested 

the FAA with authority to regulate the 

areas of airspace use, management, and 

efficiency; air traffic control; safety; 

navigational facilities; and aircraft noise 

at its source.74 In addition, a citizen of 

the United States has a statutory public 

right of transit through the navigable 

airspace.75 The FAA is aware of the 

International Dark-Sky Association and 

its work in encouraging communities, 

parks, and protected areas to preserve 

and protect dark sites through 

responsible lighting policies and public 

education. Designated dark sky 

communities would be free to request 

UAS operators minimize nighttime 

operations, citing their community’s 

dedication to the preservation of the sky 

through the implementation and 

enforcement of outdoor lighting 

ordinances to promote responsible 

lighting and dark sky stewardship. 

However, under the Federal statutory 

and regulatory framework, communities 

would not have the authority to prohibit 

small UAS operations at night or 

regulate small unmanned aircraft 

lighting. 

X. Part 107 Remote Pilot Knowledge 

Testing and Training 

The NPRM proposed to maintain the 

initial knowledge test requirement and 

initial training requirement for persons 

seeking to obtain a remote pilot 

certificate with a small UAS rating.76

However, with respect to recency of 

experience requirements, the FAA 

proposed to require recurrent training 

every 24 calendar months in lieu of the 

recurrent knowledge testing.77

Additionally, the NPRM proposed to 

add a knowledge area covering 

operations at night for the initial 

knowledge test, initial training, and 

recurrent training. The NPRM also 

proposed to revise the list of knowledge 

areas for remote pilots, requiring 

inclusion of the same list of knowledge 

areas on both the initial knowledge test 

and the recurrent training for pilots who 

hold a remote pilot certificate under 

§ 107.65(b). As for pilots who already 

hold a pilot certificate under part 61 as 

described in § 107.65(c), the NPRM 

proposed to require the initial and 

recurrent training to cover identical 

knowledge areas. For the reasons 

discussed below, the Agency adopts 

these proposed amendments without 

change. 

A. Recurrent Training and Aeronautical 

Knowledge Recency 

Prior to this final rule, § 107.65(a) and 

(b) required persons to complete either 

an initial aeronautical knowledge test or 

a recurrent aeronautical knowledge test 

within the previous 24 calendar months 

prior to operating a small UAS. This 

final rule revises § 107.65(b) to allow 

remote pilots to take recurrent training 

instead of a recurrent aeronautical 

knowledge test. People who hold a part 

61 pilot certificate (other than a student 

pilot certificate) who have completed a 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES3
4360 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 10 / Friday, January 15, 2021 / Rules and Regulations 

78 In order to be eligible to obtain a remote pilot 

certificate under § 107.65(c), the person must satisfy 

the flight review requirements of § 61.56. 

79https://www.faa.gov/training_testing/testing/ 

acs/. 80 81 FR 42064, 42160–42161. 

flight review within the previous 24 

calendar months in accordance with 

§ 61.56 may continue, under § 107.65(c), 

to complete either initial or recurrent 

training covering the areas of knowledge 

specified in § 107.74. 

Recurrent training ensures remote 

pilots maintain ongoing familiarity with 

small UAS operations and the 

provisions of part 107. Moreover, 

remote pilots can complete recurrent 

training online, which provides a less 

costly option and results in the remote 

pilot maintaining a level of knowledge 

comparable to receiving recurrent 

testing. The FAA’s use of online training 

enables the FAA to adapt the training as 

necessary as technology or regulations 

change. 

The rule continues to allow an 

eligible person who holds a part 61 pilot 

certificate (other than a student pilot 

certificate) to complete training on the 

knowledge areas specified in § 107.74 

when seeking a remote pilot 

certificate.78 Furthermore, the rule 

allows all remote pilots to complete 

recurrent training online every 24 

calendar months, in place of a recurrent 

knowledge test. The rule amends the 

aeronautical knowledge test and 

training requirements for remote pilots 

provided in §§ 107.73 and 107.74 to 

include a new knowledge area related to 

operating a small UAS at night. For 

more information about the testing and 

training on the night operations 

knowledge area, please see Section IX.B. 

This final rule requires the initial 

knowledge test and the recurrent 

training cover identical areas of 

knowledge under § 107.73. Similarly, 

for eligible part 61 pilots, the initial 

training and recurrent training will 

cover the same knowledge areas under 

§ 107.74. The FAA is concurrently 

updating the part 107 Airman 

Certification Standards (ACS), the initial 

aeronautical knowledge test, the part 

107 certification course for eligible part 

61 pilots, and the recurrent training.79

The updated aeronautical knowledge 

test and updated training replaces the 

current knowledge test and training 

after the effective date of the rule. Both 

the updated aeronautical knowledge test 

and the updated training will be 

available on March 1, 2021. 

NASAO asked that the recurrent 

education make pilots aware of updates 

to operating rules, rather than retesting 

the initial knowledge test. One 

commenter believed there should be a 

‘‘grading scale’’ to ensure pilots have 

stayed current on operations and 

regulations. Another commenter agreed 

that it was likely that operators would 

need to take refresher training, but 

suggested that if an individual scores 

above a certain level on their initial 

knowledge test, the FAA exclude that 

person from having to take recurrent 

training. Several commenters objected 

to the current 24-month interval for the 

testing and recurrent training process. 

Commenters recommended a range of 

intervals for recurrent training from 36 

months to 5 years, or eliminating 

altogether for ‘‘professional operators.’’ 

Part 107 requires the recurrent 

training to cover applicable regulations 

relating to small UAS rating privileges, 

limitations, and flight operation. As a 

result, recurrent training will ensure 

remote pilots are aware of current and 

updated operating rules. While a high 

score on an initial aeronautical 

knowledge test may demonstrate initial 

competency, knowledge is perishable 

and degrades over time. Online 

recurrent training allows remote pilots 

to maintain critical knowledge and keep 

abreast of dynamic issues, including 

changes to regulations, that arise while 

ultimately completing the updated 

knowledge requirements related to 

operating small UAS. Additionally, the 

Agency finds the 24-month interval an 

appropriate time period. This recurrent 

training interval is consistent with the 

requirement for manned aircraft pilots 

meeting the requirement to complete a 

flight review as required by § 61.56. On 

completion of this recurrent training, a 

printable completion certificate is 

available to demonstrate aeronautical 

knowledge recency in accordance with 

the revisions to § 107.65. The FAA 

provides educational material on the 

FAA website about updates to operating 

rules. AOPA commented that the FAA 

should not be the exclusive provider of 

the required knowledge training because 

there are numerous training courses 

offered by industry that might be more 

effective and better meet the needs of 

the unmanned aircraft operator. Another 

commenter asked the FAA to clarify 

what training would qualify. 

The Coalition of Airline Pilots 

Association suggested the FAA require 

all small UAS operators to meet the 

same operational recency and testing 

requirements that are currently in place 

for manned commercial airman 

certificates. ALPA noted that a person 

who manipulates the flight controls of a 

small UAS should be a certified pilot 

and pass a knowledge test, but objected 

that the proposed requirement would 

allow an individual to be granted a 

remote pilot certificate without 

assurance of practical experience with a 

small UAS. Several commenters 

recommended specific practical training 

requirements, including flight training 

for operations over people and at night. 

One commenter believed an unprepared 

remote pilot may have to resort to 

manual flight operation and may not be 

qualified for that operation. AUVSI 

commented that any mandatory training 

involving operations over people should 

be competency-based. They also 

recommended the FAA consider how 

industry initiatives could support a new 

training requirement to help ensure that 

small UAS operations occur safely and 

in accordance with the rules. Another 

commenter wrote a higher level of 

training should be required to operate a 

small UAS commercially. 

The Agency continues to find that 

formal training, a practical test for the 

issuance of a part 107 remote pilot 

certificate, and testing requirements 

similar to those for part 61 commercial 

pilot certificates, are not necessary. As 

discussed in the 2016 final rule, the 

limitations of many small unmanned 

aircraft (e.g., size, ease of landing, lack 

of people on board), combined with the 

operational restrictions of part 107, 

minimize the need for flight proficiency 

testing or formal training. A prescriptive 

formal training requirement is not 

necessary for part 107 operations. 

Instead, this rule allows remote pilot 

certificate applicants to attain the 

necessary aeronautical knowledge 

through any number of different 

methods, including self-study, enrolling 

in a training seminar or online course, 

or through one-on-one instruction with 

a trainer familiar with small UAS 

operations and part 107. This 

performance-based approach is 

preferable because it allows individuals 

to select a method of study that works 

best for them.80 The FAA maintains this 

rationale for operations over people and 

night operations. While the introduction 

of operations over people and night 

operations may introduce additional 

complexity to the NAS, the FAA 

developed the design and operational 

requirements of this rule to balance the 

risk associated with the incremental 

integration of small UAS. This rule 

discusses those risk mitigations in more 

detail in Sections VI and IX, 

respectively. 

The FAA understands formal training 

would be overly burdensome to an 

applicant. By requiring a person to only 

take a knowledge test for certification, 

allowing online recurrent training, and 

not requiring formal training, the FAA 

anticipates that this will result in cost 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES3
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 10 / Friday, January 15, 2021 / Rules and Regulations 4361 

81For further discussion of rationale, please see 

84 FR 3856, 3891–3892; 81 FR 42064, 42160–42171. 

82 81 FR 42161. 83 81 FR 42064, 42169–70. 84Section 107.71. 

savings for remote pilots, as discussed 

in the regulatory impact analysis. In 

addition, requiring formal training and 

a practical test would not be consistent 

with the original framework of part 

107.81 The FAA does not find it 

necessary to require practical testing to 

obtain a remote pilot certificate. This 

approach is consistent with the riskbased framework the 2016 final rule 

established.82

One commenter expressed concern 

that requiring the recurrent training to 

be identical to the initial training for 

part 61 pilots would be duplicative. 

Commenters asked the FAA to review 

the areas already covered in the Private 

Pilot Airman Certification Standards 

and keep duplicative or conflicting 

subject areas to a minimum. Another 

commenter suggested that part 61 

should include certification to be a 

remote pilot. 

As discussed previously, knowledge 

degrades over time and requiring 

recurrent training provides assurances 

that experienced remote pilots remain 

aware of the specifics of operating a 

small UAS. Additionally, as noted in 

the NPRM, the FAA finds it necessary 

to ensure consistency in remote pilots’ 

knowledge of the topic areas for the safe 

operation of small UAS. To compensate 

for the differences between manned 

aircraft and small unmanned aircraft, 

the list of knowledge areas includes 

topics that are specific to small UAS 

operations. For example, determining 

the performance of a manned aircraft is 

distinct from the manner in which a 

pilot should determine the performance 

of a small UAS; in this regard, the 

preflight check requirements of § 107.49 

are distinct from those codified in part 

91 and in other, similar regulations 

specific to manned aircraft. 

Several commenters objected to the 

cost associated with the initial 

knowledge test and other commenters 

recommended the FAA lower the test 

costs. However, one commenter wrote 

that everyone who owns a small UAS 

should have to pass the initial 

knowledge test and recurrent testing to 

eliminate the threat of people flying 

dangerously. One commenter objected 

to having to pay a third party for 

recurrent testing. Some commenters 

wrote that section 44809 of the FAA 

Reauthorization Act of 2018 requires the 

FAA to develop a test for recreational 

operations that can be administered 

online and that this should be extended 

to part 107 remote pilot certification, 

thereby reducing the cost to $50 

associated with the initial knowledge 

test. 

The FAA clarifies that part 107 does 

not mandate formal training to obtain a 

remote pilot certificate, and any cost 

that a part 107 applicant incurs for 

formal training is at their discretion. 

Additionally, on March 1, 2021 the FAA 

will provide free, online recurrent 

training to all remote pilots. The FAA 

enters into contracts for testing delivery 

through a third party vendor. The FAA’s 

rationale to contract the initial test 

through knowledge testing centers 

remains the same as it was in the 2016 

final rule.83 This delivery model allows 

the FAA to enter into a contract that 

provides a zero cost model to the U.S. 

government and to the taxpayers. The 

testing vendor has many locations 

throughout the United States that are 

close to large and small population 

centers, therefore the requirement to 

take a knowledge test at a testing 

location is not an undue burden on 

applicants. The third party vendor is 

allowed to charge the contract rate to 

administer a knowledge test; however, 

that amount is not to exceed $160. The 

FAA Reauthorization Bill of 2018 

requirement for the FAA to have an 

online test for limited recreational 

operators does not apply to part 107 

remote pilot certification. 

B. Other Comments Related to Initial 

Testing or Recurrent Training 

Several commenters expressed 

concern about the risks of people 

without certification or training 

operating small UAS. Other 

commenters, referencing certification of 

pilots and mandatory registration for 

equipment, stated that all operators 

should be licensed regardless of size or 

weight of small unmanned aircraft. The 

FAA agrees that persons operating small 

UAS in the NAS should have 

appropriate aeronautical safety 

knowledge, knowledge of applicable 

rules, and knowledge of airspace 

constraints before operating in the NAS. 

Part 107 rules require that all small 

unmanned aircraft are registered and 

operated by a certificated remote pilot. 

The FAA currently requires initial 

testing or training before the issuance of 

a remote pilot certificate with a small 

UAS rating for operations under part 

107. 

Multiple commenters requested that 

both testing and training be provided 

online, with several commenters 

specifically recommending that the 

initial knowledge test be available 

online. The FAA agrees that in-person 

recurrent testing under part 107 is no 

longer necessary for part 107 certificate 

holders. Therefore, to meet the recency 

requirements under § 107.65, any 

person who holds a part 107 certificate 

may maintain recency of experience by 

completing an online training course. 

For security reasons, the initial 

knowledge testing must be done in 

person, similar to the regulatory 

framework for training under part 61. 

A commenter suggested that test 

questions for each online test be pulled 

randomly from a larger set of questions 

so an applicant cannot take the same 

test over and over until the applicant 

achieves a score of 100 percent and 

would be required to learn the material. 

The part 107 knowledge tests are 

created from a large bank of questions 

that were specifically drafted for small 

UAS remote pilot certification. 

Although it is possible that a person 

could take the part 107 knowledge test 

enough times that they would 

eventually see all of the questions, and 

possibly get them all correct, this is not 

very probable especially given the 

mandatory 14-day waiting period 

required before a person can retake the 

knowledge test after a failure.84 In 

addition, a person who is not prepared 

for the test, and does not have a working 

knowledge of the material, will have a 

very low probability of passing the test. 

The FAA will continue to administer 

knowledge testing in the same form and 

manner that has proven effective for 

many years. 

A commenter recommended the FAA 

define minimum standards for training 

that would allow certain people to 

conduct operations without requiring a 

waiver to operate over people or at 

night. This rule adopts routine night 

operations and operations over people 

without the need for waivers. 

Additionally, under part 107, the FAA 

does not maintain minimum standards 

for training like those in part 61. For 

example, an applicant for a remote pilot 

certificate with a small UAS rating does 

not have to show that they have 

received formal training from a certified 

instructor on the National Airspace 

System. As there are two pathways for 

remote pilot certification, an applicant 

will have either met a minimum testing 

standard via a knowledge test or they 

will have taken training which will also 

test their knowledge. All persons who 

hold a remote pilot certificate will also 

need to maintain currency by taking 

currency training every 24 months from 

the month in which they take and pass 

the knowledge test or training for 

certification. The updated knowledge 

areas for the testing and training 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES3
4362 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 10 / Friday, January 15, 2021 / Rules and Regulations 

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

86Section 61.3(l) requires presentation of an 

airman certificate or other, specific type of 

certificate along with ‘‘photo identification as 

described in [§ 61.3(a)(2)].’’ Section 61.3(a)(2) does 

not specifically require the form of photo 

identification include the person’s mailing address. 

87See 14 CFR 107.67(b). 

requirements are the minimum standard 

for small UAS operations conducted 

under part 107. 

Some commenters proposed the 

Agency tailor the part 107 knowledge 

test to specific types of operators or 

certain topics and have different tests 

based on the type of operation. A few 

commenters recommended the part 107 

knowledge test be redesigned to better 

test commercial small UAS pilots 

piloting skills and safe operations. 

These commenters noted the part 107 

knowledge test appeared to derive from 

manned pilot standards and the Pilot 

Handbook of Aeronautical Knowledge 

(PHAK), which the commenters argued 

do not apply directly to small UAS 

flights. Another commenter asked for 

knowledge and testing specific to small 

UAS operations over people, such as 

first aid training. A commenter 

suggested the FAA have two separate 

knowledge tests: A basic test for 

hobbyists and small businesses, etc., 

and a more complex test for large 

commercial operations, large, fixedwing small unmanned aircraft, or those 

flying in urban areas or all over the 

country. 

All test questions were developed 

specifically for the part 107 remote pilot 

certification. Some of the required test 

questions, however, are also applicable 

to manned aircraft, such as questions 

related to airspace regulations that 

apply to all aircraft. The FAA carefully 

evaluated the knowledge test areas to 

ensure they remain comprehensive. The 

small UAS Airman Certification 

Standards and knowledge test contain 

each of the topics required for 

knowledge and testing, and the Agency 

does not consider remote pilot first aid 

training a necessary requirement for 

such low-risk operations. The 

requirements are the same for anyone 

flying under part 107; therefore, the 

knowledge and training should be the 

same for all certificated remote pilots 

under part 107. 

Some commenters suggested passing 

the part 107 knowledge test or the level 

of the remote pilot’s training and 

experience should permit them certain 

privileges. A commenter wrote that 

passing the part 107 test should grant 

part 107 pilots the ability to fly over 

people and beyond line of sight. A 

commenter requested the FAA add 

levels of additional authorization for a 

remote pilot to fly over people, carry 

payloads, or fly at night based on their 

levels of training and experience added 

as ratings to the certificate. One 

commenter stated that part 61 pilots 

should have more ‘‘capability and 

freedom,’’ as they have already 

demonstrated their responsibility by 

obtaining a part 61 certificate. Another 

commenter asked the FAA to educate 

businesses that use remote pilots 

without a part 107 certificate to conduct 

commercial small UAS operations. 

The FAA declines to add 

authorizations or ratings to the remote 

pilot certification in this final rule. A 

person who holds a remote pilot 

certificate is afforded all privileges of 

the certificate. The FAA has taken the 

approach of tailoring its requirements 

for night operations and operations over 

people with the expectation that all part 

107 pilots have the same level of 

certification. The Agency did not 

propose authorizing routine beyond 

visual line of sight operations in this 

rulemaking; therefore, adding 

authorizations or ratings to address such 

operations is beyond the scope of the 

rule. Additionally, part 107 does not 

prohibit payload-bearing operations, but 

the small unmanned aircraft and any 

payload must be less than 55 pounds 

and must follow all applicable 

regulations for safe operation. Remote 

pilots who operate a small UAS under 

part 107 without an FAA-issued pilot 

certificate are subject to the FAA’s 

Compliance and Enforcement Policy. 

Additional educational material is 

available on the FAA website.85

XI. Other Amendments to Part 107 

A. Presentation of Remote Pilot in 

Command Certificate 

The Agency proposed to add to 

§ 107.7 the requirement for remote 

pilots to present their remote pilot in 

command certificate with a small UAS 

rating as well as a form of identification 

to authorized individuals on request. 

This update aligns the text of § 107.7 

with § 61.3(l). The existing rule requires 

the remote pilot in command, owner, or 

person manipulating the controls of the 

small UAS to present to the 

Administrator, on request, the remote 

pilot certificate with small UAS rating 

and any other document, record, or 

report required under part 107. The 

proposed change to § 107.7 expanded 

the list of authorized individuals who 

might request the information, to 

include authorized representatives of 

the National Transportation Safety 

Board (NTSB) or Transportation 

Security Administration (TSA); or any 

Federal, State, or local law enforcement 

officer. Under the proposed rule, the 

form of identification would include 

any identification containing the 

person’s photograph, signature, date of 

birth, and permanent mailing address. 

Several commenters expressed 

support for the proposed changes to 

§ 107.7. These commenters stated the 

proposal aligns with § 61.3(l) 

requirements, would help enforce a safe 

UAS operating environment, or would 

aid investigations into violations of 

Federal and State rules. Other 

commenters indicated § 107.7 should 

include modifications or additional 

requirements. Individual commenters 

recommended the FAA allow for the use 

of electronic credentials to facilitate 

compliance with the requirement in a 

convenient manner. The Agency 

declines to allow electronic credentials 

as a form of identification, as the lack 

of standardization in electronic 

credentials in the United States 

eliminates the ability of authorized 

persons to verify the identity of the 

remote pilot. A commenter also 

encouraged the Agency to allow a 

passport to be used as an identification 

document even though it does not 

include a mailing address. According to 

this commenter, allowing the use of a 

passport would more closely match the 

part 61 identification regulation.86 Part 

61 and the text the Agency proposed for 

§ 107.7 differ because part 61 does not 

require identification for the purpose of 

§ 61.3(l) to include a mailing address. 

Although part 107 requires a mailing 

address for the purpose of being eligible 

to take a knowledge test under part 

107,87 the Agency has determined a 

mailing address is not necessary for 

adequate identification of a remote pilot 

in command under § 107.7. This rule, 

therefore, contains a revision to the 

regulatory text to permit forms of 

identification that do not contain a 

mailing address for the purpose of 

presenting identification in accordance 

with § 107.7. 

Two commenters suggested the FAA 

require the remote pilot in command to 

present his or her certificate and 

identification only when it is safe to do 

so, and does not pose a danger or hazard 

to persons, property, or public safety. 

The FAA declines to impose 

requirements based on prescriptive 

circumstances. However, authorized 

officials should allow ample time for the 

remote pilot to provide a form of 

identification and remote pilot 

certificate in a safe manner. 

NFL, MLB, NASCAR, and NCAA, in 

a joint submission, expressed their 

support for the proposed changes to 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES3
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 10 / Friday, January 15, 2021 / Rules and Regulations 4363 

88See Section III., Background A. Related FAA 

and DOT Actions 4. Secure Operations of Small 

Unmanned Aircraft Systems. 

89 14 CFR 65.49, 65.89, 65.95, 65.111. 90 84 FR 3856, 3893. 

§ 107.7, noting it is essential that local 

law enforcement officials have the 

authority to request remote pilot 

certificates because local law 

enforcement provides security services 

at the sporting events. The sports 

organizations also recommended adding 

private security officials who work with 

local law enforcement to enforce a 

temporary flight restriction or section 

2209 designation to the list of 

individuals authorized to request 

remote pilot certificates and 

identification. Federal, State, and local 

law enforcement officers hold the 

appropriate authority to verify the 

identity of a remote pilot. The Agency 

declines to speculate on the division of 

authority within Federal, State, and 

local law enforcement organizations. 

A few commenters opposed the FAA’s 

proposal to require UAS operators to 

present their pilot certification and 

identification to officials outside the 

FAA on request. These commenters 

supported the requirement to present 

their credentials to an FAA official who 

understands the regulations, but noted 

officials outside the FAA are not trained 

or supervised by the FAA, and were 

concerned about their ability to properly 

handle situations involving small UAS 

operations as a result. Another 

commenter suggested the small UAS 

operator should be required to present 

the documents if an incident occurs. 

Other individual commenters did not 

oppose the proposed provision, but 

recommended that the FAA work on 

educating law enforcement officials 

about who may operate UAS, and 

where, how and when they may operate. 

NASAO asked for clarification regarding 

Federal, State, or local officials 

requesting proof of an operator’s license 

and requested the Agency provide a 

clearer definition of the intent for 

enforcement. 

The Electronic Frontier Foundation 

(EFF) and the News Media Coalition 

commented that remote pilots in 

command should only be required to 

present their credentials when officials 

have reasonable suspicion that the 

remote pilot in command is engaging in 

criminal activity or violating FAA 

regulations. EFF asserted the proposed 

rule conflicts with existing Fourth 

Amendment law and to bring the 

proposal in line with the FAA’s 

rationale, EFF recommended the 

Agency amend § 107.7 to include the 

reasonable suspicion standard. The 

News Media Coalition indicated it does 

not oppose providing law enforcement 

with their certification papers under 

narrow and well-defined circumstances. 

However, the Coalition expressed 

concern that blanket authorization for 

local law enforcement to demand 

immediate presentation of papers would 

interfere with journalists’ First 

Amendment rights to lawfully gather 

the news without unwarranted 

government interference. The Coalition 

also recommended that the FAA 

provide law enforcement with training 

on the regulations to avoid government 

overreach. 

To maintain the safety and security of 

the airspace, it is vital to know who is 

operating in the NAS.88 The FAA 

implements these regulatory inspection 

requirements as a measure to ensure this 

safety and security. The amended 

regulation neither abrogates the 

protections of the Fourth Amendment 

nor the responsibility to comply with it. 

The ability to identify remote pilots 

provides critical information to the 

Administrator, the NTSB, and law 

enforcement officials charged with 

ensuring public safety. Moreover, the 

amended regulation aligns the list of 

authorized individuals in § 107.7 with 

not only § 61.3(l), but other 

longstanding FAA regulations with 

similar requirements.89 The FAA has 

continuously conducted outreach efforts 

with Federal, State, and local law 

enforcement on small UAS operations. 

Additionally, the FAA has the Law 

Enforcement Assistance Program 

(LEAP), which provides, as appropriate, 

aviation-related support and education 

to law enforcement agencies. 

B. UAS Exemption-Holders 

The existing text of § 107.1 excludes 

from the applicability of part 107 remote 

pilots who hold an exemption for a UAS 

operation pursuant to section 333 of 

Public Law 112–95. The text identifies 

the remote pilot as the person who is 

excluded from the applicability of part 

107. This identification is imprecise, as 

the text should identify the excluded 

party as the exemption-holder, rather 

than the remote pilot. In addition, on 

October 5, 2018, the President signed 

the FAA Reauthorization Act of 2018. 

The statute codified within title 49 of 

the United States Code the authority 

previously provided in section 333 of 

Public Law 112–95. As a result, the 

citation within § 107.1(b)(3) should 

reflect 49 U.S.C. 44807 as the exemption 

authority. The NPRM proposed 

rephrasing the text of § 107.1(b)(3), 

accordingly. The Agency did not receive 

any comments on this change and 

adopts it, as proposed. 

C. Remote Pilot in Command 

Section 107.19 outlines the 

responsibilities of the remote pilot in 

command under part 107. Following the 

promulgation of part 107, the FAA 

identified the need for a minor edit to 

paragraph (c) of § 107.19, which 

currently requires each remote pilot in 

command to ‘‘ensure the small 

unmanned aircraft will pose no undue 

hazard to other people, other aircraft, or 

other property in the event of a loss of 

control of the aircraft for any reason.’’ 

The Agency proposed to amend the 

phrase ‘‘loss of control of the aircraft’’ 

to say ‘‘loss of control of the small 

unmanned aircraft,’’ for clarity.90 The 

Agency did not receive any comments 

on this change and adopts it, as 

proposed. 

D. Operation of Multiple Small UAS 

The proposed rule included an 

amendment to the existing text of 

§ 107.35, which prohibits 

contemporaneous operation of more 

than one small unmanned aircraft. 

Following the promulgation of part 107, 

the FAA realized the use of the term 

‘‘operate’’ in § 107.35 could result in the 

perception that a single company or 

operator was prohibited from employing 

more than one remote pilot in command 

and conducting more than one small 

UAS operation at the same time. The 

proposed change to this section will 

allow companies to run two or more 

simultaneous small UAS operations, 

provided each aircraft is under the 

control of its own remote pilot in 

command. 

Two commenters addressed the 

proposed change to § 107.35. ALPA 

supported the proposed change, saying 

it clarifies the difference between flight 

operations by a company and the remote 

pilot in command. ALPA also strongly 

supported the restriction that each small 

UAS remote pilot only be in control of 

one small unmanned aircraft at any 

given time. The Small UAV Coalition 

said it does not object to this provision; 

however, it noted that the prohibition is 

subject to a waiver under § 107.205. The 

Agency adopts the amendatory 

language, as proposed. 

XII. Section 44807 Statutory Findings 

To determine whether certain UAS 

may operate safely in the NAS pursuant 

to 49 U.S.C. 44807, the Secretary must 

find that the operation of the UAS 

would not create a hazard to users of the 

NAS or the public. The Secretary must 

also determine whether a certificate 

under 49 U.S.C. 44703 (‘‘Airman 

certificates’’) or section 44704 (‘‘Type 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES3
4364 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 10 / Friday, January 15, 2021 / Rules and Regulations 

certificates, production certificates, and 

airworthiness certificates, and design 

and production organization 

certificates’’), or a certificate of waiver 

or certificate of authorization, is 

required for the operation of UAS, 

which includes small UAS subject to 

this rule. In the NPRM, the Secretary 

proposed to determine, using a riskbased approach, that small UAS 

operations under this rule would 

operate safely in the NAS; the 

individual findings that section 44807 

requires are as follows. 

A. Hazards to Users of the NAS or the 

Public 

Section 44807(b)(1) requires the 

Secretary to determine which types of 

small UAS operations do not create a 

hazard to users of the NAS or the 

public. In the NPRM, the Secretary 

proposed to find that small UAS 

operations subject to this rule would not 

create a hazard to users of the NAS or 

the public. The FAA invited comments 

on this proposed finding. 

Several commenters expressed 

general concerns about introducing 

small UAS into the NAS. Other 

commenters were concerned about 

potential risks that small UAS would 

pose to the manned aircraft operating at 

the same low level altitude. HAI, 

American Airlines, A4A, NAAA all 

stated they supported the expansion of 

small UAS operations, but requested the 

FAA specifically consider the potential 

risk of small UAS operations to manned 

aircraft, particularly those operating in 

low-altitude airspace. American 

Airlines referred the FAA to its 

comments submitted to the docket for 

the Safe and Secure Operations of Small 

Unmanned Aircraft Systems ANPRM for 

a discussion on its safety and security 

concerns. AMOA and AAMS, 

commenting jointly, also expressed 

concern that the proposed rule does not 

fully acknowledge the collision risk 

posed by an increase in UAS operations 

to low-altitude manned aircraft and 

‘‘relies too heavily and without 

adequate foundation on the skills of the 

UAS remote pilot to avoid conflict.’’ 

NAAA noted UAS present a hazard to 

low-flying pilots similar to that 

presented by birds, which is significant 

because, according to NAAA, aircraftwildlife strikes are the second leading 

cause of aviation related fatalities. 

Drone Safe Communities stated the 

NPRM fails to address ‘‘the risks posed 

by unauthorized UAS operations by 

negligent or malicious users.’’ As such, 

the commenter asserted the FAA should 

focus on including unauthorized users 

in its analysis and in developing 

counter UAS technologies to enforce 

UAS regulations and integrate UAS into 

the NAS. The commenter criticized the 

FAA for providing guidance that tells 

facility owners to call local law 

enforcements during such sightings 

rather than dealing with these 

disruptions as an agency, especially 

because local enforcement agencies may 

not have the resources to deal with such 

risks. 

In contrast to commenters who felt 

the FAA did not adequately consider 

the risks associated with introducing 

small UAS operations to the NAS, 

Precision Hawk stated the FAA was 

‘‘singularly focused’’ on such risks, 

while failing to consider all the benefits 

small UAS operations would bring 

related to worker safety. This 

commenter noted that small UAS offer 

multiple opportunities to enhance 

employee and public safety and save 

lives by obviating the need for manned 

aircraft flight in particularly hazardous 

mission situations. 

Through this rule, the Secretary 

addresses commenters’ safety concerns 

and suggestions for considering 

increased opportunities that small UAS 

operations present. The requirements of 

part 107 mitigate the risks to manned 

aircraft by requiring the remote pilot to 

maintain visual line of sight of the small 

unmanned aircraft and to give way to 

manned aircraft at all times. In addition, 

this rule includes requirements that 

mitigate the risks associated with an 

increase in small UAS operations. For 

example, the anti-collision lighting 

required for nighttime operations, as 

discussed in detail in Section IX, 

increases operators’ awareness of a 

small UAS operating within the same 

airspace. Moreover, this rule publishes 

concurrently with the final rule for 

Remote Identification of Unmanned 

Aircraft Systems, which addresses the 

security considerations raised. The FAA 

has developed relationships of mutual 

interest with law enforcement to 

address the safety and security concerns 

prompted by the proliferation of small 

UAS operations. To facilitate the safe 

integration of small UAS, the Agency 

must develop regulatory pathways for 

operation. This rule is an important step 

in enabling safe operations by balancing 

the risk of those operations with 

operational and design requirements 

that mitigate it. As previously discussed 

in Section IV.A.1., the safety record of 

175 waiver holders, as of September 

2020, to conduct operations over people 

have reported no injuries to persons on 

the ground and no damage to property 

on the ground exceeding $500.00. 

Considering the safety record of these 

waivers for operations over people, the 

available safety data supports the 

determination that operations over 

people can occur safely in accordance 

with this rule. 

B. Certificate Requirements 

Additionally, 49 U.S.C. 44807(b)(2) 

requires the Secretary to determine 

whether small UAS operations subject 

to this proposed rule pose a safety risk 

sufficient to require airworthiness 

certification or airman certification. The 

Secretary proposed to find, pursuant to 

49 U.S.C. 44807(b)(2), that airworthiness 

certification is unnecessary for small 

UAS subject to this proposed rule and 

that a certificate under 49 U.S.C. 44703 

should remain a requirement. 

AMOA and AAMS, commenting 

jointly, stated the lack of discussion in 

the NPRM section pertaining to Section 

44807 Statutory Findings made it 

difficult to determine what the 

significance of this proposed 

requirement will be. They sought 

clarification on what this requirement 

would mean for part 107 pilots, 

inquiring whether remote pilots would 

need medical certificates or be listed in 

the national pilot database. 

The findings of the Secretary are 

based on compliance with the 

requirements outlined in this rule. The 

requirements and limitations of part 

107, as amended by this rule, indicate 

small UAS operations can occur safely 

without the small UAS having an 

airworthiness certificate. For example, 

under the existing requirements of part 

107, a remote pilot must conduct a preflight inspection in accordance with 

§ 107.49. The remote pilot would, if 

operating over people, ensure that the 

aircraft meets the eligibility 

requirements to operate over people, as 

discussed in the preamble of this rule. 

Similarly, operations at night may only 

occur after the remote pilot has taken 

the updated knowledge test or training 

that includes content on night 

operations and when the small 

unmanned aircraft maintains an 

illuminated and flashing anti-collision 

light. This rule does not require pilots 

conducting operations under part 107 to 

hold a medical certificate. Remote pilots 

who hold a part 107 certificate, 

however, will remain included in the 

national pilot database; such inclusion 

is a necessary means of oversight. 

Moreover, the Secretary finds small 

UAS operations can occur safely under 

part 107 as long as the remote pilot 

holds a remote pilot certificate, 

pursuant to § 107.12. 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES3
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 10 / Friday, January 15, 2021 / Rules and Regulations 4365 

91As discussed in the part 107 final rule, air 

carriers (which are not included in this rule) are 

subject to liability insurance requirements. 81 FR 

42064 at 42074–75. See 49 U.S.C. 41112 (noting that 

the Secretary may issue a certificate to a citizen of 

the United States to provide air transportation as an 

air carrier only if the citizen complies with the 

Secretary’s orders and regulations governing the 

filing of an insurance policy or self-insurance plan). 92 81 FR 42064 at 42190–42192. 

93These standards are being applied to individual 

certification projects as they are presented and 

found appropriate, with the complementary intent 

of informing future standards of general 

applicability for UAS noise in part 36. 

XIII. Other Considerations 

A. Liability 

Several commenters suggested the 

FAA should require UAS operators hold 

valid liability insurance or require that 

operators be liable for property damage 

or personal injury arising out of an 

accident involving UAS, especially for 

operations of small UAS at night. Some 

commenters stated the FAA should set 

the minimum coverage standards. 

Another commenter addressed product 

liability, stating manufacturers should 

not be liable for the misuse of their 

products. 

In response to commenters’ 

suggestions that there be an insurance 

requirement for operations over people 

or at night, the FAA notes that it lacks 

jurisdiction to mandate the purchase of 

liability insurance. Similarly, OST also 

lacks authority to impose liability 

insurance requirements on small UAS 

operations covered by this rule because 

those operations do not rise to the level 

of air transportation.91 However, the 

Department emphasizes that remote 

pilots who offer these types of services 

are responsible for the operation, and 

could be held liable for any injury or 

damage that could result. Prudent 

remote pilots should evaluate their 

existing insurance policies to determine 

whether they have appropriate coverage 

for these operations. 

Finally, this rule did not propose 

operators obtain insurance coverage for 

operations subject to this rule. The 

Agency considers comments concerning 

insurance and liability as outside the 

scope of the rule. 

B. Privacy 

Commenters cited privacy issues as 

reasons for opposing the proposed rule. 

The FAA acknowledges that privacy 

issues could be a concern with 

operations over people; however, the 

proposed performance-based rule 

focuses on the risk of injury involved 

with operations over people and does 

not address privacy issues. EPIC 

believed that the unrestricted use of 

small unmanned aircraft over protests 

could have a chilling effect on free 

speech. They also stated people over 

whom a small unmanned aircraft flies 

should receive advance warning, both at 

public events and in closed or 

restricted-access sites. Similarly, the 

News Media Coalition wrote that 

restrictions on operations over people 

raise First Amendment concerns, such 

as when police departments set a 

perimeter around an accident or 

incident site that prevents a fly-over. An 

individual commenter recommended 

that the FAA conduct an information 

campaign to reduce the concerns the 

public might have related to privacy. 

Although the Agency is not 

authorized to impose regulations based 

on privacy concerns, the FAA has 

collaborated with the public, 

stakeholders, and other agencies with 

authority and subject matter expertise in 

privacy law and policy. As stated in the 

2016 final rule, the FAA’s mission is to 

provide the safest, most efficient 

aerospace system in the world, and does 

not include regulating privacy or free 

speech.92 Privacy issues are outside the 

focus and scope of the rule. The FAA 

emphasizes, however, that this rule does 

not relieve the operator from complying 

with other laws or regulations that are 

applicable to the purposes for which the 

operator is using the small UAS. 

C. Noise From Unmanned Aircraft 

Several commenters state that noise 

was potentially an issue with operations 

over people. The comments were mostly 

general, citing concerns about nighttime 

operations disturbing sleep, noise that 

might be created in recreational areas 

that people visit to get away from noise, 

and that small UAS should generally be 

banned in residential areas. A few 

suggestions were more specific, such as 

limiting small UAS operations to an 

unspecified straight-line distance from 

structures and people to alleviate noise 

and privacy concerns, prohibiting 

operations within 30 feet of people, 

allowing operations over roadways to 

lessen impacts on noise-sensitive 

locations like schools and hospitals, and 

education of remote pilots as to local 

noise ordinances for nighttime 

operation. A few commenters conclude 

that compared to current ambient noise 

levels of cars, large aircraft, and ‘‘heavy 

lift UAS,’’ small UAS operations would 

not contribute noticeably to noise. One 

commenter states that the FAA said the 

Agency did not have authority over 

noise; that statement is an incorrect 

reading of the proposed rule. 

The FAA primarily manages aircraft 

source noise as a matter of aircraft 

certification rather than operational 

restrictions. The FAA is aware that 

limited data are available quantifying 

the acoustics of most unmanned aircraft 

and almost none relating to the effect on 

people when unmanned aircraft of any 

size are operated in close proximity. 

When the FAA promulgated part 107, it 

determined that it would not impose 

any noise requirements (in the form of 

testing individual aircraft) because of 

the limited size of small unmanned 

aircraft and the scope of operations that 

were allowed under that part. In the 

years since the adoption of part 107, 

however, the number of UAS operating 

has increased, the FAA has granted 

operational waivers, and the Agency is 

now expanding part 107 operations 

outside of the initial operational box. 

The expansion of the number of 

unmanned aircraft and their operations 

has outpaced FAA certification actions 

to measure and analyze noise from these 

aircraft, and the FAA has recently added 

UAS to its noise reporting portal 

workflow in response to increasing 

public awareness and concern for UAS 

operations near them. The FAA 

continues to seek and collect available 

noise data on more unmanned aircraft 

models, however, the efforts have faced 

challenges due to the rapid expansion of 

operations under part 107 with 

unmanned aircraft that are not required 

to be certificated under part 36. 

When an aircraft is presented for type 

certification under part 21, the FAA 

undertakes noise certification in 

accordance with part 36 standards. To 

date, the Agency has treated unmanned 

aircraft as either small airplanes or 

rotorcraft depending on their means of 

flight. Manufacturers who seek type 

certification for unmanned aircraft— 

either because they exceed the 55 pound 

weight limit of part 107 or seek to 

operate outside part 107 limits (such as 

under part 91 or part 135)—are tested 

and their noise levels measured, but the 

few already certificated have resulted in 

only incremental increases in the FAA’s 

noise database on these aircraft. In 

addition, as larger unmanned aircraft 

are added to the fleet, there is increased 

potential for noise impacts. 

Accordingly, the FAA has begun to 

apply more relevant test procedures and 

noise limits for new unmanned aircraft 

models presented for type certification 

under part 21.93

The forecasted proliferation of 

unmanned aircraft that weigh less than 

55 pounds has led the FAA to assess its 

future ability to analyze and understand 

the noise impacts of unmanned aircraft. 

As the operating environment expands 

to include more operations over people 

that are not directly participating in the 

operation, the FAA will need to address 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES3
4366 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 10 / Friday, January 15, 2021 / Rules and Regulations 

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

95https://www.aviationtoday.com/2020/01/14/ 

six-urban-air-mobility-aircraft-well-along-typecertification-faas-merkle-says/. 

eventual test procedures and the criteria 

for determining which of these aircraft 

would require noise testing. Current 

part 36 certification test procedures and 

noise standards were not developed for 

aircraft that are designed to take off, 

land, or operate (including hover) close 

to people not directly participating in 

the operation. 

The FAA has broad authority to 

address the noise of all aircraft.94 This 

authority applies whether the aircraft 

are presented for traditional type 

certification under part 21 or, as small 

unmanned aircraft may, seek some other 

operational authority such as special 

airworthiness certification. 

Consequently, the FAA has begun to 

consider proposing test requirements 

and noise limits for unmanned aircraft 

that are not type certificated under part 

21. The FAA is aware that expanding 

noise requirements beyond the category 

of traditional type certification 

applicants may have broad impacts on 

aircraft models newly subject to noise 

certification requirements. The FAA is 

also aware that a new regulatory 

framework might be necessary to 

identify the aircraft that would be 

included in noise certification, the 

limits of the noise they would be 

allowed to generate, and what entities 

would be responsible for testing and 

compliance, such as the manufacturer or 

the end user. Because this is a complex 

topic and will need to focus on issues 

of testing and certification that have yet 

to be proposed, the FAA has chosen not 

to promulgate any certification 

requirements as part of this rulemaking, 

but is considering future rulemaking 

actions that will present the available 

data and noise concerns for full public 

input. 

D. Other Comments 

Several comments were not explicitly 

relevant to the requirements of the 

proposed rule. For example, several 

commenters requested the FAA modify 

the requirements for small UAS 

operations under part 107, to address 

operations at or over National Parks and 

to reduce the number of ‘‘no-fly zones.’’ 

Other commenters suggested amending 

the requirements applicable to operating 

beyond visual line-of-sight, altitude 

restrictions, and speed limits under part 

107. Some commenters suggested 

imposing equipage and design 

requirements, including transponders 

and ‘‘lock down mechanisms.’’ A few 

commenters believed certificated pilots 

should have more freedom to fly where 

they want. Another commenter opined 

small UAS should be able to fly 

‘‘whenever and wherever,’’ except near 

airports and other sensitive places. One 

commenter wrote that everyone should 

have some type of certificate indicating 

‘‘they know the rules of the airspace,’’ 

and it should be easy for these small 

UAS pilots to fly close to airports. 

This rule expands operations over 

people and at night, as proposed, with 

the addition of allowing operations over 

moving vehicles. The Agency did not 

propose to amend other restrictions 

codified in part 107, such as the 

requirement that the small unmanned 

aircraft remain within visual line of 

sight and restrictions regarding airspace 

in which the operation occurs. 

Likewise, the proposed rule did not 

consider requiring equipage such as 

transponders or mechanisms to stop a 

small unmanned aircraft from operating. 

While the Agency may consider 

amending existing limitations or 

requirements in future rulemakings, 

these matters are outside the scope of 

the NPRM for this rule. 

One commenter stated the Agency 

should not finalize the proposed rule 

until manufacturers design a jet engine 

that would not result in loss of engine 

performance if it ingests a small 

unmanned aircraft. This comment is 

beyond the scope of the proposed rule, 

as this rule did not propose to develop 

engine certification standards for 

manned aircraft. 

A commenter wrote that commercial 

pilots and ‘‘licensed pilots’’ must not be 

granted operating privileges different 

from those allowed any individual or 

hobbyist operator. This rule only 

addresses operations conducted under 

part 107, which does not differentiate 

between the types of operations 

conducted. As a result, this comment is 

outside the scope of the NPRM for this 

rule. 

Although this rule does not apply to 

operations that flyers conduct under 49 

U.S.C. 44809 (‘‘Exception for Limited 

Recreational Operations of Unmanned 

Aircraft’’), the FAA received comments 

concerning recreational operations. 

Several commenters, indicating they are 

recreational operators or hobbyists, 

stated the proposed regulations are 

unreasonable, do nothing to improve 

safety, would stifle innovation of 

technology and sales of UAS, and would 

destroy the recreational UAS market. 

First Person View Freedom Coalition 

(FPVFC) recommended the FAA waive 

certain requirements in this rule for 

recreational pilots and their small UAS. 

Others recommended FAA establish a 

different set of rules for recreational 

operators than commercial operators. 

Part 107 does not specify purposes of 

operation to which the part applies. All 

persons operating under part 107 must 

meet all requirements of part 107 for the 

operation. To the extent that FPVFC 

suggests the rule should not apply to 

recreational operations, this comment is 

out of scope because any person 

operating a small UAS for recreational 

purposes may operate under the Limited 

Exception for Recreational Aircraft, as 

long as the operation fulfills all criteria 

of 49 U.S.C. 44809(a). 

E. Regulatory Analysis—Benefits and 

Costs 

Several commenters provided 

comments on the general and specific 

benefits and costs of the proposed rule. 

Commenting generally on the benefits of 

the commercial UAS industry, AUVSI 

stated, ‘‘investment in the commercial 

UAS industry is growing significantly 

and is projected to increase rapidly in 

the coming years, contributing to the 

U.S. economy and creating tens of 

thousands of jobs.’’ AUVSI also quoted 

a Department of the Interior (DOI) 

observation that, ‘‘[a]cross nearly 19,000 

drone flights flown to date, [DOI] has 

observed a rule of thumb that a drone 

can complete a given task in 1/7th the 

time and at 1/10th the cost of traditional 

means of accomplishing the same task.’’ 

The FAA thanks AUVSI for providing 

statistics pertaining to the Department 

of the Interior UAS program. The FAA 

continues to work toward the 

integration of unmanned aircraft in the 

NAS and enabling economic 

opportunity for manufacturers of 

unmanned aircraft, part 107 operators, 

and providers of UAS-related services. 

Deseret UAS pointed to a Morgan 

Stanley report which estimates that the 

market for Urban Air Mobility (UAM) 

could be at $1.5 trillion by 2040. The 

commenter also pointed to a Goldman 

Sachs report which estimates that the 

global UAM is expected to surpass $100 

billion in the next 5 years. The 

commenter stated that operations over 

people and at night are necessary for 

UAM. 

The FAA recognizes the market 

potential for UAM, and is in the process 

of type certification for six urban air 

mobility aircraft.95 While these aircraft 

would operate over people and at night, 

it would not be under part 107 

regulations. As currently written, part 

107 regulates the operation and 

certification of unmanned aircraft 

weighting less than 55 pounds 

(including payload), thus UAM aircraft 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES3
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 10 / Friday, January 15, 2021 / Rules and Regulations 4367 

would not operate in accordance with 

part 107. 

CDA stated that the NPRM failed to 

properly weigh risk against benefits and 

that the public benefits of expanding 

commercial UAS operations has had, 

and will continue to have, a significant 

economic impact on the United States. 

CDA reported that with UAS activity 

rising from $40 million in 2012 to a 

projected annual impact of $31—$46 

billion in 2026, the benefits are 

substantial. 

The FAA continues rulemaking efforts 

to provide relief from part 107 

regulations by allowing operations that 

pose minimal risk. Accordingly, this 

rulemaking enables small UAS 

operations at night, over people, and 

over moving vehicles, therefore 

encouraging economic activity to occur 

that would otherwise only take place 

through a more costly and timeconsuming waiver process. 

The Consumer Technology 

Association (CTA) states it is imperative 

for the FAA to strike the appropriate 

risk-based balance between innovation 

and safety. CTA asserted that the costbenefit analysis contained in the NPRM 

does not adequately account for many 

benefits associated with small UAS 

operations over people, including lives 

that could be saved by less restrictive 

rules governing small UAS operations 

over people. CTA asserted that it ‘‘is 

undisputed that sUAS operations— 

whether search and rescue, medical 

supply delivery, or other—will save a 

substantial number of lives and pose a 

risk of injury to the public.’’ CTA said 

these factors must be balanced when 

evaluating whether to restrict small 

UAS operations over people and, to 

date, such an analysis has not been 

undertaken. CTA encouraged the FAA 

to revisit the cost-benefit analysis to 

account for such benefits properly. CTA 

also noted that the FAA is required to 

consider ‘‘all costs and benefits of 

available regulatory alternatives’’ (under 

Executive Order 12866) and to support 

its analysis by ‘‘the best available 

science’’ and to ‘‘identify and use the 

best, most innovative, and least 

burdensome tools for achieving 

regulatory ends’’ (under Executive 

Order 13563). CTA asserted that, 

although the NPRM lessens regulatory 

burdens, the FAA did not meet these 

required standards, because less 

restrictive alternatives exist and because 

the safety ‘‘analysis’’ includes 

‘‘presumptions not supported by 

scientific data.’’ 

In its comments, DJI similarly pointed 

to lives saved by UAS. Based on news 

reports, DJI estimated that small UAS 

have saved at least 227 people ‘‘from 

life-threatening peril’’ in situations 

involving floods, fires, and missing 

persons. DJI also stated that it has 

learned from its customers that UAS 

make dangerous jobs—such as tower 

inspections, roof inspections, and 

firefighting—substantially safer. DJI 

wrote that regulations with a near-zero 

tolerance for minor risk will stifle 

innovation, impede beneficial 

operations, and be a net loss to public 

safety. CDA and an individual 

commenter similarly said that the riskbenefit calculus should account for the 

risks associated with the activities that 

commercial small UAS operations 

would replace—i.e., the FAA should 

compare the safety benefit of using a 

small UAS rather than risking a human 

life. 

In response to these commenters, in 

the part 107 final rule published in June 

2016, the FAA qualitatively discussed 

the safety benefits and cost savings 

resulting from the substitution of small 

unmanned aircraft for manned 

activities, such as climbing towers or 

inspecting infrastructure, and for 

activities traditionally performed by 

manned aircraft. Thus, many of the 

safety benefits identified by commenters 

were enabled on publication of the part 

107 final rule. Nevertheless, this final 

rule will aid rescue personnel to 

perform operations with more efficiency 

and expediency since they will no 

longer be required to avoid operations 

over people and over moving vehicles, 

so long as the operations are conducted 

with eligible small unmanned aircraft. 

Also, the FAA agrees that enabling 

small UAS operations at night will 

result in lives saved. This final rule 

eliminates the burden of first obtaining 

a waiver before operating a small UAS 

at night, potentially enabling rescue 

operations that would otherwise not 

occur. DJI reports that 15 out of 65 

rescues over a one-year period occurred 

at night using drones with thermal 

imaging capability. 

The AMOA and AAMS, commenting 

jointly, noted that the FAA’s costbenefit discussion did not address the 

increased risk of proliferating numbers 

of small unmanned aircraft to lowaltitude manned aircraft, such as 

rotorcraft. The commenter asked if FAA 

has concluded that there is no increased 

risk of harm to manned aircraft, crews, 

and passengers should the NPRM be 

finalized. 

The FAA agrees that this final rule 

will result in an increase in the number 

of small unmanned aircraft operating in 

the airspace, particularly at night. 

However, this risk is mitigated by 

existing regulations finalized in the 

2016 rule. Regulations contained in part 

107 stipulate that: (1) Small unmanned 

aircraft must yield the right of way to all 

other users of the NAS and requires that 

the small unmanned aircraft always be 

the one to initiate an avoidance 

maneuver to avoid collision with any 

other user of the NAS, and (2) the 

operation of a small unmanned aircraft 

cannot be so close to another aircraft as 

to create a collision hazard. 

Some commenters wrote that section 

44809 of the FAA Reauthorization Act 

of 2018 requires FAA to develop a test 

for recreational operations that can be 

administered online and that this 

should be extended to part 107 remote 

pilot certification, thereby reducing the 

cost associated with the initial 

knowledge test. 

The FAA notes that an application for 

a certificate must be in a form and 

manner prescribed by the Administrator 

under 49 U.S.C. 44702. A person who 

seeks to obtain a remote pilot certificate, 

with a small UAS rating that does not 

hold a part 61 certificate (other than a 

student pilot certificate) must take the 

part 107 aeronautical knowledge test at 

an approved knowledge testing center. 

Because of the need for testing security 

and applicant identification, part 107 

initial knowledge testing for 

certification cannot be administered 

through an online testing platform. The 

requirement for a knowledge test 

applicant to verify their identity in 

person at a test center will remain, as 

will the requirement for a test proctor. 

Both of these requirements are 

consistent with part 107 and other 

regulatory frameworks for knowledge 

testing. The FAA Reauthorization Bill of 

2018 requirement for the FAA to have 

an online test for limited recreational 

operators does not statutorily extend to 

part 107 remote pilot certification. The 

FAA clarifies that part 107 does not 

mandate formal training to obtain a 

remote pilot certificate, and any cost 

that a part 107 applicant incurs is at 

their discretion. The FAA contracts its 

testing delivery through a third party 

vendor that allows the FAA to enter into 

a contract that provides a zero cost 

model to the U.S. government and to the 

taxpayers. The testing vendor has many 

locations throughout the United States 

that are close to large and small 

population centers, therefore the 

requirement to take a knowledge test at 

a testing location is not an undue 

burden on applicants. 

An individual commenter pointed out 

that the FAA notes the safety risk of the 

proposed rule to the public in the 

benefits section of the regulatory 

analysis, and then invites comments to 

speculate on the associated costs. 

Absent those comments, the commenter 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES3
4368 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 10 / Friday, January 15, 2021 / Rules and Regulations 

96http://www.assureuas.org/projects/ 

deliverables/a14/ASSURE_A14_Final_Report_UAS_

Ground_Collision_Severity_Evaluation_2017- 

2019.pdf. Testing method is described in Appendix 

C of Annex A: pp 204–208. 

asserted, ‘‘the FAA assumes its safety 

precautions will be sufficient.’’ The 

commenter also pointed out that the 

FAA said it may revise its regulatory 

impact analysis based on the data and 

comments it receives on the safety risks 

of the proposed rule. The commenter 

believed that the cost-benefit analysis 

could change ‘‘tremendously’’ if this 

negative externality were included. 

Another commenter acknowledged that 

there is a public need for the intended 

regulation, to encourage innovation and 

growth, but argued that it must be 

balanced against safety concerns. The 

commenter believed FAA has not 

addressed safety concerns in-depth. 

Specifically, the commenter said FAA 

has not established guidelines on how it 

will take account of life into its 

regulatory analysis. With respect to 

operations over people, the commenter 

said the FAA cannot focus on kinetic 

energy alone as an indicator of overall 

risk because it will not reflect real-world 

risks and disincentivize advancements 

in UAS technology that would 

otherwise increase safety. The 

commenter argued that FAA needs to 

factor in operational and technical 

mitigations in addition to kinetic 

energy. Another commenter encouraged 

the FAA to find a balance between 

safety and the cost of qualification for 

rules requiring qualification of 

manufactured UAS. The commenter 

asserted that inflated certification/ 

qualification costs will serve as a barrier 

to entry that will stunt innovation. 

The FAA acknowledges the 

commenters’ concerns. However, the 

performance based requirements 

contained in this rule for the 

manufacture of small UAS would 

mitigate the risk of injury to individuals. 

Specifically, the four categories 

established by this rule mitigate the 

risks associated with operations over 

people. The lowest risk category, 

Category 1, sets a weight limit of 0.55 

pounds for the small unmanned aircraft 

and everything otherwise attached and 

prohibits exposed rotating parts that 

could cause lacerations. Categories 2 

and 3 similarly prohibit the small 

unmanned aircraft from having any 

exposed rotating parts that could cause 

lacerations, in addition to injury 

severity limits and prohibition on safety 

defects. Finally, in response to 

commenters’ concerns that the FAA did 

not sufficiently consider reliability or 

probability, this final rule includes 

Category 4, which would allow small 

UAS with an airworthiness certificate to 

operate over people. While the FAA 

requested public comment for data 

concluding that the injury severity 

limits should be changed, no such 

comments with supporting data were 

provided. The FAA acknowledges 

commenter concerns that inflated 

qualification/certification costs will 

serve as a barrier to entry that will stunt 

innovation. However, the FAA is 

confident that innovative manufacturers 

are capable of recovering the costs 

associated with designing aircraft that 

will mitigate risk of injury to persons on 

the ground. 

One commenter asked whether the 

analysis for the remote pilot operating 

instructions included instructions in 

multiple languages. The commenter 

suggested that, to address operational 

safety fully, manuals could provide 

instructions in multiple languages, 

which may change the FAA’s page 

estimates for the remote pilot operating 

instructions. The commenter noted that 

requiring instructions in multiple 

languages would impose additional 

costs on manufacturers but would also 

provide benefits to operations and 

perhaps increase safety of the public. 

The FAA values the commenters 

concerns that manufacturers would 

need to provide remote pilot operating 

instructions in multiple languages. The 

FAA is not requiring the applicant to 

provide remote pilot operating 

instructions in a particular format, nor 

is it prescribing the method for making 

the instructions available. For example, 

an applicant could choose to provide 

the remote pilot operating instructions 

as part of the packaging of a small UAS, 

make them available electronically, or 

provide them in some other way. 

Applicants with products currently on 

the market are free to choose whether to 

incorporate the instructions into 

existing materials, or create a new set of 

instructions that are specific to 

operations over people. 

ASSURE commented on the cost of 

test methods related to operations over 

people. The commenter estimated that it 

would cost manufacturers between 

$30,000 and $35,000 to execute 

Transport Canada’s Anthropomorphic 

Test Devices (ATD) tests and report 

results for certain multirotor and fixedwing platforms ‘‘up to the practical 

limitations of launchers that may or may 

not be able to reach vehicle terminal 

velocities especially for vehicles 

weighing more than 5lb and fixed-wing 

platforms.’’ ASSURE stated that, while 

Transport Canada’s approach is a ‘‘solid 

first attempt at approaching a consistent 

and standardized use of automotive test 

techniques and injury metrics,’’ the 

approach requires refinement that could 

potentially reduce costs and align with 

the ASSURE Task A14 injury metrics. 

ASSURE also wrote that the NPRM’s 

performance-based metrics ‘‘may cost 

similar amounts of funding before 

standardized injury metrics are 

established for energy based test 

methods.’’ ASSURE stated that energybased test methods have been used for 

some of the Pathfinder Programs; 

however, the test methods have little 

correlation to skull fracture, head injury 

or neck injury that is required to assess 

injury severity due to the wide variety 

of vehicle and individual impact 

orientations that could potentially result 

for small unmanned aircraft impacts. 

The FAA thanks ASSURE for their 

comments and notes that ASSURE 

estimates the cost for a manufacturer to 

conduct its own means of compliance 

testing to be $55,000.96 This cost 

includes approximately $35,000 for an 

ATD Hybrid III head and neck, $16,800 

for a National Instruments data 

acquisition system, $1,400 for MiniTech 

extrusions and hardware, and 

approximately $950 for additional 

materials and supplies. While the FAAprovided test method that was also used 

during the Pathfinder Programs did not 

directly correlate to a particular type of 

injury risk, the method meets the 

requirements of a means of compliance 

for the injury severity limits. A 

commenter noted that the FAA provides 

a comprehensive regulatory evaluation 

to help determine the benefits, costs, 

and cost savings, but said the Agency 

could do more to facilitate a plan to 

evaluate the proposed rule once it is 

issued. Specifically, the commenter 

recommended that FAA conduct two 

evaluations of the NPRM to see if the 

rule generates cost savings as predicted 

in the economic analysis and maintains 

overall safety. The first evaluation 

would focus on implementation (to 

ensure the resources and requirements 

of the rule are being implemented) and 

the second evaluation would focus on 

the impact of the rule to determine 

whether it achieved its intended 

outcomes. The commenter also stated 

that safety standards and injury 

measures should be identified, 

collected, and assessed to measure 

outcomes accurately, and that the rule 

should be periodically reviewed as 

technology continues to change. 

The FAA values the commenter’s 

suggestion to evaluate this rule after 

publication. In response, the FAA notes 

that post reviews of rulemakings and 

regulations are conducted in response to 

Congressional and presidential 

requirements, or directives. The Section 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES3
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 10 / Friday, January 15, 2021 / Rules and Regulations 4369 

97Public Law 96–354, 94 Stat. 1164, 1169 (Sept. 

16, 1980) codified at 5 U.S.C. 610. These reviews 

are referred to as Section 610 reviews. 

98Nicole V. Crain and W. Mark Crain, ‘‘The 

Impact of Regulatory Costs on Small Firms,’’ U.S. 

Small Business Administration, September 2010. 

Page. iv. https://www.sba.gov/sites/default/files/The

%20Impact%20of%20Regulatory%20Costs%20on

%20Small%20Firms%20(Full).pdf. Accessed 

January 22, 2020. 

99U.S. Chamber of Commerce Foundation. The 

Regulatory Impact on Small Business: Complex. 

Cumbersome. Costly. Final Report. March 2017. 

https://www.uschamberfoundation.org/ 

smallbizregs/assets/files/Small_Business_

Regulation_Study.pdf. Accessed January 22, 2020. 

100https://www.auvsi.org/sites/default/files/ 

PDFs/Waiver%20Update%20Mar%202020_v3_PDF

%20%281%29.pdf, https://public.tableau.com/ 

shared/RBFRZM9PP?:display_count=y&:origin=viz_

share_link&:showVizHome=no#1. Accessed April 

10, 2020. 

610 review (required by the Regulatory 

Flexibility Act) 97 is one such review 

that occurs every ten years. The purpose 

of this review is to reexamine whether 

(1) the expected outcomes of the 

regulation have been achieved; (2) the 

Agency should retain, amend, or rescind 

the regulation; and/or (3) the actual 

benefits and costs of the implemented 

regulation correspond with estimates 

prepared at the time the regulation was 

issued. Reviews could occur more 

frequently as a result of petitions from 

parties affected, or in light of changes to 

specific technologies, industries or 

underlying standards. 

DJI asserted generally that regulations 

that increase the cost of equipment or 

operational approvals will 

disproportionately impact small 

business. 

The FAA acknowledges DJIs comment 

that regulations can disproportionately 

impact costs to small businesses. 

According to the Small Business 

Administration (SBA), smaller firms 

bear a regulatory cost 36 percent greater 

than the cost of regulatory compliance 

carried by larger firms.98 These cost 

burdens include compliance, reporting, 

and recordkeeping.99 According to part 

107 waiver analysis conducted by 

AUVSI, from the time the part 107 rule 

was finalized in June 2016 through 

March 2020, the FAA granted 4,144 

waivers.100 A vast majority of the 

waivers were for § 107.29, daylight 

operations (3,813 waivers granted), 

followed by § 107.39 operations over 

people (125 waivers granted). These two 

categories account for 95 percent of the 

waivers granted to date, and 

demonstrates the desire among entities 

to be able to conduct these types of 

operations. The AUVSI analysis 

indicates that a majority of the waivers 

granted were for entities with fewer 

than 10 employees that generate a 

revenue of under $1 million annually. 

While this final rule creates additional 

costs to operators, it also creates costs 

savings. These cost savings and the 

enabling activities allowed by this rule 

are anticipated to outweigh costs 

imposed on smaller and larger entities 

alike. 

Approximately 23 commenters, 

including the National Agricultural 

Aviation Association and the Golden 

Gate Bridge Highway and 

Transportation District, said either that 

they approve of an insurance 

requirement for small UAS operators or 

that operators should be liable in the 

case of an accident. Approximately 16 

of the 23 commenters said that 

insurance should be required. Seven of 

these commenters specified that 

insurance should be required for small 

UAS operations over people or at night. 

One of those commenters said that the 

FAA should set the minimum coverage 

standards. Two commenters believed 

FAA should require $1 million in 

insurance. One commenter said that 

manufacturers should not be liable for 

the misuse of their products. 

XIV. Effective and Compliance Dates 

A. Implementation Timeline for Night 

Operations and Recurrent Training 

Requirements 

Operations over people are permitted 

on the effective date of this rule, as long 

as the small UAS meets all eligibility 

requirements for the appropriate 

category. For example, an unmanned 

aircraft weighing less than 0.55 pounds, 

including everything attached, and with 

no exposed rotating parts that would 

cause a laceration may operate on the 

effective date. Section V discusses the 

requirements for Category 1 small 

unmanned aircraft. Similarly, as 

discussed in Section VII, small UAS 

with an airworthiness certificate issued 

under part 21 would be able to operate 

under part 107 on the effective date of 

the rule, provided the operating 

limitations for the small UAS do not 

prohibit operations over people. 

Given that Categories 2 and 3 require 

a multi-step process to meet the 

eligibility requirements, the FAA does 

not anticipate that many, if any, small 

UAS will be able to operate immediately 

on the effective date. Means of 

compliance applicants may submit the 

means of compliance to the FAA either 

by email or through the U.S. mail. 

Applicants may submit their declaration 

of compliance through an online portal 

on the FAA website. On receipt, the 

FAA would review the submitted 

declaration of compliance for 

acceptance and notify the applicants of 

their acceptance status. Incomplete 

declarations of compliance will not be 

accepted. Section VI discusses the 

requirements for Categories 2 and 3. 

With regard to the operations over 

people waivers issued prior to the 

effective date of this rule, the FAA will 

review these on a case-by-case basis and 

determine next steps as appropriate. 

On the effective date of this rule, 

persons are permitted to conduct 

operations at night, provided they 

successfully complete the updated 

initial aeronautical knowledge test, 

initial training, and recurrent training, 

as applicable, which addresses the 

requirements of operating at night and 

that the small unmanned aircraft has 

lighted anti-collision lighting visible for 

at least 3 statute miles that has a flash 

rate sufficient to avoid a collision. 

Section IX.B. of this preamble provides 

a discussion of this requirement. The 

updated knowledge area on night 

operations for initial and recurrent 

training will be available on March 1, 

2021, and will be accessible through the 

FAA website. The initial aeronautical 

knowledge test will have the updated 

knowledge area on night operations and 

will be available on March 1, 2021 at the 

knowledge testing centers. However, 

remote pilots without a waiver from 

§ 107.29 will need to wait until March 

16, 2021 before operating at night. 

Sixty days after the effective date of 

the rule, no person may operate a small 

UAS at night in accordance with a 

certificate of waiver issued prior to the 

effective date of the rule. Existing 

waivers from § 107.29 granted prior to 

the effective date will terminate 60 days 

after the effective date of the rule. 

Similarly, on the effective date of this 

rule, pilots will be subject to the 

recurrent training requirement finalized 

in this rule, rather than the recurrent 

knowledge test. Remote pilots 

conducting operations in accordance 

with a current night waiver will need to 

complete the updated night operations 

knowledge area either by retaking the 

initial aeronautical knowledge test or 

completing the recurrent online training 

within 60 days from the effective date 

of this rule. The other amendments 

described in Section XI will also take 

effect on the effective date of this rule. 

The FAA did not receive any comments 

specific to the effective and compliance 

dates of this final rule, with the 

exception of comments that discussed 

coordination with the Remote 

Identification final rule, as discussed in 

the following section. 

B. Compliance With Remote 

Identification 

The NPRM noted the FAA planned to 

finalize its policy concerning remote 

identification of UAS before finalizing 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES3
4370 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 10 / Friday, January 15, 2021 / Rules and Regulations 

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

102OMB Circular A–4 (Sept. 17, 2003), https://

www.whitehouse.gov/sites/whitehouse.gov/files/ 

omb/circulars/A4/a-4.pdf. 

103FAA Aerospace Forecast Fiscal Years 2020– 

2040 at 52, available at http://www.faa.gov/data_

research/aviation/aerospace_forecasts/media/ 

FY2020-40_FAA_Aerospace_Forecast.pdf. 

the proposed changes in this rulemaking 

that pertain to operations over people 

and operations at night. Concurrent 

with publication of this final rule, this 

edition of the Federal Register also 

includes the Remote ID final rule. 

Several commenters, including A4A, 

Vigilent, and NAAA, suggested 

implementing the requirements of the 

Remote ID rule before finalizing this 

rule. APPA, EEI, and NRECA, 

commenting together, agreed the FAA 

should expedite the release of a Remote 

ID rulemaking. However, APPA, EEI, 

and NRECA were concerned the utility 

industry would not benefit from the 

‘‘advances’’ of small UAS operations 

over people due to the delays associated 

with the Remote ID rulemaking. A 

commenter believed this rule should be 

delayed until the FAA has implemented 

remote identification requirements and 

increased the number of operations over 

people waivers with the goal of 

gathering more data. 

The NFL, MLB, NASCAR, and NCAA 

commented that the FAA should deploy 

a comprehensive ‘‘Remote ID 

framework’’ as soon as possible. The 

sports organizations strongly 

encouraged the ‘‘agency’s efforts to 

implement a Remote ID requirement for 

all drones that present any risk of use 

at a sporting event.’’ API believed that 

without the capability of remote 

identification and tracking, the FAA and 

law enforcement will face serious 

challenges in locating offenders. EPIC 

argued that the open-air assembly 

prohibition should apply to all 

categories, and not just Category 3. It 

specifically stated that a ‘‘modified 

version’’ of this prohibition should 

apply to all operations over people. 

In response to these comments, and 

others, this final rule prohibits 

sustained flight over open-air 

assemblies for Categories 1, 2, and 4, 

unless the operation is conducted using 

a standard remote identification 

unmanned aircraft or a remote 

identification broadcast module in 

compliance with § 89.110 or § 89.115(a) 

(remote identification operational and 

broadcast requirements for standard 

remote identification unmanned aircraft 

or unmanned aircraft with remote 

identification broadcast modules). The 

FAA may waive this requirement as 

appropriate. However, conditions of any 

waiver issued may require the operator 

to notify local law enforcement prior to 

the operation. All small unmanned 

aircraft operations are subject to remote 

identification requirements upon the 

applicable remote identification 

compliance date, as specified in the 

Remote Identification for Unmanned 

Aircraft final rule. Airzus, Inc. believed 

that, until remote identification or other 

operational awareness efforts are 

codified, the FAA should consider the 

success of the LAANC system as a 

‘‘model for how self-reporting 

technologies can aid in furthering 

economic growth in the industry, while 

still emphasizing safety and flight 

awareness.’’ A commenter 

recommended a public portal for 

reporting intended operations involving 

flights over people or at night without 

the need for special permission. Several 

commenters suggested requiring remote 

pilots to file a flight plan prior to 

operating over people: Flytcam 

suggested pilots should submit the 

locations and times of their operations 

into the DroneZone.101 Concerned the 

elimination of waivers would erode the 

FAA’s ability to identify operators of 

small UAS, a commenter recommended 

requiring an ‘‘electronic license plate— 

basically a simple signal that broadcasts 

identifying information.’’ 

DJI and AUVSI both commented that 

there should be no more delay, stating 

the Agency should issue Remote ID and 

this rulemaking simultaneously to keep 

pace with the integration of small UAS 

into the NAS. DJI, along with several 

individuals, wanted the rules allowing 

Category 1 operations to finalize as soon 

as possible, noting they should be 

excluded from Remote ID requirements 

as they would likely impose negligible 

risk. 

As discussed previously, the FAA is 

publishing the Remote ID final rule 

simultaneously with this final rule, with 

the added open-air assembly prohibition 

as described in this section. 

XV. Regulatory Notices and Analyses 

Changes to Federal regulations must 

undergo several economic analyses. 

First, Executive Order 12866 and 

Executive Order 13563 direct that each 

Federal agency shall propose or adopt a 

regulation only on a reasoned 

determination that the benefits of the 

intended regulation justify its costs. In 

addition, DOT rulemaking procedures 

in subpart B of 49 CFR part 5 instruct 

DOT agencies to issue a regulation on a 

reasoned determination that benefits 

exceed costs. Second, the Regulatory 

Flexibility Act of 1980 (Pub. L. 96–354) 

requires agencies to analyze the 

economic impact of regulatory changes 

on small entities. Third, the Trade 

Agreements Act (Pub. L. 96–39) 

prohibits agencies from setting 

standards that create unnecessary 

obstacles to the foreign commerce of the 

United States. In developing U.S. 

standards, this Trade Act requires 

agencies to consider international 

standards and, where appropriate, that 

they be the basis of U.S. standards. 

Fourth, the Unfunded Mandates Reform 

Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104–4) requires 

agencies to prepare a written assessment 

of the costs, benefits, and other effects 

of proposed or final rules that include 

a Federal mandate likely to result in the 

expenditure by State, local, or tribal 

governments, in the aggregate, or by the 

private sector, of $100 million or more 

annually (adjusted for inflation with 

base year of 1995). The FAA has 

provided a more detailed Regulatory 

Impact Analysis of this final rule in the 

docket of this rulemaking. This portion 

of the preamble summarizes the FAA’s 

analysis of the economic impacts of this 

rule. 

In conducting these analyses, FAA 

has determined that this rule: (1) Has 

benefits that justify its costs, (2) is an 

economically ‘‘significant regulatory 

action’’ as defined in section 3(f) of 

Executive Order 12866, (3) is not 

‘‘significant’’ as defined in DOT’s 

Regulatory Policies and Procedures; (4) 

will have a significant economic impact 

on a substantial number of small 

entities; (5) will not create unnecessary 

obstacles to the foreign commerce of the 

United States; and (6) will not impose 

an unfunded mandate on state, local, or 

tribal governments, or on the private 

sector by exceeding the threshold 

identified previously. These analyses 

are summarized in this section. 

A. Regulatory Evaluation 

1. Assumptions and Data 

The analysis of benefits and costs for 

the regulatory evaluation is based on the 

following assumptions. 

• The analysis is conducted in 2020 

constant dollars. Year 1 of the period of 

analysis, which would correlate with 

the effective date of the final rule, is 

used as the base year. 

• The FAA uses a 10-year period of 

analysis to capture the recurring effects 

of the rule. 

• The FAA uses a three percent and 

seven percent discount rate for the costs 

and benefits as prescribed by OMB in 

Circular A–4.102

• The costs and cost savings of this 

rule are based on the fleet forecast for 

small UAS published in the Federal 

Aviation Administration’s FAA 

Aerospace Forecast 2020–2040.103

Additionally, fleet forecasts for Category 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES3
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 10 / Friday, January 15, 2021 / Rules and Regulations 4371 

104The proposed rule assumed a cutoff weight of 

4.4 lbs based on the Micro UAS Aviation 

Rulemaking Committee (ARC) final report. Since 

publication of the ARC final report, the FAA has 

granted 109 waivers for operations of small UAS 

over people (as of 3/2/2020). These waivers give 

insight as to the type of vehicles conducting 

operations over people and show that a majority of 

the waivers granted have been for UA weighing 

11.68 pounds or less. The part 107 aircraft registry 

was analyzed for the number of models in this 

weight range. Based on this analysis, 31 of the 

models registered (for those models in the registry 

that could be identified by model), weighed 11.68 

pounds or less. A copy of the ARC’s final report is 

available in the public docket for this rulemaking. 

105Time savings is estimated to be median hourly 

wage plus benefits as described in the U.S. 

Department of Transportation Revised 

Departmental Guidance on Valuation of Travel 

Time in Economic Analysis (Sept. 27, 2016). 

1 small UAS and Category 4 small UAS 

are derived to more accurately reflect 

costs and cost savings for the final rule. 

• Under the final rule, a means of 

compliance must be accepted by the 

FAA before it could be used by 

applicants to build UAS for operations 

over people and moving vehicles. 

Means of compliance are developed by 

persons or organizations to describe 

methods by which a UAS could be 

designed and produced to meet the 

performance requirements of this rule. 

The FAA anticipates that other entities, 

such as UAS manufacturers, could also 

submit a means of compliance to the 

FAA for acceptance and will incur 

additional costs. Further details on the 

costs to develop means of compliance 

are provided in the Regulatory Impact 

Analysis of this final rule in the docket 

of this rulemaking. 

• The FAA estimates 31 existing 

models may satisfy the performancebased requirements of the rule for 

Categories 2 and 3 small UAS 

operations over people with little or no 

modification.104 Applicants of these 

models would be subject to the cost of 

submitting a declaration of compliance 

to the FAA. The FAA estimates that 

applicants would likely submit 

declarations of compliance for eight 

additional models in each of the 

subsequent years of the analysis. 

• The FAA assigns the United States 

Department of Transportation guidance 

on the hourly value of time and hourly 

value of travel time savings equal to 

$27.89 for the analysis period.105

• The FAA notes the analysis of this 

rule reflects industry conditions that 

predate the public health emergency 

concerning the coronavirus disease 2019 

(COVID–19). While there is currently a 

lack of data to forecast the timing of 

recovery relative to implementation of 

the rule, the analysis provides 

information on the types of impacts that 

may be experienced in the future as the 

economy returns to baseline levels. The 

FAA also notes the expanded operations 

enabled by this rule will benefit the 

economy and provide regulatory relief 

for remote pilots. 

2. Summary of Benefits 

This rule will further integrate small 

UAS into the NAS by enabling 

operations over people and nighttime 

operations. These operations will 

benefit the economy and encourage 

innovation and growth across a variety 

of sectors, such as construction, 

education, infrastructure inspection, 

insurance, marketing, and event, film 

and sports photography. 

Today, remote pilots who comply 

with part 107 can fly a small unmanned 

aircraft within a safe distance from 

people, but are not able to operate over 

people who are not participating in the 

operation. Without this rule, the only 

entities allowed to operate small 

unmanned aircraft over people in the 

NAS are public entities holding an 

active certificate of waiver or 

authorization (COA), entities with an 

FAA-issued exemption, entities that 

hold a waiver to the prohibition on 

operations over people provision of part 

107, or small UAS that have received an 

airworthiness certificate from the FAA 

that does not prohibit operations over 

people who also operate with a COA. 

This rule will allow individuals to 

conduct operations of a small UAS over 

people in the NAS and at night under 

part 107, so long as the activity is 

conducted with a small UAS that 

complies with the provisions. The FAA 

quantifies cost savings from this rule in 

the following section along with a 

summary of important unquantified 

savings. 

3. Summary of Costs and Savings 

The costs of this rule include the FAA 

converting the administration of 

recurrent tests to administration of 

training; manufacturers conducting 

testing, analysis, or inspection to 

comply with the requirements relevant 

to manufacturing a small UAS for 

operations over people; and, remote 

pilots studying additional subject matter 

related to activities enabled by the final 

rule. The cost savings of this rule 

includes relief provided through online 

training for remote pilots, and relief 

from time expended by the FAA for 

processing waivers. 

The FAA bases the analysis of this 

rule on a fleet forecast for small 

unmanned aircraft that includes base, 

low, and high scenarios. Accordingly, 

this analysis provides a range of net 

impacts from low to high based on these 

forecast scenarios. The FAA considers 

the base scenario as the primary 

estimate of net impacts of this rule. For 

the primary estimate, over a 10-year 

period of analysis this rule will result in 

present value net cost savings (savings 

less costs) of $688.27 million at a three 

percent discount rate, with annualized 

net cost savings of $80.69 million. At a 

seven percent discount rate, this rule 

will result in present value net cost 

savings of $551.31 million, with 

annualized net cost savings of $78.49 

million. The following table summarizes 

the quantified costs and cost savings of 

this rule for the three forecast scenarios. 

TABLE 2—COSTS AND SAVINGS OF FINAL RULE BY FORECAST SCENARIO

[$Millions] * 

Forecast scenario 

10-Year 

present value 

(3%) 

Annualized 

(3%) 

10-Year 

present value 

(7%) 

Annualized 

(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) 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES3
4372 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 10 / Friday, January 15, 2021 / Rules and Regulations 

TABLE 2—COSTS AND SAVINGS OF FINAL RULE BY FORECAST SCENARIO—Continued 

[$Millions] * 

Forecast scenario 

10-Year 

present value 

(3%) 

Annualized 

(3%) 

10-Year 

present value 

(7%) 

Annualized 

(7%) 

Net Cost Savings .......................................................................... (513.64) (60.21) (416.19) (59.26) 

High Scenario: 

Costs ..................................................................................................... 207.17 24.29 169.27 24.10 

Cost Savings ........................................................................................ (1,158.84) (135.85) (927.41) (132.04) 

Net Cost Savings .......................................................................... (951.67) (111.56) (758.14) (107.94) 

* Table notes: Columns may not sum to total due to rounding. Savings are shown in parenthesis to distinguish from costs. 

The following tables summarize 

quantified costs and cost savings by 

provision category for the three forecast 

scenarios. 

TABLE 3.a—COSTS AND SAVINGS OF FINAL RULE BY PROVISION CATEGORY ($MILLIONS) * 

[Base scenario—Primary estimate] 

Category 

10-Year 

present value 

(at 3%) 

Annualized 

(at 3%) 

10-Year 

present value 

(at 7%) 

Annualized 

(at 7%) 

Costs: 

Standards Development Costs for MOC .............................................. 3.18 0.37 2.88 0.41 

Applicant Costs for Testing and DOC .................................................. 4.39 0.51 3.76 0.54 

Remote Pilot Costs—Additional Content for Tests .............................. 138.57 16.24 113.06 16.10 

FAA Costs ............................................................................................ 0.31 0.04 0.28 0.04 

Total Costs .................................................................................... 146.44 17.17 119.98 17.08 

Cost Savings: 

Remote Pilot Savings—Training in lieu of Testing ............................... (593.73) (69.60) (479.17) (68.22) 

Part 107 Operators—Reduced Waiver Requests ................................ (209.58) (24.57) (167.10) (23.79) 

FAA—Reduced Waiver Processing ..................................................... (31.40) (3.68) (25.01) (3.56) 

Total Cost Savings ........................................................................ (834.71) (97.85) (671.28) (95.58) 

Net Cost Savings .......................................................................... (688.27) (80.69) (551.31) (78.49) 

* Table notes: For this and the following tables, columns may not sum to total due to rounding. Savings are shown in parenthesis to distinguish from costs. 

TABLE 3.b—COSTS AND SAVINGS OF FINAL RULE BY PROVISION CATEGORY ($MILLIONS) 

[Low scenario] 

Category 

10-Year 

present value 

(at 3%) 

Annualized 

(at 3%) 

10-Year 

present value 

(at 7%) 

Annualized 

(at 7%) 

Costs: 

Standards Development Costs for MOC .............................................. 3.18 0.37 2.88 0.41 

Applicant Costs for Testing and DOC .................................................. 4.39 0.51 3.76 0.54 

Remote Pilot Costs—Additional Content for Tests .............................. 95.09 11.15 78.40 11.16 

FAA Costs ............................................................................................ 0.31 0.04 0.28 0.04 

Total Costs .................................................................................... 102.96 12.07 85.32 12.15 

Cost Savings: 

Remote Pilot Savings—Training in lieu of Testing ............................... (443.11) (51.95) (362.47) (51.61) 

Part 107 Operators—Reduced Waiver Requests ................................ (151.01) (17.70) (121.04) (17.23) 

FAA—Reduced Waiver Processing ..................................................... (22.48) (2.63) (18.00) (2.56) 

Total Cost Savings ........................................................................ (616.60) (72.28) (501.51) (71.40) 

Net Cost Savings .......................................................................... (513.64) (60.21) (416.19) (59.26) 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES3
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 10 / Friday, January 15, 2021 / Rules and Regulations 4373 

TABLE 3.c—COSTS AND SAVINGS OF FINAL RULE BY PROVISION CATEGORY ($MILLIONS) 

[High scenario] 

Category 

10-Year 

present value 

(at 3%) 

Annualized 

(at 3%) 

10-Year 

present value 

(at 7%) 

Annualized 

(at 7%) 

Costs: 

Standards Development Costs for MOC .............................................. 3.18 0.37 2.88 0.41 

Applicant Costs for Testing and DOC .................................................. 4.39 0.51 3.76 0.54 

Remote Pilot Costs—Additional Content for Tests .............................. 199.30 23.36 162.35 23.12 

FAA Costs ............................................................................................ 0.31 0.04 0.28 0.04 

Total Costs .................................................................................... 207.17 24.29 169.27 24.10 

Cost Savings: 

Remote Pilot Savings—Training in lieu of Testing ............................... (822.92) (96.47) (659.49) (93.90) 

Part 107 Operators—Reduced Waiver Requests ................................ (291.98) (34.23) (232.90) (33.16) 

FAA—Reduced Waiver Processing ..................................................... (43.95) (5.15) (35.02) (4.99) 

Total Cost Savings ........................................................................ (1,158.84) (135.85) (927.41) (132.04)

Net Cost Savings .......................................................................... (951.67) (111.56) (758.14) (107.94) 

The FAA also expects this rule will 

provide industry with important 

unquantified savings and efficiencies 

from reduced operational costs. The 

FAA did not identify data to quantify 

these operational cost savings due to the 

wide variety of small UAS applications 

and operations enabled by this rule. In 

addition, the rule provides flexibility 

and scalability through performancebased requirements that will support 

future industry innovation. The 

following table summarizes 

unquantified savings from the final rule. 

TABLE 4—UNQUANTIFIED SAVINGS

Savings Summary 

Clearing people from areas 

of operations.

Reduced burden and costs for certain operators that will no longer need to clear people from an area of operation to avoid flight over people. 

Circuitous routes .................. Reduced operational costs for certain operators that will no longer need to perform circuitous routing to avoid 

flight over people. 

Fly over moving vehicles ..... Operational flexibility and reduced costs for certain operators that will no longer need to avoid operations over 

moving vehicles. 

Special conditions in waivers In addition to the administrative cost savings from operating without waivers (i.e., reduced costs of submitting and 

processing waiver requests), certain operators may receive reduced operating costs from avoided special conditions often included in waivers that will not be required under this rule. 

Operations of small UAS over people 

may result in an increased risk to safety. 

Although the FAA expects the 

probability of injuries that may occur 

from operations of small UAS over 

people is low, when that low probability 

is multiplied by an increased number of 

operations, some additional risk of 

injury exists. This final rule’s 

performance-based requirements 

establish four categories of small UAS 

operations defined primarily by level of 

risk of injury posed. Compliance with 

the eligibility and operational 

requirements that apply to these 

categories mitigates the risks of 

operating over people. 

B. Regulatory Flexibility Act 

The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 

(Pub. L. 96–354) (RFA) establishes ‘‘as a 

principle of regulatory issuance that 

agencies shall endeavor, consistent with 

the objectives of the rule and of 

applicable statutes, to fit regulatory and 

informational requirements to the scale 

of the businesses, organizations, and 

governmental jurisdictions subject to 

regulation. To achieve this principle, 

agencies are required to solicit and 

consider flexible regulatory proposals 

and to explain the rationale for their 

actions to assure that such proposals are 

given serious consideration.’’ The RFA 

covers a wide-range of small entities, 

including small businesses, not-forprofit organizations, and small 

governmental jurisdictions. 

Agencies must perform a review to 

determine whether a rule will have a 

significant economic impact on a 

substantial number of small entities. If 

the Agency determines that it will, the 

Agency must prepare a regulatory 

flexibility analysis as described in the 

RFA. 

Agencies must perform a review to 

determine whether a rule will have a 

significant economic impact on a 

substantial number of small entities. If 

the Agency determines that it will, 

Section 604 of the Act requires agencies 

to prepare a Final Regulatory Flexibility 

Analysis describing the impact of final 

rules on small entities. 

The FAA has determined this final 

rule will have a significant economic 

impact on a substantial number of small 

entities. Therefore, under the 

requirements in Section 604 of the RFA, 

the Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis 

must address: 

(1) A statement of the need for, and 

objectives of, the rule; 

(2) A statement of the significant 

issues raised by the public comments in 

response to the initial regulatory 

flexibility analysis, a statement of the 

assessment of the Agency of such issues, 

and a statement of any changes made in 

the proposed rule as a result of such 

comments; 

(3) The response of the Agency to any 

comments filed by the Chief Counsel for 

Advocacy of the Small Business 

Administration in response to the 

proposed rule, and a detailed statement 

of any change made to the proposed rule 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES3
4374 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 10 / Friday, January 15, 2021 / Rules and Regulations 

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

107As of April 6, 2020, part 107 Non-Airspace 

Waivers totaled 36,130. Of these, 15,777 have been 

disapproved and 4,155 have been approved. Of the 

remaining waivers, 15,067 are in process, with 

another 1,131 withdrawn. 

108Testing or training is contingent upon whether 

the remote pilot applicant is a part 61 or non-part 

61 remote pilot. Non-part 61 remote pilot applicants 

are required to pass an initial knowledge test to be 

able to conduct night operations; part-61 remote 

pilot applicants have the flexibility to successfully 

complete either the knowledge test or online 

training to be able to conduct operations at night. 

For those individuals that have already received a 

remote pilot airman’s certificate, online knowledge 

training is required before conducting night 

operations. 

109Nicole V. Crain and W. Mark Crain, ‘‘The 

Impact of Regulatory Costs on Small Firms,’’ U.S. 

Small Business Administration, September 2010. 

Page. iv. https://www.sba.gov/sites/default/files/The

%20Impact%20of%20Regulatory%20Costs%20on

%20Small%20Firms%20(Full).pdf. Accessed 

January 22, 2020. 

110U.S. Chamber of Commerce Foundation. The 

Regulatory Impact on Small Business: Complex. 

Cumbersome. Costly. Final Report. March 2017. 

https://www.uschamberfoundation.org/ 

smallbizregs/assets/files/Small_Business_

Regulation_Study.pdf. Accessed January 22, 2020. 

111For those waivers that AUVSI was able to find 

information on entity size, 1,365 were issued to 

entities with less than ten employees; 107 were 

issued to entities with 10 to 99 employees; 67 were 

issued to entities with 100 to 999 employees; 20 

were issued to entities with 1,000 to 9,999 

employees, and 3 waivers were issued to entities 

with 100,000 or more employees. 

in the final rule as a result of the 

comments; 

(4) A description of and an estimate 

of the number of small entities to which 

the rule will apply or an explanation of 

why no such estimate is available; 

(5) A description of the projected 

reporting, recordkeeping and other 

compliance requirements of the rule, 

including an estimate of the classes of 

small entities which will be subject to 

the requirement and the type of 

professional skills necessary for 

preparation of the report or record; and, 

(6) A description of the steps the 

Agency has taken to minimize the 

significant economic impact on small 

entities consistent with the stated 

objectives of applicable statutes, 

including a statement of the factual, 

policy, and legal reasons for selecting 

the alternative adopted in the final rule 

and why each one of the other 

significant alternatives to the rule 

considered by the Agency which affect 

the impact on small entities was 

rejected. 

Based on these requirements, the FAA 

has prepared the following Final 

Regulatory Flexibility Analysis. 

(1) A statement of the need for, and 

objectives of, the rule. 

The FAA publishes this rule pursuant 

to the authority set forth in 49 U.S.C. 

44807. Section 44807 directs the 

Secretary of Transportation to determine 

whether ‘‘certain unmanned aircraft 

systems may operate safely in the 

national airspace system.’’ If the 

Secretary determines that certain 

unmanned aircraft systems may operate 

safely in the NAS, then the Secretary 

must ‘‘establish requirements for the 

safe operation of such aircraft systems 

in the national airspace system, 

including operation related to research, 

development, and testing of proprietary 

systems.’’ 106

The FAA also publishes this rule 

pursuant to 49 U.S.C. 40103(b)(1) and 

(2), which charge the FAA with issuing 

regulations: (1) To ensure the safety of 

aircraft and the efficient use of airspace; 

and (2) to govern the flight of aircraft for 

purposes of navigating, protecting and 

identifying aircraft, and protecting 

individuals and property on the ground. 

In addition, 49 U.S.C. 44701(a)(5) 

charges the FAA with prescribing 

regulations that the FAA finds necessary 

for safety in air commerce and national 

security. Lastly, 49 U.S.C. 46105(c) 

allows the Administrator to issue 

immediate orders to address an 

emergency related to safety in air 

commerce. 

This rule is an important step in 

further integrating small UAS 

operations into the NAS. The FAA’s 

overall objective in this rule is to ensure 

safety while encouraging new uses of 

small UAS in the NAS. This rulemaking 

finalizes performance-based 

requirements to allow small UAS to 

operate over people or at night under 

part 107 without obtaining a waiver or 

exemption. Currently under part 107, a 

remote pilot must obtain a waiver or 

exemption explicitly allowing 

operations over people or at night. As of 

February 14, 2020, the FAA has 

received 9,698 requests for waiver to 

permit operation at night, 3,555 requests 

to permit operating over people, and 

1,623 requests to permit operating over 

people at night.107 For operations over 

people, the FAA’s performance-based 

requirements establish four categories of 

small UAS operations defined primarily 

by level of risk of injury posed. 

Additional eligibility requirements and 

operating limitations beyond those 

already in part 107 apply to certain 

categories of small UAS to mitigate the 

risks associated with each category. 

This rule also removes the 

requirement for completing a recurrent 

aeronautical knowledge test at a 

knowledge testing center and replaces it 

with a requirement for online training. 

As a result, the remote pilot in 

command who does not also hold a 

certificate issued under part 61 would 

be relieved of costs associated with 

recurrent knowledge testing every 24 

calendar months. This rule also requires 

a remote pilot applicant to either pass 

a knowledge test or complete online 

training containing knowledge areas on 

night operations, before undertaking 

these types of operations.108

(2) A statement of the significant 

issues raised by the public comments in 

response to the initial regulatory 

flexibility analysis, a statement of the 

assessment of the Agency of such issues, 

and a statement of any changes made in 

the proposed rule as a result of such 

comments. 

While there were no public comments 

specific to the initial regulatory 

flexibility analysis, one commenter 

asserted regulations that increase the 

cost of equipment or operational 

approvals will disproportionately 

impact small business. The FAA 

acknowledges that regulations 

disproportionately impact costs to small 

businesses, and cites an SBA sponsored 

study stating small firms bear a 

regulatory cost 36 percent greater than 

the cost of regulatory compliance 

carried by larger firms.109 These cost 

burdens include compliance, reporting, 

and recordkeeping.110 In this particular 

rule, it follows that smaller applicants 

for a declaration of compliance will be 

disproportionately affected versus their 

larger counterparts in terms of costs 

associated with means of compliance 

testing. For the final rule, these costs are 

estimated to average between $11,000 to 

$26,000. 

Other entities affected by the final 

rule are entities/operators of small UAS. 

AUVSI conducted an analysis on part 

107 waivers issued by entity size. This 

analysis shows that over 87 percent of 

the waivers issued were issued to 

entities with fewer than 10 

employees.111 Assuming that the share 

of small entities granted waivers is 

similar to the distributional share of all 

entities operating under part 107, this 

final rule will have a positive impact on 

small entities by allowing night 

operations, operations over people, and 

operations over moving vehicles 

without waiver. 

(3) The response of the Agency to any 

comments filed by the Chief Counsel for 

Advocacy of the Small Business 

Administration in response to the 

proposed rule, and a detailed statement 

of any change made to the proposed 

rule in the final rule as a result of the 

comments. 

The Chief Counsel for Advocacy of 

the Small Business did not submit 

comments to the proposed rule. 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES3
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 10 / Friday, January 15, 2021 / Rules and Regulations 4375 

112https://www.faa.gov/uas/commercial_

operators/part_107_waivers/waivers_issued/. As of 

3/2/2020, 109 waivers have been granted for 

operations over people. A majority of these waivers 

were for unmanned aircraft weighing 11.68 pounds 

or less. 

113Source: AUVSI Air Platform Database 

(accessed April 2020). 

114The Small Business Administration has not 

defined the number of employees that would 

indicate that a manufacturer of small UAS is a small 

entity. The NAICS code for Unmanned Aircraft 

Manufacturing is 336411, which falls under the 

broad category of ‘‘Aircraft Manufacturing.’’ SBA 

defines entities with NAICS 336411 as small if it 

employs 1,500 employees or less. Based on the SBA 

definition all entities are small ones. 

115https://www.auvsi.org/sites/default/files/ 

PDFs/Waiver%20Update%20Mar%202020_v3_

PDF%20%281%29.pdf, https://public.tableau.com/ 

shared/RBFRZM9PP?:display_count=y&:origin=viz_

share_link&:showVizHome=no#1. Accessed April 

10, 2020. June 2016 marks the date for the 

publication of the final part 107 rule. 

(4) A description of and an estimate 

of the number of small entities to which 

the rule will apply or an explanation of 

why no such estimate is available. 

This final rule impacts applicants 

seeking acceptance of a declaration of 

compliance from the FAA for small 

UAS eligible to conduct operations over 

people. The FAA analyzed the part 107 

unmanned aircraft registry for aircraft 

weighing less than or equal to 11.68 

pounds, which aligns with the weight of 

small unmanned aircraft that have been 

granted waivers for operating over 

people.112 The registry indicates that 

small unmanned aircraft in this weight 

class are comprised of 31 different 

models which are built by eleven 

different manufacturers that are located 

in three different countries.113 Using the 

AUVSI business size standard, one 

manufacturer is identified as small 

(fewer than 50 employees); two 

manufacturers are identified as medium 

(50–499 employees); and five 

manufacturers are identified as large 

(more than 499 employees). Entity size 

was not known for three of the 

manufacturers.114 The table below 

shows key statistics for the eleven 

manufacturers by country of origin. 

TABLE 5—SELECT STATISTICS FOR PART 107 UNMANNED AIRCRAFT WEIGHING 11.68 POUNDS OR LESS

Manufacturer country of 

origin 

Number of 

manufacturers 

Number of 

models Entity size * 

Number 

of UA in FAA 

registry 

Share of 

UA <=11.68 lbs 

(%) 

China ............................ 4 18 2 large, 1 medium, 1 unknown ........................... 226,785 86.6 

France ........................... 1 3 unknown ............................................................. 4,649 1.8 

United States ................ 6 10 3 large, 1 medium, 1 small, 1 unknown ............. 30,572 11.7 

Total ....................... 11 31 5 large, 2 medium, 1 small, 3 unknown ............. 262,006 100.0 

* Source: AUVSI Air Platform Data. AUVSI defines entity size as follows: Large entities have more than 500 employees; medium entities have 

between 50 and 499 employees; small entities have less than 50 employees. 

Note: This information is based on records in the unmanned aircraft registry as of October 2019 that weigh 11.68 pounds or less. The remaining records did not contain readily identifiable make/model information and are excluded from the analysis. 

The final rule enables entities to 

conduct operations over people and at 

night using eligible small UAS. Part 107 

waiver analysis by AUVSI shows that 

between June 2016 and March 2020, a 

total of 4,144 waivers have been granted 

by the FAA.115 A vast majority of the 

waivers granted are for § 107.29, 

daylight operations (3,813 waivers 

granted), followed by § 107.39 

operations over people (125 waivers 

granted). These two waiver categories 

account for 95 percent of the waivers 

granted to date, and demonstrates the 

desire among entities to be able to 

conduct these types of operations. The 

AUVSI analysis shows a majority of the 

waivers granted have been for entities 

with fewer than 10 employees that 

generate a revenue of under $1 million 

annually. 

The final rule impacts the entire 

population of part 107 remote pilots, 

many of whom work for small entities 

or own their own business, by requiring 

all part 107 remote pilots to be tested or 

knowledge checked on additional 

subject matter. The rule also relieves a 

subset of the remote pilot population 

(i.e., non-part 61 remote pilots) from the 

recurrent knowledge testing 

requirement. Instead of taking recurrent 

knowledge testing, this affected group 

will take recurrency training every 24 

calendar months to maintain the 

privileges of the remote pilot airmen 

certificate. This is expected to create a 

cost savings for approximately 90% of 

the current remote pilot population. 

(5) A description of the projected 

reporting, recordkeeping and other 

compliance requirements of the rule, 

including an estimate of the classes of 

small entities which will be subject to 

the requirement and the type of 

professional skills necessary for 

preparation of the report or record. 

In order for the FAA to accept a 

declaration of compliance, this rule 

requires the applicant to declare that a 

small UAS meets applicable 

performance-based safety requirements 

by using a means of compliance by test, 

analysis, or inspection, or any 

combination of these options accepted 

by the FAA. An applicant could perform 

any necessary tests contained in the 

means of compliance in-house or they 

could rent a testing facility with the 

necessary equipment to show 

compliance with the injury limitation 

based on the transfer of kinetic energy 

on impact. The applicant would certify 

the results from this means of 

compliance testing on its declaration of 

compliance to the FAA. The FAA 

estimates approximately eleven entities 

could be affected by compliance 

requirements in year 1 of the rule. Using 

the AUVSI business size standard for 

UAS manufacturers, one manufacturer 

is identified as small (fewer than 50 

employees); two manufacturers are 

identified as medium (50–499 

employees); and five manufacturers are 

identified as large (more than 499 

employees). Entity size could not be 

determined for three of the 

manufacturers. The rule also requires 

applicants of small UAS eligible for 

Category 2 or Category 3 operations to 

make available to the Administrator an 

FAA-accepted declaration of 

compliance and any other document, 

record, or report that the final rule 

requires, on request. The rule provides 

record retention requirements for 

manufacturers who submit either a 

declaration of compliance or a means of 

compliance to the FAA. With today’s 

minimal cost of producing electronic 

documents and mass storage hardware 

devices, the FAA expects applicants 

would keep all relevant documents, 

records, or reports required in an 

electronic format and properly back up 

their storage systems. Therefore, this 

requirement would add minimal to no 

costs to the applicants because they 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES3
4376 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 10 / Friday, January 15, 2021 / Rules and Regulations 

would already have computer systems, 

with sufficient memory available, to 

store and produce the documents this 

rule requires. 

For Categories 2 and 3, this rule 

requires an applicant to label a small 

unmanned aircraft with each category 

for which the small UAS is eligible to 

operate. The applicant must ensure that 

the label is in English, legible, 

prominent, and affixed onto the small 

unmanned aircraft by some permanent 

means. In addition, remote pilots are 

required to ensure their small 

unmanned aircraft are properly labeled 

before conducting any operations over 

people. The FAA believes the cost of 

adding the labeling information for the 

category for which the small UAS is 

eligible to operate would be minimal, 

given that small unmanned aircraft 

typically come with a label containing 

information such as the name of the 

manufacturer, serial number, and model 

name or number. If the label has worn 

out due to use or age, the remote pilot 

could satisfy the rule by using a 

permanent marker, or etching the 

category into the body of the small 

unmanned aircraft. 

The rule requires a small UAS 

applicant to establish and maintain a 

product support and notification 

process to notify the public and the 

FAA of any safety issues that would 

render the aircraft ineligible for 

operations over people. The FAA 

believes manufacturers of small UAS 

would have such a system already 

developed and in place to handle their 

warranties and to inform users of their 

small UAS about new developments 

and new products they are bringing to 

the marketplace. This rule does not 

require the owner of a small UAS to 

send in a warranty card or provide the 

manufacturer any personal contact 

information. Therefore, the FAA 

believes the cost of this requirement 

would be minimal. The FAA notes an 

applicant could be an individual that 

modifies a small UAS and then sells it. 

According to the rule, this individual 

would also be required to have a 

notification and support process in 

place. The FAA envisions this process 

would be scaled to production, so the 

individual who sells a single aircraft 

could establish a much smaller scale 

process. For example, the applicant 

could simply email the owner of the 

small UAS and advise them of any 

safety issues. The FAA also believes for 

a small-scale manufacturer or a 

modifier, the requirement to maintain a 

product support and notification 

process would also result in minimal 

costs. 

The rule requires owners or operators 

of small UAS issued an airworthiness 

certificate under part 21 operating under 

part 107 to retain records of all 

maintenance performed on their aircraft 

and records documenting the status of 

life-limited parts, compliance with 

airworthiness directives, and inspection 

status of the aircraft. The records must 

be kept for the time specified in 

§ 107.140 and must be available to the 

FAA and NTSB on request. This 

requirement only affects operations 

conducted under Category 4, and would 

result in minimal costs. 

(6) A description of the steps the 

Agency has taken to minimize the 

significant economic impact on small 

entities consistent with the stated 

objectives of applicable statutes, 

including a statement of the factual, 

policy, and legal reasons for selecting 

the alternative adopted in the final rule 

and why each one of the other 

significant alternatives to the rule 

considered by the Agency which affect 

the impact on small entities was 

rejected. 

The FAA considered both more and 

less costly alternatives as part of its 

NPRM because the RFA requires the 

Agency to consider significant 

regulatory alternatives that meet the 

Agency’s statutory objectives and 

minimize the costs to small entities. The 

FAA rejected the costlier alternatives 

due to policy considerations and the 

undue burden imposed on small UAS 

operators. The less costly alternatives 

and the FAA’s reasons for either 

rejecting those alternatives, or adopting 

them for the final rule, are discussed 

below. In addition, the FAA discusses 

performance-based means of 

compliance that may provide additional 

flexibility and minimize costs to small 

entities. 

The FAA considered hands-on remote 

pilot flight training as part of the 

requirements for operating a small 

unmanned aircraft over people. The 

FAA has determined that it is 

unnecessary to require additional 

knowledge testing or training for 

operations over people beyond the 

initial testing and initial or recurrent 

training requirements of part 107. 

Questions and training specific to 

operations over people may be added to 

the testing and training in the existing 

areas of knowledge in §§ 107.73 and 

107.74 without the need for an 

additional knowledge area. As stated 

previously, the FAA declines to require 

practical training for part 107 remote 

pilots. Additionally, the FAA does not 

find it necessary to tailor the subject 

areas to specific small UAS, because 

existing systems vary widely. 

Furthermore, the remote pilot is already 

required to comply with all applicable 

regulations, including the preflight 

familiarization and inspection 

requirements, to ensure that their small 

UAS is in proper working condition 

prior to operation. 

The FAA considered allowing 

Category 3 operations on a closed- or 

restricted-access site without requiring 

notice that the operation was taking 

place. The FAA rejected this alternative 

due to the increased severity of an 

injury resulting from a small unmanned 

aircraft impacting a person with up to 

25 ft-lbs of kinetic energy. 

The FAA considered proposing a 

Category 4 to include operations in 

which a small UAS may operate over 

people, including flights over crowds or 

dense concentrations of people, if: (1) 

The manufacturer of the small UAS 

certifies the aircraft satisfies the same 

impact energy threshold as small UAS 

eligible to conduct Category 3 

operations; (2) the small UAS complies 

with industry consensus standards; and 

(3) the operation is conducted in 

compliance with a documented risk 

mitigation plan. The FAA rejected this 

alternative due to the increased severity 

of an injury resulting from a small 

unmanned aircraft impacting a person 

with up to 25 foot-pounds of kinetic 

energy. However, comments to the 

proposed rule stated that demonstrable 

reliability of the small UAS should be 

an alternative path for operations over 

people. The FAA agrees. Therefore, this 

final rule includes a fourth category to 

allow small UAS that have been issued 

an airworthiness certificate under part 

21 to operate over people under part 

107, so long as the operating limitations 

of that airworthiness certification do not 

prohibit operations over people. 

The FAA considered incorporating 

the standards of §§ 23.1401 or 27.1401 

(‘‘Anti-collision light system’’) for night 

operations under part 107. Part 107 does 

not contain aircraft certification rules or 

standards, and the FAA concludes the 

reduced risk small UAS operations pose 

does not warrant application of such 

standards. In addition, the diverse range 

of aircraft that may operate under part 

107 render prescriptive lighting 

requirements for all types of operations 

at night impractical. Prescriptive 

lighting requirements would be overly 

burdensome for both the FAA and 

manufacturers of small UAS, because 

they would be forced to make tradeoffs 

that affect both the weight of the aircraft 

and the aircraft’s power source and 

supply. In response to comments to the 

proposed rule, the FAA always intended 

that the anti-collision lights for both 

civil twilight and night operations 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES3
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 10 / Friday, January 15, 2021 / Rules and Regulations 4377 

116The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 

defines ‘‘Federal private sector mandate’’ as ‘‘any 

provision in legislation, statute, or regulation that 

. . . would impose an enforceable duty upon the 

private sector . . . or would reduce or eliminate the 

amount of authorization of appropriations for 

Federal financial assistance that will be provided to 

the private sector for the purposes of ensuring 

compliance with such duty.’’ Public Law 104–4 

section 658 (1995). 

117The recordkeeping requirements prescribed by 

§ 107.140(c)(2) through (5) will be submitted to 

OMB for review upon publication of this final rule. 

should flash, rather than be static. Costs 

for anti-collision lights that flash at a 

sufficient rate to avoid a collision were 

included in the 2016 final rule. 

C. International Trade Impact 

Assessment 

The Trade Agreements Act of 1979 

(Pub. L. 96–39), as amended by the 

Uruguay Round Agreements Act (Pub. 

L. 103–465), prohibits Federal agencies 

from establishing standards or engaging 

in related activities that create 

unnecessary obstacles to the foreign 

commerce of the United States. 

Pursuant to these Acts, the 

establishment of standards is not 

considered an unnecessary obstacle to 

the foreign commerce of the United 

States, so long as the standard has a 

legitimate domestic objective, such as 

the protection of safety, and does not 

operate in a manner that excludes 

imports that meet this objective. The 

statute also requires consideration of 

international standards and, where 

appropriate, that they be the basis for 

U.S. standards. The FAA has considered 

the ongoing work of international 

organizations and other countries. No 

international standards currently exist 

for the types of operations the FAA 

finalizes in this rule. In addition, this 

final rule would not create any obstacle 

to foreign commerce. The FAA will 

maintain its awareness of other 

countries’ and international 

organizations’ work in developing 

potential standards relevant to UAS 

operations. 

D. Unfunded Mandates Assessment 

Title II of the Unfunded Mandates 

Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104–4) 

requires each Federal agency to prepare 

a written statement assessing the effects 

of any Federal mandate in a proposed or 

final agency rule that may result in an 

expenditure of $100 million or more (in 

1995 dollars) in any one year by State, 

local, and tribal governments, in the 

aggregate, or by the private sector; such 

a mandate is deemed to be a ‘‘significant 

regulatory action.’’ The FAA currently 

uses an inflation-adjusted value of $155 

million in lieu of $100 million. 

This rule does not contain a mandate 

that would result in expenditure by 

State, local, or Tribal governments or 

impose costs on the private sector of 

more than $155 million annually.116 As 

a result, the requirements of Title II of 

the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 

1995 do not apply. 

E. Paperwork Reduction Act 

The Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 

(44 U.S.C. 3507(d)) requires that the 

FAA consider the impact of paperwork 

and other information collection 

burdens imposed on the public. 

According to the 1995 amendments to 

the Paperwork Reduction Act (as 

implemented by 5 CFR 1320.8(b)(2)(vi)), 

an agency may not collect or sponsor 

the collection of information, nor may it 

impose an information collection 

requirement, unless it displays a 

currently valid Office of Management 

and Budget (OMB) control number. 

This rule adds a new information 

collection, which includes the estimated 

burdens for the declaration of 

compliance, means of compliance, the 

development of remote pilot operating 

instructions, and recordkeeping to 

reflect compliance with applicable 

maintenance requirements. This rule 

eliminates information collection 

requirements from the 2016 final rule as 

a result of changes to the recurrent 

knowledge testing requirements. As 

previously discussed, this rule may also 

reduce the number of waiver 

applications that the FAA receives. 

A detailed discussion of each of these 

information-collection requirements is 

included in this section. As required by 

the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, 

the FAA has submitted these 

information collection amendments to 

OMB for its review.117

1. Declaration of Compliance and Means 

of Compliance 

Summary: The information collection 

addresses the submission of the 

declaration of compliance and the 

means of compliance to the FAA for the 

purpose of demonstrating that the small 

UAS fulfills the applicable standards for 

Category 2 and 3 operations. It also 

addresses applicants’ compliance with 

the record retention requirements 

associated with submitting justification 

to establish compliance. 

The declaration of compliance must 

include the following information: 

• The applicant’s name, physical 

address, and email address. 

• The small UAS make and model 

name, and series, if applicable and 

serial number or range of serial 

numbers. 

• Whether the declaration of 

compliance is an initial declaration or 

an amended declaration, and if 

amended, the reason for resubmittal. 

• A process for notifying customers of 

conditions that could render the small 

UAS ineligible for operations over 

people. 

• A certification that the applicant 

has demonstrated that the small 

unmanned aircraft satisfies the 

applicable requirements through an 

accepted means of compliance and will 

permit the Administrator to inspect its 

facilities, technical data, and any 

manufactured small UAS. 

The means of compliance 

demonstrates through test, analysis, or 

inspection that the small UAS is eligible 

for operations pursuant to Category 2 or 

3 or both. The applicant submitting the 

means of compliance must include the 

following information: 

• The name of the person or entity 

submitting the means of compliance, the 

name of the main point of contact for 

communications with the FAA, the 

physical address, email address, and 

other contact information. 

• A detailed description of the means 

of compliance. 

• An explanation of how the means of 

compliance establishes achievement of 

the requirements identified in either 

§ 107.120(a)(1) and (2) for Category 2 

small unmanned aircraft or 

§ 107.130(a)(1) and (2) for Category 3 

small unmanned aircraft so that any 

small unmanned aircraft system 

designed, produced, or modified in 

accordance with such means of 

compliance meets those requirements. 

• Any substantiating material the 

person wishes the FAA to consider as 

part of the request. 

• A means of compliance submitted 

for acceptance by the FAA must include 

testing and validation procedures for 

persons responsible for the production 

or modification of the Category 2 or 

Category 3 small unmanned aircraft 

system to demonstrate how the small 

unmanned aircraft system meets the 

requirements of either § 107.120(a)(1) 

and (2) for Category 2 small unmanned 

aircraft or § 107.130(a)(1) and (2) for 

Category 3 small unmanned aircraft. 

Use: The FAA will use the declaration 

of compliance and means of compliance 

to either accept or not accept that the 

manufacturer has demonstrated 

compliance with the requirements 

applicable to Category 2 or 3 or both 

operations. 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES3
4378 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 10 / Friday, January 15, 2021 / Rules and Regulations 

118The labeling requirement is not the sole means 

by which a remote pilot in command will be aware 

of the operating limitations applicable to Category 

3 operations. Remote pilots in command must 

maintain awareness of updated regulations, as 

required by proposed §§ 107.73(a) and 107.74(a) in 

this rule. As a result, initial aeronautical knowledge 

testing and recurrent training implemented after the 

effective date of this final rule would include 

operations over people as a subject area on both the 

test and training. 

Estimated Annual Burden: The table 

below shows the annual information 

collection burden in hours. 

TABLE 6—ANNUAL BURDEN ESTIMATE FOR DECLARATION OF COMPLIANCE AND MEANS OF COMPLIANCE

[In hours] 

Year Initial Pages Hours 

per page 

Hourly 

burden 

1 ....................................................................................................................... 32.55 50 1 1,628 

2 ....................................................................................................................... 8.40 50 1 420 

3 ....................................................................................................................... 8.40 50 1 420 

Total .......................................................................................................... ........................ ........................ ........................ 2,468 

The cost for the information 

collection on an hourly basis is a fullyburdened wage of $96.92, for an annual 

cost of $157,737 in year 1 and $40,706 

in each of years 2 and 3 for the small 

UAS manufacturers to submit their 

declarations. Over the 3-year analysis 

period, the total cost is approximately 

$239,150 in 2020 dollars. 

2. Remote Pilot Operating Instructions 

Summary: The information collection 

addresses the manufacturer’s 

recordkeeping associated with the 

development and maintenance of 

remote pilot operating instructions for 

small UAS operating over people. The 

remote pilot operating instructions must 

address, at a minimum, all of the 

following: 

• A system description that includes 

the required small UAS components, 

any system limitations, and the declared 

category or categories of operation. 

• Modifications that will not change 

the ability of the small UAS to meet the 

requirements for the category or 

categories of operation the small UAS is 

eligible to conduct. 

• Instructions for how to verify and 

change the mode or configuration of the 

small UAS, if they are variable. 

Use: To operate a small unmanned 

aircraft safely over people, remote pilots 

would be responsible for knowing what 

category of operations their small UAS 

are eligible to conduct, and what 

technical and operational limitations 

apply to the operations. Accordingly, 

this rule requires manufacturers to 

provide remote pilot operating 

instructions with product-specific 

information. 

Estimated Annual Burden: The table 

below shows the annual information 

collection burden in hours. 

TABLE 7—THREE-YEAR BURDEN ESTIMATES FOR REMOTE PILOT OPERATING INSTRUCTIONS

[In hours] 

Year Operating 

instructions Pages Hours per page 

Hourly 

burden 

1 ....................................................................................................................... 31 6 25 4,650 

2 ....................................................................................................................... 8 6 25 1,200 

3 ....................................................................................................................... 8 6 25 1,200 

Total .......................................................................................................... ........................ ........................ ........................ 7,050 

The cost per hour for the information 

collection is a wage of $96.92, for an 

annual cost of $450,678 in year 1 and 

$116,304 in each of years 2 and 3 for 

small UAS manufacturers to develop 

and maintain remote pilot operating 

instructions. Over the 3-year analysis 

period, the total cost is approximately 

$683,286 in 2020 dollars. 

3. Labeling of Unmanned Aircraft 

Summary: Because a small UAS could 

be qualified to conduct more than one 

category of operations over people, this 

rule requires manufacturers to label 

small unmanned aircraft with each 

category of operations the small UAS is 

eligible to conduct. For example, a small 

UAS that is eligible to conduct both 

Category 2 and Category 3 operations 

would be labeled with both categories, 

as follows: ‘‘Cat. 2, 3’’ or ‘‘Category 2, 

3.’’ The label could be painted onto, 

etched into, or affixed to the aircraft by 

some other permanent means. 

Use: There are two purposes for the 

label. For the remote pilot, the purpose 

of the label is to list the categories of 

operations over people the small UAS is 

eligible to conduct, as indicated on the 

manufacturer’s declaration of 

compliance. The other purpose of the 

label is for the FAA and law 

enforcement agencies to determine 

whether an operation is consistent with 

the requirements of the regulation. The 

labeling requirement will help remote 

pilots know what category of operations 

their small unmanned aircraft is eligible 

to conduct, and what technical and 

operational limitations apply to the 

operations. The labeling requirement 

will also assist the FAA in its oversight 

role because labeling provides an 

efficient means for an inspector to 

evaluate whether an operation is 

consistent with the category or 

categories of operation the small 

unmanned aircraft may conduct. 

Because Category 3 operations entail 

unique operating limitations, the label 

on small unmanned aircraft eligible to 

conduct Category 3 operations will 

indicate to remote pilots that they must 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES3
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 10 / Friday, January 15, 2021 / Rules and Regulations 4379 

118The labeling requirement is not the sole means 

by which a remote pilot in command will be aware 

of the operating limitations applicable to Category 

3 operations. Remote pilots in command must 

maintain awareness of updated regulations, as 

required by proposed §§ 107.73(a) and 107.74(a) in 

this rule. As a result, initial aeronautical knowledge 

testing and recurrent training implemented after the 

effective date of this final rule would include 

operations over people as a subject area on both the 

test and training. 

119SeAverage is based on information found at 

https://www.thedroneu.com/blog/part-107-faqdrone-license/. Accessed 6/17/2020. 

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

adhere to the applicable operating 

limitations.118

Estimated Annual Burden: The table 

below shows the annual information 

collection burden in hours. 

TABLE 8—THREE-YEAR BURDEN ESTIMATES FOR LABELING UNMANNED AIRCRAFT

[In hours] 

Year Number of 

platforms 

Hours per 

redesign 

Hourly 

burden 

1 ................................................................................................................................................... 31 2 62 

2 ................................................................................................................................................... 8 2 16 

3 ................................................................................................................................................... 8 2 16 

Total ...................................................................................................................................... ........................ ........................ 94 

The FAA assumes that manufacturers 

will redesign labels already affixed to 

the unmanned aircraft, and that the 

label redesign and redesign approval 

will take a maximum of two hours at an 

hourly wage of $96.92, for an annual 

cost of $6,009 in year 1 and $1,551 in 

each of years 2 and 3. Over the 3-year 

analysis period, the total cost is 

approximately $9,110 in 2020 dollars. 

4. Maintenance Records 

Summary: Owners of small UAS 

issued an airworthiness certificate 

under part 21 must retain records of all 

maintenance performed on their aircraft 

and records documenting the status of 

life-limited parts, compliance with 

airworthiness directives, and inspection 

status of the aircraft. The records must 

be kept for the time specified in 

§ 107.140, and they must be available to 

the FAA and law enforcement personnel 

upon request. 

Use: These records will be used to 

validate that the aircraft has been 

maintained in a manner that assures 

that it remains in a condition eligible to 

be operated over people in accordance 

with Category 4. 

Estimated Annual Burden: The table 

below shows the annual information 

collection burden in hours. 

TABLE 9—THREE-YEAR BURDEN ESTIMATES FOR RECORDKEEPING ASSOCIATED WITH MAINTENANCE

Year Number of 

respondents 

Affected 

small UAS 

Hourly burden 

(0.5 per small UAS) 

1 ..................................................................................................................................... 1 100 50 

2 ..................................................................................................................................... 2 200 100 

3 ..................................................................................................................................... 3 300 150 

Total ........................................................................................................................ ........................ ........................ 300 

Rows and Columns may not sum to total due to rounding. 

The FAA expects remote pilots will 

engage in maintenance record upkeep 

and documentation. The fully-burdened 

hourly wage for a remote pilot is 

estimated to be $47.66.119 Multiplying 

the total combined hourly burden of 300 

hours by the fully burdened hourly 

wage of $47.66 yields a total cost of 

approximately $14,298 in 2020 dollars 

for the three year period. 

The FAA will publish separate notice 

in the Federal Register seeking 

comment regarding this new 

information collection. 

F. International Compatibility and 

Cooperation 

In keeping with U.S. obligations 

under the Convention on International 

Civil Aviation, it is FAA policy to 

conform to ICAO Standards and 

Recommended Practices to the 

maximum extent practicable. The FAA 

has reviewed the corresponding ICAO 

Standards and Recommended Practices 

and has identified no differences with 

these regulations. 

G. Environmental Analysis 

FAA Order 1050.1F identifies FAA 

actions that are categorically excluded 

from preparation of an environmental 

assessment or environmental impact 

statement under the National 

Environmental Policy Act in the 

absence of extraordinary circumstances. 

The FAA determined that the 

categorical exclusion in FAA Order 

1050.1F, paragraph 5–6.6.f. applies to 

this action. The FAA conducted 

analysis as part of its evaluation of this 

action to support the application of the 

categorical exclusion. The FAA has 

determined that none of the 

extraordinary circumstances in FAA 

Order 1050.1F, paragraph 5–2 exist. 

The FAA has placed a copy of 

supporting documentation in the docket 

for this rule. 

XVI. Executive Order Determinations 

A. Executive Order 13132, Federalism 

The FAA has analyzed this rule under 

the principles and criteria of Executive 

Order 13132, Federalism.120 The 

Agency has determined that this action 

will not have a substantial direct effect 

on the States, or the relationship 

between the Federal Government and 

the States, or on the distribution of 

power and responsibilities among the 

various levels of government, and, 

therefore, does not have federalism 

implications. 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES3
4380 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 10 / Friday, January 15, 2021 / Rules and Regulations 

121 66 FR 28355 (May 18, 2001). 

122 77 FR 26413 (May 4, 2012). 

123 65 FR 67249 (Nov. 6, 2000). 

124FAA Order No. 1210.20 (Jan. 28, 2004), 

available at http://www.faa.gov/documentLibrary/ 

media/1210.pdf. 

125 81 FR 42064, 42189. 

126Federal Aviation Administration, UAS 

Integration Pilot Program (May 7, 2018), available 

at https://www.faa.gov/uas/programs_partnerships/ 

uas_integration_pilot_program/. 

B. Executive Order 13211, Regulations 

that Significantly Affect Energy Supply, 

Distribution, or Use 

The FAA analyzed this rule under 

Executive Order 13211, Actions 

Concerning Regulations that 

Significantly Affect Energy Supply, 

Distribution, or Use.121 The Agency has 

determined that it will not be a 

‘‘significant energy action’’ under the 

executive order and is not likely to have 

a significant adverse effect on the 

supply, distribution, or use of energy. 

C. Executive Order 13609, Promoting 

International Regulatory Cooperation 

Executive Order 13609, Promoting 

International Regulatory Cooperation, 

promotes international regulatory 

cooperation to meet shared challenges 

involving health, safety, labor, security, 

environmental, and other issues and to 

reduce, eliminate, or prevent 

unnecessary differences in regulatory 

requirements.122 The FAA has analyzed 

this action under the policies and 

agency responsibilities of Executive 

Order 13609 and has determined that 

this action will have no effect on 

international regulatory cooperation. 

The European Union Aviation Safety 

Agency commented that it is available 

for discussion and alignment of 

regulations, concerned that the 

proposed regulations could ‘‘set Europe 

and the US on different regulatory 

courses.’’ One commenter expressed 

concern that Canada’s current 

limitations on small UAS operations 

near people, buildings, or animals must 

not be adopted by the FAA. One 

commenter wrote that ‘‘we need a 

training standard that is applicable 

across the globe,’’ in order to ensure 

harmonization of the certification 

requirements. 

The FAA participates in international 

discussions and regulatory meetings, 

but does not assume that all 

international regulations should be 

identical. Each State has its own 

individual and unique characteristics 

that shape its regulatory framework. The 

U.S. is working closely with its 

international partners to harmonize 

International Civil Aviation 

Organization (ICAO) policy. The FAA 

has determined that the safety 

requirements of this rule are not overly 

restrictive and allow operations over 

people with reasonable limits on those 

operations to mitigate risk and provide 

a level of safety for operations of small 

UAS within the airspace of the United 

States. 

D. Executive Order 13175, Consultation 

and Coordination With Indian Tribal 

Governments 

Consistent with Executive Order 

13175, Consultation and Coordination 

with Indian Tribal Governments,123 and 

FAA Order 1210.20, American Indian 

and Alaska Native Tribal Consultation 

Policy and Procedures,124 the FAA 

ensures that Federally Recognized 

Tribes (Tribes) are given the opportunity 

to provide meaningful and timely input 

regarding proposed Federal actions that 

have the potential to have substantial 

direct effects on one or more Indian 

tribes, on the relationship between the 

Federal Government and Indian tribes, 

or on the distribution of power and 

responsibilities between the Federal 

Government and Indian tribes; or to 

affect uniquely or significantly their 

respective Tribes. At this point, the FAA 

has not identified any substantial direct 

effects or any unique or significant 

effects on tribes resulting from this rule. 

As the FAA contemplated in the 2016 

final rule, the FAA has conducted 

outreach to tribes and responded to 

those tribes seeking information about 

small UAS operations conducted within 

their territory. 

The FAA continues to develop its 

involvement with tribes within the 

broader UAS integration effort.125 In 

particular, the FAA has partnered with 

the Choctaw Nation in a pilot program 

under which State, local, and tribal 

governments test and evaluate the 

integration of civil and public UAS 

operations into the low-altitude NAS to 

promote the safe operation of UAS and 

enable the development of UAS 

technologies and their use in 

agriculture, commerce, emergency 

management, human transportation, and 

other sectors.126

The FAA has also conducted outreach 

to tribes to ensure they are familiar with 

the provisions of part 107 and that they 

are aware of FAA’s plans for additional 

rulemakings to integrate UAS into the 

NAS. As part of that outreach, the FAA 

has: 

• Provided material on the 2016 final 

small UAS rule to participants at the 

mid-year conference of the National 

Congress of American Indians (Spokane, 

Washington, June 27–30, 2016); 

• Presented at a workshop at the 

National Tribal Transportation 

Conference (Anaheim, California 

October 4, 2016); 

• Responded to inquiries from the 

Shoshone-Bannock Tribes and 

Muscogee (Creek) Nation regarding use 

of UAS (September and October 2016); 

• Presented information on UAS at a 

meeting of the Tribal Transportation 

Self-Governance Program Negotiated 

Rulemaking Meeting (Shawnee, 

Oklahoma, October 18, 2016); and 

• Presented information on UAS for 

public safety at the Osage Nation 2019 

Public Safety Drone Conference (Tulsa, 

Oklahoma, November 5, 2019). 

The FAA will continue to respond to 

tribes that express interest in or 

concerns about UAS operations, and 

will engage in government-togovernment consultation with tribes as 

appropriate, in accordance with 

Executive Orders and FAA guidance. 

E. Executive Order 13771, Reducing 

Regulation and Controlling Regulatory 

Costs 

This rule is an Executive Order 13771 

deregulatory action. Details on the 

estimated cost savings of this rule can 

be found in the rule’s economic 

analysis. 

XVII. Additional Information 

A. Availability of Rulemaking 

Documents 

An electronic copy of rulemaking 

documents may be obtained from the 

internet by— 

• Searching the Federal eRulemaking 

Portal at https://www.regulations.gov; 

• Visiting the FAA’s Regulations and 

Policies web page at https://

www.faa.gov/regulations_policies or 

• Accessing the Government 

Publishing Office’s web page at https:// 

www.fdsys.gov. 

Copies may also be obtained by 

sending a request to the Federal 

Aviation Administration, Office of 

Rulemaking, ARM–1, 800 Independence 

Avenue SW, Washington, DC 20591, or 

by calling (202) 267–9677. Commenters 

must identify the docket or notice 

number of this rulemaking. 

All documents the FAA considered in 

developing this rule, including 

economic analyses and technical 

reports, may be accessed from the 

internet through the Federal 

eRulemaking Portal referenced earlier. 

B. Small Business Regulatory 

Enforcement Fairness Act 

The Small Business Regulatory 

Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 

(SBREFA) requires FAA to comply with 

small entity requests for information or 

advice about compliance with statutes 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES3
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 10 / Friday, January 15, 2021 / Rules and Regulations 4381 

and regulations within its jurisdiction. 

A small entity with questions regarding 

this document may contact its local 

FAA official, or the person listed under 

the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT

heading at the beginning of the 

preamble. To find out more about 

SBREFA on the internet, visit http://

www.faa.gov/regulations_policies/ 

rulemaking/sbre_act/. 

List of Subjects 

14 CFR Part 11 

Administrative practice and 

procedure, Reporting and recordkeeping 

requirements. 

14 CFR Part 21 

Aircraft, Aviation safety, Exports, 

Imports, Reporting and recordkeeping 

requirements. 

14 CFR Part 43 

Aircraft, Aviation safety, Reporting 

and recordkeeping requirements. 

14 CFR Part 107 

Aircraft, Airmen, Aviation safety, 

Reporting and recordkeeping 

requirements, Security measures, Signs 

and symbols. 

The Amendment 

In consideration of the foregoing, the 

Federal Aviation Administration 

amends chapter I of title 14, Code of 

Federal Regulations as follows: 

PART 11—GENERAL RULEMAKING 

PROCEDURES 

■ 1. The authority citation for part 11 

continues to read as follows: 

Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(f), 106(g), 40101, 

40103, 40105, 40109, 40113, 44110, 44502, 

44701–44702, 44711, 46102, and 51 U.S.C. 

50901–50923. 

■ 2. Amend § 11.201(b) by revising the 

entry ‘‘Part 107’’ to read as follows: 

§ 11.201 Office of Management and Budget 

(OMB) control numbers assigned under the 

Paperwork Reduction Act. 

* * * * * 

(b) * * * 

14 CFR part or 

section identified 

and described 

Current OMB control 

No. 

* * * * * 

Part 107 ..................... 2120–0005, 2120– 

0021, 2120–0027, 

2120–0767, 2120– 

0768, 2120–0775. 

* * * * * 

PART 21—CERTIFICATION 

PROCEDURES FOR PRODUCTS AND 

ARTICLES 

■ 3. The authority citation for part 21 

continues to read as follows: 

Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7572; 49 U.S.C. 106(f), 

106(g), 40105, 40113, 44701–44702, 44704, 

44707, 44709, 44711, 44713, 44715, 45303. 

■ 4. Amend § 21.1 by revising paragraph 

(a) introductory text to read as follows: 

§ 21.1 Applicability and definitions. 

(a) This part prescribes— 

* * * * * 

PART 43—MAINTENANCE, 

PREVENTATIVE MAINTENANCE, 

REBUILDING, AND ALTERATION 

■ 5. The authority citation for part 43 

continues to read as follows: 

Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7572; 49 U.S.C. 

106(f), 106(g), 40105, 40113, 44701–44702, 

44704, 44707, 44709, 44711, 44713, 44715, 

45303. 

■ 6. Amend § 43.1 by revising paragraph 

(b)(3) to read as follows: 

§ 43.1 Applicability. 

* * * * * 

(b) * * * 

(3) Any aircraft that is operated under 

part 107 of this chapter, except as 

described in § 107.140(d). 

* * * * * 

PART 107—SMALL UNMANNED 

AIRCRAFT SYSTEMS 

■ 7. The authority citation for part 107 

is revised to read as follows: 

Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(f), 40101 note, 

40103(b), 44701(a)(5), 46105(c), 46110, 

44807. 

■ 8. Revise § 107.1 to read as follows: 

§ 107.1 Applicability. 

(a) Except as provided in paragraph 

(b) of this section, this part applies to 

the registration, airman certification, 

and operation of civil small unmanned 

aircraft systems within the United 

States. This part also applies to the 

eligibility of civil small unmanned 

aircraft systems to operate over human 

beings in the United States. 

(b) This part does not apply to the 

following: 

(1) Air carrier operations; 

(2) Any aircraft subject to the 

provisions of 49 U.S.C. 44809; 

(3) Any operation that the holder of 

an exemption under section 333 of 

Public Law 112–95 or 49 U.S.C. 44807 

elects to conduct pursuant to the 

exemption, unless otherwise specified 

in the exemption; or 

(4) Any operation that a person elects 

to conduct under part 91 of this chapter 

with a small unmanned aircraft system 

that has been issued an airworthiness 

certificate. 

■ 9. Add § 107.2 to read as follows: 

§ 107.2 Applicability of certification 

procedures for products and articles. 

The provisions of part 21 of this 

chapter do not apply to small 

unmanned aircraft systems operated 

under this part unless the small 

unmanned aircraft system will operate 

over human beings in accordance with 

§ 107.140. 

■ 10. Amend § 107.3 by adding the 

definition of ‘‘Declaration of 

compliance’’ in alphabetical order to 

read as follows: 

§ 107.3 Definitions. 

* * * * * 

Declaration of compliance means a 

record submitted to the FAA that 

certifies the small unmanned aircraft 

conforms to the Category 2 or Category 

3 requirements under subpart D of this 

part. 

* * * * * 

■ 11. Amend § 107.5 by revising the 

section heading and paragraph (b) to 

read as follows: 

§ 107.5 Falsification, reproduction, or 

alteration. 

* * * * * 

(b) The commission by any person of 

an act prohibited under paragraph (a) of 

this section is a basis for any of the 

following: 

(1) Denial of an application for a 

remote pilot certificate or a certificate of 

waiver; 

(2) Denial of a declaration of 

compliance; 

(3) Suspension or revocation of any 

certificate, waiver, or declaration of 

compliance issued or accepted by the 

Administrator under this part and held 

by that person; or 

(4) A civil penalty. 

■ 12. Revise § 107.7 to read as follows: 

§ 107.7 Inspection, testing, and 

demonstration of compliance. 

(a) A remote pilot in command, 

owner, or person manipulating the flight 

controls of a small unmanned aircraft 

system must— 

(1) Have in that person’s physical 

possession and readily accessible the 

remote pilot certificate with a small 

UAS rating and identification when 

exercising the privileges of that remote 

pilot certificate. 

(2) Present his or her remote pilot 

certificate with a small UAS rating and 

identification that contains the 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES3
4382 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 10 / Friday, January 15, 2021 / Rules and Regulations 

information listed at § 107.67(b)(1) 

through (3) for inspection upon a 

request from— 

(i) The Administrator; 

(ii) An authorized representative of 

the National Transportation Safety 

Board; 

(iii) Any Federal, State, or local law 

enforcement officer; or 

(iv) An authorized representative of 

the Transportation Security 

Administration. 

(3) Make available, upon request, to 

the Administrator any document, 

record, or report required to be kept 

under the regulations of this chapter. 

(b) The remote pilot in command, 

visual observer, owner, operator, or 

person manipulating the flight controls 

of a small unmanned aircraft system 

must, upon request, allow the 

Administrator to make any test or 

inspection of the small unmanned 

aircraft system, the remote pilot in 

command, the person manipulating the 

flight controls of a small unmanned 

aircraft system, and, if applicable, the 

visual observer to determine compliance 

with this part. 

(c) Any person holding an FAAaccepted declaration of compliance 

under subpart D of this part must, upon 

request, make available to the 

Administrator: 

(1) The declaration of compliance 

required under subpart D of this part; 

and 

(2) Any other document, record, or 

report required to be kept under the 

regulations of this chapter. 

(d) Any person holding an FAAaccepted declaration of compliance 

under subpart D of this part must, upon 

request, allow the Administrator to 

inspect its facilities, technical data, and 

any manufactured small UAS and 

witness any tests necessary to determine 

compliance with that subpart. 

■ 13. Amend § 107.19 by revising 

paragraph (c) to read as follows: 

§ 107.19 Remote pilot in command. 

* * * * * 

(c) The remote pilot in command 

must ensure that the small unmanned 

aircraft will pose no undue hazard to 

other people, other aircraft, or other 

property in the event of a loss of control 

of the small unmanned aircraft for any 

reason. 

* * * * * 

■ 14. Amend § 107.29 by revising the 

section heading and paragraphs (a) and 

(b) and adding paragraph (d) to read as 

follows: 

§ 107.29 Operation at night. 

(a) Except as provided in paragraph 

(d) of this section, no person may 

operate a small unmanned aircraft 

system at night unless— 

(1) The remote pilot in command of 

the small unmanned aircraft has 

completed an initial knowledge test or 

training, as applicable, under § 107.65 

after March 1, 2021; and 

(2) The small unmanned aircraft has 

lighted anti-collision lighting visible for 

at least 3 statute miles that has a flash 

rate sufficient to avoid a collision. The 

remote pilot in command may reduce 

the intensity of, but may not extinguish, 

the anti-collision lighting if he or she 

determines that, because of operating 

conditions, it would be in the interest of 

safety to do so. 

(b) No person may operate a small 

unmanned aircraft system during 

periods of civil twilight unless the small 

unmanned aircraft has lighted anticollision lighting visible for at least 3 

statute miles that has a flash rate 

sufficient to avoid a collision. The 

remote pilot in command may reduce 

the intensity of, but may not extinguish, 

the anti-collision lighting if he or she 

determines that, because of operating 

conditions, it would be in the interest of 

safety to do so. 

* * * * * 

(d) After May 17, 2021, no person may 

operate a small unmanned aircraft 

system at night in accordance with a 

certificate of waiver issued prior to 

March 16, 2021 under § 107.200. The 

certificates of waiver issued prior to 

March 16, 2021 under § 107.200 that 

authorize deviation from § 107.29 

terminate on May 17, 2021. 

■ 15. Revise § 107.35 to read as follows: 

§ 107.35 Operation of multiple small 

unmanned aircraft. 

A person may not manipulate flight 

controls or act as a remote pilot in 

command or visual observer in the 

operation of more than one unmanned 

aircraft at the same time. 

■ 16. Revise § 107.39 to read as follows: 

§ 107.39 Operation over human beings. 

No person may operate a small 

unmanned aircraft over a human being 

unless— 

(a) That human being is directly 

participating in the operation of the 

small unmanned aircraft; 

(b) That human being is located under 

a covered structure or inside a 

stationary vehicle that can provide 

reasonable protection from a falling 

small unmanned aircraft; or 

(c) The operation meets the 

requirements of at least one of the 

operational categories specified in 

subpart D of this part. 

■ 17. Amend § 107.49 by revising 

paragraphs (d) and (e) and adding 

paragraph (f) to read as follows: 

§ 107.49 Preflight familiarization, 

inspection, and actions for aircraft 

operation. 

* * * * * 

(d) If the small unmanned aircraft is 

powered, ensure that there is enough 

available power for the small unmanned 

aircraft system to operate for the 

intended operational time; 

(e) Ensure that any object attached or 

carried by the small unmanned aircraft 

is secure and does not adversely affect 

the flight characteristics or 

controllability of the aircraft; and 

(f) If the operation will be conducted 

over human beings under subpart D of 

this part, ensure that the aircraft meets 

the requirements of § 107.110, 

§ 107.120(a), § 107.130(a), or § 107.140, 

as applicable. 

■ 18. Effective March 1, 2021, amend 

§ 107.61 by revising paragraph (d) to 

read as follows: 

§ 107.61 Eligibility. 

* * * * * 

(d) Demonstrate aeronautical 

knowledge by satisfying one of the 

following conditions, in a manner 

acceptable to the Administrator: 

(1) Pass an initial aeronautical 

knowledge test covering the areas of 

knowledge specified in § 107.73; or 

(2) If a person holds a pilot certificate 

(other than a student pilot certificate) 

issued under part 61 of this chapter and 

meets the flight review requirements 

specified in § 61.56, complete training 

covering the areas of knowledge 

specified in § 107.74. 

■ 19. Effective March 1, 2021, amend 

§ 107.63 by revising paragraph (a)(2) to 

read as follows: 

§ 107.63 Issuance of a remote pilot 

certificate with a small UAS rating. 

* * * * * 

(a) * * * 

(2) If a person holds a pilot certificate 

(other than a student pilot certificate) 

issued under part 61 of this chapter and 

meets the flight review requirements 

specified in § 61.56, a certificate of 

completion of an initial training course 

under this part that covers the areas of 

knowledge specified in § 107.74. 

* * * * * 

■ 20. Effective March 1, 2021, revise 

§ 107.65 to read as follows: 

§ 107.65 Aeronautical knowledge recency. 

A person may not exercise the 

privileges of a remote pilot in command 

with small UAS rating unless that 

person has accomplished one of the 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES3
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 10 / Friday, January 15, 2021 / Rules and Regulations 4383 

following in a manner acceptable to the 

Administrator within the previous 24 

calendar months: 

(a) Passed an initial aeronautical 

knowledge test covering the areas of 

knowledge specified in § 107.73; 

(b) Completed recurrent training 

covering the areas of knowledge 

specified in § 107.73; or 

(c) If a person holds a pilot certificate 

(other than a student pilot certificate) 

issued under part 61 of this chapter and 

meets the flight review requirements 

specified in § 61.56, completed training 

covering the areas of knowledge 

specified in § 107.74. 

(d) A person who has passed a 

recurrent aeronautical knowledge test in 

a manner acceptable to the 

Administrator or who has satisfied the 

training requirement of paragraph (c) of 

this section prior to March 1, 2021 

within the previous 24 calendar months 

is considered to be in compliance with 

the requirement of paragraph (b) or (c) 

of this section, as applicable. 

■ 21. Effective March 1, 2021, revise 

§ 107.73 to read as follows: 

§ 107.73 Knowledge and training. 

An initial aeronautical knowledge test 

and recurrent training covers the 

following areas of knowledge: 

(a) Applicable regulations relating to 

small unmanned aircraft system rating 

privileges, limitations, and flight 

operation; 

(b) Airspace classification, operating 

requirements, and flight restrictions 

affecting small unmanned aircraft 

operation; 

(c) Aviation weather sources and 

effects of weather on small unmanned 

aircraft performance; 

(d) Small unmanned aircraft loading; 

(e) Emergency procedures; 

(f) Crew resource management; 

(g) Radio communication procedures; 

(h) Determining the performance of 

the small unmanned aircraft; 

(i) Physiological effects of drugs and 

alcohol; 

(j) Aeronautical decision-making and 

judgment; 

(k) Airport operations; 

(l) Maintenance and preflight 

inspection procedures; and 

(m) Operation at night. 

■ 22. Effective March 1, 2021, revise 

§ 107.74 to read as follows: 

§ 107.74 Small unmanned aircraft system 

training. 

Training for pilots who hold a pilot 

certificate (other than a student pilot 

certificate) issued under part 61 of this 

chapter and meet the flight review 

requirements specified in § 61.56 covers 

the following areas of knowledge: 

(a) Applicable regulations relating to 

small unmanned aircraft system rating 

privileges, limitations, and flight 

operation; 

(b) Effects of weather on small 

unmanned aircraft performance; 

(c) Small unmanned aircraft loading; 

(d) Emergency procedures; 

(e) Crew resource management; 

(f) Determining the performance of the 

small unmanned aircraft; 

(g) Maintenance and preflight 

inspection procedures; and 

(h) Operation at night. 

Subpart D—[Redesignated as Subpart 

E] 

■ 23. Redesignate subpart D as subpart 

E. 

■ 24. Add new subpart D to read as 

follows: 

Subpart D—Operations Over Human 

Beings 

Sec. 

107.100 Applicability. 

107.105 Limitations on operations over 

human beings. 

107.110 Category 1 operations. 

107.115 Category 2 operations: Operating 

requirements. 

107.120 Category 2 operations: Eligibility of 

small unmanned aircraft and other 

applicant requirements. 

107.125 Category 3 operations: Operating 

requirements. 

107.130 Category 3 operations: Eligibility of 

small unmanned aircraft and other 

applicant requirements. 

107.135 Labeling by remote pilot in 

command for Category 2 and 3 

operations. 

107.140 Category 4 operations. 

107.145 Operations over moving vehicles. 

107.150 Variable mode and variable 

configuration of small unmanned 

aircraft. 

107.155 Means of compliance. 

107.160 Declaration of compliance. 

107.165 Record retention. 

§ 107.100 Applicability. 

This subpart prescribes the eligibility 

and operating requirements for civil 

small unmanned aircraft to operate over 

human beings or over moving vehicles 

in the United States, in addition to those 

operations permitted by § 107.39(a) and 

(b). 

§ 107.105 Limitations on operations over 

human beings. 

Except as provided in §§ 107.39(a) 

and (b) and 107.145, a remote pilot in 

command may conduct operations over 

human beings only in accordance with 

the following, as applicable: § 107.110 

for Category 1 operations; §§ 107.115 

and 107.120 for Category 2 operations; 

§§ 107.125 and 107.130 for Category 3 

operations; or § 107.140 for Category 4 

operations. 

§ 107.110 Category 1 operations. 

To conduct Category 1 operations— 

(a) A remote pilot in command must 

use a small unmanned aircraft that— 

(1) Weighs 0.55 pounds or less on 

takeoff and throughout the duration of 

each operation under Category 1, 

including everything that is on board or 

otherwise attached to the aircraft; and 

(b) Does not contain any exposed 

rotating parts that would lacerate 

human skin upon impact with a human 

being. 

(c) No remote pilot in command may 

operate a small unmanned aircraft in 

sustained flight over open-air 

assemblies of human beings unless the 

operation meets the requirements of 

either § 89.110 or § 89.115(a) of this 

chapter. 

§ 107.115 Category 2 operations: 

Operating requirements. 

To conduct Category 2 operations— 

(a) A remote pilot in command must 

use a small unmanned aircraft that— 

(1) Is eligible for Category 2 

operations pursuant to § 107.120(a); 

(2) Is listed on an FAA-accepted 

declaration of compliance as eligible for 

Category 2 operations in accordance 

with § 107.160; and 

(3) Is labeled as eligible to conduct 

Category 2 operations in accordance 

with § 107.120(b)(1). 

(b) No remote pilot in command may 

operate a small unmanned aircraft in 

sustained flight over open-air 

assemblies of human beings unless the 

operation meets the requirements of 

either § 89.110 or § 89.115(a) of this 

chapter. 

§ 107.120 Category 2 operations: Eligibility 

of small unmanned aircraft and other 

applicant requirements. 

(a) To be eligible for use in Category 

2 operations, the small unmanned 

aircraft must be designed, produced, or 

modified such that it— 

(1) Will not cause injury to a human 

being that is equivalent to or greater 

than the severity of injury caused by a 

transfer of 11 foot-pounds of kinetic 

energy upon impact from a rigid object; 

(2) Does not contain any exposed 

rotating parts that would lacerate 

human skin upon impact with a human 

being; and 

(3) Does not contain any safety 

defects. 

(b) The applicant for a declaration of 

compliance for a small unmanned 

aircraft that is eligible for use in 

Category 2 operations in accordance 

with paragraph (a) of this section, must 

meet all of the following requirements 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES3
4384 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 10 / Friday, January 15, 2021 / Rules and Regulations 

for the applicant’s unmanned aircraft to 

be used in Category 2 operations: 

(1) Display a label on the small 

unmanned aircraft indicating eligibility 

to conduct Category 2 operations. The 

label must be in English and be legible, 

prominent, and permanently affixed to 

the small unmanned aircraft. 

(2) Have remote pilot operating 

instructions that apply to the operation 

of the small unmanned aircraft system. 

The applicant for a declaration of 

compliance must make available these 

instructions upon sale or transfer of the 

aircraft or use of the aircraft by someone 

other than the applicant who submitted 

a declaration of compliance pursuant to 

§ 107.160. Such instructions must 

address, at a minimum— 

(i) A system description that includes 

the required small unmanned aircraft 

system components, any system 

limitations, and the declared category or 

categories of operation; 

(ii) Modifications that will not change 

the ability of the small unmanned 

aircraft system to meet the requirements 

for the category or categories of 

operation the small unmanned aircraft 

system is eligible to conduct; and 

(iii) Instructions for how to verify and 

change the mode or configuration of the 

small unmanned aircraft system, if they 

are variable. 

(3) Maintain a product support and 

notification process. The applicant for a 

declaration of compliance must 

maintain product support and 

notification procedures to notify the 

public and the FAA of— 

(i) Any defect or condition that causes 

the small unmanned aircraft to no 

longer meet the requirements of this 

subpart; and 

(ii) Any identified safety defect that 

causes the small unmanned aircraft to 

exceed a low probability of casualty. 

§ 107.125 Category 3 operations: 

Operating requirements. 

To conduct Category 3 operations, a 

remote pilot in command— 

(a) Must use a small unmanned 

aircraft that— 

(1) Is eligible for Category 3 

operations pursuant to § 107.130(a); 

(2) Is listed on a current declaration 

of compliance as eligible for Category 3 

operations in accordance with 

§ 107.160; and 

(3) Is labeled as eligible for Category 

3 operations in accordance with 

§ 107.130(b)(1); 

(b) Must not operate the small 

unmanned aircraft over open-air 

assemblies of human beings; and 

(c) May only operate the small 

unmanned aircraft above any human 

being if operation meets one of the 

following conditions: 

(1) The operation is within or over a 

closed- or restricted-access site and all 

human beings located within the closedor restricted-access site must be on 

notice that a small unmanned aircraft 

may fly over them; or 

(2) The small unmanned aircraft does 

not maintain sustained flight over any 

human being unless that human being 

is— 

(i) Directly participating in the 

operation of the small unmanned 

aircraft; or 

(ii) Located under a covered structure 

or inside a stationary vehicle that can 

provide reasonable protection from a 

falling small unmanned aircraft. 

§ 107.130 Category 3 operations: Eligibility 

of small unmanned aircraft and other 

applicant requirements. 

(a) To be eligible for use in Category 

3 operations, the small unmanned 

aircraft must be designed, produced, or 

modified such that it— 

(1) Will not cause injury to a human 

being that is equivalent to or greater 

than the severity of the injury caused by 

a transfer of 25 foot-pounds of kinetic 

energy upon impact from a rigid object; 

(2) Does not contain any exposed 

rotating parts that would lacerate 

human skin upon impact with a human 

being; and 

(3) Does not contain any safety 

defects. 

(b) The applicant for a declaration of 

compliance for a small unmanned 

aircraft that is eligible for use in 

Category 3 operations in accordance 

with paragraph (a) of this section, must 

meet all of the following requirements 

for the applicant’s small unmanned 

aircraft to be used in Category 3 

operations: 

(1) Display a label on the small 

unmanned aircraft indicating eligibility 

to conduct Category 3 operations. The 

label must be in English and be legible, 

prominent, and permanently affixed to 

the small unmanned aircraft. 

(2) Have remote pilot operating 

instructions that apply to the operation 

of the small unmanned aircraft system. 

The applicant for a declaration of 

compliance must make available these 

instructions upon sale or transfer of the 

aircraft or use of the aircraft by someone 

other than the applicant who submitted 

a declaration of compliance pursuant to 

§ 107.160. Such instructions must 

address, at a minimum— 

(i) A system description that includes 

the required small unmanned aircraft 

system components, any system 

limitations, and the declared category or 

categories of operation; 

(ii) Modifications that will not change 

the ability of the small unmanned 

aircraft system to meet the requirements 

for the category or categories of 

operation the small unmanned aircraft 

system is eligible to conduct; and 

(iii) Instructions for how to verify and 

change the mode or configuration of the 

small unmanned aircraft system, if they 

are variable. 

(3) Maintain a product support and 

notification process. The applicant for a 

declaration of compliance must 

maintain product support and 

notification procedures to notify the 

public and the FAA of— 

(i) Any defect or condition that causes 

the small unmanned aircraft to no 

longer meet the requirements of this 

subpart; and 

(ii) Any identified safety defect that 

causes the small unmanned aircraft to 

exceed a low probability of fatality. 

§ 107.135 Labeling by remote pilot in 

command for Category 2 and 3 operations. 

If a Category 2 or Category 3 label 

affixed to a small unmanned aircraft is 

damaged, destroyed, or missing, a 

remote pilot in command must label the 

aircraft in English such that the label is 

legible, prominent, and will remain on 

the small unmanned aircraft for the 

duration of the operation before 

conducting operations over human 

beings. The label must correctly identify 

the category or categories of operation 

over human beings that the small 

unmanned aircraft is qualified to 

conduct in accordance with this 

subpart. 

§ 107.140 Category 4 operations. 

(a) Remote pilot in command 

requirements. To conduct Category 4 

operations— 

(1) A remote pilot in command— 

(i) Must use a small unmanned 

aircraft that is eligible for Category 4 

operations pursuant to paragraph (b) of 

this section; and 

(ii) Must operate the small unmanned 

aircraft in accordance with all operating 

limitations that apply to the small 

unmanned aircraft, as specified by the 

Administrator. 

(2) No remote pilot in command may 

operate a small unmanned aircraft in 

sustained flight over open-air 

assemblies of human beings unless the 

operation meets the requirements of 

either § 89.110 or § 89.115(a) of this 

chapter. 

(b) Small unmanned aircraft 

requirements for Category 4. To be 

eligible to operate over human beings 

under this section, the small unmanned 

aircraft must— 

(1) Have an airworthiness certificate 

issued under part 21 of this chapter. 

(2) Be operated in accordance with 

the operating limitations specified in 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES3
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 10 / Friday, January 15, 2021 / Rules and Regulations 4385 

the approved Flight Manual or as 

otherwise specified by the 

Administrator. The operating 

limitations must not prohibit operations 

over human beings. 

(3) Have maintenance, preventive 

maintenance, alterations, or inspections 

performed in accordance with 

paragraph (c)(1) of this section. 

(c) Maintenance requirements for 

Category 4. The owner must (unless the 

owner enters into an agreement with an 

operator to meet the requirements of 

this paragraph (c), then the operator 

must) meet the requirements of this 

paragraph (c): 

(1) Ensure the person performing any 

maintenance, preventive maintenance, 

alterations, or inspections: 

(i) Uses the methods, techniques, and 

practices prescribed in the 

manufacturer’s current maintenance 

manual or Instructions for Continued 

Airworthiness that are acceptable to the 

Administrator, or other methods, 

techniques, and practices acceptable to 

the Administrator; 

(ii) Has the knowledge, skill, and 

appropriate equipment to perform the 

work; 

(iii) Performs the maintenance, 

preventive maintenance, or alterations 

on the small unmanned aircraft in a 

manner using the methods, techniques, 

and practices prescribed in the 

manufacturer’s current maintenance 

manual or Instructions for Continued 

Airworthiness prepared by its 

manufacturer, or other methods, 

techniques, and practices acceptable to 

the Administrator; 

(iv) Inspects the small unmanned 

aircraft in accordance with the 

manufacturer’s instructions or other 

instructions acceptable to the 

Administrator; and 

(v) Performs the maintenance, 

preventive maintenance, or alterations 

using parts of such a quality that the 

condition of the aircraft will be at least 

equal to its original or properly altered 

condition. 

(2) Maintain all records of 

maintenance, preventive maintenance, 

and alterations performed on the aircraft 

and ensure the records are documented 

in a manner acceptable to the 

Administrator. The records must 

contain the description of the work 

performed, the date the work was 

completed, and the name of the person 

who performed the work. 

(3) Maintain all records containing— 

(i) The status of life-limited parts that 

are installed on, or part of, the small 

unmanned aircraft; 

(ii) The inspection status of the 

aircraft; and 

(iii) The status of applicable 

airworthiness directives including the 

method of compliance, the 

airworthiness directive number, and 

revision date. If the airworthiness 

directive involves recurring action, the 

record must contain the time and date 

of the next required action. 

(4) Retain the records required under 

paragraphs (c)(2) and (3) of this section, 

as follows: 

(i) The records documenting 

maintenance, preventive maintenance, 

or alterations performed must be 

retained for 1 year from when the work 

is completed or until the maintenance is 

repeated or superseded by other work. 

(ii) The records documenting the 

status of life-limited parts, compliance 

with airworthiness directives, and 

inspection status of the small unmanned 

aircraft must be retained and transferred 

with the aircraft upon change in 

ownership. 

(5) Ensure all records under 

paragraphs (c)(2) and (3) of this section 

are available for inspection upon 

request from the Administrator or any 

authorized representative of the 

National Transportation Safety Board 

(NTSB). 

(d) Compliance with parts 43 and 91 

of this chapter. Compliance with part 43 

and part 91, subpart E, of this chapter 

fulfills the requirements in paragraphs 

(b)(4) and (c) of this section. 

§ 107.145 Operations over moving 

vehicles. 

No person may operate a small 

unmanned aircraft over a human being 

located inside a moving vehicle unless 

the following conditions are met: 

(a) The operation occurs in 

accordance with § 107.110 for Category 

1 operations; § 107.115 for Category 2 

operations; § 107.125 for Category 3 

operations; or § 107.140 for Category 4 

operations. 

(b) For an operation under Category 1, 

Category 2, or Category 3, the small 

unmanned aircraft, throughout the 

operation— 

(1) Must remain within or over a 

closed- or restricted-access site, and all 

human beings located inside a moving 

vehicle within the closed- or restrictedaccess site must be on notice that a 

small unmanned aircraft may fly over 

them; or 

(2) Must not maintain sustained flight 

over moving vehicles. 

(c) For a Category 4 operation, the 

small unmanned aircraft must— 

(1) Have an airworthiness certificate 

issued under part 21 of this chapter. 

(2) Be operated in accordance with 

the operating limitations specified in 

the approved Flight Manual or as 

otherwise specified by the 

Administrator. The operating 

limitations must not prohibit operations 

over human beings located inside 

moving vehicles. 

§ 107.150 Variable mode and variable 

configuration of small unmanned aircraft 

systems. 

A small unmanned aircraft system 

may be eligible for one or more 

categories of operation over human 

beings under this subpart, as long as a 

remote pilot in command cannot 

inadvertently switch between modes or 

configurations. 

§ 107.155 Means of compliance. 

(a) Establishment of compliance. To 

meet the requirements of § 107.120(a) 

for operations in Category 2, or the 

requirements of § 107.130(a) for 

operations in Category 3, the means of 

compliance must consist of test, 

analysis, or inspection. 

(b) Required information. An 

applicant requesting FAA acceptance of 

a means of compliance must submit the 

following information to the FAA in a 

manner specified by the Administrator: 

(1) Procedures. Detailed description of 

the means of compliance, including 

applicable test, analysis, or inspection 

procedures to demonstrate how the 

small unmanned aircraft meets the 

requirements of § 107.120(a) for 

operations in Category 2 or the 

requirements of § 107.130(a) for 

operations in Category 3. The 

description should include conditions, 

environments, and methods, as 

applicable. 

(2) Compliance explanation. 

Explanation of how application of the 

means of compliance fulfills the 

requirements of § 107.120(a) for 

operations in Category 2 or the 

requirements of § 107.130(a) for 

operations in Category 3. 

(c) FAA acceptance. If the FAA 

determines the applicant has 

demonstrated compliance with 

paragraphs (a) and (b) of this section, it 

will notify the applicant that it has 

accepted the means of compliance. 

(d) Rescission. (1) A means of 

compliance is subject to ongoing review 

by the Administrator. The 

Administrator may rescind its 

acceptance of a means of compliance if 

the Administrator determines that a 

means of compliance does not meet any 

or all of the requirements of this 

subpart. 

(2) The Administrator will publish a 

notice of rescission in the Federal 

Register. 

(e) Inapplicability of part 13, subpart 

D, of this chapter. Part 13, subpart D, of 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES3
4386 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 10 / Friday, January 15, 2021 / Rules and Regulations 

this chapter does not apply to the 

procedures of paragraph (a) of this 

section. 

§ 107.160 Declaration of compliance. 

(a) Required information. In order for 

an applicant to declare a small 

unmanned aircraft is compliant with the 

requirements of this subpart for 

Category 2 or Category 3 operations, an 

applicant must submit a declaration of 

compliance for acceptance by the FAA, 

in a manner specified by the 

Administrator, that includes the 

following information: 

(1) Applicant’s name; 

(2) Applicant’s physical address; 

(3) Applicant’s email address; 

(4) The small unmanned aircraft make 

and model name, and series, if 

applicable; 

(5) The small unmanned aircraft serial 

number or range of serial numbers that 

are the subject of the declaration of 

compliance; 

(6) Whether the declaration of 

compliance is an initial declaration or 

an amended declaration; 

(7) If the declaration of compliance is 

an amended declaration, the reason for 

the re-submittal; 

(8) The accepted means of compliance 

the applicant used to fulfill 

requirements of § 107.120(a) or 

§ 107.130(a) or both; 

(9) A declaration that the applicant— 

(i) Has demonstrated that the small 

unmanned aircraft, or specific 

configurations of that aircraft, satisfies 

§ 107.120(a) or § 107.130(a) or both, 

through the accepted means of 

compliance identified in paragraph 

(a)(8) of this section; 

(ii) Has verified that the unmanned 

aircraft does not contain any safety 

defects; 

(iii) Has satisfied § 107.120(b)(3) or 

§ 107.130(b)(3), or both; and 

(iv) Will, upon request, allow the 

Administrator to inspect its facilities, 

technical data, and any manufactured 

small unmanned aircraft and witness 

any tests necessary to determine 

compliance with this subpart; and 

(10) Other information as required by 

the Administrator. 

(b) FAA acceptance. If the FAA 

determines the applicant has 

demonstrated compliance with the 

requirements of this subpart, it will 

notify the applicant that it has accepted 

the declaration of compliance. 

(c) Notification of a safety issue. Prior 

to initiating rescission proceedings 

pursuant to paragraphs (d)(1) through 

(3) of this section, the FAA will notify 

the applicant if a safety issue has been 

identified for the declaration of 

compliance. 

(d) Rescission. (1) No person may 

operate a small unmanned aircraft 

identified on a declaration of 

compliance that the FAA has rescinded 

pursuant to this subpart while that 

declaration of compliance is rescinded. 

(2) The FAA may rescind a 

declaration of compliance if any of the 

following conditions occur: 

(i) A small unmanned aircraft for 

which a declaration of compliance was 

accepted no longer complies with 

§ 107.120(a) or § 107.130(a); 

(ii) The FAA finds a declaration of 

compliance is in violation of § 107.5(a); 

or 

(iii) The Administrator determines an 

emergency exists related to safety in 

accordance with the authority in 49 

U.S.C. 46105. 

(3) If a safety issue identified under 

paragraph (c) of this section has not 

been resolved, the FAA may rescind the 

declaration of compliance as follows: 

(i) The FAA will issue a notice 

proposing to rescind the declaration of 

compliance. The notice will set forth the 

Agency’s basis for the proposed 

rescission and provide the holder of the 

declaration of compliance with 30 

calendar days from the date of issuance 

of the proposed notice to submit 

evidentiary information to refute the 

proposed notice. 

(ii) The holder of the declaration of 

compliance must submit information 

demonstrating how the small unmanned 

aircraft meets the requirements of this 

subpart within 30 calendar days from 

the date of issuance of the proposed 

notice. 

(iii) If the FAA does not receive the 

information required by paragraph 

(d)(3)(ii) of this section within 30 

calendar days from the date of the 

issuance of the proposed notice, the 

FAA will issue a notice rescinding the 

declaration of compliance. 

(4) If the Administrator determines 

that an emergency exists in accordance 

with paragraph (d)(2)(iii) of this section, 

the FAA will exercise its authority 

under 49 U.S.C. 46105(c) to issue an 

order rescinding a declaration of 

compliance without initiating the 

process in paragraph (d)(3) of this 

section. 

(e) Petition to reconsider the 

rescission of a declaration of 

compliance. A person subject to an 

order of rescission under paragraph 

(d)(3) of this section may petition the 

FAA to reconsider the rescission of a 

declaration of compliance by submitting 

a request to the FAA in a manner 

specified by the Administrator within 

60 days of the date of issuance of the 

rescission. 

(1) A petition to reconsider the 

rescission of a declaration of 

compliance must demonstrate at least 

one of the following: 

(i) A material fact that was not present 

in the original response to the 

notification of the safety issue and an 

explanation for why it was not present 

in the original response; 

(ii) The FAA made a material factual 

error in the decision to rescind the 

declaration of compliance; or 

(iii) The FAA did not correctly 

interpret a law, regulation, or precedent. 

(2) Upon consideration of the 

information submitted under paragraph 

(e)(1) of this section, the FAA will issue 

a notice either affirming the rescission 

or withdrawing the rescission. 

(f) Inapplicability of part 13, subpart 

D, of this chapter. Part 13, subpart D, of 

this chapter does not apply to the 

procedures of paragraphs (d) and (e) of 

this section. 

§ 107.165 Record retention. 

(a) A person who submits a 

declaration of compliance under this 

subpart must retain and make available 

to the Administrator, upon request, the 

information described in paragraph 

(a)(1) of this section for the period of 

time described in paragraph (a)(2) of 

this section. 

(1) All supporting information used to 

demonstrate the small unmanned 

aircraft meets the requirements of 

§§ 107.120(a), for operations in Category 

2, and 107.130(a), for operations in 

Category 3. 

(2) The following time periods apply: 

(i) If the person who submits a 

declaration of compliance produces a 

small unmanned aircraft, that person 

must retain the information described in 

paragraph (a)(1) of this section for two 

years after the cessation of production of 

the small unmanned aircraft system for 

which the person declared compliance. 

(ii) If the person who submits a 

declaration of compliance designs or 

modifies a small unmanned aircraft, that 

person must retain the information 

described in paragraph (a)(1) of this 

section for two years after the person 

submitted the declaration of 

compliance. 

(b) A person who submits a means of 

compliance under this subpart must 

retain and make available to the 

Administrator, upon request, and for as 

long as the means of compliance 

remains accepted, the detailed 

description of the means of compliance 

and justification showing how the 

means of compliance meets the 

requirements of §§ 107.120(a), for 

operations in Category 2, and 

107.130(a), for operations in Category 3. 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES3
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 10 / Friday, January 15, 2021 / Rules and Regulations 4387 

■ 25. Amend § 107.205 by revising 

paragraph (b) and adding paragraph (j) 

to read as follows: 

§ 107.205 List of regulations subject to 

waiver. 

* * * * * 

(b) Section 107.29(a)(2) and (b)—Anticollision light required for operations at 

night and during periods of civil 

twilight. 

* * * * * 

(j) Section 107.145—Operations over 

moving vehicles. 

Issued under the authority provided by 49 

U.S.C. 106(f), 40101 note; and 44807, in 

Washington, DC. 

Elaine L. Chao, 

Secretary, Department of Transportation. 

Steve Dickson, 

Administrator, Federal Aviation 

Administration. 

[FR Doc. 2020–28947 Filed 1–8–21; 4:15 pm] 

BILLING CODE 4910–13–P 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES3