KL3 2999375.1 

UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATION 

__________________________________________ 

 ) 

Petition for Rulemaking ) 

to Adopt 14 C.F.R. Part 107 ) 

to Implement Operational Requirements ) 

for Micro Unmanned Aircraft Systems ) 

 ) 

__________________________________________) 

PETITION OF UAS AMERICA FUND, LLC (“UAS FUND”) 

TO ADOPT 14 C.F.R. PART 107 TO IMPLEMENT OPERATIONAL 

REQUIREMENTS FOR MICRO UNMANNED AIRCRAFT SYSTEMS 

Dated: December 18, 2014 

Please address all communications with respect to this Petition to: 

Matthew S. Bieschke Brendan M. Schulman 

President Kramer Levin Naftalis & Frankel LLP 

UAS America Fund, LLC 1177 Avenue of the Americas 

2020 K Street NW, Suite 520 New York, NY 10036 

Washington, DC 20006 Phone: (212) 715-9247 

Phone: (202) 499-5070 Fax: (212) 715-8220 

Fax: (202) 499-5124 

Counsel for Petitioner 

Email: bieschke@uasamericafund.com UAS America Fund, LLC 

 Email: bmschulman@kramerlevin.com 

 

 
2 

 In order to promote a framework for the safe operation of very light weight unmanned 

aircraft in the United States, and to address the huge economic opportunities and growing demand 

for unmanned aircraft systems (“UAS”) technologies across many industries, UAS America Fund, 

LLC (“UAS Fund”) hereby petitions the Federal Aviation Administration (“FAA”) pursuant to 14 

CFR §§ 11.17, 11.25(a)(5), 11.39(c), and 11.61 through 11.75 to adopt 14 C.F.R. part 107 (and 

amend other parts requiring conforming amendments) so as to implement operational requirements 

for micro unmanned aircraft (“mUA”). The specific regulation and amendments proposed by UAS 

Fund are set out in Attachment A. 

In light of the national interest in assuring American leadership in this field, promoting 

economic development, and providing a safety framework for UAS operation in what is currently 

an absence of specific regulation, UAS Fund petitions that its proposed rules be implemented 

immediately, by final direct rule, rather than by notice of proposed rulemaking. A final direct rule 

is permitted by 14 C.F.R. §§ 11.29 and 11.31, and was also expressly authorized by Congress in 

Section 333 of the 2012 FAA Modernization and Reform Act which contemplates that the FAA 

would designate specific “types of unmanned aircraft systems” for operation in the national 

airspace system in advance of the lengthy ongoing notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) process 

for other categories of unmanned aircraft systems, based on criteria including “their size, weight, 

[and] speed.” Public Law 112-95 at § 332(b)(1).1

 The FAA certainly can proceed with a direct 

 

1

 The FAA has treated Section 333 as a waiver-granting directive although it is entitled “special rules for 

certain unmanned aircraft systems.” The provision contemplates that the Administrator can determine 

“whether a certificate of waiver” is needed (emphasis added). In other words, the FAA is empowered to 

identify types of UAS that may be operated immediately and establish rules for them without requiring 

operators to seek individual case-by-case waivers. 
3 

rule when lengthy notice and comment procedures are “contrary to the public interest.”2 In the 

2012 statute, Congress specifically asked for rules to be put into place immediately with respect to 

certain “types” of UAS. 

I. Statement of Interest of UAS America Fund, LLC 

UAS America Fund, LLC is a privately-financed platform working to unlock the 

benefits of the commercialization of unmanned aircraft systems, including economic development, 

technical research, innovation, and job creation in the United States. The UAS Fund was 

established in early 2014 by NEXA Capital Partners, LLC (“NEXA Capital”). NEXA Capital, 

established in 2007, is an investment banking and financial advisory firm focusing predominantly 

in the aerospace sector. Its staff includes a range of professionals with significant experience and 

expertise across all of aviation including air traffic control and airspace issues, infrastructure 

finance and banking, the legislative process, rulemaking, and governmental oversight. NEXA 

Capital’s staff includes former FAA officials as well as professionals with broad experience across 

government, finance, the aerospace supply chain, and national infrastructure, all focused on 

aviation. 

NEXA Capital and its staff have a long history of successfully investing in 

aerospace and infrastructure companies and projects, and bring all this knowledge and expertise 

together to support UAS Fund and, more broadly, furthering commercialization of the UAS 

industry in the United States. The UAS America Fund was incorporated specifically to provide 

infrastructure financing to the emerging commercial UAS industry. UAS Fund is partnering with 

major aerospace companies, and state and local governments, to accelerate UAS development and 

 

2

 5 U.S.C. § 553(b)(3)(B). 
4 

deployment nationwide. UAS Fund also expects to partner with the FAA to ensure that new UAS 

infrastructure serves the national interest as it supports the broad economic and job creation 

benefits of UAS commercialization across the United States. 

This Petition is the first phase of a segmented approach to UAS regulation that UAS 

Fund plans to propose to the FAA. As shown in Attachment B, UAS Fund has developed a 

reasonable and logical market segmentation for UAS operations that is risk-based and will allow 

for an incremental regulatory framework to be applied so as not to overly burden the safest types 

of operation, while also ensuring adequate regulatory, technical, and certification requirements for 

more complex operations. This Petition covers only the regulatory requirements and environment 

concerning commercial and other non-recreational unmanned aircraft (“UA”) flights for the 

lightest category of UAS, deemed Category 1A in our segmentation model or “micro” unmanned 

aircraft (mUA). The framework would govern close-proximity operations with the pilot operating 

the micro UA within visual line of sight. (Such close-in operations are useful for aerial 

photography, infrastructure inspection, precision agriculture, mapping/photogrammetry, and, 

perhaps most importantly, operator training and certification, among many others.) UAS Fund 

expects to lead further commercialization efforts by driving the industry forward with proposing 

additional regulatory actions, with supporting safety and technical analysis, to further unlock the 

full benefits of commercial UAS applications in a thoughtful risk-based approach to regulation 

across a full segmentation of the market. 

UAS Fund has coordinated with parties across all segments of the UAS industry 

including FAA, legislators, university and other academic institutions, private companies, industry 

associations, and civilian governmental agencies, all of whom are in agreement that some 
5 

segments of the UAS market are appropriate for a minimally-burdensome regulatory environment. 

One such segment is the one we present here: micro UA weighing 3 pounds or less. 

II. Summary of Petition 

This Petition and its attachments establish a comprehensive operational framework 

and pilot qualification standard for UAS that are extremely light weight (3 pounds or less, what we 

refer to as a “micro” class), move at relatively low speed, are operated at low altitudes (below 400 

feet AGL), outside of controlled airspace, at least 5 nautical miles from airports, and operated by 

pilots with a demonstrated level of aeronautical knowledge. These operations present not just an 

equivalent, but better level of safety compared to current operations. The Petition is strongly in the 

public interest because it unlocks the benefits of one class of UAS technology while presenting 

virtually no safety risk to the national airspace system. 

This Petition is supported by an aviation safety study prepared by subject matter 

expert Dr. Adam Dershowitz of Exponent Engineering P.C. concluding that operation of UAS 

within the proposed parameters will not pose a significant increase in risk to manned aircraft. Dr. 

Dershowitz’s analysis, based upon decades of the FAA’s own bird strike data, establishes that 

there is virtually no risk of an injury-causing or fatal mid-air collision when an mUA weighing 3 

pounds or less is operated below 400 feet and at least 5 miles from airports. 

III. The Safety Study 

We submit with this Petition, as Attachment C, the expert report of Dr. Adam 

Dershowitz, Managing Engineer in Exponent’s Thermal Sciences practice where he specializes in 

aeronautical and astronautical engineering. Dr. Dershowitz is a licensed pilot and certified flight 

instructor, and has expertise in manned and unmanned aircraft and spacecraft systems, 
6 

instrumentation, and failure analysis, and he has investigated accidents involving a wide range of 

aerospace vehicles. 

Dr. Dershowitz has undertaken an analysis that we believe has not been done 

previously by anyone, namely studying the actual risks posed to both general aviation and 

commercial air traffic of airborne objects three pounds or less that are located at least five miles 

from airports and below 400 feet above ground level. Dr. Dershowitz observes that, in those 

locations, despite the presence of an estimated 10 billion birds in the United States, there has never 

been a reported injury or death attributed to a bird strike involving small or medium birds (3.8 

pounds and under). Indeed, in the past 25 years there have been are only two cases of any damage 

to aircraft from bird strikes in these locations, both reported as “moderate.” When “en route” 

reports (which do not specify an airport distance) are included in the data analysis on the 

assumption that those flights may be greater than five miles from an airport, the result remains 

remarkably small: only six injuries and no fatalities. Thus, according to the risk assessment matrix 

often utilized by the FAA and other agencies, both the likelihood of an occurrence, and the severity

of an occurrence are extraordinarily low, even in the absence of the additional regulatory 

safeguards that we have included in our proposal. See FAA Risk Management Handbook (FAAH-8083-2) (2009) at Figure 1-5.3

 

3

 Available at http://www.faa.gov/regulations_policies/handbooks_manuals/aviation/media/faa-h-8083-

2.pdf
7 

We believe this is the only study of its kind that provides the FAA with actual 

safety data, rather than conjecture, concerning the risks of very light-weight UA to existing 

airspace users in the United States. 

IV. Main Operational Safety Parameters 

With this understanding that a lightweight UA flown at low altitudes and at 

significant distances from airports poses no significant increase in risk to manned aircraft, UAS 

Fund has created a regulatory framework consisting of main operational parameters, as well as an 

added layer of safety provided by secondary operational standards. Together, these standards set 

out in our proposed Part 107 provide for the safe operation of micro UA in the United States, and 

that can and should be implemented immediately. 

A. Weight 

UAS Fund proposes 3 pounds maximum takeoff weight or (MTOW) as the upper 

limit for this proposed category, which we refer to as “micro” UA or “mUA.” The safety of such a 

lightweight UA is established in a number of different ways. 

First, as set out above, the safety of a 3-pound UAS for other airspace users is 

supported by Dr. Dershowitz’s study establishing that small and medium birds of the same weight 

as a micro UA pose little hazard to manned aircraft. 
8 

Second, three pounds is less than the weight of 2 kilograms (4.4 pounds) that civil 

aviation authorities in peer countries have identified as a very low risk category for UAS 

warranting a permissive regulatory approach. See Australian Civil Aviation Safety Authority 

NPRM 1309OS - Remotely Piloted Aircraft Systems; Transport Canada Advisory Circular No. 

600-004 (Nov. 27, 2014). France’s DGAC also makes a distinction at the 2 kilogram threshold, 

and the United Kingdom’s CAA has a regulatory threshold at 7 kilograms. (UAS Fund views its 

three-pound weight parameter as conservative and has no objection to modification of its proposal 

to increase the parameter to 2 kilograms (4.4 pounds) to match the emerging international 

standard.) 

Third, current FAA regulations allow any person to operate an ultralight vehicle 

weighing up to 254 pounds (plus the person’s weight) at or even above 10,000 feet above ground 

level. 14 CFR 103. Those airborne vehicles, with a life on board, are not required to meet 

airworthiness certification standards nor are operators of ultralight vehicles required to meet any 

aeronautical knowledge, age, or experience requirements to operate those vehicles or to have 

airman or medical certificates. See 14 CFR 103.7. 

Fourth, the FAA has for decades not imposed airworthiness or pilot certification 

requirements upon operators of recreational model aircraft even though they may weigh 55 pounds 

(or more), nearly 20 times heavier than UAS Fund’s proposed “micro” category. Since 1981, the 

FAA has recommended that model aircraft operators operate below 400 feet and at least three 

miles from airports (or contact the airport manager). See Advisory Circular 91-57. Those basic 

operational parameters have been established as safe for decades, with no known collisions 
9 

between manned aircraft and model aircraft operated pursuant to them. UAS Fund’s proposal 

offers a far more conservative approach than operations long permitted by the FAA. 

B. Altitude 

UAS in this category shall be operated below 400 feet AGL, which will provide for 

a 100 foot buffer between 14 CFR 91.119 minimums and mUA operations. Ceilings of 400 feet 

have been shown to be safe by the FAA since 1981 guidance in AC 91-57 concerning model 

aircraft, particularly when coupled with the proposed distance requirements for flights from 

airports (see below). This ceiling requirement limits micro UA operations to low-risk altitudes and 

is consistent with restrictions imposed by other civil aviation authorities. Furthermore, FAA 

regulations allow for kites and moored balloons to be operated up to 500 feet AGL, even though 

those devices are far more difficult for the operator to control or land in the limited period of time 

available in the event that the operator observes an approaching manned aircraft. See 14 CFR 

§ 101.13. 

C. Distance from Airports 

UAS in this category shall be operated at least 5 nautical miles from the 

geographical center of towered and non-towered airports, as shown on current FAA charts. 

Commercial micro UA flights near any airports defined on then-current FAA charts as Abandoned 

and/or Closed will be allowed as long as all other relevant regulatory requirements are met. Under 

the proposal, mUA flights are prohibited from operating in any class of controlled airspace, and 

therefore only allowed to operate in uncontrolled (Class G) airspace, unless there is prior 

authorization. 
10 

Restricting mUA operation to sufficient distances from airports (absent 

authorization) is practical and a necessary step to ensure the safety of manned aircraft. Integration 

of commercial UAS into controlled airspace, especially that surrounding airports, needs further 

study and analysis. UAS Fund is in the process of further analyzing these issues as it relates to 

additional more complex categories (as shown in Attachment B). The restrictions noted above for 

micro UA flight away from airports coupled with the 400 foot hard ceiling requirement will 

constrain those mUA operations to areas with extremely low probability of conflicts with other air 

traffic, as concluded in Attachment C. 

D. Visual line of sight 

Under our proposal, micro UA shall be flown at all times in locations and a manner 

that allows for unaided (apart from corrective lenses) visual contact of the UAS such that 

operational control of the UAS can be maintained and its position and location known. The pilot 

must be able to and actively scan airspace to see and avoid other air traffic. Regardless of visual 

acuity, micro UA shall not be flown beyond one half mile from the pilot at any time. 

V. Additional Safety Operational Parameters 

The above basic operational parameters already provide a high degree of safety simply by 

virtue of the low weight and operational locations of the micro UA. To these basic parameters 

UAS Fund has added various additional safety requirements, including a pilot knowledge 

requirement. Many of these additional parameters are common-sense, non-burdensome 

requirements that prudent commercial operators would likely adopt on their own as good business 

practices. By codifying these in the FARs, our proposal sets a high but reasonably attainable 

safety standard for commercial micro UA operators. 
11 

A. Pilot Qualification / Certification 

The UAS Fund agrees that even micro UA operators who are engaged in 

commercial or other non-recreational activities should be required to obtain and demonstrate basic 

aeronautical knowledge. However, as set out below, UAS Fund disagrees that existing private 

pilot license or commercial pilot license schemes are the appropriate certification standard for this 

category of UA. Below we discuss some legal and policy issues relating to pilot certification, and 

then present our proposal for a micro UA pilot certification requirement. 

1. Legal and policy matters 

The FAA has suggested in various recent exemption documents that 49 U.S.C. 

§ 44711 requires UAS operators (other than hobbyists) to obtain a pilot’s certificate. UAS Fund 

disagrees that the existing types of pilot certificates are a legally mandated requirement for future 

UAS regulation or that such a requirement is a sound policy position for either the Department of 

Transportation or the United States as a whole, for a variety of reasons. 

First, the statute only requires certificates for “air commerce” which has a specific 

definition that does not apply to UAS operations conducted under the parameters in this Petition.4

 

 

4

 Section 40102 defines “air commerce” to mean “foreign air commerce, interstate air commerce, the 

transportation of mail by aircraft, the operation of aircraft within the limits of a Federal airway, or the 

operation of aircraft that directly affects, or may endanger safety in, foreign or interstate air commerce. In 

turn, “interstate air commerce” means “the transportation of passengers or property by aircraft for 

compensation, the transportation of mail by aircraft, or the operation of aircraft in furthering a business or 

vocation— (A) between a place in— (i) a State, territory, or possession of the United States and a place in 

the District of Columbia or another State, territory, or possession of the United States; (ii) a State and 

another place in the same State through the airspace over a place outside the State; (iii) the District of 

Columbia and another place in the District of Columbia; or (iv) a territory or possession of the United 

States and another place in the same territory or possession; and (B) when any part of the transportation or 

operation is by aircraft.” The line-of-sight operations addressed herein will not cross state lines, do not 

involve the transportation of mail or passengers, do not take place in Federal airways, and do not endanger 

the safety of those types of operations. 
12 

Second, Congress in 49 U.S.C. § 44701(f) permitted the FAA discretion to grant 

exemptions from any requirements in sections 44702 through 44716 of Title 49, including the pilot 

certificate requirement in Section 44711, in its discretion. 

Third, it is abundantly clear that pilot certificates already are not required for 

operation of certain types of “aircraft,” even when operated for commercial purposes. The 

operation of amateur rockets, moored balloons, kites and unmanned free balloons are all permitted, 

for commercial or any other purpose, without any pilot certificate at all. See 14 CFR § 101. 

Ultralight vehicles (used for recreation) and powered parachutes are similarly not subject to FAA 

pilot certification requirements, see parts 103 and 105, although they arguably could “endanger 

safety” of air commerce for purposes of applying 49 USC § 40102. The FAA has taken the 

position, and the NTSB Board recently ruled in a penalty adjudication case, that all of these 

devices fall into the statutory definition of “aircraft” under Title 49.5

 If the FAA is correct that no 

aircraft may be operated for a business purpose without a private or commercial pilot certificate, 

the decades-long license-free operation of devices listed in Part 101 is incomprehensible. The 

better explanation is that not every operation of an “aircraft” requires a pilot certificate and that the 

FAA is not mandated by statute to impose a pilot “certificate” requirement for the new category of 

devices known as unmanned aircraft systems, but is free to waive the requirement. 

Fourth, in the 2012 FAA Modernization and Reform Act, Congress directed the 

FAA to implement rulemaking for unmanned aircraft systems but did not refer to a pilot certificate 

requirement. Rather, the rulemaking that is contemplated instructed the FAA to “(iii) establish 

 

5 Administrator v. Pirker, Docket CP-217 (NTSB Order No. EA-5730, Nov. 18, 2014) at 10 (“Though they 

are subject to special operating rules, the unmanned devices covered under part 101 nonetheless are 

‘aircraft.’”) 
13 

standards and requirements for the operator and pilot of a civil unmanned aircraft system, 

including standards and requirements for registration and licensing.” Public Law 112-95 § 332. 

By asking the FAA to “establish” standards and requirements, Congress signaled that the existing 

certification framework does not apply. Indeed, the statute does not even refer to pilot certificates, 

but to the more general concepts of “registration and licensing.” 

Fifth, although the existing pilot certification process involves security screening by 

the Department of Homeland Security, such screening does not enhance national security interests 

in the context of mUA because any person who seeks to use an mUA for purposes that could 

adversely impact national security can do so simply by obtaining and operating the same type of 

device without regard to FAA regulations. Moreover, recreational hobbyists are not required to be 

security-screened in this manner, so it makes little sense to impose such a requirement upon 

American businesses just because the purpose of their operation is commercial rather than 

recreational. A pilot licensing requirement for micro UA will not enhance national security. 

Sixth, the private pilot and commercial pilot certificates currently available involve 

substantial expense and hours of time learning actual flying skills within a passenger aircraft 

cockpit, but those skills do not have relevance to UAS operations, particularly for the micro UA 

category. Micro UA are operated from the ground, looking up. Skills learned inside an aircraft 

cockpit including those for in-flight maneuvers, aircraft systems, emergency procedures, and 

navigation are of minimal utility but impose significant burdens. The financial burden associated 

with micro UA pilots obtaining and maintaining a private pilot or commercial license would 

significantly impact business operations and will drastically reduce profits expected when forming 
14 

a business, with no measurable benefit. There also will be a substantial burden on the FAA in 

issuing and maintaining pilot records for UA operators who will never fly a manned aircraft. 

Seventh, imposing upon micro UA operators the existing pilot certification 

standards is unnecessarily discriminatory against Americans with disabilities because it would, for 

example, preclude persons who cannot maneuver themselves into or out of an airplane cockpit, or 

who do not have leg functionality sufficient to operate rudder pedals, from obtaining the needed 

certificate. Yet such persons are fully capable of operating a micro UA using a ground station or 

radio control, which typically involves control by moving sticks or buttons using hands and 

fingers. A certificate requirement involving time spent flying a manned aircraft would exclude 

persons with irrelevant disabilities from these new jobs and economic opportunities in the UAS 

field, in the absence of any rational basis for doing so. 

2. Proposed certification standard 

Notwithstanding the ability of the FAA to forego a micro UA pilot certification 

requirement, the UAS Fund agrees that UA operators even in the “micro” category, should obtain 

and demonstrate basic aeronautical knowledge prior to commercial (or other non-recreational) 

operations. Such knowledge will allow the UAS pilot to be familiar with airspace configuration, 

read and interpret aeronautical charts to determine airspace classification, understand NOTAM 

reports, meteorological conditions, fundamentals of aerodynamics, and the operation of the 

national airspace system in general. It is proposed, therefore, that pilots of micro UA be required 

only to pass the written FAA Private Pilot Knowledge Test, also known as “ground school.” 

The FAA written exams actually cover far more information than is relevant to 

UAS operations, but they do cover the key topic areas important to UA operations. Until such 
15 

time as streamlined UA-specific pilot certification programs are established by the FAA, the 

successful passing of a written “ground school” exam should be more than adequate for micro UA 

pilots to gain the aeronautical knowledge needed to ensure their safe operation of micro UA in 

harmony with existing airspace users. 

Under our proposal, this “certificate” will be subject to suspension or revocation in 

the same manner as a pilot certificate, so that the FAA may exercise enforcement in the event of 

regulatory violations. 

B. Distance from Uninvolved Persons 

We understand that the FAA is also concerned about the safety of persons on the 

ground. Although those risks are often mitigated by state tort laws, reckless endangerment 

statutes, and use restrictions put into place by municipalities and other legislative bodies, we have 

incorporated into our framework for micro UA parameters intended to address the safety of 

persons on the ground. 

It is proposed that operators of micro UA shall operate at least 100 feet from 

persons who are not involved in the specific UAS operation. Additionally, no person may operate 

a micro UA over an open-air assembly of persons. 

Additionally, micro UA flights are only to be conducted over the operator’s own 

property or over the property of others where either express or implicit consent has been granted 

by the property owner or tenant. This enhances safety as well as protecting privacy interests. 
16 

UAS Fund has incorporated the same standard as found in 14 CFR § 91.13 

concerning careless or reckless operation. In our proposal, the standard has been made enforceable 

by Part 13, including civil penalties and suspension or revocation of the micro UA pilot certificate. 

C. Use of Aural Cues 

A micro UA operator has an additional sense that can be used to avoid other air 

traffic: hearing. In contrast, pilots of manned aircraft in either open or enclosed cockpits are never 

able to use sound to detect and avoid other air traffic because of their own engine noise, radio 

headsets, and the cockpit enclosure (hence the term “see and avoid” – reflecting a limitation in the 

senses available to a conventional pilot). Our proposal recognizes that a person on the ground 

operating a micro UA within visual line of sight can and should use auditory cues to detect and 

avoid other air traffic. 

D. Meteorological Conditions 

All UAS flights in this “micro” category shall be conducted in Visual 

Meteorological Conditions (“VMC”) and may not be operated less than 500 feet below, less than 

2,000 feet horizontally from, or above, a cloud or when visibility is less than 3 statute miles from 

the operator. These are the same operational parameters allowed for kites weighing 5 pounds or 

more. 

All UAS flights shall be conducted during daylight (defined as between the hours of 

local sunrise and sunset at the time of the UAS flight), unless the UAS is equipped with an 

operating anti-collision light visible for at least 3 statute miles, in which case the UAS may be 

operated during the twilight periods 30 minutes before official local sunrise and 30 minutes after 
17 

official local sunset at the time of the UAS flight, or, in Alaska, during the period of civil twilight. 

This is the same parameter used for ultralight vehicles. 

E. Medical 

Because of the lack of persons on board whose lives would be endangered by a 

pilot’s unexpected medical issue, and the extremely limited flight time of UAS in the micro UA 

category, UAS Fund proposes that no medical certificate be required for operation of this category 

of UAS. 

Unlike a manned aircraft that, upon a pilot’s medical emergency, must be navigated 

back to an airport potentially a long distance away or dangerously ditched in water, a field, or a 

roadway, a micro UA pilot operating within line of sight can very easily land the UA in seconds, in 

the operating area, in the event of emergent medical issues. Additionally, operation of a micro UA 

does not require significant physical strength as these UAS are typically controlled using remotecontrol sticks or buttons, and many are equipped with “auto-hover,” “return to home,” or 

“autoland” features that further mitigate risks relating to medical contingencies or in low-battery 

states. 

Micro UA pilots shall not operate the UAS under the influence of any drug or 

alcohol. 

F. Age requirement 

In order to operate an mUA for commercial purposes, the primary pilot shall be at 

least 18 years’ old on the date of the operation. 
18 

G. Experience with Equipment 

Operators of micro UAs are required to gain experience and confidence with their 

specific UA equipment before conducting for-hire operations, as reflected in our proposal to 

require at least 5 hours of flight time and 25 takeoff-and-landing sequences. This step requires that 

persons familiarize themselves with their equipment while not unduly burdening experienced 

operators who are simply switching from one type of micro UA to another. 

VI. Insurance Requirement 

In order to assure the public about the safety of micro UA operations, the ability of 

operators to provide compensation in the event of damage or injury, and to encourage the 

insurance industry to develop its own safety standards for UAS operation based on underwriting 

principles and risk modeling, UAS Fund proposes that micro UA operators who are engaged in 

commercial operations be required to obtain liability insurance covering bodily injury and property 

damage. 

In consideration of the minimal risk posed by micro UA, we propose that, initially, 

the very minimum level of insurance coverage required by regulation correspond to the minimum 

liability coverage required by law for the operation of a motor vehicle in the state(s) in which the 

UAS operation takes place. However, to ensure the appropriate terms and conditions for this type 

of operation, as well as the appropriate minimum insurance levels for the type of intended UA 

operation, the insurance policy must be issued specifically for UA operation by an aviation 

insurance carrier. The carriers may, of course, offer their own minimum policy levels that exceed 

the regulatory minimum. UAS Fund plans to work with the aviation insurance industry and UAS 

operators to develop industry-standard insurance minimums, terms, and conditions. 
19 

VII. Privacy Considerations 

Issues surrounding individuals’ privacy and the potential violations made possible 

through the use of unmanned aircraft cannot be ignored. It will be important for commercial UAS 

users to be respectful of others and to comply with laws protecting individuals from illegal 

surveillance and other violations of civil liberties. 

It is expected that individual state and local governments will continue to set the 

legal framework for acts involving physical invasions of privacy, and should be the primary 

enforcement mechanism given the FAA’s primary role as an aviation safety body. Further, we 

understand that the National Telecommunications and Information Administration and Department 

of Commerce are anticipated to craft federal privacy guidelines for commercial UAS in the near 

future. 

VIII. Economic Benefits 

 Micro UA applications are prevalent in key industries pushing for the growth and 

adoption of transformational UAS technologies capable of generating direct and immediate 

benefits to domestic businesses, including immediate opportunities in industries, such as the 

following: aerial photography, real estate, news gathering and reporting, small-scale farming 

inspections and monitoring, infrastructure inspections, search and rescue, firefighting response, 

training and certification, among others. With the focus of many micro UA applications being to 

either increase efficiencies through cost savings or reducing risk to people and property, 

commercial interests fall in direct alignment with the FAA’s position on public safety and risk 

aversion, alleviating the need for burdening regulation and associated costs. 
20 

The new business opportunities and economic development enabled by micro UA 

technologies will only be realized in an accommodating commercial environment that encourages 

adoption by limiting the placement of overburdening regulation. Liberating a micro UA class of 

operations from unnecessary regulatory burdens will favorably accelerate benefits by fast-tracking 

pathways to operationally-compliant and low-risk applications under minimal regulation, while 

upholding and emphasizing the FAA’s primary mission of ensuring public safety. 

The current void of regulations for UAS operations (notwithstanding a handful of 

individual “Section 333” exemptions that each take months to issue) significantly influences the 

decisions of UAS operators in such a way that the market size and economic impact of the 

business activity falling under the proposed micro UA regulation is difficult to quantify. However, 

with the industries mentioned above, the market impact, both with and without regulation, can be 

estimated as a fraction of the overall industry, amounting to billions of dollars of lost economic 

development. For example, if UAS were to represent only 2% of 2013 GDP for selected NAICS 

Code categories (i.e., agriculture, forestry, mining, secondary education, insurance, and motion 

picture/video industries) the economic impact attributable to UAS would be over $12.6 billion. 

Further, substantial cost savings throughout the FAA can be realized with the 

adoption of micro UA regulations such as that proposed herein. Absent regulation allowing 

commercial and other non-recreational UAS operations, such as the current environment set forth 

by the FAA in its recent “Interpretation of the Special Rule for Model Aircraft,” presents an 

environment where operators skirt safety considerations and present FAA with a significant 

enforcement challenge. By opening up this low weight and operationally-restricted segment of the 

market, FAA safety inspectors, attorneys, and other staff will be freed from the burden of pursuing 
21 

persons who are operating pursuant to a clear set of safety regulations. Related, there should be 

significant savings by introducing risk-based rules, starting with the smallest, safest operations and 

progressing to more complex operations requiring more complicated and restrictive regulatory 

frameworks in due course, and these savings will be bolstered by enormous economic benefits 

afforded at little cost to the government. Additional information relative to the economic benefits 

expected through the adoption of micro UA regulations can be found in Attachment D. 

IX. Statement Pursuant to 14 CFR § 11.71 

We set out the following information with regard to 14 CFR § 11.71(a): 

(1) The name and mailing address of petitioner is indicated on the first page of the 

petition. 

(2) Petitioner proposes to add to and amend the federal aviation regulations in the 

manner set out in Attachment A. The purpose is to establish a regulatory framework for the 

operation of a specified category of unmanned aircraft in the United States. 

(3) The language petitioner proposes for the new rule is set out in Attachment A. 

(4) As set out in detail above as well as Attachment D, the proposed action is in the 

public interest because it unlocks the tremendous economic benefits of lightweight unmanned 

aircraft systems, provides a specific safety framework for commercial operators to comply with 

(compared to the absence of specific safety parameters today), and relieves the FAA to focus on 

rulemaking for larger and more complicated unmanned aircraft systems. 

(5) Information and arguments supporting petitioner’s proposed action are set out 

above in detail, and include the UAS Safety Analysis performed by Dr. Adam Dershowitz annexed 
22 

as Attachment C and the economic impact analysis annexed as Attachment D. We also note recent 

testimony at Congressional committee hearings in which lawmakers and witnesses testified to the 

tremendous benefits to the nation that will be realized by the operation of commercial unmanned 

aircraft systems. 

(6) We have set out above specific facts and circumstances supporting and 

demonstrating the need for this proposed rulemaking action. We highlight here the fact that other 

countries are moving forward with less stringent regulation of smaller unmanned aircraft as well as 

the tremendous demand across countless industries for access to this technology within a clearly 

defined and reasonable set of safety parameters (that do not currently exist). The current 

framework, in which the FAA requires case-by-case waiver applications requiring at least 4 

months to be processed as well as specific COA approval for airspace thereafter, is insufficient to 

support the economic needs of the nation and creates an unnecessary administrative burden on the 

FAA along with substantial budgetary requirements. The fact that the FAA’s notice of proposed 

rulemaking for UAS up to 55 pounds is estimated to take at least 18 months to two years to be 

finalized is a specific circumstance calling for immediate implementation of our proposal by final 

direct rule. 

We set out the following information with regard to 14 CFR § 11.71(b): 

(1) The benefits of our proposed action to society in general are enormous. We 

have included an economic impact study as Attachment D. The proposal will also offer 

environmental benefits in applications involving agriculture, wildlife monitoring and 

environmental studies. The costs to society are zero because operation of micro unmanned aircraft 

pursuant to the parameters we propose adds no significant risk to airspace users, protects persons 
23 

on the ground, and includes an insurance requirement. On the contrary, by providing a safety 

framework for commercial operations, our proposal reduces existing costs to society by creating a 

specific safe operating framework as well as reducing the burden on government to investigate or 

take enforcement action. 

(2) The regulatory burden of our proposed action on small businesses, small 

organizations, small governmental jurisdictions, and Indian tribes was specifically designed to be 

minimal while maintaining conservative safety standards. For example, we have addressed micro 

UA pilot certification standard so as to keep the cost and burden minimal and therefore within 

reach of small businesses. The insurance requirements track what is required by states for 

automobile drivers and is therefore a reasonable burden. 

(3) There are minimal recordkeeping and reporting burdens. A log book of 

training as well as operational flights is a straightforward and familiar requirement. Once an 

operator is qualified by possessing the written-test micro UA license, reporting is only required in 

the event of significant third-party property damage or serious injury. 

(4) The proposed action will benefit natural and social environments. Batterypowered micro UA can achieve many important, valuable tasks with no impact on the 

environment, particularly compared with noisy, fuel-consuming manned aircraft operations (if 

such operations are even possible). The proposal also is beneficial for social environments by 

establishing safety parameters for micro UA operations at social and sporting events or near other 

gatherings of people. 
24 

X. Considerations under 14 C.F.R. § 11.73 

The UAS Fund’s petition satisfies all criteria set out in 14 C.F.R. § 11.73 with 

respect to regulations of amendments based on a petition for rulemaking.6

A. The immediacy of the safety or security concerns 

Currently, there are no specific regulations focused upon or applicable to unmanned 

aircraft systems. A notice of proposed rulemaking has been drafted, but finalization is not 

anticipated to occur until 2016 at the earliest. In the interim, countless individuals and businesses 

have proceeded with UAS operations for commercial, scientific, research and other purposes 

because of the extraordinarily compelling benefits of the technology as applied. In the absence of 

specific regulations, these operators lack any specific operational guidance or safety standards to 

aspire to. This Petition provides one such standard, expressly establishing a framework for UAS 

operations in a 3-pound or below category, requiring that pilots obtain a reasonable and 

demonstrated level of aeronautical knowledge, and insurance prior to operation, among other 

requirements, in very controlled and limited conditions. This Petition also addresses concerns 

voiced recently by the FAA Administrator and Members of Congress7

 that the lack of any specific 

UAS regulatory framework poses an immediate safety concern for users of the national airspace 

system. 

 

6

 UAS America Fund requests that this Petition be treated as a separate action from the current NPRM 

process concerning small unmanned aircraft systems because, we believe, that rulemaking concerns 

regulations pertaining to UAS below 55 pounds and is subject to lengthy notice and comment procedures. 

This Petition requests adoption of a direct final rule concerning UA that weigh 3 pounds or less. 

7

 Hearing of the House Committee on Transportation, December 10, 2014. 
25 

B. The priority of other issues the FAA must deal with 

Among its many other obligations, the FAA is occupied with the task of 

establishing a regulatory framework for UAS that are 55 pounds and below. UAS Fund agrees that 

as UAS weight and altitude increase, additional regulatory safeguards are called for. Those ought 

to be the focus of the agency’s rulemaking attention. The operation of very lightweight UAS at 

very low altitudes and away from airports are a relatively low priority for the FAA because those 

operations pose such little risk compared to other UAS operations at higher altitudes or closer to 

airports where conflicts with general and commercial aviation air traffic are more likely. 

C. The resources the FAA has available to address these issues 

The Petition is designed to conserve FAA resources by segmenting the UAS 

regulatory framework based on risk. Exemption applications under FMRA Section 333 have 

already created a significant burden on commercial companies seeking the ability to operate in the 

U.S., as well as a large burden on the FAA in order to review, respond to, and ultimately grant 

operations to take place. The category addressed by this Petition is the one requiring the least 

oversight by the FAA, conserving agency resources (with respect to rulemaking, pilot certification 

and enforcement). Not only will opening up this segment to commercial operations relieve the 

significant on the FAA such as the efforts necessary to maintain the Section 333 exemption 

program, but it will importantly allow FAA to redirect those resources to further define and focus 

activities around other more complex segments of the market. Moreover, UAS Fund has enclosed 

a safety study establishing the low risk posed by very small UAS. 
26 

XI. Conclusion 

As noted throughout this Petition, the implications for allowing commercial 

operations of micro UA weighing no more than three pounds operating below 400 feet and wellclear of airports, other air traffic, and uninvolved persons/property on the ground, along with the 

other restrictions and considerations stated throughout, is reasonable and a practical first step for 

opening up the United States to UAS opportunities for commercial users, and in a safe manner. 

Implementation of an incremental-based rule-making environment will allow for consideration of 

more complex operations and operating environments to be complemented with appropriate 

technical, regulatory, and certification requirements, but there should be no delay in allowing 

commercial UAS operations to proceed immediately. 

In addition, the ability for non-recreational UAS operations specifically for 

research, development, and product innovation is critical to UAS Fund’s ability to make 

investments, along with other capital partners, in such a manner as to significantly drive the 

industry forward. These operations, as restricted as noted herein, pose no little to no additional 

threat to aircraft or persons and property on the ground compared to small and medium sized birds 

that are already present in the airspace system today. The ability for governments, companies, and 

individuals to utilize UAS for non-recreational purposes will create considerable economic 

development even at this very small micro UA segment of the full market. 

Industry, academia, and most importantly the U.S. Congress have been demanding 

quicker action on the FAA’s part relative to regulation of UAS, and only a portion of the items 

required by Congress of the FAA in the 2012 FAA Modernization and Reform Act have been 

achieved on the schedule defined in that legislation. Delays by the FAA and its uncertainty 
27 

disseminated to the industry on rules governing UAS operations is causing tens of millions of 

dollars in lost economic development for our nation’s economy, an inability for citizens to benefit 

from the impacts that UAS can bring such as those in law enforcement and public safety as well as 

the risks to the public from non-sanctioned commercial operators flying in the absence of specific 

regulations, and a real slippage in the United States’ position as the industry leader in aerospace 

research, development, and technological innovation, a pathfinder role the USA has held since the 

birth of aviation itself. 

UAS Fund plans to work closely with FAA to continue to assist in developing a 

rulemaking process to continue to allow further commercial applications and uses of UAS while 

promoting a safe environment for all and leveraging technological improvements and 

advancements to ensure public safety. The market segmentation offered by UAS Fund and shown 

in Attachment B highlights one method for incremental risk-based legislative action. 

Filed: December 18, 2014 
ATTACHMENT A 

PROPOSED REGULATIONS FOR MICRO UNMANNED AIRCRAFT 

PROPOSED 14 CFR Part 107 
1 

UAS America Fund, LLC KL3 2998678.5

UAS America Fund LLC 

Micro Unmanned Aircraft 

Proposed Part 107 

§107.1 Applicability. 

 This part prescribes rules governing the operation of micro unmanned aircraft in 

the United States. For purposes of this part, a micro unmanned aircraft means a device 

capable of sustaining its own powered flight in the air, that is operated without the 

possibility of direct human intervention from within or on the device, and that: 

 (a) weighs 3 pounds or less gross takeoff weight, including power source and 

payload; 

 (b) is powered by an electric battery or other non-combustion power source; 

 (c) is operated for a business, commercial, scientific, academic, research or other 

non-recreational purpose; and 

 (d) is not a “model aircraft” subject to Public Law 112-95 § 336. 

§107.3 Waivers. 

 No person may conduct operations that require a deviation from this part except 

under a written waiver issued by the Administrator. 

§107.5 Careless or reckless operations. 

 (a) No person may operate a micro unmanned aircraft in a careless or reckless 

manner so as to endanger the life or property of another. 

 (b) No person may allow an object to be dropped from a micro unmanned vehicle 

if such action creates a hazard to other persons or property. 

§107.7 Certification, registration and other requirements. 

 (a) Notwithstanding any other section pertaining to certification of aircraft or their 

parts or equipment, micro unmanned aircraft and their component parts and equipment 

(including ground station or radio control systems) are not required to meet the 

airworthiness certification standards specified for aircraft or to have certificates of 

airworthiness. 

 (b) Notwithstanding any other section pertaining to registration and marking of 

aircraft, micro unmanned aircraft are not required to be registered or to bear markings of 

any type, except that the name, address, and telephone number of the owner or operator 
2 

UAS America Fund, LLC KL3 2998678.5

shall be affixed to at least two externally visible locations on the micro unmanned 

aircraft. 

 (c) Notwithstanding any other section, micro unmanned aircraft operated pursuant 

to this part are not subject to any other federal aviation regulation, including any 

provision of parts 21, 45, 47, 61, or 91. 

§107.9 Daylight operations. 

 (a) No person may operate a micro unmanned aircraft except between the hours of 

sunrise and sunset. 

 (b) Notwithstanding paragraph (a) of this section, micro unmanned aircraft may 

be operated during the twilight periods 30 minutes before official sunrise and 30 minutes 

after official sunset, or, in Alaska, during the period of civil twilight as defined in the Air 

Almanac, if: 

(1) The micro unmanned aircraft is equipped with an operating 

anticollision light visible for at least 3 statute miles; and 

(2) All operations are conducted in uncontrolled airspace. 

§107.11 Operation near aircraft; right-of-way rules. 

 (a) Each person operating a micro unmanned aircraft shall continually maintain 

vigilance so as to see and avoid aircraft and shall yield the right-of-way to all manned 

aircraft. 

 (b) No person may operate a micro unmanned aircraft in a manner that creates a 

collision hazard with respect to any aircraft. 

(c) Each person operating a micro unmanned aircraft, upon hearing engine, rotor, 

or propeller sounds from an aircraft uninvolved in the operation, shall take precautionary 

steps to identify the altitude and flight direction of the uninvolved aircraft and yield right 

of way. 

§107.13 Operating limitations: altitude, airspace and locations. 

 (a) No person may operate a micro unmanned vehicle at an altitude greater 

than 400 feet above ground level (AGL). 

 (b) No person may operate a micro unmanned vehicle within Class B, Class 

C, or Class D airspace or within the lateral boundaries of the surface area of Class E 

airspace designated for an airport, unless that person has prior authorization from the 

ATC facility having jurisdiction over that airspace. 
3 

UAS America Fund, LLC KL3 2998678.5

 (c) No person may operate a micro unmanned aircraft within 5 nautical miles 

of the geographic center of an airport as denoted on a current FAA-published 

aeronautical chart unless that person has prior written authorization from that airport’s 

management. This restriction does not apply to airports that are closed or abandoned. 

(d) No person may operate a micro unmanned aircraft beyond his or her visual 

line of sight (VLOS). During the flight operation, the operator must be able to view the 

micro unmanned aircraft at all times using his or her own natural vision (which includes 

the use of vision corrected by standard eyeglasses or contact lenses but excludes the use 

for flight navigation purposes of vision-enhancing devices such as binoculars, night 

vision goggles, powered vision magnifying devices, or video glasses designed to provide 

a “first person view” from a camera mounted on the micro unmanned aircraft), and must 

visually scan the surrounding airspace to see and avoid other air traffic. The maximum 

operating distance of a micro unmanned aircraft system from the operator under this 

subsection is 2,640 feet, regardless of the visual acuity of the operator. 

 (e) No person may operate a micro unmanned aircraft closer than 100 feet 

from any persons uninvolved in the operation. 

(f) No person may operate a micro unmanned aircraft over an open-air 

assembly of persons. 

 (g) No person may operate a micro unmanned aircraft in special use airspace 

designated under Part 73 unless that person has permission from the using or controlling 

agency, as appropriate. 

 (h) No person may operate a micro unmanned aircraft over privately-owned 

property without the express or implied permission from the property owner, tenant in 

possession, or an authorized representative thereof. 

 (i) No person may operate a micro unmanned aircraft system within 5 

nautical miles of any forest fire without authorization from the incident commander. 

(j) Prior to operating a micro unmanned aircraft under this part, the operator 

shall become familiar with all pertinent information concerning the proposed operational 

location, including but not limited to review of relevant NOTAMs. 

(k) Any person intending to operate a micro unmanned aircraft within one 

mile of any active emergency shall first check for any NOTAMs with respect to 

restrictions on operations in that location. 

§ 107.15 Meteorological conditions. 

All flights under this part must be conducted under visual meteorological 

conditions. A micro unmanned aircraft may not be operated under this part less than 500 
4 

UAS America Fund, LLC KL3 2998678.5

feet below, or less than 2,000 feet horizontally from, a cloud, or when visibility is less 

than 3 statute miles from the operator. 

§107.17 Operating limitations: ground speed. 

 No person may operate a micro unmanned aircraft in excess of 40 knots ground 

speed. 

§107.19 Operator qualifications. 

 (a) An operator of a micro unmanned aircraft system under this part must be 

at least 18 years of age. 

 (b) No person may operate a micro unmanned aircraft system under this part 

without first passing the FAA private pilot written airman knowledge test administered 

by an FAA-accredited pilot school or test center. Prior to any operation under this part, 

the operator shall send written notification to the FAA evidencing the test results together 

with the operator's name and contact information, which submission the Administrator 

will acknowledge in writing as constituting the operator's micro unmanned aircraft pilot 

certificate for purposes of 49 USC § 44711. This subsection shall not apply to micro 

unmanned aircraft systems operated as public aircraft. 

 (c) The FAA may pursue investigation and enforcement procedures set out in 

part 13 with respect to the operator of a micro unmanned aircraft systems, including 

potential suspension or revocation of a micro unmanned aircraft pilot certificate held by 

its operator. 

 (d) Any other FAA pilot certificate that has as a requisite a written airman 

knowledge test may, if said certificate is current and in good standing, serve as a micro 

unmanned aircraft pilot certificate under subsection (b) even if the operator is unable to 

provide evidence of his or her written test results. Such pilot certificates will constitute 

the operator's micro unmanned aircraft pilot certificate for purposes of 49 USC § 44711 

and part 13. 

 (e) No person shall operate a micro unmanned aircraft for hire or for a 

commercial purpose (other than research and development activates relating to the micro 

unmanned aircraft or its related systems and components), without first undertaking and 

documenting the following steps to gain experience and proficiency with the micro 

unmanned aircraft model: 

(1) Review of the micro unmanned aircraft manufacturer's operating 

manuals and any instructional videos provided by the manufacturer; 

(2) at least 5 hours of total operating flight time; and 

(3) at least 25 takeoff-and-landing sequences. 
5 

UAS America Fund, LLC KL3 2998678.5

(f) All operations under this part (including training) shall be documented and 

recorded in a permanent place such as a log book. For the purposes of meeting the 

minimum requirements of this subsection, each person must record the following 

information for each micro unmanned aircraft flight: 

(1) Date and time 

(2) Micro unmanned aircraft type, make, model 

(3) Route and boundaries of flight 

(4) Total duration of flight 

(5) Weather conditions of flight 

(6) Number of landings 

(7) Total flight time and/or lesson time 

(8) Remarks or other pertinent details 

 

§107.21 Alcohol or drugs. 

 (a) No person may operate a micro unmanned aircraft — 

(1) Within 8 hours after the consumption of any alcoholic beverage; 

(2) While under the influence of alcohol; 

(3) While using any drug that affects the person's faculties in any way 

contrary to safety; or 

(4) While having an alcohol concentration of 0.04 or greater in a blood or 

breath specimen. Alcohol concentration means grams of alcohol per 

deciliter of blood or grams of alcohol per 210 liters of breath. 

§107.23 Insurance. 

 (a) No person shall operate a micro unmanned aircraft for hire or for a 

commercial purpose (other than for research and development of the micro unmanned 

aircraft or its systems and components) unless he or she has in effect liability insurance 

coverage that at a minimum meets or exceeds the minimum motor vehicle insurance 

coverages for both property damage and bodily injury required in the state in which the 

operation occurs, and that has been issued specifically to insure against risks of the 

operation of the micro unmanned aircraft. 

(b) Insurance coverage to meet the requirements of this part shall be obtained 

from one or more of the following: 

(1) An insurer licensed to issue aircraft accident liability policies in any 

State, Commonwealth, or Territory of the United States, or in the District 

of Columbia; or 
6 

UAS America Fund, LLC KL3 2998678.5

(2) Surplus line insurers named on a current list of such insurers issued 

and approved by the insurance regulatory authority of any State, 

Commonwealth, or Territory of the United States or of the District of 

Columbia. 

(c) All person who have operated micro unmanned aircraft under this part must 

present their logbook, proof of insurance, and evidence of submission to the FAA 

Administrator their written test results or their valid pilot certificate, or any other record 

required by this part for inspection upon a reasonable request by— 

(1) The Administrator; 

(2) An authorized representative of the National Transportation Safety 

Board; or 

(3) Any Federal, State, or local law enforcement officer. 

§107.25 Accident reporting. 

 In connection with any operation under this part, any incident involving $1,000 or 

more in third-party property damage, and any accident involving any bodily injury, must 

be reported to the nearest FAA Flight Standards District Office within three business 

days. Accidents involving a serious injury or death shall be reported to the NTSB 

pursuant to 49 CFR § 830. 
ATTACHMENT B 

UAS AMERICA FUND MARKET SEGMENTATION FOR UNMANNED AIRCRAFT SYSTEMS 
Regulatory Requirements Technical Requirements

Certification

Requirements

Example Applications

Low Altitude (below 400' AGL)

High Altitude (above 400')

Micro UA (<3 lbs)

Small/Large (>3 lbs)

Non‐populated Area

Populated Area

Public Property

Private Property with Permission

Line of Sight

Beyond Line of Sight

Daytime VFR

Nighttime

IFR

Insurance Necessary

Geo‐fencing

Return to Orgin/ Fix

Collision Avoidance System

Constant Position Reporting

Descent Control

Pilot  (UAS‐specific)

Aircraft  (UAS‐specific)

Operator  (UAS‐specific)

Ac

‐ C

‐ N

‐ F‐ R

‐ N

Inc

Recreational Flights: Minimal RegulationsHobbyist and recreational flights     Ba

Recreational Flights: Certification & Technical Requirements

Hobbyist and recreational flights       Ad

Commercial Flights ‐ Category 1A (Micro Unmanned Aircraft): Minimal Regulations

Close‐proximity and Line‐of‐Sightcommercial operations such as:

‐ Training & certification

‐ Aerial photography‐ Infrastructure inspection

‐ Small‐scale precision agriculture

‐ Firefighting, discrete‐area SAR

‐ Insurance investigation

       Ba

Ad

inc

su

co

‐ In

‐ H

‐ In

UA

Commercial Flights ‐ Category 2: Minimal Certification / Regulation and Technical Requirements

Aerial imaging, Surveys, Photogrammetry,

Agriculture, etc

       Ad

an

Commercial Flights ‐ Category 3: Pilot, Aircraft, & Operating Certifications Necessary and Technical Requirements

Dispersed‐area operations such as long‐

distance BLOS flights for

‐ Search & Rescue‐ Infrastructure inspection

‐ Agriculture monitoring, etc

      Ad

UA

ob

Ad

de

Commercial Flights ‐ Category 4: Full Certification Necessary and full suite of Technical Requirements required

No restrictions ‐ governed by Operating

Certificate(s) and aircraft limitations

   Ad

NA

Initially, reasonable and logical market segmtheir associated regulatory requirements, ar
ATTACHMENT C 

UAS SAFETY ANALYSIS 
UAS Safety Analysis

December 16, 2014

Exponent Project No.

1408989.EX0
December 16, 2014

Mr. Matthew Bieschke 

UAS America Fund, LLC

2020 K St. NW, Suite 520

Washington, DC 20006

Mr. Brendan Schulman

Kramer Levin Naftalis & Frankel LLP

1177 Avenue of the Americas

New York NY 10036

Subject: UAS Safety Analysis

Exponent Project No. 1408989.EX0

Dear Mr. Bieschke and Mr. Schulman:

Attached please find the UAS Safety Analysis report, prepared at the request of UAS America 

Fund, LLC and Kramer Levin Naftalis & Frankel, LLP.

Sincerely,

Adam Dershowitz, Ph.D., P.E.

Managing Engineer

© Exponent, Inc.

1408989.EX0 - 1520
1408989.EX0 - 1520

2

Introduction

At your request, Exponent Failure Analysis Associates (Exponent) has conducted a preliminary

analysis of some of the risks related to micro Unmanned Aerial Vehicles (UAVs) operating in 

the National Airspace System (NAS). While currently there is little data available for any 

impacts that might have occurred, there is significant data available on bird strikes on aircraft. 

Accordingly, birds were used as an analog to UAVs for the purposes of this analysis. This 

report sets forth the conclusions reached from the analysis.
1408989.EX0 - 1520

3

Background

UAVs, commonly referred to as “drones,” are unmanned flying vehicles. The FAA is currently 

going through the process of developing new regulations for the use of these vehicles in the 

NAS. However, there is a dearth of data about the risks posed by the operation of these 

vehicles. As the vehicles, by definition, do not have anyone on board, there is no risk to any 

passengers. However, there is potential risk to others that might be presented by Unmanned 

Aerial Systems (UASs1). One of the large concerns relates to the interactions between UAVs 

and manned aircraft in the NAS, and the risk posed by these interactions.

It is common for aerospace vehicles to be segregated by weight for analysis and regulation. In 

many countries that have adopted or proposed regulations for UASs, the regulations are 

governed by weight category. For the purpose of this report, a weight of three (3) pounds and 

below is used to define this category of vehicle (micro UAVs).

In order to assess the risk to existing manned aircraft posed by micro UAVs, some data is 

required. Data is currently lacking as to damage caused by micro UAVs; however, there is a 

large FAA Wildlife Strike Database (http://wildlife.faa.gov/). The full FAA database includes 

both military and civilian reports. While this database does not include every bird strike, the 

FAA estimates that it represents 39% of all bird strikes.2 It is likely that less significant events 

are more highly under-reported. No attempt was made to adjust for any such potential bias that 

might occur in the database. The database was downloaded in August of 2014, and includes 

bird strike data going back to 1990. Since the inception of the bird strike database, the FAA has 

encouraged reporting of wildlife aircraft strikes. On 12/22/04 it issued Advisory Circular 

150/5200-32A which “explains the importance of reporting collisions between aircraft and 

wildlife”. On 5/31/2013 it was updated as 150/5200-32B which states, “Studies have shown 

that strike reporting has steadily increased over the past two decades.”

As birds are similar in weight to micro UAVs, Exponent decided to assess whether birds could 

be used as a surrogate for UAVs in evaluating collisions, and then to use the birdstrike database 

to analyze the risk presented to aircraft by micro UAVs until better data becomes available. 

Using birdstrike data is reasonable because while there are many factors involved in the detailed 

impact dynamics between two objects, the most important is kinetic energy. The kinetic energy 

(KE) of an impact is defined as:

KE=1/2*m*V^2

Where m is the mass of the incoming object, and V is the closing velocity. The specifications of 

several current micro UAVs were reviewed and found to have a maximum speed of 

approximately 35 MPH. Maximum bird speeds are generally higher, although like UAVs they 

have a very wide range depending on the species3 and do not often fly at maximum speed. 

 1 A “UAS” represents the system made up of components including such things as the vehicle (UAV), the operator 

and the radio control system

2 http://www.nbaa.org/ops/safety/20120921-dot-asks-faa-to-do-more-to-reduce-bird-strikes.php

3 https://web.stanford.edu/group/stanfordbirds/text/essays/How_Fast.html
1408989.EX0 - 1520

4

While specific collision geometry is important, the closing speed of these impacts is dominated 

by aircraft flight speed. Similar sized birds and UAVs are thus likely to have similar impact 

kinetic energy. The details of the impact can be relevant, but the primary determination of 

damage is the KE.

The Wildlife Strike Database divides birds by size into three categories. Instead of providing 

strict weight divisions, the FAA presents examples of each. A sparrow is considered small, a 

gull is considered medium, and a vulture is considered large. As gulls can weigh up to 3.8 

pounds, the small and medium birds in the database were used to represent the micro UAVs of 

interest, with a maximum weight of 3 pounds. 

While the FAA has not yet released proposed rules for UAS operation, several options for 

proposed rules have been discussed. For this analysis, it was assumed that initial regulations 

would require that micro UAVs, at or below 3 pounds., would operate 5 miles or more from 

airports and would remain at or below 400 feet. Most civilian airplanes operate at or above 500 

feet from the ground.

It should be noted that some aircraft types have certification requirements for safety against bird 

strikes. Transport category turbine powered aircraft are certified to continue flying safely after 

receiving an 8 lb bird strike to the tail and a 4 lb bird strike to the windshield or other structure

at specified velocities. The engines must not have a “hazardous engine effect” after ingesting 

up to an 8.03 lb bird (the specific bird weight depends on engine inlet throat area).4 Recent 

transport category rotorcraft are certified for at least a safe landing after impact with a 2.2 lb 

bird5., Most General Aviation aircraft and helicopters do not have any bird strike resistance or 

testing as part of their certification basis. They are not required to have engines or 

canopies/windshields resistant to any particular size, weight, or closing velocity of birds.

 4 Federal Aviation Regulations 25.571, 25.631, 25.775 and 33.76 

5 Federal Aviation Regulation 29.631
1408989.EX0 - 1520

5

Analysis

The FAA Wildlife Strike Database was found to contain a total of 151,305 strike reports for the 

24.5 years catalogued from 1990 to the present. Of these, 136,624 (90%) included small or 

medium sized birds. There are 13,906 (9%) reports where there was an indication of damage to 

an aircraft and there are 230 (0.15%) reports with an injury or a fatality involved. 

The database was used to analyze the number of collisions reported in the database that occurred 

where UAVs would be allowed to operate under the proposed regulations discussed above. The 

initial database searches were for to small- and medium-size birds strike reports that occurred 5 

or more miles from airports and at or below 400 ft. Using those parameters, no injuries or 

fatalities were caused by small or medium birds in the database. That same search shows two 

cases of damage to aircraft, both reported as minor (“simple repairs or replacements”). In one 

of the instances with damage, there was a hole in the chin bubble of a helicopter, and in the 

other there was delamination of the radome of an airplane.

For completeness the search was also repeated with a reduced exclusion area of three miles from 

airports, and reproducing the altitude threshold of 400 ft. For small- and medium-size birds, 

there are no fatalities and no injuries. This search finds five reports of damage to aircraft, all 

minor . (Note that these five include the two listed above for the five-mile radius search.) 

There are 15 reports of any impacts, with or without damage, occurring 3 or more miles from 

airports and at or below 400 feet, and 3 for the 5 mile threshold. This demonstrates both that the 

database does include non-damaging impacts, and additionally that a large portion of reported 

impacts include some damage. 

The above searches include only records that indicate both an altitude and a distance from an 

airport. Many entries have one or both of those fields blank, and a manual review of the data 

revealed that some of those contained bird strikes for such things as pipeline patrols, helicopters 

ferrying personnel to oil rigs, or law enforcement activities over a city. Even though many of 

these incidents may be within a few miles of an airport, an additional search was run to include 

them as if they were all far away from an airport.

Searching for records that indicate an altitude at or below 400 ft, AND that have a phase of 

flight of “En Route” when no distance is available, to the 3 mile results above gives a total of 37 

reports of damage to aircraft, 6 with injuries, and no fatalities. For a 5 mile threshold, this 

expanded search gives a total of 34 reports of damage to aircraft, 6 with injuries and no 

fatalities. 

Finally, the database was searched to locate all fatalities associated with small- or medium-size 

birds in any location. This very broad search returned three reports. However, two of those 

reports were cases in which witnesses reported birds near the aircraft, but the NTSB was not 

able to confirm that there were in fact bird strikes6. The above results are summarized in Table 

1.

 6 NSTB numbers: FTW94FA158, NYC98FA073, and CEN09MA117
1408989.EX0 - 1520

6

Table 1 Summary of database query results

Threshold #Events	

with	

Damage

#Events	

with	

Injuries

#Events	

with

Fatalities

#Events	w/o	

Damage

400	ft/5	miles 2 0 0 1

400	ft/3	miles 5 0 0 10

400 ft/5	miles	or	

enroute

34 6 0

400	ft/3	miles	or	

enroute

37 6 0

All	reports 13906 230

All	small/medium	birds

in	any	location

3

Additionally, the NTSB Aviation Accident Database was searched for fatal bird strikes prior to 

1990. Only three fatal accidents were found that could be potentially small or medium sized 

birds, in addition to those mentioned above. In these three the bird size was not listed, so it was 

not possible to determine if any of them were a good surrogate for micro UAV impact. All 

three occurred prior to 1990, so would not have been included in the FAA Wildlife Database7. 

There are some limitations in this analysis. The analysis assumes that UAVs and birds will 

operate in the same way, and will be distributed in the NAS the same way. Birds tend not to fly 

at high altitudes, and thus the database would be expected to show more strikes at low altitude. 

Additionally, it assumes that any impact severity is primarily governed by velocity and mass. In 

fact, the specific structure and density of the objects involved will play a part in the details of 

any collision. This analysis is also based on the assumption that UAVs will not be intentionally 

operated near manned aircraft, such as those conducting law enforcement and news related 

activities. Despite these limitations, until better data is available bird effects may serve as an

approximation of the effects of UAVs on the NAS. Birds and micro UAVs can both operate 

over a very wide speed range, so a general-impact speed cannot be assumed for either one.. 

UAVs will probably fly much less frequently than birds do so simply comparing populations 

and extrapolating numbers may not lead to reliable conclusions. 

 7 NTSB numbers: MIA67A0043, LAX80FA005, and ATL82FLJ03
1408989.EX0 - 1520

7

Conclusions

It is estimated that there are 10 billion birds in the United States8. While these birds do not fly 

at all times, they do spend a large amount of their time in the air. The extreme rarity of any 

collisions between birds and aircraft away from airports and at low altitude, despite the 

population of 10 billion birds, suggests that unintentional impact between UAVs and manned 

aircraft away from airports and low altitude will always remain extremely unlikely. 

Analysis of the full 24.5 years of available FAA data using the proposed UAV regulations of 

400 ft. and 5 miles from airports (including “en route” operations of unreported distance from 

airport), with small- and medium-size birds as a surrogate for UAVs, shows that there were 34

cases of damage to aircraft in collisions with small and medium size birds. This search found 

only 6 collisions resulting in injuries and none resulting in fatalities within these parameters. 

Based on the FAA Wildlife Strike database there is no indication that allowing UAVs of three 

pounds or less to operate at least 5 miles from airports and at or below 400 feet will pose a 

significant increase in risk to manned aircraft.

 8 See, e.g., http://www.nytimes.com/2011/01/18/science/18birds.html?_r=0 and 

http://www.motherjones.com/kevin-drum/2011/03/how-many-birds. For a collection of sources concerning this 

estimate, see http://birdstuff.blogspot.com/2002/07/how-many-birds-are-there.html
1408989.EX0 - 1520

8

Limitations 

The study presented in this report is intended for use by UAS America Fund, LLC and its 

counsel Brendan Schulman to assist with a proposal for rulemaking related to operations of

micro UASs, and is not intended to address all issues with respect to operation of micro UASs.

Application of this report requires recognition and understanding of the limitations of both the 

scope and methodology of the study. Any use of the conclusions in this report is at the sole risk 

of the reader. 

The scope of the study was the analysis of the FAA Wildlife Strike Database using birds as 

surrogates to UAVs to assess some of the risk posed by micro UASs. 

The risk assessment methodology forming the basis of the results presented in this report is 

based on mathematical and statistical modeling of physical systems and processes as well as 

data from third parties. Given the nature of these evaluations, significant uncertainties are 

associated with the various hazard and loss computations. These uncertainties are inherent in 

the methodology and subsequently in the generated hazard and loss results. These results are 

not facts or predictions of the loss that may occur as a result of future events or any specific 

event; as such, the actual losses relevant to this study may be materially different from those 

presented in this study. Furthermore, the assumptions adopted in determining these loss 

estimates do not constitute the exclusive set of reasonable assumptions, and use of a different set 

of assumptions or methodology could produce materially different results.

If you have any questions or require additional information, please do not hesitate to contact me 

at (212) 895-8105 or adershowitz@exponent.com.
05/14 

Adam Dershowitz, Ph.D., P.E., CFEI 

Managing Engineer 

Professional Profile 

Dr. Adam Dershowitz is a Managing Engineer in Exponent’s Thermal Sciences practice. 

Dr. Dershowitz specializes in aeronautical and astronautical engineering. He has expertise in 

aircraft and spacecraft systems and instrumentation. Dr. Dershowitz studies the interactions of 

complex systems, including human in the loop systems; airplane and helicopter icing; manned 

and unmanned space vehicles; cockpit displays; control of vehicles; decision making; safety 

critical software; and software failures. He models and analyzes vehicles, systems, and their 

accidents, and analyzes and presents high dimensionality and complex data. 

Prior to joining Exponent, Dr. Dershowitz worked at Johnson Space Center for United Space 

Alliance. There, he worked in NASA’s Mission Control Center on the motion control system of 

the International Space Station, designed and researched advanced technology solutions for 

Mission Control, and served as a member of the orbital debris analysis team for the Shuttle 

Columbia accident investigation. Dr. Dershowitz has significant teaching experience, both in 

the classroom and as a certified flight instructor. 

Academic Credentials and Professional Honors 

Ph.D., Aeronautics and Astronautics, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, 1998 

M.S., Aeronautics and Astronautics, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, 1991 

B.S., Aeronautics and Astronautics, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, 1989 

NASA Certificate of Recognition from Inventions and Contributions Board, 2005; Nominated 

NASA Software of the year, 2003; NASA Spaceflight Awareness Award, 2002; Recipient Best 

Paper Award at AIAA Guidance, Navigation and Controls Conference, 2002; USA Superior 

Achievement Recognition Award for Technical Achievement, 2001; USA Employee of the 

month for Technical Achievement, August 2001; NASA Astronaut Selection Finalist, 2000; 

Nominated to be one of M.I.T. Aero/Astro XVI sixteen “whose innovation and vision for the 

future will help to create a future of opportunity,” NASA Certificate of Recognition and cash 

award “For the creative development of a technical innovation which has been proposed for 

publication as a NASA Technical Brief, “August 1996; Distinguished Contributor, B.F. 

Goodrich Collegiate Inventors Program, April 1992; Hunsaker Teaching Fellowship at M.I.T., 

awarded 1991 

Licenses and Certifications 

Registered Professional Mechanical Engineer: California, #M33404; Connecticut, 

#PEN.0029945; Florida, #70277; New York, #093647; Pennsylvania, #PE81587; Aeronautical 

Engineer: Massachusetts, #50794; Certified Fire and Explosion Investigator (CFEI), #19090-
Adam Dershowitz, Ph.D., P.E., CFEI 

Page 2 

05/14 

10709; Certified Flight Instructor in single and multiengine airplanes and instruments; 

Commercial Airplane, Glider, Instrument, aerobatic, and multiengine rated pilot; University of 

Southern California Aviation Safety and Security Certificate; USC System Safety Certificate 

(Courses include: Aircraft Accident Investigation; Human Factors in Aviation Safety; Software 

Safety; System Safety; Advanced System Safety; Human Error Analysis); Northwestern 

Accident Reconstruction Course; HAZWOPER Certified; NAUI Open Water SCUBA certified; 

First aid, CPR, and AED trained; 2nd degree black belt in Aikido; Certified Forklift Operator 

Patents 

Patent 5,313,202: Method of and apparatus for detection of ice accretion January 1993 (with 

R.J. Hansman). 

Patent 5,039,439: Optically indicating surface de-icing fluids, March 1989 (with 

R.J. Hansman). 

Publications 

Dershowitz A. ISPATOM: A generic real-time data processing tool without programming. 

NASA Software Tech Briefs, September 2007. 

Kim J, Crassidis J, Vadali S, Dershowitz A. International Space station leak localization using 

attitude response data. Journal of Guidance, Control, and Dynamics 2006; September–October. 

Chamitoff G, James G, Barker D, Dershowitz A. Martian resource locations: Identification and 

optimization. Acta Astronautica 2005; 56:756–769. 

Chamitoff G, James G, Barker D, Dershowitz A. Mars mission optimization based on 

collocation of resources. 6th International on Mars, Pasadena, CA, July 20–25, 2003. 

Dershowitz A. ISPATOM: A case study in new-generation generics for operational 

environments. Space Ops 2002/World Space Congress 2002, Houston, TX, October 9–12, 

2002. 

Chamitoff G, Dershowitz A. Bird's eye view—A 3-D situational awareness tool for the Space 

Station. Space Ops 2002/World Space Congress 2002, Houston, TX, October 9–12, 2002. 

Kim J, Crassidis J, Vadali S, Dershowitz A. ISS leak localization using attitude response. 

Proceedings, AIAA Guidance, Navigation and Control Conference, Montreal, Canada; August 

2001. 

Chamitoff GE, Dershowitz A. Bryson AL. Command level maneuver optimization for the 

International Space Station. Proceedings, 23rd Annual AAS Guidance and Control Conference, 

Breckenridge, CO, February 2, 2000. 
Adam Dershowitz, Ph.D., P.E., CFEI 

Page 3 

05/14 

Dershowitz A. The effect of options on pilot decision making in the presence of risk. Ph.D. 

thesis, Department of Aeronauts and Astronautics and MIT, Cambridge, MA, October 1997. 

Deshowitz A, Hansman RJ. An exploration of options in value based aeronautical decision 

making. Proceedings, 9th International Symposium on Aviation Psychology, Columbus, OH, 

April 30–May 1, 1997. 

Dershowitz A, Lind AT, Chandra DC, Bussolari SR. The effect of compression induced 

distortion of graphical weather on pilot decision making. 8th International Symposium on 

Aviation Psychology, Columbus, OH, 1995. 

Hansman RJ, Dershowitz A. Temperature measurements reveal accretion of ice on airfoils. 

NASA Tech Briefs, July 1995. 

Lind AT, Dershowitz A, Chandra DC, Bussolari SR. A human factors approach to the 

development and evaluation of the graphical weather service. Proceedings, 14th Annual Digital 

Avionics Systems Conference, Cambridge, MA, 1995. 

Simpson R, Hansman RJ, Dershowitz A, Yamaguchi K, Kazmierczak M, Wanke C. An 

Investigation of air transportation technology at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, 

1990–1991. Proceedings, NASA Joint University Program for Air Transportation Research, 

1990–1991, NASA CP-3131, June 1991. 

Dershowitz A, Hansman RJ. Experimental investigation of passive infrared ice detection of 

helicopter applications. Presented at the 29th Aerospace Sciences Meeting, paper AIAA-91-

0667, Reno, NV, January 7–10, 1991. 

Dershowitz A, Hansman RJ. Passive infrared ice detection for helicopter applications. 46th

Annual Forum of the American Helicopter Society, May 1990. 

Presentations 

Dershowitz A, Weaver B. Engineering case studies of aircraft incidents, lessons learned. 

Chicago Bar Association Annual Meeting on Aviation Law, October 2007. 

Dershowitz A. Failure analysis with case studies. Society for the Advancement of Materials 

and Process, ASM Failure Analysis Round Table, Cal State Northridge, April 26, 2006. 

Dershowitz A, Reza A, Schroeder S. What happened? How an engineering laboratory can help 

you figure it out!” 2006 Winter Meeting of the California Conference of Arson Investigators, 

San Luis Obispo, CA January 30–February 1, 2006. 
Adam Dershowitz, Ph.D., P.E., CFEI 

Page 4 

05/14 

Professional Affiliations 

 American Institute for Aeronautics and Astronautics (senior member) 

 AIAA Systems Engineering Technical Committee (member) 

 Human Factors and Ergonomics Society—HFES (member) 

 Sigma Xi (member) 
ATTACHMENT D 

MICRO UAS – ECONOMIC IMPACT IMPLICATIONS 
UAS America Fund 

Micro Unmanned Aircraft – Economic Impact Implications 

 Page 1 

Micro UA - Economic Impact Implications 

Overregulation of industries and markets, particularly growing emerging markets, induces consequential 

effects for individual stakeholders and on the economy and country as a whole. Micro UA applications 

are in key industries pushing for the growth and adoption of transformational UAS technologies capable 

of generating direct and immediate benefits to domestic businesses, including immediate opportunities 

in the following industries: aerial photography, real estate, news gathering and reporting, small-scale 

farming inspections and monitoring, infrastructure inspections, search and rescue, firefighting response, 

training and certification. With the focus of many micro UA applications being to either increase 

efficiencies through cost savings or reducing risk to people and property, commercial interests fall in 

direct alignment with the FAA’s position on public safety and risk aversion, alleviating the need for 

burdening regulation and associated costs. 

The new business opportunities and economic development enabled by micro UA technologies will only 

be realized in an accommodating commercial environment that encourages adoption by limiting the 

placement of overburdening regulation. Liberating a micro UA class of operations will favorably 

accelerate benefits by fast-tracking pathways to operationally-compliant and low-risk applications under 

minimal regulation, while upholding and emphasizing FAA’s primary mission of ensuring public safety. 

The current void of regulations for UAS operations (notwithstanding individual “Section 333” 

exemptions) significantly influences the decisions of UAS operators in such a way that the market size 

and economic impact of the business activity falling under the proposed micro UA regulation is difficult 

to quantify. However, with the industries mentioned above the market impact, both with and without 

regulation, can be estimated as a fraction of the overall industry. 

Market growth from new 

UAS operations (illustrative) 

NAICS 

Codes 

Sample Micro UA 

Industry Descriptions 

2013 GDP 

($MM) 2% 5% 10% 

Overregulation 

115000 Support activities for 

agriculture and forestry 

$20,902 $418 $1,045 $2,090 $0 

21311A Other support activities for 

mining 

$59,384 $1,188 $2,969 $5,938 $0 

611A00 Junior colleges, colleges, 

universities, and 

professional schools 

$205,018 $4,100 $10,251 $20,502 $0 

524200 Insurance agencies, 

brokerages, and related 

activities 

$216,172 $4,323 $10,809 $21,617 $0 

512100 Motion picture and video 

industries 

$130,288 $2,606 $6,514 $13,029 $0 

 TOTAL 

UAS 

IMPACT 

$12,635 $31,588 $63,176 $0 

AUVSI, the unmanned industry trade body, has produced an oft-cited report on the economic impact of 

the commercial UAs industry. This report is based primarily on precision agriculture applications. If 
UAS America Fund 

Micro Unmanned Aircraft – Economic Impact Implications 

 Page 2 

other industry applications (inspection, aerial photography, etc.) even closely approach similar 

magnitudes of opportunity, there would be significant economic and employment impact lost to 

overregulation at the smallest and safest segment of the industry. 

Year 

Total Economic 

Impact 

 (US$ billion) 

Total 

Employment

Impact 

2015 $2.28 23,413 

2016 $4.55 46,826 

2017 $6.83 70,240 

2018 $7.17 73,752 

2019 $7.53 77,439 

2020 $7.90 81,311 

2021 $8.30 85,377 

2022 $8.72 89,645 

2023 $9.15 94,128 

2024 $9.61 98,834 

2025 $10.09 103,776 

Total $82.12 844,741 

Regulatory Flexibility Analysis 

By statute, Federal agencies must perform a review to determine whether a proposed or final rule would 

have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. The FAA should assess a 

Disproportionality Analysis (whether small entities will be disadvantaged relative to large entities due to 

disproportionate impacts) and an Affordability Analysis (the degree to which small entities can afford the 

reduction in revenue resulting from the final rule is predicated on the availability of financial resources. 

The entirety of nascent business contemplating commercial micro UA operation, all of which would be 

affected by any proposed UAS Rule, are currently well below existing “small business” standards as 

determined by the Small Business Administration (see below). 

NAICS 

Codes NAICS Industry Description 

Size Standards 

($MM) 

541922 Commercial Photography $7.5 

115116 Farm Management Services $7.5

541350 Building Inspection Services $7.5

531210 Offices of Real Estate Agents and Brokers $7.5

531312 Nonresidential Property Managers $7.5

524210 Insurance Agencies and Brokerages $7.5

541360 Geophysical Surveying and Mapping Services $15.0 

611512 Flight Training $27.5 

213112 Support Activities for Oil and Gas Operations $38.5 
UAS America Fund 

Micro Unmanned Aircraft – Economic Impact Implications 

 Page 3 

Regulatory Flexibility Analysis - Costs of Regulation 

There are currently approximately 225,000 manned aircraft registered with the FAA, requiring many 

millions of dollars in public sector financial resources to support regulatory administration. The FAA 

currently estimates as many as 7,500 small commercial UAS may be in use by 2018 (three years from 

expected - but unlikely to hold - deadline for the small UAS final rule), with this number expected to 

grow dramatically over the next decade. 

Cost 

Cost 

Incurred 

by Public 

Sector 

Cost 

Incurred 

by Private 

Sector Sample Cost Areas 

Certification Costs X X Pilot certification (approx.. $10,000), aircraft 

certification FAA DARs/DERs, Medical exams 

Compliance Costs X Maintenance program, pilot currency 

requirements, 

Government 

Administration Costs 

X Aircraft registry maintenance, harmonization, 

Advisory circulars 

Regulatory 

Enforcement 

X FAA inspectors or other (police), warning letters, 

tracking 

Litigation X X Legal fees, judicial docket bandwidth 

Fines and Penalties X 

Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Public Law 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 (adjusted annually for inflation) 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.” Rulemaking requirements that treat UAS as 

aircraft and operators as manned aircraft pilots will significantly increase the costs of compliance for 

both public and private sector, which could easily approach this benchmark due to undetermined costs 

for enforcing expansive regulations 

By segmenting the smallest and safest portion of the commercial UAS market to focus primarily on safe 

operating environment parameters and operator education (as used by the historically safe model aircraft 

today), these costs could be dramatically avoided to allow public sector resources to focus on larger and 

more complex unmanned aircraft and use operating applications. 
UAS America Fund 

Micro Unmanned Aircraft – Economic Impact Implications 

 Page 4 

Regulatory Flexibility Analysis - International Trade Impact Assessment 

The Trade Agreements Act of 1979 (Public Law 96-39) prohibits Federal agencies from establishing any 

standards or engaging in related activities that create unnecessary obstacles to the foreign commerce of 

the United States. Legitimate domestic objectives, such as safety, are not considered unnecessary 

obstacles. The statute also requires consideration of international standards and, where appropriate, that 

they be the basis for U.S. standards. 

Due to lagging regulatory movement domestically, the foreign commerce of the Unites States will be 

irreparably harmed with a sweeping FAA standards program that is both late relative to other countries 

and overly burdensome for an entire portion of the commercial UAS industry. Each new jobs and dollar 

of economic activity will develop either in the United States or internationally. Indeed, many industry 

leaders and have been publically vocal regarding their needs to move research and development and 

operations out of domestic markets due to burdensome regulations in this country. In addition to 

established commercial entities, it is likely that a new generation of entrepreneurs – composed from a 

highly skilled workforce – will opt to establish headquarters outside of the borders of the United States. 

Each of these decisions harms the United States economic viability. 

Further, per the statute, the FAA should consider the current regulatory developments occurring 

globally. Other countries have established basic operating parameters, which should be considered as at 

least potential standards. Australia, Canada, and, most recently, New Zealand have all established 

guidelines to enable commercial UAS operations. Each of these frameworks that could potentially 

contribute FAA rulemaking and should be explored.