42100 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 134 / Thursday, July 14, 2022 / Rules and Regulations 

Truncated or partial SSN means the 

shortened or partial Social Security 

account number. 

§ 2.303 What are DOI’s requirements for 

protecting SSNs in document sent by mail? 

(a) DOI bureaus and offices may not 

include the full or partial SSN of an 

individual on any document sent via 

mail unless: 

(1) The inclusion of an SSN on a 

document sent by mail is required or 

authorized by law; 

(2) The responsible program office has 

conducted the proper assessment and 

taken steps to mitigate the use of the 

SSN and any impacts to individual 

privacy; and 

(3) The Secretary of the Interior has 

determined that the inclusion of the 

SSN on the document is necessary and 

appropriate to meet legal and mission 

requirements in accordance with this 

subpart. 

(b) Bureaus and offices shall partially 

redact or truncate SSNs in documents 

sent by mail where feasible to reduce 

the unnecessary use of SSNs and 

mitigate risk to individuals’ privacy. 

(c) In no case shall any complete or 

partial SSN be visible on the outside of 

any envelope or package sent by mail or 

displayed on correspondence that is 

visible through the window of an 

envelope or package. 

Joan M. Mooney, 

Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary, Policy, 

Management and Budget. 

[FR Doc. 2022–14847 Filed 7–13–22; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4334–63–P 

NATIONAL TRANSPORTATION 

SAFETY BOARD 

49 CFR Part 830 

[Docket No.: NTSB–2021–0004] 

RIN 3147–AA20 

Amendment to the Definition of 

Unmanned Aircraft Accident 

AGENCY: National Transportation Safety 

Board (NTSB). 

ACTION: Final rule. 

SUMMARY: The National Transportation 

Safety Board (NTSB) is issuing a final 

rule, amending the definition of 

‘‘Unmanned aircraft accident’’ by 

removing the weight-based requirement 

and replacing it with an airworthiness 

certificate requirement. The weight 

threshold is no longer an appropriate 

criterion because unmanned aircraft 

systems (UAS) under 300 lbs. are 

operating in high-risk environments, 

such as beyond line-of-sight and over 

populated areas. The amended 

definition will allow the NTSB to be 

notified of and quickly respond to UAS 

events with safety significance. Since 

the notice of proposed rulemaking 

(NPRM), the agency considered 

comments and as a result eliminated the 

‘‘airworthiness approval,’’ while 

keeping ‘‘airworthiness certification.’’ 

DATES: This rule is effective August 15, 

2022. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Kathleen Silbaugh, General Counsel, 

(202) 314–6080, rulemaking@ntsb.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

I. Background 

The NTSB prescribes regulations 

governing the notification and reporting 

of accidents involving civil aircraft. As 

an independent Federal agency charged 

with investigating and establishing the 

facts, circumstances, and probable cause 

of every civil aviation accident in the 

United States, the NTSB has an interest 

in redefining a UAS accident in light of 

recent developments in the industry. 

For NTSB purposes, ‘‘unmanned 

aircraft accident’’ means an occurrence 

associated with the operation of an 

unmanned aircraft that takes place 

between the time that the system is 

activated with the purpose of flight and 

the time that the system is deactivated 

at the conclusion of its mission, and in 

which any person suffers death or 

serious injury, or in which the aircraft 

has a maximum gross takeoff weight of 

300 lbs. or greater and receives 

substantial damage. 

At the time this definition was 

contemplated, the weight-based 

requirement was necessary because 

defining an accident solely on 

‘‘substantial damage’’ would have 

required investigations of numerous 

small UAS (sUAS) crashes with no 

significant safety issues. See final rule, 

75 FR 51953, 51954 (Aug. 24, 2010). 

Consequently, there is no legal 

requirement to report or for the NTSB to 

investigate events involving substantial 

damage to UAS weighing less than 300 

lbs. because these are not recognized 

‘‘unmanned aircraft accidents’’ under 

the NTSB’s regulations. While this 

definition ensured that the NTSB 

expended resources on UAS events 

involving the most significant risk to 

public safety, the advent of higher 

capability UAS applications—such as 

commercial drone delivery flights 

operating in a higher risk environment 

(e.g., populated areas, beyond line-ofsight operations, etc.)—has prompted 

the agency to propose an updated 

definition of ‘‘unmanned aircraft 

accident.’’ Moreover, in the August 24, 

2010, final rule, the NTSB anticipated 

future updates of the definition given 

the evolving nature of UAS technology 

and operations. Id. 

On May 21, 2021, the NTSB issued an 

NPRM announcing its intent to issue a 

rule amending the definition of 

‘‘Unmanned aircraft accident’’ by 

removing the weight-based requirement 

and replacing it with an airworthiness 

certificate or airworthiness approval 

requirement. 86 FR 27550 (May 21, 

2021). The weight threshold is no longer 

an appropriate criterion because UAS 

under 300 lbs. are operating in high-risk 

environments, such as beyond line-ofsight and over populated areas. The 

NTSB explained that proposed 

definition will allow the NTSB to be 

notified of and quickly respond to UAS 

events with safety significance. During 

the comment period, the NTSB received 

11 timely public comments that are 

addressed by subject matter below. 

II. Airworthiness Certification/ 

Approval 

The NTSB believes that an updated 

definition is necessary given the 

changing UAS industry. Section 44807 

of the Federal Aviation Administration 

(FAA) Reauthorization Act of 2018 

(Reauthorization Act) directed the 

Department of Transportation to use a 

risk-based approach to determine if 

certain UAS may operate safely in the 

national airspace. A number of drone 

delivery operations, among other 

applications, which need to operate 

beyond the provisions of the existing 

regulation, 14 CFR part 107, have begun 

using: (1) FAA Special Airworthiness 

Certificates—Experimental, or (2) 

approvals under the exemption 

processes per section 44807 of the 

Reauthorization Act that allows the 

FAA to grant exemptions on an 

individual basis. Because airworthiness 

certification is necessary for operation 

of civil aircraft outside of 14 CFR part 

107 or without an exemption, as drone 

delivery and other applications develop, 

airworthiness certification will become 

more prevalent for certain unmanned 

aircraft of any size or weight. 

A substantially damaged delivery 

drone may uncover significant safety 

issues, the investigation of which may 

enhance aviation safety through the 

independent and established NTSB 

process. This amended definition will 

treat a UAS with airworthiness 

certification in the same manner as a 

manned aircraft with airworthiness 

certification, thereby enabling the NTSB 

to immediately investigate, influence 

corrective actions, and propose safety 

recommendations. 


jspears on DSK121TN23PROD with RULES1
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 134 / Thursday, July 14, 2022 / Rules and Regulations 42101 

Accordingly, the definition will be 

flexible to account for changes in the 

UAS industry and will allow the NTSB 

to respond quickly to UAS events with 

safety significance, while not burdening 

the agency or public with unnecessary 

responses. 

III. Responses to Comments 

The NTSB received 11 timely 

comments with some in support of the 

proposed definition as amended, and 

others who have raised various issues 

that the NTSB has addressed by subject 

further below. Although the agency 

received one late-filed comment, the 

NTSB notes that the commenter 

reiterated the comments received from 

those in opposition, which are 

addressed below. 

Those in support included Sheri 

Pippin, a private citizen, who 

commented: ‘‘The FAA is being put 

under enormous pressure to authorize 

commercial UAS operations in reduced 

timeframes. Therefore, these 

commercial UAS operations should be 

subject to the same scrutiny as 

commercial manned operations. 

Allowing the NTSB to investigate 

accidents involving commercial UAS 

operations will provide an independent 

review of these operations which will 

hopefully improve the safety of these 

operations.’’ 

Another in support of the proposed 

amendment to the definition included 

Airlines for America (A4A), which 

stated that it ‘‘endorses the NTSB 

extending the scope of the data being 

collected on UAS related incidents 

because it will improve safety of 

operations by identifying potential 

safety risks and providing safety 

improvement recommendations and 

provide relevant data that can enhance 

security initiatives. In addition, the 

proposed definition change would give 

the public confidence that the criteria 

and standard used for UAS investigation 

are no different than manned aircraft, 

which is essential to define future safety 

controls and mitigations to the 

operation and design of UAS. The 

reporting and investigating of UAS 

accidents and incidents can assist in 

preventing future UAS encounter by 

providing informing and increasing 

awareness about actual UAS collision 

risks. Given the increased security 

threats posed by UAS, A4A believes that 

the data collection will also help 

identify issues that affect security at 

airports.’’ 

An anonymous commenter stated that 

the agency ‘‘should have the authority 

to inspect, investigate, and provide 

safety recommendations to owners and 

operators of small unmanned aircraft 

under the current weight limit. It is a 

timely rule change that is in the best 

interest of public safety.’’ 

Jullian Lucas, another private citizen, 

agreed ‘‘that UAS should be regulated 

through a certification process 

depending on the mission the aircraft 

would be performing. . . . UAS aircraft 

although generally small can still be 

very dangerous if flown in a high[-] risk 

area and that needs to be monitored 

consistently when possible and the 

change to what can be investigated by 

the NTSB would help with that.’’ 

The remaining comments are 

addressed by subject matter below: 

A. Public Safety Operators 

A commenter who identified 

themselves as Public Safety Flight 

argued: ‘‘There is no mandatory 

reporting system for UAS pilots 

operating as commercial pilots under 

[14] CFR part 107 or in public aircraft 

operations without NTSB awareness 

and attention. Without including the 

reporting of all craft considered aircraft 

by the FAA, it seems logically 

impossible to determine the risk trends 

of problems of any particular UAS 

flying in the National Airspace System. 

The lack of reporting creates a safety 

hazard, with the least safe aircraft not 

being on the NTSB radar. This would 

leave the NTSB at odds with its 

statement of its intention to be able to 

‘respond quickly to UAS events with 

safety significance.’ ’’ The commenter 

continued: ‘‘The proposed change also 

appears to miss a technical issue that 

applies to all organizations operating 

UAS as public aircraft. Under a 

Certificate of Waiver or Authorization 

(COA), the government organization, 

operation, or entity must certify the 

UAS are airworthy, even without an 

Airworthiness Certificate. Since these 

UAS operated under a COA are certified 

airworthy and flown as airworthy, any 

UAS operated under a COA should be 

subject to the exact requirements as if it 

holds an Airworthiness Certificate.’’ 

NTSB Response. This comment 

pertains to increasing the scope to 

capture sUAS that are operated by 

police and fire departments and other 

similar governmental first response 

agencies. It appears that the commenter 

requests that the rule include 

substantial damage events that occur to 

first response operations, typically 

conducted under 14 CFR part 107 or as 

Public Aircraft under the provisions of 

a COA. The amended definition is 

intended to exclude the majority of part 

107 events that do not result in injury 

or fatality. Otherwise, increasing the 

scope of this rulemaking to capture 

public safety operators would create 

complexity, confusion, and an excessive 

burden on the agency’s resources with 

little benefit to safety. 

B. Public Certificate of Authority 

‘‘Airworthiness’’ 

A number of commenters mentioned 

that public COA operators self-certify 

their aircraft. Specifically, Keith C. 

Raley, Chief of Aviation Safety, 

Training, Program Evaluations & Quality 

Management of the Office of Aviation 

Services at the Department of the 

Interior, queried: ‘‘whether it would 

apply to [F]ederal agencies already 

performing this function or if it would 

be limited in its applicability to sUAS 

that have received an FAA certification 

or approval and operating in a civil 

capacity. If this new rule were to apply 

to [F]ederal agencies already meeting 

the intended outcomes of the proposed 

regulation, it could create needless 

duplicity in that [Federal Management 

Regulation] FMR 102–33 compliant 

agencies are already managing sUAS in 

a similar manner. Additionally, the 

NTSB is often challenged with their 

ability to process their existing 

workload in the manned environment 

and adding this requirement will 

significantly increase their caseload 

resulting in even greater delays.’’ 

NTSB Response. The NTSB does not 

intend to capture these aircraft and 

clarifies that ‘‘airworthiness certificate’’ 

has the same meaning as that in 14 CFR 

part 21. 

C. Section 44807 Approvals 

A number of commenters noted that 

the section 44807 exemption process is 

applied very broadly. Entitled ‘‘Special 

authority for certain unmanned aircraft 

systems,’’ section 44807(b)(1) provides 

that ‘‘the Secretary shall determine, at a 

minimum—which types of unmanned 

aircraft systems, if any, as a result of 

their of their size, weight, speed, 

operational capability, proximity to 

airports and populated areas, operation 

over people, and operation within or 

beyond the visual line of sight or 

operation during the day or night, do 

not create a hazard to users of the 

national airspace system of the public.’’ 

The Small UAV Coalition (Coalition) 

requested ‘‘clarification that the NTSB’s 

use of the term ‘airworthiness 

approvals’ means exceptions under 

section 44807.’’ The Coalition explained 

that ‘‘Operations under [p]art 107, even 

pursuant to a part 107 waiver, are not 

considered flights in a high[-]risk 

environment, which we believe is the 

NTSB’s focus of this proposed rule.’’ 

The Coalition continued, ‘‘Operations of 

a UAS that weighs over 55 lbs. may be 

authorized only by exemption under 


jspears on DSK121TN23PROD with RULES1
42102 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 134 / Thursday, July 14, 2022 / Rules and Regulations 

section 44807, and thus we believe that 

they would be covered by the proposed 

definition if an exemption under section 

44807 is considered an ‘airworthiness 

approval’ as the preamble suggests.’’ 

The Coalition recommended ‘‘limiting 

the proposed definition, with respect to 

substantial damage (revised to relate to 

property other than the drone) where 

there is no death or serious injury, to 

exemptions issued under section 44807, 

thus excluding any part 107 operation 

(including an operation conducted 

under a part 107 waiver), unless that 

aircraft is being operated under a 

section 44807 exemption.’’ 

NTSB Response. The NTSB agrees 

and to keep the focus on the operations 

most likely to be widespread in the 

National Airspace System (NAS), the 

phrase ‘‘or approval’’ will be removed 

from the proposed definition that was 

reflected in the NPRM, thereby 

clarifying that the definition only 

applies to aircraft which hold an 

airworthiness certificate under 14 CFR 

part 21. 

D. Experimental Airworthiness 

Certificates 

A number of commenters noted that 

Special Airworthiness Certificates 

(SAC)—Experimental (or other 

categories of SAC) would be captured by 

this rule, and that many of these such 

aircraft are operated in remote test 

ranges posing low risk. 

The Coalition, for example, argued 

that the ‘‘term ‘holds an airworthiness 

certificate’ would cover experimental 

category airworthiness certificates. 

Operations in the experimental category 

are for research and development 

purposes; commercial operations are not 

permitted. Thus, these operations are 

not conducted in a high[-] risk 

environment. Therefore, the Coalition 

supports including any aircraft that 

holds an airworthiness certificate other 

than in the experimental category.’’ 

NTSB Response. The NTSB 

acknowledges that Experimental test 

aircraft pose little risk to the public in 

an immediate sense. However, many of 

these aircraft are working toward 

certification to carry passengers in the 

so-called Urban Air Mobility segment, 

or other significant operations. 

Notification and investigation of such 

events can uncover safety issues prior to 

widespread commercial use. The NTSB 

notes this is in accordance with the 

practice for conventional manned 

aircraft as well, in which test aircraft 

accidents are investigated. 

E. Hobby/Modeler Operations 

A number of commenters requested 

that the NTSB investigate hobbyist/ 

modeler events resulting in injury or 

death. The Coalition noted that ‘‘[m]any 

hobbyist/modeler operations under part 

101 are conducted by drones that are 

also used in commercial operations 

under part 107. Given the language of 

the preamble, the Coalition seeks 

confirmation from the Board that it will 

investigate hobbyist/modeler aircraft 

accidents involving death or serious 

injury to a person.’’ 

Another commenter who referenced 

themselves as ‘‘Agricola Publius’’ 

expressed his belief that modelers and 

hobbyists should be included because a 

‘‘man in a garage could easily construct 

a drone that fits the criteria for an 

airworthiness certificate would not be a 

concern if it crashed. The notion that 

one could accidentally put a miniature 

bomber through a car window and not 

be scrutinized by the NTSB is absurd.’’ 

NTSB Response. The NTSB does not 

now, nor does it plan to include model 

aircraft events in the definition. This is 

also in accordance with International 

Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO) 

Circular 328: ‘‘Model aircraft, generally 

recognized as intended for recreational 

purposes only, fall outside the 

provisions of the Chicago Convention 

. . . .’’ 

The NTSB notes that it may 

optionally investigate any occurrence 

which poses a threat to air safety, but 

requiring investigations of model 

aircraft events is beyond the scope of 

this rulemaking. 

F. Application to Part 107 and 

Harmonization With 14 CFR 107.9 

A number of commenters discussed 

the applicability and harmonization 

with UAS operated under the provisions 

of 14 CFR part 107 (Small Unmanned 

Aircraft Systems) and the FAA’s 

notification requirement in § 107.9 for 

accident reporting of sUAS. Section 

107.9, in pertinent part, requires a 

remote pilot to report any sUAS 

operation involving property damage— 

other than the sUAS—unless the cost of 

repair does not exceed $500, or the fair 

market value does not exceed $500 in 

the event of total loss. 

The Cargo Airline Association (CAA) 

‘‘proposes aligning the current accident 

reporting threshold which provides a 

takeoff weight of 55 lbs. and a minimum 

cost of repair and fair market value of 

any property loss. (See 14 [CFR] 107.9). 

Doing so would align the [p]art 107 

accident reporting requirements with 

NTSB’s authority under [p]art 830.’’ 

The Coalition ‘‘urges the Board to 

adapt the FAA’s definition that refers to 

damage not to the drone but to property 

other than the drone. ‘Substantial 

damage’ in the NTSB’s current and 

proposed definition refers to damage to 

the aircraft, whereas the FAA’s 

definition of ‘unmanned aircraft 

accident’ in 14 CFR 107.9 . . . refers to 

damage to property ‘other than to the 

small unmanned aircraft.’’’ The 

Coalition recommended that ‘‘the NTSB 

adapt the $500 threshold in the FAA’s 

definition in 14 CFR 107.9 . . . .’’ The 

Coalition asserted that ‘‘UAS that will 

hold an airworthiness certificate or 

section 44807 approval are often small, 

lightweight, and designed with 

materials and features that substantially 

absorb the energy and resultant damage 

of a potential collision. The NTSB’s 

proposed change would de-incentivize 

the incorporation of such features by 

focusing on the level of damage to the 

airframe instead of the much more 

relevant level of damage to persons or 

property.’’ In its footnote, the Coalition 

stated that it ‘‘recognizes that 49 CFR 

830.5 requires reporting of any incident 

in which an aircraft causes $25,000 in 

damages to property other than aircraft. 

This provision was likely drafted with 

legacy aircraft in mind. While not in the 

scope of this rulemaking, the Coalition 

wishes to refute the notion that because 

[the] NTSB already has a definition of 

accident that includes damage to 

property in [§ ]830.5, the definition of 

unmanned aircraft accident in section 

830.2 must focus on the damage to the 

aircraft.’’ 

NTSB Response. The NTSB believes 

there is some misunderstanding of 

language in the NPRM preamble, which 

may have caused confusion and 

concern. The mention of part 107 in the 

NPRM is in the preamble section 

entitled ‘‘Unaffected Regulations.’’ 

Except for a small segment of part 107 

(subpart D, Operations Over Human 

Beings, § 107.140 Category 4 

operations), no small UAS operated 

under part 107 holds, or will hold, 

airworthiness certifications, and 

therefore will not be affected by this 

rule. 

Thus, there is no reason to harmonize 

the NTSB regulation with § 107.9 as far 

as a non-injury event because they 

apply to different aircraft and 

operations. The amendment applies to 

UAS of any size, which operate under 

other parts of 14 CFR, such as 91 or 135, 

and do so with airworthiness 

certification under 14 CFR part 21. 

Commenters mentioned that some 

certified aircraft may be of small size or 

weight and pose little risk. The NTSB 

does not intend to evaluate and 

determine the risk level, and defers to 

the FAA requirement for airworthiness 

certification for a given vehicle or 

operation, which the NTSB believes is 

a more relevant harmonization. The 


jspears on DSK121TN23PROD with RULES1
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 134 / Thursday, July 14, 2022 / Rules and Regulations 42103 

NTSB does not agree with comments 

which claim that sUAS with very low 

risk exposure, but nonetheless receive 

airworthiness certification should be 

exempted. The existing Category 1, 2, 

and 3 provisions—in part 107 subpart 

D—capture many of the low-energy or 

physically-protected aircraft and do not 

require airworthiness certification; 

therefore, they are outside the scope of 

this rulemaking. This is also in keeping 

with the definitions for manned aircraft. 

The end result of the amendment will 

treat manned and unmanned aircraft 

identically for accident notification and 

investigation purposes. 

Similarly, some commenters 

mentioned the FAA § 107.9 criteria of 

$500 of damage to objects other than the 

UAS. Although NTSB does have a 

notification requirement related to other 

damage, the current definition of 

accidents of any kind of aircraft is not 

cost-based. The NTSB believes the cost 

of other damage is an arbitrary outcome 

of a particular event, which may not 

have any relation to safety issues. 

Under § 830.2, substantial damage is 

defined as ‘‘damage or failure which 

adversely affects the structural strength, 

performance, or flight characteristics of 

the aircraft, and which would normally 

require major repair or replacement of 

the affected component.’’ Asking the 

NTSB to revise its definition of 

‘‘substantial damage’’ is beyond the 

scope of this rulemaking; however, the 

following comment and response 

partially covers this concern. 

G. Frangible Components 

A number of commenters requested 

that the NTSB not consider frangible 

components or other features that by 

design may result in damage to the 

aircraft, but do not pose a significant 

risk, e.g., parachute deployments. 

The Association for Unmanned 

Vehicle Systems International (AUVSI) 

noted that ‘‘[n]ew technologies and 

construction materials, including lightweight and frangible materials, ensure 

that small UAS are purposefully built to 

lessen any impact and damage to the 

public, other aircraft, or to property. 

Accordingly, AUVSI advises the NTSB 

to take into consideration the FAA’s 

risk-based requirements of aircraft that 

receive an airworthiness certificate or 

approval and the extreme low-risk 

categories that many of these aircraft fall 

into. For example, the complete 

elimination of the weight standard may 

not be the best way to achieve NTSB’s 

intent. Instead, AUVSI suggests 

maintaining a maximum takeoff weigh 

tied to the ‘substantial damage’ clause, 

such as what the . . . [FAA] defines as 

the . . . [sUAS] category, consisting of 

UAS of less than 55 pounds. AUVSI also 

suggests refining the proposed language 

to align with the FAA’s [p]art 107 Rule 

(14 CFR [part] 107) accident reporting 

language. Specifically, we propose the 

condition to specify that these accident 

investigations are only undertaken if the 

cost of repairs exceeds $500 and/or the 

fair market value of property damage 

exceeds $500, as is this case in . . . 

§ 107.9. This will ensure that the 

NTSB’s authority is targeted in a cost 

effective manner that yields true 

benefits to aviation safety.’’ 

The CAA noted that ‘‘[b]ecause of 

their small size and light weight, most 

[sUAS] are made by frangible material, 

designed to break down in the event of 

an accident, presenting little safety risk 

to the general public. Requiring 

reporting of accidents of small UAS, 

solely because they hold an 

airworthiness certificate or approval, 

could lead to [the] NTSB being 

inundated with investigations that do 

not present a high safety risk to the 

public. It could lead to further resource 

constraints and divert essential 

resources with the agency.’’ 

NTSB Response. The NTSB agrees 

with this concept and has operated in 

this manner since the initial UAS 

definition in 2010. The NTSB notes that 

damage to intentionally frangible 

components or other by-design damage 

does not qualify as ‘‘substantial 

damage’’ for the purpose of this rule. 

H. Gender Neutral Terminology 

Several commenters referenced 

recommendations by the FAA’s Drone 

Advisory Committee’s (DAC) to revise 

drone terminology/language in genderneutral terms. Specifically, the Air Line 

Pilots Association, International (ALPA) 

requested that the NTSB change the 

term ‘‘Unmanned Aircraft System’’ to 

‘‘Remotely Piloted Aircraft System 

(RPAS)’’ as recommended by DAC. 

ALPA noted that using RPAS will align 

with ICAO’s standards and is a term 

also used by Transport Canada. ALPA 

noted that DAC also recommended 

using ‘‘uncrewed’’ instead of 

‘‘unmanned’’; ALPA further 

recommended that the NTSB use such 

language in part 830. By footnote, the 

CAA noted that on June 23, 2021, the 

FAA DAC presented recommendations 

to the FAA for gender-neutral language, 

which included using ‘‘uncrewed’’ in 

lieu of ‘‘unmanned.’’ 

NTSB Response. This proposal is 

beyond the scope of this rulemaking, 

I. Lead Agency 

The Small UAV Coalition 

‘‘recommends the NTSB and FAA agree 

on criteria to determine whether the 

NTSB or FAA should be the lead agency 

of an UAS accident investigation, 

consistent with FAA Order 8020.11D.’’ 

NTSB Response. Based on statutory 

authority, the NTSB is the ‘‘lead’’ 

agency for civil aviation accident 

investigations, which covers UAS. 

Under 49 U.S.C. 1131(a)(1)(A), the 

NTSB shall investigate or have 

investigated the facts, circumstances, 

and cause or probable cause of an 

aircraft accident. Under section 1132(c), 

the NTSB provides for FAA 

participation when necessary. FAA 

Order 8020.11D describes the FAA’s 

investigation procedures and 

responsibilities for aircraft accident and 

incident notification, investigation, and 

reporting. 

J. Intentional Crashing of the Drone 

The Coalition argued, ‘‘a remote pilot 

who intentionally decides to crash the 

drone to avoid the risk of collision with 

a person or property . . . . should not 

be reportable.’’ 

NTSB Response. The NTSB agrees 

that in a similar manner to the frangible 

component section above, a UAS that 

has been crashed or sacrificed 

intentionally for safety purposes (as 

opposed to a nefarious act) does not 

meet the definition of ‘‘accident.’’ 

However, operators should be reminded 

that if the reason for the sacrifice is a 

listed event in § 830.5, a notification 

may still be required. 

IV. Regulatory Analysis 

Because the NTSB is an independent 

agency, this rule does not require an 

assessment of its potential costs and 

benefits under section 6(a)(3) of 

Executive Order (E.O.) 12866, 

Regulatory Planning and Review, 58 FR 

51735 (Sept. 30, 1993). In addition, the 

NTSB has considered whether this rule 

would have a significant economic 

impact on a substantial number of small 

entities, under the Regulatory Flexibility 

Act (5 U.S.C. 601–612). The NTSB 

certifies under 5 U.S.C. 605(b) that this 

rule would not have a significant 

economic impact on a substantial 

number of small entities. 

The NTSB does not anticipate this 

rule will have a substantial, direct effect 

on state or local governments or will 

preempt state law; as such, this rule 

does not have implications for 

federalism under E.O. 13132, 

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

This rule complies with all applicable 

standards in sections 3(a) and 3(b)(2) of 

E.O. 12988, Civil Justice Reform, 61 FR 

4729 (Feb. 5, 1996), to minimize 

litigation, eliminate ambiguity, and 

reduce burden. The NTSB has evaluated 

this rule under: E.O. 12898, Federal 


jspears on DSK121TN23PROD with RULES1
42104 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 134 / Thursday, July 14, 2022 / Rules and Regulations 

Actions to Address Environmental 

Judice in Minority Populations and 

Low-Income Populations, 59 FR 7629 

(Feb. 16, 1994); E.O. 13045, Protection 

of Children from Environmental Health 

Risks and Safety Risks, 62 FR 19885 

(Apr. 21, 1997); E.O. 13175, 

Consultation and Coordination with 

Indian Tribal Governments, 65 FR 

67249 (Nov. 6, 2000); E.O. 13211, 

Actions Concerning Regulations That 

Significantly Affect Energy Supply, 

Distribution, or Use, 66 FR 28355 (May 

18, 2001); and the National 

Environmental Policy Act, 42 U.S.C. 

4321–47. Pursuant to the Paperwork 

Reduction Act, the NTSB has 

determined that there is no new 

requirement for information collection 

associated with this final rule. Pursuant 

to the Congressional Review Act (5 

U.S.C. 801 et seq.), the Office of 

Information and Regulatory Affairs 

designated this rule as not a ‘‘major 

rule,’’ as defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2). 

The NTSB has concluded that this 

final rule neither violates nor requires 

further consideration under those orders 

and statutes. 

List of Subjects in 49 CFR Part 830 

Air transportation, Aircraft accidents, 

Aircraft incidents, Airworthiness 

directives and standards, Aviation 

safety, Drones, Investigations, Reporting 

and recordkeeping requirements, Safety, 

Unmanned aircraft systems. 

Accordingly, for the reasons stated in 

the preamble, the NTSB amends 49 CFR 

part 830 as follows: 

PART 830—NOTIFICATION AND 

REPORTING OF AIRCRAFT 

ACCIDENTS OR INCIDENTS AND 

OVERDUE AIRCRAFT, AND 

PRESERVATION OF AIRCRAFT 

WRECKAGE, MAIL, CARGO, AND 

RECORDS 

■ 1. The authority citation for part 830 

continues to read as follows: 

Authority: 49 U.S.C. 1101–1155; Pub. L. 

85–726, 72 Stat. 731 (codified as amended at 

49 U.S.C. 40101). 

§ 830.2 [Amended] 

■ 2. Amend § 830.2 in paragraph (2) of 

the definition of ‘‘Unmanned aircraft 

accident’’ by removing the phrase ‘‘has 

a maximum gross takeoff weight of 300 

pounds or greater’’ and adding in its 

place ‘‘holds an airworthiness 

certificate’’. 

Jennifer Homendy, 

Chair. 

[FR Doc. 2022–14872 Filed 7–13–22; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 7533–01–P 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

National Oceanic and Atmospheric 

Administration 

50 CFR Part 216 

[Docket No. 210901–0173] 

Swim With and Approach Regulation 

for Hawaiian Spinner Dolphins Under 

the Marine Mammal Protection Act; 

Ratification of Regulation 

AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries 

Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and 

Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), 

Commerce. 

ACTION: Ratification. 

SUMMARY: NOAA is publishing 

notification of the NOAA 

Administrator’s ratification of a rule. 

DATES: The ratification was signed on 

July 8, 2022. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Kevin Brindock, NMFS, Pacific Islands 

Region, Deputy Assistant Regional 

Administrator, Protected Resources 

Division, (808) 725–5146; or Trevor 

Spradlin, NMFS, Office of Protected 

Resources, Deputy Chief, Marine 

Mammal and Sea Turtle Conservation 

Division, Office of Protected Resources, 

(301) 427–8402. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On July 8, 

2022, the Under Secretary of Commerce 

for Oceans and Atmosphere and NOAA 

Administrator, Dr. Richard W. Spinrad, 

ratified a final rule issued by NMFS on 

September 28, 2021, that restricts 

swimming with and approaching 

Hawaiian spinner dolphins within 50 

yards (45.7 m) in designated waters of 

Hawaii, subject to certain exceptions. 

See Swim With and Approach 

Regulation for Hawaiian Spinner 

Dolphins under the Marine Mammal 

Protection Act, 86 FR 53818 (Sept. 28, 

2021) (Approach Rule). NOAA is now 

publishing the ratification in the 

Federal Register out of an abundance of 

caution. Neither the ratification nor the 

publication is a statement that the 

ratified action would be invalid absent 

the ratification, whether published or 

otherwise. 

Appendix 

Ratification 

I, Richard W. Spinrad, hereby declare as 

follows: 

As the Under Secretary of Commerce for 

Oceans and Atmosphere and the National 

Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration 

(NOAA) Administrator, I am affirming and 

ratifying a prior action by the Assistant 

Administrator for NOAA Fisheries, Janet 

Coit. On September 28, 2021, the National 

Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS or NOAA 

Fisheries) published in the Federal Register 

a final rule that restricts swimming with and 

approaching Hawaiian spinner dolphins 

within 50 yards (45.7 m) in designated 

coastal waters of Hawaii, subject to 

designated exceptions. See Swim With and 

Approach Regulation for Hawaiian Spinner 

Dolphins Under the Marine Mammal 

Protection Act, 86 FR 53818 (Sept. 28, 2021) 

(Approach Rule). The Approach Rule was 

approved by the Assistant Administrator for 

NOAA Fisheries, Janet Coit, and signed by 

the Deputy Assistant Administrator for 

NOAA Fisheries, Samuel Rauch. Questions 

have been raised in litigation concerning the 

authority of these officials to issue the 

Approach Rule. 

I have the authority to ratify the Approach 

Rule. President Biden appointed me to the 

position of Under Secretary of Commerce for 

Oceans and Atmosphere and NOAA 

Administrator on April 22, 2021, and the 

Senate confirmed my appointment on June 

17, 2021. I was sworn in to office on June 22, 

2021. In my capacity as NOAA 

Administrator, I oversee NOAA, a bureau 

within the Department of Commerce. Among 

other duties, NOAA is responsible for 

implementing various Federal laws that 

provide for the conservation and 

management of protected species and their 

habitats, including the Marine Mammal 

Protection Act (MMPA), 16 U.S.C. 1371, et 

seq., through NMFS, a subunit within NOAA. 

I possess the requisite statutory authority 

under sections 103 and 112 of the MMPA, 

and Department of Commerce Department 

Organization Order 10–15, to promulgate the 

Approach Rule as described below. Pursuant 

to the NOAA Organization Handbook 

Transmittal No. 61, the authority to perform 

functions under the MMPA has been 

redelegated to the Assistant Administrator for 

NOAA Fisheries; however, I retain the 

authority to take any action that is 

redelegated. 

Out of an abundance of caution, and to 

remove any doubt as to its validity, I have 

independently evaluated the Approach Rule 

and the basis for adopting it, and I now 

affirm and ratify the Approach Rule without 

deference to Assistant Administrator Coit’s 

prior decision. I state that I have knowledge 

of the contents, purpose, and requirements of 

the Approach Rule and its rulemaking 

record. I undertake this action based on my 

careful review of the Approach Rule, my 

knowledge of its provisions, and my 

independent judgment that the Approach 

Rule was and remains necessary to protect 

Hawaiian spinner dolphins, a protected 

species under the MMPA, from illegal ‘‘take’’ 

by people wishing to closely swim with or 

approach the species. Pursuant to my 

authority as the NOAA Administrator, and 

based on my independent review of the 

action and the reasons for taking it, I hereby 

affirm and ratify the Approach Rule as of 

September 28, 2021, including all regulatory 

analysis certifications contained therein. 


jspears on DSK121TN23PROD with RULES1