Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 134 / Thursday, July 14, 2022 / Rules and Regulations 42097 

Application (RFA) was announced on 

[June 27, 2022]. Under EOM, which 

builds on lessons learned to date from 

the Oncology Care Model (OCM), 

participating physician practices will 

take on financial and performance 

accountability for episodes of care 

surrounding systemic chemotherapy 

administration to cancer patients who 

are EOM beneficiaries, by way of a 

potential lump-sum performance-based 

payment or performance-based 

recoupment, and will have the 

opportunity to submit claims for an 

EOM Monthly Enhanced Oncology 

Services (MEOS) payment for Enhanced 

Services furnished to EOM 

beneficiaries. EOM is a 5-year voluntary 

model tested per the authority under 

section 1115A of the Act that aims to 

improve quality and reduce costs 

through its payment methodology being 

aligned with care quality, and through 

EOM participants’ opportunities to 

redesign care and improve the quality of 

care furnished to beneficiaries receiving 

care for certain cancers, including 

requirements to implement participant 

redesign activities and to engage in 

activities that promote health equity. 

More information regarding EOM, and a 

link the EOM RFA, can be found at 

https://innovation.cms.gov/innovationmodels/enhancing-oncology-model. 

EOM will include an EOM MEOS 

payment for non-dually eligible 

beneficiaries and an EOM MEOS 

payment for dually-eligible 

beneficiaries, and each will be a per 

beneficiary per month (PBPM) payment 

under EOM only with a model-specific 

Healthcare Common Procedure Coding 

System (HCPCS) code paid through the 

Medicare fee-for-service claims system 

for the provision of Enhanced Services, 

as outlined in the section V.C.ii. of the 

EOM RFA. 

II. Applicability to EOM MEOS 

Payments 

This payment advisory serves to 

notify potential EOM applicants and 

participants that the MIPS payment 

adjustment factors will not apply to the 

EOM MEOS payments. The EOM MEOS 

payments meet the criteria described in 

§ 414.1405(f)(1) through (3) for the 

following reasons: 

• The EOM MEOS payments will 

only be made to EOM participants and 

EOM is a model tested under section 

1115A of the Act. 

• The EOM MEOS payments may be 

subject to the requirement to apply the 

MIPS payment adjustment factors as the 

EOM MEOS payments would be made 

to MIPS eligible clinicians participating 

in EOM. 

• The EOM MEOS payments will be 

one of two specified payment amounts 

that will be offered in a consistent 

manner to all EOM participants, a fixed 

PBPM payment for non-dually eligible 

beneficiaries (currently planned to be 

$70 PBPM) and a fixed PBPM payment 

for dually eligible beneficiaries 

(currently planned to be $100 PBPM), to 

support the provision of Enhanced 

Services to EOM beneficiaries. 

As such, the application of the MIPS 

payment adjustment factors to the EOM 

MEOS payments would introduce 

variation in the EOM MEOS amounts 

paid to different EOM participants 

which could potentially interfere with 

our ability to effectively evaluate the 

impact of EOM and therefore potentially 

compromise the model test. 

This waiver would begin at the 

beginning of EOM and continue for the 

duration of EOM. In addition to this 

Federal Register document, we will also 

provide public notice that 42 CFR 

414.1405(e) will not apply to the EOM 

MEOS payment on the Quality Payment 

Program website, at www.qpp.cms.gov. 

The Administrator of the Centers for 

Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS), 

Chiquita Brooks-LaSure, having 

reviewed and approved this document, 

authorizes Trenesha Fultz-Mimms, who 

is the Federal Register Liaison, to 

electronically sign this document for 

purposes of publication in the Federal 

Register. 

Trenesha Fultz-Mimms, 

Federal Register Liaison, Centers for Medicare 

& Medicaid Services. 

[FR Doc. 2022–15062 Filed 7–13–22; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4120–01–P 

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR 

Office of the Secretary 

43 CFR Part 2 

[DOI–2021–0002; DS67010000, 

DWSNF0000.XD0000, DP67012, 

22XD4523WS] 

RIN 1090–AB24 

Social Security Number Fraud 

Prevention Act of 2017 Implementation 

AGENCY: Office of the Secretary, Interior. 

ACTION: Direct final rule. 

SUMMARY: The Department of the 

Interior (DOI) is publishing a direct final 

rule to promulgate regulations to 

implement the provisions of the Social 

Security Number Fraud Prevention Act 

of 2017. The new regulations will 

prohibit the inclusion of an individual’s 

Social Security account number (SSN) 

on any document sent through the mail 

unless the Secretary of the Interior 

deems it necessary and precautions are 

taken to protect the SSN. The 

regulations also include requirements 

for the safeguarding of SSNs sent 

through the mail by partially redacting 

SSNs where feasible and prohibiting the 

display of SSNs on the outside of any 

package or envelope sent by mail. This 

rule is being published as a direct final 

rule as DOI does not expect any adverse 

comments. If adverse comments are 

received, this direct final rule will be 

withdrawn and a proposed rule for 

comments will be published. 

DATES: This rule is effective September 

12, 2022 without further action unless 

adverse comment is received by August 

15, 2022. If adverse comment is 

received, DOI will publish a timely 

withdrawal of the rule in the Federal 

Register. 

ADDRESSES: Send written comments 

identified by docket number [DOI– 

2021–0002] or [Regulatory Information 

Number (RIN) 1090–AB24], by any of 

the following methods: 

• Federal e-Rulemaking Portal: http:// 

www.regulations.gov. Follow the 

instructions for submitting comments to 

docket number [DOI–2021–0002]. 

• Email: DOI_Privacy@ios.doi.gov. 

Include docket number [DOI–2021– 

0002] or RIN 1090–AB24 in the subject 

line of the message. 

• U.S. mail or hand-delivery: Teri 

Barnett, Departmental Privacy Officer, 

U.S. Department of the Interior, 1849 C 

Street NW, Room 7112, Washington, DC 

20240. 

Instructions: All submissions received 

must include the agency name and 

docket number [DOI–2021–0002] or RIN 

1090–AB24 for this rulemaking. All 

comments received will be posted 

without change to http://

www.regulations.gov, including any 

personal information provided. 

Docket: For access to the docket to 

read background documents or 

comments received, go to http://

www.regulations.gov. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Teri 

Barnett, Departmental Privacy Officer, 

U.S. Department of the Interior, 1849 C 

Street NW, Room 7112, Washington, DC 

20240, DOI_Privacy@ios.doi.gov or (202) 

208–1605. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

I. Background 

The Social Security Number Fraud 

Prevention Act of 2017 (the Act), Public 

Law 115–59, 42 U.S.C. 405 note, was 

signed on September 15, 2017. The Act 

restricts the inclusion of SSNs on any 

documents sent by mail unless the head 


jspears on DSK121TN23PROD with RULES1
42098 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 134 / Thursday, July 14, 2022 / Rules and Regulations 

of the agency determines that the 

inclusion of the SSN on the document 

is necessary. The Act also directs 

agencies to issue regulations that specify 

when inclusion of an SSN is necessary, 

include requirements for the 

safeguarding of SSNs by partially 

redacting SSNs where feasible and 

prohibiting the display of SSNs on the 

outside of any package or envelope sent 

by mail. 

In this direct final rule, DOI is adding 

a new subpart M, Social Security 

Number Fraud Prevention Act 

Requirements, to 43 CFR part 2, to 

implement the provisions of the Act. To 

comply with the Act, the new 

regulations in subpart M prohibit the 

inclusion of SSNs on any document sent 

through the mail by DOI bureaus and 

offices unless the Secretary of the 

Interior (Secretary) deems it necessary 

and precautions are taken to protect the 

SSNs. To safeguard SSNs and protect 

individual privacy, subpart M includes 

requirements for DOI bureaus and 

offices to partially redact SSNs where 

feasible, and specifically prohibits the 

display of complete or partial SSNs on 

the outside of any package or envelope 

sent by mail or through the window of 

an envelope or package. Subpart M 

applies to all DOI bureau and office 

activities and describes the scope of the 

regulations to include all documents 

written or printed that DOI sends by 

mail that include the complete or partial 

SSN of an individual as defined by the 

Privacy Act of 1974, as amended, 5 

U.S.C. 552a. 

II. Direct Final Rulemaking 

This rule is being published as a 

direct final rule as DOI does not expect 

to receive any significant adverse 

comments. If such comments are 

received, this direct final rule will be 

withdrawn and a proposed rule for 

comments will be published. If no such 

comments are received, this direct final 

rule will become effective after the 

comment period expires. A significant 

adverse comment is one that explains 

(1) why the rule is inappropriate, 

including challenges to the rule’s 

underlying premise or approach; or (2) 

why the direct final rule will be 

ineffective or unacceptable without a 

change. In determining whether a 

significant adverse comment 

necessitates withdrawal of this direct 

final rule, DOI will consider whether 

the comment raises an issue serious 

enough to warrant a substantive 

response had it been submitted in a 

standard notice and comment process. 

A comment recommending an addition 

to the rule will not be considered 

significant and adverse unless the 

comment explains how this direct final 

rule would be ineffective without the 

addition. 

An agency typically uses direct final 

rulemaking when it anticipates the rule 

will be non-controversial. DOI has 

determined that this rule is suitable for 

direct final rulemaking. The purpose of 

this rule is to implement the provisions 

of the Act to apply restrictions and 

safeguards for the inclusion of SSNs in 

documents that are mailed to prevent 

unauthorized disclosure of SSNs and 

protect individual privacy. This rule 

should not be controversial and is 

consistent with Federal law and policy 

regarding the appropriate handling and 

protection of personally identifiable 

information. Accordingly, pursuant to 5 

U.S.C. 553(b), DOI has for good cause 

determined that the notice and 

comment requirements are unnecessary. 

This action is taken pursuant to 

delegated authority. 

III. Compliance With Other Laws, 

Executive Orders, and Department 

Policy 

1. Regulatory Planning and Review 

(Executive Orders 12866 and 13563) 

Executive Order 12866 provides that 

the Office of Information and Regulatory 

Affairs in the Office of Management and 

Budget (OMB) will review all significant 

rules. The Office of Information and 

Regulatory Affairs has determined that 

this rule is not significant. 

Executive Order 13563 reaffirms the 

principles of Executive Order 12866 

while calling for improvements in the 

nation’s regulatory system to promote 

predictability, to reduce uncertainty, 

and to use the best, most innovative, 

and least burdensome tools for 

achieving regulatory ends. The 

Executive Order directs agencies to 

consider regulatory approaches that 

reduce burdens and maintain flexibility 

and freedom of choice for the public 

where these approaches are relevant, 

feasible, and consistent with regulatory 

objectives. Executive Order 13563 

emphasizes further that regulations 

must be based on the best available 

science and that the rulemaking process 

must allow for public participation and 

an open exchange of ideas. We have 

developed this rule in a manner 

consistent with these requirements. 

2. Regulatory Flexibility Act 

DOI certifies that this rule will not 

have a significant economic effect on a 

substantial number of small entities 

under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 

U.S.C. 601, et seq.). This rule does not 

impose a requirement for small 

businesses to report or keep records on 

any of the requirements contained in 

this rule. 

3. Small Business Regulatory 

Enforcement Fairness Act 

This rule is not a major rule under 5 

U.S.C. 804(2), the Small Business 

Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act. 

This rule: 

(a) Does not have an annual effect on 

the economy of $100 million or more. 

(b) Will not cause a major increase in 

costs or prices for consumers, 

individual industries, Federal, State, or 

local government agencies, or 

geographic regions. 

(c) Does not have significant adverse 

effects on competition, employment, 

investment, productivity, innovation, or 

the ability of United States-based 

enterprises to compete with foreignbased enterprises. 

4. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act 

This rule does not impose an 

unfunded mandate on State, local, or 

tribal governments in the aggregate, or 

on the private sector, of more than $100 

million per year. The rule does not have 

a significant or unique effect on State, 

local, or tribal governments or the 

private sector. The rule implements the 

Act in order to restrict the use of 

complete SSNs in documents sent via 

mail. A statement containing the 

information required by the Unfunded 

Mandates Reform Act (2 U.S.C. 1531, et 

seq.) is not required. 

5. Takings (Executive Order 12630) 

This proposed rule does not affect a 

taking of private property or otherwise 

have taking implications under 

Executive Order 12630. This rule is not 

a government action capable of 

interfering with constitutionally 

protected property rights. The rule 

implements the Act in order to restrict 

the use of complete SSNs in documents 

sent via mail. A takings implication 

assessment is not required. 

6. Federalism (Executive Order 13132) 

Under the criteria of section 1 of 

Executive Order 13132, this rule does 

not have any federalism implications to 

warrant the preparation of a Federalism 

Assessment. The rule is not associated 

with, nor will it have substantial direct 

effects on the States, on the relationship 

between the Federal Government and 

the States, or on the distribution of 

power and responsibilities among the 

various levels of government. A 

Federalism Assessment is not required. 


jspears on DSK121TN23PROD with RULES1
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 134 / Thursday, July 14, 2022 / Rules and Regulations 42099 

7. Civil Justice Reform (Executive Order 

12988) 

This rule complies with the 

requirements of Executive Order 12988. 

Specifically, this rule: 

(a) Meets the criteria of section 3(a) 

requiring that all regulations be 

reviewed to eliminate errors and 

ambiguity and be written to minimize 

litigation; and 

(b) Meets the criteria of section 3(b)(2) 

requiring that all regulations be written 

in clear language and contain clear legal 

standards. 

8. Consultation and Coordination With 

Indian Tribal Governments (Executive 

Order 13175). 

In accordance with Executive Order 

13175, DOI has evaluated this proposed 

rule and determined that it would have 

no substantial effects on federally 

recognized Indian Tribes. This proposed 

rule does not have tribal implications 

that impose substantial direct 

compliance costs on Indian Tribal 

governments. 

9. Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 

This rule does not contain 

information collection requirements and 

a submission under the Paperwork 

Reduction Act is not required. 

10. National Environmental Policy Act 

of 1969 

The proposed rule implements the 

Act in order to restrict the use of 

complete SSNs in documents sent via 

mail, and does not constitute a major 

Federal action and would not have a 

significant effect on the quality of the 

human environment. Therefore, this 

rule does not require the preparation of 

an environmental assessment or 

environmental impact statement under 

the requirements of the National 

Environmental Policy Act. 

11. Data Quality Act 

In developing this rule, there was no 

need to conduct or use a study, 

experiment, or survey requiring peer 

review under the Data Quality Act (Pub. 

L. 106–554, section 515). 

12. Effects on Energy Supply (Executive 

Order 13211) 

This rule is not a significant energy 

action under the definition in Executive 

Order 13211. DOI has determined that 

this proposed rule will not have 

substantial direct effects on energy 

supply, distribution, or use, including a 

shortfall in supply or price increase. 

The rule has no bearing on energy 

development and will have no effect on 

the volume or consumption of energy 

supplies. A Statement of Energy Effects 

is not required. 

13. Clarity of This Regulation 

DOI is required by Executive Orders 

12866 (section 1(b)(12)), 12988 (section 

3(b)(1)(B)), and 13563 (section 1(a)), the 

Plain Writing Act of 2010 (Pub. L. 111– 

274), and the Presidential Memorandum 

of June 1, 1998, to write all rules in 

plain language. This means each rule we 

publish must: 

(a) Be logically organized; 

(b) Use the active voice to address 

readers directly; 

(c) Use common, everyday words and 

clear language rather than jargon; 

(d) Be divided into short sections and 

sentences; and 

(e) Use lists and table wherever 

possible. 

List of Subjects in 43 CFR Part 2 

Administrative practice and 

procedure, Classified information, 

Confidential business information, 

Courts, Freedom of Information, 

Government employees, Privacy, and 

Social Security Number Fraud 

Prevention. 

For reasons stated in the preamble, 

DOI amends part 2 of title 43 of the CFR 

as set forth below: 

PART 2—FREEDOM OF INFORMATION 

ACT; RECORDS AND TESTIMONY 

■ 1. The authority citation for part 2 is 

revised to read as follows: 

Authority: 5 U.S.C. 301, 552, 552a, 553, 

31 U.S.C. 3717, 43 U.S.C. 1460, 1461, the 

Social Security Number Fraud Prevention 

Act of 2017, Pub. L. 115–59, September 15, 

2017. 

■ 2. Add subpart M to read as follows: 

Subpart M—Social Security Number Fraud 

Prevention Act Requirements 

Sec. 

2.300 What is the purpose of this subpart? 

2.301 What does this subpart cover? 

2.302 What terms are used in this subpart? 

2.303 What are DOI’s requirements for 

protecting SSNs in document sent by 

mail? 

Subpart M—Social Security Number 

Fraud Prevention Act Requirements 

§ 2.300 What is the purpose of this 

subpart? 

(a) The purpose of this subpart is to 

implement the requirements of the 

Social Security Number Fraud 

Prevention Act of 2017 (the Act), Public 

Law 115–59, 42 U.S.C. 405 note, 

September 15, 2017. 

(b) The Act: 

(1) Prohibits Federal agencies from 

including any individual’s Social 

Security account number (SSN) on any 

document sent by mail unless the head 

of the agency determines that such 

inclusion is necessary; and 

(2) Requires agencies to issue 

regulations that specify the 

circumstances under which such 

inclusion is necessary. 

§ 2.301 What does this subpart cover? 

(a) This subpart describes how DOI, 

including all its bureaus and offices, 

handles the use and protection of 

individuals’ SSNs in documents that are 

mailed. SSNs may only be included in 

documents that are mailed when 

authorized and necessary, and where 

appropriate safeguards are employed to 

protect individual privacy in 

accordance with the Act. 

(b) This subpart includes the 

circumstances under which inclusion of 

an individual’s SSN on a document is 

authorized to be mailed; 

(c) This subpart requires SSNs to be 

safeguarded when mailed by: 

(1) Requiring the partial redaction of 

SSNs where feasible; and 

(2) Prohibiting the display of SSNs on 

the outside of any package or mailing 

envelope sent by mail or through the 

window of an envelope or package. 

§ 2.302 What terms are used in this 

subpart? 

Act means the Social Security 

Number Fraud Prevention Act of 2017, 

Public Law 115–59. 

Bureau is any component or 

constituent bureau or office of DOI, 

including the Office of the Secretary and 

any other Departmental office. 

Department or DOI means the 

Department of the Interior. 

Document means a piece of written or 

printed matter that provides information 

or evidence or that serves as an official 

record. 

Individual means a natural person 

who is a citizen of the United States or 

an alien lawfully admitted for 

permanent residence as defined by the 

Privacy Act of 1974, as amended, 5 

U.S.C. 552a. 

Mail means artifacts used to assemble 

letters and packages that are sent or 

delivered by means of an authorized 

carrier of postal delivery or United 

States Postal Service (USPS) postal 

system. (For purposes of the subpart, the 

postal system that is managed by the 

U.S. Postal Service.) 

Social Security number or Social 

Security account number means the 

nine-digit number issued by the Social 

Security Administration to U.S. citizens, 

permanent residents, and temporary 

(working) residents under section 

205(c)(2) of the Social Security Act, 

codified as 42 U.S.C. 405(c)(2). 


jspears on DSK121TN23PROD with RULES1
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