Source: https://cdn.rotorandwing.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/04/Regulations.gov-Proposed-Rule-Document-UTM.html
Timestamp: 2019-09-22 14:15:34
Document Index: 204241147

Matched Legal Cases: ['art 107', 'art 107', 'art 107', 'art 107', 'art 107', 'art 107', 'art 107']

Certain browser plug-ins or extensions, such as Grammarly, may interfere with submitting comments on the comment form. If you have issues, please disable browser plugins and extensions, refresh the page, and try submitting your comment again. If you need additional assistance, please contact the Help Desk at 1-877-378-5457.
Home Help Resources Contact Us
[Docket No.: 2018-1086; Notice No. 18-08]
RIN 2120-AL26
The primary authority for this ANPRM is 49 U.S.C. 44807, which directs the Secretary of Transportation to determine whether �certain unmanned aircraft systems may operate safely in the national airspace system [NAS].� Section 44807 directs the Secretary to use a risk-based approach in making such determinations and provides such determinations may occur notwithstanding the completion of the comprehensive plan and rulemaking required in other sections of the statute. Section 44807(b) directs the Secretary to consider a specific list of factors in determining which types of UAS may operate safely: The Secretary must consider 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. The Secretary must determine, based on these factors, whether operations of the UAS do not create a hazard to users of the NAS or the public.
Consistent with its statutory authority, the FAA seeks to ensure that small UAS (1) operations will not create a hazard to users of the NAS or the public or pose a threat to national security. This ANPRM is intended to gather information from the public to help inform the FAA's efforts to assess options for reducing risks to public safety and national security associated with further integration of UAS into the NAS. The FAA may consider initiating one or more rulemaking efforts based on the comments received in response to this ANPRM.
The FAA is working to safely integrate small UAS operations into the NAS using a phased, incremental, and risk-based approach to rulemaking within the FAA's existing statutory authority. (2) In 2012, Congress passed the FAA Modernization and Reform Act of 2012 (Pub. L. 112-95). Section 333 of Public Law 112-95 (3) directed the Secretary to determine which types of UAS do not create a hazard to users of the NAS or the public or pose a threat to national security. Based on such findings, Congress directed the Secretary to establish requirements for the safe operation of UAS. On June 28, 2016, the FAA published the final rule for Operation and Certification of Small Unmanned Aircraft Systems (sUAS Operation and Certification final rule) (part 107 final rule), (4) which was a first step in integrating civil small UAS operations that were not model aircraft under the statute in effect at the time of publication. (5)
As the next step, the FAA's regulatory plan calls for the agency to issue an NPRM that would propose to allow small UAS operations at night and over people without a waiver issued under � 107.200. During the development process, the FAA heard from a number of government and industry stakeholders expressing support for the potential increase in commercial viability of UAS operations, but also concerns over the potential impacts on public safety, national security, and law enforcement.
In addition, public safety and national security entities have expressed a need to distinguish between small UAS that may pose a threat and those that do not, especially when operating in close proximity to large public gatherings, critical infrastructure or certain other facilities and assets. (6) In light of this, the FAA is constantly assessing the ability of the regulations to ensure that small UAS operations do not pose a threat to public safety or national security.
The Operations of Small UAS over People rulemaking would promulgate performance-based standards applicable to manufacturers of small UAS, as well as some requirements applicable to operators. The rule proposes three operational categories. (7) Category 1 would limit the weight of the small unmanned aircraft. Categories 2 and 3 would limit the severity of potential injuries based on impact kinetic energy thresholds and exposed rotating parts limitations. For operations of small UAS at night, the rule would require the remote pilot in command to complete a knowledge test or the appropriate training prior to operating at night and would require that the small UAS be equipped with anti-collision lighting visible for at least 3 statute miles.
The FAA convened the UAS Identification and Tracking Aviation Rulemaking Committee (ARC) to make recommendations for the identification and tracking of small UAS. The FAA has reviewed the ARC recommendations and initiated a separate rulemaking (RIN 2120-AL31) to propose remote identification requirements for UAS, but has not yet published any proposals in the Federal Register. (8) As previously explained, the FAA does not intend to promulgate the Operations of Small UAS over People final rule until the remote identification rulemaking is finalized.
Section 2209 of FESSA requires the Secretary of Transportation to establish a process to allow certain fixed-site facility owners or operators to petition the FAA to prohibit or restrict the operation of unmanned aircraft in close proximity to certain facilities, such as national security sites, critical infrastructure, amusement parks and other locations that warrant such a restriction. That process is currently under development. (9)
Currently, small UAS operated under part 107 do not have any prescriptive horizontal or vertical stand-off distances from people or structures. Rather, remote pilots must comply with performance-based rules that reduce risk by ensuring that small UAS will pose no undue hazard to people, aircraft, or property in the event of a loss of control of the small unmanned aircraft for any reason (� 107.19(c)) and avoiding operations over any person who is not directly involved in the flight operation unless that person is under an appropriate covered structure or inside a vehicle (� 107.39).
In a separate rulemaking action, specifically the Operation of Small Unmanned Aircraft Systems over People NPRM, the FAA is proposing to amend � 107.39 to allow certain small UAS to operate over people under specific conditions. Those small UAS would be required to meet safety thresholds that ensure the small UAS will not cause a serious injury to people if an impact occurs, and while the subject of stand-off distances is addressed, the rule does not propose to establish any specific stand-off requirements.
While part 107 currently does not contain any prescriptive stand-off distances, there are examples of small UAS regulations from other countries that include stand-off distances. For example, in the United Kingdom, small UAS must be operated at least 150 feet away from people and property and 500 feet away from large crowds and built-up areas, unless given special permission. (10) In addition, proposed rules from Canada and EASA both include prescriptive stand-off distances for small UAS operations.
Questions for the Public: The FAA is considering rulemaking to address public safety and national security concerns associated with small UAS and invites input from the public as follows�
A5. What are the incremental costs (11) of introducing a stand-off distance requirement compared to how operations are conducted today?
Due to their potential small size, light weight, and propulsion capabilities, small UAS can have relative performance that far exceeds that of conventional manned aircraft. These capabilities allow for operations that manned aircraft are not capable of or cannot conduct safely. Some small UAS are capable of speeds in excess of 150 knots (172 mph), altitudes of 10,000 feet or more, and climb rates in excess of 6,000 feet per minute. Some can accelerate from 0 to 60 mph in less than 1 second. They can have extreme maneuverability and the capability to hover for extended periods of time. These performance capabilities provide considerable benefits and advantages to UAS operations but also create unique safety and security concerns.
C2. What types of small UAS operations should be subject to UTM requirements? Should any be excluded? Should the requirement be based on geographical location, the type of operation, or other factors? Please provide data or explanations to justify your response.
Recently, Congress enacted section 363 of Public Law 115-254, responding to several payload and installed equipment concerns. Unless authorized by the Administrator, section 363 prohibits a person from operating a UAS equipped or armed with a dangerous weapon as defined in 18 U.S.C. 930(g)(2). (12)
Further, � 107.36 prohibits the carriage of hazardous materials as defined in 49 CFR 171.8. This definition includes many types of hazardous substances, such as chemicals or hazardous waste, but does not address all types of payloads or sensors that could pose a threat to public safety or national security. Part 107 does allow for the transportation of property for compensation or hire, but only if the aircraft, including its attached systems, payload, and cargo weigh less than 55 pounds total; the flight is conducted within visual line of sight and not from a moving vehicle or aircraft; and the flight occurs wholly within the bounds of a State and does not involve transport between (1) Hawaii and another place in Hawaii through airspace outside Hawaii; (2) the District of Columbia and another place in the District of Columbia; or (3) a territory or possession of the United States and another place in the same territory or possession.
D1. Should the prohibition from carrying hazardous materials in � 107.36 be expanded to include other types of payloads or installed equipment that could pose a threat to public safety or national security? If yes, what types of payloads should be prohibited and why?
Currently, small UAS operated under 14 CFR part 107 are not required to have an airworthiness certificate. Furthermore, they do not have any prescribed design standards or required system redundancies. As a result, many small UAS operating today, especially those with relatively small size, do not have redundancies in their design. However, the FAA, through policy, may condition the grant of waiver from certain operational limitations in part 107 on equipage with redundant systems. For example, � 107.31�Visual line of sight aircraft operations and � 107.39�Operation over people, are both subject to waiver as prescribed in �� 107.200 and 107.205. In evaluating waiver requests for �� 107.31 and 107.39, the FAA may consider the need for design requirements, including redundancy, for critical UAS systems based upon the nature of the request and the need to mitigate any risks associated with the proposed operation.
In a related rulemaking action, specifically the Operation of Small Unmanned Aircraft Systems over People NPRM, the FAA is proposing to amend � 107.39 to allow small UAS to operate over people if they are tested and shown to fulfill certain safety standards intended to limit the severity of injuries to people on the ground. While manufacturers of small UAS qualified to operate over people may choose to have redundancy for critical systems in their designs, it is not required by the proposed rule.
E2. For small UAS operations over people that exceed the NPRM safety thresholds indicated above and therefore still must seek a waiver to � 107.39 to operate over people, should the FAA establish design requirements, such as redundancy, for systems critical to safety of flight? If yes, what should these requirements be and why? Are there other means the FAA should consider to address public safety and national security risk for operations over people?
Executive Orders 12866, �Regulatory Planning and Review,� 58 FR 51735 (Oct. 4, 1993), and 13563, �Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review,� 76 FR 3821 (Jan. 21, 2011), require agencies to regulate in the �most cost-effective manner,� to make a �reasoned determination that the benefits of the intended regulation justify its costs,� and to develop regulations that �impose the least burden on society.� Executive Order 13610, �Identifying and reducing Regulatory Burdens,� 77 FR 28469 (May 14, 2012), urges agencies to conduct retrospective analyses of existing rules to examine whether they remain justified and whether they should be modified or streamlined in light of changed circumstances, including the rise of new technologies.
On January 30, 2017, President Trump signed Executive Order 13771 (E.O. 13771), �Reducing Regulation and Controlling Regulatory Costs.� Under Section 2 of this Executive Order, unless prohibited by law, whenever an executive department or agency publicly proposes for notice and comment or otherwise promulgates a new regulation, it must identify at least two existing regulations to be repealed and offset any new incremental costs associated with new regulations by the elimination of existing costs associated with at least two prior regulations. FAA will need to determine if a future rulemaking is an E.O. 13771 regulatory or deregulatory action.
Executive Order 13132, �Federalism,� 64 FR 43255 (Aug. 10, 1999), requires agencies to assure meaningful and timely input by State and local officials in the development of regulatory policies that may have �substantial direct effects on the States, on the relationship between the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government.� FAA invites State and local governments with an interest in this rulemaking to comment on any effect that may result.
Consistent with Executive Order 13175, �Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments,� and FAA Order 1210.20, �American Indian and Alaska Native Tribal Consultation Policy and Procedures,� the FAA ensures that Federally Recognized Tribes (Tribes) are given the opportunity to provide meaningful and timely input regarding proposed Federal actions that have the potential to uniquely or significantly affect their respective Tribes. At this point, the FAA has not identified any unique or significant effects, environmental or otherwise, on tribes resulting from this advance notice of proposed rulemaking. As it contemplated in the sUAS Operation and Certification final rule, the FAA has conducted outreach to tribes and responded to those tribes seeking information about small UAS operations conducted within their territory to see how their concerns can be addressed within the broader UAS integration effort. (13)
Since publication of the sUAS Operation and Certification final rule, the FAA has conducted outreach to tribes to ensure that they are familiar with the rules' provisions and how they might apply in Indian country, and that they are aware of FAA's plans for additional rulemakings to integrate UAS into the NAS. As part of that outreach the FAA has:
Provided information to The Choctaw Nation of Oklahoma, which is participating in the UAS Integration Pilot Program. (14) Through this program, the FAA will work with The Choctaw Nation to ensure safe UAS operations for the purposes of agriculture, public safety, and infrastructure inspections. Such operations may include operations over people and operations at night.
Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980, 5 U.S.C. 601, et seq., FAA must consider whether a rulemaking would have a �significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.� �Small entities� include small businesses, not-for-profit organizations that are independently owned and operated and are not dominant in their fields, and governmental jurisdictions with populations under 50,000.
Any future rulemaking would be developed in accordance with Executive Order 13272, �Proper Consideration of Small Entities in Agency Rulemaking,� 68 FR 7990 (Feb. 19, 2003), and DOT's procedures and policies to promote compliance with the Regulatory Flexibility Act to ensure that potential impacts on small entities of a regulatory action are properly considered.
Under Executive Order 13609, �Promoting International Regulatory Cooperation,� 77 FR 26413 (May 4, 2012), agencies must consider whether the impacts associated with significant variations between domestic and international regulatory approaches are unnecessary or may impair the ability of American businesses to export and compete internationally. In meeting shared challenges involving health, safety, labor, security, environmental, and other issues, regulatory approaches developed through international cooperation can provide equivalent protection to standards developed independently while also minimizing unnecessary differences.
Executive Order 13211, 66 FR 28355 (May 22, 2001), requires Federal agencies to prepare a Statement of Energy Effects for any �significant energy action.� Under the executive order, a �significant energy action� is defined as any action by an agency (normally published in the Federal Register) that promulgates, or is expected to lead to the promulgation of, a final rule or regulation (including a notice of inquiry, ANPRM, and NPRM) that (1)(i) is a significant regulatory action under Executive Order 12866 or any successor order and (ii) is likely to have a significant adverse effect on the supply, distribution, or use of energy; or (2) is designated by the Administrator of the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs as a significant energy action. The FAA would have to consider this executive order for future rulemaking.
(1) A small UAS is defined as a small unmanned aircraft and its associated elements (including communication links and the components that control the small unmanned aircraft) that are required for the safe and efficient operation of the small unmanned aircraft in the national airspace system (NAS). A small unmanned aircraft is defined as an unmanned aircraft weighing less than 55 pounds on takeoff, including everything that is on board or otherwise attached to the aircraft. 14 CFR 107.3.
(2) For more information regarding the operation of small unmanned aircraft, see http://www.faa.gov/uas.
(3) Section 347 of Public Law 115-254 repealed Section 333, but replaced the relevant substantive provisions, codified at 49 U.S.C. 44807.
(4) 81 FR 42063.
(5) Public Law 112-95, section 336 (Feb. 14, 2012). Section 336 was repealed by Section 349 of Public Law 115-254 (Oct. 5, 2018) and replaced with 49 U.S.C. 44809. Section 44809 provides an exception for limited recreational UAS operations, provided the operations satisfy eight specific conditions. See 49 U.S.C. 44809(a)(1)-(8).
(6) The Departments of Defense, Energy, Homeland Security, and Justice have authority to address threats posed by UAS under certain circumstances to certain facilities and assets identified by statute. 10 U.S.C. 130i; 50 U.S.C. 2661; and section 1602 of Public Law 115-254 (to be codified at 6 U.S.C. 124n).
(7) The 3 categories proposed for civil small UAS operations over people are unrelated to the Department of Defense UAS categories which are divided into 5 groups that distinguish UAS by weight and other characteristics.
(8) A copy of the report is available at https://www.faa.gov/regulations_policies/rulemaking/committees/documents/media/UAS%20ID%20ARC%20Final%20Report%20with%20Appendices.pdf.
(9) See RIN 2120-AL33.
(10) https://www.caa.co.uk/Consumers/Unmanned-aircraft-and-drones/.
(11) For the purposes of this ANPRM, the FAA is requesting incremental costs, which is the difference between current and future operations.
(12) The term �dangerous weapon� as defined in 18 U.S.C. 930(g)(2) means a weapon, device, instrument, material, or substance, animate or inanimate, that is used for, or is readily capable of, causing death or serious bodily injury, except that such term does not include a pocket knife with a blade of less than 21/2 inches in length.
(13) 81 FR 42063 at 42189.
(14) Federal Aviation Administration UAS Integration Pilot Program (May 7, 2018), available at https://www.faa.gov/uas/programs_partnership/uas_integration_pilot_program/.
Due Apr 15 2019, at 11:59 PM ET
ID: FAA-2018-1086-0001
RIN: 2120-AL26
CFR: 14 CFR Part 107
Federal Register Number: 2019-00758
I have been a modeler for over 65 years and brought my children up in the hobby; teaching them mechanics, electronics, aerodynamics and RESPONSIBILITY. The FAA...
Operation of Small Unmanned Aircraft Systems over People Flight Over People Flight over people will be useful in expanding beneficial, and in some cases life...
To be quite honest some applications are at present i feel far too early and advanced for the use of drones at a commercial level ,night flight s and pay loads...
FAA-2018-1086
* This count refers to the total comment/submissions received on this document, as of 11:59 PM yesterday. Note: Agencies review all submissions, however some agencies may choose to redact, or withhold, certain submissions (or portions thereof) such as those containing private or proprietary information, inappropriate language, or duplicate/near duplicate examples of a mass-mail campaign. This can result in discrepancies between this count and those displayed when conducting searches on the Public Submission document type. For specific information about an agency�s public submission policy, refer to its website or the Federal Register document.