8-10 Table 8-4. Operations Over People – Not Over or Within a Closed/Restricted Access Site OPERATIONS OVER PEOPLE – NOT OVER OR WITHIN CLOSED/RESTRICTED
ACCESS SITE Category 1 Category 2 ***Category 3 Category 4 Directly Participating Allowed Allowed Allowed Allowed Not Directly Participating *Allowed **Allowed Transit Only, No Sustained Flight ****Operating Limitations * Remote pilots are prohibited from operating as a Category 1 operation in sustained flight over open-air assemblies, unless the operation meets the requirements of § 89.110 or § 89.115(a). This prohibition is subject to waiver.
** Remote pilots are prohibited from operating as a Category 2 operation in sustained flight over open-air assemblies, unless the operation meets the requirements of § 89.110 or § 89.115(a). This prohibition is subject to waiver.
*** Category 3 eligible small unmanned aircraft must not operate over open-air assemblies of human beings (§ 107.125(b)).
**** Category 4 eligible small unmanned aircraft may conduct operations over human beings if not prohibited by the operating limitations specified in the FAA-approved Flight Manual or otherwise prescribed by the FAA. Remote pilots are prohibited from operating as a Category 4 operation in sustained flight over open-air assemblies, unless the operation meets the requirements of § 89.110 or § 89.115(a). This prohibition is subject to waiver.
8.4 Applicant. An applicant includes any person who produces, designs, or modifies a small unmanned aircraft eligible to operate over people within the United States. An applicant may produce many small unmanned aircraft, sell kits from which to build small unmanned aircraft, or modify a small unmanned aircraft in a way that affects the eligibility of the small unmanned aircraft to conduct a different category of operations over people than it was previously eligible.
8.4.1 An applicant who manufactures and sells a kit that contains all the components and parts from which to build an operable small unmanned aircraft must comply with the requirements of part 107 subpart D, if the aircraft is intended for operations over people.
The kit must contain all the components necessary to build an operable small unmanned aircraft, and would not require the owner to purchase any additional materials. Before the kit is sold, the applicant must ensure that the completely assembled small unmanned aircraft, not only its individual component parts, complies with the performance-based safety requirements to determine eligibility using an FAA-accepted MOC and declare compliance. This will ensure that the small unmanned aircraft meets the requirements of part 107 subpart D.
8.4.2 Someone who builds a small unmanned aircraft from separate components and parts not from a kit is an applicant. For example, someone may purchase the parts of a small unmanned aircraft separately, and build the small unmanned aircraft. An applicant is required to submit a DOC in order to conduct Category 2 or 3 operations.
8-11
8.4.3 An applicant may be a person who modifies a small unmanned aircraft listed on an existing DOC, resulting in noncompliance with the original declaration. A noncompliance means the small unmanned aircraft has been altered and is no longer in the same configuration as originally declared. If the small unmanned aircraft is changed so that it is no longer eligible for operations over people, a new DOC must be submitted prior to conducting operations over people or moving vehicles within that category. An applicant should specify allowable modifications in the remote pilot operating instructions (please see paragraph 8.12 below for information concerning remote pilot operating instructions). This ensures a remote pilot who may replace parts or otherwise modify the small unmanned aircraft is aware of which modifications would be allowable for the category of operation. An applicant may develop updates for a small unmanned aircraft after the remote pilot takes possession of it, such as a software update or hardware update. To communicate these updates to the remote pilots, the manufacturer should make operating instructions for the new capabilities of the small unmanned aircraft available.
8.4.4 Any person who makes a modification not permissible by the remote pilot operating instructions to a small unmanned aircraft eligible for Category 2 or Category 3 operations over people renders that small unmanned aircraft ineligible. If the person making the modification intends to conduct Category 2 or Category 3 operations over people with the modified small unmanned aircraft, that person is required to take on the responsibilities of an applicant. In this case, the applicant is required to determine the modified small unmanned aircraft meets the performance-based safety requirements for either Category 2 or Category 3, or both, using an FAA-accepted MOC and submit a new DOC. This principle applies to any person who modifies an existing ineligible small unmanned aircraft with the intention of conducting Category 2 or Category 3, or both, operations over people.
8.4.5 Maintenance actions performed on an eligible Category 2 or Category 3 aircraft that do not change the configuration or characteristics of the aircraft would not require a new DOC to be submitted. For example, if replacing propellers is listed as an allowed modification in the remote pilot operating instructions, a new DOC would not be required. However, replacing propellers not covered in the remote pilot operating instructions requires submission of a new DOC to conduct Category 2 or Category 3 operations over people. Remote pilot operating instructions should include a list of allowed modifications for the small unmanned aircraft to remain eligible.
Figure 8-1. Requirement to Submit a DOC for a Modified Small Unmanned Aircraft FAA Accepted MOC Applicant's Applicant Proposed Small Redesigns Small Unmanned Aircraft Unmanned Aircraft Meets Requirements of Cat. 2 or NO Cat. 3?
YES Applicant Submits DOC to the FAA Ineligible for FAA Reviews Cat. 2 or Cat. 3 and Accepts NO Operations Over DOC People T
YES NO Eligible for Operations Modified IAW Over People;
Small Unmanned Manufacturer's Aircraft Listed on an Instructions?
FAA-Accepted DOC (RPOI) YES
8.5 Means of Compliance -General Information. An MOC is a method to show that a small unmanned aircraft does not exceed the applicable injury severity limit upon impact with a human being, does not contain any exposed rotating parts that would lacerate human skin, and does not contain any safety defects. An MOC must be accepted by the FAA before an applicant can rely on it to declare compliance with the safety requirements for operations over people. Anyone may submit an MOC to the FAA for acceptance if it fulfills Category 2 or Category 3 safety requirements. An individual or a voluntary consensus standards body (e.g., ASTM International or SAE) could develop an acceptable MOC. The MOC must demonstrate through test, analysis, or inspection that the small unmanned aircraft is eligible for operations over people in Category 2, Category 3, or both. The MOC may include consensus standards. Once the FAA accepts 8-12
8-13 an MOC, any person submitting a DOC could use it to establish that a small unmanned aircraft fulfills the requirements of the rule. An applicant requesting FAA acceptance of an MOC must submit certain information to the FAA in a manner the Administrator specifies. When reviewing an MOC, the FAA will utilize a comprehensive set of criteria.
The FAA will determine whether the testing, analysis, or inspection described in the MOC demonstrates that a small unmanned aircraft meets the appropriate regulatory requirements. An MOC must address the injury severity limits, the prohibition on exposed rotating parts that would cause lacerations, and verification that there are no safety defects. The FAA will determine whether the proposed MOC aligns with accepted methods used by the medical industry, consumer safety groups, or other peer-reviewed test methods. In addition, the FAA will consider whether the proposed MOC relies on mitigations that require exceptional remote pilot skill or excessive workload to satisfy the requirements.
8.5.1 The FAA must accept an MOC before an applicant can rely on it to demonstrate compliance with the performance-based safety requirements for operations over human beings. An FAA-accepted MOC is subject to an ongoing review by the FAA to ensure the MOC remains valid. If the FAA determines the MOC no longer meets any or all of the requirements to demonstrate compliance with part 107 subpart D, the FAA may rescind acceptance of an MOC. If the FAA elects to rescind an MOC, it will publish a notice of rescission in the Federal Register.
8.5.2 The MOC options an applicant may use are:
1. The FAA-provided MOC, discussed in this AC.
2. An FAA-accepted MOC developed by a voluntary consensus standards body or other entity, or an FAA-accepted MOC developed independent of the FAA. An MOC developed by an individual applicant requires the same level of FAA review as an MOC developed by a voluntary consensus standards body. The FAA generally works with voluntary consensus standards bodies in the development of these standards. As a result, any MOC based on these standards will already have gone through a comprehensive review process during development.
8.6 FAA-Provided MOC. Without prejudice to any other MOC that an applicant may propose and the FAA may accept, the FAA offers one already accepted MOC for both the impact kinetic energy and exposed rotating parts requirements provided at §§ 107.120(a)(1) and (2) (Category 2) and 107.130(a)(1) and (2) (Category 3). The FAA-provided MOC for the injury severity limitations is developed through an applicant’s calculation of the small unmanned aircraft’s maximum kinetic energy. This MOC does not account for impact dynamics or other factors, but consists of using only the formula the FAA describes to calculate the small unmanned aircraft’s maximum kinetic energy. This FAA-accepted MOC provides manufacturers with at least one method to demonstrate their small unmanned aircraft would meet the requirements to operate over people. As a result, the MOC involves confirming (1) the impact of a small unmanned aircraft does not exceed a certain kinetic energy limit, (2) the small unmanned aircraft does not contain any exposed rotating parts, and (3) does not contain any safety defects.
8-14
8.6.1 Impact Kinetic Energy. An applicant may use the FAA-provided MOC to satisfy the impact kinetic energy requirements by confirming the impact of the small unmanned aircraft does not exceed the applicable injury severity limits during a typical failure mode at the aircraft’s maximum performance capabilities. To test a small unmanned aircraft using this MOC, an applicant would first determine the maximum forward airspeed that the small unmanned aircraft is capable of attaining at full power in level flight. This would be done using a reliable and accurate airspeed measurement method under typical environmental conditions. For example, an applicant could measure the maximum speed using a Global Positioning System (GPS) groundspeed indicator, a radar gun, or tape measure and stop watch. Note that small unmanned aircraft operated under part 107 may not exceed the speed limitations in part 107 unless authorized under a Certificate of Waiver (CoW) or an exemption (§ 107.51(a)).
8.6.1.1 Next, an applicant would determine the ground impact speed resulting from an unpowered free-fall from the highest altitude the small unmanned aircraft is capable of attaining at full power. Note that aircraft operating under part 107 may not exceed the altitude limitations of that rule unless authorized under a CoW or an exemption (§ 107.51(b)). The ground impact speed could be determined by performing a drop test from the altitude determined in the previous step using a reliable and accurate vertical speed measurement method under typical environmental conditions.
8.6.1.2 If an applicant determines it is unreasonable to perform a drop test from the highest attainable altitude, then the applicant can perform a drop test from a lower altitude. The lower altitude must be sufficient to determine the small unmanned aircraft free-fall aerodynamic characteristics, such as the coefficient of drag and terminal velocity, to accurately calculate the ground impact speed from a free-fall from the highest attainable altitude. The manufacturer would state in the supporting data the applicant submits pursuant to § 107.155 the environmental conditions under which the applicant determined the maximum speeds. The applicant would also describe any unique test conditions for both the level flight and free-fall scenarios.
8.6.1.3 The above tests account for speeds a small unmanned aircraft could reach prior to or during a typical failure mode, such as losing power and falling with both a vertical and horizontal speed component. The tests do not take into account small unmanned aircraft failure modes or pilot actions that would cause the small unmanned aircraft to exceed the speeds determined in the previous steps. One example is a powered descent in which the ground impact speed of the small unmanned aircraft exceeds its unpowered free-fall ground impact speed. The FAA assumes these types of failure modes or pilot actions are not typical, and while possible, have a low likelihood of occurring. If an applicant determines these types of failure modes or pilot actions could typically occur and result in speeds greater than those determined in the previous steps, then the applicant should use the higher speeds to determine the maximum impact kinetic energy.
8-15
8.6.1.4 Once the applicant determines the maximum speeds associated with a horizontal and vertical impact, the applicant would determine the highest combination of these speeds the aircraft could achieve as a result of a typical failure in order to determine the maximum impact kinetic energy. The applicant should identify and assess typical failures caused by system or equipment loss of function or malfunction as well as those that could be caused by pilot error.
8.6.1.5 In consideration of the maximum speeds and typical failures described above, the applicant should determine the maximum impact kinetic energy using the following equation:
KEimpact = 0.0155 × w × v2 Where KEimpact is the maximum impact kinetic energy in ft-lbs, w is the weight of the small unmanned aircraft measured in pounds, and v is the maximum impact speed measured in feet per second (ft/s).
1. For example, a small unmanned aircraft that weighs 1.0 pound and has a maximum impact speed of 26 ft/s has a maximum impact kinetic energy of:
KEimpact = 0.0155 × 1.0 × (26)2 = 10.5 ft-lbs
2. Similarly, a small unmanned aircraft that weighs 1.0 pound and has a maximum impact speed of 40 ft/s has an impact kinetic energy of:
KEimpact = 0.0155 × 1.0 × (40)2 = 24.8 ft-lbs
8.6.1.6 The two tables below provide examples of maximum impact speeds, rounded to whole numbers, associated with the impact kinetic energy thresholds of the different categories and the weight of the small unmanned aircraft. One table provides speeds in feet per second and the other table provides speeds in miles per hour (mph). Applicants may use these tables when following this MOC based on the maximum performance of the small unmanned aircraft. These tables do not consider any energy absorbing characteristics of a small unmanned aircraft that may reduce the amount of energy that is transferred to a person during a collision.
8-16 Table 8-5. Maximum Impact Speeds (ft/sec) for a Given Weight and Impact Kinetic Energy Under FAA-Provided MOC Maximum speed (ft/sec) Weight (lbs) Category 2 (11 ft-lbs) Category 3 (25 ft-lbs)
1.0 26 40
1.5 22 33
2.0 19 28
2.5 17 25
3.0 15 23 Table 8-6. Maximum Impact Speeds (mph) for a Given Weight and Impact Kinetic Energy Under FAA-Provided MOC Maximum speed (mph) Weight (lbs) Category 2 (11 ft-lbs) Category 3 (25 ft-lbs)
1.0 18 27
1.5 15 22
2.0 13 19
2.5 11 17
3.0 10 16
8.6.1.7 If the small unmanned aircraft incorporates airspeed or altitude limiting systems or equipment that, when installed or enabled, restrict its forward airspeed or altitude in order to meet an impact kinetic energy requirement, then those systems or equipment should be installed or enabled when performing the tests described above. If compliance with the impact kinetic energy requirement depends on the proper function of those systems or equipment, then the applicant should provide in the remote pilot operating instructions information on the proper use of those systems or equipment, as well as any restrictions. The FAA anticipates applicants will implement these types of systems or equipment through hardware, software, or a combination of both. If the small unmanned aircraft can be operated with or without these systems or equipment enabled or installed, such as in a variable-mode small unmanned aircraft, then the applicant should provide information in the remote pilot operating instructions to ensure pilots understand any restrictions or limitations associated with the different modes.
8-17
8.6.1.8 This MOC does not account for the use or testing of design features such as parachutes, ballistic recovery systems, or other deployable devices that once deployed, reduce impact velocity. Such features can establish that a small unmanned aircraft would impact a person with a reduced amount of kinetic energy. Such design features will require the FAA’s review to determine whether they assist in achieving compliance with injury severity limitations.
Outside the scope of the FAA-provided MOC, an applicant may choose to demonstrate compliance with the injury severity limitations using deployable devices, as long as the applicant describes how the devices are used to meet the safety requirements in the proposed MOC.
8.6.1.9 The MOC detailed above does not take into account the effect of the small unmanned aircraft’s structural configuration or materials of construction during an impact with a person. It assumes that the total kinetic energy of the small unmanned aircraft would be transferred to the person upon impact. In reality, a small unmanned aircraft’s structural configuration, materials of construction, or other design features may reduce the amount of the total kinetic energy that is transferred to a person during an impact. The use of energy absorbing materials, or an energy absorbing protective cage, may reduce the transfer of kinetic energy during an impact with a person. Under these circumstances, an applicant may wish to establish the amount of kinetic energy transferred to a person during an impact based on the impact absorbing characteristics of the small unmanned aircraft. If an applicant shows the aircraft does not transfer more than the kinetic energy limit to a person upon impact, the aircraft may be eligible for Category 2 or 3 operations over people. This demonstration would require an MOC that is not provided in this AC.
8.6.1.10 The FAA acknowledges limitations associated with the FAA-provided MOC.
The FAA intended with this FAA-provided MOC to provide a test method that applicants could use to show compliance with the injury severity limitations, with the anticipation that industry can and will develop more flexible MOC through a voluntary consensus standards body or otherwise.
The FAA expects these industry standards to consider that small unmanned aircraft often have non-rigid structures, which can reduce the kinetic energy transferred to a person upon impact. The FAA encourages the development of such MOC. Please see paragraphs 8.7 and 8.8 below for information concerning other MOC.
8.6.2 E xposed Rotating Parts. One means, but not the only means, of complying with the requirement would be to manufacture the small unmanned aircraft so that it does not contain any exposed rotating parts. For example, if the propellers that provide lift and thrust for the small unmanned aircraft are internal to the unmanned aircraft, such as in a ducted fan configuration, and would not make contact with a person as a result of a typical impact, then the parts would not be exposed. Therefore, the small unmanned aircraft would satisfy this requirement. Testing and analysis may be required to determine that the rotating parts could not become exposed as a result of a typical impact with a
8-18 person. If the forces on the small unmanned aircraft during an impact with a person are likely to cause structural failures that cause the rotating parts to become exposed, then that design would not satisfy this requirement.
8.7 Voluntary Consensus Standards Body MOC. A voluntary consensus standards body incorporates openness, balance, due process, appeals process, and consensus. These characteristics result in a peer review of voluntary consensus standards. Voluntary consensus standards bodies are composed of a wide selection of industry participants, often including the FAA.
8.7.1 The FAA encourages industry stakeholders to develop additional test methods and analyses to provide multiple ways for applicants to comply with the applicable safety requirements. Two potential approaches for industry to consider are provided in the following paragraphs.
8.7.2 A person may develop a standard for small unmanned aircraft having rotating parts that are protected by safety features, such as propeller guards. The standard could require testing by the applicant to support the determination that the protective safety features accomplish their intended function of preventing rotating parts from contacting a person during impact. If the applicant has tested those safety features and demonstrated they would remain intact during impact, this could be one means of demonstrating that exposed rotating parts would not be capable of lacerating human skin upon impact.
8.7.3 If a small unmanned aircraft has rotating parts that are exposed without any protective safety features, it may be shown through testing and analysis that the rotating parts would not lacerate human skin upon impact. By analyzing test data that evaluates the size, shape, rotational speed, material, and orientation of the rotating parts, and the severity of injuries that would be caused by these parts under any impact scenarios, it can be determined that the rotating parts would not lacerate human skin upon impact.
8.7.4 The method of analysis or testing should be commensurate with the applicant’s means of compliance. If a small unmanned aircraft has propellers made out of flexible material, an applicant would likely not need to perform sophisticated analysis or testing to demonstrate that the exposed rotating parts would not cause lacerations to human skin upon impact. If an applicant chooses to design a small unmanned aircraft with exposed propellers with sharp leading edges made of a rigid material, such as a carbon fiber composite that are driven by high torque motors, that applicant would likely have to perform a more sophisticated analysis or testing. The objective of the analysis or testing is to demonstrate that the propellers would not cause lacerations upon impact. This testing standard requires the applicant to demonstrate it across a range of typical human encounters and unmanned aircraft operational scenarios. Categories 2 and 3 require the manufacturer to show the unmanned aircraft would not cause lacerations (emphasis added). Therefore, the FAA does not expect applications to test for every human encounter, merely the ones that are typical.
8.7.5 The unmanned aircraft may also have a rotor that does not have sufficient momentum to lacerate normal human skin, and may implement technology to stop the exposed rotating
8-19 part before it would lacerate skin. Another example of how an aircraft could comply with the prohibition on exposed rotating parts that would cause lacerations would be to use materials that are incapable of lacerating human skin. An example of this would be to use or design rotors or propellers with properties that break away or flex upon impact to eliminate lacerations without the use of guards or shrouds. For Categories 2 and 3, any method an applicant chooses to use to comply with the exposed rotating parts requirement must be demonstrated through an FAA-accepted MOC.
8.7.6 Exposed rotating parts may pose a significant laceration hazard if they contact human skin, which is unacceptable for the safety of the public. The FAA distinguishes between a laceration to mean a cut that goes all the way through the skin while an abrasion means a superficial injury to the skin. Additionally, the FAA uses the expression “typical human encounter” to describe normal impacts, such as unmanned aircraft impacting a human being due to a loss of control, small unmanned aircraft failures, or remote pilot error.
8.8 Means of Compliance. Any person may propose an MOC to satisfy the safety requirements of § 107.120(a) or § 107.130(a). A person would submit a proposed MOC to the FAA for review and acceptance, showing that its small unmanned aircraft would not exceed the applicable injury severity limit upon impact with a human being, does not contain any exposed rotating parts that would lacerate human skin, and does not contain any safety defects. The FAA must accept an MOC before an applicant can rely on it to declare compliance with the performance-based safety requirements of § 107.120(a) or § 107.130(a), or both.
8.8.1 An applicant requesting FAA acceptance of an MOC should carefully consider the additional time and effort that could be necessary to coordinate an MOC when scheduling its projects. FAA coordination may require the efforts of FAA technical specialists, Chief Scientific Technical Advisors, or other governmental agencies. The use of existing FAA-accepted MOC would be more expeditious because the FAA will already have reviewed such MOC. As with voluntary consensus standards bodies, some developers of an MOC may not be applicants also submitting a DOC to the FAA for acceptance.
Guidance for developing and submitting an MOC to the FAA for acceptance is provided below.
8.8.2 An applicant requesting FAA acceptance of an MOC should submit its proposed MOC at https://uasdoc.faa.gov. An acceptable MOC may be used to establish the small unmanned aircraft fulfills the safety requirements set forth in § 107.120(a) or § 107.130(a). The MOC must show, through test, analyses, inspection, or any combination of these options that the small unmanned aircraft meets the safety requirements for the respective category of operation over people. The proposed MOC must include a detailed description of the MOC and an explanation of how applying the MOC fulfills the safety requirements of § 107.120(a) or § 107.130(a), or both. The FAA will evaluate the testing procedure and substantiation documents on a case-by-case basis.
8.8.3 W hen reviewing an MO C, the FAA will utilize criteria that include, but are not limited to, the following:
8-20
8.8.3.1 To evaluate compliance with the appropriate safety requirements, the FAA will determine whether the applicant’s methods demonstrate the applicant has properly mitigated the severity of human injury that could occur to an acceptable safety level, as defined in the appropriate aircraft category.
8.8.3.2 The FAA will also determine whether the tests or analyses are performed in accordance with accepted methods used by the medical industry, consumer safety groups, or other peer-reviewed test methods.
8.8.3.3 In addition, the FAA will determine whether the proposed MOC requires unreasonable skill on behalf of the remote pilot or incorporation of mitigations to meet the requirements.
8.8.3.4 The FAA will determine whether the MOC addresses design features such as deployable devices (i.e., parachutes) or other features independent of the small unmanned aircraft to determine whether they assist in fulfilling the safety requirements.
8.8.4 The FAA will indicate acceptance of an MOC by publishing a Notice of Availability in the Federal Register identifying the MOC as accepted and notifying the applicant.
8.8.5 An MOC accepted by the FAA is considered valid whether it comes from a consensus standards body or a person. If a proposed MOC is not accepted by the FAA, the FAA will notify the applicant requesting acceptance of an MOC of any issues with the proposed MOC.
8.9 Declarations of Compliance. For a small unmanned aircraft to be eligible to conduct Category 2 or 3 operations over people, the person who designs, produces, or modifies the small unmanned aircraft must declare compliance with the appropriate performance-based safety requirements through use of an FAA-accepted MOC. The FAA will receive such DOCs via an electronic form available on the FAA’s website https://uasdoc.faa.gov. Submission of a DOC involves the applicant declaring the following information:
• The applicant has demonstrated that the small unmanned aircraft meets the performance-based safety requirements for the category or categories of operation through an FAA-accepted MOC;
• The applicant maintains a process to notify owners of small unmanned aircraft and the FAA of any unsafe conditions that render those small unmanned aircraft noncompliant with part 107 subpart D;
• The applicant verifies that the small unmanned aircraft does not contain any safety defects; and
• The applicant will allow the FAA access to its facilities and technical documents, records, or reports required or witness any test necessary to determine compliance with the DOC.
8-21
8.9.1 Contents of a DOC. An applicant intending to promote a small unmanned aircraft as eligible for operations over people in accordance with Category 2 or Category 3 must submit a DOC to the FAA for acceptance. An applicant submits the DOC through the FAA’s website https://uasdoc.faa.gov. A completed DOC will include information the FAA requires for both determining that a small unmanned aircraft complies with the applicable safety requirements and a means of tracking those models of small unmanned aircraft that were declared compliant. In accordance with § 107.160, applicants will declare they have met the requirements of the rule through an FAA-accepted MOC and include the following information:
1. FAA-accepted MOC used.
2. Name of the applicant.
3. Physical address of the applicant.
4. Email address of the applicant (used for correspondence with the FAA).
5. Small unmanned aircraft make and model, and series, if applicable.
6. Serial number or range of serial numbers for the small unmanned aircraft subject to the DOC (open-ended are permitted).
7. Whether the DOC is an initial or an amended DOC, and if amended, the reason for the resubmittal.
8. Declaration that the applicant:
• Has demonstrated the small unmanned aircraft meets the injury severity limits of Category 2, Category 3, or both, and the prohibition on exposed rotating parts that would cause lacerations;
• Has verified the small unmanned aircraft does not have any safety defects;
• Has satisfied the requirement to maintain a product support and notification process; and
• Will, upon request, allow the Administrator to inspect its facilities and its technical data.
9. Any other information as required by the Administrator.
8.9.2 Additionally, if an applicant resubmits an FAA-accepted DOC, the applicant must include the reason for the amendment. For example, the amendment could include additional serial numbers, document the correction of a safety defect, or correct the misspelling of the applicant’s name or an incorrect address. The FAA will maintain a list of FAA-accepted DOCs and make them publicly available on the FAA website. This allows the FAA and the public to determine which makes and models, and series, if applicable, of small unmanned aircraft are eligible to conduct Categories 2 and 3 operations over people.