BK-
In other words, it is contingent on the FAA to determine that a consensus standard (e.g. AMA as the only, or at least largest, body covering model aviation in the US) is impractical.
you seem to have snipped out the important part in your paraphrasing of your quoted text
Your agency must use voluntary consensus standards, both domestic and international, in its regulatory and procurement activities in lieu of government-unique standards, unless use of such standards would be inconsistent with applicable law or otherwise impractical.
Dont you mean:
In other words, it is contingent on the FAA to determine that a consensus standard (e.g. AMA as the only, or at least largest, body covering model aviation in the US) would be inconsistent with applicable law or otherwise impractical
The process of needing to come up with a Model exclusion from the otherwise applicable laws
is pretty clear that there are /will be applicable laws that it would be inconsistent with.
That is what this is all about, trying to get a Model exclusion from the SUAS regulation that would apply to the AMA's Small Unmanned Aircraft Systems (aka toy airplanes / models)
.... exclusion from massive regulation of the things we fly,
based on us simply not getting paid to do what is regulated for paid guys
Impractical?
again, I cite the practicality of trying to ban all propellers made of metal: Its very impractical to attempt at the national level in all model disciplines, until you just say 4 words (Metal Props Are Banned) and then clearly it was very very easy and practical to do.
How practical is it for FAA to place a 400' ceiling on models?
(ac91-57/ASF400/G08-01, I'm looking at you)
About as practical as AMA banning metal: Just write the words and its done.
Or just as practical as the 5gallon fuel cap on "unregulated" p103 ultralights.... FAA just writes it down and it done.
For a group that folks here tout as have been in bed with the FAA for decades,
sure seems like we are coming in late to this party and dont know anyone.