[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 35 (Monday, February 23, 2015)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 9544-9590]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2015-03544]
[[Page 9543]]
Vol. 80
Monday,
No. 35
February 23, 2015
Part III
Department of Transportation
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Federal Aviation Administration
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
14 CFR Parts 21, 43, 45, et al.
Operation and Certification of Small Unmanned Aircraft Systems;
Proposed Rule
Federal Register / Vol. 80 , No. 35 / Monday, February 23, 2015 /
Proposed Rules
[[Page 9544]]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
Federal Aviation Administration
14 CFR Parts 21, 43, 45, 47, 61, 91, 101, 107, and 183
[Docket No.: FAA-2015-0150; Notice No. 15-01]
RIN 2120-AJ60
Operation and Certification of Small Unmanned Aircraft Systems
AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The FAA is proposing to amend its regulations to adopt
specific rules to allow the operation of small unmanned aircraft
systems in the National Airspace System. These changes would address
the operation of unmanned aircraft systems, certification of their
operators, registration, and display of registration markings. The
proposed rule would also find that airworthiness certification is not
required for small unmanned aircraft system operations that would be
subject to this proposed rule. Lastly, the proposed rule would prohibit
model aircraft from endangering the safety of the National Airspace
System.
DATES: Send comments on or before April 24, 2015.
ADDRESSES: Send comments identified by docket number FAA-2015-0150
using any of the following methods:
Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to http://www.regulations.gov and follow the online instructions for sending your
comments electronically.
Mail: Send comments to Docket Operations, M-30; U.S.
Department of Transportation (DOT), 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Room
W12-140, West Building Ground Floor, Washington, DC 20590-0001.
Hand Delivery or Courier: Take comments to Docket
Operations in Room W12-140 of the West Building Ground Floor at 1200
New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m.,
Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.
Fax: Fax comments to Docket Operations at 202-493-2251.
Privacy: In accordance with 5 U.S.C. 553(c), DOT solicits comments
from the public to better inform its rulemaking process. DOT posts
these comments, without edit, including any personal information the
commenter provides, to www.regulations.gov, as described in the system
of records notice (DOT/ALL-14 FDMS), which can be reviewed at
www.dot.gov/privacy.
Docket: Background documents or comments received may be read at
http://www.regulations.gov at any time. Follow the online instructions
for accessing the docket or go to the Docket Operations in Room W12-140
of the West Building Ground Floor at 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE.,
Washington, DC, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday,
except Federal holidays.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For technical questions concerning
this action, contact Lance Nuckolls, Office of Aviation Safety,
Unmanned Aircraft Systems Integration Office, AFS-80, Federal Aviation
Administration, 490 L'Enfant Plaza East, SW., Suite 3200, Washington,
DC 20024; telephone (202) 267-8447; email [email protected].
For legal questions concerning this action, contact Alex Zektser,
Office of Chief Counsel, International Law, Legislation, and
Regulations Division, AGC-220, Federal Aviation Administration, 800
Independence Avenue SW., Washington, DC 20591; telephone (202) 267-
3073; email [email protected].
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Authority for This Rulemaking
This rulemaking is promulgated under the authority described in the
FAA Modernization and Reform Act of 2012 (Public Law 112-95). Section
333 of Public Law 112-95 directs the Secretary of Transportation \1\ to
determine whether ``certain unmanned aircraft systems may operate
safely in the national airspace system.'' If the Secretary determines,
pursuant to section 333, that certain unmanned aircraft systems may
operate safely in the national airspace system, then the Secretary must
``establish requirements for the safe operation of such aircraft
systems in the national airspace system.'' \2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ The primary authority for this rulemaking is based on
section 333 of Public Law 112-95 (Feb. 14, 2012). In addition, this
rulemaking also relies on FAA statutory authorities. Thus, for the
purposes of this rulemaking, the terms ``FAA,'' ``the agency,''
``DOT,'' and ``the Secretary,'' are used synonymously throughout
this document.
\2\ Public Law 112-95, section 333(c). In addition, Public Law
112-95, section 332(b)(1) requires the Secretary to issue ``a final
rule on small unmanned aircraft systems that will allow for civil
operation of such systems in the national airspace system, to the
extent the systems do not meet the requirements for expedited
operational authorization under sections 333 of [Pub. L. 112-95].''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
This rulemaking is also promulgated pursuant to 49 U.S.C.
40103(b)(1) and (2), which charge the FAA with issuing regulations: (1)
To ensure the safety of aircraft and the efficient use of airspace; and
(2) to govern the flight of aircraft for purposes of navigating,
protecting and identifying aircraft, and protecting individuals and
property on the ground. In addition, 49 U.S.C. 44701(a)(5), charges the
FAA with prescribing regulations that the FAA finds necessary for
safety in air commerce and national security.
Finally, the model-aircraft component of this rulemaking
incorporates the statutory mandate in section 336(b) that preserves the
FAA's authority, under 49 U.S.C. 40103(b) and 44701(a)(5), to pursue
enforcement ``against persons operating model aircraft who endanger the
safety of the national airspace system.''
List of Abbreviations and Acronyms Frequently Used in This Document
AC Advisory Circular
AGL Above Ground Level
ACR Airman Certification Representative
ARC Aviation Rulemaking Committee
ATC Air Traffic Control
CAFTA-DR Dominican Republic-Central America-United States Free
Trade Agreement
CAR Civil Air Regulation
CFI Certified Flight Instructor
CFR Code of Federal Regulations
COA Certificate of Waiver or Authorization
DPE Designated Pilot Examiner
FR Federal Register
FSDO Flight Standards District Office
ICAO International Civil Aviation Organization
NAFTA North American Free Trade Agreement
NAS National Airspace System
NOTAM Notice to Airmen
NPRM Notice of Proposed Rulemaking
NTSB National Transportation Safety Board
PIC Pilot in Command
Pub. L. Public Law
PMA Parts Manufacturer Approval
TFR Temporary Flight Restriction
TSA Transportation Security Administration
TSO Technical Standard Order
UAS Unmanned Aircraft System
U.S.C. United States Code
Table of Contents
I. Executive Summary
A. Purpose of the Regulatory Action
B. Summary of the Major Provisions of the Regulatory Action
C. Costs and Benefits
II. Background
A. Analysis of Public Risk Posed by Small UAS Operations
B. Current Statutory and Regulatory Structure Governing Small
UAS
C. Integrating Small UAS Operations Into the NAS
III. Discussion of the Proposal
A. Incremental Approach and Privacy
B. Applicability
1. Air Carrier Operations
2. External Load and Towing Operations
3. International Operations
4. Foreign-Owned Aircraft That Are Ineligible for U.S.
Registration
[[Page 9545]]
5. Public Aircraft Operations
6. Model Aircraft
7. Moored Balloons, Kites, Amateur Rockets, and Unmanned Free
Balloons
C. Definitions
1. Control Station
2. Corrective Lenses
3. Operator and Visual Observer
4. Small Unmanned Aircraft
5. Small Unmanned Aircraft System (small UAS)
6. Unmanned Aircraft
D. Operating Rules
1. Micro UAS Classification
2. Operator and Visual Observer
i. Operator
ii. Visual Observer
3. See-and-Avoid and Visibility Requirements
i. See-and-Avoid
ii. Additional Visibility Requirements
iii. Yielding Right of Way
4. Containment and Loss of Positive Control
i. Confined Area of Operation Boundaries
ii. Mitigating Loss-of-Positive-Control Risk
5. Limitations on Operations in Certain Airspace
i. Controlled Airspace
ii. Prohibited or Restricted Areas
iii. Areas Designated by Notice to Airmen
6. Airworthiness, Inspection, Maintenance, and Airworthiness
Directives
i. Inspections and Maintenance
ii. Airworthiness Directives
7. Miscellaneous Operating Provisions
i. Careless or Reckless Operation
ii. Drug and Alcohol Prohibition
iii. Medical Conditions
iv. Sufficient Power for the Small UAS
v. Registration and Marking
E. Operator Certificate
1. Applicability
2. Unmanned Aircraft Operator Certificate--Eligibility &
Issuance
i. Minimum Age
ii. English Language Proficiency
iii. Pilot Qualification
a. Flight Proficiency and Aeronautical Experience
b. Initial Aeronautical Knowledge Test
c. Areas of Knowledge Tested on the Initial Knowledge Test
d. Administration of the Initial Knowledge Test
e. Recurrent Aeronautical Knowledge Test
i. General Requirement and Administration of the Recurrent
Knowledge Test
ii. Recurrent Test Areas of Knowledge
iv. Issuance of an Unmanned Aircraft Operator Certificate With
Small UAS Rating
v. Not Requiring an Airman Medical Certificate
4. Military Equivalency
5. Unmanned Aircraft Operator Certificate: Denial, Revocation,
Suspension, Amendment, and Surrender
i. Transportation Security Administration Vetting and Positive
Identification
ii. Drugs and Alcohol Violations
iii. Change of Name
iv. Change of Address
v. Voluntary Surrender of Certificate
F. Registration
G. Marking
1. Display of Registration Number
2. Marking of Products and Articles
H. Fraud and False Statements
I. Oversight
1. Inspection, Testing, and Demonstration of Compliance
2. Accident Reporting
J. Section 333 Statutory Findings
1. Hazard to Users of the NAS or the Public
2. National Security
3. Airworthiness Certification
IV. Regulatory Notices and Analyses
A. Regulatory Evaluation
1. Total Benefits and Costs of This Rule
2. Who is potentially affected by this Rule?
4. Benefit Summary
5. Cost Summary
B. Initial Regulatory Flexibility Determination (IRFA)
1. Description of Reasons the Agency Is Considering the Action
2. Statement of the Legal Basis and Objectives for the Proposed
Rule
3. Description of the Recordkeeping and Other Compliance
Requirements of the Proposed Rule
4. All Federal Rules That May Duplicate, Overlap, or Conflict
With the Proposed Rule
5. Description and an Estimated Number of Small Entities To
Which the Proposed Rule Will Apply
6. Alternatives Considered
C. International Trade Impact Assessment
D. Unfunded Mandates Assessment
E. Paperwork Reduction Act
1. Obtaining an Unmanned Aircraft Operator Certificate With a
Small UAS Rating
2. Registering a Small Unmanned Aircraft
3. Accident Reporting
F. International Compatibility and Cooperation
G. Environmental Analysis
H. Regulations Affecting Intrastate Aviation in Alaska
V. Executive Order Determinations
A. Executive Order 13132, Federalism
B. Executive Order 13211, Regulations That Significantly Affect
Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use
VI. Additional Information
A. Comments Invited
B. Availability of Rulemaking Documents
I. Executive Summary
A. Purpose of the Regulatory Action
This rulemaking proposes operating requirements to allow small
unmanned aircraft systems (small UAS) to operate for non-hobby or non-
recreational purposes. A small UAS consists of a small unmanned
aircraft (which, as defined by statute, is an unmanned aircraft
weighing less than 55 pounds \3\) and equipment necessary for the safe
and efficient operation of that aircraft. The FAA has accommodated non-
recreational small UAS use through various mechanisms, such as special
airworthiness certificates, exemptions, and certificates of waiver or
authorization (COA). This proposed rule would be the next phase of
integrating small UAS into the NAS.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ Public Law 112-95, sec. 331(6).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The following are examples of possible small UAS operations that
could be conducted under this proposed framework:
Crop monitoring/inspection;
Research and development;
Educational/academic uses;
Power-line/pipeline inspection in hilly or mountainous
terrain;
Antenna inspections;
Aiding certain rescue operations such as locating snow
avalanche victims;
Bridge inspections;
Aerial photography; and
Wildlife nesting area evaluations.
Because of the potential societally beneficial applications of
small UAS, the FAA has been seeking to incorporate the operation of
these systems into the national airspace system (NAS) since 2008. In
April 2008, the FAA chartered the small UAS Aviation Rulemaking
Committee (ARC). In April 2009, the ARC provided the FAA with
recommendations on how small UAS could be safely integrated into the
NAS. Since that time, the FAA has been working on a rulemaking to
incorporate small UAS operations into the NAS.
In 2012, Congress passed the FAA Modernization and Reform Act of
2012 (Pub. L. 112-95). Section 333 of Public Law 112-95 directed the
Secretary to determine whether UAS operations posing the least amount
of public risk and no threat to national security could safely be
operated in the NAS and if so, to establish requirements for the safe
operation of these systems in the NAS, prior to completion of the UAS
comprehensive plan and rulemakings required by section 332 of Public
Law 112-95. As part of its ongoing efforts to integrate UAS operations
in the NAS in accordance with section 332, and as authorized by section
333 of Public Law 112-95, the FAA is proposing to amend its regulations
to adopt specific rules for the operation of small UAS in the NAS.
Based on our experience with the certification, exemption, and COA
process, the FAA has developed the framework proposed in this rule to
enable certain small UAS operations to commence upon adoption of the
final rule and accommodate technologies as they evolve and mature. This
proposed framework would allow small UAS operations for many different
non-recreational purposes, such as the ones discussed previously,
without requiring airworthiness certification, exemption, or a COA.
[[Page 9546]]
B. Summary of the Major Provisions of the Regulatory Action
Specifically, the FAA is proposing to add a new part 107 to Title
14 Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR) to allow for routine civil
operation of small UAS in the NAS and to provide safety rules for those
operations. Consistent with the statutory definition, the proposed rule
defines small UAS as those UAS weighing less than 55 pounds. To
mitigate risk, the proposed rule would limit small UAS to daylight-only
operations, confined areas of operation, and visual-line-of-sight
operations. This proposed rule also addresses aircraft registration and
marking, NAS operations, operator certification, visual observer
requirements, and operational limits in order to maintain the safety of
the NAS and ensure that they do not pose a threat to national security.
Below is a summary of the major provisions of the proposed rule.
Summary of Major Provisions of Proposed Part 107
------------------------------------------------------------------------
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Operational Limitations...... Unmanned aircraft must weigh
less than 55 lbs. (25 kg).
Visual line-of-sight (VLOS)
only; the unmanned aircraft must remain
within VLOS of the operator or visual
observer.
At all times the small unmanned
aircraft must remain close enough to the
operator for the operator to be capable
of seeing the aircraft with vision
unaided by any device other than
corrective lenses.
Small unmanned aircraft may not
operate over any persons not directly
involved in the operation.
Daylight-only operations
(official sunrise to official sunset,
local time).
Must yield right-of-way to other
aircraft, manned or unmanned.
May use visual observer (VO) but
not required.
First-person view camera cannot
satisfy ``see-and-avoid'' requirement
but can be used as long as requirement
is satisfied in other ways.
Maximum airspeed of 100 mph (87
knots).
Maximum altitude of 500 feet
above ground level.
Minimum weather visibility of 3
miles from control station.
No operations are allowed in
Class A (18,000 feet & above) airspace.
Operations in Class B, C, D and
E airspace are allowed with the required
ATC permission.
Operations in Class G airspace
are allowed without ATC permission
No person may act as an operator
or VO for more than one unmanned
aircraft operation at one time.
No operations from a moving
vehicle or aircraft, except from a
watercraft on the water.
No careless or reckless
operations.
Requires preflight inspection by
the operator.
A person may not operate a small
unmanned aircraft if he or she knows or
has reason to know of any physical or
mental condition that would interfere
with the safe operation of a small UAS.
Proposes a microUAS category
that would allow operations in Class G
airspace, over people not involved in
the operation, and would require airman
to self-certify that they are familiar
with the aeronautical knowledge testing
areas.
Operator Certification and Pilots of a small UAS would be
Responsibilities. considered ``operators''.
Operators would be required to:
[cir] Pass an initial aeronautical
knowledge test at an FAA-approved
knowledge testing center.
[cir] Be vetted by the Transportation
Security Administration.
[cir] Obtain an unmanned aircraft
operator certificate with a small UAS
rating (like existing pilot airman
certificates, never expires).
[cir] Pass a recurrent aeronautical
knowledge test every 24 months.
[cir] Be at least 17 years old.
[cir] Make available to the FAA, upon
request, the small UAS for inspection
or testing, and any associated
documents/records required to be kept
under the proposed rule.
[cir] Report an accident to the FAA
within 10 days of any operation that
results in injury or property damage.
[cir] Conduct a preflight inspection,
to include specific aircraft and
control station systems checks, to
ensure the small UAS is safe for
operation.
Aircraft Requirements........ FAA airworthiness certification
not required. However, operator must
maintain a small UAS in condition for
safe operation and prior to flight must
inspect the UAS to ensure that it is in
a condition for safe operation. Aircraft
Registration required (same requirements
that apply to all other aircraft).
Aircraft markings required (same
requirements that apply to all other
aircraft). If aircraft is too small to
display markings in standard size, then
the aircraft simply needs to display
markings in the largest practicable
manner.
Model Aircraft............... Proposed rule would not apply to
model aircraft that satisfy all of the
criteria specified in section 336 of
Public Law 112-95.
The proposed rule would codify
the FAA's enforcement authority in part
101 by prohibiting model aircraft
operators from endangering the safety of
the NAS.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Operator Certification: Under the proposed rule, the person who
manipulates the flight controls of a small UAS would be defined as an
``operator.'' A small UAS operator would be required to pass an
aeronautical knowledge test and obtain an unmanned aircraft operator
certificate with a small UAS rating from the FAA before operating a
small UAS. In order to maintain his or her operator certification, the
operator would be
[[Page 9547]]
required to pass recurrent knowledge tests every 24 months subsequent
to the initial knowledge test. These tests would be created by the FAA
and administered by FAA-approved knowledge testing centers. Although a
specific distant vision acuity standard is not being proposed, this
proposed rule would require the operator to keep the small unmanned
aircraft close enough to the control station to be capable of seeing
that aircraft through his or her unaided (except for glasses or contact
lenses) visual line of sight. The operator would also be required to
actually maintain visual line of sight of the small unmanned aircraft
if a visual observer is not used.
Visual Observer: Under the proposed rule, an operator would not be
required to work with a visual observer, but a visual observer could be
used to assist the operator with the proposed visual-line-of-sight and
see-and-avoid requirements by maintaining constant visual contact with
the small unmanned aircraft in place of the operator. While an operator
would always be required to have the capability for visual line of
sight of the small unmanned aircraft, this proposed rule would not
require the operator to exercise this capability if he or she is
augmented by at least one visual observer. No certification
requirements are being proposed for visual observers. A small UAS
operation would not be limited in the number of visual observers
involved in the operation, but the operator and visual observer(s) must
remain situated such that the operator and any visual observer(s) are
all able to view the aircraft at any given time. The operator and
visual observer(s) would be permitted to communicate by radio or other
communication-assisting device, so they would not need to remain in
close enough physical proximity to allow for unassisted oral
communication.
Since the operator and any visual observers would be required to be
in a position to maintain or achieve visual line of sight with the
aircraft at all times, the proposed rule would effectively prohibit a
relay or ``daisy-chain'' formation of multiple visual observers by
requiring that the operator must always be capable of seeing the small
unmanned aircraft. Such arrangements would potentially expand the area
of a small UAS operation and pose an increased public risk if there is
a loss of aircraft control.
Operational Scope: A small UAS operator would be required to see
and avoid all other users of the NAS in the area in which the small UAS
is operating. The proposed rule contains operating restrictions
designed to help ensure that the operator is able to yield right-of-way
to other aircraft at all times.
The proposed rule would limit the exposure of small unmanned
aircraft to other users of the NAS by restricting small UAS operations
in controlled airspace. Specifically, small UAS would be prohibited
from operating in Class A airspace, and would require prior permission
from Air Traffic Control to operate in Class B, C, or D airspace, or
within the lateral boundaries of the surface area of Class E airspace
designated for an airport. The risk of collision with other aircraft
would be further reduced by limiting small UAS operations to a maximum
airspeed of 87 knots (100 mph) and a maximum altitude of 500 feet above
ground.
Further, in order to enable maximum visibility for small UAS
operation, the proposed rule would restrict small UAS to daylight-only
operations (sunrise to sunset), and impose a minimum weather-visibility
of 3 statute miles (5 kilometers) from the small UAS control station.
Aircraft Maintenance: Under the proposed rule, the operator of a
small UAS would be required to conduct a preflight inspection before
each flight operation, and determine that the small UAS (aircraft,
control station, launch and recovery equipment, etc.) is safe for
operation.
Airworthiness: Pursuant to section 333(b)(2) of Public Law 112-95,
the Secretary has determined that small UAS subject to this proposed
rule would not require airworthiness certification because the safety
concerns associated with small UAS operation would be mitigated by the
other provisions of this proposed rule. Rather, this proposed rule
would require the operator to ensure that the small UAS is in a
condition for safe operation by conducting an inspection prior to each
flight.
Registration and Marking: This proposed rule would apply to small
unmanned aircraft the current registration requirements that apply to
all aircraft. Once a small unmanned aircraft is registered, this
proposed rule would require that aircraft to display its registration
marking in a manner similar to what is currently required of all
aircraft.
C. Costs and Benefits
This proposed rule reflects the fact that technological advances in
small UAS have led to a developing commercial market for their uses by
providing a safe operating environment for them and for other aircraft
in the NAS. In time, the FAA anticipates that the proposed rule would
provide an opportunity to substitute small UAS operations for some
higher risk manned flights, such as inspecting towers, bridges, or
other structures. The use of small unmanned aircraft would avert
potential fatalities and injuries to those in the aircraft and on the
ground. It would also lead to more efficient methods of performing
certain commercial tasks that are currently performed by other methods.
The FAA has not quantified the benefits for this proposed rulemaking
because we lack sufficient data. The FAA invites commenters to provide
data that could be used to quantify the benefits of this proposed rule.
For any commercial operation occurring because this rule is
enacted, the operator/owner of that small UAS will have determined the
expected revenue stream of the flights exceeds the cost of the flights
operation. In each such case this rule helps enable new markets to
develop.
The costs are shown in the table below.
Total and Present Value Cost Summary by Provision
[Thousands of current year dollars]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
7% P.V.
Type of cost Total costs (000) (000)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Applicant/small UAS operator: ................. ...........
Travel Expense...................... $151.7 $125.9
Knowledge Test Fees................. 2,548.6 2,114.2
Positive Identification of the 434.3 383.7
Applicant Fee......................
Owner: ................. ...........
Small UAS Registration Fee.......... 85.7 70.0
Time Resource Opportunity Costs: ................. ...........
[[Page 9548]]
Applicants Travel Time.............. 296.1 245.3
Knowledge Test Application.......... 108.9 90.2
Physical Capability Certification... 20.0 17.7
Knowledge Test Time................. 1,307.1 1,082.9
Small UAS Registration Form......... 220.5 179.7
Change of Name or Address Form...... 14.9 12.3
Knowledge Test Report............... 154.9 128.5
Pre-flight Inspection............... Not quantified ...........
Accident Reporting.................. Minimal cost ...........
Government Costs: ................. ...........
TSA Security Vetting................ 1,026.5 906.9
FAA--sUAS Operating Certificate..... 39.6 35.0
FAA--Registration................... 394.3 321.8
-------------------------------
Total Costs..................... 6,803.1 5,714.0
------------------------------------------------------------------------
* Details may not add to row or column totals due to rounding.
II. Background
This NPRM addresses the operation, airman certification, and
registration of civil small UAS.
A small UAS consists of a small unmanned aircraft and associated
elements that are necessary for the safe and efficient operation of
that aircraft in the NAS. Associated elements that are necessary for
the safe and efficient operation of the aircraft include the interface
that is used to control the small unmanned aircraft (known as a control
station) and communication links between the control station and the
small unmanned aircraft. A small unmanned aircraft is defined by
statute as ``an unmanned aircraft weighing less than 55 pounds.'' \4\
Due to the size of a small unmanned aircraft, the FAA envisions
considerable potential business and non-business applications,
particularly in areas that are hard to reach for a manned aircraft.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ Sec. 331(6) of Public Law 112-95.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The following are examples of possible small UAS operations that
could be conducted under this proposed framework:
Crop monitoring/inspection;
Research and development;
Educational/academic uses;
Power-line/pipeline inspection in hilly or mountainous
terrain;
Antenna inspections;
Aiding certain rescue operations such as locating snow
avalanche victims;
Bridge inspections;
Aerial photography; and
Wildlife nesting area evaluations.
The following sections discuss: (1) The public risk associated with
small UAS operations; (2) the current legal framework governing small
UAS operations; and (3) the FAA's ongoing efforts to incorporate small
UAS operations into the NAS.
A. Analysis of Public Risk Posed by Small UAS Operations
Small UAS operations pose risk considerations that are different
from the risk considerations associated with manned-aircraft
operations. On one hand, certain operations of a small unmanned
aircraft, discussed more fully in section III.D of this preamble, have
the potential to pose significantly less risk to persons and property
than comparable operations of a manned aircraft. The typical total
takeoff weight of a general aviation aircraft is between 1,300 and
6,000 pounds. By contrast, the total takeoff weight of a small unmanned
aircraft is less than 55 pounds. Consequently, because a small unmanned
aircraft is significantly lighter than a manned aircraft, in the event
of a mishap, the small unmanned aircraft would pose significantly less
risk to persons and property on the ground. As such, a small UAS
operation whose parameters are well defined so it does not pose a
significant risk to other aircraft would also pose a smaller overall
public risk or threat to national security than the operation of a
manned aircraft.
However, even though small UAS operations have the potential to
pose a lower level of public risk in certain types of operations, the
unmanned nature of the small UAS operations raises two unique safety
concerns that are not present in manned-aircraft operations. The first
safety concern is whether the person operating the small unmanned
aircraft, who would be physically separated from that aircraft during
flight, would have the ability to see manned aircraft in the air in
time to prevent a mid-air collision between the small unmanned aircraft
and another aircraft. As discussed in more detail below, the FAA's
regulations currently require each person operating an aircraft to
maintain vigilance ``so as to see and avoid other aircraft.'' \5\ This
is one of the fundamental principles for collision avoidance in the
NAS.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ 14 CFR 91.113(b).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
For manned-aircraft operations, ``see and avoid'' is the
responsibility of persons on board an aircraft. By contrast, small
unmanned aircraft operations have no human beings physically on the
unmanned aircraft with the same visual perspective and the ability to
see other aircraft in the manner of a manned-aircraft pilot. Thus, the
challenge for small unmanned aircraft operations is to ensure that the
person operating the small unmanned aircraft is able to see and avoid
other aircraft.
In considering this issue, the FAA examined to what extent existing
technology could provide a solution to this problem. The FAA notes that
advances in technologies that use ground-based radar and aircraft
sensors to detect the reply signals from aircraft ATC transponders have
provided significant improvement in the ability to detect other
aircraft in close proximity to each other. The Traffic Collision
Avoidance System also has the ability to provide guidance to flight
crews to maneuver appropriately to avoid a mid-air collision. Both of
these technologies have done an excellent job in reducing the mid-air
collision rate between manned aircraft. Unfortunately, the equipment
required to utilize these widely available technologies is
[[Page 9549]]
currently too large and heavy to be used in small UAS operations. Until
this equipment is miniaturized to the extent necessary to make it
viable for use in small UAS operations, existing technology does not
appear to provide a way to resolve the ``see and avoid'' problem with
small UAS operations without maintaining human visual contact with the
small unmanned aircraft during flight.
The second safety concern with small UAS operations is the
possibility that, during flight, the person operating the small UAS may
become unable to use the control interface to operate the small
unmanned aircraft due to a failure of the control link between the
aircraft and the operator's control station. This is known as a loss of
positive control. This situation may result from a system failure or
because the aircraft has been flown beyond the signal range or in an
area where control link communication between the aircraft and the
control station is interrupted. A small unmanned aircraft whose flight
is unable to be directly controlled could pose a significant risk to
persons, property, or other aircraft.
B. Current Statutory and Regulatory Structure Governing Small UAS
Due to the lack of an onboard pilot, small unmanned aircraft are
unable to see and avoid other aircraft in the NAS. Therefore, small UAS
operations conflict with the FAA's current operating regulations
codified in 14 CFR part 91 that apply to general aviation.
Specifically, at the heart of the part 91 operating regulations is
Sec. 91.113(b), which requires each person operating an aircraft to
maintain vigilance ``so as to see and avoid other aircraft.''
The FAA created this requirement in a 1968 rulemaking that combined
two previous aviation regulatory provisions, Civil Air Regulations
(CAR) Sec. Sec. 60.13(c) and 60.30.\6\ Both of the provisions that
were combined to create the ``see and avoid'' requirement of Sec.
91.113(b) were intended to address aircraft collision-awareness
problems by requiring that a pilot on board the aircraft look out of
the aircraft during flight to observe whether other aircraft are on a
collision path with his or her aircraft. Those provisions did not
contemplate the use of technology to substitute for the human vision of
a pilot on board the aircraft. Similarly, there is no evidence that
those provisions contemplated a pilot fulfilling his or her ``see and
avoid'' responsibilities from outside the aircraft. To the contrary,
CAR section 60.13(c) stated that one of the problems it intended to
address was ``preoccupation by the pilot with cockpit duties,'' which
indicates that the regulation contemplated the presence of a pilot on
board the aircraft.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\6\ Pilot Vigilance, 33 FR 10505 (July 24, 1968).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Because the regulations that resulted in the see-and-avoid
requirement of Sec. 91.113(b) did not contemplate that this
requirement could be complied with by a pilot who is outside the
aircraft, Sec. 91.113(b) currently requires an aircraft pilot to have
the perspective of being inside the aircraft as that aircraft is moving
in order to see and avoid other aircraft. Since the operator of a small
UAS does not have this perspective, operation of a small UAS could not
meet the see and avoid requirement of Sec. 91.113(b) at this time.
In addition to currently being prohibited by Sec. 91.113(b), there
are also statutory considerations that apply to small UAS operations.
Specifically, even though a small UAS is different from a manned
aircraft, the operation of a small UAS still involves the operation of
an aircraft. This is because the FAA's statute defines an ``aircraft''
as ``any contrivance invented, used, or designed to navigate or fly in
the air.'' 49 U.S.C. 40102(a)(6). Since a small unmanned aircraft is a
contrivance that is invented, used, and designed to fly in the air, a
small unmanned aircraft is an aircraft for purposes of the FAA's
statutes.\7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\7\ Public Law 112-95 reaffirmed that an unmanned aircraft is
indeed an aircraft by defining an unmanned aircraft as ``an aircraft
that is operated without the possibility of direct human
intervention from within or on the aircraft.'' Sec. 331(8), Public
Law 112-95 (emphasis added).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Because a small UAS involves the operation of an ``aircraft,'' this
triggers the FAA's registration and certification statutory
requirements. Specifically, subject to certain exceptions, a person may
not operate a civil aircraft that is not registered. 49 U.S.C.
44101(a). In addition, a person may not operate a civil aircraft in air
commerce without an airworthiness certificate. 49 U.S.C. 44711(a)(1).
Finally, a person may not serve in any capacity as an airman on a civil
aircraft being operated in air commerce without an airman certificate.
49 U.S.C. 44711(a)(2)(A).\8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\8\ The statutes also impose other requirements that are beyond
the scope of this rulemaking. For example, 49 U.S.C. 44711(a)(4)
prohibits a person from operating as an air carrier without an air-
carrier operating certificate.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The term ``air commerce,'' as used in the FAA's statutes, is
defined broadly to include ``the operation of aircraft within the
limits of a Federal airway, or the operation of aircraft that directly
affects, or may endanger safety in foreign or interstate air
commerce.'' 49 U.S.C. 40102(a)(3). Because of this broad definition,
the National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) has held that ``any use
of an aircraft, for purpose of flight, constitutes air commerce.'' \9\
Courts that have considered this issue have reached similar conclusions
that ``air commerce,'' as defined in the FAA's statute, encompasses a
broad range of commercial and non-commercial aircraft operations.\10\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\9\ Administrator v. Barrows, 7 N.T.S.B. 5, 8-9 (1990).
\10\ See, e.g., United States v. Healy, 376 U.S. 75, 84-85
(1964) (holding that ``air commerce'' is not limited to commercial
airplanes); Hill v. NTSB, 886 F.2d 1275, 1280 (10th Cir. 1989)
(``[t]he statutory definition of ``air commerce'' is therefore
clearly not restricted to interstate flights occurring in controlled
or navigable airspace''); United States v. Drumm, 55 F. Supp. 151,
155 (D. Nev. 1944) (``any operation of any aircraft in the air space
either directly affects or may endanger safety in, interstate,
overseas, or foreign air commerce'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Accordingly, because ``air commerce'' encompasses such a broad
range of aircraft operations, a civil small unmanned aircraft cannot
currently be operated, for purposes of flight, if: (1) It is not
registered (49 U.S.C. 44101(a)); (2) it does not possess an
airworthiness certificate (49 U.S.C. 44711(a)(1)); and (3) the airman
operating the aircraft does not possess an airman certificate (49
U.S.C. 44711(a)(2)(A)). However, the FAA's current processes for
issuing airworthiness and airman certificates were designed to be used
for manned aircraft and do not take into account the considerations
associated with civil small UAS.
Specifically, obtaining a type certificate and a standard
airworthiness certificate, which permits the widest range of aircraft
operation, currently takes about 3 to 5 years. Because the pertinent
existing regulations do not differentiate between manned and unmanned
aircraft, a small UAS is currently subject to the same airworthiness
certification process as a manned aircraft. However, it is not
practically feasible for many small UAS manufacturers to go through the
certification process required of manned aircraft. This is because
small UAS technology is rapidly evolving at this time, and
consequently, if a small UAS manufacturer goes through a 3-to-5-year
process to obtain a type certificate, which enables the issuance of a
standard airworthiness certificate, the small UAS would be
technologically outdated by the time it completed the certification
process. For example, advances in lightweight battery technology may
allow new lightweight transponders and power sources within the next 3
to 5 years that are currently unavailable for small UAS operations.
The FAA notes that there are several other certification options
available to
[[Page 9550]]
small UAS manufacturers and operators who do not wish to go through the
process of obtaining a type certificate and standard airworthiness
certificate. However, because each of these options has significant
limitations, these options do not provide flexibility for most routine
small UAS operations. These certification options are as follows:
A special airworthiness certificate in the experimental
category may be issued to UAS pursuant to 14 CFR 21.191-21.195. This
certificate is time-limited, and cannot be used for any activities
other than research and development, market surveys, and crew training.
A special flight permit may be issued pursuant to 14 CFR
21.197. At this time, however, a special flight permit for a UAS is
limited to production flight testing of new production aircraft.\11\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\11\ A special flight permit for production flight testing is
not limited to small UAS and can be obtained for unmanned aircraft
weighing more than 55 pounds. We emphasize, however, that a special
flight permit is limited at this time to production flight testing
and will include operational requirements and limitations.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
A special airworthiness certificate in the restricted
category is issued pursuant to 14 CFR 21.25(a). There are two options
for obtaining this certificate.
First, pursuant to Sec. 21.25(a)(2), a certificate may be issued
for aircraft accepted by an Armed Force of the United States and later
modified for a special purpose.
Second, pursuant to Sec. 21.25(a)(1), a certificate may be issued
for aircraft used in special purpose operations, which consist of:
(1) agricultural operations;
(2) forest and wildlife conservation;
(3) aerial surveying;
(4) patrolling (pipelines, power lines, and canals);
(5) weather control;
(6) aerial advertising; and
(7) any other operation specified by the FAA.
As can be seen from the above list, the current certification
options are limited to very specific purposes. Accordingly, they do not
provide sufficient flexibility for most routine civil small UAS
operations within the NAS.
In addition to obtaining an airworthiness certificate, any person
serving as an airman in the operation of a small UAS must obtain an
airman certificate. 49 U.S.C. 44711(a)(2)(A). The statute defines an
``airman'' to include an individual who is ``in command, or as pilot,
mechanic, or member of the crew, who navigates aircraft when under
way.'' 49 U.S.C. 40102(a)(8)(A). Because the person operating the small
UAS is in command and is a member of the crew who navigates the
aircraft, that person is an airman and must obtain an airman
certificate.
Under current pilot certification regulations, depending on the
type of operation, the operator of the small UAS currently must obtain
either a private pilot certificate or a commercial pilot certificate. A
private pilot certificate cannot be used to operate a small UAS for
compensation or hire unless the flight is only incidental to the
operator's business or employment.\12\ Typically, to obtain a private
pilot certificate, the small UAS operator currently has to: (1) Receive
training in specific aeronautical knowledge areas; (2) receive training
from an authorized instructor on specific areas of aircraft operation;
(3) obtain a minimum of 40 hours of flight experience; and (4) obtain a
third-class airman medical certificate.\13\ Conversely, holding at
least a commercial pilot certificate allows the small UAS to generally
be used for compensation or hire, but is more difficult to obtain. In
addition to the requirements necessary to obtain a private pilot
certificate, applicants for a commercial pilot certificate currently
need to also obtain 250 hours of flight time, satisfy extensive testing
requirements, and obtain a second-class airman medical certificate.\14\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\12\ See 14 CFR 61.113.
\13\ See 14 CFR part 61, Subpart E and Sec. 61.23(a)(3)(i).
\14\ See 14 CFR part 61, Subpart F and Sec. 61.23(a)(2).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
While these airman certification requirements are necessary for
manned aircraft operations, they impose an unnecessary burden for many
small UAS operations. This is because a person typically obtains a
private or commercial pilot certificate by learning how to operate a
manned aircraft. Much of that knowledge would not be applicable to
small UAS operations because a small UAS is operated differently than a
manned aircraft. In addition, the knowledge currently necessary to
obtain a private or commercial pilot certificate would not equip the
certificate holder with the tools necessary to safely operate a small
UAS. Specifically, applicants for a private or commercial pilot
certificate currently are not trained in how to deal with the ``see-
and-avoid'' and loss-of-positive-control safety issues that are unique
to small unmanned aircraft. Thus, requiring persons wishing to operate
a small UAS to obtain a private or commercial pilot certificate imposes
the cost of certification on those persons, but does not result in a
significant safety benefit because the process of obtaining the
certificate does not equip those persons with the tools necessary to
mitigate the public risk posed by small UAS operations.
Recognizing the problem of applying the operating rules of part 91
to small UAS operations and the cost imposed on small UAS operations by
existing certification processes, the FAA fashioned a temporary
solution. Specifically, the FAA issued an advisory circular (AC) 91-57
and a policy statement elaborating on AC 91-57, which provide guidance
for the safe operation of ``model aircraft.'' The policy statement
defines a ``model aircraft'' as a UAS that is used for hobby or
recreational purposes.\15\ The policy statement explains that AC 91-57:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\15\ See Unmanned Aircraft Operations in the National Airspace
System, 72 FR 6689, 6690 (Feb. 13, 2007) (explaining how AC 91-57
functions).
[E]ncourages good judgment on the part of operators so that
persons on the ground or other aircraft in flight will not be
endangered. The AC contains among other things, guidance for site
selection. Users are advised to avoid noise sensitive areas such as
parks, schools, hospitals, and churches. Hobbyists are advised not
to fly in the vicinity of spectators until they are confident that
the model aircraft has been flight tested and proven airworthy.
Model aircraft should be flown below 400 feet above the surface to
avoid other aircraft in flight. The FAA expects that hobbyists will
operate these recreational model aircraft within visual line-of-
sight.\16\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\16\ Id.
Neither AC 91-57 nor the associated policy statement contains any
registration or certification requirements.\17\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\17\ The policy statement did, however, explain the COA process
that is currently used to allow public aircraft operations with UAS.
This process is discussed in detail in section III.C of this
preamble. As discussed in that section, this proposed rule would
allow public aircraft operations with UAS to voluntarily comply with
proposed part 107, but would otherwise leave the existing public
aircraft operations COA process unchanged.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
To date, the FAA has used its discretion\18\ to not bring
enforcement action against model-aircraft operations that comply with
AC 91-57. However, the use of discretion to permit continuing violation
of FAA statutes and regulations is not a viable long-term solution for
incorporating UAS operations into the NAS. Additionally, because AC 91-
57 and the associated policy statement are limited to model aircraft,
they do not apply to non-recreational UAS operations. Thus, even with
the use of enforcement discretion, because of the difficulty of
obtaining the
[[Page 9551]]
requisite certification for a small UAS and because operation of a
small UAS would violate the see-and-avoid requirement of Sec.
91.113(b), non-recreational civil small UAS operations are effectively
prohibited at this time.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\18\ As used in this context, ``discretion'' refers to the FAA's
power to decide whether to commence an enforcement action.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
C. Integrating Small UAS Operations Into the NAS
To address the issues discussed above, the FAA chartered the small
UAS Aviation Rulemaking Committee (ARC) on April 10, 2008. On April 1,
2009, the ARC provided the FAA with recommendations on how small UAS
could be safely integrated into the NAS.\19\ In 2013, the U.S.
Department of Transportation issued a comprehensive plan and
subsequently the FAA issued a roadmap of its efforts to achieve safe
integration of UAS operations into the NAS.\20\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\19\ A copy of the small UAS ARC Report and Recommendations can
be found in the docket for this rulemaking.
\20\ http://www.faa.gov/about/initiatives/uas/media/uas_roadmap_2013.pdf
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In 2012, Congress passed the FAA Modernization and Reform Act of
2012 (Pub. L. 112-95). In section 332(b) of Public Law 112-95, Congress
directed the Secretary to issue a final rule on small unmanned aircraft
systems that will allow for civil operations of such systems in the
NAS.\21\ In section 333 of Public Law 112-95, Congress also directed
the Secretary to determine whether ``certain unmanned aircraft systems
may operate safely in the national airspace system.'' To make a
determination under section 333, we must assess ``which types of
unmanned aircraft systems, if any, as a result of their size, weight,
speed, operational capability, proximity to airports and populated
areas, and operation within visual line of sight do not create a hazard
to users of the national airspace system or the public or pose a threat
to national security.'' Public Law 112-95, Sec. 333(b)(1). The
Secretary must also determine whether a certificate of waiver or
authorization, or airworthiness certification is necessary to mitigate
the public risk posed by the unmanned aircraft systems that are under
consideration. Public Law 112-95, Sec. 333(b)(2). If the Secretary
determines that certain unmanned aircraft systems may operate safely in
the NAS, then the Secretary must ``establish requirements for the safe
operation of such aircraft systems in the national airspace system.''
Public Law 112-95, Sec. 333(c). The flexibility provided for in section
333 did not extend to airman certification and security vetting,
aircraft marking, or registration requirements.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\21\ As discussed in more detail further in the preamble, the
FAA Modernization and Reform Act of 2012 also contained a provision
prohibiting the FAA from issuing rules and regulations for model
aircraft meeting certain criteria specified in section 336 of the
Act.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
As noted above, section 333(b)(2) provided the Secretary of
Transportation with discretionary power as to whether airworthiness
certification should be required for certain small UAS.\22\ As
discussed previously, the FAA's statute normally requires an aircraft
being flown outdoors to possess an airworthiness certificate.\23\
However, subsection 333(b)(2) allows for the determination that
airworthiness certification is not necessary for certain small UAS. The
key determinations that must be made in order for UAS to operate under
the authority of section 333 are: (1) The operation must not create a
hazard to users of the national airspace system or the public; and (2)
the operation must not pose a threat to national security.\24\ In
making these determinations, we must consider the following factors:
Size, weight, speed, operational capability, proximity to airports and
populated areas, and operation within visual line of sight. Of these
factors, operation within visual line of sight is a primary factor for
evaluation. At this point in time, we have determined that technology
has not matured to the extent that would allow small UAS to be used
safely in lieu of visual line of sight without creating a hazard to
other users of the NAS or the public, or posing a threat to national
security.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\22\ Public Law 112-95, sec. 333(b)(2).
\23\ 49 U.S.C. 44711(a)(1).
\24\ Public Law 112-95, sec. 333(b)(1).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
This construction of section 333 is a reasonable interpretation
that is consistent with the statutory text and reflects Congressional
intent in adopting the provision. We invite comments on whether there
are well-defined circumstances and conditions under which operation
beyond the line of sight would pose little or no additional risk to
other users of the NAS, the public, or national security. Finally, we
invite comments on the technologies and operational capabilities or
procedures needed to allow UAS flights beyond visual line of sight, and
how such technologies, capabilities and procedures could be
accommodated under this rule or in a future rulemaking.
As a result of its ongoing integration efforts, the FAA seeks to
change its regulations to take the first step in the process of
integrating small UAS operations into the NAS. This proposal would
utilize the airworthiness-certification flexibility provided by
Congress in section 333 of Public Law 112-95, and allow some small UAS
operations to commence in the NAS.\25\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\25\ As discussed in section III.B.6 below, 14 CFR part 107 that
would be created by this proposed rule would not apply to model
aircraft that satisfy all of the statutory criteria specified in
section 336 of Public Law 112-95. The FAA has recently published an
interpretive rule for public comment explaining the statutory
criteria of section 336. See Interpretation of the Special Rule for
Model Aircraft, 79 FR 36172, 36175 (June 25, 2014).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In addition, to further facilitate the integration of UAS into the
NAS, the FAA has selected six test sites to test UAS technology and
operations. As of August 2014, all of the UAS test sites, which were
selected based on geographic and climatic diversity, are operational
and will remain in place for the next 5 years to help us gather
operational data to foster further integration, as well as evaluate new
technologies. In addition, the FAA is in the process of selecting a new
UAS Center of Excellence which will also serve as another resource for
these activities. The FAA invites comments on how it can improve or
further leverage its test site program to encourage innovation, safe
development and UAS integration into the NAS.
III. Discussion of the Proposal
As discussed in the previous section, in order to determine whether
certain UAS may operate safely in the NAS pursuant to section 333, the
Secretary must find that the operation of the UAS would not: (1) Create
a hazard to users of the NAS or the public; or (2) pose a threat to
national security. The Secretary must also determine whether small UAS
operations subject to this proposed rule pose a safety risk sufficient
to require airworthiness certification. The following preamble sections
discuss the specific components of this proposed rule, and in section
III.J below, we explain how these components work together and allow
the Secretary to make the statutory findings required by section 333.
A. Incremental Approach and Privacy
The FAA began its small UAS rulemaking in 2005. In its initial
approach to this rulemaking, which the FAA utilized from 2005 until
November 2013, the FAA attempted to implement the ARC's recommendations
and craft a rule that encompassed the widest possible range of small
UAS operations. This approach utilized a regulatory structure similar
to the one that the FAA uses for manned aircraft. Specifically, small
UAS operations that pose a low risk to people, property, and other
[[Page 9552]]
aircraft would have been subject to less stringent regulation while
small UAS operations posing a greater risk would have been subject to
more stringent regulation in order to mitigate the greater risk.
In exploring this approach, the FAA found that, as discussed
previously, there are two unique safety issues associated with UAS: (1)
Extending ``see and avoid'' anti-collision principles to a pilot that
is not physically present on the aircraft; and (2) loss of positive
control of the unmanned aircraft. In addition, at the time that it was
considering this approach, the FAA did not have the discretion
necessary to exempt these aircraft from the statutory requirement for
airworthiness certification, as the section 333 authority did not come
into effect until February 14, 2012. As a result of these issues, the
FAA's original broadly-scoped approach to the rulemaking effort took
significantly longer than anticipated. Consequently, the FAA decided to
proceed with multiple incremental UAS rules rather than a single
omnibus rulemaking in order to utilize the flexibility with regard to
airworthiness certification that Congress provided in section 333.
Accordingly, at this time, the FAA is proposing a rule that,
pursuant to section 333 of Public Law 112-95, will integrate small UAS
operations posing the least amount of risk. Because these operations
pose the least amount of risk, this proposed rule would treat the
entire spectrum of operations that would be subject to this rule in a
similar manner by imposing less stringent regulatory burdens that would
ensure that the safety and security of the NAS would not be reduced by
operation of these UAS. In the meantime, the FAA will continue working
on integrating UAS operations that pose greater amounts of risk, and
will issue notices of proposed rulemaking for those operations once the
pertinent issues have been addressed, consistent with the approach set
forth in the UAS Comprehensive Plan for Integration and FAA roadmap for
integration.\26\ Once the entire integration process is complete, the
FAA envisions the NAS populated with UAS that operate well beyond the
operational limits proposed in this rule. Those UAS will be regulated
differently than the UAS that would be integrated through this rule,
and will be addressed in subsequent rulemakings. The FAA has selected
this approach because it would allow lower-risk small UAS operations to
be incorporated into the NAS immediately instead of waiting until the
issues associated with higher-risk UAS operations are resolved.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\26\ Section 332(a) of Public Law 112-95 requires the Secretary
of Transportation to develop a comprehensive plan to safely
accelerate the integration of civil UAS into the NAS. This plan must
be developed in consultation with representatives of the aviation
industry, federal agencies that employ UAS technology in the NAS,
and the UAS industry. Section 332(a) also requires the Secretary of
Transportation to develop a 5-year roadmap for the introduction of
civil UAS into the NAS. Both the comprehensive plan and the roadmap
were published in November 2013.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The approach of this proposal is meant to address low risk
operations; to the greatest extent possible, it takes a data-driven,
risk-based approach to defining specific regulatory requirements for
small UAS operations. It is well understood that regulations that are
articulated in terms of the desired outcomes (i.e., ``performance
standards'') are generally preferable to those that specify the means
to achieve the desired outcomes (i.e., ``design'' standards). According
to Office of Management and Budget Circular A-4 (``Regulatory
Analysis''), performance standards ``give the regulated parties the
flexibility to achieve the regulatory objectives in the most cost-
effective way.'' \27\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\27\ http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/omb/assets/regulatory_matters_pdf/a-4.pdf
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Design standards have a tendency to lock in certain approaches that
limit the incentives to innovate and may effectively prohibit new
technologies altogether. The distinction between design and performance
standards is particularly important where technology is evolving
rapidly, as is the case with small UAS.
In this proposal, the regulatory objectives are to enable
integration of small UAS into the NAS in a manner that does not impose
unacceptable risk to other aircraft, people, or property. The FAA seeks
comment on whether there are additional requirements that could be
specified in ways that are more performance-oriented in order to
minimize any disincentives to develop new technologies that achieve the
regulatory objectives at lower cost.
Recently, the FAA, with the approval of the Secretary, has been
issuing exemptions in accordance with 14 CFR part 11 and section 333 of
Public Law 112-95 to accommodate an increasing number of small UAS
operations that are not for hobby or recreational purposes. If adopted,
this rule will eliminate the need for the vast majority of these
exemptions. The exemption process will continue to be available for UAS
operations that fall outside the parameters of this rule. Such
operations may involve the use of more advanced technologies that are
not yet mature at the time of this rulemaking.
The FAA also notes that, because UAS-associated technologies are
rapidly evolving at this time, new technologies could come into
existence after this rule is issued or existing technologies may evolve
to the extent that they establish a level of reliability sufficient to
allow those technologies to be relied on for risk mitigation. These
technologies may alleviate some of the risk concerns that underlie the
provisions of this rulemaking like the line of sight rule. Accordingly,
the FAA invites comments as to whether the final rule should relax
operating restrictions on small UAS equipped with technology that
addresses the concerns underlying the operating limitations of this
proposed rule, for instance through some type of deviation authority
(such as a letter of authorization or a waiver).
The FAA also notes that privacy concerns have been raised about
unmanned aircraft operations. Although these issues are beyond the
scope of this rulemaking, recognizing the potential implications for
privacy and civil rights and civil liberties from the use of this
technology, and consistent with the direction set forth in the
Presidential Memorandum, Promoting Economic Competitiveness While
Safeguarding Privacy, Civil Rights, and Civil Liberties in Domestic Use
of Unmanned Aircraft Systems (February 15, 2015), the Department and
FAA will participate in the multi-stakeholder engagement process led by
the National Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA)
to assist in this process regarding privacy, accountability, and
transparency issues concerning commercial and private UAS use in the
NAS. We also note that state law and other legal protections for
individual privacy may provide recourse for a person whose privacy may
be affected through another person's use of a UAS.
The FAA conducted a privacy impact assessment (PIA) of this rule as
required by section 522(a)(5) of division H of the FY 2005 Omnibus
Appropriations Act, Public Law 108-447, 118 Stat. 3268 (Dec. 8, 2004)
and section 208 of the E-Government Act of 2002, Public Law 107-347,
116 Stat. 2889 (Dec. 17, 2002). The assessment considers any impacts of
the proposed rule on the privacy of information in an identifiable
form. The FAA has determined that this proposed rule would impact the
FAA's handling of personally identifiable information (PII). As part of
the PIA that the FAA conducted as part of this rulemaking, the FAA
analyzed the effect this impact might have on collecting, storing, and
[[Page 9553]]
disseminating PII and examined and evaluated protections and
alternative information handling processes in developing the proposed
rule in order to mitigate potential privacy risks.
As proposed, the process for granting unmanned aircraft operator
certificates with a small UAS rating would be brought in line with the
process for granting traditional airman certificates. Thus, the privacy
implications of this rule to the privacy of the information that would
be collected, maintained, stored, and disseminated by the FAA in
accordance with this rule are the same as the privacy implications of
the FAA's current airman certification processes. These privacy impacts
have been analyzed by the FAA in the following Privacy Impact
Assessments for the following systems: Civil Aviation Registry
Applications (AVS Registry); the Integrated Airman Certification and
Ratings Application (IACRA); and Accident Incident Database. These
Privacy Impact Assessments are available in the docket for this
rulemaking and at http://www.dot.gov/individuals/privacy/privacy-impact-assessments#Federal Aviation Administration (FAA).
B. Applicability
To integrate small UAS operations into the NAS, this proposed rule
would create a new part in title 14 of the CFR: Part 107. Subject to
the exceptions discussed below, proposed part 107 would prescribe the
rules governing the registration, airman certification, and operation
of civil small UAS within the United States. As mentioned previously, a
small UAS is a UAS that uses an unmanned aircraft weighing less than 55
pounds. This proposed rule would allow non-recreational small UAS to
operate in the NAS. The operations enabled by this proposed rule would
include business, academic, and research and development flights, which
are hampered by the current regulatory framework.
Under this proposal, the regulations of part 107, which are
tailored to address the risks associated with small UAS operations,
would apply to small UAS operations in place of certain existing FAA
regulations that impede civil small UAS operations. Specifically, for
small UAS operations, the requirements of proposed part 107 would
generally replace the airworthiness provisions of part 21, the airman
certification provisions of part 61, and the operating limitations of
part 91.
However, proposed part 107 would not apply to all small UAS
operations. For the reasons discussed below, proposed part 107 would
not apply to: (1) Air carrier operations; (2) external load and towing
operations; (3) international operations; (4) foreign-owned aircraft
that are ineligible to be registered in the United States; (5) public
aircraft; (6) certain model aircraft; and (7) moored balloons, kites,
amateur rockets, and unmanned free balloons.
1. Air Carrier Operations
When someone is transporting persons or property by air for
compensation, that person is considered an air carrier by statute and
is required to obtain an air carrier operating certificate.\28\ Because
there is an expectation of safe transportation when payment is
exchanged, air carriers are subject to more stringent regulations to
mitigate the risks posed to persons or non-operator-owned property on
the aircraft.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\28\ 49 U.S.C. 44711(a)(4).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The FAA notes that some industries may desire to transport property
via UAS.\29\ Proposed part 107 would not prohibit this type of
transportation so long as it is not done for compensation and the total
weight of the aircraft, including the property, is less than 55 pounds.
For example, research and development operations transporting property
could be conducted under proposed part 107, as could operations by
corporations transporting their own property within their business
under the other provisions of this proposed rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\29\ Property that is transported as an external load is
discussed in the next section of the preamble.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The FAA seeks comment on whether UAS should be permitted to
transport property for payment within the other proposed constraints of
the rule, e.g., the ban on flights over uninvolved persons, the
requirements for line of sight, and the intent to limit operations to a
constrained area. The FAA also seeks comment on whether a special class
or classes of air carrier certification should be developed for UAS
operations.
2. External Load and Towing Operations
The FAA considered allowing small unmanned aircraft to conduct
external-load operations and to tow other aircraft or objects. These
operations involve a greater level of public risk due to the dynamic
nature of external-load configurations and inherent risks associated
with the flight characteristics of a load that is carried, or extends,
outside the aircraft fuselage and may be jettisonable. These types of
operations may also involve evaluation of the aircraft frame for safety
performance impacts, which may require airworthiness certification.
Given the risks associated with external load and towing
operations, the FAA cannot find that a certification is not required.
However, the FAA invites comments, with supporting documentation, on
whether external-load UAS operations and towing UAS operations should
be permitted, whether they would require airworthiness certification,
whether they would require higher levels of airman certification,
whether they would require additional operational limitations, and on
other relevant issues.
3. International Operations
At this time, the FAA also proposes to limit this rulemaking to
small UAS operations conducted entirely within the United States. The
International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO) recognizes that:
The safe integration of UAS into non-segregated airspace will be
a long-term activity with many stakeholders adding their expertise
on such diverse topics as licensing and medical qualification of UAS
crew, technologies for detect and avoid systems, frequency spectrum
(including its protection from unintentional or unlawful
interference), separation standards from other aircraft, and
development of a robust regulatory framework.\30\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\30\ ICAO Circular 328 (Unmanned Aircraft Systems (UAS)) (2011).
ICAO has further stated that ``[u]nmanned aircraft . . . are,
indeed aircraft; therefore existing [ICAO standards and recommended
practices] SARPs apply to a very great extent. The complete integration
of UAS at aerodromes and in the various airspace classes will, however,
necessitate the development of UAS-specific SARPs to supplement those
already existing.'' \31\ ICAO has begun to issue and amend SARPs to
specifically address UAS operations. For example, the standard
contained in paragraph 3.1.9 of Annex 2 (Rules of the Air) to the
Convention on International Civil Aviation states that ``A remotely
piloted aircraft shall be operated in such a manner as to minimize
hazards to persons, property or other aircraft and in accordance with
the conditions specified in Appendix 4.'' This appendix sets forth
detailed conditions ICAO Member States must require of civil UAS
operations for the ICAO Member State to comply with the Annex 2,
paragraph 3.1.9 standard. ICAO standards in Annex 7 (Aircraft
Nationality and Registration Marks) to the Convention also require
remotely
[[Page 9554]]
piloted aircraft to ``carry an identification plate inscribed with at
least its nationality or common mark and registration mark'' and be
``made of fireproof metal or other fireproof material of suitable
physical properties.'' For remotely piloted aircraft, this
identification plate must be ``secured in a prominent position near the
main entrance or compartment or affixed conspicuously to the exterior
of the aircraft if there is no main entrance or compartment.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\31\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
While we embrace the basic principle that UAS operations should
minimize hazards to persons, property or other aircraft, we believe
that it is possible to achieve this goal with respect to certain small
UAS operations in a much less restrictive manner than current ICAO
standards require. Accordingly, the FAA proposes, for the time being,
to limit the applicability of proposed part 107 to small UAS operations
that are conducted entirely within the United States. The FAA envisions
that international operations would be dealt with in a future FAA
rulemaking. The FAA believes that the experience that the FAA will gain
with UAS operations under this rule will assist with future
rulemakings. The FAA also anticipates that ICAO will continue to revise
and more fully develop its framework for UAS operations to better
reflect the diversity of UAS operations and types of UAS and to
distinguish the appropriate levels of regulation in light of those
differences.
The FAA notes that under Presidential Proclamation 5928, the
territorial sea of the United States, and consequently its territorial
airspace, extends to 12 nautical miles from the baselines of the United
States determined in accordance with international law. Thus, UAS
operating in the airspace above the U.S. territorial sea would be
operating within the United States for the purposes of this proposed
rule.
The FAA also emphasizes that proposed part 107 would not prohibit
small UAS operators from operating in international airspace or in
other countries; however, the proposed rule also would not provide
authorization for such operations. UAS operations that do not take
place entirely within the United States would need to obtain all
necessary authorizations from the FAA and the relevant foreign
authorities outside of the part 107 framework, as that framework would
not apply to operations that do not take place entirely within the
United States. It is important to note that Article 8 of the Convention
on International Civil Aviation, to which the U.S. is a party,
provides:
No aircraft capable of being flown without a pilot shall be
flown without a pilot over the territory of a contracting State
without special authorization by that State and in accordance with
the terms of such authorization. Each contracting State undertakes
to insure that the flight of such aircraft without a pilot in
regions open to civil aircraft shall be so controlled as to obviate
danger to civil aircraft.
Accordingly, UAS operations in foreign countries may not take place
without the required authorizations and permission of that country.
4. Foreign-Owned Aircraft That Are Ineligible for U.S. Registration
The FAA proposes to limit the scope of this rulemaking to U.S.-
registered aircraft. Under 49 U.S.C. 44103 and 14 CFR 47.3, an aircraft
can be registered in the United States only if it is not registered
under the laws of a foreign country and meets one of the following
ownership criteria:
The aircraft is owned by a citizen of the United States;
The aircraft is owned by a permanent resident of the
United States;
The aircraft is owned by a corporation that is not a
citizen of the United States, but that is organized and doing business
under U.S. Federal or state law and the aircraft is based and primarily
used in the United States; or
The aircraft is owned by the United States government or a
state or local governmental entity.
An aircraft that does not satisfy the above criteria is typically
owned by a foreign person or entity and is subject to special operating
rules.\32\ As previously noted, the ICAO framework for international
UAS operations is at a relatively early stage in its development.
Accordingly, proposed part 107 would only apply to small unmanned
aircraft that meet the criteria specified in Sec. 47.3, which must be
satisfied in order for an aircraft to be eligible for U.S.
registration. The FAA notes existing U.S. international trade
obligations do permit certain kinds of operations, known as specialty
air services. Specialty air services are generally defined as any
specialized commercial operation using an aircraft whose primary
purpose is not the transportation of goods or passengers, including but
not limited to aerial mapping, aerial surveying, aerial photography,
forest fire management, firefighting, aerial advertising, glider
towing, parachute jumping, aerial construction, helilogging, aerial
sightseeing, flight training, aerial inspection and surveillance, and
aerial spraying services. The FAA will consult with the Secretary to
determine the process through which it might permit foreign-owned small
unmanned aircraft to operate in the United States. The FAA invites
comments on the inclusion of foreign-registered small unmanned aircraft
in this new framework.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\32\ See, e.g., 14 CFR part 91, subpart H (specifying operating
rules for foreign civil aircraft).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
As provided by 49 U.S.C. 40105(b)(1)(A), the FAA Administrator must
carry out his responsibilities under Part A (Air Commerce and Safety)
of title 49, United States Code, consistently with the obligations of
the U.S. Government under international agreements. The FAA invites
comments regarding whether the proposed rule needs to be modified to
ensure that it is consistent with any relevant obligations of the
United States under international agreements.
5. Public Aircraft Operations
This proposed rule would also not apply to public aircraft
operations with small UAS that are not operated as civil aircraft. This
is because public aircraft operations, such as those conducted by the
Department of Defense, the National Aeronautics and Space
Administration, and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration, are not required to comply with civil airworthiness or
airman certification requirements to conduct operations. However, these
operations are subject to the airspace and air-traffic rules of part
91, which include the ``see and avoid'' requirement of Sec. 91.113(b).
Because unmanned aircraft operations currently are incapable of
complying with Sec. 91.113(b), the FAA has required public aircraft
operations that use unmanned aircraft to obtain an FAA-issued
Certificate of Waiver or Authorization (COA) providing the public
aircraft operation with a waiver/deviation from the ``see and avoid''
requirement of Sec. 91.113(b).
The existing COA system has been in place for over eight years, and
has not caused any significant human injuries or other significant
adverse safety impacts.\33\ Accordingly, this proposed rule would not
abolish the COA system. However, this proposed rule would provide
public aircraft operations with greater flexibility by giving them the
option to declare an operation to be a civil operation and comply with
the provisions of proposed part 107 instead
[[Page 9555]]
of seeking a COA from the FAA. Because proposed part 107 would address
the risks associated with small UAS operations, there would be no
adverse safety effects from allowing public aircraft operations to be
voluntarily conducted under proposed part 107.\34\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\33\ The FAA has been issuing COAs to public aircraft operations
using UAS for over 20 years; however, prior to 2005, those COAs were
issued using different processes.
\34\ The FAA notes that section 334(b) of Public Law 112-95
requires the FAA to develop standards regarding the operation of
public UAS by December 31, 2015.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
6. Model Aircraft
Proposed part 107 would not apply to model aircraft that satisfy
all of the criteria specified in section 336 of Public Law 112-95.
Section 336 of Public Law 112-95 defines a model aircraft as an
``unmanned aircraft that is--(1) capable of sustained flight in the
atmosphere; (2) flown within visual line of sight of the person
operating the aircraft; and (3) flown for hobby or recreational
purposes.'' \35\ Because section 336 of Public Law 112-95 defines a
model aircraft as an ``unmanned aircraft,'' a model aircraft that
weighs less than 55 pounds would fall into the definition of small UAS
under this rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\35\ Sec. 336(c) of Public Law 112-95.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
However, Public Law 112-95 specifically prohibits the FAA from
promulgating rules regarding model aircraft that meet all of the
following statutory criteria: \36\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\36\ Sec. 336(a) of Public Law 112-95.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The aircraft is flown strictly for hobby or recreational
use;
The aircraft is operated in accordance with a community-
based set of safety guidelines and within the programming of a
nationwide community-based organization;
The aircraft is limited to not more than 55 pounds unless
otherwise certified through a design, construction, inspection, flight
test, and operational safety program administered by a community-based
organization;
The aircraft is operated in a manner that does not
interfere with and gives way to any manned aircraft; and
When flown within 5 miles of an airport, the operator of
the aircraft provides the airport operator and the airport air traffic
control tower (when an air traffic facility is located at the airport)
with prior notice of the operation.
Because of the statutory prohibition on FAA rulemaking regarding
model aircraft that meet the above criteria, model aircraft meeting
these criteria would not be subject to the provisions of proposed part
107. Likewise, operators of model aircraft excepted from part 107 by
the statute would not need to hold an unmanned aircraft operator's
certificate with a small UAS rating. However, the FAA emphasizes that
because the prohibition on rulemaking in section 336 of Public Law 112-
95 is limited to model aircraft that meet all of the above statutory
criteria, model aircraft weighing less than 55 pounds that fail to meet
all of the statutory criteria would be subject to proposed part 107.
In addition, although Public Law 112-95 excepted certain model
aircraft from FAA rulemaking, it specifically states that the law's
exception does not limit the Administrator's authority to pursue
enforcement action against those model aircraft operators that
``endanger the safety of the national airspace system.'' \37\ This
proposed rule would codify the FAA's enforcement authority in part 101
by prohibiting model aircraft operators from endangering the safety of
the NAS.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\37\ Sec. 336(b) of Public Law 112-95.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The FAA also notes that it recently issued an interpretive rule
explaining the provisions of section 336 and concluding that ``Congress
intended for the FAA to be able to rely on a range of our existing
regulations to protect users of the airspace and people and property on
the ground.'' \38\ In this interpretive rule, the FAA gave examples of
existing regulations the violation of which could subject model
aircraft to enforcement action. Those regulations include:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\38\ Interpretation of the Special Rule for Model Aircraft, 79
FR 36172, 36175 (June 25, 2014). This document was issued as a
notice of interpretation and has been in effect since its issuance
on June 25, 2014. However, we note that the FAA has invited comment
on this interpretation, and may modify the interpretation as a
result of comments that were received.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Prohibitions on careless or reckless operation and
dropping objects so as to create a hazard to persons or property (14
CFR 91.13 and 91.15);
Right-of-way rules for converging aircraft (14 CFR
91.113);
Rules governing operations in designated airspace (14 CFR
part 73 and Sec. Sec. 91.126 through 91.135); and
Rules relating to operations in areas covered by temporary
flight restrictions and notices to airmen (NOTAMs) (14 CFR 91.137
through 91.145).\39\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\39\ Id. at 36175-76.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The FAA notes that the above list is not intended to be an
exhaustive list of all existing regulations that apply to model
aircraft meeting the statutory criteria of Public Law 112-95, section
336. Rather, as explained in the interpretive rule, ``[t]he FAA
anticipates that the cited regulations are the ones that would most
commonly apply to model aircraft operations.'' \40\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\40\ Id. at 36176.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
7. Moored Balloons, Kites, Amateur Rockets, and Unmanned Free Balloons
Lastly, proposed part 107 would not apply to moored balloons,
kites, amateur rockets, and unmanned free balloons. These types of
aircraft currently are regulated by the provisions of 14 CFR part 101.
Because these aircraft are already incorporated into the NAS through
part 101 and because the safety risks associated with these specific
aircraft are already mitigated by the regulations of part 101, there is
no need to make these aircraft subject to the provisions of proposed
part 107.
C. Definitions
Proposed part 107 would create a new set of definitions to address
the unique aspects of a small UAS. Those proposed definitions are as
follows.
1. Control Station
Proposed part 107 would define a ``control station'' as an
interface used by the operator to control the flight path of the small
unmanned aircraft. In a manned aircraft, the interface used by the
pilot to control the flight path of the aircraft is a part of the
aircraft and is typically located inside the aircraft flight deck.
Conversely, the interface used to control the flight path of a small
unmanned aircraft is typically physically separated from the aircraft
and remains on the ground during aircraft flight. Defining the concept
of a control station would clarify the interface that is considered
part of the small UAS under this regulation.
2. Corrective Lenses
Proposed part 107 would also define ``corrective lenses'' as
spectacles or contact lenses. As discussed in the Operating Rules
section of this preamble, this proposed rule would require the operator
and/or visual observer to have visual line of sight of the small
unmanned aircraft with vision that is not enhanced by any device other
than corrective lenses. This is because spectacles and contact lenses
do not restrict a user's peripheral vision while other vision-enhancing
devices may restrict that vision. Because peripheral vision is
necessary in order for the operator and/or visual observer to be able
to see and avoid other air traffic in the NAS, this proposed rule would
limit the circumstances in which vision-enhancing devices other than
spectacles or contact lenses may be used.
[[Page 9556]]
3. Operator and Visual Observer
Because of the unique nature of small UAS operations, this proposed
rule would create two new crewmember positions: The operator and the
visual observer. These positions are discussed further in section
III.D.1 of this preamble.
4. Small Unmanned Aircraft
Public Law 112-95 defines a ``small unmanned aircraft'' as ``an
unmanned aircraft weighing less than 55 pounds.'' \41\ This statutory
definition of small unmanned aircraft does not specify whether the 55-
pound weight limit refers to the total weight of the aircraft at the
time of takeoff (which would encompass the weight of the aircraft and
any payload on board), or simply the weight of an empty aircraft.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\41\ Sec. 331(6) of Public Law 112-95.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
This proposed rule would define a small unmanned aircraft as an
unmanned aircraft weighing less than 55 pounds, including everything
that is on board the aircraft. The FAA proposes to interpret the
statutory definition of small unmanned aircraft as referring to total
weight at the time of takeoff because heavier aircraft generally pose
greater amounts of public risk in the event of an accident. In the
event of a crash, a heavier aircraft can do more damage to people and
property on the ground. The FAA also notes that this approach would be
similar to the approach that the FAA has taken with other aircraft,
such as large aircraft, light-sport aircraft, and small aircraft.\42\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\42\ See 14 CFR 1.1 (referring to ``takeoff weight'' for large,
light-sport, and small aircraft in the definitions for those
aircraft).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
5. Small Unmanned Aircraft System (Small UAS)
This proposed rule would define a small UAS 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 NAS. Except for one difference, this proposed
definition would be similar to the definition of ``unmanned aircraft
system'' provided in Public Law 112-95.\43\ The difference between the
two definitions is that the proposed definition in this rule would not
refer to a pilot-in-command because, as discussed further in this
preamble, this proposed rule would create a new position of operator to
replace the traditional manned-aviation positions of pilot and pilot-
in-command for small UAS operations.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\43\ Sec. 331(9) of Public Law 112-95. Public Law 112-95 defines
an ``unmanned aircraft system'' as ``an unmanned aircraft and
associated elements (including communication links and the
components that control the unmanned aircraft) that are required for
the pilot in command to operate safely and efficiently in the
national airspace system.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
6. Unmanned Aircraft
Lastly, this proposed rule would define an unmanned aircraft as an
aircraft operated without the possibility of direct human intervention
from within or on the aircraft. This proposed definition would codify
the definition of ``unmanned aircraft'' specified in Public Law 112-
95.\44\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\44\ Sec. 331(8) of Public Law 112-95.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
D. Operating Rules
As discussed earlier in this preamble (section III.A), instead of a
single omnibus rulemaking that applies to all small UAS operations, the
FAA has decided to proceed incrementally and issue a rule governing
small UAS operations that pose the least amount of risk. Subpart B of
this proposed rule would specify the operating constraints of these
operations. The FAA emphasizes that it intends to conduct future
rulemaking(s) to incorporate into the NAS small UAS operations that
pose a greater level of risk than the operations that would be
permitted by this proposed rule. However, those operations present
additional safety issues that the FAA needs more time to address. In
the meantime, under this proposed rule, operations that could be
conducted within the proposed operational constraints would be
incorporated into the NAS.
The FAA also considered whether to further subdivide small UAS into
different categories of unmanned aircraft that would be regulated
differently based on their weight, operational characteristics, and
operating environment. This subdivision would have been based on five
category groups (Groups A through E). Each of these groups would have
been regulated based on its specific weight and operating
characteristics.
This is the framework that the FAA used in its initial approach to
this rulemaking. However, because this framework attempted to integrate
a wide range of UAS operations posing different risk profiles whose
integration raised policy questions on which data was either limited or
unavailable, the FAA's initial approach would have been unduly
burdensome on all UAS groups that would have been covered under that
approach. For example, UAS in Group A, which posed the least safety
risk under the FAA's initial framework, would have been required to:
(1) Obtain a permit to operate (PTO) from the FAA, which would have to
be renewed after one year; (2) file quarterly reports with the FAA
providing their operational data; (3) establish a level of
airworthiness that would be sufficient to obtain an airworthiness
certification (the initial approach would have merged airworthiness
certification into the PTO); (4) obtain a pilot certificate by passing
a knowledge test, a practical test, and completing required ground
training with an FAA-certificated instructor; (5) obtain a NOTAM from
the FAA prior to conducting certain UAS operations (the operator would
do this by filing notice with the FAA); and (6) maintain records
documenting the complete maintenance history of the UAS.
After extensive deliberation, the FAA ultimately determined that
such a regulatory framework was too complex, costly, and burdensome for
both the public and the FAA. The FAA then examined the entire small UAS
category of aircraft (unmanned aircraft weighing less than 55 pounds)
in light of the new authority provided for under section 333 of Public
Law 112-95 and determined that appropriate operational risk mitigations
could be developed to allow the entire category of small UAS to avoid
airworthiness certification and be subject to the least burdensome
level of regulation that is necessary to protect the safety and
security of the NAS. Furthermore, the FAA decided to also substantially
simplify the operational limitations and airman (operator)
certification requirements in a manner that would equally accommodate
all types of small UAS business users with the least amount of
complexity and regulatory burden.
The FAA believes that treating small UAS as a single category
without airworthiness certification would accommodate a large majority
of small UAS businesses and other non-recreational users of UAS. The
operational limits in this proposed rule would mitigate risk associated
with small UAS operations in a way that would provide an equivalent
level of safety to the NAS with the least amount of burden to business
and other non-recreational users of even the smallest UAS. The FAA
invites comments, with supporting documentation, on whether the
regulation of small UAS should be further subdivided based on the size,
weight, and operating environment of the small UAS.
1. Micro UAS Classification
In addition to part 107 as proposed, the FAA is considering
including a
[[Page 9557]]
micro UAS classification. This classification would be based on the UAS
ARC's recommendations, as well as approaches adopted in other countries
that have a separate set of regulations for micro UAS.
In developing this micro UAS classification, the FAA examined small
UAS policies adopted in other countries. In considering other
countries' aviation policies, the FAA noted that each country has its
unique aviation statutory and rulemaking requirements, which may
include that country's unique economic, geographic, and airspace
density considerations. Canada is our only North American neighbor with
a regulatory framework for small UAS. The chart below summarizes
Transport Canada's operational limitations for micro UAS (4.4 pounds (2
kilograms) and under) and compares it with the regulatory framework in
proposed part 107 as well as the micro UAS classification that the FAA
is considering.
Comparison of Canadian Rules Governing Micro UAS Class With Provisions of Proposed Part 107 and Micro UAS Sub-
Classification
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Micro UAS Sub-
Provision Canada Small UAS NPRM classification
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Definition of Small UAS........... Up to 4.4 lbs (2 kg)...... Up to 55 lbs (24 kg)...... Up to 4.4 lbs (2
kg).
Maximum Altitude Above Ground..... 300 feet.................. 500 feet.................. 400 feet.
Airspace Limitations.............. Only within Class G Allowed within Class E in Only within Class G
airspace. areas not designated for airspace.
an airport. Otherwise,
need ATC permission.
Allowed within Class B, C
and D with ATC
permission. Allowed in
Class G with no ATC
permission.
Distance from people and 100 feet laterally from Simply prohibits UAS Flying over any
structures. any building, structure, operations over any person is
vehicle, vessel or animal person not involved in permitted.
not associated with the the operations (unless
operation and 100 feet under a covered
from any person. structure).
Ability to extend operational area No........................ Yes, from a waterborne No.
vehicle.
Autonomous operations............. No........................ Yes....................... No.
Aeronautical knowledge required... Yes; ground school........ Yes; applicant would take Yes; applicant would
knowledge test. self-certify.
First person view permitted....... No........................ Yes, provided operator is No.
visually capable of
seeing the small UAS.
Operator training required........ Yes, ground school........ No........................ No.
Visual observer training required. Yes....................... No........................ No.
Operator certificate required..... No........................ Yes (must pass basic UAS Yes (no knowledge
aeronautical test). test required).
Preflight safety assessment....... Yes....................... Yes....................... Yes.
Operate within 5 miles of an No........................ Yes....................... No.
airport.
Operate in a congested area....... No........................ Yes....................... Yes.
Liability insurance............... Yes, $100,000 CAN......... No........................ No.
Daylight operations only.......... Yes....................... Yes....................... Yes.
Aircraft must be made out of No........................ No........................ Yes.
frangible materials.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The FAA is considering the following provisions for the micro UAS
classification:
The unmanned aircraft used in the operation would weigh no
more than 4.4 pounds (2 kilograms). This provision would be based on
the ARC's recommendations and on how other countries, such as Canada,
subdivide their UAS into micro or lightweight UAS;
The unmanned aircraft would be made out of frangible
materials that break, distort, or yield on impact so as to present a
minimal hazard to any person or object that the unmanned aircraft
collides with. Examples of such materials are breakable plastic, paper,
wood, and foam. This provision would be based on the ARC's
recommendations;
During the course of the operation, the unmanned aircraft
would not exceed an airspeed of 30 knots. This provision would be based
on the ARC's recommendation, which was concerned with damage that could
be done by unmanned aircraft flying at higher speeds;
During the course of the operation, the unmanned aircraft
would not travel higher than 400 feet above ground level (AGL). This
provision would be based on the ARC's recommendations;
The unmanned aircraft would be flown within visual line of
sight; first-person view would not be used during the operation; and
the aircraft would not travel farther than 1,500 feet away from the
operator. These provisions would be based on ARC recommendations and
Canada's requirements for micro UAS;
The operator would maintain manual control of the flight
path of the unmanned aircraft at all times, and the operator would not
use automation to control the flight path of the unmanned aircraft.
This provision would be based on ARC recommendations and Canada's
requirements for micro UAS;
The operation would be limited entirely to Class G
airspace. This provision would be based on Canada's requirements for
micro UAS; and
The unmanned aircraft would maintain a distance of at
least 5 nautical miles from any airport. This provision would be based
on Canada's requirements for micro UAS.
The operational parameters discussed above may provide significant
additional safety mitigations. Specifically, a very light (micro) UAS
operating at lower altitudes and at lower speeds, that is made up of
materials that break or yield easily upon impact, may pose a much lower
risk to persons, property, and other NAS users than a UAS that does not
operate within these
[[Page 9558]]
parameters. Additionally, limiting the micro UAS operation entirely to
Class G airspace, far away from an airport, and in close proximity to
the operator (as well as limiting the unmanned aircraft's flight path
to the operator's constant manual control) would significantly reduce
the risk of collision with another aircraft. Accordingly, because the
specific parameters of a micro UAS operation described above would
provide additional safety mitigation for those operations, the FAA's
micro UAS approach would allow micro UAS to operate directly over
people not involved in the operation. Under the FAA's micro UAS
approach, the operator of a micro UAS also would be able to operate
using a UAS airman certificate with a different rating (an unmanned
aircraft operator certificate with a micro UAS rating) than the airman
certificate that would be created by proposed part 107. No knowledge
test would be required in order to obtain an unmanned aircraft operator
certificate with a micro UAS rating; instead, the applicant would
simply submit a signed statement to the FAA stating that he or she has
familiarized him or herself with all of the areas of knowledge that are
tested on the initial aeronautical knowledge test that is proposed
under part 107.
The FAA is also considering whether to require, as part of the
micro UAS approach, that the micro UAS be made out of frangible
material. A UAS that is made out of frangible material presents a
significantly lower risk to persons on the ground, as that UAS is more
likely to shatter if it should impact a person rather than injuring
that person. Without the risk mitigation provided by frangible-material
construction, the FAA would be unable to allow micro UAS to operate
directly over a person not involved in the operation. The FAA notes
that, currently, a majority of fixed-wing small UAS are made out of
frangible materials that would satisfy the proposed requirement. The
FAA invites comments on whether it should eliminate frangibility from
the micro UAS framework.
The FAA also invites commenters to submit data and any other
supporting documentation on whether the micro UAS classification should
be included in the final rule, and what provisions the FAA should adopt
for such a classification. The FAA invites further comments, with
supporting documentation, estimating the costs and benefits of
implementing a micro UAS approach in the final rule. Finally, the FAA
invites comments to assess the risk to other airspace users posed by
the lesser restricted integration of micro UAS into the NAS. The FAA
notes, however, that due to statutory constraints, the FAA would be
unable to eliminate the requirement to hold an airman certificate and
register the unmanned aircraft even if it were to adopt a micro UAS
approach in the final rule.
During the course of this rulemaking, the FAA also received a
petition for rulemaking from UAS America Fund LLC. This petition
presented the FAA with an alternative approach to regulating micro UAS,
complete with a set of regulatory provisions that would be specific to
micro UAS operations. Because the FAA was already in the process of
rulemaking at the time this petition was filed, pursuant to 14 CFR
11.73(c), the FAA will not treat this petition as a separate action,
but rather, will consider it as a comment on this rulemaking.
Accordingly, the FAA has placed a copy of UAS America Fund's rulemaking
petition in the docket for this rulemaking and invites comments on the
suggestions presented in this petition. Any comments received in
response to the proposals in the petition will be considered in this
rulemaking.
2. Operator and Visual Observer
As briefly mentioned earlier, this proposed rule would create two
new crewmember positions: An operator and a visual observer. The FAA
proposes these positions for small UAS operations instead of the
traditional manned-aircraft positions of pilot, flight engineer, and
flight navigator. This is being proposed because, by their very nature,
small UAS operations are different from manned aircraft operations, and
this necessitates a different set of qualifications for crewmembers.
i. Operator
The FAA proposes to define an operator as a person who manipulates
the flight controls of a small UAS. Flight controls include any system
or component that affects the flight path of the aircraft. The position
of operator would be somewhat analogous to the position of a pilot who
controls the flight of a manned aircraft. However, the FAA proposes to
create the position of an operator rather than expand the existing
definition of pilot to emphasize that, even though the operator
directly controls the flight of the unmanned aircraft, the operator is
not actually present on the aircraft.
The FAA notes that even though a small UAS operator is not a pilot,
the operator would still be considered an airman and statutorily
required to obtain an airman certificate. The statutory flexibility
provided in section 333 of Public Law 112-95 is limited to
airworthiness certification and does not extend to airman
certification. Thus, as mentioned previously, the FAA's statute
prohibits a person without an airman certificate from serving in any
capacity as an airman with respect to a civil aircraft used or intended
to be used in air commerce.\45\ The statute defines an ``airman,'' in
part, as an individual who, as a member of the crew, navigates the
aircraft when under way.\46\ Because under this proposed rule the
operator would be a member of the crew and would navigate the small
unmanned aircraft when that aircraft is under way, an operator would be
an airman as defined in the FAA's statute. Accordingly, the operator
would statutorily be required to obtain an airman certificate in order
to fly the small unmanned aircraft.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\45\ 49 U.S.C. 44711(a)(2)(A).
\46\ 49 U.S.C. 40102(a)(8)(A).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The FAA proposes to codify this statutory requirement in Sec.
107.13(a), which would require a person who wishes to serve as an
operator to obtain an unmanned aircraft airman certificate with a small
UAS rating. An unmanned aircraft airman certificate would be a new type
of airman certificate that would be created by this proposed rule
specifically for UAS operators to satisfy the statutory requirement for
an airman certificate. The certificate necessary to operate small UAS
would have a small UAS rating. The FAA anticipates that certificates
used to operate UAS not subject to this proposed rule would have
different certification requirements. The specific details of this
certificate are discussed further in section III.E of this preamble.
The FAA also proposes to give each operator the power and
responsibility typically associated with a pilot-in-command (PIC) under
the existing regulations. Under the existing regulations, the PIC ``is
directly responsible for, and is the final authority as to the
operation of [the] aircraft.'' \47\ The PIC position provides
additional accountability for the safety of an operation by: (1)
Ensuring that a single person on board the aircraft is accountable for
that operation; and (2) providing that person with the authority to
address issues affecting operational safety.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\47\ 14 CFR 91.3(a).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
An accountability system, such as the existing PIC concept, would
provide similar benefits for small UAS operations. Accordingly, the FAA
proposes, in Sec. 107.19(a), to make each operator: (1) Directly
responsible for the
[[Page 9559]]
small UAS operation, and (2) the final authority as to the small UAS
operation. To provide further clarity as to the operator's authority
over the small UAS operation, proposed Sec. 107.49(b) would require
that each person involved in the small UAS operation perform the duties
assigned by the operator.
The FAA also considered providing the operator with the emergency
powers available to the PIC under 14 CFR 91.3(b). Under Sec. 91.3(b),
a PIC can deviate from FAA regulations to respond to an in-flight
emergency. However, the FAA does not believe that this power is
necessary for the operator because a small unmanned aircraft is highly
maneuverable and much easier to land than a manned aircraft. Thus, in
an emergency, an operator should be able to promptly land the small
unmanned aircraft in compliance with FAA regulations. Accordingly, the
FAA proposes not to provide an operator with the emergency powers
available to the PIC under Sec. 91.3(b). The FAA invites comments on
this issue.
The FAA also does not believe that it is necessary to create a
separate ``operator-in-command'' position for small UAS operations. The
existing regulations create a separate PIC position because many manned
aircraft are operated by multiple pilots. Thus, it is necessary to
designate one of those pilots as the accountable authority for the
operation. By contrast, only one operator is needed for a small UAS
flight operation even though additional non-operator persons could be
involved in the operation. Thus, at this time, it is not necessary to
create an operator-in-command position. The FAA invites comments on
whether a separate operator-in-command position should be created for
small UAS operations.
The FAA finally notes that the term ``operate'' is currently a
defined term in 14 CFR 1.1 that is used in manned-aircraft operations.
While, for purposes of proposed part 107, the proposed definition of
``operator'' would supersede any conflicting definitions in Sec. 1.1,
the FAA invites comments as to whether defining a new crewmember
position as an ``operator'' would cause confusion with the existing
terminology. If so, the FAA invites suggestions as to an alternative
title for this crewmember position.
ii. Visual Observer
To assist the operator with the proposed see-and-avoid and visual-
line-of-sight requirements discussed in the next section of this
preamble, the FAA proposes to create the position of a visual observer.
Under this proposed rule, a visual observer would be defined as a
person who assists the small unmanned aircraft operator in seeing and
avoiding other air traffic or objects aloft or on the ground. The
visual observer would do this by augmenting the operator as the person
who must satisfy the see-and-avoid and visual-line-of-sight
requirements of this proposed rule. As discussed in more detail below,
an operator must always be capable of seeing the small unmanned
aircraft. However, if the operation is augmented by at least one visual
observer, the operator is not required to exercise this capability, as
long as the visual observer maintains a constant visual-line-of-sight
of the small unmanned aircraft.
The FAA emphasizes that, as proposed, a visual observer is not a
required crewmember, as the operator could always satisfy the pertinent
requirements him- or herself. Under this proposed rule, an operator
could, at his or her discretion, use a visual observer to increase the
flexibility of the operation. The FAA notes, however, that as discussed
in III.D.3.i of this preamble, even if a visual observer is used to
augment the operation, a small unmanned aircraft would still be
required by Sec. 107.33(c) to always remain close enough to the
control station for the operator to be capable of seeing that aircraft.
To ensure that the visual observer can carry out his or her duties,
the FAA proposes, in Sec. 107.33(b), that the operator be required to
ensure that the visual observer is positioned in a location where he or
she is able to see the small unmanned aircraft in the manner required
by the proposed visual-line-of-sight and see-and-avoid provisions of
Sec. Sec. 107.31 and 107.37. The operator can do this by specifying
the location of the visual observer. The FAA also proposes to require,
in Sec. 107.33(d), that the operator and visual observer coordinate
to: (1) Scan the airspace where the small unmanned aircraft is
operating for any potential collision hazard; and (2) maintain
awareness of the position of the small unmanned aircraft through direct
visual observation. This would be accomplished by the visual observer
maintaining visual contact with the small unmanned aircraft and the
surrounding airspace and then communicating to the operator the flight
status of the small unmanned aircraft and any hazards which may enter
the area of operation so that the operator can take appropriate action.
To make this communication possible, this proposed rule would
require, in Sec. 107.33(a), that the operator and visual observer
maintain effective communication with each other at all times. This
means that the operator and visual observer must work out a method of
communication prior to the operation that allows them to understand
each other, and utilize that method in the operation. The FAA notes
that this proposed communication requirement would permit the use of
communication-assisting devices, such as radios, to facilitate
communication between the operator and visual observer from a distance.
The FAA considered requiring the visual observer to be stationed next
to the operator to allow for unassisted oral communication, but decided
that this requirement would be unduly burdensome, as it is possible to
have effective oral communication through a communication-assisting
device. The FAA invites comments on whether the visual observer should
be required to stand close enough to the operator to allow for
unassisted verbal communication.
Under this proposed rule, the visual observer would not be
permitted to manipulate any controls of the small UAS, share in
operational control, or exercise operation-related judgment independent
of the operator. Because the visual observer's role in the small UAS
operation would be limited to simply communicating what he or she is
seeing to the operator, the visual observer would not be an ``airman''
as defined in the FAA's statute.\48\ Consequently, as proposed, the
visual observer would not statutorily be required to obtain an airman
certificate.\49\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\48\ 49 U.S.C. 40102(a)(8). This statute defines an ``airman''
as an individual: ``(A) in command, or as pilot, mechanic, or member
of the crew, who navigates aircraft when under way; (B) except to
the extent the Administrator of the Federal Aviation Administration
may provide otherwise for individuals employed outside the United
States, who is directly in charge of inspecting, maintaining,
overhauling, or repairing aircraft, aircraft engines, propellers, or
appliances; or (C) who serves as an aircraft dispatcher or air
traffic control-tower operator.'' The visual observer's limited role
in the operation of a small UAS would not meet any of these
criteria.
\49\ See 49 U.S.C. 44711(a)(2)(A) (prohibiting a person without
an airman certificate from serving in any capacity as an airman with
respect to a civil aircraft used or intended to be used in air
commerce).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
While an airman certificate for a visual observer is not
statutorily mandated, the FAA considered requiring that the visual
observer obtain an airman certificate.\50\ However, due to the fact
that this proposed rule would not permit the visual observer to
[[Page 9560]]
manipulate the small UAS controls or exercise any independent judgment
or operational control, the FAA believes that certification of visual
observers would not result in significant safety benefits. Accordingly,
the FAA is not proposing to require airman certification for visual
observers. The FAA invites comments on whether an airman certificate
should be required to serve as a visual observer. If so, what
requirements should an applicant meet in order to obtain a visual
observer airman certificate? The FAA also invites comments regarding
the costs and benefits of requiring airman certification for visual
observers.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\50\ This requirement would be imposed pursuant to 49 U.S.C.
44701(a)(5), which gives FAA the power to prescribe regulations that
it finds necessary for safety in air commerce.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
3. See-and-Avoid and Visibility Requirements
Turning to the see-and-avoid and visibility requirements mentioned
in the previous section, one of the issues with small UAS operations is
that the small UAS operator cannot see and avoid other aircraft in the
same manner as a pilot who is inside a manned aircraft. Because at this
time there is no technology that can provide an acceptable see-and-
avoid replacement for human vision for small UAS operations, this
proposed rule would limit small UAS operations to within the visual
line of sight of the operator and a visual observer. This proposed rule
would also impose requirements to ensure maximum visibility for the
operation of the small UAS and ensure that small unmanned aircraft
always yield the right-of-way to other users of the NAS.
i. See-and-Avoid
Currently, 14 CFR 91.113(b) imposes a requirement on all aircraft
operations that, during flight, ``vigilance shall be maintained by each
person operating an aircraft so as to see and avoid other aircraft.''
This see-and-avoid requirement is at the heart of the FAA's regulatory
structure mitigating the risk of aircraft colliding in midair. As such,
in crafting this proposed rule, the FAA sought a standard under which
the small UAS operator would have the ability to see and avoid other
aircraft similar to that of a manned-aircraft pilot.
The FAA considered proposing that a UAS operator be permitted to
exercise his or her see-and-avoid responsibilities through
technological means, such as onboard cameras. We recognize that
technology is developing that could provide an acceptable substitute
for direct human vision in UAS operations. FAA does not, however,
believe this technology has matured to the extent that would allow it
to be used safely in small UAS operations in lieu of visual line of
sight. The FAA has not identified an acceptable technological
substitute for the safety protections provided by direct human vision
in small UAS operations at this time. For these reasons and consistent
with the statutory direction provided for in section 333, the FAA
proposes to require, in Sec. Sec. 107.31 and 107.37(a)(1), that the
operator (and visual observer, if used) must be capable of maintaining
a visual line of sight of the small unmanned aircraft throughout that
aircraft's entire flight with human vision that is unaided by any
device other than spectacles or contact lenses.
If a visual observer is not used, the operator must exercise this
capability and maintain watch over the small unmanned aircraft during
flight. However, if an operation is augmented by at least one visual
observer, then the visual observer can be used to satisfy the visual-
line-of-sight requirements, as long as the operator always remains
situated such that he or she can exercise visual-line-of-sight
capability.
The FAA notes that this proposed requirement does not require the
person maintaining visual line of sight to constantly watch the
unmanned aircraft for every single second of that aircraft's flight.
The FAA understands and accepts that this person may lose sight of the
unmanned aircraft for brief moments of the operation. This may be
necessary either because the small UAS momentarily travels behind an
obstruction or to allow the person maintaining visual line of sight to
perform actions such as scanning the airspace or briefly looking down
at the small UAS control station. The visual-line-of-sight requirement
of this proposed rule would allow the person maintaining visual line of
sight brief moments in which he or she cannot directly see the small
unmanned aircraft provided that the person is able to see the
surrounding operational area sufficiently well to carry out his or her
visual-line-of-sight-related responsibilities. Anything more than brief
moments during which the person maintaining visual line of sight is
unable to see the small unmanned aircraft would be prohibited under
this proposed rule.
To ensure that the operator's vision (and that of a visual
observer, if used) of the small unmanned aircraft is sufficient to see
and avoid other aircraft in the NAS, the proposed rule would require
that the operator's or visual observer's vision of the small unmanned
aircraft must be sufficient to allow him or her to: (1) Know the small
unmanned aircraft's location; (2) determine the small unmanned
aircraft's attitude, altitude, and direction; (3) observe the airspace
for other air traffic or hazards; and (4) determine that the small
unmanned aircraft does not endanger the life or property of another.
Because maintaining this type of awareness in real-time is a
concentration-intensive activity, proposed Sec. 107.35 would limit an
operator or visual observer to operating no more than one small UAS at
the same time.\51\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\51\ The use of a visual observer would not be sufficient to
allow an operator to operate more than one small UAS because the
operator would still need to maintain sufficient concentration to
react to the information provided to him or her by the visual
observer.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Binoculars, onboard cameras, and other vision-enhancing devices
(aside from spectacles or contact lenses) cannot be used to satisfy
this proposed requirement because those devices restrict the user's
peripheral field of vision. Since a pilot often uses peripheral vision
to identify other aircraft in the NAS,\52\ a device that restricts
peripheral vision hinders the user's ability to see other aircraft.
However, the FAA recognizes that there are advantages to using vision-
enhancing devices, such as those used when utilizing camera video
transmitted to a screen at the operator's station (also known as first
person view) when conducting inspections of bridges or towers. This
proposed rule is not intended to prohibit the use of those devices.
Rather, the proposed visual-line-of-sight requirement requires simply
that at least one person involved in the operation, either the operator
or a visual observer, must maintain an unenhanced visual line of sight
of the small unmanned aircraft. Anyone else involved in the operation
may use a vision-enhancing device (including first-person view) so long
as that device is not used to meet the proposed requirements of
Sec. Sec. 107.31 and 107.37. The FAA invites comments on this proposed
visual-line-of-sight requirement. The FAA also invites suggestions,
with supporting documentation, for other ways in which a first-person-
view device could be used by the operator without compromising the risk
mitigation provided by the proposed visual-line-of-sight requirement.
The FAA also invites comments on whether it should permit operations
beyond visual line of sight in its final rule, for example through
deviation authority, once the pertinent technology matures to the
extent that it
[[Page 9561]]
can be used to safely operate beyond visual line of sight. If so, what
level of validation should the technology be subject to in order to
demonstrate reliability? For example, should the FAA use its existing
certification or validation methodologies to evaluate UAS technology?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\52\ Pilot Safety brochure: ``Pilot Vision.'' http://www.faa.gov/pilots/safety/pilotsafetybrochures/media/pilot_vision.pdf. A copy of this document is also available in the
docket for this rulemaking.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
ii. Additional Visibility Requirements
To further ensure that a small UAS operator/visual observer can see
and avoid other aircraft, the FAA proposes (1) to limit the operation
of small UAS to daylight-only operations, and (2) to impose weather-
minimum visibility requirements
First, the FAA proposes, in Sec. 107.29, to prohibit the operation
of a small UAS outside the hours of official sunrise and sunset. The
Federal Air Almanac provides tables which are used to determine sunrise
and sunset at various latitudes. The FAA considered proposing to allow
small UAS operations outside the hours of official sunrise and sunset,
recognizing that this would integrate a greater quantity of small UAS
operations into the NAS. However, the FAA has decided to propose
limiting small UAS use to daylight-only operations due to the
relatively small size of the small unmanned aircraft and the difficulty
in being able to see it in darker environments to avoid other airspace
users. The FAA also notes that most small unmanned aircraft flights
under this proposed rule would take place at low altitudes, and flying
at night would limit the small UAS operator's ability to see people on
the ground and take precautions to ensure that the small unmanned
aircraft does not pose a hazard to those people. Moreover, allowing
small UAS operations outside of daylight hours would require equipage
specifications (such as a lighting system emitting a certain minimum
amount of light) and airworthiness certification requirements that are
contrary to the FAA's goal of a minimally burdensome rule for small
unmanned aircraft. The FAA also notes that, for manned aircraft
operations, the regulations provide for very specific lighting systems
necessary to safely operate in the NAS. Those regulations require,
among other things: (1) Lighting system angles; (2) lighting system
intensity; (3) lighting system color and position; (4) lighting system
installation; and (5) lighting system configuration.\53\ This level of
regulation and airworthiness certification would be beyond the level of
a minimally burdensome rule encompassing low-risk operation that is
contemplated by section 333 of Public Law 112-95.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\53\ See 14 CFRs 23.1381 through 23.1401.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The FAA realizes the proposed daylight-only operations requirement
may affect the ability to use small unmanned aircraft in more northern
latitudes (specifically Alaska), and is willing to consider any
reasonable mitigation which would ensure that an equivalent level of
safety is maintained while operating in low-light areas. The FAA
welcomes public comments with suggestions on how to effectively
mitigate the risk of operations of small unmanned aircraft during low-
light or nighttime operations.
In addition, to ensure that small UAS operators and visual
observers have the ability to see and avoid other aircraft, the FAA is
proposing to require, in Sec. 107.51(c), a minimum flight visibility
of 3 statute miles (5 kilometers) from the control station for small
UAS operations. A visibility of 3 statute miles currently is required
for aircraft operations in controlled airspace.\54\ The FAA also
requires a 3-mile visibility in the context of other unmanned aircraft
operations (moored balloons and kites).\55\ The reason for the
increased visibility requirement is to provide the small UAS operator
with additional time after seeing a manned aircraft to maneuver and
avoid an accident or incident with the manned aircraft.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\54\ See 14 CFR 91.115.
\55\ 14 CFR 101.13(a)(3).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In addition, the FAA is proposing to require, in Sec. 107.51(d),
that the small unmanned aircraft must be no less than: (1) 500 feet
(150 meters) below clouds; and (2) 2,000 feet (600 meters) horizontal
from clouds. This is similar to the requirements imposed by 14 CFR
91.155 on aircraft operating in controlled airspace under visual flight
rules. The FAA proposes to impose these cloud-clearance requirements on
small UAS operations because, as mentioned previously, small UAS
operators do not have the same see-and-avoid capability as manned-
aircraft pilots.
iii. Yielding Right of Way
Now that we have discussed how a small UAS operator sees other
users of the NAS, we turn to how that operator avoids those users. In
aviation, this is accomplished through right-of-way rules, which pilots
are required to follow when encountering other aircraft. These rules
specify how pilots should respond to other NAS users based on the types
of aircraft or the operational scenario.
The operation of small UAS presents challenges to the application
of the traditional right-of-way rules. The smaller visual profile of
the small unmanned aircraft makes it difficult for manned pilots to see
and, therefore, avoid the unmanned aircraft. This risk is further
compounded by the difference in speed between manned aircraft and the
often slower small unmanned aircraft. Because of these challenges, the
FAA proposes to require, in Sec. 107.37(a)(2), that the small UAS
operator must always be the one to initiate an avoidance maneuver to
avoid collision with any other user of the NAS. Optimally, the small
UAS operator should give right-of-way to all manned aircraft in such a
manner that the manned aircraft is never presented with a see-and-avoid
decision or the impression that it must maneuver to avoid the small
UAS.
When a small UAS operator encounters another unmanned aircraft,
each operator must exercise his or her discretion to avoid a collision
between the aircraft. In extreme situations where collision is
imminent, the small UAS operator must always consider the safety of
people, first and foremost, over the value of any equipment, even if it
means the loss of the unmanned aircraft. To further mitigate the risk
of a mid-air collision, the FAA also proposes to codify, in Sec.
107.37(b), the existing requirement in 14 CFR 91.111(a), which
prohibits a person from operating an aircraft so close to another
aircraft as to create a collision hazard.
4. Containment and Loss of Positive Control
As discussed above, one of the issues unique to UAS operations is
the possibility that during flight, the UAS operator may become unable
to directly control the unmanned aircraft due to a failure of the
control link between the aircraft and the operator's control station.
This failure is known as a loss of positive control. Because the UAS
operator's direct connection to the aircraft is funneled through the
control link, a failure of the control link could have significant
adverse results.
To address this issue, the FAA proposes a performance-based
operator-responsibility standard built around the concept of a confined
area of operation. Confining the flight of a small unmanned aircraft to
a limited area would allow the operator to become familiar with the
area of operation and to create contingency plans for using the
environment in that area to mitigate the risk associated with possible
loss of positive control. For example, the operator could mitigate
loss-of-control risk to people on the ground by setting up a perimeter
and excluding people
[[Page 9562]]
not involved with the operation from the operational area. The operator
could also mitigate risk to other aircraft by notifying the local air
traffic control of the small UAS operation and the location of the
confined area in which that operation will take place. As a result of
risk-mitigation options that are available to the operator in a
confined area of operation, the FAA proposes to mitigate the risk
associated with loss of aircraft control by confining small unmanned
aircraft to a limited area of operation.
As an alternative method of addressing this issue, the FAA
considered technological approaches such as requiring a flight
termination system that would automatically terminate the flight of the
small unmanned aircraft if the operator lost positive control of that
aircraft. However, as previously discussed, due to the size and weight
of a small UAS, operations subject to this proposed rule would not pose
the same level of risk as other operations regulated by the FAA. Since
small UAS operations subject to this rule pose a lower level of risk,
there are operational alternatives available to mitigate their risk to
an acceptable level without imposing an FAA requirement for
technological equipage and airworthiness certification requirements.
Therefore, this proposed rule would not mandate the use of a flight
termination system nor would this proposed rule mandate the equipage of
any other navigational aid technology. Instead, the FAA invites
comments on whether a flight termination system or other technological
equipage should be required and how it would be integrated into the
aircraft for small UAS that would be subject to this proposed rule. The
FAA also invites comments, with supporting documentation, as to the
costs and benefits of requiring a flight termination system or other
technological equipage.
i. Confined Area of Operation Boundaries
The FAA notes that the proposed visual-line-of-sight requirement in
Sec. 107.31 would create a natural horizontal boundary on the area of
operation. Due to the distance limitations of human vision, the
operator or visual observer would be unable to maintain visual line of
sight of the small unmanned aircraft sufficient to satisfy proposed
Sec. 107.31 if the aircraft travels too far away from them.
Accordingly, the proposed visual-line-of-sight requirement in proposed
Sec. 107.31 would effectively confine the horizontal area of operation
to a circle around the person maintaining visual contact with the
aircraft with the radius of that circle being limited to the farthest
distance at which the person can see the aircraft sufficiently to
maintain compliance with proposed Sec. 107.31.
The FAA notes that there are two issues with defining the
horizontal boundary of the area of operation in this manner. First, a
small UAS operation could use multiple visual observers to expand the
outer bounds of the horizontal circle created by the visual-line-of-
sight requirement. To address this issue, the FAA proposes to require,
in Sec. 107.33(c), that if an operation uses a visual observer, the
small unmanned aircraft must remain close enough to the operator at all
times during flight for the operator to be capable of seeing the
aircraft with vision unaided by any device other than corrective
lenses. This approach would prevent the use of visual observers to
expand the horizontal outer bounds of the confined area of operation.
This approach would also create a safety-beneficial redundancy in that,
while the operator is not required to look at the small unmanned
aircraft in an operation that uses a visual observer, should something
go wrong, the operator would be able to look up and see for him- or
herself what is happening with the aircraft.
As an alternative method of addressing this issue, the FAA
considered imposing a numerical limit on how far away a small unmanned
aircraft can be from the operator. The FAA ultimately decided not to
propose this approach, as it currently lacks sufficient data to
designate a specific numerical limit. However, the FAA invites comments
on whether the horizontal boundary of the contained area of operation
should be defined through a numerical limit. If the boundary is defined
through a numerical limit, what should that limit be?
The second way that the horizontal boundary of the confined
operational area could be expanded is by stationing the operator on a
moving vehicle or aircraft. If the operator is stationed on a moving
vehicle, then the horizontal area-of-operation boundary tied to the
operator's line of sight would move with the operator, thus increasing
the size of the small unmanned aircraft's area of operation. To prevent
this scenario, the FAA proposes, in Sec. 107.25, consistent with the
ARC recommendations,\56\ to prohibit the operation of a small UAS from
a moving aircraft or land-borne vehicle. However, proposed Sec. 107.25
would make an exception for water-borne vehicles. This is because there
are far less people and property located over water than on land.
Consequently, a loss of positive control that occurs over water would
have a significantly smaller chance of injuring a person or damaging
property than a loss of positive control that occurs over land.
Allowing use of a small UAS from a water-borne vehicle would also
increase the societal benefits of this proposed rule without
sacrificing safety by incorporating small UAS operations such as bridge
inspections and wildlife nesting area evaluations into the NAS.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\56\ ARC report and recommendations, Sec. 6.11
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The FAA is considering alternatives for regulation of the operation
of small UAS from moving land vehicles, while protecting safety. It
invites comments, with supporting documentation, on whether small UAS
operations should be permitted from moving land-based vehicles, and
invites comment on a regulatory framework for such operations. The FAA
specifically invites comments as to whether distinctions could be drawn
between different types of land-based vehicles or operating
environments such that certain operations from moving land-based
vehicles could be conducted safely. The FAA also invites comments on
whether deviation authority should be included in the final rule to
accommodate these types of operations.
Next, we turn to the vertical boundary of the confined area of
operation. With regard to the vertical boundary, the FAA proposes, in
Sec. 107.51(b), to set an altitude ceiling of 500 feet above ground
level (AGL) for small UAS operations that would be subject to this
proposed rule. The FAA chose to propose 500 feet as the vertical area-
of-operation boundary because most manned aircraft operations take
place above 500 feet. Specifically, most manned aircraft operations
conducted over uncongested areas must be flown at an altitude above 500
feet AGL, while most manned aircraft operations conducted over
congested areas must be flown at an even higher altitude.\57\ Thus, a
500-foot altitude ceiling for small UAS operations would create a
buffer between a small unmanned aircraft and most manned aircraft
flying in the NAS.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\57\ See 14 CFR 91.119(b) and (c).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The FAA notes that while most manned aircraft operations fly above
the 500-foot ceiling proposed in this rule, there are some manned-
aircraft operations that could fly below this altitude. For example,
aerial applicators, helicopter air ambulance services, and military
operations conducted on military training routes often fly at an
[[Page 9563]]
altitude below 500 feet. However, even though some manned aircraft
operations take place at an altitude below 500 feet, there is
significantly less air traffic at or below 500 feet than there is above
500 feet altitude. As a result of this difference in air-traffic
density, the FAA has determined that small UAS operations would not
pose a significant risk to manned aircraft operations taking place
below 500 feet altitude if proper precautions are taken by the small
UAS operator.
The FAA also considered whether the vertical boundary should be set
at a higher level. However, because most manned-aircraft operations
transit the airspace above the 500-foot level, UAS operations at that
altitude would likely require greater levels of operator training,
aircraft equipage, and some type of aircraft certification in order to
avoid endangering other users of the NAS. Since these provisions would
be contrary to the goal of this rulemaking, which is to regulate the
lowest-risk small UAS operations while imposing a minimal regulatory
burden on those operations, this proposed rule would not allow small
UAS to travel higher than 500 feet AGL. The FAA invites comments, with
supporting documentation, on whether this proposed 500-foot ceiling
should be raised or lowered.
ii. Mitigating Loss-of-Positive-Control Risk
Now that we have defined the confined area of operation, we turn to
the question of how loss-of-positive-control risk can be mitigated
within that area of operation. The FAA notes that there is significant
diversity in both the types of small UAS that are available and the
types of operations that those small UAS can be used in. Accordingly,
small UAS operators need significant flexibility to mitigate hazards
posed by their individual small UAS operation, as a mitigation method
that works well for one type of small UAS used in one type of operation
may not work as well in another operation that uses another type of
small UAS. For example, in a loss-of-positive-control situation, a
rotorcraft that loses operator inputs or power to its control systems
would tend to descend straight down or at a slight angle while a fixed
wing aircraft would glide for a greater distance before landing. Since
the loss-of-positive-control risk posed by different types of small
unmanned aircraft in various operations is different, the FAA proposes
to create a performance-based standard under which, subject to certain
broadly-applicable constraints, small UAS operators would have the
flexibility to create operational and aircraft-specific loss-of-control
mitigation measures.
The broadly applicable constraints that the FAA proposes to impose
on a small UAS operator's risk-mitigation decisions are as follows.
First, the FAA proposes to require, in Sec. 107.49(a)(3), that prior
to flight, the operator must ensure that all links between the control
station and the small unmanned aircraft are working properly. The
operator can do this by verifying control inputs from the control
station to the servo actuators \58\ in the small unmanned aircraft. If
the operator finds, during this preflight check, that a control link is
not functioning properly, the operator would not commence flight until
the problem with the control link is resolved. This proposed constraint
would significantly mitigate the risk of a loss-of-positive-control
scenario by reducing the possibility that small unmanned aircraft
flight commences with a malfunctioning control link.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\58\ A ``servo actuator'' is generally defined as a device used
to provide a wide range of remote movement based on signals from the
system on which it is used.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Second, the FAA proposes to impose a speed limit of 87 knots (100
miles per hour) on small unmanned aircraft calibrated airspeed at full
power in level flight. This is because, if there is a loss of positive
control, an aircraft traveling at a high speed poses a higher risk to
persons, property, and other aircraft than an aircraft traveling at a
lower speed. A speed limit would also have safety benefits outside of a
loss-of-positive-control scenario because a small unmanned aircraft
traveling at a lower speed is generally easier to control than a
higher-speed aircraft.
In determining the specific speed limit, the FAA decided to propose
87 knots (100 mph) as the limit. This proposed speed limit is based on
the ARC recommendation of a 100 mph speed limit for small UAS
operations. The ARC determined that ``aircraft flying faster than 100
mph are considered a high performance aircraft'' that ``are perceived
as having greater risks.'' \59\ Accordingly, the FAA proposes to limit
the speed of small unmanned aircraft to 87 knots (100 mph). The FAA
invites comments on whether this speed limit should be raised or
lowered or whether a speed limit is necessary.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\59\ ARC Report, p. 20, section 6.12.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Third, the FAA proposes, in Sec. 107.39, to prohibit the operation
of a small unmanned aircraft over a person who is not directly
participating in the operation of that small unmanned aircraft. One of
the possible consequences of loss-of-positive-control is that the
aircraft will immediately crash into the ground upon loss of control
inputs from the operator. Because a loss of positive control can happen
at any moment, the FAA's proposed prohibition on operating small
unmanned aircraft over most persons will minimize the risk that a
person is standing under a small unmanned aircraft if that aircraft
terminates flight and returns to the surface. This prohibition would
not apply to persons inside or underneath a covered structure that
would protect the person from a falling small unmanned aircraft.
The FAA's proposed prohibition on operating over people would
provide an exception for persons directly participating in the
operation of the small unmanned aircraft. The FAA considered
prohibiting the operation of a small unmanned aircraft over any person,
but rejected this approach as unduly burdensome because the operator or
visual observer may, at some points of the operation, need to stand
under the small unmanned aircraft in order to maintain visual line of
sight and/or comply with other provisions of this proposed rule. As an
alternative to prohibiting these persons from standing under the small
unmanned aircraft, the FAA proposes, in Sec. 107.49(a)(2), that prior
to flight, the operator must ensure that all persons directly involved
in the small unmanned aircraft operation receive a briefing that
includes operating conditions, emergency procedures, contingency
procedures, roles and responsibilities, and potential hazards. A person
is directly involved in the operation when his or her involvement is
necessary for the safe operation of the small unmanned aircraft. By
receiving a pre-flight briefing on the details of the operation and the
hazards involved, the persons involved in the operation would be made
aware of the small unmanned aircraft's location at all times and would
be able to avoid the flight path of the small unmanned aircraft if the
operator were to lose control or the aircraft were to experience a
mechanical failure.
Within these constraints, the FAA proposes the following
performance-based standards for mitigating loss-of-positive-control
risk. First, the FAA proposes, in Sec. 107.49(a)(1), that, prior to
flight, the operator must become familiar with the confined area of
operation by assessing the operating environment and assessing risks to
persons and property in the immediate vicinity both on the surface and
in the air. As part of this preflight assessment, the operator would
need to consider conditions that could pose a hazard to
[[Page 9564]]
the operation of the small UAS as well as conditions in which the
operation of the small UAS could pose a hazard to other aircraft or
persons or property on the ground. Accordingly, the FAA proposes to
require that the preflight assessment include the consideration of: (1)
Local weather conditions; (2) local airspace and any flight
restrictions; (3) the location of persons and property on the ground;
and (4) any other ground hazards.
Second, the FAA proposes that, after becoming familiar with the
confined area of operation and conducting a preflight assessment, the
operator be required, by Sec. 107.19(b), to ensure that the small
unmanned aircraft will pose no undue hazard to other aircraft, people,
or property in the event of a loss of control of the aircraft for any
reason. This proposed requirement would provide the operator with
significant flexibility to choose how to mitigate the hazards
associated with loss of aircraft control. For example, in addition to
the examples mentioned previously, if the operation takes place in a
residential area, the operator could ask everyone in the area of
operation to remain inside their homes while the operation is
conducted.\60\ If the operation takes place in an area where other air
traffic could pose a hazard, the operator would advise local air
traffic control as to the location of his or her area of operation and
add extra visual observers to the operation so that they can notify the
operator if other aircraft are approaching the area of operation.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\60\ The FAA notes that this proposed requirement would not
require people not involved with the operation to comply with the
operator's warnings. The operator would simply be unable to commence
the operation until the pertinent area has been made safe for
operation.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The above are just some examples of mitigation strategies that
could be employed by the operator to ensure that the small unmanned
aircraft will pose no hazard to other aircraft, people or property in
the event of lost positive control. These examples are not intended to
provide an exhaustive list, as there are different ways to mitigate
loss of positive control. The proposed requirement in Sec. 107.19(b)
would provide the operator with the flexibility to choose which
mitigation method is appropriate for his/her specific operation to
ensure any hazards posed by loss of positive aircraft control are
sufficiently mitigated. The FAA also anticipates creating guidance that
provides additional examples of how operators can mitigate loss of
positive control in small UAS operations. However, the FAA emphasizes
that no matter what mitigation option(s) the operator employs under
this proposed rule, the operator must strive to always maintain
positive control of the small unmanned aircraft. The operator would be
in violation of proposed Sec. 107.19(b) if he or she intentionally
operates the small unmanned aircraft in a location where he or she will
not have positive control over that aircraft.
5. Limitations on Operations in Certain Airspace
This proposed rule would place limitations small UAS operations in
three areas related to airspace: (1) Controlled airspace (airspace
other than Class G); (2) prohibited or restricted airspace; and (3)
airspace where aviation activity is limited by a Notice to Airmen
(NOTAM). The FAA is proposing these requirements to reduce the threat
to other users of the NAS in busy airspace or where most or all
aviation activities would otherwise be limited.
i. Controlled Airspace
The FAA is seeking to limit the exposure of the small unmanned
aircraft to other users of the NAS to minimize the risk of collision,
which can occur both during controlled flight of the UAS or if the
operator loses positive control of the small unmanned aircraft. This
proposed rule would prohibit small unmanned aircraft operations in
Class A airspace. Class A airspace starts at 18,000 feet mean sea level
and extends up to 60,000 feet (Flight Level 600). As discussed above,
this rule would prohibit small UAS operations above 500 feet AGL and
outside of visual line of sight. Operations in Class A airspace would
be inconsistent with that requirement, and therefore this proposed rule
would prohibit operations in Class A airspace.
Small UAS operations would also be prohibited in Class B, Class C,
Class D, and within the lateral boundaries of the surface area of Class
E airspace designated for an airport without prior authorization from
the ATC facility having jurisdiction over the airspace. The FAA factors
information such as traffic density, the nature of operations, and the
level of safety required when determining whether to designate
controlled airspace.\61\ Pilots must have an ATC clearance to enter
certain controlled airspace. In other words, the FAA requires ATC to
have knowledge of aviation operations in the airspace due to the
greater amount of activity in that area compared to uncontrolled
airspace.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\61\ See FAA Aeronautical Information Manual, Para. 3-1-1.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The FAA believes that restricting use of controlled airspace to
approved operations would reduce the risk of interference with other
aircraft activities. Interference could occur for many reasons,
including the location of the proposed small UAS operation in the
airspace, or how the small unmanned aircraft would behave if there is a
loss of positive control. These limitations would also be consistent
with the general requirement for aircraft operating in controlled
airspace to have ATC approval prior to entering the airspace.
Therefore, the FAA proposes that small UAS receive approval from the
ATC facility with jurisdiction over the airspace in which the operator
would like to conduct operations. That ATC facility would have the best
understanding of local airspace, its usage, and traffic patterns and
would be in the best position to ascertain whether the proposed small
UAS operation would pose a hazard to other users or the efficiency of
the airspace, and procedures to implement to mitigate hazards. This
proposed rule would not establish equipment requirements for small UAS
operating in controlled airspace as the FAA does for other users of
controlled airspace. Rather, the FAA believes that local ATC approval
would provide a safer and more efficient operating environment at less
cost to the operator.
The FAA notes that normal aircraft operations inside controlled
airspace in the vicinity of an airport require prior authorization from
ATC. Per part 91, ATC currently requires two-way radio communication
for departures, through flights, arrivals, and operations inside the
airspace. The FAA understands that not all small UAS will be able to
comply with the provisions of part 91, and that is why this proposed
rule would not require strict compliance with part 91. However, because
the air-traffic provisions of part 91 are intended to ensure safe
operation in the NAS, a small UAS operator that intends to operate in
controlled airspace must ensure that the proposed operations are
planned and conducted in the safest manner possible. The small UAS
operator can do this by working closely with the ATC facility that
controls the airspace.
The ATC facility has the authority to approve or deny aircraft
operations based on traffic density, controller workload, communication
issues, or any other type of operations that could potentially impact
the safe and expeditious flow of air traffic in that airspace. The more
that a small UAS is able to show that it would satisfy the provisions
of part 91 and comply with
[[Page 9565]]
the local operating procedures, the easier the access to the airspace
would be. These items should be outlined in a prior agreement with the
ATC facility to identify shortfalls and establish operating procedures
for small UAS to integrate into the existing air traffic operation.
This agreement would ensure all parties involved are aware of
limitations and special interest items and would enable the safe flow
of aircraft operations in that airspace. The FAA seeks comments related
to part 91 compliance issues small UAS operators may encounter.
ii. Prohibited or Restricted Areas
The proposed rule would prohibit small UAS operations in prohibited
and restricted areas without permission from the using or controlling
agency as applicable. Prohibited and restricted areas are designated in
14 CFR part 73. Prohibited areas are established when necessary to
prohibit flight over an area on the surface in the interest of national
security or welfare. No person may operate an aircraft without
permission of the using agency in a prohibited area.\62\ Restricted
areas are areas established when determined necessary to confine or
segregate activities considered hazardous to non-participating
aircraft. Although aircraft flight is not wholly prohibited in these
areas, it is subject to restriction.\63\ The proposed provision
concerning prohibited and restricted areas would be similar to the part
91 restriction on operations in these areas.\64\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\62\ See 14 CFR 1.1.
\63\ See id.
\64\ See 14 CFR 91.133.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
iii. Areas Designated by Notice to Airmen
This proposed rule would also prohibit operation of small UAS in
airspace restricted by NOTAMs unless authorized by ATC or a certificate
of waiver or authorization. This would include NOTAMs issued to
designate a temporary flight restriction (TFR). NOTAMs contain time-
critical aeronautical information that is either temporary in nature,
or not sufficiently known in advance to permit publication on
aeronautical charts or other publications.\65\ For example, NOTAMs may
be used to limit or restrict aircraft operations during emergency
situations or presidential or VIP movements. They may also be used to
limit aircraft operations in the vicinity of aerial demonstrations or
sporting events. NOTAMs are available to the public on the FAA's Web
site.\66\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\65\ See FAA Aeronautical Information Manual, para. 5-1-3.
\66\ See, e.g., https://www.notams.faa.gov/dinsQueryWeb/ and
http://www.faa.gov/pilots/flt_plan/notams/.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Like other users of the airspace, small UAS operators would be
required to review and comply with NOTAMs. As with other airspace
restrictions in this rule, an operator could seek authorization from
ATC or through a certificate of waiver or authorization to conduct
operations in otherwise restricted airspace. The FAA believes that this
process would permit an assessment of the operation in relation to the
airspace restriction to determine whether the operation can be safely
conducted.
6. Airworthiness, Inspection, Maintenance, and Airworthiness Directives
i. Inspections and Maintenance
As discussed in section III.J.3 of this preamble, pursuant to
section 333(b)(2) of Public Law 112-95, we have determined that a small
UAS should not be required to obtain airworthiness certification if
satisfying the provisions of this proposal. However, without an
airworthiness certification process, the FAA still needs to ensure that
a small UAS is in a condition for safe operation. In considering how to
address this issue, the FAA notes that the current regulations
applicable to manned civil aircraft generally require an annual
aircraft inspection every 12 months.\67\ The inspection and any
maintenance that might be necessary as a result of the inspection
currently are governed by the provisions of 14 CFR part 43. Part 43
requires that the inspection examine every component of the aircraft in
detail to determine whether any hazardous characteristics are present
that would render the aircraft unairworthy.\68\ If the inspection
reveals any hazardous characteristics that would render the aircraft
unairworthy, then maintenance, conducted pursuant to the regulations of
part 43, must be performed in order to return the aircraft to an
airworthy condition.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\67\ See 14 CFR 91.609. Different components of the aircraft are
also currently subject to additional component-specific inspection
schedules. For example, in addition to the above general inspection
requirements, altimeter instruments on airplanes and helicopters
operating in controlled airspace under instrument flight rules must
be inspected every 24 months. See 14 CFR 91.411(a)(1).
\68\ See 14 CFR part 43, Appendix D (listing aircraft components
that must be inspected and the hazardous characteristics that the
inspection should look for).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In addressing the issue of airworthiness for small UAS, the FAA
considered several approaches, including requiring small UAS operators
to comply with the existing inspection and maintenance requirements of
this chapter. The FAA also considered requiring a separate permit to
operate (PTO) in addition to aircraft registration and airman
certification. A PTO would have included airworthiness certification
requirements that would have required an applicant to:
Describe the entire small UAS, including airframe, control
station, and communications link;
Comply with a set of unvalidated consensus standards;
Test the design features required by the unvalidated
consensus standards and determine that the UAS satisfies those
standards;
Inspect the aircraft for compliance with the
manufacturer's requirements;
Determine whether the aircraft has been manufactured in
compliance with unvalidated production acceptance and quality assurance
consensus standards acceptable to the FAA;
Complete ground and flight testing of required UAS
components and determine whether they demonstrated acceptable
performance and safe operation.
Create a process for addressing unsafe conditions in the
aircraft; and
Create a monitoring program to identify and correct
safety-of-flight issues.
After further consideration, the FAA decided that neither of these
approaches is proportionate to the risk posed by small UAS. FAA noted
that, as mentioned previously, due to their light weight, small
unmanned aircraft generally pose a significantly lower risk to people
and property on the ground than manned aircraft. This relatively low
risk is mitigated even further by the see-and-avoid and loss-of-
positive-control provisions of this proposed rule, which are discussed
above. Accordingly, based on existing information, the FAA believes
that requiring small UAS operators to conduct inspection and
maintenance of the small UAS pursuant to the existing regulations of
part 43, or to obtain a PTO, would not result in significant safety
benefits. As a result, this proposed rule would not require small UAS
compliance with part 43 or the application for, or issuance of, a PTO.
Instead, this proposed rule would require, in Sec. 107.21(b), that
prior to each flight, the operator must inspect the small UAS to ensure
that it is in a condition for safe operation. The operator could do
this by, for example, performing a manufacturer-
[[Page 9566]]
recommended preflight inspection or performing an on-the-ground test of
the small UAS to determine whether safety-critical systems and
components are working properly.
If, as a result of the inspection, the operator determines that the
small UAS is no longer in a condition for safe operation, then proposed
Sec. Sec. 107.21(a) and 107.15(a) would prohibit the operation of the
small UAS until the necessary maintenance has been made and the small
UAS is once again in a condition for safe operation. First, proposed
Sec. 107.21(a) would require that the operator must maintain the small
UAS in a condition for safe operation. An example of how the operator
could satisfy this proposed requirement would be performing the
manufacturer's recommended maintenance at manufacturer-recommended
regular intervals. Second, Sec. 107.15(a) would prohibit a person from
operating a small UAS unless that UAS is in a condition for safe
operation. Thus, if an operator notices during inspection, maintenance,
or preflight action, that the small UAS is not in a condition for safe
operation, then the operator would be in violation of Sec. 107.15(a)
if he or she flies the small unmanned aircraft while the UAS is not in
a condition safe for operation.
The FAA also notes that a small UAS that appears to be in a
condition for safe operation prior to flight may become unsafe for
operation during flight. For example, the small unmanned aircraft could
sustain damage during flight rendering that aircraft unsafe for
continuing the flight. As such, this proposed rule would require, in
Sec. 107.15(b), that the operator must discontinue the flight of the
small unmanned aircraft when he or she knows or has reason to know that
continuing the flight would pose a hazard to other aircraft, people, or
property. This proposed requirement is similar to a requirement that
currently exists in Sec. 91.7(b), which requires the PIC to
``discontinue the flight [of an aircraft] when unairworthy mechanical,
electrical, or structural conditions occur.''
The FAA invites comments on the issues discussed in this section.
The FAA also invites comments as to the costs and benefits of requiring
small UAS operators to perform maintenance and inspections pursuant to
existing regulations.
ii. Airworthiness Directives
The FAA typically issues airworthiness directives to correct an
existing unsafe condition in a product when the condition is likely to
exist or develop in other products of the same type design.
Airworthiness directives currently are issued for engines, propellers,
and other products that are either: (1) Approved under a type
certificate or a supplemental type certificate; or (2) that are
manufactured under a production certificate, a parts manufacturer
approval (PMA), or technical standard order (TSO) authorization.
As discussed in section III.J of this preamble, the FAA does not
propose to require a type certificate, a production certificate, a PMA
or TSO authorization for small UAS or any part installed on the small
UAS. However, to provide manufacturers with flexibility, manufacturers
would not be prohibited from installing parts that are FAA-
certificated, have received PMA, or are TSO-authorized for manned-
aircraft use on the small UAS, provided the small unmanned aircraft
remains under 55 pounds after the installation of the part. The FAA
anticipates that some manufacturers may choose to use these parts on
the small UAS in order to obtain a higher level of reliability
associated with a certificate, approval, or authorization.
However, because parts that are FAA-certificated, have received
PMA, or are TSO-authorized may have airworthiness directives that are
applicable to those parts, the FAA proposes to require, in Sec.
107.13(d), that the owner or operator of the small UAS must comply with
all applicable airworthiness directives. The FAA notes that it used a
similar approach in its 2004 light-sport aircraft rulemaking. In that
rulemaking, the FAA did not require a type or production certificate
for light-sport aircraft but allowed the installation on the aircraft
of parts that are FAA-certificated, have received PMA, or are TSO-
authorized as long as the owner or operator complied with all
applicable airworthiness directives.\69\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\69\ Certification of Aircraft and Airmen for the Operation of
Light-Sport Aircraft Final Rule, 69 FR 44772, 44855 (July 27, 2004).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
7. Miscellaneous Operating Provisions
i. Careless or Reckless Operation
The existing FAA regulations prohibit a person from operating an
aircraft in a careless or reckless manner so as to endanger the life or
property of another.\70\ These regulations also prohibit the PIC from
allowing any object to be dropped from an aircraft in flight if doing
so would create a hazard to persons or property.\71\ The FAA proposes
to apply similar regulations to small UAS operations, in Sec. 107.23
to ensure that a small UAS is not operated in a hazardous manner.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\70\ 14 CFR 91.13(a).
\71\ 14 CFR 91.15.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
ii. Drug and Alcohol Prohibition
Proposed Sec. 107.27 would require small UAS operators and visual
observers to comply with the alcohol and drug use prohibitions that are
currently in place in part 91 of the FAA's regulations. Small UAS
operators and visual observers would also be subject to the existing
regulations of Sec. 91.19, which prohibit knowingly carrying narcotic
drugs, marijuana, and depressant or stimulant drugs or substances.
The purpose of these regulations is to ensure that the safety of
small UAS operations are not impeded by alcohol or drug use and to
prohibit the use of aircraft for drug trafficking. Section 91.17
specifically prohibits use of alcohol or drugs during or for a time
period prior to an operation. Moreover, operators and visual observers
would need to submit to testing to determine alcohol concentration in
the blood due to a suspected violation of law or Sec. 91.17. Operators
or visual observers would be required to submit these tests to the FAA
if the FAA has a reasonable basis to believe that the person has
violated Sec. 91.17.
This section would also subject persons operating small UAS who
knowingly carry illegal substances to FAA enforcement action, which
could include certificate revocation. An exception exists for
substances authorized by or under any Federal or State statute or by
any Federal or State Agency.
iii. Medical Conditions
As discussed in section III.E of this preamble, this proposed rule
would not require a small UAS operator or visual observer to hold an
airman medical certificate. However, the FAA recognizes the possibility
that a person acting as an operator or visual observer may have a
medical condition that could interfere with the safe operation of the
small UAS. Accordingly, the FAA proposes, in Sec. 107.17, to prohibit
a person from acting as an operator or visual observer if he or she
knows or has reason to know of any physical or mental condition that
would interfere with the safe operation of a small UAS. This proposed
provision is similar to the regulatory provision of 14 CFR 61.53(b),
which currently applies to operations that do not require a medical
certificate.
iv. Sufficient Power for the Small UAS
Proposed Sec. 107.49(a)(4) would require a small UAS operator to
ensure that, if
[[Page 9567]]
powered, the small UAS has enough power to operate for its intended
operational time and an additional five minutes. The 5-minute buffer
would ensure that the small UAS has sufficient power to return to the
operator, or another location, and be able to make a controlled
landing. Additionally, control inputs to a small UAS may degrade as
batteries lose charge because power to the flight control system(s) may
be lost. Accordingly this proposed rule would help to ensure that the
small UAS remains controllable throughout its intended operational
time. The FAA notes that a small UAS travelling at 10 miles per hour
would be able to cover nearly one mile in 5 minutes.
v. Registration and Marking
As mentioned earlier, the FAA's statute prohibits a person from
operating a civil aircraft that is not registered.\72\ The FAA proposes
to codify this statutory requirement in Sec. 107.13(b). In addition,
all aircraft currently are required to display their registration
number on the aircraft.\73\ The FAA proposes to impose a similar
requirement, in Sec. 107.13(c), on small unmanned aircraft subject to
this proposed rule. The specific manner in which the small unmanned
aircraft would register and display its registration number is
discussed in section III.G of this preamble.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\72\ 49 U.S.C. 44101(a).
\73\ See 14 CFR part 45.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
E. Operator Certificate
As discussed earlier in this preamble, the FAA proposes to satisfy
the statutory requirement for an airman to possess an airman
certificate \74\ by requiring small UAS operators to obtain and hold an
unmanned aircraft operator certificate with a small UAS rating in order
to operate a small UAS. An unmanned aircraft operator certificate would
be a new type of airman certificate created by this proposed rule, and
this section explains the FAA's proposal concerning this certificate.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\74\ 49 U.S.C. 44711(a)(2)(A).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. Applicability
The FAA is proposing to require that individuals obtain an unmanned
aircraft operator certificate with a small UAS rating as a prerequisite
to operating a small UAS. As with airman certificates that the FAA
requires for operating other aircraft, an operator certificate would
ensure that the operator is able to safely operate the small UAS. The
FAA notes that airman certificates are currently issued to pilots who
engage in commercial and non-commercial activities. The FAA is
proposing to issue a new type of certificate for UAS operators, rather
than require a private or commercial pilot certificate with UAS type
rating, because many of the requirements for private and commercial
pilots are not necessary for the types of operations that would be
permitted under this rule.
Moreover, the FAA wants to maintain a distinction between an
unmanned aircraft operator certificate and the airman certificates
issued under parts 61, 63 and 65.\75\ As such, proposed Sec. 61.8
would prohibit activities under this rule from being used to meet part
61 requirements. Activities would include any training, certification,
or flights associated with small UAS under proposed part 107. This
proposal is consistent with the FAA's statement in the 2013 Pilot
Certification and Qualification Requirements for Air Carrier Operations
Final Rule that ``regulations do not currently permit the time acquired
while operating [a UAS] to be logged to meet aeronautical experience
requirements for FAA [manned-aircraft] certification.'' \76\
Additionally, that rule did not extend an exception from a flight time
standard to graduates of training programs designed to qualify a
military pilot solely for operation of UAS to qualify for a reduced
flight time.\77\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\75\ Parts 61, 63, and 65 currently apply to all airman
certificates, which include small UAS airmen. However, under this
proposed rule, these parts would no longer apply to small UAS
airmen. Thus, the distinction discussed in this paragraph would
segregate experience acquired while operating a small UAS from
experience acquired while operating a manned aircraft.
\76\ 78 FR 42324 (July 15, 2013).
\77\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The FAA considered proposing to require an individual to obtain a
commercial pilot certificate with a UAS type endorsement before
operating a small UAS. Issuance of such a certificate would require
that the applicant obtain a Class II airman medical certificate, pass
an aeronautical knowledge test, and demonstrate flight proficiency and
aeronautical experience with a certificated flight instructor. However,
given the lower level of public risk posed by small UAS operations, the
FAA decided that imposing such requirements would be unduly burdensome
to small UAS operators. Moreover, as explained in further detail in
preamble section III.E.2.iii.a below, the FAA believes that the
training, testing, proficiency and experience requirements for
obtaining a commercial pilot license have limited relevance to the
nature of small UAS operations. The FAA invites public comment on its
proposal to create a new category of airman certificate for small UAS
operators.
2. Unmanned Aircraft Operator Certificate--Eligibility & Issuance
This rule would establish the eligibility requirements to apply for
an unmanned aircraft operator certificate with a small UAS rating and
specify when a certificate would be issued. Military and former
military pilots would be able to apply based on experience operating
unmanned aircraft in the United States Armed Forces.
i. Minimum Age
Proposed Sec. 107.61 would establish the eligibility requirements
for an unmanned aircraft operator certificate with a small UAS rating.
First, an applicant would need to be at least 17 years of age. This
minimum age is consistent with existing FAA minimum age requirements
for the Sport Pilot, Recreational Pilot, and Private Pilot airman
certificates--the base-level certificates authorizing pilots to operate
aircraft while not under the supervision of an instructor. Because this
rule would permit commercial small UAS operations, the FAA considered
setting the minimum age at 18 years, consistent with the Commercial
Pilot Certificate requirements which permit carrying persons or
property for compensation or hire. However, the FAA determined that the
higher age limit was not necessary because the proposed operational
limitations will create an environment that minimizes risk to persons
and property.
The FAA notes that the minimum age necessary to apply for an airman
certificate to operate a glider or a balloon category aircraft is 16
years old. The FAA invites comments on whether the minimum age
necessary to apply for an unmanned aircraft operator certificate should
similarly be reduced to 16 years old in the final rule. The FAA also
invites comments as to whether reducing the minimum applicant age to 16
years old would further enable academic use of small UAS.
ii. English Language Proficiency
A person would need to be able to read, speak, write and understand
the English language to be eligible for an unmanned aircraft operator
certificate with a small UAS rating. This requirement is consistent
with all other airman certificates issued by the FAA.\78\ The English
language has generally been
[[Page 9568]]
accepted as the international standard for aircraft operations by ICAO.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\78\ See, e.g., 14 CFR 61.83(c).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
However, this proposed rule would create an exception for people
who are unable to meet one of the English language requirements due to
medical reasons, as is the case for other airman certificates. Such a
person would still be eligible for a certificate; however, the FAA
would be able to specify limitations on that person's small UAS
operator certificate to account for the medical condition. For example,
if an applicant is unable to communicate using speech then the FAA may
impose a limitation that the operator may not conduct a small UAS
operation requiring more than one person.
iii. Pilot Qualification
The third proposed requirement to obtain an unmanned aircraft
operator certificate with a small UAS rating would be to pass an
initial aeronautical knowledge test. To ensure that a pilot is
qualified to control an aircraft, the FAA generally requires that the
applicant for a pilot certificate demonstrate the following three
things: (1) Aeronautical knowledge; (2) flight proficiency (i.e. that
the applicant has the requisite piloting skills); and (3) aeronautical
experience.\79\ For the reasons stated below, the FAA has determined
that a flight proficiency demonstration and aeronautical experience
should not be required for issuance of an unmanned aircraft operator
certificate with a small UAS rating. Instead, the FAA proposes to
require that applicants for this certificate simply demonstrate their
aeronautical knowledge by passing an initial knowledge test and then
passing a recurrent knowledge test every 24 months thereafter.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\79\ See, e.g., 14 CFR 61.105-61.109.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
a. Flight Proficiency and Aeronautical Experience
As mentioned in the previous paragraph, the FAA currently requires
applicants for a pilot certificate to demonstrate that they have the
requisite flight proficiency and aeronautical experience to properly
control the flight of an aircraft. These existing regulations are
intended to ensure that an aircraft can take off safely and arrive back
on the ground: (1) With everyone on board the aircraft unharmed; (2)
without harming people on the ground; and (3) without interfering with
other users of the NAS.
The first consideration for requiring a flight-proficiency
demonstration and aeronautical experience (to prevent possible harm to
people on board the aircraft) does not apply to small UAS operations
because if a small unmanned aircraft was to crash, there would be no
one on board the aircraft to be harmed by that crash. The second
consideration for these requirements (to prevent harm to people on the
ground) is addressed by the operating requirements of this rule, which
limit the operation of the small unmanned aircraft to a confined area
and require the operator to ensure that the aircraft will pose no
hazard to people on the ground if there is a loss of positive control.
An operator does not necessarily need special operating skills or
aeronautical experience to ensure that the aircraft will not pose a
hazard to people on the ground. For example, if an operator plans to
fly the small unmanned aircraft in a residential area, the operator
could approach the people who live in that area prior to the operation,
inform them of the details of the operation, and ask them to either
stay out of the area or stay indoors during the operation. Doing this
would ensure the safety of people on the ground but would not require
the use of special operating skills or aeronautical experience.
The third consideration for requiring a flight-proficiency
demonstration and aeronautical experience (to avoid interference with
other users of the NAS) is mitigated by the fact that a small unmanned
aircraft is generally: (1) Relatively easy to control; (2) highly
maneuverable; and (3) much easier to terminate flight than a manned
aircraft. Specifically, the control station for a small UAS is
typically less complex than the interface used to control the flight of
a manned aircraft. Many small UAS control stations currently consist of
a basic two-joystick interface where one joystick controls the
aircraft's altitude and the other joystick controls the aircraft's
speed and direction. Other control stations utilize basic programs,
such as smart-phone or tablet applications, to control the small
unmanned aircraft. These programs are generally easy to learn and
utilize. By contrast, the flight deck interface used to control a
manned aircraft requires coordinated use of flight control inputs,
interpretation of aircraft instrumentation, and onboard equipment
operation. Some of this equipment includes communication and
sophisticated navigation equipment. A manned-aircraft pilot must learn
to properly use all of these flight-deck-interface components in order
to control the flight of the manned aircraft.
In addition, because a small unmanned aircraft is highly
maneuverable and easy to land, an operator who finds the small unmanned
aircraft to be difficult to control would still be able to easily land
the aircraft. For instance, in the two-joystick control station example
provided above, the operator could land a small unmanned rotorcraft
simply by pressing the altitude joystick down until the rotorcraft
descends to the ground. By contrast, a manned aircraft pilot would need
to go through a significantly more complex process that includes
adjusting aircraft attitude with flight controls, reducing engine
power, and scanning for other traffic, in order to land the aircraft on
the ground after takeoff.
There are two additional considerations for not requiring a flight
proficiency demonstration or aeronautical experience for small UAS
operators. First, unlike the pilot of a manned aircraft, the small UAS
operator has the option to sacrifice the small unmanned aircraft in
response to an emergency. Second, as discussed previously, proposed
Sec. Sec. 107.19(b) and 107.39 would require the operator to control
the confined area of operation in order to ensure that the small
unmanned aircraft will not pose a hazard to people on the ground in an
emergency situation. Other operating rules proposed in this NPRM, such
as the prohibition on operating within restricted areas without
permission, the requirement to give way to manned aircraft, and the 500
feet AGL height limitation, would also mitigate the risk that a small
unmanned aircraft interferes with other users of the NAS or poses a
hazard to people on the ground.
Because the considerations underlying the current flight
proficiency demonstration and aeronautical experience requirements
have, at best, a limited applicability to small UAS operations that
would be subject to this proposed rule, the FAA proposes not to require
that applicants for an unmanned aircraft operator certificate with a
small UAS rating demonstrate flight proficiency or aeronautical
experience. The FAA invites comments on whether these applicants should
be required to demonstrate flight proficiency and/or aeronautical
experience. If so, what flight proficiency and/or aeronautical
experience requirements should the FAA impose? The FAA also invites
comments as to the costs and benefits of imposing these requirements.
b. Initial Aeronautical Knowledge Test
Turning to the remaining component of airman certification
(aeronautical knowledge), the FAA proposes to require that applicants
for an unmanned aircraft operator certificate with a small UAS rating
pass an initial knowledge test to demonstrate that they have
[[Page 9569]]
sufficient aeronautical knowledge to safely operate a small UAS. The
FAA proposes a knowledge test rather than a required training course in
order to provide applicants with flexibility as to the method that they
use to acquire aeronautical knowledge. For example, some individuals
who wish to become small UAS operators may also hold a pilot
certificate, and those individuals would already have acquired
extensive aeronautical knowledge in order to obtain a pilot
certificate. Other individuals may be able to acquire the necessary
knowledge through self-study. Still other individuals may choose to use
a commercial training course designed to provide them with the
knowledge necessary to pass the initial knowledge test. In any case,
passage of a knowledge test would ensure that the applicant has
demonstrated the aeronautical knowledge necessary to safely operate a
small UAS regardless of how the applicant happened to acquire that
knowledge. The FAA invites comments as to whether other requirements,
such as passage of an FAA-approved training course, should be imposed
either instead of or in addition to the proposed knowledge test.
c. Areas of Knowledge Tested on the Initial Knowledge Test
This proposed initial knowledge test would test the following areas
of knowledge. First, the knowledge test would test whether the
applicant knows the regulations applicable to small UAS operations. By
testing the applicant's knowledge of the applicable regulations, the
proposed initial knowledge test would ensure that the applicant
understands what those regulations require and does not violate them
through ignorance.
Second, the initial knowledge test would test whether the applicant
understands how to determine the classification of specific airspace
and what the requirements are for operating in that airspace. To comply
with the proposed airspace operating requirements, a small UAS operator
would need to know how to determine the classification of the airspace
in which he or she would like to operate.
Third, the initial knowledge test would test whether the applicant
understands flight restrictions affecting small unmanned aircraft
operations. The proposed initial knowledge test would test whether the
applicant knows how to determine which areas are prohibited,
restricted, or subject to a TFR in order to comply with the proposed
flight restrictions in Sec. Sec. 107.45 and 107.47.
Fourth, the initial knowledge test would test whether the applicant
understands how to clear an obstacle during flight. As discussed
previously, proposed Sec. 107.37(b) prohibits a person from creating a
collision hazard with, among other things, a ground structure. The
proposed initial knowledge test would test whether the applicant
understands what types of small unmanned aircraft maneuvers would
create a collision hazard with a ground structure.
Fifth, the initial knowledge test would test whether the applicant
understands the effects of weather and micrometeorology (weather on a
localized and small scale) on small unmanned aircraft operation.
Knowledge of weather is necessary for safe operation of a small
unmanned aircraft because, due to the light weight of the small
unmanned aircraft, weather could have a significant impact on the
flight of that aircraft. For example, space around buildings,
smokestacks and trees, which is safe during clear weather, could easily
become hazardous in a windy situation. Accordingly, the proposed
initial knowledge test would test whether an applicant understands the
effect that different types of weather have on small unmanned aircraft
performance and how to react to that weather. The proposed knowledge
test would also test whether an applicant has knowledge of official
sources that he or she can use to obtain weather information and
predictions in order to plan the operation of the small UAS.
Sixth, the proposed knowledge test would test whether an applicant
understands how to calculate the weight and balance of the small
unmanned aircraft to determine impacts on performance. In order to
operate safely, operators need knowledge and understanding of some
fundamental aircraft performance issues, which include load balancing
and weight distribution as well as available power for the operation.
Seventh, the operator of a small UAS may be presented with an
emergency situation during an operation. Accordingly, the proposed
initial knowledge test would test whether the applicant understands how
to properly respond to an emergency.
Eighth, the proposed initial knowledge test would test the
applicant's understanding of aeronautical decision-making/judgment and
crew resource management. Even though this proposed rule would limit
the flight of a small unmanned aircraft to operations at or below 500
feet AGL, some manned aircraft will still operate in the same airspace
as the small unmanned aircraft. Accordingly, the small UAS operator
would need to understand the aeronautical decision-making and judgment
that manned-aircraft pilots engage in so that he or she can anticipate
how the manned aircraft will react to the small unmanned aircraft. The
small UAS operator would also need to understand how to function in a
team environment (this is known as crew resource management) because
this proposed rule would permit the use of visual observers to assist
the small UAS operator and would place the operator in charge of those
observers.
Ninth, the proposed initial knowledge test would test the
applicant's understanding of airport operations and radio communication
procedures, which would include standard terminology. While this
proposed rule would limit small UAS operations in the vicinity of an
airport, there are some instances where these operations would be
permitted. For example, this proposed rule would allow a small unmanned
aircraft to operate in Class B, C, or D airspace if the operator
obtains prior ATC authorization. In order to operate safely near an
airport, the operator would need to have knowledge of airport
operations so that the small unmanned aircraft does not interfere with
those operations. The operator would also need to have knowledge of
radio communication procedures so that the operator can communicate
with ATC.
Lastly, the proposed initial knowledge test would test whether the
applicant understands the physiological effects of drugs and alcohol.
Many prescription and over-the-counter medications can significantly
reduce an individual's cognitive ability to process and determine what
is happening around him or her. Accordingly, an operator needs to
understand how drugs and alcohol can impact his or her ability to
safely operate the small UAS.
The FAA invites comments on the proposed areas of knowledge to be
tested on the initial knowledge test. The FAA also invites comments as
to whether the initial knowledge test should test any other areas of
knowledge. If so, what additional areas of knowledge should be tested?
What would be the costs and benefits of testing these other areas of
knowledge?
d. Administration of the Initial Knowledge Test
Knowledge tests currently administered to prospective pilots under
14 CFR part 61 are created by the FAA and administered by FAA-approved
knowledge testing centers. A knowledge testing center is a private
[[Page 9570]]
entity that has received FAA approval to administer airman knowledge
tests. These centers are all certificated and regularly evaluated to
ensure that the testing center meets FAA certification requirements.
There are currently about 650 knowledge testing center spread
throughout the country. The FAA proposes to apply its existing
knowledge development and administration framework to knowledge tests
that would be administered to prospective small UAS operators. Under
this framework, the initial knowledge test would be created by the FAA
and administered by an FAA-approved knowledge testing center. Just as
it does now, the FAA will specify the minimum grade necessary to pass
the knowledge test,\80\ and applicants who take the test will be issued
an airman knowledge test report showing the results of the knowledge
test.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\80\ See 14 CFR 61.35(b).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
To ensure that the knowledge test is properly administered, this
proposed rule would also impose the following requirements. First,
proposed Sec. 107.69 would prohibit an applicant from cheating or
engaging in unauthorized conduct during a knowledge test. This would
include: (1) Copying or intentionally removing a knowledge test; (2)
giving a copy of a knowledge test to another applicant or receiving a
copy of the knowledge test from another applicant; (3) giving or
receiving unauthorized assistance while the knowledge test is being
administered; (4) taking any part of a knowledge test on behalf of
another person; (5) being represented by or representing another person
for a knowledge test; and (6) using any material not specifically
authorized by the FAA while taking a knowledge test. Cheating or
engaging in unauthorized conduct during a knowledge test in violation
of proposed Sec. 107.69 would be grounds for suspending or revoking
the certificate or denying an application for a certificate. In
addition, a person who engages in unauthorized conduct would be
prohibited from applying for a certificate or taking a knowledge test
for a period of one year after the date of the unauthorized conduct.
Second, to ensure that the person taking the knowledge test is
correctly identified, proposed Sec. 107.67 would require an applicant
for a knowledge test to have proper identification at the time of the
application. To ensure correct identification, the applicant for an
unmanned aircraft operator certificate would have to have his or her
identification verified in person just like any other applicant for an
FAA-issued airman certificate. The proposed requirements for proper
identification would be the same as the identification requirements
currently imposed on applicants who wish to take a knowledge test.\81\
Specifically, an applicant's identification would need to include the
applicant's: (1) Photograph; (2) signature; (3) date of birth, which
shows the applicant meets or will meet the proposed age requirements
for an operator certificate; and (4) the applicant's current
residential address if the permanent mailing address is a post office
box number.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\81\ The current knowledge-test identification requirements can
be found at 14 CFR 61.35(a)(2).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Finally, proposed Sec. 107.71 would address circumstances in which
an applicant wishes to retake a knowledge test after failure. To ensure
that an applicant receives additional training after failing a
knowledge test, the FAA currently requires an applicant who fails a
knowledge test to receive additional training from a flight instructor
and an endorsement from that instructor indicating that the instructor
has determined that the applicant is now proficient to pass the
test.\82\ However, as discussed previously, this proposed rule would
not require any specific form of training or studying in order to pass
a knowledge test. Accordingly, the FAA proposes to require that a
person who fails a knowledge test wait 14 calendar days before retaking
the knowledge test. This 14-day waiting period would provide sufficient
time for an applicant who fails a knowledge test to obtain additional
training of his or her choice.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\82\ 14 CFR 61.49(a).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The FAA also considered whether to offer an option for the
knowledge test to be administered online. However, in examining this
approach the FAA ultimately determined that there would be significant
risk in the integrity of a knowledge test becoming compromised if that
test was to be administered outside of a controlled environment. This
could be accomplished through someone copying and circulating the test
questions, using unauthorized materials to take the test, or even
taking the test for another person. Using the identity of another
person to take the knowledge test may also allow an applicant to
manipulate the security vetting procedures that take place once the
applicant's identity is verified.
In addition, the FAA determined that it would be more difficult to
safeguard the personally identifiable information (PII) of a test-taker
that would be collected online rather than in-person at a knowledge
testing center. Accordingly, the FAA has decided against proceeding
with an online test-taking option. The FAA invites comments on whether
the small UAS aeronautical knowledge test should have an option for
online test-taking and, if so, what safeguards should be implemented to
protect the integrity of the small UAS knowledge test, assure the FAA
of the identity of the test taker, and protect the test-taker's PII
that would be provided online. The FAA also invites comment on
different UAS testing location options that might provide the lowest
cost option for individuals, while protecting the integrity of the test
and the information provided as part of the test-taking process.
e. Recurrent Aeronautical Knowledge Test
i. General Requirement and Administration of the Recurrent Knowledge
Test
The FAA also proposes to require small UAS operators to pass a
recurrent aeronautical knowledge test after they receive their operator
certificate. The FAA proposes this requirement because this proposed
rule would not require small UAS operators to regularly conduct small
UAS operations, and consequently, some operators may conduct small UAS
operations infrequently and may not fully retain some of the knowledge
that they acquired in order to pass the initial knowledge test. The FAA
also notes that even operators who regularly conduct small UAS
operations may not fully retain pieces of knowledge that they do not
use during their regular operations. For example, a small UAS operator
who conducts operations only in Class G airspace may not retain the
knowledge that he or she needs ATC authorization in order to conduct
operations in Class B, C, or D airspace. Some aeronautical knowledge
that the small UAS operator learned for the initial knowledge test may
also become outdated over time.
Accordingly, the FAA proposes to require that the operator pass a
recurrent knowledge test every 24 months. The FAA proposes 24 months as
the appropriate recurrent testing frequency because that is the
frequency of the recurrent flight review that pilots currently complete
under 14 CFR 61.56. This requirement has been in place for
approximately 40 years. Based on the FAA's experience with the existing
24-month flight review cycle, a recurrent knowledge test that is given
every 24 months would ensure that the small UAS operator properly
maintains the pertinent aeronautical knowledge. The
[[Page 9571]]
FAA invites comments on this proposed requirement.
The FAA also proposes that the recurrent aeronautical knowledge
test be administered using the same framework as the initial
aeronautical knowledge test. Specifically, under this proposed rule,
the recurrent knowledge test would be created by the FAA and
administered by FAA-approved knowledge testing centers. An applicant
would be required to have proper identification in order to take the
test, and he or she would be required to wait 14 days after failure
before retaking the knowledge test. A certificate holder or applicant
\83\ would also be prohibited from cheating or engaging in unauthorized
conduct during the recurrent knowledge test.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\83\ As discussed in more detail further in the preamble,
proposed Sec. 107.75 would allow military or former military UAS
operator applicants to take the recurrent test instead of the
initial test in order to obtain an FAA-issued unmanned aircraft
operator certificate.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Just as with the initial knowledge test, the FAA invites comments
on whether the small UAS recurrent aeronautical knowledge test should
have an option for online test-taking and, if so, what safeguards
should be implemented to protect the integrity of the small UAS
knowledge test, assure the FAA of the identity of the test taker, and
protect the test-taker's PII that would be provided online.
ii. Recurrent Test Areas of Knowledge
Under this proposed rule, the recurrent knowledge test would test
the following areas of knowledge. First, the knowledge test would test
the operator's knowledge of the regulations that govern small UAS
operation to ensure that his or her knowledge is up to date regarding
all aspects of small UAS operations permitted under the certificate, as
the operator may not encounter all of these aspects in his or her
regular operation. In the example provided earlier, an operator who
regularly conducts small UAS operations in Class G airspace may not
retain the knowledge concerning regulations governing operation in
other classes of airspace.
Second, the recurrent knowledge test would test the operator's
knowledge of airspace classification and operating requirements,
obstacle clearance requirements, and flight restrictions. This is
because: (1) Airspace that the operator is familiar with could become
reclassified over time; (2) the location of existing flight
restrictions could change over time; (3) new ground-based obstacles
could be created as a result of new construction; and (4) some
operators may not regularly encounter these issues in their regular
operations.
Third, the recurrent knowledge test would ensure that the operator
has the latest knowledge concerning sources of weather and airport
operations. This is because the official sources of weather could
change over time. Market turnover could also affect a change in airport
operations as new airports are built and old airports are demolished or
repurposed. The FAA notes that airports can also change their
operations in response to changes in operating environment by, for
example, changing the approaches that manned aircraft use to line up
for a landing. The recurrent knowledge test would ensure that the small
UAS operator is familiar with the latest sources of weather and the
latest information concerning airport operations.
Fourth, the recurrent knowledge test would test the operator's
knowledge of emergency procedures, crew resource management, and
aeronautical decision-making/judgment. A small UAS operator may not
encounter any of these situations over a 24-month operating period
because: (1) An emergency situation may not present itself; (2) the
operator may be involved in operations that do not use visual
observers; and (3) the operator may be involved in operations that do
not take place in the vicinity of any manned aircraft. Accordingly,
including these areas of knowledge on the recurrent knowledge test
would ensure that the operator retains knowledge on these areas even if
he or she does not regularly encounter them in his or her small UAS
operations.
iv. Issuance of an Unmanned Aircraft Operator Certificate with Small
UAS Rating
Proposed Sec. 107.63 specifies that the FAA will issue the
certificate to an airman eligible under Sec. 107.61 if the airman
submits an application including an airman knowledge test report
showing that he or she passed the initial aeronautical knowledge test
required for the certificate. The certificate will not have an
expiration date, and once issued, it will remain valid until
surrendered, suspended, or revoked. The FAA invites comments as to
whether this certificate should expire after a certain period of time.
If so, when should the certificate expire?
The method of submission of the application is discussed further in
section III.E.5.i of this preamble. The FAA notes that, as discussed in
that section, all applicants for an airman certificate will be vetted
by the Transportation Security Administration (TSA) pursuant to 49
U.S.C. 46111 to determine whether they pose a security threat. An
applicant will not be issued an unmanned aircraft operator certificate
until the TSA determines that the applicant will not pose a security
threat.
v. Not Requiring an Airman Medical Certificate
The FAA also considered whether to require an applicant seeking an
unmanned aircraft operator certificate with a small UAS rating to
obtain an airman medical certificate as part of the application
process. With certain exceptions, under 14 CFR part 61, the FAA
currently requires an airman medical certificate for a student pilot
certificate, a recreational pilot certificate, a private pilot
certificate, a commercial pilot certificate, and an airline transport
pilot certificate.\84\ Flight instructors are also required to have a
valid medical certificate when required to act as pilot in command.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\84\ 14 CFR 61.23(a).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The primary reason for medical certification is to determine if the
airman has a medical condition that is likely to manifest as subtle or
sudden incapacitation that could cause a pilot to lose positive control
of the aircraft, or impair the pilots ability to ``see and avoid.''
The FAA has determined that traditional FAA medical certification
may not be warranted for small UAS operators subject to this proposed
rule mainly because small UAS operators and visual observers are
operating within a ``confined area of operation,'' and subject to other
operational limitations, discussed previously in this preamble. This is
because the proposed visual-line-of-sight requirement for the operator
and/or visual observer to be able to see the aircraft's direction and
attitude of flight in the proposed rule is preferable to a vision
standard. Even with normal vision it is foreseeable that a small
unmanned aircraft may be so small that the operational space must be
reduced to meet the operational requirements proposed in this rule. As
such, prescriptive medical standards may not be as critical as they are
for individuals exercising pilot privileges and therefore are not
proposed under this action.
Rather, the FAA is proposing that operators self-certify, at the
time of their airman application, that they do not have a medical
condition that could interfere with the safe operation of a small UAS.
As proposed in Sec. 107.61(d), an applicant for an unmanned aircraft
operator certificate with a small UAS
[[Page 9572]]
rating would be ineligible for the certificate if he or she knows or
has reason to know of any physical or mental condition that would
interfere with the safe operation of a small UAS. The FAA also
proposes, in Sec. 107.63(a), that the applicant be required to make a
certification to that effect. Both of these proposed requirements are
similar to the regulatory provision of Sec. 61.53(b), which prohibits
operations during medical deficiency for individuals conducting
operations that do not require a medical certificate. FAA also
considered proposing to require a medical certificate for a visual
observer, but decided not to propose this requirement for the same
reason a medical certificate for an operator is not being proposed. The
FAA, however, does invite public comment as to whether an FAA medical
certificate should be required. The FAA also invites comments as to the
costs and benefits of requiring an airman medical certificate for an
operator or visual observer.
4. Military Equivalency
This proposed rule would allow pilots with military experience
operating unmanned aircraft to take the recurrent knowledge test in
lieu of the initial knowledge test in order to be eligible for an
unmanned aircraft operator certificate with a small UAS rating. The
U.S. Armed Forces use many types and sizes of UAS in combat and non-
combat operations, both in the United States and abroad, and have done
so for many years. During that time, many servicemen and women have
been trained to operate UAS. The FAA has established special rules for
current or former military pilots allowing them to be issued FAA pilot
certificates based on their military flight experience and passing a
military knowledge check.\85\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\85\ See 14 CFR 61.73.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Accordingly, the FAA is proposing to allow current or former
military operators of unmanned aircraft to take a more limited
recurrent aeronautical knowledge test rather than the initial
aeronautical knowledge test to obtain an unmanned aircraft operator
certificate with a small UAS rating. They may not rely on that
experience if they were subject to certain disciplinary action
described in Sec. 107.75(a).
The FAA also considered whether to allow individuals who have been
conducting UAS operations under a COA as a non-military UAS operator to
take a recurrent test instead of an initial test in order to obtain an
unmanned aircraft operator certificate with a small UAS rating.
However, the FAA decided not to include this provision in the proposed
rule because: (1) There is no formally recognized recordation system
for non-military COA pilots as there is for military pilots; and (2)
non-military COA pilots are currently subject to different requirements
than military COA pilots for operations above 400 feet AGL. The FAA
invites comments on whether non-military COA pilots should be permitted
to take the recurrent knowledge test instead of the initial knowledge
test in order to obtain an unmanned aircraft operator certificate.
5. Unmanned Aircraft Operator Certificate: Denial, Revocation,
Suspension, Amendment, and Surrender
This rule would establish specific instances for when an unmanned
aircraft operator certificate with a small UAS rating can be denied,
revoked, suspended, amended, or surrendered. This rule would allow the
FAA to deny, suspend, or revoke the certificate for reasons including
security risk posed by the applicant, drug or alcohol offenses, refusal
to submit to an alcohol test or furnish the results. Certificate
holders would also be able to voluntarily surrender certificates.
i. Transportation Security Administration Vetting and Positive
Identification
The FAA will deny an application for a certificate or take
certificate action if the TSA determines that a person poses a security
threat. Specifically, under 49 U.S.C. 46111, once an unmanned aircraft
operator certificate application is received, the FAA will verify
compliance and the accuracy of the application and provide the
applicant's information to TSA for security vetting prior to
certificate issuance. Under this proposed rule, the FAA would transmit
a student pilot's biographic information for security vetting to TSA
and issue an unmanned aircraft operator certificate only after
receiving a successful response from TSA. However, if the TSA
determines that an airman certificate applicant poses a security risk,
section 46111 requires the FAA to deny the application for a
certificate or amend, modify, suspend, or revoke (as appropriate) any
part of an airman certificate based on the TSA's security findings.
The FAA may issue certificates to individuals who have first
successfully completed a security threat assessment (STA) conducted by
the TSA.\86\ TSA would conduct STAs of applicants for a UAS certificate
and notify the applicant and/or the FAA when the STA is complete. The
STA would consist of a check of intelligence-related databases,
including Interpol and international databases, terrorist watch lists,
and other sources relevant to determining whether an individual poses
or may pose a threat to transportation security, and that confirm the
individual's identity. A successful STA is generally valid for five
years, but may be revoked during that time if TSA's recurrent vetting
reveals that the individual poses or may pose a security threat.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\86\ See 49 U.S.C. 44903(j)(2)(D).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Congress requires TSA to recover the costs of vetting and
credentialing services through user fees.\87\ The fees for vetting UAS
certificate applicants would cover TSA's costs for enrolling,
processing, and replying to the application, as well as the costs of
conducting the intelligence-related checks themselves. TSA is
developing a process, through rulemaking, by which TSA's vetting fees
can be collected from applicants during the application process, as TSA
currently does in other vetting and credentialing programs, and used to
cover the cost of the security screening. Thus, while this rulemaking
projects that these costs are currently governmental costs, these costs
would be passed on to individuals in the future.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\87\ See 6 U.S.C. 469.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
As a result of the processes that go into the issuance of an airman
certificate, the FAA estimates that it could take about 6 to 8 weeks
after receipt of an application for the FAA to issue an applicant an
unmanned aircraft operator certificate with a small UAS rating. The FAA
invites comments with suggestions for how this period could be reduced.
The FAA also notes that the TSA will continue to examine certificate
holders after FAA issuance of a certificate.
In addition, in order for the TSA to be able to make the security
assessments specified in 49 U.S.C. 46111, the agency must be sure of
the identity of the person that it is assessing. Otherwise, a person
who poses a security threat could evade TSA scrutiny simply by using
someone else's identity. To address this issue, the FAA currently
requires all applicants for a pilot certificate to apply in person and
present positive identification at the time of application.\88\ The
identification must include an official photograph of the applicant,
the applicant's signature, and the applicant's residential address,
[[Page 9573]]
if different from the mailing address.\89\ Acceptable methods of
identification currently include, but are not limited to, U.S. driver's
licenses, government identification cards, and passports.\90\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\88\ FAA Order 8900.1, vol. 5, ch. 1, sec. 3, para. 5-54; FAA
Order 8900.2, ch. 7, sec. 2, para. 25, pg. 7-36.
\89\ Id.
\90\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Because positive identification of the applicant is necessary for
TSA to be able to determine whether the applicant poses a security
threat, this proposed rule would require an applicant for a small
unmanned aircraft operator certificate with a small UAS rating to
submit the application to a Flight Standards District Office (FSDO), a
designated pilot examiner (DPE), an airman certification representative
(ACR) for a pilot school, a certificated flight instructor (CFI), or
other persons authorized by the Administrator. The person accepting the
application submission would be required to verify that the identity of
the applicant matches the identity that is provided on the application.
This proposed rule would allow a DPE, an ACR for a pilot school, or
a CFI to accept an application and verify the identity of the applicant
because to do otherwise would severely limit the number of locations
where an applicant for a certificate could submit his or her
application. This is because of the limited number of FSDOs and
qualified personnel in each FSDO needed to accept the anticipated
number of application submissions each year. There are only 81 FDSOs in
the United States, which are only open 5 days per week (excluding
Federal holidays). However, there are an approximate combined total of
100,000 DPEs, ACRs, and CFIs potentially available to accept an
application 7 days per week. Though there is no fee required to submit
an application to a FSDO, there may be a nominal processing fee charged
by the authorized FAA representative, none of which goes to the FAA.
The FAA believes that this nominal fee (estimated average of $50), if
charged by the FAA representative, would offset the average cost of
travelling to a FSDO as well as the delay in submitting the application
(measured possibly in weeks) due to having to make an appointment with
the FSDO during the work week.
DPEs represent the FAA, and are already required to positively
identify an applicant for certification when the applicant takes the
practical test for the certificate. ACRs are also currently required to
positively identify the student/applicant for airman certification as
part of the responsibility of the part 141 flight school with which the
ACR is affiliated.
CFIs are currently required to verify a pilot-certificate
applicant's identity pursuant to TSA regulations codified at 49 CFR
1552.3(h)(1). That section requires a flight school \91\ to endorse a
pilot logbook verifying that a student is a U.S. citizen and presented
identification prior to flight training, which likely would be at the
same time that a person would apply for a student pilot certificate.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\91\ TSA defines a flight school as any pilot school, flight
training center, air carrier training facility, or flight instructor
certificated under 14 CFR parts 61, 121, 135, 141, or 142.49 CFR
1552.1(b).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Because DPEs, ACRs, and CFIs already have experience verifying an
applicant's identity, this proposed rule would allow these persons to
accept an application for an unmanned aircraft operator certificate
with a small UAS rating and verify the identity of the applicant.
Sections 61.193, 61.413, and 183.23 would be revised accordingly.
The FAA has also considered allowing knowledge testing centers to
verify an applicant's identity and accept an application for an
unmanned aircraft operator certificate. However, the FAA is proposing
to limit positive identification and acceptance of an application to
those persons who are either: (1) Already authorized to accept and sign
airman applications (FAA personnel, DPEs, and ACRs); or (2) are already
required to verify identity under the TSA's regulations (CFIs).
Knowledge testing centers do not fit into either of these categories,
and thus, this proposed rule would not allow them to accept airman
applications. The FAA invites comments on whether knowledge testing
centers should be allowed to accept airman applications.
ii. Drugs and Alcohol Violations
Proposed Sec. 107.57 would authorize the FAA to deny a certificate
application or take other certificate action for violations of Federal
or State drug laws. Certificates could also be denied, suspended or
revoked for committing an act prohibited by Sec. 91.17 or Sec.
91.19--which are discussed in section III.D.6 of this document.
Specifically, proposed Sec. 107.59 specifies that certificate action
could be taken for: (1) Failure to submit for a blood alcohol test or
to release test results to the FAA as required by Sec. 91.17; or (2)
carriage of illegal drugs in violation of Sec. 91.19. This proposal
mirrors current regulations that apply to all airman certificates.\92\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\92\ See 14 CFR 61.15(a) and (b), 63.12, and 65.12.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
iii. Change of Name
The FAA recognizes that individuals who hold airman certificates
may change their names. Accordingly, the regulations governing pilot
certificates currently issued under part 61 allow the holder of a pilot
certificate to change the name on a certificate by submitting
appropriate paperwork to the FAA.\93\ This proposed rule would provide
operators with the same opportunity in Sec. 107.77(a). Specifically,
proposed Sec. 107.77(a) would allow a person holding an unmanned
aircraft operator certificate with a small UAS rating to change the
name on the certificate by submitting a name-change application to the
FAA accompanied by the applicant's: (1) Operator certificate; and (2) a
copy of the marriage license, court order, or other document verifying
the name change. After reviewing these documents, the FAA would return
them to the applicant.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\93\ 14 CFR 61.25.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
iv. Change of Address
To ensure that the FAA has an airman certificate holder's proper
contact information, part 61 currently requires the holder of a pilot,
flight instructor, or ground instructor airman certificate who has made
a change in permanent mailing address to notify the FAA within 30 days
of making the address change.\94\ Failure to do so prohibits the
certificate holder from exercising the privileges of the airman
certificate until he or she has notified the FAA of the changed
address.\95\ Because this regulatory provision helps ensure that the
FAA is able to contact airman certificate holders, proposed Sec.
107.77(c) would extend the existing change-of-mailing-address
requirement to holders of an unmanned aircraft operator certificate
with a small UAS rating.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\94\ 14 CFR 61.60.
\95\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
v. Voluntary Surrender of Certificate
The FAA also recognizes that some individuals who obtain an
unmanned aircraft operator certificate with a small UAS rating may
decide to stop serving as a small UAS operator. Accordingly, proposed
Sec. 107.79 would allow a holder of an unmanned aircraft operator
certificate to voluntarily surrender it to the FAA for cancellation.
However, the FAA emphasizes that cancelling the operator certificate
pursuant to Sec. 107.79 would mean that the certificate no longer
exists, and the individual who surrendered the certificate would need
to again go through the entire certification process (including passing
the initial aeronautical knowledge test) if he/she subsequently changes
his/her mind. Accordingly, proposed Sec. 107.79(b) would require the
individual surrendering the certificate to include
[[Page 9574]]
the following signed statement (or an equivalent) in his or her
cancellation request:
I voluntarily surrender my unmanned aircraft operator
certificate with a small UAS rating for cancellation. This request
is made for my own reasons with full knowledge that my certificate
will not be reissued to me unless I again complete the requirements
specified in Sec. Sec. 107.61 and 107.63.
F. Registration
As mentioned earlier, the FAA's statute prohibits a person from
operating a civil aircraft that is not registered,\96\ and this
proposed rule would codify this statutory requirement. The registration
of aircraft and the assignment of an identifying registration number to
be displayed on the aircraft are primary foundation blocks in the
regulatory structures that provide for safe and orderly aircraft
activity within the NAS. The registration number provides a quick call-
sign for communications between air traffic control and aircraft in
flight. It also provides a link to information about the aircraft and
the owner responsible for its operations. This information may assist
the FAA and law enforcement agencies to respond to inappropriate
behavior, to share safety information, respond to emergency situations,
and populate data fields for studies that track trends and help shape
future management decisions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\96\ 49 U.S.C. 44101(a).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Part 47 of 14 CFR currently governs the registration process
applicable to aircraft that are not registered under the laws of a
foreign country and that meet one of the following ownership criteria:
The aircraft is owned by a citizen of the United States;
The aircraft is owned by a permanent resident of the
United States;
The aircraft is owned by a corporation that is not a
citizen of the United States, but that is organized and doing business
under U.S. Federal or State law and the aircraft is based and primarily
used in the United States; or
The aircraft is owned by the United States government or a
state or local governmental entity.\97\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\97\ 14 CFR 47.3. This limitation on the applicability of part
47 stems from a statute (49 U.S.C. 44103), which allows the FAA to
only register aircraft that meet the above criteria.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
This proposed rule would not apply to UAS operations that have
certain international ownership components. This would exclude any
aircraft whose ownership fails to meet the criteria for registration
under part 47. Because this proposed rule would apply only to aircraft
that are eligible for registration under part 47, the FAA proposes to
satisfy the statutory aircraft-registration requirement by requiring
all small unmanned aircraft subject to this proposed rule to be
registered pursuant to the existing registration process of part 47.
The FAA also proposes to make a single change to part 47 to
accommodate small unmanned aircraft registration. Specifically, small
unmanned aircraft, which can easily be obtained for as low as several
hundred dollars, are significantly smaller assets than manned aircraft,
which can cost hundreds of thousands or millions of dollars. Because
small unmanned aircraft are small assets, the FAA proposes to exempt
small unmanned aircraft which have not previously been registered
anywhere from the regulatory requirements of Sec. 47.15, which were
designed to apply to large-asset manned aircraft.
Thus, under this proposed rule, a small unmanned aircraft would
generally be registered as follows. The aircraft's owner would send the
following items to the FAA: (1) An Aircraft Registration Application
providing information about the aircraft and contact information for
the aircraft owner; (2) evidence of ownership (such as a bill of sale);
and (3) the $5.00 registration fee. If the application and supporting
materials satisfy the criteria of part 47, the FAA would then assign a
registration number (``N'' number) to the aircraft and issue a
Certificate of Aircraft Registration to the applicant. If the aircraft
was last previously registered in the U.S., once the new application
has been sent to the Registry, its second copy (pink copy) may be used
to operate the aircraft for a reasonable time while the application is
being processed and the new certificate issued.
The FAA also notes that a Certificate of Aircraft Registration
issued under part 47 currently expires every three years.\98\ This is
because ownership of the aircraft may change hands or the aircraft
owner could move after registering. A requirement to periodically
reregister the aircraft increases the likelihood that the FAA's
registration database contains the latest information concerning each
registered aircraft. The aircraft owner can easily reregister the
aircraft by submitting to the FAA: (1) An application for registration
renewal containing updated information about the aircraft and its
owner; and (2) a $5.00 reregistration fee.\99\ Because the current
three-year registration expiration provision in part 47 would increase
the likelihood that the FAA's registration database contains the latest
information on small unmanned aircraft and their owners, the FAA
proposes to retain this requirement for small unmanned aircraft
registration.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\98\ See 14 CFR 47.40.
\99\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In addition, the FAA notes that because most manned aircraft are
type-certificated, the FAA currently possesses a significant amount of
information about each aircraft type (as a result of the type-
certification process) that it can use to supplement information in an
individual registration application. This results in the current
registration requirements of part 47 asking for a minimal amount of
information for most manned aircraft.
However, small unmanned aircraft, which would not be type-
certificated under this proposed rule, come in a variety of forms, many
of which are not currently standardized. This situation is likely to
continue as the small UAS market will continue broad innovation until
designs emerge that are well balanced against the tasks found to be
best served by this segment of aviation. To enable the FAA to both
identify particular aircraft against a stated description as well as to
identify and share safety related information as it develops, the FAA
invites comments as to whether small unmanned aircraft owners should be
required to provide additional information during the registration
process. The FAA anticipates that the additional information
requirement imposed on small unmanned aircraft could be similar to the
requirements imposed on amateur-built aircraft under 14 CFR 47.33(c),
as amateur aircraft pose the same lack-of-standardization issues as a
small UAS.
G. Marking
1. Display of Registration Number
Subpart C of 14 CFR part 45 currently requires an aircraft to
display its registration number on the aircraft. This requirement is
intended to allow aircraft identification for oversight purposes. The
number must generally be: (1) Painted on the aircraft or affixed to the
aircraft by some other permanent means; (2) have no ornamentation; (3)
contrast in color with the background; and (4) be legible.\100\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\100\ 14 CFR 45.21(c).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
To increase the likelihood of aircraft identification during
flight, part 45, Subpart C specifies highly visible surfaces on the
aircraft where the aircraft registration number must be displayed.
Those surfaces differ based on the type of aircraft that is used. For
[[Page 9575]]
example, a rotorcraft is required to display its registration number
horizontally on the fuselage, boom or tail.\101\ Conversely, a fixed
wing unmanned aircraft is generally required to display its
registration number on either the vertical tail surfaces or the sides
of its fuselage.\102\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\101\ 14 CFR 45.27(a). Section 45.27(a) also allows the number
to be displayed on both surfaces of the cabin, but an unmanned
aircraft will not have a cabin.
\102\ 14 CFR 45.25(a).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
To ensure maximum visibility, Subpart C also specifies a minimum
size for the registration number display.\103\ For fixed-wing aircraft
and rotorcraft, the registration number display must generally be at
least 12 inches high.\104\ Characters in the display must also be: (1)
Generally two thirds as wide as they are high; (2) formed by solid
lines that are one-sixth as thick as the character is high; and (3)
spaced out so that the space between the characters is at least one-
fourth of the character width.\105\ Because some aircraft subject to
part 45 may be small, Sec. 45.29(f) allows aircraft that are too small
to comply with the size requirements to display the registration number
on the aircraft in as large a manner as practicable.\106\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\103\ 14 CFR 45.29(f).
\104\ 14 CFR 45.29(b)(1) and (3).
\105\ 14 CFR 45.29(c)-(e).
\106\ See 14 CFR 45.29(f).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
This proposed rule would require a small unmanned aircraft to
display its registration number in the manner specified in Subpart C of
part 45. For unmanned aircraft that are not too small to comply with
the display-size requirements discussed above, this proposed rule would
require compliance with all of those requirements. This is because
small unmanned aircraft present the same identification and oversight
concerns as manned aircraft. For example, if a bystander was to observe
a small unmanned aircraft being flown in a dangerous manner, the FAA
would be able to determine the aircraft's owner if the bystander is
able to see the aircraft's registration number. Because the current
requirements in Subpart C of part 45 are intended to provide for the
maximum visibility of an aircraft's registration number, compliance
with those requirements would greatly increase the probability of a
small unmanned aircraft being identified during a small UAS operation.
The FAA acknowledges that some small unmanned aircraft may be too
small to comply with the minimum-display-size requirements of part 45.
However, as mentioned previously, part 45 already contains a provision,
Sec. 45.29(f), that would address this issue by allowing the too-small
aircraft to simply display its registration number in as large a manner
as practicable. Accordingly, the size of the small unmanned aircraft
would not be a barrier to compliance with the provisions of Subpart C
of part 45.
The FAA also notes that, as discussed above, the registration-
display-location requirements of part 45, Subpart C are specific to
different types of aircraft.\107\ Under this proposed rule, the FAA
would expect small unmanned aircraft to comply with the display-
location provisions that apply to the specific type of small unmanned
aircraft being used. For example, rotorcraft small unmanned aircraft
would be expected to comply with the display-location provisions that
are applicable to rotorcraft. Conversely, fixed-wing small unmanned
aircraft would be expected to comply with the provisions that are
applicable to fixed-wing aircraft.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\107\ See, e.g., 14 CFR 45.25(a) and 45.27(a).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The FAA invites comments on whether a small unmanned aircraft
should be required to display its registration number in accordance
with Subpart C of part 45. If compliance with Subpart C should not be
required, what standard should the FAA impose for how a small unmanned
aircraft displays its registration number in order to fulfill its
safety oversight obligation regarding small unmanned aircraft
operations? The FAA invites comments with supporting documentation on
this issue.
2. Marking of Products and Articles
The FAA also considered requiring small unmanned aircraft to comply
with the marking of products and articles requirement of Subpart B of
part 45. This subpart requires the manufacturer of an aircraft or
aircraft component to attach a fireproof identification plate to the
aircraft and/or component containing the manufacturer's name, model
designation, serial number, and, if applicable, the type certificate.
The purpose of these requirements is to allow the FAA to trace the
pertinent aircraft and/or aircraft parts back to the manufacturer if an
issue arises with the aircraft and/or aircraft parts.
The FAA does not believe that requiring small unmanned aircraft
manufacturers to comply with the requirements of Subpart B of part 45
would be cost-justified. Under Executive Orders 12866 and 13563, the
FAA may ``propose or adopt a regulation only upon a reasoned
determination that [the regulation's] benefits justify its costs.''
\108\ As discussed elsewhere in this preamble, the FAA's primary safety
concerns with regard to small UAS operations are: (1) The ability to
``see and avoid'' other aircraft with no pilot on board; and (2) the
operator losing positive control of the small unmanned aircraft. Here,
both of these safety concerns would be mitigated by the other
provisions of this proposed rule. Accordingly, the FAA does not believe
that the safety benefits of requiring small UAS manufacturers to
install fireproof plating with their identification information would
be sufficient to justify the costs of doing so.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\108\ Executive Order 13563, section 1(b) (summarizing and
reaffirming Executive Order 12866).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The FAA invites comments, with supporting documentation, as to the
costs and benefits of mandating compliance with Subpart B of part 45.
The FAA also invites comments, with supporting documentation, on
whether alternative methods of small-UAS manufacturer marking should be
required.
H. Fraud and False Statements
Currently, the U.S. criminal code prohibits fraud and falsification
in matters within the jurisdiction of the executive branch.\109\ The
FAA too may impose civil sanctions in instances of fraud and
falsification in matters within its jurisdiction.\110\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\109\ 18 U.S.C. 1001
\110\ The FAA has exercised this power in 14 CFR 61.59, 67.403,
121.9, and 139.115, which currently impose civil prohibitions on
fraud and false statements made in matters within the FAA's
jurisdiction.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Similarly, in Sec. 107.5(a), this proposed rule would prohibit a
person from making a fraudulent or intentionally false record or report
that is required for compliance with the provisions of this proposed
rule. Proposed Sec. 107.5(a) would also prohibit a person from making
any reproduction or alteration, for a fraudulent purpose, of any
certificate, rating, authorization, record, or report that is made
pursuant to proposed part 107. Finally, proposed Sec. 107.5(b) would
specify that the commission of a fraudulent or intentionally false act
in violation of Sec. 107.5(a) could result in the suspension or
revocation of a certificate or waiver issued by the FAA pursuant to
this proposed rule. This proposed civil sanction would be similar to
the sanctions that the FAA currently imposes on fraudulent and false
statements pursuant to Sec. Sec. 61.59(b), 67.403(c), and 121.9(b).
[[Page 9576]]
I. Oversight
1. Inspection, Testing, and Demonstration of Compliance
The FAA's oversight statutes, codified at 49 U.S.C. 44709 and
46104, provide the FAA with broad investigatory and inspection
authority for matters within the FAA's jurisdiction. Under section
46104, the FAA may subpoena witnesses and records, administer oaths,
examine witnesses, and receive evidence at a place in the United States
that the FAA designates. Under section 44709, the FAA may ``reinspect
at any time a civil aircraft, aircraft engine, propeller, appliance,
design organization, production certificate holder, air navigation
facility, or agency, or reexamine an airman holding a certificate
issued [by the FAA].''
This rule would codify the FAA's oversight authority in proposed
Sec. 107.7. Proposed Sec. 107.7(b) would require the operator, visual
observer, or owner of a small UAS to, upon FAA request, allow the FAA
to make any test or inspection of the small unmanned aircraft system,
the operator, and, if applicable, the visual observer to determine
compliance with the provisions of proposed part 107.
Section 107.7(a) would require an operator or owner of a small UAS
to, upon FAA request, make available to the FAA any document, record,
or report required to be kept by the provisions of proposed part 107.
This would include the operator's unmanned aircraft operator
certificate with a small UAS rating and the certificate of aircraft
registration for the small UAS being operated.
2. Accident Reporting
The FAA notes that UAS is a relatively new industry and that
operators of small UAS may not have prior experience with aviation
regulations or FAA oversight. In addition, because of the newness of
the small UAS industry, the FAA currently does not have the oversight
experience with small UAS that it has with manned aircraft operations.
Accordingly, to ensure proper oversight of small UAS operations, this
proposed rule, in Sec. 107.9, would require a small UAS operator to
report to the FAA any small UAS operation that results in: (1) Any
injury to a person; or (2) damage to property other than the small
unmanned aircraft. The report would have to be made within 10 days of
the operation that resulted in injury or damage to property.\111\ After
receiving this report, the FAA may conduct further investigation to
determine whether any FAA regulations were violated.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\111\ The proposed 10-day timeframe to submit a report is
similar to the 10-day timeframe that is currently required by the
NTSB for accident reporting. See 49 CFR 830.15(a).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The FAA emphasizes that this proposed reporting requirement would
be triggered only during operations that result in injury to a person
or property damage. The FAA invites comments as to whether this type of
accident-reporting should be required. The FAA also invites suggestions
for alternative methods of ensuring compliance with the regulations
governing small UAS operations. The FAA specifically invites comments
as to whether small UAS accidents that result in minimal amounts of
property damage should be exempted from the reporting requirement. If
so, what is the threshold of property damage that should trigger the
accident reporting requirement?
J. Section 333 Statutory Findings
As mentioned previously, in order to determine whether certain UAS
may operate safely in the NAS pursuant to section 333 of Public Law
112-95, the Secretary must find that the operation of the UAS would
not: (1) Create a hazard to users of the NAS or the public; or (2) pose
a threat to national security. The Secretary must also determine
whether small UAS operations subject to this proposed rule pose a
safety risk sufficient to require airworthiness certification.
1. Hazard to Users of the NAS or the Public
Section 333 of Public Law 112-95 requires the Secretary to
determine whether the operation of the UAS subject to this proposed
rule would create a hazard to users of the NAS or the public. As
discussed in the Background section of this preamble, due to their
extremely light weight, small UAS could pose a significantly smaller
public risk than do manned aircraft.
Two primary safety concerns associated with small UAS operations
are: (1) The ability to ``see and avoid'' other aircraft with no pilot
on board; and (2) the operator losing positive control of the small
unmanned aircraft. Here, both of these safety concerns would be
mitigated by the other provisions of this proposed rule. Specifically
by requiring operations to be conducted within visual line of sight;
limiting maximum gross weight of the small unmanned aircraft to be
below 55 pounds; limiting the operating altitude to below 500 feet AGL;
requiring operators to be certificated; defining the area of operation;
and prohibiting operations over any person not directly participating
in the operation, the risk associated with this group of aircraft would
be significantly reduced when compared with other categories of
aircraft that weigh more, fly higher, and faster.
Accordingly, the Secretary proposes to find that small UAS
operations subject to this proposed rule would not create a hazard to
users of the NAS or the public. We invite comments on this proposed
finding.
2. National Security
Section 333 of Public Law 112-95 also requires the Secretary to
determine whether the operation of UAS subject to this proposed rule
would pose a threat to national security. Proposed part 107 would
expand small UAS operations in the NAS to include commercial
operations. Under proposed part 107, these operations would be subject
to specific requirements, such as being able to operate only during
daylight and only within visual line of sight of the operator and, if
applicable, a visual observer. The small unmanned aircraft would also
have to be registered with the FAA and display its FAA-issued
registration marking prominently on the aircraft.
In addition, the operator of the small unmanned aircraft would be
required to obtain an FAA-issued unmanned aircraft operator certificate
with a small UAS rating. The process for obtaining this certificate
would include the same TSA-review procedures that are currently used
under 49 U.S.C. 46111 in order to screen out airman-certificate
applicants who pose a security risk.
Because the above provisions would limit the security risk that
could be posed by small UAS operations subject to this proposed rule,
the Secretary proposes to find that these small UAS operations would
not pose a threat to national security. We invite comments on this
proposed finding.
3. Airworthiness Certification
Finally, section 333(b)(2) of Public Law 112-95 requires the
Secretary to determine whether small UAS operations subject to this
proposed rule pose a safety risk sufficient to require airworthiness
certification. The Secretary has determined that airworthiness
certification should not be required for small UAS subject to this
proposed rule due to their low-risk operational characteristics.
Specifically, as mentioned previously, because of the other provisions
in this proposed rule, the risk associated with small UAS
[[Page 9577]]
subject to this proposed rule is significantly reduced.
The FAA emphasizes that, under this proposed rule, the operator
would not need to determine design conformity or reliability
probabilities when evaluating the airworthiness of small UAS. Instead,
the operator would need to make a determination of whether the small
UAS is in a safe condition during flight operations and ground
operations conducted for the purpose of flight. During preflight and
post flight inspections, a small UAS operator should look for simple
inspection items such as dents, corrosion, mis-alignment, loose wires,
binding controls, loose fasteners, and excessive wear. This simple but
not all-inclusive list will identify most problems that could impact
the airworthiness and reliability of the aircraft.
Another inspection method unique to small UAS that would be
governed by this proposed rule would be a check of the control link.
This check can be accomplished by using the control station to verify
proper flight control deflection prior to flight. The check can also be
used to ensure the flight controls deflect freely, without binding.
Like the aforementioned inspection items, this too is a simple visual
inspection that should not require any specialized training.
Because the proposed airworthiness provisions discussed above would
sufficiently ensure that the small UAS is in a condition for safe
operation and because the other provisions of this rule would ensure
that the risk posed by small unmanned aircraft is significantly smaller
than public risk posed by other groups of aircraft, the Secretary
finds, pursuant to section 333(b)(2) of Public Law 112-95, that
airworthiness certification would be unnecessary for small UAS subject
to this proposed rule. We invite comments on this finding.
IV. Regulatory Notices and Analyses
A. Regulatory Evaluation
Changes to Federal regulations must undergo several economic
analyses. First, Executive Order 12866 and Executive Order 13563 direct
that each Federal agency shall propose or adopt a regulation only upon
a reasoned determination that the benefits of the intended regulation
justify its costs. Second, the Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 (Pub.
L. 96-354) requires agencies to analyze the economic impact of
regulatory changes on small entities. Third, the Trade Agreements Act
(Public Law 96-39) prohibits agencies from setting standards that
create unnecessary obstacles to the foreign commerce of the United
States. In developing U.S. standards, this Trade Act requires agencies
to consider international standards and, where appropriate, that they
be the basis of U.S. standards. Fourth, the Unfunded Mandates Reform
Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4) requires agencies to prepare a written
assessment of the costs, benefits, and other effects of proposed or
final rules that include a Federal mandate likely to result in the
expenditure by State, local, or tribal governments, in the aggregate,
or by the private sector, of $100 million or more annually (adjusted
for inflation with base year of 1995). This portion of the preamble
summarizes the FAA's analysis of the economic impacts of this proposed
rule. Readers seeking greater detail can read the full regulatory
evaluation, a copy of which has been placed in the docket for this
rulemaking.
In conducting these analyses, FAA has determined that this proposed
rule: (1) Has benefits that justify its costs; (2) is an economically
``significant regulatory action'' as defined in section 3(f) of
Executive Order 12866; (3) is ``significant'' as defined in DOT's
Regulatory Policies and Procedures; (4) would have a significant
positive economic impact on a substantial number of small entities; (5)
would not create unnecessary obstacles to the foreign commerce of the
United States; and (6) would not impose an unfunded mandate on state,
local, or tribal governments, or on the private sector by exceeding the
threshold identified above. These analyses are summarized below.
1. Total Benefits and Costs of This Rule
This proposed rule reflects the fact that technological advances in
small unmanned aircraft systems (small UAS) have led to a developing
commercial market for their uses by providing a safe operating
environment for them and for other aircraft in the NAS. In time, the
FAA anticipates that the proposed rule would provide an opportunity to
substitute small UAS operations for some risky manned flights, such as
photographing houses, towers, bridges, or parks, thereby averting
potential fatalities and injuries. It would also lead to more efficient
methods of performing certain commercial tasks that are currently
performed by other methods.
For any commercial operation occurring because this rule is
enacted, the operator/owner of that small UAS will have determined the
expected revenue stream of the flights exceeds the cost of the flights'
operation. In each such case this rule helps enable new markets to
develop. The FAA identified how the proposed rule would improve the
safety of the NAS when small UAS are operated in place of a hazardous
manned operation or a laborer working at heights.
The estimated out-of-pocket cost for a small UAS operator to be
FAA-certified is less than $300. As this proposal enables new
businesses to be established, the private sector benefits would exceed
private sector costs when new entrepreneurs earn a profit. As more
profitable opportunities increase, so will the social benefits.
Therefore, each new small UAS operator will have determined that their
expected benefits exceed their costs. In addition, if the use of a
small UAS replaces a dangerous non-UAS operation and saves one human
life, that alone would result in benefits outweighing the costs of this
proposed rule. The costs are shown in the table in the ``Cost Summary''
section below.
2. Who is potentially affected by this rule?
Manufacturers and operators of small unmanned aircraft systems.
3. Assumptions
Because the commercial small UAS industry is not yet
established and may evolve differently from current expectations, the
FAA determined that a five-year time frame of analysis would be
appropriate.
The base year is 2014.
The FAA uses a seven percent discount rate for the
benefits as prescribed by OMB in Circular A-4.\112\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\112\ http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/circulars_a004_a-4
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Since the year that the proposed rule is published is
unknown, the FAA uses Year 1 as the current year so that the first
discounting occurs in Year 2.
In the small UAS future fleet forecast, the FAA assumes
that 20 percent of the fleet would retire or leave the fleet every
year.\113\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\113\ A copy of the forecast can be found in the rulemaking
docket. The FAA notes that a small UAS could incur a cost for
registration and then retire or leave the fleet during the analysis
interval. The FAA also notes that our small UAS forecast may be
understated if operators choose to own more than one FAA-registered
aircraft (for example, as a backup in case one aircraft is
disabled). To account for this possibility, as a sensitivity
analysis, if there were an additional 20 percent increase in our
small UAS forecast, then the costs in Table 7 and Table 10, found in
the regulatory evaluation accompanying this NPRM, would increase by
20 percent. The FAA requests comments, with supporting
documentation, on this sensitivity analysis.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Because only one operator is required to operate a small
UAS, the FAA assumes that there would be one qualified FAA-approved
operator per
[[Page 9578]]
registered and operating small UAS. Even though 20 percent of the small
UAS equipment leaves the fleet each year, the FAA expects that small
UAS operators, once tested and certificated, would remain employable
and some would take jobs as small UAS operators in the following years
of the analysis interval. Also, operators would incur a cost for
recurrent knowledge testing every 24 months. This will be explained in
detail in the ``Costs'' section below.
The FAA assumes that the failure rate of applicants \114\
taking the small UAS initial and recurrent knowledge based test would
be 10 percent.\115\ However, applicants and operators who fail are
assumed to pass the knowledge test on the second attempt.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\114\ The FAA notes that a person first must apply to become a
small UAS operator. During the application process, this analysis
will refer to a person applying to become a small UAS operator as an
applicant. After the applicant has successfully passed the
application process, this analysis will refer to the person as a
small UAS operator.
\115\ The FAA has not yet created or administered the knowledge
test proposed in the NPRM. However, the weighted average failure
rate for all categories of airman taking knowledge tests in 2013 was
10%. See Appendix 3 of the regulatory evaluation accompanying this
NPRM for details.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Since this proposed rule allows knowledge test centers
(KTC) to administer small UAS operator initial or recurrent knowledge
tests, the FAA assumes that the KTC would collocate themselves with a
Designated Pilot Examiner (DPE), Certificated Flight Instructor (CFI)
or Other Designated Authority to validate an applicant's identity,
accept the knowledge test results and the small UAS operator
application for review and submission to the FAA AFS-760 Airman
Certification Branch for processing.
The cost to administer an FAA approved small UAS knowledge
test, including compliance fees, to a small UAS applicant or operator
is $150.\116\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\116\ http://www.catstest.com/airman-testing-exams/recreational-private-pilot.php
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The FAA estimates that a small UAS operator applicant
would need to travel 19 miles one way to reach their closest KTC
location.\117\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\117\ See ``Travel Expense'' section for methodology and source
information.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The 2014 published IRS variable cost mileage rate of
$0.235 per mile is used to estimate the cost of Vehicle usage.\118\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\118\ http://www.irs.gov/2014-Standard-Mileage-Rates-for-Business,-Medical-and-Moving-Announced
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The FAA assigns the hourly value for personal time to
equal $25.09 for Year 1.\119\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\119\ Source: Revised Departmental Guidance on The Valuation of
Travel time in Economic Analysis (published June 9, 2014). Per this
guidance, median Household income divided by 2,080 hours is used to
establish a wage rate (see Table 3). This wage rate, as noted in
this guidance, serves as an approximate value for leisure time.
Consistent with this guidance wage rates are augmented by 1.2
percent per year to reflect projected annual growth of real median
household income. Year 1 (2012$) wage rates estimates are calculated
as $24.50 * 1.012\2\ = $25.09; Year 2 as $24.50 * 1.012\3\ = $25.39;
Year 3 as $24.50 * 1.012\4\ = $25.70; Year 4 as $24.50 * 1.012\5\ =
$26.01; and Year 5 as $24.50 * 1.012\6\ = $26.32.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The FAA assigns the hourly value for travel time to equal
$24.68 for Year 1.\120\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\120\ Source: Revised Departmental Guidance on The Valuation of
Travel time in Economic Analysis (published June 9, 2014)-Local
Travel (Business). Per this guidance future Travel Time Saving
estimates are also augmented by 1.2 percent per year to reflect
projected annual growth of real median household income. Year 1
(2012$) travel time savings estimates are calculated as $24.10 *
1.012\2\ = $24.68; Year 2 as $24.10 * 1.012\3\ = $24.98; Year 3 as
$24.10 * 1.012\4\ =$25.28; Year 4 as $24.10 * 1.012\5\ = $25.58; and
Year 5 as $24.10 * 1.012\6\ = $25.89. See table 4.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The FAA assigns the hourly value of FAA or KTC clerical
time to $20.06 by calculating the mean for a Level 2 (FG 5/6) Clerical
Support person from the Core Compensation Plan Pay Bands, effective
January 12, 2014 working in the Washington DC locality.\121\ The FAA
then divides the mean of the annual salaries by 2,080 for an hourly
rate.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\121\ https://my.faa.gov/content/dam/myfaa/org/staffoffices/ahr/program_policies/policy_guidance/hr_policies/hrpm/comp/comp_ref/media/core_salary_with_conversion.xls.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The FAA assigns the value of $28.00 as the estimate for
the FAA's cost to register an aircraft. This estimate is based on an
internal cost model developed in September 2014 by the FAA civil
aviation registry to use for managerial estimates.
The FAA uses a $50 fee to validate the identity of an
applicant.
The FAA requests comments, with supporting documentation, on each
of these assumptions and data values.
4. Benefit Summary
The potential benefits from this proposed rule would arise from
improved safety and from opening up new commercial aviation activities.
The FAA currently does not permit commercial activity involving small
UAS due to the potential hazards they could pose to other aircraft and
to the civilian population. This proposed rule would allow certain
types of unmanned aerial observational operations to replace manned
aerial observational operations that are currently being conducted
under potentially hazardous conditions. The proposed rule would also
allow small UAS to replace laborers inspecting high towers or in
certain other hazardous locations. This proposed rule would allow the
creation and development of new industries able to operate with minimal
potential risks to operators and the public.
Specifically, with respect to the potential safety benefits from
substituting small unmanned aircraft for aerial photography, the FAA
reviewed 17 aerial aviation photography accidents and incidents that
occurred between 2005 and 2009. Of these accidents, the FAA determined
that a small UAS could have substituted for the manned operation in two
cases. If the use of a small UAS replaces a dangerous non-UAS operation
and saves one human life, that alone would result in benefits
outweighing the costs of this proposed rule.
The potential benefits would be driven by the market and small UAS
airspace availability. In the Regulatory Evaluation, the FAA explores
only four of the many potential small UAS markets this proposal could
enable. The four potential small UAS markets are:
1. Aerial photography,
2. Precision agriculture,
3. Search and rescue/law enforcement, and
4. Bridge inspection.
The FAA estimates that the proposed rule could not only enable
numerous new industries, but also provide safety benefits and create a
safe operating environment. The FAA has not quantified the specific
benefits due to a lack of data. The FAA invites commenters to provide
data that could be used to quantify benefits of this proposed rule.
5. Cost Summary
Several provisions in the proposed rule would impose compliance
costs on potential commercial small UAS operators. However, the FAA
assumes that commercial small UAS operators would incur these costs
only if they anticipated revenues that would more than offset these
costs. The business decision to enter a previously non-existent market
is borne by each operator who knowingly chooses to operate a small UAS
within the regulated environment of this proposal. In the Regulatory
Evaluation, the FAA estimates these costs by provision. As summarized
in the following table, the FAA estimates the total cost of the
proposed rule for the 5 year period of analysis.
[[Page 9579]]
Total and Present Value Cost Summary by Provision
[Thousands of current year dollars]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
7% P.V.
Type of cost Total costs (000) (000)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Applicant/small UAS operator:
Travel Expense............... $151.7.................. $125.9
Knowledge Test Fees.......... $2,548.6................ 2,114.2
Positive Identification of $434.3.................. 383.7
the Applicant Fee.
Owner:
Small UAS Registration Fee... $85.7................... 70.0
Time Resource Opportunity Costs:
Applicants Travel Time....... $296.1.................. 245.3
Knowledge Test Application... $108.9.................. 90.2
Physical Capability $20.0................... 17.7
Certification.
Knowledge Test Time.......... $1,307.1................ 1,082.9
Small UAS Registration Form.. $220.5.................. 179.7
Change of Name or Address $14.9................... 12.3
Form.
Knowledge Test Report........ $154.9.................. 128.5
Pre-flight Inspection........ Not quantified.......... ...........
Accident Reporting........... Minimal cost............ ...........
Government Costs:
TSA Security Vetting......... $1,026.5................ 906.9
FAA--sUAS Operating $39.6................... 35.0
Certificate.
FAA--Registration............ $394.3.................. 321.8
--------------------------------------
Total Costs.............. $6,803.1................ 5,714.0
------------------------------------------------------------------------
* Details may not add to row or column totals due to rounding.
B. Initial Regulatory Flexibility Determination (IRFA)
The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 (Pub. L. 96-354) (RFA)
establishes ``as a principle of regulatory issuance that agencies shall
endeavor, consistent with the objectives of the rule and of applicable
statutes, to fit regulatory and informational requirements to the scale
of the businesses, organizations, and governmental jurisdictions
subject to regulation. To achieve this principle, agencies are required
to solicit and consider flexible regulatory proposals and to explain
the rationale for their actions to assure that such proposals are given
serious consideration.'' The RFA covers a wide-range of small entities,
including small businesses, not-for-profit organizations, and small
governmental jurisdictions.
Agencies must perform a review to determine whether a rule will
have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small
entities. If the agency determines that it will, the agency must
prepare a regulatory flexibility analysis as described in the RFA.
The FAA believes that this proposed rule would have a significant
impact on a substantial number of entities. Therefore, under section
603(b) of the RFA, the initial analysis must address:
Description of reasons the agency is considering the
action.
Statement of the legal basis and objectives for the
proposed rule.
Description of the record keeping and other compliance
requirements of the proposed rule.
All federal rules that may duplicate, overlap, or conflict
with the proposed rule.
Description and an estimated number of small entities to
which the proposed rule will apply.
Describe alternatives considered.
1. Description of Reasons the Agency Is Considering the Action
The FAA is proposing to amend its regulations to adopt specific
rules to allow the operation of small unmanned aircraft system (small
UAS) operations in the National Airspace System (NAS). These changes
would address the operation of small UAS, certification of their
operators, registration, and display of registration markings. The
proposed requirements would allow small UAS to operate in the NAS while
minimizing the risk they may pose to manned aviation operations and the
general public.
If the proposed rule were adopted, operators would be permitted to
participate in certain commercial activities from which they are
currently prohibited. The proposed requirements are intended to enable
the opportunity for the private sector to develop commercial small UAS
businesses and facilitate legal and safe operations. Currently
commercial activity using a small UAS is prohibited by federal
regulation unless the civil aircraft has an airworthiness certificate
in effect and operations are approved by the FAA on a case by case
basis via an exemption from the pertinent regulations.
2. Statement of the Legal Basis and Objectives for the Proposed Rule
This rulemaking is promulgated under the authority described in the
FAA Modernization and Reform Act of 2012 (Pub. L. 112-95). Section 333
of Public Law 112-95 directs the Secretary of Transportation to
determine whether ``certain unmanned aircraft systems may operate
safely in the national airspace system.'' If the FAA determines,
pursuant to section 333, that certain unmanned aircraft systems may
operate safely in the NAS, then the FAA must ``establish requirements
for the safe operation of such aircraft systems in the national
airspace system.'' \122\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\122\ Public Law 112-95, section 333(c). In addition, Public Law
112-95, section 332(b)(1) requires the FAA to issue ``a final rule
on small unmanned aircraft systems that will allow for civil
operation of such systems in the national airspace system, to the
extent the systems do not meet the requirements for expedited
operational authorization under section 333 of [Pub. L. 112-95].''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
This rulemaking is also promulgated pursuant to 49 U.S.C.
40103(b)(1) and (2), which charge the FAA with issuing regulations: (1)
To ensure the safety of aircraft and the efficient use of airspace; and
(2) to govern the flight of aircraft for purposes of navigating,
protecting and identifying aircraft, and protecting individuals and
property on the ground. In addition, 49 U.S.C. 44701(a)(5)
[[Page 9580]]
charges the FAA with prescribing regulations that the FAA finds
necessary for safety in air commerce and national security.
Finally, the model-aircraft component of this rulemaking is
promulgated pursuant to Public Law 112-95, section 336(b), which
clarifies that the FAA's existing authority, under 49 U.S.C. 40103(b)
and 44701(a)(5), provides the FAA with the power to pursue enforcement
``against persons operating model aircraft who endanger the safety of
the national airspace system.''
3. Description of the Record Keeping and Other Compliance Requirements
of the Proposed Rule
The FAA's statute \123\ prohibits a person from serving as an
airman without an airman certificate. This proposed rule would create a
new airman certificate for small UAS operators to satisfy the statutory
requirement. The airman certificate would be called an unmanned
aircraft operator certificate with a small UAS rating, and in order to
obtain it, a person would have to: (1) Take and pass an aeronautical
knowledge test; and (2) submit an application for the certificate.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\123\ 49 U.S.C. 44711(a)(2)(A).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
To take and pass an aeronautical knowledge test, a person would
have to: (1) Apply to take the test at an FAA-approved Knowledge
Testing Center; (2) spend time taking the test; and (3) obtain an
airman knowledge test report showing that he or she passed the test.
After passing a knowledge test, the person would then apply for the
certificate by: (1) Filling out and submitting an application for the
certificate, which would include a certification stating that the
applicant is physically capable of safely operating a small UAS; and
(2) attaching a copy of the airman knowledge test report to the
application. This proposed rule would also require a small UAS operator
to report to the FAA any accident that results in: (1) Any injury to a
person; or (2) damage to property other than the small unmanned
aircraft.
The FAA's statute also prohibits the operation of an aircraft that
is not registered.\124\ Consequently this proposed rule would require
owners of a small unmanned aircraft to register that aircraft with the
FAA. The owner of a small unmanned aircraft can do this simply by
sending the following items to the FAA: (1) An Aircraft Registration
Application providing information about the aircraft and contact
information for the aircraft owner; (2) evidence of ownership (such as
a bill of sale); and (3) the $5.00 registration fee.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\124\ 49 U.S.C. 44101.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
4. All Federal Rules That May Duplicate, Overlap, or Conflict With the
Proposed Rule
The FAA is unaware that the proposed rule will overlap, duplicate
or conflict with existing federal rules.
5. Description and an Estimated Number of Small Entities To Which the
Proposed Rule Will Apply
The FAA believes that the proposed rule would enable numerous new
industries, while maintaining a safe operating environment in the NAS.
Because the commercial small UAS industry is not yet established
and legal operation of commercial small UAS in the NAS constitutes a
new market, available data for these operations is sparse. Accordingly,
the FAA has not quantified number of small entities to which the
proposed rule would apply because the FAA cannot reasonably predict how
the market will develop for individual commercial uses of small UAS.
With respect to the potential operator costs, the FAA assumes that
each operator would be a new entrant into the commercial market and
that each operator would have one small UAS. The following table shows
the proposed rule's estimated out-of-pocket startup and recurrent
direct compliance costs for a new small UAS operator or owner.
Small UAS Operator Startup and Recurrent Costs
[Current dollars]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Cost
Type of cost -------------------------
Initial Recurrent
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Applicant/small UAS operator: ........... ...........
Travel Expense............................ $9 $9
Knowledge Test Fees....................... 150 150
Positive Identification of the Applicant 50 ...........
Fee......................................
Total applicant/small UAS operator............ 209 159
Owner: ........... ...........
Small UAS Registration Fee................ 5 5
-------------------------
Total Owner........................... 5 5
-------------------------
Total................................. 214 164
------------------------------------------------------------------------
* Details may not add to row or column totals due to rounding.
The FAA does not believe that $214 per operator would be a
significant negative economic impact to small entity operators because
$214 is relatively inexpensive to be licensed for operation of a
commercial vehicle.
The FAA expects this proposed rule would be a significant positive
economic impact because it enables new businesses to operate small UAS
for hire and would stimulate a manufacturing support industry. The FAA
believes that most, if not all, of these new commercial activities
would be conducted by operators of small UAS who are small business
entities. Therefore, the FAA believes that this proposed rule would
have a positive significant impact on a substantial number of entities.
6. Alternatives Considered
The FAA considered both more costly and less costly alternatives as
part of its NPRM. The FAA rejected the more costly alternatives due to
policy considerations and undue burden that would be imposed on small
UAS operators. The less costly alternatives and the FAA's reasons for
rejecting
[[Page 9581]]
those alternatives in the NPRM are discussed below.
Allowing knowledge testing centers to verify ID and accept
airman applications. The FAA decided, as part of its proposal, to limit
positive identification and acceptance of an application to those
persons who are either: (1) Already authorized to accept and sign
airman applications (FAA personnel, DPEs, and ACRs); or (2) are already
required to verify identity under the TSA's regulations (CFIs).
Knowledge testing centers do not fit into either of these categories,
and thus, after considering the alternative of allowing them to accept
airman applications, the FAA decided not to include this alternative in
the NPRM.
Allowing individuals who have been conducting UAS
operations under a COA as a non-military UAS operator to take a
recurrent test instead of an initial test in order to obtain an
unmanned aircraft operator certificate with a small UAS rating.
However, the FAA decided not to include this provision in the proposed
rule because: (1) There is no formally recognized recordation system
for non-military COA pilots as there is for military pilots; and (2)
non-military COA pilots are currently subject to different requirements
than military COA pilots for operations above 400 feet AGL.
Therefore this proposed rule would have a significant positive
economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. The FAA
solicits comments regarding this determination.
C. International Trade Impact Assessment
The Trade Agreements Act of 1979 (Pub. L. 96-39), as amended by the
Uruguay Round Agreements Act (Pub. L. 103-465), prohibits Federal
agencies from establishing standards or engaging in related activities
that create unnecessary obstacles to the foreign commerce of the United
States. Pursuant to these Acts, the establishment of standards is not
considered an unnecessary obstacle to the foreign commerce of the
United States, so long as the standard has a legitimate domestic
objective, such as the protection of safety, and does not operate in a
manner that excludes imports that meet this objective. The statute also
requires consideration of international standards and, where
appropriate, that they be the basis for U.S. standards.
The FAA invites comments on the inclusion of foreign-registered
small unmanned aircraft in this new framework. In particular, FAA
invites comments on foreign experiences with differing levels of
stringency in their UAS regulation. The FAA recognizes that several
other countries have adopted different standards with regard to the
commercial operation of UAS in their respective airspaces. Data from
their experiences regarding safety outcomes and economic activity could
form the basis for studying the effect of these different regulatory
approaches.
D. Unfunded Mandates Assessment
Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-
4) requires each Federal agency to prepare a written statement
assessing the effects of any Federal mandate in a proposed or final
agency rule that may result in an expenditure of $100 million or more
(in 1995 dollars) in any one year by State, local, and tribal
governments, in the aggregate, or by the private sector; such a mandate
is deemed to be a ``significant regulatory action.'' The FAA currently
uses an inflation-adjusted value of $151.0 million in lieu of $100
million. This proposed rule does not contain such a mandate; therefore,
the requirements of Title II of the Act do not apply.
E. Paperwork Reduction Act
The Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3507(d)) requires
that the FAA consider the impact of paperwork and other information
collection burdens imposed on the public. According to the 1995
amendments to the Paperwork Reduction Act (5 CFR 1320.8(b)(2)(vi)), an
agency may not collect or sponsor the collection of information, nor
may it impose an information collection requirement unless it displays
a currently valid Office of Management and Budget (OMB) control number.
This action contains the following proposed information collection
requirements:
Submission of an application for an unmanned aircraft
operator certificate with a small UAS rating;
submission of an application to register a small unmanned
aircraft; and
reporting any accident that results in injury to a person
or damage to property other than the small unmanned aircraft.
Below, we discuss each of these information-collection requirements
in more detail. As required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44
U.S.C. 3507(d)), the FAA has submitted these proposed information
collection amendments to OMB for its review.
1. Obtaining an Unmanned Aircraft Operator Certificate With a Small UAS
Rating
Summary: The FAA's statute \125\ prohibits a person from serving as
an airman without an airman certificate. This proposed rule would
create a new airman certificate for small UAS operators to satisfy the
statutory requirement. The airman certificate would be called an
unmanned aircraft operator certificate with a small UAS rating, and in
order to obtain it, a person would have to: (1) Take and pass an
aeronautical knowledge test; and (2) submit an application for the
certificate.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\125\ 49 U.S.C. 44711(a)(2)(A).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
To take and pass an aeronautical knowledge test, a person would
have to: (1) Apply to take the test at an FAA-approved Knowledge
Testing Center; (2) spend time taking the test; and (3) obtain an
airman knowledge test report showing that he or she passed the test.
After passing a knowledge test, the person would then apply for the
certificate by: (1) Filling out and submitting an application for the
certificate, which would include a certification stating that the
applicant is physically capable of safely operating a small UAS; and
(2) attaching a copy of the airman knowledge test report to the
application.
The above requirements would not result in a new collection of
information, but would instead expand an existing OMB-approved
collection of information that is approved under OMB control number
2120-0021. This collection of information governs information that the
FAA collects to certificate pilots and flight instructors. The above
requirements would increase the burden of this already-existing
collection of information.
Use: The above requirements would be used by the FAA to issue
airman certificates to UAS operators in order to satisfy the statutory
requirement that an airman must possess an airman certificate.
Estimate of Increase in Annualized Burden (there are 7,896 unique
applicants):
[[Page 9582]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP23FE15.003
2. Registering a Small Unmanned Aircraft
Summary: The FAA's statute \126\ prohibits the operation of an
aircraft unless the aircraft is registered. Pursuant to this statutory
prohibition, this proposed rule would require small unmanned aircraft
to be registered with the FAA using the current registration process
found in 14 CFR part 47. In order to register a small unmanned aircraft
with the FAA, the aircraft's owner would have to submit to the FAA an
Aircraft Registration Application providing information about the
aircraft and contact information for the aircraft owner. This
registration would need to be renewed every three years.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\126\ 49 U.S.C. 44101.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The above requirements would not result in a new collection of
information, but would instead expand an existing OMB-approved
collection of information that is approved under OMB control number
2120-0042. This collection of information governs information that the
FAA collects in order to register an aircraft. The above requirements
would increase the burden of this already-existing collection of
information.
Use: The above requirements would be used by the FAA to register
small unmanned aircraft in order to satisfy the statutory requirement
that an aircraft must be registered in order to operate.
Estimate of Increase in Annualized Burden:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP23FE15.004
3. Accident Reporting
Summary: To ensure proper oversight of small UAS operations, this
proposed rule would require a small UAS operator to report to the FAA
any small UAS operation that results in: (1) Any injury to a person; or
(2) damage to property other than the small unmanned aircraft. After
receiving this report, the FAA may conduct further investigation to
determine whether any FAA regulations were violated. This proposed
requirement would constitute a new collection of information. However,
the FAA emphasizes that this proposed reporting requirement would be
triggered only during operations that result in injury to a person or
property damage.
Use: The above requirements would be used by the FAA to ensure
proper oversight of small UAS operations. A report of an accident that
resulted in an injury to a person or property damage may serve to
initiate an FAA investigation into whether FAA regulations were
violated.
Annualized Burden Estimate:
There is one page of paperwork associated with reporting an
accident. The FAA calculated the probability of an accident by dividing
the accident rate for general aviation pilots by the total number of
hours and estimated that an accident would occur .001% of the time.
Applying .001% to the small UAS in the analysis interval shows that the
probability of an accident where property damage, injury, or death
occurs is negligible; therefore the FAA estimates that there are no
costs for this provision.
4. Total Annualized Burden Estimate
The total annualized burden estimate of the information-collection
requirements associated with this proposed rule is as follows:
[[Page 9583]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP23FE15.005
The agency is soliciting comments to--
Evaluate whether the proposed information requirement is
necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency,
including whether the information will have practical utility;
Evaluate the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the
burden;
Enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the
information to be collected; and
Minimize the burden of collecting information on those who
are to respond, including by using appropriate automated, electronic,
mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms
of information technology.
Individuals and organizations may send comments on the information
collection requirement to the address listed in the ADDRESSES section
at the beginning of this preamble by April 24, 2015. Comments also
should be submitted to the Office of Management and Budget, Office of
Information and Regulatory Affairs, Attention: Desk Officer for FAA,
New Executive Office Building, Room 10202, 725 17th Street NW.,
Washington, DC 20053.
F. International Compatibility and Cooperation
In keeping with U.S. obligations under the Convention on
International Civil Aviation, it is FAA policy to conform to
International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO) Standards and
Recommended Practices to the maximum extent practicable. The FAA has
determined that there are no ICAO Standards and Recommended Practices
that correspond to these proposed regulations.
Additionally, Executive Order 13609, Promoting International
Regulatory Cooperation, promotes international regulatory cooperation
to meet shared challenges involving health, safety, labor, security,
environmental, and other issues and to reduce, eliminate, or prevent
unnecessary differences in regulatory requirements. The FAA has
analyzed this action under the policies and agency responsibilities of
Executive Order 13609, and has determined that this action would have
no effect on international regulatory cooperation.
G. Environmental Analysis
FAA Order 1050.1E identifies FAA actions that are categorically
excluded from preparation of an environmental assessment or
environmental impact statement under the National Environmental Policy
Act in the absence of extraordinary circumstances. The FAA has
determined this rulemaking action qualifies for the categorical
exclusion identified in paragraph 312f and involves no extraordinary
circumstances.
H. Regulations Affecting Intrastate Aviation in Alaska
Section 1205 of the FAA Reauthorization Act of 1996 (110 Stat.
3213) requires the Administrator, when modifying 14 CFR regulations in
a manner affecting intrastate aviation in Alaska, to consider the
extent to which Alaska is not served by transportation modes other than
aviation, and to establish appropriate regulatory distinctions. Because
this proposed rule would limit small unmanned aircraft operations to
daylight hours only, it could, if adopted, affect intrastate aviation
in Alaska. The FAA, therefore, specifically requests comments on
whether there is justification for applying the proposed rule
differently in intrastate operations in Alaska.
V. Executive Order Determinations
A. Executive Order 13132, Federalism
The FAA has analyzed this proposed rule under the principles and
criteria of Executive Order 13132, Federalism. The agency has
determined that this action would not have a substantial direct effect
on the States, or the relationship between the Federal Government and
the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among
the various levels of government, and, therefore, would not have
Federalism implications.
B. Executive Order 13211, Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy
Supply, Distribution, or Use
The FAA analyzed this proposed rule under Executive Order 13211,
Actions Concerning Regulations that Significantly Affect Energy Supply,
Distribution, or Use (May 18, 2001). The agency has determined that it
would not be a ``significant energy action'' under the executive order
and would not be likely to have a significant adverse effect on the
supply, distribution, or use of energy.
VI. Additional Information
A. Comments Invited
The FAA invites interested persons to participate in this
rulemaking by submitting written comments, data, or views. The agency
also invites comments relating to the economic, environmental, energy,
or federalism impacts that might result from adopting the proposals in
this document. The most helpful comments reference a specific portion
of the proposal, explain the reason for any recommended change, and
include supporting data. To ensure the docket does not contain
duplicate comments, commenters should send only one copy of written
comments, or if comments are filed electronically, commenters should
submit only one time.
The FAA will file in the docket all comments it receives, as well
as a report summarizing each substantive public contact with FAA
personnel concerning this proposed rulemaking. Before acting on this
proposal, the FAA will consider all comments it receives on or before
the closing date for comments. The FAA will consider comments filed
after the comment period has closed if it is possible to do so without
incurring expense or delay. The agency may change this proposal in
light of the comments it receives.
B. Availability of Rulemaking Documents
An electronic copy of rulemaking documents may be obtained from the
Internet by--
[[Page 9584]]
1. Searching the Federal eRulemaking Portal (http://www.regulations.gov);
2. Visiting the FAA's Regulations and Policies Web page at http://www.faa.gov/regulations_policies or
3. Accessing the Government Printing Office's Web page at http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/.
Copies may also be obtained by sending a request to the Federal
Aviation Administration, Office of Rulemaking, ARM-1, 800 Independence
Avenue SW., Washington, DC 20591, or by calling (202) 267-9680.
Commenters must identify the docket or notice number of this
rulemaking.
All documents the FAA considered in developing this proposed rule,
including economic analyses and technical reports, may be accessed from
the Internet through the Federal eRulemaking Portal referenced in item
(1) above.
List of Subjects
14 CFR Part 21
Aircraft, Aviation safety, Recording and recordkeeping
requirements.
14 CFR Part 43
Aircraft, Aviation safety, Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements.
14 CFR Part 45
Aircraft, Signs and symbols.
14 CFR Part 47
Aircraft, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
14 CFR Part 61
Aircraft, Airmen, Alcohol abuse, Aviation safety, Drug abuse,
Recreation and recreation areas, Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements, Security measures, Teachers.
14 CFR Part 91
Air traffic control, Aircraft, Airmen, Airports, Aviation safety,
Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
14 CFR Part 101
Aircraft, Aviation Safety.
14 CFR Part 107
Aircraft, Airmen, Aviation safety, Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements, Security measures, Signs and symbols, Small unmanned
aircraft, Unmanned aircraft.
14 CFR Part 183
Airmen, Authority delegations (Government agencies).
The Proposed Amendment
In consideration of the foregoing, the Federal Aviation
Administration proposes to amend chapter I of title 14, Code of Federal
Regulations as follows:
PART 21--CERTIFICATION PROCEDURES FOR PRODUCTS AND PARTS
0
1. The authority citation for part 21 is revised to read as follows:
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7572; 49 U.S.C. 106(f), 106(g), 40101 note,
40105, 40113, 44701-44702, 44704, 44707, 44709, 44711, 44713, 44715,
45303; Sec. 333 of Pub. L. 112-95.
0
2. Amend Sec. 21.1 by revising paragraph (a) introductory text to read
as follows:
Sec. 21.1 Applicability and definitions.
(a) Except for aircraft subject to the provisions of part 107 of
this chapter, this part prescribes--
* * * * *
PART 43--MAINTENANCE, PREVENTIVE MAINTENANCE, REBUILDING, AND
ALTERATION
0
3. The authority citation for part 43 is revised to read as follows:
Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(f), 106(g), 40113, 44701, 44703, 44705,
44707, 44711, 44713, 44717, 44725.
0
4. Amend Sec. 43.1 by revising paragraph (b) to read as follows:
Sec. 43.1 Applicability.
* * * * *
(b) This part does not apply to--
(1) Any aircraft for which the FAA has issued an experimental
certificate, unless the FAA has previously issued a different kind of
airworthiness certificate for that aircraft;
(2) Any aircraft for which the FAA has issued an experimental
certificate under the provisions of Sec. 21.191(i)(3) of this chapter,
and the aircraft was previously issued a special airworthiness
certificate in the light-sport category under the provisions of Sec.
21.190 of this chapter; or
(3) Any aircraft subject to the provisions of part 107 of this
chapter.
* * * * *
PART 45--IDENTIFICATION AND REGISTRATION MARKING
0
5. The authority citation for part 45 is revised to read as follows:
Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(f), 106(g), 40103, 40113-40114, 44101-
44105, 44107-44111, 44504, 44701, 44708-44709, 44711-44713, 44725,
45302-45303, 46104, 46304, 46306, 47122.
0
6. Add Sec. 45.9 to subpart B to read as follows:
Sec. 45.9 Small unmanned aircraft systems.
Notwithstanding any other provision of this part, this subpart does
not apply to aircraft subject to part 107 of this chapter.
PART 47--AIRCRAFT REGISTRATION
0
7. The authority citation for part 47 is revised to read as follows:
Authority: 4 U.S.T. 1830; Pub. L. 108-297, 118 Stat. 1095 (49
U.S.C. 40101 note, 49 U.S.C. 44101 note); 49 U.S.C. 106(f), 106(g),
40113-40114, 44101-44108, 44110-44113, 44703-44704, 44713, 45302,
46104, 46301.
0
8. Amend Sec. 47.15 by revising paragraph (a) introductory text to
read as follows:
Sec. 47.15 Registration number.
(a) Number required. An applicant for aircraft registration must
place a U.S. registration number (registration mark) on the Aircraft
Registration Application, AC Form 8050-1, and on any evidence submitted
with the application. There is no charge for the assignment of numbers
provided in this paragraph. This paragraph does not apply to an
aircraft manufacturer who applies for a group of U.S. registration
numbers under paragraph (c) of this section; a person who applies for a
special registration number under paragraphs (d) through (f) of this
section; a holder of a Dealer's Aircraft Registration Certificate, AC
Form 8050-6, who applies for a temporary registration number under
Sec. 47.16; or an owner of a small unmanned aircraft weighing less
than 55 pounds that has not previously been registered anywhere.
* * * * *
PART 61--CERTIFICATION: PILOTS, FLIGHT INSTRUCTORS, AND GROUND
INSTRUCTORS
0
9. The authority citation for part 61 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(f), 106(g), 40113, 44701-44703, 44707,
44709-44711, 45102-45103, 45301-45302.
0
10. Amend Sec. 61.1 by revising paragraph (a) introductory text to
read as follows:
Sec. 61.1 Applicability and definitions.
(a) Except as provided in part 107 of this chapter, this part
prescribes:
* * * * *
0
11. Add Sec. 61.8 to read as follows:
Sec. 61.8 Inapplicability of unmanned aircraft operations.
Any action conducted pursuant to part 107 of this chapter or
Subpart E of part 101 of this chapter cannot be used to meet the
requirements of this part.
0
12. Revise Sec. 61.193 to read as follows:
[[Page 9585]]
Sec. 61.193 Flight instructor privileges.
(a) A person who holds a flight instructor certificate is
authorized within the limitations of that person's flight instructor
certificate and ratings to train and issue endorsements that are
required for:
(1) A student pilot certificate;
(2) A pilot certificate;
(3) A flight instructor certificate;
(4) A ground instructor certificate;
(5) An aircraft rating;
(6) An instrument rating;
(7) A flight review, operating privilege, or recency of experience
requirement of this part;
(8) A practical test; and
(9) A knowledge test.
(b) A person who holds a flight instructor certificate is
authorized to accept an application for an unmanned aircraft operator
certificate with a small UAS rating and verify the identity of the
applicant in a form and manner acceptable to the Administrator.
0
13. Revise Sec. 61.413 to read as follows:
Sec. 61.413 What are the privileges of my flight instructor
certificate with a sport pilot rating?
(a) If you hold a flight instructor certificate with a sport pilot
rating, you are authorized, within the limits of your certificate and
rating, to provide training and endorsements that are required for, and
relate to--
(1) A student pilot seeking a sport pilot certificate;
(2) A sport pilot certificate;
(3) A flight instructor certificate with a sport pilot rating;
(4) A powered parachute or weight-shift-control aircraft rating;
(5) Sport pilot privileges;
(6) A flight review or operating privilege for a sport pilot;
(7) A practical test for a sport pilot certificate, a private pilot
certificate with a powered parachute or weight-shift-control aircraft
rating or a flight instructor certificate with a sport pilot rating;
(8) A knowledge test for a sport pilot certificate, a private pilot
certificate with a powered parachute or weight-shift-control aircraft
rating or a flight instructor certificate with a sport pilot rating;
and
(9) A proficiency check for an additional category or class
privilege for a sport pilot certificate or a flight instructor
certificate with a sport pilot rating.
(b) A person who holds a flight instructor certificate with a sport
pilot rating is authorized to accept an application for an unmanned
aircraft operator certificate with a small UAS rating and verify the
identity of the applicant in a form and manner acceptable to the
Administrator.
PART 91--GENERAL OPERATING AND FLIGHT RULES
0
14. The authority citation for part 91 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(f), 106(g), 1155, 40101, 40103, 40105,
40113, 40120, 44101, 44111, 44701, 44704, 44709, 44711, 44712,
44715, 44716, 44717, 44722, 46306, 46315, 46316, 46504, 46506-46507,
47122, 47508, 47528-47531, 47534, articles 12 and 29 of the
Convention on International Civil Aviation (61 Stat. 1180), (126
Stat. 11).
0
15. Amend Sec. 91.1 by revising paragraph (a) introductory text and
adding paragraph (e) to read as follows:
Sec. 91.1 Applicability.
(a) Except as provided in paragraphs (b), (c), and (e) of this
section and Sec. Sec. 91.701 and 91.703, this part prescribes rules
governing the operation of aircraft within the United States, including
the waters within 3 nautical miles of the U.S. coast.
* * * * *
(e) Except as provided in Sec. Sec. 107.27, 107.47, 107.57, and
107.59 of this chapter, this part does not apply to any aircraft or
vehicle governed by part 103 of this chapter, part 107 of this chapter,
or subparts B, C, or D of part 101 of this chapter.
PART 101--MOORED BALLOONS, KITES, AMATEUR ROCKETS AND UNMANNED FREE
BALLOONS
0
16. The authority citation for part 101 is revised to read as follows:
Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(f), 106(g), 40101 note, 40103, 40113-
40114, 45302, 44502, 44514, 44701-44702, 44721, 46308, Sec. 336(b),
Pub. L. 112-95.
0
17. Amend Sec. 101.1 by adding paragraph (a)(5) to read as follows:
Sec. 101.1 Applicability.
(a) * * *
(5) Any model aircraft that meets the conditions specified in Sec.
101.41. For purposes of this part, a model aircraft is an unmanned
aircraft that is:
(i) Capable of sustained flight in the atmosphere;
(ii) Flown within visual line of sight of the person operating the
aircraft; and
(iii) Flown for hobby or recreational purposes.
* * * * *
0
18. Add subpart E, consisting of Sec. Sec. 101.41 and 101.43, to read
as follows:
Subpart E--Special Rule for Model Aircraft
Sec. 101.41 Applicability.
This subpart prescribes the rules governing the operation of a
model aircraft that meets all of the following conditions as set forth
in section 336 of Public Law 112-95:
(a) The aircraft is flown strictly for hobby or recreational use;
(b) The aircraft is operated in accordance with a community-based
set of safety guidelines and within the programming of a nationwide
community-based organization;
(c) The aircraft is limited to not more than 55 pounds unless
otherwise certified through a design, construction, inspection, flight
test, and operational safety program administered by a community-based
organization;
(d) The aircraft is operated in a manner that does not interfere
with and gives way to any manned aircraft; and
(e) When flown within 5 miles of an airport, the operator of the
aircraft provides the airport operator and the airport air traffic
control tower (when an air traffic facility is located at the airport)
with prior notice of the operation.
Sec. 101.43 Endangering the safety of the National Airspace System.
No person may operate model aircraft so as to endanger the safety
of the national airspace system.
0
19. Add part 107 to read as follows:
PART 107--SMALL UNMANNED AIRCRAFT SYSTEMS
Subpart A--General
Sec.
107.1 Applicability.
107.3 Definitions.
107.5 Falsification, reproduction or alteration.
107.7 Inspection, testing, and demonstration of compliance.
107.9 Accident reporting.
Subpart B--Operating Rules
107.11 Applicability.
107.13 Registration, certification, and airworthiness directives.
107.15 Civil small unmanned aircraft system airworthiness.
107.17 Medical condition.
107.19 Responsibility of the operator.
107.21 Maintenance and inspection.
107.23 Hazardous operation.
107.25 Operation from a moving vehicle or aircraft.
107.27 Alcohol or drugs.
107.29 Daylight operation.
107.31 Visual line of sight aircraft operation.
107.33 Visual observer.
107.35 Operation of multiple small unmanned aircraft systems.
[[Page 9586]]
107.37 Operation near aircraft; right-of-way rules.
107.39 Operation over people.
107.41 Operation in certain airspace.
107.45 Operation in prohibited or restricted areas.
107.47 Flight restrictions in the proximity of certain areas
designated by notice to airmen.
107.49 Preflight familiarization, inspection, and actions for
aircraft operation.
107.51 Operating limitations for small unmanned aircraft.
Subpart C--Operator Certification
107.53 Applicability.
107.57 Offenses involving alcohol or drugs.
107.59 Refusal to submit to an alcohol test or to furnish test
results.
107.61 Eligibility.
107.63 Issuance of an unmanned aircraft operator certificate with a
small UAS rating.
107.65 Aeronautical knowledge recency.
107.67 Knowledge tests: General procedures and passing grades.
107.69 Knowledge tests: Cheating or other unauthorized conduct.
107.71 Retesting after failure.
107.73 Initial and recurrent knowledge tests.
107.75 Military pilots or former military pilots.
107.77 Change of name or address.
107.79 Voluntary surrender of certificate.
Subpart D--Small Unmanned Aircraft Registration and Identification.
107.87 Applicability.
107.89 Registration and identification.
Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(f), 40101 note, 40103(b), 44701(a)(5);
Sec. 333 of Pub. L. 112-95.
Subpart A--General
Sec. 107.1 Applicability.
(a) Except as provided in paragraph (b) of this section, this part
applies to the registration, airman certification, and operation of
civil small unmanned aircraft systems within the United States.
(b) This part does not apply to the following:
(1) Air carrier operations;
(2) Any aircraft subject to the provisions of part 101 of this
chapter;
(3) Any aircraft conducting an external load operation;
(4) Any aircraft towing another aircraft or object; or
(5) Any aircraft that does not meet the criteria specified in Sec.
47.3 of this chapter.
Sec. 107.3 Definitions.
The following definitions apply to this part. If there is a
conflict between the definitions of this part and definitions specified
in Sec. 1.1 of this chapter, the definitions in this part control for
purposes of this part:
Control station means an interface used by the operator to control
the flight path of the small unmanned aircraft.
Corrective lenses means spectacles or contact lenses.
Operator means a person who manipulates the flight controls of a
small unmanned aircraft system.
Small unmanned aircraft means an unmanned aircraft weighing less
than 55 pounds including everything that is on board the aircraft.
Small unmanned aircraft system (small UAS) means 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.
Unmanned aircraft means an aircraft operated without the
possibility of direct human intervention from within or on the
aircraft.
Visual observer means a person who assists the small unmanned
aircraft operator to see and avoid other air traffic or objects aloft
or on the ground.
Sec. 107.5 Falsification, reproduction or alteration.
(a) No person may make or cause to be made--
(1) Any fraudulent or intentionally false record or report that is
required to be made, kept, or used to show compliance with any
requirement under this part.
(2) Any reproduction or alteration, for fraudulent purpose, of any
certificate, rating, authorization, record or report under this part.
(b) The commission by any person of an act prohibited under
paragraph (a) of this section is a basis for denying an application for
certificate, or suspending or revoking the applicable certificate or
waiver issued by the Administrator under this part and held by that
person.
Sec. 107.7 Inspection, testing, and demonstration of compliance.
(a) An operator or owner of a small unmanned aircraft system must,
upon request, make available to the Administrator:
(1) The operator's unmanned aircraft operator certificate with a
small UAS rating;
(2) The certificate of aircraft registration for the small unmanned
aircraft system being operated; and
(3) Any other document, record, or report required to be kept by an
operator or owner of a small unmanned aircraft system under the
regulations of this chapter.
(b) The operator, visual observer, or owner of a small unmanned
aircraft system must, upon request, allow the Administrator to make any
test or inspection of the small unmanned aircraft system, the operator,
and, if applicable, the visual observer to determine compliance with
this part.
Sec. 107.9 Accident reporting.
No later than 10 days after an operation that meets the criteria of
either paragraph (a) or (b) of this section, an operator must report to
the nearest Federal Aviation Administration Flight Standards District
Office any operation of the small unmanned aircraft that involves the
following:
(a) Any injury to any person; or
(b) Damage to any property, other than the small unmanned aircraft.
Subpart B--Operating Rules
Sec. 107.11 Applicability.
This subpart applies to the operation of all civil small unmanned
aircraft systems to which this part applies.
Sec. 107.13 Registration, certification, and airworthiness
directives.
No person may operate a civil small unmanned aircraft system for
purposes of flight unless:
(a) That person has an unmanned aircraft operator certificate with
a small UAS rating issued pursuant to subpart C of this part and
satisfies the requirements of Sec. 107.65;
(b) The small unmanned aircraft being operated has been registered
with the FAA pursuant to subpart D of this part;
(c) The small unmanned aircraft being operated displays its
registration number in the manner specified in subpart D of this part;
and
(d) The owner or operator of the small unmanned aircraft system
complies with all applicable airworthiness directives.
Sec. 107.15 Civil small unmanned aircraft system airworthiness.
(a) No person may operate a civil small unmanned aircraft system
unless it is in a condition for safe operation. This condition must be
determined during the preflight check required under Sec. 107.49 of
this part.
(b) The operator must discontinue the flight when he or she knows
or has reason to know that continuing the flight would pose a hazard to
other aircraft, people, or property.
Sec. 107.17 Medical condition.
No person may act as an operator or visual observer if he or she
knows or has reason to know that he or she has a physical or mental
condition that would interfere with the safe operation of a small
unmanned aircraft system.
[[Page 9587]]
Sec. 107.19 Responsibility of the operator.
(a) The operator is directly responsible for, and is the final
authority as to the operation of the small unmanned aircraft system.
(b) The operator must ensure that the small unmanned aircraft will
pose no undue hazard to other aircraft, people, or property in the
event of a loss of control of the aircraft for any reason.
Sec. 107.21 Maintenance and inspection.
An operator must:
(a) Maintain the system in a condition for safe operation; and
(b) Inspect the small unmanned aircraft system prior to flight to
determine that the system it is in a condition for safe operation.
Sec. 107.23 Hazardous operation.
No person may:
(a) Operate a small unmanned aircraft system in a careless or
reckless manner so as to endanger the life or property of another; or
(b) Allow an object to be dropped from a small unmanned aircraft if
such action endangers the life or property of another.
Sec. 107.25 Operation from a moving vehicle or aircraft.
No person may operate a small unmanned aircraft system--
(a) From a moving aircraft; or
(b) From a moving vehicle unless that vehicle is moving on water.
Sec. 107.27 Alcohol or drugs.
A person acting as an operator or as a visual observer must comply
with the provisions of Sec. Sec. 91.17 and 91.19 of this chapter.
Sec. 107.29 Daylight operation.
No person may operate a small unmanned aircraft system except
between the hours of official sunrise and sunset.
Sec. 107.31 Visual line of sight aircraft operation.
With vision that is unaided by any device other than corrective
lenses, the operator or visual observer must be able to see the
unmanned aircraft throughout the entire flight in order to:
(a) Know the unmanned aircraft's location;
(b) Determine the unmanned aircraft's attitude, altitude, and
direction;
(c) Observe the airspace for other air traffic or hazards; and
(d) Determine that the unmanned aircraft does not endanger the life
or property of another.
Sec. 107.33 Visual observer.
If a visual observer is used during the aircraft operation, all of
the following requirements must be met:
(a) The operator and the visual observer must maintain effective
communication with each other at all times.
(b) The operator must ensure that the visual observer is able to
see the unmanned aircraft in the manner specified in Sec. Sec. 107.31
and 107.37.
(c) At all times during flight, the small unmanned aircraft must
remain close enough to the operator for the operator to be capable of
seeing the aircraft with vision unaided by any device other than
corrective lenses.
(d) The operator and the visual observer must coordinate to do the
following:
(1) Scan the airspace where the small unmanned aircraft is
operating for any potential collision hazard; and
(2) Maintain awareness of the position of the small unmanned
aircraft through direct visual observation.
Sec. 107.35 Operation of multiple small unmanned aircraft systems.
A person may not act as an operator or visual observer in the
operation of more than one unmanned aircraft system at the same time.
Sec. 107.37 Operation near aircraft; right-of-way rules.
(a) Each operator must maintain awareness so as to see and avoid
other aircraft and vehicles and must yield the right-of-way to all
aircraft, airborne vehicles, and launch and reentry vehicles.
(1) In order to maintain awareness so as to see other aircraft and
vehicles, either the operator or a visual observer must, at each point
of the small unmanned aircraft's flight, satisfy the criteria specified
in Sec. 107.31.
(2) Yielding the right-of-way means that the small unmanned
aircraft must give way to the aircraft or vehicle and may not pass
over, under, or ahead of it unless well clear.
(b) No person may operate a small unmanned aircraft so close to
another aircraft as to create a collision hazard.
Sec. 107.39 Operation over people.
No person may operate a small unmanned aircraft over a human being
who is:
(a) Not directly participating in the operation of the small
unmanned aircraft; or
(b) Not located under a covered structure that can provide
reasonable protection from a falling small unmanned aircraft.
Sec. 107.41 Operation in certain airspace.
(a) A small unmanned aircraft may not operate in Class A airspace.
(b) A small unmanned aircraft may not operate in Class B, Class C,
or Class D airspace or within the lateral boundaries of the surface
area of Class E airspace designated for an airport unless the operator
has prior authorization from the Air Traffic Control (ATC) facility
having jurisdiction over that airspace.
Sec. 107.45 Operation in prohibited or restricted areas.
No person may operate a small unmanned aircraft in prohibited or
restricted areas unless that person has permission from the using or
controlling agency, as appropriate.
Sec. 107.47 Flight restrictions in the proximity of certain areas
designated by notice to airmen.
No person may operate a small unmanned aircraft in areas designated
in a Notice to Airmen under Sec. Sec. 91.137 through 91.145, or Sec.
99.7 of this chapter, unless authorized by:
(a) Air Traffic Control (ATC); or
(b) A Certificate of Waiver or Authorization issued by the FAA.
Sec. 107.49 Preflight familiarization, inspection, and actions for
aircraft operation.
(a) Prior to flight, the operator must:
(1) Assess the operating environment, considering risks to persons
and property in the immediate vicinity both on the surface and in the
air. This assessment must include:
(i) Local weather conditions;
(ii) Local airspace and any flight restrictions;
(iii) The location of persons and property on the surface; and
(iv) Other ground hazards.
(2) Ensure that all persons involved in the small unmanned aircraft
operation receive a briefing that includes operating conditions,
emergency procedures, contingency procedures, roles and
responsibilities, and potential hazards;
(3) Ensure that all links between ground station and the small
unmanned aircraft are working properly; and
(4) If the small unmanned aircraft is powered, ensure that there is
enough available power for the small unmanned aircraft system to
operate for the intended operational time and to operate after that for
at least five minutes.
(b) Each person involved in the operation must perform the duties
assigned by the operator.
[[Page 9588]]
Sec. 107.51 Operating limitations for small unmanned aircraft.
An operator must comply with all of the following operating
limitations when operating a small unmanned aircraft system:
(a) The airspeed of the small unmanned aircraft may not exceed 87
knots (100 miles per hour) calibrated airspeed at full power in level
flight;
(b) The altitude of the small unmanned aircraft cannot be higher
than 500 feet (150 meters) above ground level;
(c) The minimum flight visibility, as observed from the location of
the ground control station must be no less than 3 statute miles (5
kilometers); and
(d) The minimum distance of the small unmanned aircraft from clouds
must be no less than:
(1) 500 feet (150 meters) below the cloud; and
(2) 2,000 feet (600 meters) horizontally away from the cloud.
Subpart C--Operator Certification
Sec. 107.53 Applicability.
This subpart prescribes the requirements for issuing an unmanned
aircraft operator certificate with a small UAS rating.
Sec. 107.57 Offenses involving alcohol or drugs.
(a) A conviction for the violation of any Federal or State statute
relating to the growing, processing, manufacture, sale, disposition,
possession, transportation, or importation of narcotic drugs,
marijuana, or depressant or stimulant drugs or substances is grounds
for:
(1) Denial of an application for an unmanned aircraft operator
certificate with a small UAS rating for a period of up to 1 year after
the date of final conviction; or
(2) Suspension or revocation of an unmanned aircraft operator
certificate with a small UAS rating.
(b) Committing an act prohibited by Sec. 91.17(a) or Sec.
91.19(a) of this chapter is grounds for:
(1) Denial of an application for an unmanned aircraft operator
certificate with a small UAS rating for a period of up to 1 year after
the date of that act; or
(2) Suspension or revocation of an unmanned aircraft operator
certificate with a small UAS rating.
Sec. 107.59 Refusal to submit to an alcohol test or to furnish test
results.
A refusal to submit to a test to indicate the percentage by weight
of alcohol in the blood, when requested by a law enforcement officer in
accordance with Sec. 91.17(c) of this chapter, or a refusal to furnish
or authorize the release of the test results requested by the
Administrator in accordance with Sec. 91.17(c) or (d) of this chapter,
is grounds for:
(a) Denial of an application for an unmanned aircraft operator
certificate with a small UAS rating for a period of up to 1 year after
the date of that refusal; or
(b) Suspension or revocation of an unmanned aircraft operator
certificate with a small UAS rating.
Sec. 107.61 Eligibility.
Subject to the provisions of Sec. Sec. 107.57 and 107.59, in order
to be eligible for an unmanned aircraft operator certificate with a
small UAS rating under this subpart, a person must:
(a) Be at least 17 years of age;
(b) Be able to read, speak, write, and understand the English
language. If the applicant is unable to meet one of these requirements
due to medical reasons, the FAA may place such operating limitations on
that applicant's certificate as are necessary for the safe operation of
the small unmanned aircraft;
(c) Pass an initial aeronautical knowledge test covering the areas
of knowledge specified in Sec. 107.73(a); and
(d) Not know or have reason to know that he or she has a physical
or mental condition that would interfere with the safe operation of a
small unmanned aircraft system.
Sec. 107.63 Issuance of an unmanned aircraft operator certificate
with a small UAS rating.
An applicant for an unmanned aircraft operator certificate with a
small UAS rating under this subpart must make the application in a form
and manner acceptable to the Administrator.
(a) The application must include:
(1) An airman knowledge test report showing that the applicant
passed an initial aeronautical knowledge test, or recurrent
aeronautical knowledge test for those individuals that satisfy the
requirements of Sec. 107.75; and
(2) A certification signed by the applicant stating that the
applicant does not know or have reason to know that he or she has a
physical or mental condition that would interfere with the safe
operation of a small unmanned aircraft system.
(b) The application must be submitted to a Flight Standards
District Office, a designated pilot examiner, an airman certification
representative for a pilot school, a certified flight instructor, or
other person authorized by the Administrator. The person accepting the
application submission must verify the identity of the applicant in a
manner acceptable to the Administrator.
Sec. 107.65 Aeronautical knowledge recency.
A person may not operate a small unmanned aircraft system unless
that person has completed one of the following, within the previous 24
calendar months:
(a) Passed an initial aeronautical knowledge test covering the
areas of knowledge specified in Sec. 107.73(a); or
(b) Passed a recurrent aeronautical knowledge test covering the
areas of knowledge specified in Sec. 107.73(b).
Sec. 107.67 Knowledge tests: General procedures and passing grades.
(a) Knowledge tests prescribed by or under this part are given at
times and places, and by persons designated by the Administrator.
(b) An applicant for a knowledge test must have proper
identification at the time of application that contains the
applicant's:
(1) Photograph;
(2) Signature;
(3) Date of birth, which shows the applicant meets or will meet the
age requirements of this part for the certificate sought before the
expiration date of the airman knowledge test report; and
(4) If the permanent mailing address is a post office box number,
then the applicant must provide a current residential address.
(c) The minimum passing grade for the knowledge test will be
specified by the Administrator.
Sec. 107.69 Knowledge tests: Cheating or other unauthorized conduct.
(a) An applicant for a knowledge test may not:
(1) Copy or intentionally remove any knowledge test;
(2) Give to another applicant or receive from another applicant any
part or copy of a knowledge test;
(3) Give assistance on, or receive assistance on, a knowledge test
during the period that test is being given;
(4) Take any part of a knowledge test on behalf of another person;
(5) Be represented by, or represent, another person for a knowledge
test;
(6) Use any material or aid during the period that the test is
being given, unless specifically authorized to do so by the
Administrator; and
(7) Intentionally cause, assist, or participate in any act
prohibited by this paragraph.
(b) An applicant who the Administrator finds has committed an act
prohibited by paragraph (a) of this section is prohibited, for 1 year
after the date of committing that act, from:
(1) Applying for any certificate, rating, or authorization issued
under this chapter; and
[[Page 9589]]
(2) Applying for and taking any test under this chapter.
(c) Any certificate or rating held by an applicant may be suspended
or revoked if the Administrator finds that person has committed an act
prohibited by paragraph (a) of this section.
Sec. 107.71 Retesting after failure.
An applicant for a knowledge test who fails that test may not
reapply for the test for 14 calendar days after failing the test.
Sec. 107.73 Initial and recurrent knowledge tests.
(a) An initial aeronautical knowledge test covers the following
areas of knowledge:
(1) Applicable regulations relating to small unmanned aircraft
system rating privileges, limitations, and flight operation;
(2) Airspace classification and operating requirements, obstacle
clearance requirements, and flight restrictions affecting small
unmanned aircraft operation;
(3) Official sources of weather and effects of weather on small
unmanned aircraft performance;
(4) Small unmanned aircraft system loading and performance;
(5) Emergency procedures;
(6) Crew resource management;
(7) Radio communication procedures;
(8) Determining the performance of small unmanned aircraft;
(9) Physiological effects of drugs and alcohol;
(10) Aeronautical decision-making and judgment; and
(11) Airport operations.
(b) A recurrent aeronautical knowledge test covers the following
areas of knowledge:
(1) Applicable regulations relating to small unmanned aircraft
system rating privileges, limitations, and flight operation;
(2) Airspace classification and operating requirements, obstacle
clearance requirements, and flight restrictions affecting small
unmanned aircraft operation;
(3) Official sources of weather;
(4) Emergency procedures;
(5) Crew resource management;
(6) Aeronautical decision-making and judgment; and
(7) Airport operations.
Sec. 107.75 Military pilots or former military pilots.
(a) General. Except for a person who has been removed from unmanned
aircraft flying status for lack of proficiency or because of a
disciplinary action involving any aircraft operation, a U.S. military
unmanned aircraft pilot or operator or former U.S. military unmanned
aircraft pilot or operator who meets the requirements of this section
may apply, on the basis of his or her U.S. military unmanned aircraft
pilot or operator qualifications, for an unmanned aircraft operator
certificate with small UAS rating issued under this part.
(b) Military unmanned aircraft pilots or operators and former
military unmanned aircraft pilots or operators in the U.S. Armed
Forces. A person who qualifies as a U.S. military unmanned aircraft
pilot or operator or former U.S. military unmanned aircraft pilot or
operator may apply for an unmanned aircraft operator certificate with a
small UAS rating if that person--
(1) Passes a recurrent aeronautical knowledge test covering the
areas of knowledge specified in Sec. 107.73(b); and
(2) Presents evidentiary documents that show:
(i) The person's status in the U.S. Armed Forces;
(ii) That the person is or was a U.S. military unmanned aircraft
pilot or operator.
Sec. 107.77 Change of name or address.
(a) Change of Name. An application to change the name on a
certificate issued under this subpart must be accompanied by the
applicant's:
(1) Operator certificate; and
(2) A copy of the marriage license, court order, or other document
verifying the name change.
(b) The documents in paragraph (a) of this section will be returned
to the applicant after inspection.
(c) Change of address. The holder of an unmanned aircraft operator
certificate issued under this subpart who has made a change in
permanent mailing address may not, after 30 days from that date,
exercise the privileges of the certificate unless the holder has
notified the FAA of the change in address using one of the following
methods:
(1) By letter to the FAA Airman Certification Branch, P.O. Box
25082, Oklahoma City, OK 73125 providing the new permanent mailing
address, or if the permanent mailing address includes a post office box
number, then the holder's current residential address; or
(2) By using the FAA Web site portal at www.faa.gov providing the
new permanent mailing address, or if the permanent mailing address
includes a post office box number, then the holder's current
residential address.
Sec. 107.79 Voluntary surrender of certificate.
(a) The holder of a certificate issued under this subpart may
voluntarily surrender it for cancellation.
(b) Any request made under paragraph (a) of this section must
include the following signed statement or its equivalent: ``I
voluntarily surrender my unmanned aircraft operator certificate with a
small UAS rating for cancellation. This request is made for my own
reasons, with full knowledge that my certificate will not be reissued
to me unless I again complete the requirements specified in Sec. Sec.
107.61 and 107.63.''
Subpart D--Small Unmanned Aircraft Registration and Identification
Sec. 107.87 Applicability.
This subpart prescribes the rules governing the registration and
identification of all civil small unmanned aircraft to which this part
applies.
Sec. 107.89 Registration and identification.
(a) All small unmanned aircraft must be registered in accordance
with part 47 of this chapter.
(b) All small unmanned aircraft must display their nationality and
registration marks in accordance with the requirements of subpart C of
part 45 of this chapter.
PART 183--REPRESENTATIVES OF THE ADMINISTRATOR
0
20. The authority citation for part 183 is revised to read as follows:
Authority: 31 U.S.C. 9701; 49 U.S.C. 106(f), 106(g), 40113,
44702, 45303.
0
21. Amend Sec. 183.23 by revising paragraphs (b) and (c) and adding
paragraph (d) to read as follows:
Sec. 183.23 Pilot examiners.
* * * * *
(b) Under the general supervision of the appropriate local Flight
Standards Inspector, conduct those tests;
(c) In the discretion of the appropriate local Flight Standards
Inspector, issue temporary pilot certificates and ratings to qualified
applicants; and
(d) Accept an application for an unmanned aircraft operator
certificate with a small UAS rating and verify the identity of the
applicant in a form and manner acceptable to the Administrator.
Issued under the authority provided by 49 U.S.C. 106(f), 40101
note; and Sec. 333 of
[[Page 9590]]
Public Law 112-95, in Washington, DC, on February 15, 2015.
Anthony R. Foxx,
Secretary of Transportation.
Michael P. Huerta,
Administrator.
[FR Doc. 2015-03544 Filed 2-18-15; 11:15 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P