[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 241 (Wednesday, December 16, 2015)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 78594-78648]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2015-31750]
[[Page 78593]]
Vol. 80
Wednesday,
No. 241
December 16, 2015
Part VI
Department of Transportation
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Federal Aviation Administration
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
14 CFR Parts 1, 45, 47, et al.
Registration and Marking Requirements for Small Unmanned Aircraft;
Final Rule
Federal Register / Vol. 80 , No. 241 / Wednesday, December 16, 2015 /
Rules and Regulations
[[Page 78594]]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
Federal Aviation Administration
14 CFR Parts 1, 45, 47, 48, 91, and 375
[Docket No.: FAA-2015-7396; Amdt. Nos. 1-68, 45-30, 47-30, 48-1, 91-
338]
RIN 2120-AK82
Registration and Marking Requirements for Small Unmanned Aircraft
AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), Department of
Transportation (DOT).
ACTION: Interim final rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: This action provides an alternative, streamlined and simple,
web-based aircraft registration process for the registration of small
unmanned aircraft, including small unmanned aircraft operated as model
aircraft, to facilitate compliance with the statutory requirement that
all aircraft register prior to operation. It also provides a simpler
method for marking small unmanned aircraft that is more appropriate for
these aircraft. This action responds to public comments received
regarding the proposed registration process in the Operation and
Certification of Small Unmanned Aircraft notice of proposed rulemaking,
the request for information regarding unmanned aircraft system
registration, and the recommendations from the Unmanned Aircraft System
Registration Task Force. The Department encourages persons to
participate in this rulemaking by submitting comments on or before the
closing date for comments. The Department will consider all comments
received before the closing date and make any necessary amendments as
appropriate.
DATES: This rule is effective December 21, 2015. Comments must be
received on or before January 15, 2016.
ADDRESSES: Send comments identified by docket number FAA-2015-7396
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 http://www.regulations.gov, as described in the
system of records notice (DOT/ALL-14 FDMS), which can be reviewed at
http://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: Earl Lawrence, Director, FAA UAS
Integration Office, 800 Independence Avenue SW., Washington, DC 20591;
telephone (202) 267-6556; email [email protected].
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Table of Contents
I. Executive Summary
A. Purpose of the Regulatory Action
B. Summary of the Major Provisions
C. Summary of Costs and Benefits
II. Compliance
III. Good Cause for Immediate Adoption
IV. Comments Invited
V. Authority for this Rulemaking
VI. Background
A. Statutory Requirements Related to Aircraft Registration
B. Regulatory Requirements Pertaining to Aircraft Registration
and Identification
C. Related FAA and DOT Actions
1. Operation and Certification of Small Unmanned Aircraft
Systems notice of proposed rulemaking
2. Clarification of the Applicability of Aircraft Registration
Requirements for Unmanned Aircraft Systems (UAS) and Request for
Information Regarding Electronic Registration for UAS
3. Registration Task Force (Task Force)
VII. Discussion of the Interim Final Rule
A. Applicability
1. Small unmanned aircraft
2. Public Aircraft Operations
3. Trusts and voting trusts
4. Operations in U.S. Airspace
B. Definitions
1. Unmanned Aircraft
2. Small Unmanned Aircraft
3. Small Unmanned Aircraft System (small UAS)
4. Model aircraft
C. Exclusion from the Requirement to Register
D. Eligibility to register
1. Citizenship
2. Commercial activity conducted by non-U.S. citizens
3. Minimum Age to Register
E. Registration Required Prior to Operation
1. Registration Prior to Operation
2. Registration of each aircraft
F. Registration Process
1. Design of Registration System
2. Web-Based Registration Application
3. Information required
4. Fee for registration
G. Certificate of Aircraft Registration
H. Registration Marking
I. Transfer of Ownership
J. Education
K. Compliance Philosophy and Enforcement
L. Privacy
M. Other Methods To Encourage Accountability and Responsible Use
of the National Airspace System
N. Legal Implications of the Registration Requirement
1. Comments addressing Section 336 of the FAA Modernization and
Reform Act of 2012
2. Comments addressing requirements under the Administrative
Procedure Act
3. Comments addressing other legal issues with the proposed
registration requirement
O. Alternatives to Registration
P. Comments Beyond the Scope
Q. Miscellaneous
VIII. Section-by-Section Discussion of the Interim Final Rule
IX. Regulatory Notices and Analyses
A. Regulatory Evaluation
B. Regulatory Flexibility Determination
C. International Trade Impact Assessment
D. Unfunded Mandates Assessment
E. Paperwork Reduction Act
F. International Compatibility and Cooperation
G. Environmental Analysis
X. Executive Order Determinations
A. Executive Order 13132, Federalism
B. Executive Order 13211, Regulations that Significantly Affect
Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use
C. Executive Order 13609, Promoting International Regulatory
Cooperation
XI. How To Obtain Additional Information
A. Rulemaking Documents
B. Comments Submitted to the Docket
C. Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act
I. Executive Summary
A. Purpose of the Regulatory Action
This interim final rule (IFR) provides an alternative process that
small unmanned aircraft owners may use to comply with the statutory
requirements for aircraft operations. As provided in the clarification
of these statutory requirements and request for further information
issued October 19, 2015, 49 U.S.C. 44102 requires aircraft to be
registered prior to operation. See 80 FR 63912 (October 22, 2015).
Currently, the only registration and aircraft identification process
available to
[[Page 78595]]
comply with the statutory aircraft registration requirement for all
aircraft owners, including small unmanned aircraft, is the paper-based
system set forth in 14 CFR parts 45 and 47. As the Secretary and the
Administrator noted in the clarification issued October 19, 2015 and
further analyzed in the regulatory evaluation accompanying this
rulemaking, the Department and the FAA have determined that this
process is too onerous for small unmanned aircraft owners and the FAA.
Thus, after considering public comments and the recommendations from
the Unmanned Aircraft System (UAS) Registration Task Force, the
Department and the FAA have developed an alternative process, provided
by this IFR (14 CFR part 48), for registration and marking available
only to small unmanned aircraft owners. Small unmanned aircraft owners
may use this process to comply with the statutory requirement to
register their aircraft prior to operating in the National Airspace
System (NAS).
The estimate for 2015 sales indicates that 1.6 million small
unmanned aircraft intended to be used as model aircraft are expected to
be sold this year (including approximately 50 percent of that total
during the fourth quarter of 2015). With this rapid proliferation of
new sUAS will come an unprecedented number of new sUAS owners and
operators who are new to aviation and thus have no understanding of the
NAS or the safety requirements for operating in the NAS.
The risk of unsafe operation will increase as more small unmanned
aircraft enter the NAS. Registration will provide a means by which to
quickly identify these small unmanned aircraft in the event of an
incident or accident involving the sUAS. Registration of small unmanned
aircraft also provides an immediate and direct opportunity for the
agency to educate sUAS owners on safety requirements before they begin
operating.
All owners of small unmanned aircraft, including small unmanned
aircraft operated as a model aircraft in accordance with the statutory
requirements for model aircraft operations in section 336 of the FAA
Modernization and Reform Act of 2012, Public Law 112-95, may take
advantage of the new registration process in part 48. The part 47
paper-based registration process will remain available for owners to
register small unmanned aircraft due to financing requirements,
ownership arrangements, or intent to operate a sUAS outside of the
United States. For more information regarding both the statutory
requirements for model aircraft operations and the authorizations that
may be needed for operations that do not satisfy the requirements for
model aircraft, please consult the materials available on the FAA Web
site, including the Know Before You Fly materials, available at
www.faa.gov/uas.
B. Summary of the Major Provisions
Table 1 provides a brief summary of the major provisions of this
IFR.
Table 1--Summary of Major Provisions.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Issue Interim final rule requirement
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Unmanned aircraft covered by the Unmanned aircraft weighing less than 55 pounds and more than 0.55
registration requirement. pounds (250 grams) on takeoff, including everything that is on board
or otherwise attached to the aircraft and operated outdoors in the
national airspace system must register.
Sec. 48.15
Timing of registration................. Owners of small unmanned aircraft must register their aircraft prior to
operation of the sUAS.
Sec. 48.15
Compliance dates....................... December 21, 2015
Any small unmanned aircraft to be used exclusively as model
aircraft that have never been operated.
Small unmanned aircraft to be used in authorized operations as
other than model aircraft continue to use part 47 registration
process.
February 19, 2016
Small unmanned aircraft to be used exclusively as model
aircraft and have been operated by their owner prior to December 21,
2015.
March 31, 2016
Small unmanned aircraft to be used in authorized operations
other than as model aircraft continue to use part 47 registration
process or use part 48 process.
Sec. 48.5
Minimum age to register a small Persons 13 years of age and older are permitted to use the part 48
unmanned aircraft. process to register a small unmanned aircraft. If the owner is less
than 13 years of age, then the small unmanned aircraft must be
registered by a person who is at least 13 years of age.
Sec. 48.25
Registration platform.................. Registration will occur through an online web-based system.
Sec. 48.100(c)
Registration number.................... Each small unmanned aircraft intended to be used other than as a model
aircraft and owned by individuals or other persons, including
corporations, will be issued a Certificate of Aircraft Registration
with a unique registration number.
Sec. 48.110(a)
A Certificate of Aircraft Registration and registration number issued
to an individual intending to use small unmanned aircraft exclusively
as model aircraft, constitutes registration for those small unmanned
aircraft owned by that individual that are intended to be used
exclusively as model aircraft.
Sec. 48.115(a)
Registration information............... Required information from persons registering small unmanned aircraft
intended to be used as other than model aircraft.
Applicant name or name of authorized representative.
Applicant physical address (and mailing address if different
than physical address).
Applicant e-mail address or email address of authorized
representative.
Aircraft manufacturer and model name, and serial number, if
available.
Other information as required by the Administrator.
Required information from individuals registering small unmanned
aircraft intended to be used exclusively as model aircraft.
Applicant name.
Applicant physical address (and mailing address if different
than physical address).
[[Page 78596]]
Applicant e-mail address.
Other information as required by the Administrator.
Sec. 48.100
Registration fee....................... Persons intending to use the small unmanned aircraft other than as
model aircraft.
$5 to register each aircraft.
Individuals intending to use the small unmanned aircraft exclusively as
model aircraft.
$5 to register an individual's fleet of small unmanned
aircraft.
Sec. 48.30
Delivery of Certificate of Aircraft Upon completion of the registration process, the Certificate of
Registration. Aircraft registration will be delivered to the aircraft owner via the
same web-based platform used to register the aircraft.
Sec. 48.100(d)
Information contained on the Small unmanned aircraft owner name, issue date and registration number.
Certificate of Aircraft Registration.
Registration renewal and fee........... A Certificate of Aircraft Registration issued in accordance with part
48 is effective once the registration process is complete and must be
renewed every three years.
The fee for renewal of a Certificate of Aircraft Registration is $5.
Sec. Sec. 48.110(c), 48.115(c)
Marking................................ All small unmanned aircraft must display a unique identifier.
A unique identifier is the FAA-issued registration number.
The Administrator may authorize the use of the small unmanned
aircraft serial number.
Sec. 48.200
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
C. Summary of Costs and Benefits
In order to implement the new streamlined, web-based system
described in this IFR, the FAA will incur costs to develop, implement,
and maintain the system. Small UAS owners will require time to register
and mark their aircraft, and that time has a cost. The total of
government and registrant resource cost for small unmanned aircraft
registration and marking under this new system is $56 million ($46
million present value at 7 percent) through 2020.
In evaluating the impact of this interim final rule, we compare the
costs and benefits of the IFR to a baseline consistent with existing
practices: for modelers, the exercise of discretion by FAA (not
requiring registration) and continued broad public outreach and
educational campaign, and for non-modelers, registration via part 47 in
the paper-based system. Given the time to register aircraft under the
paper-based system and the projected number of sUAS aircraft, the FAA
estimates the cost to the government and non-modelers would be about
$383 million. The resulting cost savings to society from this IFR
equals the cost of this baseline policy ($383 million) minus the cost
of this IFR ($56 million), or about $327 million ($259 million in
present value at a 7 percent discount rate). These cost savings are the
net quantified benefits of this IFR.
II. Compliance
Any small unmanned aircraft operated exclusively as a model
aircraft by its current owner prior to December 21, 2015 must be
registered no later than February 19, 2016. The delayed compliance date
provides a period of time to bring the existing population of small
unmanned aircraft owners into compliance as it is not reasonable to
expect that all existing small unmanned aircraft owners will register
their aircraft immediately upon the effective date of this rule.
All other small unmanned aircraft intended to be used exclusively
as model aircraft (i.e., for hobby and recreational purposes in
accordance with the requirements of section 336 of Pub. L. 112-95)--
newly purchased or never before used--must be registered prior to the
first operation outdoors. Thus, any small unmanned aircraft purchased,
received as a gift, or otherwise acquired on or after December 21,
2015, and intended to be used exclusively as a model aircraft must be
registered prior to operation.
Currently, small unmanned aircraft operated as other than model
aircraft (i.e., for operations for non-hobby or non-recreational
purposes or as a public aircraft) must continue to complete the part 47
registration process in accordance with the conditions and limitations
of exemptions issued under section 333 of Public Law 112-95. As
exemplified by the growing number of petitions for exemption, the
agency expects to see a continued high level of demand for registration
of aircraft used for purposes other than model aircraft once the
Operation and Certification of Small Unmanned Aircraft Systems notice
of proposed rulemaking (the ``sUAS Operation and Certification NPRM'')
is finalized.\1\ The small unmanned aircraft registration system
established by this final rule will be able to receive and process
applications for Certificates of Aircraft Registration for aircraft
operating pursuant to an exemption issued under section 333 of Public
Law 112-95 beginning March 31, 2016. Thus, beginning on March 31, 2016,
the agency will allow small unmanned aircraft operating pursuant to an
exemption to use the new part 48 registration requirements in place of
part 47, as well as aircraft used in operations authorized under the
sUAS Operation and Certification rulemaking, once the rule is
finalized.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ 80 FR 9544 (Feb. 23, 2015).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
III. Good Cause for Immediate Adoption
Section 553(b)(3)(B) of the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) (5
U.S.C.) authorizes agencies to dispense with notice and comment
procedures for rules when the agency for ``good cause'' finds that
those procedures are ``impracticable, unnecessary, or contrary to the
public interest.'' Under this section, an agency, upon finding good
cause, may issue a final rule without seeking comment prior to the
rulemaking.
The Secretary and the Administrator recently affirmed that all
unmanned aircraft, including model aircraft, are aircraft consistent
with congressional direction in Title III, Subtitle B of Public Law
112-95 and the existing definition of aircraft in title 49 of the
United States Code. 49 U.S.C. 40102. As such, in accordance with 49
U.S.C 44101(a) and
[[Page 78597]]
as further prescribed in 14 CFR part 47, registration is required prior
to operation. See 80 FR 63912, 63913 (October 22, 2015). Aircraft
registration is necessary to ensure personal accountability among all
users of the NAS. See id. With the current unprecedented proliferation
of new sUAS, registration allows the FAA a direct and immediate
opportunity to educate sUAS owners. Aircraft registration also allows
the FAA and law enforcement agencies to address non-compliance by
providing the means by which to identify an aircraft's owner and
operator.
Congress has also directed the FAA to ``develop plans and policy
for the use of the navigable airspace and assign by regulation or order
the use of the airspace necessary to ensure the safety of aircraft and
the efficient use of airspace.'' 49 U.S.C. 40103(b)(1). Congress has
further directed the FAA to ``prescribe air traffic regulations on the
flight of aircraft (including regulations on safe altitudes)'' for
navigating, protecting, and identifying aircraft; protecting
individuals and property on the ground; using the navigable airspace
efficiently; and preventing collision between aircraft, between
aircraft and land or water vehicles, and between aircraft and airborne
objects. 49 U.S.C. 40103(b)(2).
The FAA estimates that in calendar year 2014, 200,000 small
unmanned aircraft were operated in the NAS in model aircraft
operations. During this period, the FAA received 238 reports of
potentially unsafe UAS operations. The estimate for 2015 sales
indicates that 1.6 million small unmanned aircraft intended to be used
as model aircraft are expected to be sold this year (including
approximately 50 percent of that total during the fourth quarter of
2015).
For 2016, the FAA estimates sales of more than 600,000 sUAS
intended to be used for commercial purposes.\2\ Additionally, as
evidenced by recent FAA enforcement action against SkyPan
International,\3\ the Department and the FAA have become aware that
there may be commercial operators who may be risking operating without
the requisite authority.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ This forecast is based on a largely unconstrained operating
environment.
\3\ FAA Press Release, ``FAA Proposes $1.9 Million Civil Penalty
Against SkyPan International for Allegedly Unauthorized Unmanned
Aircraft Operations,'' available at http://www.faa.gov/news/press_releases/news_story.cfm?newsId=19555.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Since February 2015, reports of potentially unsafe UAS operations
have more than doubled, and many of these reports indicated that the
risk to manned aviation or people and property on the ground was
immediate. For example, the agency has received reports of unmanned
aircraft at high altitudes in congested airspace, unmanned aircraft
operations near passenger-carrying aircraft or major airports,\4\ and
interfering with emergency response operations such as efforts to
combat wildfires.\5\ As recently as August 2015, the FAA investigated
reports by four pilots who spotted an unmanned aircraft flying between
eight and thirteen miles from the approach to Newark Liberty
International Airport.\6\ The FAA also investigated a similar incident
at John F. Kennedy International Airport in August.\7\ The risk of
unsafe operation will increase as more small unmanned aircraft enter
the NAS, and are flown by individuals who have little to no knowledge
of airspace restrictions or safety implications.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ See, e.g., Keith Laing, Feds investigating drone sighting
near Newark airport, The Hill, Aug. 10, 2015, http://thehill.com/policy/transportation/250731-feds-investigating-drone-sighting-near-newark-airport; FAA Investigating Close Calls with Drones Near JFK
Airport, Albany Business Review, Nov. 20, 2014, available at 2014
WLNR 32783307.
\5\ See, e.g., Associated Press, Drones Interfering with
Emergency Wildfire Responders, CBSNEWS.com, Aug. 10, 2015, http://www.cbsnews.com/news/drones-interfering-with-emergency-wildfire-responders (``The U.S. Forest Service has tallied 13 wildfires in
which suspected drones interfered with firefighting aircraft this
year . . . up from four fires last year . . . .); Polly Mosendz,
Drones Interfere With Firefighters Battling California Wildfire,
Newsweek, June 26, 2015, http://www.newsweek.com/drones-interfere-firefighters-battling-california-wildfire-347774.
\6\ See Keith Laing, Feds investigating drone sighting near
Newark airport, The Hill, Aug. 10, 2015, http://thehill.com/policy/transportation/250731-feds-investigating-drone-sighting-near-newark-airport.
\7\ See FAA Investigating Close Calls with Drones Near JFK
Airport, Albany Business Review, Nov. 20, 2014, available at 2014
WLNR 32783307.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Over the past several months, the reports of unauthorized and
potentially unsafe UAS operations have escalated at an increasing rate.
There is good reason to believe that the numbers of incidents will
continue to rise substantially with the projected rapid rise in UAS
sales in the coming months. The following tables show the number of
reports received during 2014 and 2015.
Table 2--Unmanned Aircraft Reports, 2014
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2014 Unmanned aircraft reports
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Month Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sept Oct Nov Dec Total
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Count............................................ 0 1 2 5 11 16 36 30 41 41 33 22 238
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Table 3--Unmanned Aircraft Reports, 2015
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2015 Unmanned aircraft reports
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Month Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sept Oct Nov Total
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Count........................................... 26 50 85 64 95 132 128 193 127 137 96 1133
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* As of December 9, 2015.
Specific examples of UAS events include:
June 17, 2015: Near the surrounding area of Big Bear City,
CA, a fire erupted, quickly spreading and causing significant damage.
By June 24, 2015, all surrounding affected areas were evacuated, 20,875
acres of land had been destroyed, and the fire was only 26% contained.
Although the FAA issued a temporary flight restriction for the area
surrounding the fire, unmanned aircraft penetrated the airspace and
grounded all airborne firefighting efforts in support of continued fire
containment. This event resulted in two reported evasive-action events,
and forced the grounding of 4 responding aircraft over a period of two
and a half hours before airborne firefighting efforts could resume.
Before landing, a DC-10 tanker plane diverted to a separate fire in
Nevada to drop its fire retardant, while the remaining smaller planes
were forced to dump fire retardant around the immediate area due to
landing weight restrictions.\8\ Officials
[[Page 78598]]
said the failed mission cost between $10,000 and $15,000. This estimate
only reflects operational costs and does not reflect the additional
damage caused to property by the delay in being able to combat the
fires.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\8\ Lake Fire Grew After Private Drone Flight Disrupted Air
Flights, Los Angeles Times, June 25, 2015, available at http://www.latimes.com/local/lanow/la-me-ln-wildfires-southern-california-20150625-story.html.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
July 17, 2015: A fire began in California near Interstate
15, a highway that runs between Los Angeles and Las Vegas. Due to hot,
40 mile per hour winds, the fire spread at a rapid pace. The Air Attack
Officer, upon arrival, observed small unmanned aircraft activity
operating contrary to a temporary flight restriction in the area. This
resulted in aircraft being removed from the area for a period of twenty
minutes. The delay of 20 minutes in aircraft response was critical in
the growth of the fire. With the heavy aviation response on the scene
of the fire, Air Attack Officers estimate this fire could have been
stopped at less than 100 acres if the small unmanned aircraft had not
interfered by penetrating the airspace.\9\ A total of eighteen vehicles
and two trucks were destroyed by fire.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\9\ SAFECOM (2015, July 18). Incident Report. Retrieved November
13, 2015 from https://www.safecom.gov/searchone.asp?ID=19694.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
September 3, 2015: An unmanned aircraft was flown into
Louis Armstrong Stadium, which is located within 5 miles of LaGuardia
Airport, during a U.S. Open tennis match. The unmanned aircraft crashed
in an empty section of the stands.\10\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\10\ Drone Crash at U.S. Open, New York City Teacher Arrested,
NPR, September 4, 2015, available at http://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2015/09/04/437539727/drone-crash-at-u-s-open-new-york-city-teacher-arrested.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
October 26, 2015: An unmanned aircraft flew into primary
conductors bringing down one span of power line in West Hollywood,
California. The incident report from Southern California Edison
indicates that initially 640 customers were impacted.\11\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\11\ Incident report from Robert Laffoon-Villegas, media
relations, Southern California Edison, provided November 13, 2015.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
January 26, 2015: An unmanned aircraft operator crashed
his unmanned aircraft on the grounds of the White House. The flight
occurred in the White House prohibited flight zone, P56.\12\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\12\ A Drone, Too Small for Radar to Detect, Rattles the White
House. New York Times, Jan. 26, 2015, available at http://www.nytimes.com/2015/01/27/us/white-house-drone.html.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
September 5, 2015: A University of Kentucky student flew
an unmanned aircraft directly into the campus' stadium during the
school's season-opening football game.\13\ No injuries were reported.
The unmanned aircraft, which had hovered near parachuting military
skydivers, crashed in the suite level of Commonwealth Stadium. The
Kentucky campus police chief told a news conference that the same
student operated an unmanned aircraft over a soccer match the previous
week.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\13\ Student Charged with Endangerment After Drone Crashes into
Stadium, Ars Technica, September 11, 2015, available at http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2015/09/student-charged-with-endangerment-after-drone-crashes-into-football-stadium/.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
September 12, 2015: Debris from an unmanned aircraft that
had fallen near bystanders cut and bruised an 11-month-old girl in a
stroller during an outdoor movie screening in Pasadena, California. The
Pasadena Police Department said a 24-year-old man lost control of his
small unmanned aircraft, causing it to crash to the ground. The 11-
month-old received injuries to her head. She was treated at Huntington
Memorial Hospital and then released.\14\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\14\ Fallen Drone Injures 11-mointh old near Pasadena City Hall,
Pasadena Star News, September 15, 2015 available at http://www.pasadenastarnews.com/general-news/20150915/falling-drone-injures-11-month-old-near-pasadena-city-hall.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
During the last quarter of this calendar year, approximately
800,000 new sUAS are expected to enter the system and begin operating.
In 2016, the FAA expects sales of an additional 1.9 million small
unmanned aircraft used as model aircraft. The FAA also expects sales of
600,000 aircraft used for other than model purposes, after the
Operation and Certification of Small Unmanned Aircraft Systems notice
of proposed rulemaking (the ``sUAS Operation and Certification NPRM'')
is finalized.\15\ Model aircraft sales alone are expected to grow by 23
percent each year for the next 5 years.\16\ Sales for sUAS used for
commercial applications will rapidly accelerate as well, with different
growth rates in different applications. Sales are forecast to grow from
very few sUAS employed commercially today, to nearly 11 million units
by 2020 (about 40% of total units sold that year).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\15\ 80 FR 9544 (Feb. 23, 2015).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Many of the owners of these new sUAS may have no prior aviation
experience and have little or no understanding of the NAS, let alone
knowledge of the safe operating requirements and additional
authorizations required to conduct certain operations. Aircraft
registration provides an immediate and direct opportunity for the
agency to engage and educate these new users prior to operating their
unmanned aircraft and to hold them accountable for noncompliance with
safe operating requirements, thereby mitigating the risk associated
with the influx of operations. In light of the increasing reports and
incidents of unsafe incidents, rapid proliferation of both commercial
and model aircraft operators, and the resulting increased risk, the
Department has determined it is contrary to the public interest to
proceed with further notice and comment rulemaking regarding aircraft
registration for small unmanned aircraft. To minimize risk to other
users of the NAS and people and property on the ground, it is critical
that the Department be able to link the expected number of new unmanned
aircraft to their owners and educate these new owners prior to
commencing operations.
In addition to the safety justifications that support the immediate
adoption of this rule, the FAA Aircraft Registration Branch (the
Registry) will be unable to quickly process the total volume of
expected small unmanned aircraft registration applications for existing
unmanned aircraft and the proliferation of newly purchased unmanned
aircraft. Thus, the FAA must implement a registration system that
allows the agency greater flexibility in accommodating this expected
growth.
In addition, the existing registration system requirements are
incongruous with the characteristics of many of the small unmanned
aircraft, small unmanned aircraft ownership, and small unmanned
aircraft operations. For example, small unmanned aircraft are not
required to be type certificated, may cost very little, making them
widely accessible, and may have operating limitations that could affect
the range of their operations. As reflected in greater detail in the
regulatory evaluation supporting this rulemaking, the total costs for
using the paper-based registry, for both the small unmanned aircraft
owners and for the FAA, were projected to exceed $775M over a 5-year
period. The Department has determined it would be impracticable to
require all small unmanned aircraft owners to use this system and that
a stream-lined, web-based alternative is necessary to accommodate this
population and ensure operations may commence in a safe and timely
manner.
The streamlined registration process provided in this IFR will
allow the agency to complete in the near-term the registration of
existing and new small unmanned aircraft to be operated exclusively as
model aircraft, where the FAA expects the largest growth in the coming
months. In the spring of 2016, the FAA will open the streamlined
registration process to small unmanned
[[Page 78599]]
aircraft used for purposes other than as model aircraft. By first
addressing the registration of new small unmanned aircraft to be
operated exclusively as model aircraft, the FAA expects to provide
relief from the existing registration process to the largest population
of new small unmanned aircraft operators while still realizing the
fundamental goal of identification of small unmanned aircraft owners
responsible for the aircraft operation.
Therefore, the FAA has determined that it is impracticable and
contrary to the public interest in ensuring the safety of the NAS and
people and property on the ground to proceed with further notice and
comment on aircraft registration requirements for small unmanned
aircraft before implementing the streamlined registry system
established by this rule. As more small unmanned aircraft enter the
NAS, the risk of unsafe operations will increase without a means by
which to identify these small unmanned aircraft in the event of an
incident or accident. Registration will also provide an immediate and
direct avenue for educating users regarding safe and responsible use of
sUAS. The public interest served by the notice and comment process is
outweighed by the significant increase in risk that the public will
face with the immediate proliferation of new small unmanned aircraft
that will be introduced into the NAS in the weeks ahead.
In developing the IFR, the Department has considered the public
comments regarding UAS registration received in response to the
Operation and Certification of Small UAS NPRM, the Request for
Information published in the Federal Register on October 22, 2015, and
the recommendations from the UAS Registration Task Force. Although we
have considered these comments in developing this IFR, the Department
will consider additional comments received following publication of
this IFR and make any necessary adjustments in the final rule. At this
time however, due to the reasons set forth above, providing another
opportunity for notice and comment in advance of this rule going into
effect would be contrary to the public interest and impracticable.
Additionally, the APA requires agencies to delay the effective date
of regulations for 30 days after publication, unless the agency finds
good cause to make the regulations effective sooner. See 5 U.S.C.
553(d). Good cause exists for making this regulation effective less
than 30 days from the date of publication because it relieves a
significant number of owners from the burden of complying with the
paper-based, time-consuming part 47 registration process. It also is
necessary to address immediate and ongoing safety risk identified in
the discussion of above regarding good cause for forgoing notice and
comment.
IV. Comments Invited
Prior to the issuance of this IFR, the Department and the FAA
solicited public comment on the aircraft registration process for small
unmanned aircraft through the sUAS Operation and Certification NPRM and
a request for information issued on October 19, 2015. In developing
this IFR, the agency has considered comments received in response to
these requests.
In addition, consistent with the Regulatory Policies and Procedures
of the Department of Transportation (DOT) (44 FR 11034; Feb. 26, 1979),
which provide that to the maximum extent possible, operating
administrations for the DOT should provide an opportunity for public
comment on regulations issued without prior notice, the Department
requests comment on this IFR. The Department encourages persons to
participate in this rulemaking by submitting comments containing
relevant information, data, or views. The Department will consider
comments received on or before the closing date for comments. The
Department will consider late filed comments to the extent practicable.
This IFR may be amended based on comments received.
V. Authority for This Rulemaking
The FAA's authority to issue rules on aviation safety is found in
Title 49 of the United States Code. Subtitle I, Section 106 describes
the authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII, Aviation
Programs, describes in more detail the scope of the agency's authority.
This rulemaking is promulgated under the authority described in 49
U.S.C. 106(f), which establishes the authority of the Administrator to
promulgate regulations and rules; and 49 U.S.C. 44701(a)(5), which
requires the Administrator to promote safe flight of civil aircraft in
air commerce by prescribing regulations and setting minimum standards
for other practices, methods, and procedures necessary for safety in
air commerce and national security.
This rule is also promulgated pursuant to 49 U.S.C. 44101-44106 and
44110-44113 which require aircraft to be registered as a condition of
operation and establish the requirements for registration and
registration processes.
Additionally, this rulemaking is promulgated pursuant to the
Secretary's authority in 49 U.S.C. 41703 to permit the operation of
foreign civil aircraft in the United States.
VI. Background
A. Statutory Requirements Related to Aircraft Registration
For purposes of the statutory provisions in part A (Air Commerce
and Safety) of subtitle VII (Aviation Programs) of title 49 of the
United States Code (49 U.S.C.), title 49 defines ``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 under title 49.
In Public Law 112-95, Congress confirmed that unmanned aircraft,
including those used for recreation or hobby purposes, are aircraft
consistent with the statutory definition set forth in 49 U.S.C.
40102(a)(6). See Public Law 112-95 sections 331(8) and 336 (defining an
unmanned aircraft as ``an aircraft that is operated without the
possibility of direct human intervention from within or on the
aircraft'' and a model aircraft as ``an unmanned aircraft that is
capable of sustained flight in the atmosphere, flown within visual line
of sight of the person operating the aircraft, and flown for hobby or
recreational purposes.''); see also Administrator v. Pirker, NTSB Order
No. EA-5730 at 12 (Nov. 17, 2014) (affirming that the statutory
definition of aircraft is clear and unambiguous and ``includes any
aircraft, manned or unmanned, large or small.'').
Subject to certain exceptions, aircraft must be registered prior to
operation. See 49 U.S.C. 44101-44103. Upon registration, the
Administrator must issue a certificate of registration to the aircraft
owner. See 49 U.S.C. 44103. Because small UAS, including model
aircraft, involve the operation of ``aircraft,'' the Secretary and the
Administrator clarified that the statutory and regulatory aircraft
registration requirements apply. See 80 FR 63912, October 22, 2015.
B. Regulatory Requirements Pertaining to Aircraft Registration and
Identification
The regulatory requirements pertaining to aircraft registration
serve several purposes. In order to operate in the NAS, the FAA must
ensure not only that aircraft operators are aware of the system in
which they are operating, but
[[Page 78600]]
also that the agency has a means to identify and track an aircraft,
including unmanned aircraft, to its operator. One means to accomplish
this is through aircraft registration and marking.
Aircraft registration and marking are essential elements in the
regulatory structure that provides for safe and orderly aircraft
activity within the NAS because registration ensures accountability
among its users. The registration number provides a link to information
about the aircraft and the owner responsible for its operations.
Aircraft registration information often has a direct and immediate
impact on safety-related issues. For example, aircraft registration
provides the FAA and law enforcement agencies an invaluable tool during
inspections and investigations of inappropriate or prohibited behavior,
during emergency situations and for purposes of sharing safety
information. The Registry also serves as a valuable tool in enabling
further research and analysis.
Additionally, the aircraft registration requirements in part 47
together with the requirements pertaining to the recording of aircraft
title and security documents in part 49 coalesce to establish a filing
and recording system for the collection of ownership and financial
interests in aircraft. This system supports the aviation industry by
providing public notice of interests in aircraft in a reviewable
format, generally to support the confidence or willingness of banks and
others to provide financing for the development of the U.S. aviation
industry and to promote commerce.
Part 47: Part 47 of 14 CFR implements the statutory requirements
for aircraft registration by providing a 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.
This process is entirely paper-based and begins when a person who
wishes to register an aircraft in the United States submits an Aircraft
Registration Application (AC Form 8050-1) to the Registry. At a
minimum, under part 47, applicants for a Certificate of Aircraft
Registration must provide evidence of ownership, an application for
registration, which includes certification as to eligibility for
registration, and a registration fee. Evidence of ownership may
include, but is not limited to, a traditional bill of sale, a contract
of conditional sale, a lease with purchase option, or an heir-at-law
affidavit. Many applicants are required to provide additional
documentation for aircraft imported from a foreign country, built from
a kit, or that qualify as amateur built aircraft. Additional
documentation may include a certification from the builder as to the
type of aircraft and a complete description, to include information
such as make, model, serial number, engine manufacturer, type of
engine, number of engines, maximum takeoff weight, and number of seats.
An applicant who applies as a limited liability corporation, a trustee,
a non-citizen corporation, or submits documentation signed by
``authorized signers,'' must submit additional documentation to support
registration. For amateur built aircraft, the owner or builder
designates the aircraft model name and serial number. An applicant
pertaining to an imported aircraft must provide evidence showing the
aircraft has been removed from a foreign registry.
Once registered, the Registry issues a Certificate of Aircraft
Registration (AC Form 8050-3) to the aircraft owner and mails it to the
address on record. The Registry experiences a range in the amount of
time required to issue a Certificate. While it typically takes 12-15
business days for the registry to issue a Certificate after an owner
submits an application, due to an increase in registration
applications, it currently takes approximately 22 business days for the
registry to issue the certificate. The aircraft owner will typically
receive a Certificate approximately 4 days after it is issued as a
result of the time required for printing and mailing the certificate.
The estimated times are extended if the application is rejected for
document correction.
The certificate of registration must be carried in the aircraft and
must be made available for inspection upon request. Upon registration,
an aircraft is also eligible to apply for an airworthiness certificate
for operational purposes. When applying for registration of an aircraft
that is already on the U.S. civil registry, and has a valid
airworthiness certificate, an owner may use the second (carbon) copy of
the application as temporary operating authority for up to 90 days
pending receipt of the ``hard card'' certificate. For aircraft not
already on the U.S. civil registry, there is no temporary operating
authority.
An aircraft registration must be renewed every three years by
either submitting a renewal application or using an online renewal
process, and paying the renewal fee. The certificate of registration is
generally valid until the owner's address changes, the aircraft is sold
or destroyed, it has expired under the three-year renewal period, the
owner's eligibility status changes, or the owner registers the aircraft
in a foreign country.
Placing an aircraft on the U.S. civil aircraft registry in
accordance with the part 47 process affords the aircraft the
opportunity to operate within the United States and in most foreign
countries.
Part 45: Under part 45 of Title 14 CFR, aircraft must display the
unique registration number that corresponds with the number on the
registration certificate. Part 45 prescribes the requirements for
identification of U.S. registered aircraft and the display of the
registration number. 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. See 14 CFR 45.21(c).
Currently, small unmanned aircraft authorized to operate in the NAS
under an exemption issued pursuant to the authority in section 333 of
the FAA Modernization and Reform Act of 2012 must register in
accordance with the paper-based process in 14 CFR part 47. Owners of
unmanned aircraft with special airworthiness certificates and unmanned
aircraft used by governmental entities in public aircraft operations
also register via the part 47 registration process.
C. Related FAA and DOT Actions
In the FAA Modernization and Reform Act of 2012 (Pub. L. 112-95),
Congress mandated that the DOT, in consultation with other government
partners and industry stakeholders, develop a comprehensive plan to
safely accelerate the integration of civil UAS in the NAS. Since 2012,
the Department and the Federal Aviation Administration have made
progress in enabling UAS operations, by issuing exemptions per part 11
in conjunction with the authority of section 333 of Public Law 112-95
to permit commercial operations; creating a UAS test site program to
encourage further research and testing of UAS operations in real-world
environments; and developing a Pathfinder program to encourage research
and innovation that
[[Page 78601]]
will enable advanced UAS operations. The Department requires UAS
operators authorized under each of these integration programs to
register their unmanned aircraft through the existing FAA paper-based
registration process under 14 CFR part 47.
The Department and the FAA have taken several other related actions
as provided in the preamble discussions that follow.
1. Operation and Certification of Small Unmanned Aircraft Systems
Notice of Proposed Rulemaking
The Secretary and the Administrator issued an NPRM, ``Operation and
Certification of Small Unmanned Aircraft Systems'' (80 FR 9544 (Feb.
23, 2015)) (sUAS Operation and Certification NPRM),\17\ that proposed a
framework for integrating small UAS operations in the NAS.
Specifically, the proposal would address the operation of small UAS,
certification of small UAS operators, small UAS registration, and
display of registration markings. The agency also proposed to exclude
small UAS operations from the requirements for airworthiness
certification under the authority of section 333 of the Act because the
safety concerns related to airworthiness of small UAS would be
mitigated by the other provisions of that proposed rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\17\ RIN 2120-AJ60.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In the sUAS Operation and Certification NPRM, the Secretary and the
Administrator asserted that small unmanned aircraft satisfy the
statutory definition of ``aircraft'' and thus must be registered prior
to operation. For this reason, the NPRM proposed to clarify the
applicability of the part 47 aircraft registration requirements to sUAS
expected to be operated under proposed part 107. See 80 FR at 9574. The
NPRM also clarified that small unmanned aircraft must display a
registration number in accordance with part 45. The agency proposed,
however, to exclude small unmanned aircraft from the requirements in
part 45, subpart B for fireproof marking. See 80 FR at 9574-9575.
The comment period for the sUAS Operation and Certification NPRM
closed April 24, 2015. The FAA received more than 4,500 comments on
this proposal; of those, approximately 125 commenters addressed the
issue of small unmanned aircraft registration and the registration
process, and approximately 110 addressed marking requirements. This IFR
addresses the comments received regarding the registration,
identification, and marking requirements as well as certain definitions
relevant to the registration process and proposed in the NPRM.
2. Clarification of the Applicability of Aircraft Registration
Requirements for Unmanned Aircraft Systems (UAS) and Request for
Information Regarding Electronic Registration for UAS
On October 19, 2015, the Secretary and the Administrator issued a
notice clarifying the applicability of the statutory requirements for
aircraft registration to small unmanned aircraft (the ``Clarification/
Request for Information'') (80 FR 63912, October 22, 2015). In
addition, the Clarification/Request for Information announced the
formation of a UAS Registration Task Force (Task Force) to explore and
develop recommendations to streamline the registration process for
small unmanned aircraft to ease the burden associated with the existing
aircraft registration process. To facilitate the work of the Task
Force, the Secretary and the Administrator sought information and data
from the public through a number of questions identified in the Federal
Register notice. Specifically, the Secretary and the Administrator
sought information on the following questions:
1. What methods are available for identifying individual products?
Does every UAS sold have an individual serial number? Is there another
method for identifying individual products sold without serial numbers
or those built from kits?
2. At what point should registration occur (e.g. point-of-sale or
prior to operation)? How should transfers of ownership be addressed in
registration?
3. If registration occurs at point-of sale, who should be
responsible for submission of the data? What burdens would be placed on
vendors of UAS if DOT required registration to occur at point-of-sale?
What are the advantages of a point-of-sale approach relative to a
prior-to-operation approach?
4. Consistent with past practice of discretion, should certain UAS
be excluded from registration based on performance capabilities or
other characteristics that could be associated with safety risk, such
as weight, speed, altitude operating limitations, duration of flight?
If so, please submit information or data to help support the
suggestions, and whether any other criteria should be considered.
5. How should a registration process be designed to minimize
burdens and best protect innovation and encourage growth in the UAS
industry?
6. Should the registration be electronic or web-based? Are there
existing tools that could support an electronic registration process?
7. What type of information should be collected during the
registration process to positively identify the aircraft owner and
aircraft?
8. How should the registration data be stored? Who should have
access to the registration data? How should the data be used?
9. Should a registration fee be collected and if so, how will the
registration fee be collected if registration occurs at point-of-sale?
Are there payment services that can be leveraged to assist (e.g.
PayPal)?
10. Are there additional means beyond aircraft registration to
encourage accountability and responsible use of UAS?
See 80 FR at 63914. The comment period on the Clarification/Request
for Information closed November 6, 2015. As of November 6, 2015, the
FAA received over 4,500 comments on the Clarification/Request for
Information. In the Clarification/Request for Information, the DOT
stated, ``[T]he docket will remain open after this time and the
Department will consider all comments received in developing a
registration process.'' The FAA considered more than 175 additional
comments submitted after the close of the comment period. The FAA has
considered the Clarification/Request for Information comments in the
development of this IFR.
3. Registration Task Force (Task Force)
The Administrator chartered the Unmanned Aircraft Systems (UAS)
Registration Task Force (Task Force) Aviation Rulemaking Committee
(ARC) on October 20, 2015. The Administrator selected Task Force
members based on their familiarity with UAS, aircraft registration
policies and procedures, retail inventory control and tracking, and
electronic data capture. The membership was comprised of a diverse
group of representatives from trade groups representing manned and
unmanned aviation, UAS manufacturers and retailers, and law
enforcement.
The Task Force was tasked with the following three objectives:
1. Develop and recommend minimum requirements for UAS that would
need to be registered.
2. Develop and recommend registration processes.
3. Develop and recommend methods for proving registration and
marking.
On November 21, 2015, the Task Force provided a final report with
[[Page 78602]]
recommendations pertaining to these three objectives.\18\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\18\ The Task Force final report can be found in the docket for
this rulemaking and at https://www.faa.gov/uas/publications/media/RTFARCFinalReport_11-21-15.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The following table, taken from the Task Force report, describes
the Task Force's recommendations.
Table 4--Small UAS Registration Task Force Aviation Rulemaking Committee
Recommendations Summary
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Issue Task force recommendation
------------------------------------------------------------------------
What category of UAS is UAS that weigh under 55 pounds and above
covered by the registration 250 grams maximum takeoff weight, and
requirement? are operated outdoors in the NAS.
Do owners need to register No. The registration system is owner-
each individual UAS they based, so each registrant will have a
own? single registration number that covers
any and all UAS that the registrant
owns.
Is registration required at No. Registration is mandatory prior to
point-of-sale?. operation of a UAS in the NAS.
What information is required Name and street address of the registrant
for the registration are required.
process? Mailing address, email address, telephone
number, and serial number of the
aircraft are optional.
Is there a citizenship No.
requirement?.
Is there a minimum age Yes. Persons must be 13 years of age to
requirement?. register.
Is there a registration fee?. No.
Is the registration system The system for entry of information into
electronic or web-based? the database is web-based and also
allows for multiple entry points,
powered by an API [application
programming interface] that will enable
custom apps [applications] to provide
registry information to the database and
receive registration numbers and
certificates back from the database.
Registrants can also modify their
information through the web or apps.
How does a UAS owner prove A certificate of registration will be
registration?. sent to the registrant at the time of
registration. The certificate will be
sent electronically, unless a paper copy
is requested, or unless the traditional
aircraft registration process is
utilized. The registration certificate
will contain the registrant's name, FAA-
issued registration number, and the FAA
registration website that can be used by
authorized users to confirm registration
information. For registrants who elect
to provide the serial number(s) of their
aircraft to the FAA, the certificate
will also contain those serial
number(s). Any time a registered UAS is
in operation, the operator of that UAS
should be prepared to produce the
certificate of registration for
inspection.
Does the registration number Yes, unless the registrant chooses to
have to be affixed to the provide the FAA with the aircraft's
aircraft? serial number. Whether the owner chooses
to rely on the serial number or affix
the FAA-issued registration number to
the aircraft, the marking must be
readily accessible and maintained in a
condition that is readable and legible
upon close visual inspection. Markings
enclosed in a compartment, such as a
battery compartment, will be considered
``readily accessible'' if they can be
accessed without the use of tools.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
In its report, the Task Force stated, ``[T]he general consensus
view of the Task Force is that the recommendations on the three
objectives are to be presented together as a unified recommendation,
with each of the individual recommendations dependent upon elements in
the others. Compromises in positions were made whenever possible to
obtain a general consensus, and changes to any of the components could
further dilute support among the Task Force members and their
constituencies for the final recommendations.''
The agency has assessed the recommendations within statutory
limitations provided for aircraft registration and with this final
rule, will move forward with the elements of the Task Force report that
support the best public policy for registering small unmanned aircraft.
VII. Discussion of the Interim Final Rule
This IFR adds part 48 to title 14 to allow for a web-based
registration process and marking appropriate for small unmanned
aircraft. For these aircraft, part 48 may be used in place of the
paper-based, registration process in part 47 and the marking
requirements in part 45 that would otherwise be required.
Unlike manned aircraft, small unmanned aircraft cost significantly
less than manned aircraft and are available through a variety of
different markets for purchase by individuals who may not be familiar
with the federal safety requirements for operating in the NAS. As a
consequence, small unmanned aircraft may become more common than manned
aircraft, resulting in a significant volume of new aircraft
registrations. This rule provides for a streamlined and simple
registration process that is commensurate to the nature of small
unmanned aircraft, can accommodate an expected high volume of
registrations, and will facilitate compliance by using a web-based
platform and limiting the information to that which can identify the
aircraft and its owner. Upon registration under new part 48, the FAA
will assign a unique registration number and provide a registration
certificate that can be stored electronically or printed by the
aircraft owner.
The FAA recognizes that some small unmanned aircraft owners may
choose to continue to register small unmanned aircraft under part 47.
For example, some small unmanned aircraft owners may choose to register
their small unmanned aircraft under part 47 due to financing
requirements or if they wish to operate internationally, displaying
registration marks in accordance with part 45. While this final rule
does not require small unmanned aircraft owners to use the part 48
registration process in place of part 47, the agency strongly
encourages small unmanned aircraft owners to take advantage of the more
efficient part 48 method of aircraft registration. The FAA also notes
that a new part 48 registration does not limit an owner's ability to
later move to a traditional part 47 registration should its operational
or financial interests change. Conversely, a traditional part 47
registration of small unmanned aircraft can be moved to a new part 48
[[Page 78603]]
registration at the discretion of the owner if they wish to pursue that
venue.
A. Applicability
1. Small Unmanned Aircraft
The registration requirements in part 48 apply to small unmanned
aircraft that are part of a small unmanned aircraft system and that
satisfy the requirements to register in Sec. 48.15 and the eligibility
requirements in Sec. 48.20. Although a small unmanned aircraft itself
is one component of an sUAS, part 48 requires the registration of the
aircraft only.\19\ The registration requirement is limited to the small
unmanned aircraft for two reasons. First, the small unmanned aircraft
is the only part of the UAS that satisfies the definition of
``aircraft'' for purposes of the registration requirements in 49 U.S.C.
44101-44103, and second, components that control the unmanned aircraft
can be used to control multiple aircraft. As discussed in this
document, the FAA would continue to exercise enforcement discretion for
aircraft that weigh less than 0.55 pounds, such as paper airplanes that
are not linked to a system.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\19\ 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.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Registration does not provide authorization to operate any
aircraft--and the same is true for small unmanned aircraft. Currently,
operations using small unmanned aircraft other than as model aircraft
must obtain authorization to operate in accordance with section 333 of
Public Law 112-95, or through issuance of a special airworthiness
certificate. Small unmanned aircraft operated exclusively as model
aircraft may only be operated in accordance with requirements of
section 336 of Public Law 112-95 (Feb. 14, 2012). See also
Interpretation of the Special Rule for Model Aircraft, 79 FR 36171
(June 25, 2014). Any operation that does not follow the 336 framework
needs authorization from the FAA. Once the sUAS Operation and
Certification NPRM is finalized, operations intending to use small
unmanned aircraft as other than model aircraft, and those operators who
choose not to operate in accordance with the requirements of section
336 of Public Law 112-95, will need to operate in accordance with the
sUAS Operation and Certification rule's requirements.
2. Operations in U.S. Airspace
The registration process for small unmanned aircraft provided in
part 48 may be used only if the aircraft is intended for use within the
United States during the period of registration because this
registration process is not intended to be consistent with
International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO) standards addressing
registration and marking. 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.
ICAO has 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.'' \20\ ICAO has begun to issue and amend SARPs to
specifically address UAS operations and registration. Regarding
registration, ICAO standards in Annex 7 (Aircraft Nationality and
Registration Marks) to the Convention require remotely 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.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\20\ ICAO Circular 328 (Unmanned Aircraft Systems (UAS)) (2011).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The FAA agrees with ICAO that unmanned aircraft are indeed aircraft
and as such, must be registered and identified. However, the agency has
determined that it is possible to register and identify small unmanned
aircraft using in a less restrictive manner and with more flexibility
than current ICAO standards allow. Additionally, the FAA has determined
that it can achieve the highest level of compliance with a registration
requirement and thus identify more small unmanned aircraft to their
owners by using the streamlined, web-based process in this final rule.
The FAA emphasizes that utilization of the registration process
implemented by this final rule does not prohibit small UAS operators
from operating in international airspace or in other countries;
however, the rule also does not provide authorization for such
operations.
UAS operations that do not take place entirely within the United
States will need to obtain the necessary authorizations from the FAA
and the relevant foreign aviation authority.
3. Public Aircraft Operations
Clarification/Request for Information: Several commenters addressed
the applicability of registration requirements to small unmanned
aircraft used in public aircraft operations. The Department of Defense
Policy Board on Federal Aviation recommended the FAA ``[c]learly state
that all public aircraft operators with self-certification authority,
by statute, are exempt from this registration.'' Aviation Management
Associates also said the FAA should exempt all public aircraft from the
registration requirement. Another commenter said that any UAS that are
owned or operated by the FAA Small UAS Center of Excellence, any of the
six FAA UAS Test Sites or any other government agency or department, or
are operated under a Certificate of Waiver or Authorization (COA)
should be exempt from the registration requirement. In contrast, a few
individuals specifically recommended that UAS operated by government
should be required to register.
IFR Requirement: Under 49 U.S.C. 44101, only certain foreign
aircraft and aircraft of the national defense forces of the United
States are eligible to operate unregistered aircraft in the United
States, and any such unregistered aircraft must be identified in a way
satisfactory to the Administrator. Section 44102(a)(2)(A) and (B)
describe those aircraft that may be registered as those of the United
States Government and various state and local governments. This
definition parallels the language used in 49 U.S.C. 40102(a)(41) and
40125 to describe public aircraft eligibility and operations.
Accordingly, consistent with existing statutory requirements for
registration, the IFR will not apply to small unmanned aircraft of the
armed forces of the United States. 49 U.S.C. 44101(b)(2). Small
unmanned aircraft used in non-military public aircraft operations are
subject to the registration requirements of 49 U.S.C. 44101 and as
such, must complete the registration process provided in part 47. These
aircraft may also be registered in accordance with the part 48 process
that will be available for aircraft used for
[[Page 78604]]
other than model aircraft operations in the spring of 2016.
4. Trusts and Voting Trusts
The FAA requires that a person holding legal title to an aircraft
in trust must, when applying to register that aircraft in the United
States, submit a ``copy of each document legally affecting a
relationship under the trust . . .'' 14 CFR 47.7(c)(2)(i). The purpose
of this requirement is to ensure the FAA has access to all documents
relevant to the trust relationship when determining whether a trust
provides an adequate basis for registering an aircraft in accordance
with FAA regulations. A fundamental part of the registration process
for aircraft held in trust is determining whether the underlying
agreements meet and are not in conflict with the applicable
requirements and therefore are sufficient to establish the trustee's
eligibility to register the aircraft. The analysis of voting trusts is
similarly intricate.
Use of trusts and voting trusts involve complex relationships that
have been used to obscure the identity of the beneficial owners of an
aircraft. For this reason, part 47 applies a higher level of scrutiny
when trusts and voting trusts seek to register aircraft. This higher
level of scrutiny is inconsistent with the streamlined registration
process established under part 48. Accordingly, trusts and voting
trusts must continue to register small unmanned aircraft under part 47
so that the FAA can identify and evaluate the applicants.
B. Definitions
The new part created by this final rule includes definitions of
several terms that are relevant to the registration of small unmanned
aircraft. The definitions of ``U.S. Citizen,'' ``resident alien,'' and
``Registry'' have the same meaning as provided in the aircraft
registration process provided by part 47. See Sec. 47.2. The
definition of ``model aircraft'' is identical to the definition
provided in section 336(c) of Public Law 112-95.
Additionally, the agency finds it necessary to codify the statutory
definitions of ``small unmanned aircraft,'' ``unmanned aircraft,'' and
``small unmanned aircraft system'' given the limited applicability of
the new subpart to small unmanned aircraft that are an associated
element of a small UAS. The agency proposed definitions of these three
terms in the Operation and Certification NPRM. This rulemaking
finalizes these proposed definitions because they are applicable to the
small unmanned aircraft registration process provided by this final
rule. The definitions will be added to Sec. 1.1 General definitions,
because the agency expects them to be applicable to several parts
throughout title 14.
1. Unmanned Aircraft
In the sUAS Operation and Certification NPRM, the FAA proposed to
define ``unmanned aircraft'' as ``an aircraft operated without the
possibility of direct human intervention from within or on the
aircraft.'' \21\ This proposed definition would codify the statutory
definition of ``unmanned aircraft'' specified in Public Law 112-95.\22\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\21\ 80 FR at 9586.
\22\ 80 FR at 9556 (citing Pub. L. 112-95, section 331(8)).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Management Association for Private Photogrammetric Surveyors
(MAPPS) stated that the definition of ``unmanned aircraft'' needs to be
clarified because the current definition leaves open the possibility
that paper airplanes, model airplanes, model rockets, and toys could be
considered unmanned aircraft. The Aviators Model Code of Conduct
Initiative stated that this definition and the definition of small
unmanned aircraft may permit infant passengers and asked the FAA to
amend the definition to categorically prohibit the carriage of
passengers on an unmanned aircraft.
Lastly, an individual said that because 14 CFR 1.1 defines aircraft
as ``a device that is used or intended to be used for flight in the
air,'' only a ``whole'' or ``complete'' aircraft can meet this
definition for registration purposes.
The definition of unmanned aircraft as ``an aircraft operated
without the possibility of direct human intervention from within or on
the aircraft'' is a statutory definition, and as such, this rule will
finalize that definition as proposed.\23\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\23\ Pub. L. 112-95, section 331(8).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
2. Small Unmanned Aircraft
In the sUAS Operation and Certification NPRM, the FAA proposed to
define ``small unmanned aircraft'' as ``an unmanned aircraft weighing
less than 55 pounds including everything that is on board the
aircraft.'' \24\ The NPRM noted that Public Law 112-95 defines a small
unmanned aircraft as ``an unmanned aircraft weighing less than 55
pounds.'' \25\ However, the NPRM pointed out that this statutory
definition 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.\26\ The NPRM proposed to define
small unmanned aircraft using total takeoff weight because: (1) Heavier
aircraft generally pose greater amounts of public risk in the event of
an accident as they can do more damage to people and property on the
ground; and (2) 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.\27\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\24\ 80 FR at 9586.
\25\ 80 FR at 9556 (citing Pub. L. 112-95, section 331(6)).
\26\ 80 FR at 9556.
\27\ 80 FR at 9556.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Commenters including the Aircraft Owners and Pilots Association
(AOPA), Air Line Pilots Association (ALPA), Helicopter Association
International (HAI), the Small UAV Coalition, the News Media Coalition,
and the Professional Photographers of America, expressed support for
the proposed definition. The New England Chapter of the Association of
Unmanned Vehicles International supported the weight limitation as a
reasonable starting point, but pointed out that there are commercial
applications being developed that will need to exceed 55 pounds. Event
38 Unmanned Systems, Inc. stated that, rather than segregate small
unmanned aircraft by total weight, FAA should use a ``kinetic energy
split'' that combines weight and speed.
Several commenters asked that the 55-pound weight limit be lowered.
Event 38 Unmanned Systems recommended an initial weight restriction of
10 pounds, with adjustments based on subsequent research. Prioria
Robotics stated that the weight limitation for small unmanned aircraft
should be less than 25 pounds, and that the definition should include a
requirement that the aircraft be ``hand-launchable.'' An individual
commenter asked for the weight limit to be reduced to 33 pounds.
Green Vegans stated that FAA must provide test data on the
collision impact of a 55 pound UAS, traveling at various speeds, on
both humans and birds. The advocacy group argued that the public cannot
make informed comments on the proposed weight limitation without such
data. The commenter also noted that such data would be provided by a
National Environmental Protection Act Environmental Impact Statement,
which the group stated FAA must do. Crew Systems similarly opposed the
maximum weight limitation, arguing that FAA provided no justification
for it. The company asserted that a 55 pound limit is large enough to
be hazardous when operating in an urban environment, even if care is
taken. Although it did not expressly object to
[[Page 78605]]
the weight limitation, the United States Ultralight Association (UASA)
also expressed concern about the significant damage that a 50-plus
pound unmanned aircraft could do to light, open cockpit aircraft.
Other commenters asked the FAA to increase the 55-pound weight
limit. Consumers Energy Company objected to the definition's proposed
weight limitation as too light, arguing that a 55-pound weight
restriction will negatively impact small UAS flight times and the usage
of alternative fuel sources. The company urged FAA to consider fuel
loads and to increase the weight restriction to 120 pounds. The company
noted that, if FAA has concerns about safety, it could create
subcategories under which maximum weight restriction is imposed on the
fuel load, rather than adopt a blanket weight restriction. Several
individual commenters also suggested higher weight limits, including:
80 pounds; a range of 30-100 pounds; and 150 pounds. Another individual
commenter called the weight restriction ``arbitrary,'' and noted that
other countries have defined small UAS up to 150 kg.
An individual commenter suggested that the FAA amend the definition
of small unmanned aircraft to include aircraft weighing exactly 55
pounds. Another individual commenter stated that the definition of
``small unmanned aircraft'' must be clarified to account for different
types of UAS (e.g., fixed-wing, rotor-wing, small, medium, large).
The definition of ``small unmanned aircraft'' is a statutory
definition. Specifically, Public Law 112-95 defines a small unmanned
aircraft as ``an unmanned aircraft weighing less than 55 pounds.'' \28\
Accordingly, this rule will retain the statutory definition, which
includes 55 pounds as the weight limit for a small unmanned aircraft.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\28\ Pub. L. 112-95, section 331(6).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
However, as the FAA pointed out in the sUAS Operation and
Certification NPRM, the statutory definition contains an ambiguity with
regard to how the 55-pound weight limit should be calculated. The Small
UAV Coalition and Federal Airways & Airspace supported the inclusion of
payload in the 55-pound weight limit. Conversely, DJI, the Associated
General Contractors of America, and an individual commenter questioned
whether the 55-pound weight limitation should include payload that is
carried by the small unmanned aircraft. DJI argued that the FAA does
not consider the weight of payload in its regulations governing the
operation of ultralights. Kapture Digital Media stated that the total
weight limit of a small UAS should not include the weight of the
battery.
As noted in the sUAS Operation and Certification NPRM, the FAA uses
total takeoff weight for multiple different types of aircraft,
including large aircraft, light-sport aircraft, and small aircraft.\29\
One of the reasons that the FAA uses total takeoff weight in all of
these regulations is because, in the event of a crash, a heavier
aircraft can do more damage to people and property on the ground than a
lighter aircraft. In evaluating this type of risk for a small UAS, it
is the total mass of the small unmanned aircraft that is important; the
manner in which that mass is achieved is irrelevant. In other words, a
50-pound unmanned aircraft carrying 30 pounds of payload does not pose
a smaller risk than an 80-pound unmanned aircraft that is not carrying
any payload. As such, this rule will retain the proposed inclusion of
everything onboard the aircraft in the 55-pound weight limit of a small
unmanned aircraft.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\29\ See 14 CFR 1.1 (referring to ``takeoff weight'' for large,
light-sport, and small aircraft in the definitions for those
aircraft).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The General Aviation Manufacturers Association (GAMA) pointed out
that, although FAA typically points to Maximum Takeoff Weight when
identifying an aircraft's weight and associated mass, the proposed
definition of the small UAS does not include the term ``takeoff.'' As
such, the commenter recommended FAA modify the definition to reference
the point of takeoff as follows: ``Small unmanned aircraft means an
unmanned aircraft weighing less than 55 pounds including everything
that is on board the aircraft on takeoff.'' An individual commenter
stated that the choice of ``on board'' in the definition of ``small
unmanned aircraft'' will create confusion, because these aircraft
routinely have ``attached'' external payloads because there is little
room for internal ``on board'' payloads.
The FAA agrees with these comments and has modified the proposed
definition to refer to the total aircraft weight at takeoff and to
include possible external attachments to the aircraft in the
calculation of small unmanned aircraft weight. Accordingly, as provided
in Sec. 1.1, small unmanned aircraft means an unmanned aircraft
weighing less than 55 pounds on takeoff, including everything that is
on board or otherwise attached to the aircraft. If the unmanned
aircraft is tethered by the cable in such a way that the cable,
securely attached to an immoveable object, prevents the unmanned
aircraft from flying away in the event of loss of positive control,
only the portion of the cable which may be lift aloft by the small
unmanned aircraft must be added to the weight of the unmanned aircraft
when determining total weight.
3. Small Unmanned Aircraft System (Small UAS)
Finally, the sUAS Operation and Certification NPRM proposed a
definition of ``small unmanned aircraft system (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 national airspace system.'' \30\ The
NPRM explained that, with one exception, this proposed definition would
be similar to the statutory definition of UAS specified in Public Law
112-95.\31\ The difference between the two definitions is that the
proposed definition of small UAS did not refer to a ``pilot in
command,'' as that position did not exist under the NPRM.\32\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\30\ 80 FR at 9586.
\31\ 80 FR at 9556 (citing Pub. L. 112-95, section 331(9)).
\32\ 80 FR at 9556.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
AirShip Technologies supported the proposed definition. Conversely,
Transport Canada asked the FAA to consider whether it would be better
to use the ICAO terminology of remotely-piloted aircraft system (RPAS)
instead of small UAS. Foxtrot Consulting stated that the inclusion of
the phrase ``associated elements (including communications links and
the components that control the small unmanned aircraft)'' in the
definition of small UAS creates a ``regulatory nightmare,'' because it
means cellular network providers and their infrastructure are
considered part of a small UAS. The commenter pointed out that small
UAS can be controlled via Wi-Fi and cellular networks, which opens
enormous capabilities to small UAS operations. The commenter went on,
however, to question whether, as a result of the proposed definition, a
cellular provider is liable if a UAS being controlled through their
network causes damage to property, serious injury, or death.
The proposed definition of small UAS is derived from the statutory
definition of ``unmanned aircraft system'' in Public Law 112-95.\33\ As
such, this rule will codify the proposed definition.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\33\ Pub. L. 112-95, section 331(9).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Because Congress has selected the term ``unmanned aircraft system''
to
[[Page 78606]]
describe this type of a system, the FAA may not use a different term,
such as RPAS, in this rule. In response to Foxtrot Consulting, the FAA
notes that the requirements of this rule apply only to the sUAS
operator, the owner of the small UAS, and people who may be involved in
the operation of the small UAS. As such, a cellular provider would not
be in violation of proposed part 107 when their involvement in a small
UAS operation is limited to the operator's use of the provider's
infrastructure. Additionally, the FAA does not opine on liability
issues that are beyond the scope of this rule such as whether the
provider may be liable to the sUAS operator or third parties under tort
or contract law.
The NextGen Air Transportation Program at North Carolina State
University and one individual commenter recommended FAA specifically
state that tethered powered small UAS are considered small UAS under
proposed part 107. In response to these comments, the FAA notes that
the definition of small UAS in this rule includes tethered powered
small UAS.
4. Model Aircraft
This rulemaking includes the definition of the term ``model
aircraft'' as it appears in section 336 of Public Law 112-95. Thus, in
this IFR, ``model aircraft'' means 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.
C. Exclusion From the Requirement to Register
Clarification/Request for Information: The DOT and the FAA posed
the following question in the October 22, 2015 Clarification/Request
for Information document (80 FR at 63914):
Consistent with past practice of discretion, should certain UAS be
excluded from registration based on performance capabilities or
other characteristics that could be associated with safety risk,
such as weight, speed, altitude operating limitations, duration of
flight? If so, please submit information or data to help support the
suggestions, and whether any other criteria should be considered.
The agency received many comments responding to this inquiry. A few
commenters said this question is premature because there is
insufficient data available to determine what, if any, safety risk is
posed by various categories of UAS. One individual commenter said this
question should not be asked until after there are ``thorough,
independent studies available showing the effects of different hobby
aircraft on the national airspace and potential interference with full
scale aviation.'' The commenter further stated that once the results of
that research are available, the public should have an opportunity to
comment on them. Another individual said the FAA cannot make a
determination about exclusions from the registration requirement until
testing is conducted to see what the actual damage would be to
buildings, cars, people, and manned aircraft from UAS of different
sizes.
No unmanned aircraft should be excluded from the requirement of
registration: Some commenters said that all unmanned aircraft should be
registered. One individual commenter, for example, asserted that if the
intent of registration is to have the ability to identify the operator
of a UAS, then there is no logical reason to base the requirement to
register on factors such as the speed, performance, capability, or size
of a UAS. Another individual commenter said all unmanned aircraft
should be registered because unmanned aircraft of any size or weight
could pose a safety threat to manned aircraft (including, for example,
helicopters on emergency or rescue missions that operate at all
altitudes and from areas other than certificated airports). Chronicled,
Inc. said that if the registration procedure is ``efficient and
seamless'' then it should include all unmanned aircraft.
The National Association of Broadcasters asserted that UAS
registration is a reasonable step to mitigate the dangers posed by a
small minority of hobbyist UAS operators that are flying in a careless
and reckless manner that endangers the public. The City of Arlington
(Texas) Police Department stated that ``the increasing popularity of
the recreational use of UAS by model aircraft operators has presented
significant public safety and regulatory challenges in Arlington and
our nation's cities,'' and strongly urged the FAA to require the
registration of all UAS systems. The Air Medical Operators Association
stated that all UAS capable of entering the NAS and conflicting with
manned aircraft in flight should be considered aircraft and be subject
to the registration requirement.
The Colorado Agricultural Aviation Association (CoAAA) supported
its position that all UAS need to be registered by pointing out that
low altitude airspace is already being shared by manned and unmanned
flight operations ``without any definitive safety protocols beyond
operate in a safe manner and yield to manned aircraft.'' As the number
of unmanned aircraft using the airspace increases, the commenter
continued, so does the potential for a mid-air collision which could
lead to loss of the aircraft, injuries, or death. CoAAA and the
National Agricultural Aviation Association (NAAA) further supported
their positions that there should be no exemption for light-weight UAS
by pointing to bird-strike data from a joint report by the FAA and the
USDA. Comparing the dangers associated with collisions between wildlife
and civil aircraft to the dangers associated with collisions between
light-weight UAS and civil aircraft, the commenters asserted that it
does not take a very large bird to do significant damage to an
airplane. By way of example, CoAAA noted that mallard ducks (which
weigh between 1.6 and 3.5 pounds) and turkey vultures (which weigh
between 1.8 to 5.1 pounds) can break through the windshield of aircraft
used for agricultural purposes.
The Electronic Privacy Information Center (EPIC) also opposed an
exemption from the registration requirement for any UAS that operates
in the NAS. EPIC stated that the size of a UAS is not strictly
indicative of the privacy risks it poses and, in fact, that smaller UAS
can more easily conduct ``surreptitious surveillance on unsuspecting
individuals.''
Modovolate Aviation, LLC and a number of individual commenters
recommended a limited exemption for unmanned aircraft that are operated
exclusively indoors.
All model aircraft should be excluded from the requirement of
registration: A large number of commenters recommended an exemption
from the registration requirement for model aircraft. These commenters
included many individual members of the Academy of Model Aeronautics
(AMA), as well as other members of the recreational/hobby community.
Among the reasons given by commenters for this position were the facts
that traditional model aircraft have a long history of safe operations
and that the FAA is not authorized to regulate model aircraft. The
Aerospace Industries Association said the exemption of ``hobby
platforms'' from registration would enhance the viability of the
registration process by allowing the focus of the registry to remain on
``commercial use platforms.''
With respect to which aircraft would qualify as ``model aircraft''
for the purposes of an exemption from the registration requirement,
some commenters said that any model aircraft flown recreationally
should be exempt. One individual commenter asserted that
[[Page 78607]]
other countries, such as Australia, Canada and the United Kingdom have
made this distinction between recreational and commercial use and not
required registration of recreational use aircraft. The Minnesota
Department of Transportation also stated that it has not required UAS
operated solely for recreational use to register. Many other commenters
specifically stated that any model aircraft operated within the safety
programming of the AMA should be considered ``model aircraft'' and not
``UAS'' and therefore exempt from the registration requirement. A large
number of those commenters asserted that the AMA has ``an impeccable
80-year track record of operating safely,'' and that requiring AMA
members to register their aircraft will have no impact on that safety
record. Several commenters recommended that the FAA require model
aircraft operators to become AMA members. Some other commenters said
that any model aircraft that meets the definition of model aircraft
contained in the FAA Modernization and Reform Act of 2012 should be
exempt from the registration requirement.
A number of individual commenters highlighted the distinction
between traditional model aircraft that are home built or assembled
from kits (which they characterized as separate from UAS) and Ready to
Fly (RTF) aircraft that do not require assembly (which they
characterized as UAS). These commenters claimed that traditional model
aircraft do not pose a safety risk to the NAS because they are flown
strictly within the operator's visual line of sight, have no autonomous
control, and have fairly limited ranges. Some commenters also pointed
out that model aircraft that are operated within the auspices of the
AMA can only be flown at AMA-sanctioned fields and must already display
the owner's AMA member ID. Commenters contrasted these models with
ready-to-fly aircraft, which are easy to operate, capable of vertical
take-off, payload carrying and flying autonomously and beyond visual
line of sight, and are often equipped with other enhanced capabilities,
such as cameras, GPS systems, and remote viewing electronics.
Commenters asserted that the problems that have prompted the FAA to
require registration are due to the proliferation of these ready-to-fly
aircraft that can be flown beyond visual line of sight. One commenter
said ``their ease of use, intuitive controls, and overall availability
have created a perfect storm, wherein inexperienced flyers are flying
in inappropriate and/or dangerous places.''
Some commenters recommended a blanket exemption for home-built
model aircraft. One commenter explained that home-built models should
be exempt from registration because individuals who build their own
model aircraft ``have the time, experience, personal investment and
motivation to be aware of and observe safe modeling practices.''
Another commenter asserted that exempting home- or scratch-built model
aircraft ``will allow experimenters, programmers, developers and beta
testers to exercise their creativity without complicating or impeding
the creative process with unnecessary restrictions.'' Other commenters
did not request a blanket exemption for home-built model aircraft but
instead recommended exemptions based on performance capabilities, which
would necessarily exclude traditional model aircraft. Those
recommendations are discussed below.
Unmanned aircraft under a certain weight should be excluded from
the requirement of registration: Many commenters recommended that the
FAA create an exemption from the registration requirement for UAS that
fall below a minimum weight threshold. One individual commenter said
the FAA needs to collect some real data to determine the weight below
which unmanned aircraft no longer pose a threat to people or manned
aircraft. Another individual commenter stated any weight threshold
chosen for exemption needs to be determined based on kinetic energy and
lethality studies. Other commenters made both general and specific
recommendations for a minimum weight threshold.
Some individuals based their recommendations on a comparison
between the risks to manned aircraft from bird strikes and the risks
from collisions with unmanned aircraft. One commenter said that any
aircraft over the weight of a mallard duck should be registered.
Another commenter recommended an exemption for UAS ``which present a
risk equivalent or less than an acceptable bird strike.'' Another
commenter recommended an exemption for UAS that weigh less than 1.5
times the heaviest flying bird's weight. Another commenter noted that
the FAA has regulations that define the requirements for aircraft to
withstand impact from birds (14 CFR 25.631) and engine ingestion from
birds (14 CFR 33.76), and recommended the FAA exempt any unmanned
aircraft that would have equal or less impact than a bird with the
characteristics described in those existing regulations. Another
individual commenter said a threshold weight of 2 pounds is ``entirely
reasonable'' because crows weigh between 0.7 and 2.6 pounds. Another
commenter stated that a weight threshold of 1 kilogram (or 2.2 pounds)
is appropriate because it represents a small risk factor based on an
FAA wildlife strike report that says ``species with body masses < 1
kilogram (2.2 lbs) are excluded from database.'' \34\ Another
individual commenter asserted that a weight threshold of 5 pounds is
appropriate because damage is likely to be minimal in an emergency
event and because manned aircraft already must have the ability to
withstand a similar bird strike.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\34\ Wildlife Strikes to Civil Aircraft in the United States
1990-2014 (July 2015), available at http://www.faa.gov/airports/airport_safety/wildlife/media/Wildlife-Strike-Report-1990-2014.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Some commenters based their recommendations on the weight threshold
proposed by the FAA in the sUAS Operation and Certification NPRM for a
possible micro UAS classification.\35\ The News Media Coalition said
that if the FAA adopts special rules for micro UAS, then those micro
UAS should be exempt from the registration requirement. Aviation
Management Associates, Inc. similarly stated that the weight threshold
for registration should be 4.4 pounds--the weight proposed in the sUAS
Operation and Certification NPRM--``or lesser weight if it is
determined vehicles of less than 4.4 pounds create an unacceptable
safety risk.'' Aviation Management qualified its recommendation,
however, by asserting that no UAS that weighs less than 1.5 pounds
should be required to register. A few individual commenters also stated
that the weight threshold for registration should be in line with the
weight threshold chosen for a micro UAS classification.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\35\ The sUAS Operation and Certification NPRM considered the
creation of a micro UAS classification for UAS weighing no more than
4.4 pounds (2 kilograms) for purposes of operation and certification
requirements. 80 FR at 9556-9558.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Agricultural Technology Alliance (ATA) asserted that if the FAA
issues a blanket exemption from the registration requirement for all
micro UAS registration, it can better focus its efforts on higher-risk
UAS without compromising safety. ATA also noted that Canada has a
similar exemption for micro UAS.
A number of commenters, including Aviation Management Associates,
Inc., the National Retail Federation and numerous individuals, asserted
that the FAA should exempt UAS that fit into the ``toy'' category. Many
of those
[[Page 78608]]
commenters did not suggest a minimum weight threshold for a toy
category. Several individual commenters suggested the FAA use the AMA's
guidelines for the Park Flyer Program (i.e., aircraft weighing 2 pounds
or less) to define what qualifies as a ``toy'' for purposes of this
exclusion.
The Toy Industry Association said that for purposes of defining
products that should be exempt from the registration requirement, it is
not necessary to create an independent ``toy UAS'' category that is
separate from the category of unmanned aircraft that should be exempt
from registration requirements ``due to their lower risk.''
Specifically, the association discouraged the FAA from creating a
``toy'' category based on factors unrelated to operational safety, such
as cost of the UAS, how it is marketed, or where it is sold, and
encouraged the agency to ``instead look at targeted UAS performance
indicators that directly speak to the operational risk of the product
and exempt all UAS that fit in that category.'' The Toy Industry
Association highlighted the weight of the UAS as ``the most risk-
related and measurable variable.'' The commenter noted that most of its
members manufacture UAS that are below 1 kilogram, but that certain UAS
that weigh more than 1 kilogram should also be considered for exemption
(i.e., products intended to be flown indoors, products than can only
fly relatively low, and products that are equipped with technology that
makes the product safer, such as crash avoidance technology or
technology that limits the height the UAS can fly).
Prox Dynamics stated that smaller and lighter air vehicles
generally display less risk than larger ones. The company asserted, for
example, that ``a fly-sized low energy drone has negligible risk, even
if a direct impact is considered.'' The company further asserted that a
class of ``inherently safe'' aircraft exists that should be exempt from
the registration requirement. Specifically, the company recommended an
exemption for aircraft with a maximum weight of less than 60 grams. A
few individual commenters suggested 3.3 pounds because that weight is
used as a threshold for regulating model rockets. Horizon Hobby
recommended that products with a gross weight of less than 2 kilograms
be exempt from the registration requirement, which the commenter
asserted is in line with current FAA-approved exemption for hobby uses.
An individual commenter stated that rules already exists for other
unmanned objects operating in the NAS, including kites, balloons and
rockets (14 CFR part 101), and that the FAA should follow the precedent
set by those rules and only regulate UAS heavier than 4 to 6 pounds.
Other commenters also recommended specific weight thresholds for
exemption from the registration requirement ranging from 60 grams on
the low end to 100-150 pounds on the high end.
A few individual commenters framed their proposals in terms of
payload weight. One commenter recommended an exemption for unmanned
aircraft that are not capable of carrying a payload of more than 1 or 2
pounds. Another commenter recommended that registration be required for
unmanned aircraft that are capable of carrying more than 10 pounds of
payload. Another commenter said registration be required for any
unmanned aircraft that weighs more than 8 or 10 pounds and can carry a
load of its weight or higher. An individual commenter asserted that
even small, relatively light-weight models have dangerous rotors and
can carry a risk of doing damage if they collide with, or are ingested
into the engine of, a full-scale aircraft. This commenter further
asserted that technology is advancing to enable a single control
station to operate multiple UAS in a coordinate way, and a ``swarm'' of
otherwise light-weight UAS would be dangerous if flown into the path of
a full-scale aircraft.
Some commenters recommended minimum weight thresholds for specific
types of UAS. A number of commenters, for example, said model aircraft
that do not operate within existing AMA rules should be above 5 pounds
to trigger the registration requirement. Another individual commenter
said that only model aircraft that are one-half scale or larger should
be subject to registration. One individual commenter recommended a 1
kilogram (2.2 pound) threshold for multicopters. The commenter noted
that this threshold is commonly used in Europe and the United Kingdom.
Another individual commenter recommended a weight threshold of 25
pounds for fixed-wing UAS and 10 pounds for non-fixed-wing UAS. One
individual commenter recommended an exemption for quadcopters under
1,500 grams, while another individual commenter recommended an
exemption for quadcopters under 20 pounds. One individual commenter
recommended an exemption for ``toy'' unmanned aircraft that are 1 pound
or less and registration only if used above 300 feet for ``mini'' UAS
weighing between 1 and 7 pounds. A few commenters recommended an
exemption for small unmanned aircraft that are made out of foam,
although the individual did not specify a weight threshold for these
aircraft.
Unmanned aircraft with certain performance capabilities should be
excluded from the requirement of registration: A large number of
individual commenters recommended that the registration requirement
apply only to UAS that possess certain performance capabilities or
aircraft specifications. Many of those commenters, including
individuals who submitted comments as part of an AMA form letter
campaign, said the registration requirement should apply only to
unmanned aircraft that have the ability to operate beyond the
operator's visual line of sight. Other commenters, including Aviation
Management Associates, Inc. and numerous individuals, also said that
unmanned aircraft that are capable of beyond visual line of sight
operations should be registered, but those commenters did not say that
such unmanned aircraft are the only small unmanned aircraft that should
be registered.
In addition to the ability to operate beyond visual line of sight,
commenters recommended that the registration requirement apply only to
unmanned aircraft that have one or more of the following performance
capabilities:
Have the ability to fly autonomously.
Have automated control functions such as ``return-to-home.''
Have RNAV capabilities (either through satellite base navigation or
through inertial navigation).
Have first person view capabilities.
Have an onboard navigational system.
Are equipped with GPS.
Take off vertically.
Are capable of hovering.
Are capable of hovering during normal operation and are equipped
with onboard photo or video recording equipment.
Are capable of automated or remote-controlled pickup or drop-off of
a payload.
Are equipped with an onboard camera or audio recording equipment.
Can transmit a video signal at more than \1/4\ mile.
Are capable of flight for longer than a specified minimum period of
time.
Have a range that exceeds a specified minimum distance. One
commenter characterized this as ``electronic line of site.''
Have the ability to fly above a specified minimum altitude.
Are capable of entering controlled or restricted airspace.
Some commenters suggested some minimum weight threshold in
combination with one or more of the above-listed capabilities.
A group of academics recommended the FAA adopt a progressive
approach that requires registration for only the most problematic
technologies--which
[[Page 78609]]
they asserted to be long-range first person view and GPS waypoint
navigation--and then ``transparently assess'' the results of this
registration. These commenters noted that if the FAA determines that
conventional model aircraft are still creating an undue hazard for
aviation, then additional measures (such as a requirement for low-cost
pressure altimeters that limit model aircraft below 400 feet) could be
implemented.
The Aerospace Industries Association said that only aircraft
capable of sustained, untethered flight should be registered. A few
individual commenters similarly recommended exemptions for aircraft
that are control-line operated (i.e., tethered flight), that are hand-
thrown or rubber-band powered (i.e., ``free flight'' aircraft), and
that are unpowered (e.g., gliders).
Several members of the ``free flight'' community specifically
recommended that the FAA create an exemption for light-weight, free
flight model aircraft that weigh 10 ounces or less and have no means of
externally controlling their aircraft while in flight.
Another individual similarly asserted that speed, altitude, and
flight duration will depend on battery, motor, and propeller size, and
that weight should therefore be used to determine which UAS should be
exempt from the registration requirement. The commenter noted that
consideration of factors such as speed, altitude, and flight duration
raises the question of what defines the actual UAS (e.g., the fuselage
for a plane, the frame of a quadcopter). The commenter further noted
that the same fuselage can have dramatically different performance
characteristics if the battery, motor, or propeller is changed. The
commenter asserted that registering each combination ``would be
absurd,'' and any change in propeller, motor, or battery size would
raise questions of when an owner needs to re-register the aircraft.
There were commenters, however, who disagreed with a requirement to
register UAS that possess some of the above-listed capabilities. An
individual commenter, for example, said that enhanced capabilities such
as first person view or flight controls capable of autonomous flight
should not be a reason for requiring registration. The commenter
claimed that an aircraft that does not exceed safe mass/speed/altitude/
duration thresholds is not automatically a threat to manned aircraft
simply by virtue of being equipped with enhanced capabilities. Another
individual commenter said that small UAS equipped with GPS should not
automatically be required to register because some small UAS flown by
beginners use GPS to stabilize the aircraft, which increases their
safety level. The commenter noted that these UAS have controls that
will not let the aircraft fly above a certain altitude. Several
commenters said that any requirement to register all UAS that have the
ability to fly above a certain altitude or to enter controlled airspace
should exclude UAS that are programmed with geofencing or ``Safe Fly''
technology, which limits altitude and restricts flight into controlled
airspace. The Toy Industry Association cautioned against using altitude
as a threshold for registration. The commenter noted that not all
companies use technology that limits the height a UAS can fly and that
it would be premature to spell out specific technological requirement
to ensure that UAS fly below a certain altitude when other technology
advancements may develop that achieve the same purpose. The Toy
Industry Association also asserted that the issue of whether a UAS is
equipped with a camera is not relevant to registration. The association
stated that, while there are legitimate privacy concerns to consider,
``this conversation should not take place in the context of the
aviation industry safety at this time.''
The National Retail Federation said that unmanned aircraft ``that
are designated as `toys' with limited performance capabilities'' should
be exempt from the registration process. The commenter did not,
however, specify what qualifies as ``toys,'' or what performance
capabilities would remove an unmanned aircraft from the ``toy''
category. Rather, the commenter said the FAA should require
registration based on potential safety and security risks associated
with performance capabilities or material specifications of the
unmanned aircraft, or the age of the operator.
Some commenters stated more generally that aircraft capabilities
should not be a consideration for exemption from registration. One
individual said speed, altitude, and flight duration should not be
criteria for registration because they can vary depending on a wide-
variety of ``user-selectable UAS components'' such as props choice,
battery size, and flight mode, among others. Another individual said
that because unmanned aircraft are constantly changing and evolving, it
would be a poor choice to develop limitations based on performance.
Several other individuals stated that registration should only be
required if the operator intends to operate in the same airspace as
manned aircraft. A few other individuals said all UAS flown in public
spaces should be registered, regardless of aircraft capabilities.
Another individual said capabilities of the aircraft have nothing to do
with whether it is a safety risk or not; rather, it is the practices of
the pilot that determine the safety risk.
Unmanned aircraft should be excluded based on operations conducted:
Some commenters said that unmanned aircraft should be excluded from the
registration requirement based on operations, rather than weight or
aircraft specifications and capabilities. Modovolate Aviation, LLC and
a number of individual commenters recommended a limited exemption for
UAS that are operated exclusively indoors. As noted above, many
commenters said that small UAS that are operated within the operator's
visual line of sight, or below a minimum altitude, or below a certain
speed, should be exempt from the registration requirement. Also noted
above, some individual commenters recommended an exemption from the
registration requirement for UAS that are flown under AMA safety
guidelines on AMA-sanctioned flying fields. A few other individual
commenters recommended an exemption for UAS that are operated, with
permission, over private property. Another individual commenter
recommended an exemption for UAS engaged in semi-commercial/
agricultural operations that are conducted under 500 feet above ground
level and over sparely populated areas. Another individual commenter
recommended an exemption for UAS flying over ``largely unpopulated
areas.'' Several individual commenters said the registration
requirement should not apply to UAS that are used at schools and
institutions for educational purposes. Another individual commenter
recommended an exemption for UAS used for non-profit purposes.
The US Drone Racing Association said that drones used for racing--
which generally stay under 100 feet and within visual line of sight--
should not be required to register, unless their operations exceed some
minimum operational thresholds such as beyond visual line of sight,
range over half mile, or above 400 feet.
An individual commenter noted that, due to radio restrictions for
video transmissions, first person view pilots are required by law to
have a Federal Communications Commission (FCC) license for any
transmitter over 25mW. Because those pilots are already required to
register and place identifying markings on the transmitter,
[[Page 78610]]
the commenter recommended an exemption from the FAA registration
requirement for a first person view pilot with an FCC license.
Other commenters phrased their recommendations in terms of UAS
operations that should be included in the registration requirement. A
number of commenters, including Aviation Management Associates, Inc.
and many individuals, said any UAS used for commercial purposes should
be registered. Several individual commenters said UAS operated in
controlled airspace should be required to register. Another individual
commenter said registration should be required for UAS that operate
over private property, at altitudes over 400 feet, over populated
areas, and within 5 miles of an airport.
Other comments on whether certain UAS should be excluded from the
registration requirement: Some commenters recommended registration
requirements based on aircraft type. Several individuals said that all
fixed-wing UAS should be exempt from registration. A few other
individuals said that only multirotor UAS should be required to
register (because they are easy to fly and can take off from anywhere).
Other categories of UAS that commenters said should be included in the
registration requirements were high-volume production aircraft (i.e.,
models produced in volumes greater than a specified value, such as
5,000 or 10,000 units per year) and UAS powered by gas/oil mixes. Some
commenters suggested that UAS be excluded from the registration
requirement based on frame size or prop size.
A number of commenters recommended a combination of factors to
consider when determining what, if any, category of UAS should be
excluded from the registration requirement.
Aviation Management Associates, Inc., said the FAA should exempt
``any small UAS regardless of weight that is limited by manufacturing
firmware or other acceptable means to operating below 500 feet above
ground level, will not exceed a \1/2\ range mile from the operator and
the associated ground control station, as well as provides geo-fencing
and altitude limitations that meets FAA exclusionary airspace.''
The Property Drone Consortium stated that micro-drones of some
maximum weight, speed, and altitude should be exempt from registration.
The commenter suggested the following possible thresholds: Weight under
1 pound, 15-20 mph maximum flight speed, and an altitude of under 100
feet. The commenter also stated that an assessment could be made based
on joules of imparted energy. The commenter further stated that region
of operation should also be a point of consideration for a possible
exemption from the registration requirement.
The Retail Industry Leaders Association said the FAA should adopt a
risk-based approach and only require registration of UAS that present
the greatest safety risks, based on consideration of factors including:
Product weight and overall size, operating range, maximum speed,
maximum altitude, fragility, and GPS and other navigation capability.
Travelers Insurance Company similarly asserted that any unmanned
aircraft that the FAA determines poses a risk to the national airspace
or causes serious bodily injury or property damage should be
registered. The commenter went on to say that the FAA should exercise
discretion with respect to unmanned aircraft ``that are so light in
weight and lacking in capabilities so as to pose no meaningful threat
to persons, property or the national airspace.'' The commenter did not,
however, specify what weight or what limited capabilities should be
used as a threshold for registration.
Latitude Engineering, LLC asserted that ``there exists a threshold
of mass and speed under which the risk associated with the flight of an
unregistered commercial UAS is more than offset by the value returned
to the public.'' The company stated that it reached this conclusion
after evaluating the kinetic energy of various UAS airframe
configurations from first principals and drawing from studies such as
``UAS Safety Analysis'' by Exponent (Dec. 16, 2014). The company's
specific recommendation was to exempt UAS that are near the following
values: Mass of an upper limit of 1 pound, speed limited to 50 knots,
and altitude limited to 200 feet above ground level or 100 feet from
the highest obstacle within 200 lateral feet. The company also asserted
that no unregulated flights should be allowed within 5 miles of an
airport.
Delair-Tech asserted that it would make sense for a category of
unmanned aircraft associated with a low risk of accidental damage to be
exempt from registration. The company defined this category as unmanned
aircraft that weigh less than 1 kilogram and have a flight performance
that is limited to 50 meters in height. The company based its
recommendation on the ``toys and mini-drones'' category defined by the
European Aviation Safety Agency in Ref 5, Proposal 14.
ATA stated that the FAA should exempt from the registration
requirement any UAS that is to be used solely in rural areas, which the
commenter said should be defined as a certain distance from an airport
or a major population center. ATA noted that Canada also has an
exemption for operations in low-risk rural areas.
EPIC noted that the registration scheme, as currently envisioned,
does little to solve the problem of identifying a UAS or UAS operator
because the only UAS that will be identifiable are those that are
recovered after a crash. EPIC also noted that the current registration
plan does nothing to inform the public of surveillance capabilities of
the drone, which is necessary to make UAS operators accountable to the
public.
Another individual said the important criteria for a registration
determination are wingspan dimensions, propeller diameter and type,
energy source, and weight. Another individual stated that exemptions
should be based on weight, speed, and operating height. This commenter
suggested the FAA use a formula to calculate a UAS's impact energy,
where ``E'' is the impact energy, ``m'' is the mass, ``v'' is the
maximum flight speed, ``g'' is gravitational acceleration (constant),
and ``h'' is the height. This commenter stated that FAA could conduct a
comprehensive study to determine the critical value of impact energy,
and users could calculate the impact energy of their UAS, simply by
filling the mass, maximum flights speed, and maximum height into an
online formula available on the FAA Web site. Another individual said
most ``hobby class UAS'' should be excluded from registration based on
the empty weight of the aircraft and the potential kinetic energy of
the unit. This commenter asserted that there is precedent for this
method and that it has worked reasonably well with part 103 ultralight
vehicles and light sport aircraft. This commenter claimed that a 55-
pound model aircraft flown at 60 mph has around 12% of the kinetic
energy of a part 103 vehicle traveling at the same speed, even with a
payload of 40% of the empty weight. This commenter further claimed that
a typical motorcycle driven at 40 mph would have nearly 4 times the
kinetic energy of a 55-pound UAS flying at 60 mph. This commenter
asserted that society accepts this level of risk for pedestrians, and
questioned why one-quarter of that level of risk posed by an out-of-
control UAS would also not be acceptable.
Task Force Recommendation: The Task Force accepted as a baseline
that the registration requirement will only apply to small unmanned
aircraft (i.e.,
[[Page 78611]]
aircraft weighing less than 55 pounds) that are operated outdoors in
the NAS. Beyond that baseline, however, the FAA asked the Task Force
for recommendations regarding additional minimum requirements for small
unmanned aircraft that would need to be registered. In particular, the
agency asked the Task Force to consider factors including, but not
limited to, technical capabilities and operational capabilities such as
size, weight, speed, payload, equipage, and other factors such as the
age of the operator.
The safety of the non-flying public and of other users of the NAS
was central to the Task Force's determination of what category of small
unmanned aircraft to recommend for exemption from the registration
requirement. With considerations of safety in mind, the Task Force
addressed the possibility of recommending an exclusion based on various
factors, including: Weight (alone and in combination with altitude or
kinetic energy), mass, speed, kinetic energy, payload, equipage (e.g.,
camera, GPS), and operational capabilities, such as the ability to
navigate the airspace, the ability to operate above a certain altitude
above ground level, the ability to operate beyond the visual line of
sight of the operator, the ability to operate autonomously, and flight
duration.
The Task Force ultimately agreed to use a mass-based approach to
determine an appropriate category of small unmanned aircraft to
recommend for exclusion from the registration requirement. This was
based upon the probability of a catastrophic event occurring (i.e.,
death or serious injury) due to a collision between a small unmanned
aircraft and a person on the ground. The Task Force further stated that
because of the lack of data on unmanned aircraft-aircraft collisions,
engine ingestion, and propeller impacts by unmanned aircraft, the
probability of a catastrophic event occurring due to those events was
not part of its consideration. Rather, the task force noted that
research in this area continues and as it becomes available, this
threshold should be evaluated and adjusted accordingly. This approach
best satisfied the Task Force's concerns about safety and provided a
minimum weight threshold for registration that is easy to understand
and apply and would therefore encourage compliance.
The formula considered by the task force is a standard aviation
risk assessment formula used in consideration of manned aircraft
safety. For ease of administration and small unmanned aircraft owner
understanding, the Task Force strongly advised a mass-based approach
for determining the generally safe threshold below which a small
unmanned aircraft system would not need to be registered.
The Task Force recommended that the FAA should exempt from the
registration requirement any small unmanned aircraft weighing 250 grams
(g) or less. The 250 grams or less exclusion was based on a maximum
weight. The Task Force assumed maximum weight was defined as the
maximum weight possible including the aircraft, payload, and any other
associated weight.
The Task Force proposed this mass by considering: The maximum free-
fall kinetic energy of a small unmanned aircraft from 500 feet (ft)
above ground level; research papers assessing the lethality of inert
debris based on kinetic energy; and a determination of the probability
that a small unmanned aircraft with potentially lethal kinetic energy
would strike a person on the ground. The Task Force's recommendation
assumed population density for a densely packed urban environment, as
well as a conservative estimate of the percentage of people in that
crowded environment who may be unprotected and susceptible to injury
from a falling small unmanned aircraft. To determine the probability of
an accident, the Task Force provided an estimate of the mean time
between failure (MTBF) for small unmanned aircraft. Mathematically, the
Task Force predicts that the likelihood of a fatal accident involving a
small unmanned aircraft weighing 250g or less is 4.7 x 10-8,
or less than 1 ground fatality for every 20 million flight hours of
small unmanned aircraft 250g or less. The Task Force noted that the
acceptable risk level for commercial air transportation is on the order
of 1 x 10-9, and general aviation risk levels are on the
order of 5 x 0-0.
The Task Force emphasized that this recommendation is conditioned
on the premise that this and the Task Force's other recommendations
will be accepted, without alteration. Certain members of the Task Force
asked that it be noted that this is a nascent industry with very little
experiential data to inform the assumptions and that periodic review of
the data may be warranted. Certain Task Force members noted that the
FAA's 25 years of bird strike data show that fatal aircraft accidents
caused by small and medium birds (weighing four pounds on average) are
extremely rare despite the presence of billions of birds within the low
altitudes where small UAS typically fly, and urged the FAA to select a
weight that posed a similar safety risk. Task Force members
representing manned aircraft organizations expressed specific concerns
that data on UAS-aircraft collisions, engine ingestion, propeller, and
rotor impacts by UAS was not available when determining the weight
threshold. All members urged the FAA to expedite its work currently
underway in this area. The Task Force also emphasized that 250-gram
weight threshold was agreed to for registration purposes only and was
not a validation of the underlying assumptions for any purpose other
than the registration requirement. All Task Force members agreed that
the threshold should not be used by the FAA as an index for operational
restrictions or categories in any future rulemaking unless safety
concerns require the FAA to take appropriate action.
IFR Requirement: The FAA has considered the comments received to
the Clarification/Request for Information and the Task Force
recommendations. As noted above, the formula considered by the Task
Force is a risk assessment approach that results in a method to
determine which small unmanned aircraft are required to be registered.
In recognition of the potential risks posed by small unmanned aircraft
highlighted by the Task Force's work, the FAA agrees with the Task
Force recommendation and generally agrees with its approach for
purposes of aircraft registration only. The Task Force recommendation
results in a simple, straight forward method to determine which
aircraft should be registered. Accordingly, this rulemaking adopts the
Task Force recommendation to exclude small unmanned aircraft weighing
an equivalent of 250 grams or less. (FAA is using the pound equivalent
of 250 grams-0.55 pounds.) The agency emphasizes, however, that the
Task Force approach may be different from the approach that will be
used in the sUAS Operation and Certification rulemaking to develop
operating requirements.
The FAA recognizes that the Task Force recommendation strikes a
balance between many stakeholders, including modelers, unmanned
aircraft manufacturers, operators, retailers, and the manned aviation
community. As this aviation sector continues to develop, operating
experience and new technologies may compel the agency to reconsider the
appropriate weight threshold for unmanned aircraft registration.
Additionally, new research may necessitate a change from the weight-
based approach recommended by the Task Force. Since the Task Force's
methodology only assessed the
[[Page 78612]]
risk to individuals on the ground, the agency recognizes that
additional research is necessary to evaluate the risk of collisions
between small unmanned aircraft and manned aircraft. The FAA has
several tests, both in-progress and planned, in collaboration with our
UAS Test Sites and UAS Center of Excellence.
The FAA considered comments that advocated for the use of weight in
combination with other factors and determined that these scenarios
would be more difficult to implement and could cause confusion. The FAA
also considered comments that recommended exclusions from the
registration requirement based on operational limitations, e.g.,
altitude, speed, visual line of sight operations only. However, at this
time, the FAA is concerned that these approaches could stifle
innovation in the ongoing and rapid development of sUAS technology.
Thus, the FAA determined that these were not viable methods to create
exclusions.
Regarding commenters who recommended that the FAA exclude certain
aircraft from the requirement of registration based on the locations at
which those aircraft would be operated (e.g., private property), such
an approach would defeat the purpose of registration, which is to
identify aircraft throughout the NAS and the owners of such aircraft.
Registration based on intended location would not address that intent
because the NAS extends over private property. In response to the
comments urging the exclusion of some or all model aircraft from the
registration requirement, the FAA has determined that doing so would be
contrary to the policy adopted in the October 22, 2015 Clarification/
Request for Information.
In response to the comments urging the exclusion of some or all
model aircraft from the registration requirement, as stated in the
Clarification/Request for Information, model aircraft are indeed
aircraft and thus they are subject to the statutory requirement of
aircraft registration. 80 FR at 63913-63914.
In response to the commenters who advocated for a limited exemption
for unmanned aircraft operated exclusively indoors, the FAA reiterates
that the requirement of registration pertains to aircraft operated in
the NAS, thus outdoors. An exception is not required to stipulate that
small unmanned aircraft operated exclusively indoors are not required
to register with the FAA.
Regarding comments received to the Clarification/Request for
Information pertaining to the micro UAS proposal contained in the sUAS
Operation and Certification NPRM, the FAA notes that issues pertaining
to weight classifications for purposes of sUAS operation and
certification purposes are outside of the scope of this rulemaking.
Regarding comments pertaining to privacy and operational concerns,
the agency clarifies that this rulemaking is intended only to provide
relief from the existing part 47 registration requirements. Pursuant to
the Presidential Memorandum issued on February 15, 2015, Promoting
Economic Competitiveness While Safeguarding Privacy, Civil Rights, and
Civil Liberties in Domestic Use of UAS, the National Telecommunications
and Information Administration (NTIA) is leading a multi-stakeholder
engagement process to develop and communicate best practices for
privacy, accountability, and transparency issues regarding commercial
and private use of UAS in the NAS, and will address these issues
through that process.
D. Eligibility To Register
1. Citizenship
This final rule includes the statutory eligibility requirements for
aircraft registration as required by 49 U.S.C. 44102. An aircraft may
be registered under 49 U.S.C. 44103 only when the aircraft is not
registered under the laws of a foreign country and is owned by (1) a
citizen of the United States; (2) an individual citizen of a foreign
country lawfully admitted for permanent residence in the United States;
or (3) a corporation not a citizen of the United States when the
corporation is organized and doing business under the laws of the
United States or a State, and the aircraft is based and primarily used
in the United States. The FAA may also register aircraft owned by the
United States government or a State or local governmental entity. See
49 U.S.C. 44102. Part 47 includes these statutory eligibility
requirements.
sUAS Operation and Certification NPRM: The sUAS Operation and
Certification NPRM addressed the applicability of the statutory
aircraft-registration requirement by proposing to require all small
unmanned aircraft subject to the proposal to be registered pursuant to
the existing registration process of part 47. See 80 FR 9574. The NPRM
did not address issues pertaining to the eligibility to register
(including citizenship).
Although the sUAS Operation and Certification NPRM did not address
the issue of aircraft owner citizenship as it relates to small unmanned
aircraft in part 47, one commenter to the NPRM raised the issue. DJI
acknowledged the constraints the statutory aircraft registration
requirements place on the FAA, but believed that those restrictions
prevent most foreign citizens from operating a small UAS commercially
in the United States. DJI presumed that tourists operating small UAS as
model aircraft would be allowed to do so. DJI urged the FAA to consider
asking Congress either to drop the aircraft registration requirement
for all small UAS altogether or to withdraw the citizenship requirement
(including its limited exceptions).
Clarification/Request for Information: Rotor Sport recommended
against requiring U.S. citizenship for registration of small UAS
because it would be ``severely detrimental'' to the rotor sport
industry. In particular, Rotor Sport stated that requiring citizenship
for small UAS that are already governed by the Amateur Competitive
Sport regulations of the AMA ``would severely and financially impact
international drone racing events, including the 2016 World Drone
Racing Championship being held in Hawaii.''
Task Force: As part of its discussions regarding who should
register a small unmanned aircraft, the Task Force addressed the issue
of citizenship status of applicants for registration. Considering the
goals of encouraging the growth of the UAS industry and compliance with
the registration requirement, the Task Force recommended there be no
U.S. citizenship or residency requirement for registration eligibility.
If, however, the FAA does include a U.S. citizenship requirement, the
Task Force recommended that the agency use its discretion to permit
non-citizen owners to operate in the U.S. by applying for a waiver from
the registration requirement for a specified period of time (consistent
with 49 U.S.C. 41703(a)(4)). The Task Force believed that eliminating
the citizenship requirement would help achieve the goal that small
unmanned aircraft owners are known to the FAA for safety purposes.
IFR Requirement: While the FAA can make certain changes to the
registration system regarding the types of information to be collected,
and how that information is collected, the statutory requirements
pertaining to citizenship in 49 U.S.C. 44102 are clear. The statutory
citizenship criteria must be satisfied in order to obtain a certificate
of U.S. registration.
As noted above, registration is just one requirement that must be
satisfied in order to operate an aircraft in the U.S. With respect to
the operation of unmanned aircraft, Article 8 of the
[[Page 78613]]
Convention on International Civil Aviation, signed at Chicago on 7
December 1944 and amended by the ICAO Assembly (Doc 7300) addresses
`pilotless aircraft' and states that:
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.
For those that do not satisfy the citizenship requirements for U.S.
registration, consistent with the authority in 49 U.S.C. 41703, the
Secretary may authorize certain foreign civil aircraft to be navigated
in the U.S. only (1) if the country of registry grants a similar
privilege to aircraft of the U.S.; (2) by an airman holding a
certificate or license issued or made valid by the U.S. government or
the country of registry; (3) if the Secretary authorizes the
navigation; and (4) if the navigation is consistent with the terms the
Secretary may prescribe. See also 14 CFR part 375, Navigation of
Foreign Civil Aircraft in the United States.
In this instance, with respect to those individuals who do not
satisfy the citizenship requirements and yet wish to conduct model
aircraft operations in the U.S., the Secretary has determined,
consistent with Article 8, and the authority under 49 U.S.C. 41703, as
implemented in 14 CFR part 375, that it is appropriate to allow these
operations to occur provided that individuals complete the process set
forth in 14 CFR part 48 and comply with the statutory requirements for
conducting model aircraft operations in Public Law 112-95, section 336
(Feb. 14, 2012). For these individuals, recognizing that most ICAO
member states have not imposed a registration or airworthiness
requirement for these small unmanned aircraft, we will recognize these
aircraft as ``other foreign civil aircraft'' as defined in 14 CFR
375.11. Consistent with the Secretary's authority in section 333 of
Public Law 112-95, provided the aircraft are operated exclusively as
model aircraft in accordance with section 336 of Public Law 112-95, an
airworthiness certificate will not be required. Section 375.38 will
require individuals to comply with Sec. 48.30 and pay a $5 fee,
complete the application and the registration process in Sec. Sec.
48.100(b) and (c), 48.105, and 48.115; mark the aircraft in accordance
with the provisions in Sec. Sec. 48.200 and 48.205, and comply with
the statutory model aircraft requirements in section 336 of Public Law
112-95. The agency will consider the certificate that is issued to be a
recognition of ownership rather than a certificate of U.S. aircraft
registration. These conditions are consistent with and impose no
greater burden than the requirements imposed on U.S. citizens
conducting model aircraft operations in the U.S.
2. Commercial Activity Conducted by Non-U.S. Citizens
A corporation that is not a citizen of the United States may
register an aircraft in the United States when the corporation is
organized and doing business under the laws of the United States or a
State, and the aircraft is based and primarily used in the United
States. 49 U.S.C. 40102(a)(1)(C). This statutory limitation exists in
order to prevent the United States registry from ``becoming an
international registry'' and ``United States aircraft registration from
becoming a so-called `flag of convenience.' '' See 44 FR 61937, 61937-
61938 (October 29, 1979).
Part 47 implements the requirement to define ``based and primarily
used in the United States.'' Under part 47, aircraft are deemed to be
``based and primarily used in the United States'' if one of the
following conditions is satisfied: (1) The aircraft is used exclusively
in the United States during the period of registration; or (2) the
aircraft flight hours accumulated within the United States amount to at
least 60 percent of the total flight hours of the aircraft, measured
over six month intervals. Sec. 47.9. Because operations by small
unmanned aircraft registered in accordance with part 48 are limited to
operations within the United States, it is not necessary to further
define ``based and primarily used in the United States'' as provided in
part 47.
With respect to foreign-owned or controlled entities or individuals
who want to conduct non-recreational UAS operations but who do not
satisfy the definition above and thus cannot register their aircraft in
the United States under either 14 CFR part 47 or part 48, the
Department and the FAA may consider allowing these operations to occur
with additional authorization under the authority of 49 U.S.C. 41703,
the provisions of 14 CFR part 375, and other safety authorizations as
deemed necessary by the FAA. Comments are requested on what factors the
FAA or the Department should consider in determining whether and when
to grant such authorizations. The Department will address these
authorizations in more detail in the sUAS Operation and Certification
final rule, the final rule on sUAS registration, or other rulemaking as
appropriate. For more information and guidance regarding authorities
for non-U.S. citizens, please contact the Department's Foreign Air
Carrier Licensing Division.
3. Minimum Age To Register
Clarification/Request for Information: In the Clarification/Request
for Information document, the agency sought comments on whether there
should be a minimum age at which a person would be permitted to
register a small unmanned aircraft. An individual commenter opposed a
minimum age requirement, noting that a 10 year old can be safer than a
30 year old. A few other individual commenters did, however, recommend
a minimum age requirement to register and operate a UAS--one commenter
recommended 21 years old (to purchase and operate a UAS), two
commenters recommended 18 years old (to register a UAS), and one
commenter recommended 16 years old (to register a UAS). Another
individual commenter said there should be an age requirement to
purchase UAS weighing more than 4 pounds. That commenter did not,
however, suggest an age at which this requirement should be set. One
commenter pointed to the existence of child protection laws and
questioned how the FAA will protect privacy interests in the
registration process.
Task Force: Due to the anticipated use of a Web-based application
process for part 48, the Task Force considered age-related limitations
applicable to Web-based information collection. Consistent with the
Children's Online Privacy Protection Act (COPPA), 15 U.S.C. 6501-6505,
the Task Force recommended a requirement that individuals be 13 years
or older to register a UAS.
IFR Requirement: In response to the comments from the
Clarification/Request for Information, the agency notes that the
comments did not provide justification for an age restriction for
purposes of registration given that there is no minimum age for the
operation of some sUAS and the agency proposed a minimum age of 17 for
operation of sUAS used for commercial (non-hobby or non-recreational)
purposes. Although one commenter proposed that the registration age
should be linked to the weight of the aircraft, given that the
registration process provided by this final rule is exclusively Web-
based, protections for minor registrants must control. The FAA agrees
with the Task Force recommendation to limit Web-based small unmanned
aircraft registration to persons age 13 and older and has included this
requirement in this IFR.
[[Page 78614]]
As a matter of policy (OMB Guidance for Implementing the Privacy
Provisions of the E-Government Act of 2002), all Web sites and online
services operated by the federal government and contractors operating
on behalf of federal agencies must comply with the standards set forth
in the Children's Online Privacy Protection Rule (16 CFR part 312).
COPPA applies to Web site operators (including mobile apps) directed to
children under 13 that collect, use, or disclose personal information
from children. It also applies to operators of general audience Web
sites or online services with actual knowledge that they are
collecting, using, or disclosing personal information from children
under 13. COPPA also applies to Web sites or online services that have
actual knowledge that they are collecting personal information directly
from users of another Web site or online service directed to children.
Operators who are covered by COPPA must:
1. Post a clear and comprehensive online privacy policy describing
their information practices for personal information collected online
from children;
2. Provide direct notice to parents and obtain verifiable parental
consent, with limited exceptions, before collecting personal
information online from children;
3. Give parents the choice of consenting to the operator's
collection and internal use of a child's information, but prohibiting
the operator from disclosing that information to third parties (unless
disclosure is integral to the site or service, in which case, this must
be made clear to parents);
4. Provide parents access to their child's personal information to
review and/or have the information deleted;
5. Give parents the opportunity to prevent further use or online
collection of a child's personal information;
6. Maintain the confidentiality, security, and integrity of
information they collect from children, including by taking reasonable
steps to release such information only to parties capable of
maintaining its confidentiality and security; and
7. Retain personal information collected online from a child for
only as long as is necessary to fulfill the purpose for which it was
collected and delete the information using reasonable measures to
protect against its unauthorized access or use.
The Registry, through the small unmanned aircraft registration Web
site, is expected to gather personal information as defined by COPPA,
such as first and last name, a physical or mailing address and online
contact information. In light of these requirements, the registration
Web site will require a responsible person age 13 or over to complete
the registration application, providing their name in place of the
child's name when the aircraft owner is a child under 13, as required
by Sec. 48.15.
All aircraft owners who are age 13 and older will be required to
register in their name as the aircraft owner. The agency does not
expect a person who turns 13 after the date on which the Certificate of
Aircraft Registration is issued but before renewal is required, to
reregister their small unmanned aircraft in their own name. The agency
expects this change to take place at the time of registration renewal.
Until such time, the responsible person can continue to meet the
obligations of the owner for purposes of device identification.
We recognize that in order to register in the system, the payment
of the fee requires the use of a credit, debit, gift, or prepaid card
using the Visa, MasterCard, American Express, JCB, Discover, or Diners
Club network. For owners who are age 13 and older who do not have
access to one of these payment methods, a parent, guardian, or
responsible person could submit payment on their behalf using one of
these options.
E. Registration Required Prior to Operation
1. Registration Prior to Operation
Clarification/Request for Information: The FAA requested comments
on the point at which registration should occur (e.g., point-of-sale or
prior to operation). Several trade associations whose members use UAS
(News Media Coalition, Air Medical Operators Association, Aerospace
Industries Association (AIA), and Property Drone Consortium),
Modovolate Aviation, LLC, and Morris P. Hebert, Inc. supported point-
of-sale registration. A number of individuals stated that registration
at point of sale was the only approach that would ensure that
registration would occur at least for ready-to-fly UASs. These
commenters stated that many operators would not register later. Some of
these commenters, however, questioned whether point-of-sale
registration could be applied to home-built or traded UASs. A few
commenters compared the registration process to that which occurs for
car and gun sales. Some commenters stated that an unlock process should
be included so that the UAS could not be used until registration was
complete. Another suggested registering the beacon, not the UAS.
Commenters stated that point-of-sale registration, with the seller
handling the information, would reduce the burden on buyers. Some
individuals stated that purchasers should have to demonstrate that they
were familiar with the rules for operation.
Chronicled, Inc. stated that a registration system should be
designed to integrate all POS systems that currently exist; this
commenter assumed that each buyer would have an email address and
government ID number that could be used to set up a registration
account by downloading a mobile app. This company also assumed that the
product would include a public key infrastructure (PKI) chip. The Real
Time Technology Group stated that vendors could easily verify IDs
presented by checking public records, and government watch lists.
The National Agricultural Aviation Association (NAAA), the Colorado
Agricultural Aviation Association, and an individual stated that the
burden on vendors would be no greater than submitting credit card
charges. NAAA recommended that initial registration occur at the
manufacturers, with all subsequent sales involving a transfer of
ownership. A law firm and individual commenters generally supported
having the vendor submit the information because, they argued, this
would ensure that the registration occurred. One suggested that the
vendor submit a temporary registration with the purchaser required to
submit a final version.
Most commenters that addressed this issue expressed either
opposition to the approach or concerns about the viability of point-of-
sale registration for some sales. AT&T Services, Inc. questioned the
FAA's legal authority to impose a registration requirement at the
point-of-sale, given that the statutory authority underlying the UAS
registration requirement, as well as its implementing regulation,
applies to persons who ``operate'' aircraft. In this case, AT&T
asserted, it is the owner of the UAS who ``operates'' it, and should
therefore be responsible for registering it.
The Retail Industry Leaders Association (RILA) stated that point-
of-sale registration would require the FAA to build new information
technology systems to collect the information and retail outlets would
have to build and test systems to link to the FAA. RILA stated that
this was unlikely to happen in the short timeframe the FAA is
proposing. RILA further stated that the practical realities of
implementing a
[[Page 78615]]
point-of-sale registration system in time for this holiday season would
impose heavy and costly administrative burdens on the FAA and retailers
while at the same time raising serious consumer privacy concerns.
The National Retail Federation (NRF) stated that many retail point-
of-sale systems are not configured to capture individual product
identifying information. From a product's UPC code, many point-of-sale
systems will identify the type of item, but cannot be configured to
automatically capture information identifying each unique instance of
an item type, such as a serial number. NRF stated that point-of-sale
registration would require retailers to build a manual intervention
process into their point-of-sale systems; cashiers would have to
manually capture the serial number of the UAS and other required
registration information. The commenter said this process would require
training sales personnel, which imposes labor costs.
RILA and NRF stated that collecting personal information in a
checkout line was problematic and presented data safety issues. RILA
stated that it would cause significant delays in checking out for both
UAS buyers and other customers. For both store and online sales, RILA
stated that the retailer would have to explain the requirements to the
customers because many would not be aware of the FAA rule. RILA also
stated that point-of-sale registration would not capture the needed
information for those UAS that are bought as gifts. Finally, RILA
stated that a point-of-sale requirement would regulate sales rather
than operations and questioned whether the FAA has the authority to
regulate sales.
A number of individual commenters stated the point of sale would
not work for people who build their own models from purchased parts or
3D-generated parts, for many online sales, and for purchases from
foreign Web sites. One commenter stated that he bought parts without
necessarily knowing exactly what kind of model he will build. Another
commenter stated that some kits are sold by individuals operating small
businesses from their homes. Several individuals suggested that the FAA
provide identification numbers to purchasers so that the seller would
only need to record the numbers. Other commenters recommended that AMA
membership or proof of registration with the FAA be required at point
of sale.
RILA, Horizon Hobby, and many individual commenters supported
registration prior to operation. They stated that this approach would
make it possible to capture the many UAS that are purchased as gifts,
from foreign Web sites, or sold privately and those that are
constructed by the operator. A number of commenters suggested that this
would allow the operator to affix the registration number on the UAS.
Other commenters stated that they own multiple aircraft and asked that
the operator, rather than the aircraft, be registered. A few
individuals stated that the registration process could be handled when
the owner filed the warranty card. One commenter stated that a prior to
operation placement of name and contact information in the aircraft
would be a more efficient means of ensuring the identity of the person
piloting the aircraft is tied to the aircraft. Another individual
stated that in some cases models are started by one person, passed on
to others, and perhaps never finished or flown; including such models
would serve no purpose.
The NRF stated UAS should be manufactured so that they can only be
turned on and operated after the consumer registers the UAS and
receives and applies an activation code. A manufacturer, Drone House
Joint Stock Company, stated that this approach is its model for
registration.
Another individual questioned how the FAA has authority to require
registration of UAS that are ``on the ground, not being flown, with the
drone being turned off, in a box, and inside a building.'' This
commenter asserted that, consistent with 14 CFR parts 1, 47, and 91 and
49 U.S.C. 44101(a), the FAA only has jurisdiction over a UAS that is in
operation.
Task Force: The Task Force approached its discussions of the
registration process with two goals in mind--to ensure accountability
by creating a traceable link between aircraft and owner, and to
encourage the maximum levels of regulatory compliance by making the
registration process as simple as possible. To achieve the twin goals
of accountability and compliance, the Task Force recommended the FAA
institute a simple, owner-based registration system in which the FAA
issues a single registration number to each registrant which covers all
unmanned aircraft owned by that registrant.
The Task Force also addressed the question of registration process
design. Because 49 U.S.C. 44101(a) stipulates that a person may only
operate an aircraft when it is registered with the FAA, the majority of
Task Force members believed the FAA cannot require registration of
unmanned aircraft at the point-of-sale. Some members of the Task Force
expressed the opinion that maximum compliance can best be achieved with
point-of-sale registration and those members therefore encouraged the
FAA to include it as one of several options for registration. Several
other members of the Task Force pointed out that, because the FAA's
authority extends only to operation of aircraft, point-of-sale
registration cannot be mandated.
IFR Requirement: The FAA agrees with the Task Force recommendation
and comments stating that registration should be required prior to
operation of the small unmanned aircraft, as opposed to at the point of
sale. As referenced by the Task Force report, 49 U.S.C. 44101(a)
stipulates that a person may only operate an aircraft once it is
registered with the FAA.
Registration prior to operation as opposed to point-of-sale
registration also avoids a number of logistical considerations
associated with consumer product purchases identified by commenters,
such as distinguishing the purchaser from the ultimate owner, and the
burden placed on retailers when such a transaction occurs at a cash
register in a store.
The agency emphasizes, however, that conformance to the statutory
requirement to register prior to operation does not foreclose the
opportunity for the development of a point-of-sale web-based
application for registration that relieves the associated burdens
identified by commenters. The agency encourages innovation in point-of-
sale registration as it may provide the agency with a means by which to
receive information regarding small unmanned aircraft in a seamless
fashion, and hopes to work with retailers and manufacturers in the
future to make the process as simple as possible.
In response to commenters' concern about whether a small unmanned
aircraft that is not used in the NAS (i.e. indoors) would be
inadvertently registered via point-of-sale registration, the agency
confirms that only those small unmanned aircraft that are operated
outdoors must register. Further, there is no obligation to register a
small unmanned aircraft that will not be operated outdoors.
2. Registration of Each Aircraft
Clarification/Request for Information: Most commenters favored a
requirement to register the owner \36\ of the UAS
[[Page 78616]]
instead of a requirement to register the UAS itself. Under this
registration scheme, each owner would receive a single, unique
registration number that would cover every UAS that person owns. Many
commenters pointed out that this is how the AMA handles registration.
Commenters asserted that a requirement to register each individual UAS
is impractical and overly burdensome, particularly in light of the fact
that most recreational users own multiple (often many) UAS. Commenters
also pointed out that many UAS owners, especially those who build their
own aircraft, regularly replace parts, as well as trade and sell their
aircraft with other UAS owners. Those commenters asserted that a
requirement to register the owner instead of the aircraft would
alleviate the burdens associated with re-registering an aircraft each
time such an event occurs. Commenters also claimed that registration of
the owner of a UAS is all that is necessary to satisfy the DOT and FAA
goals of traceability and accountability.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\36\ Some commenters said the registration requirement should
apply to the ``owner'' while other commenters said it should apply
to the ``pilot'' or ``operator.'' Because these commenters were
largely members of the model aircraft community, and therefore both
the owners and operators of their aircraft, this seems to be a
distinction without a difference.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
EPIC stated that a UAS registration requirement is an ``absolutely
essential'' requirement to establish accountability for use of
``autonomous surveillance devices'' in the United States. EPIC further
stated, however, that to ensure that the registry fosters
accountability and responsibility among UAS operators, the registry
must include provisions addressing privacy issues ``to ensure a
comprehensive baseline set of protections that facilitate the safe
integration of drones.''
Union Pacific Railroad similarly stated support for ``reasonable
measures by the FAA to encourage accountability and responsibility
among all UAS operators, including recreational users of sUAS.''
A number of commenters recommended that the FAA implement a
licensing system like the FCC uses to register amateur radio operators.
Commenters drew comparisons between amateur radio operators, most of
whom own many different pieces of radio equipment, and hobby aircraft
modelers, many of whom own many different model aircraft. Commenters
explained that under the FCC licensing system the operator, not the
equipment, is licensed for non-commercial operations after passing a
safety test. Commenters asserted that registration alone does not
guarantee a model aircraft operator understands the rules of safety for
operating in the NAS, so a licensing system with a testing component
may be the best way to ensure safe operations in the NAS. One commenter
acknowledged that licensing model aircraft operators would require a
change in the law, but stated his belief that there is wide support for
this in both Congress and the modeling community.
One commenter recommended that individuals be required to pass a
background check before getting a license for UAS operations. Other
commenters said the registration system should be more like the systems
to obtain a license to hunt or to operate a boat, and less like firearm
registration.
In contrast to those commenters who advocated for an owner-based
registration system, Delair-Tech stated that each entry in the
registration database ``should be attached to exactly one UAV.''
Aviation Management said the FAA should consider independent
registration for a UAS operator in addition to registration of the
unmanned aircraft and all of its support systems, including the ground
control station.
The National Air Transportation Association expressed its support
of the registration requirement, but acknowledged the ability to track
an unsafe or noncompliant UAS back to the operator is limited to
incidents in which the UAS is disabled, but not too damaged to obtain
registration information. Several commenters, including the Competitive
Enterprise Institute, questioned the usefulness of a registration
number for identification purposes asserting a registration number
would be impossible to read during flight, would only be useful after
an incident has occurred and only if the UAS is recovered. Some
commenters said affixing the name and contact information of the owner
to or in the aircraft will serve the same purpose with much less
expense. Other commenters said because it will be very easy for an
individual to ignore the registration requirement, the small benefit of
registration will be greatly outweighed by the burden placed on the
model aircraft industry and the cost of implementing and maintaining
the system.
NAAA and CoAA said registration will help track down who is
responsible after an accident, but noted that FAA will not be able to
enforce illegal and unsafe operations without requiring UAS to be
equipped with an ADS-B like system through which to trace them.
Task Force: The Task Force recommended an owner-based registration
system to achieve the goals of accountability and compliance. Under the
Task Force scheme, the FAA would issue a single registration number to
each registrant that would be used to identify all unmanned aircraft
owned and operated by that registrant.
IFR Requirement: The FAA sought to integrate the Task Force
recommendation and comments regarding an owner registration approach
while also considering the best public policy with respect to small
unmanned aircraft registration. As addressed in the preamble discussion
``Registration Process,'' the registration system will differentiate
between small unmanned aircraft intended to be used exclusively as
model aircraft and small unmanned aircraft intended to be used as other
than model aircraft in that different information will be collected for
each population.
Small unmanned aircraft intended to be used exclusively as model
aircraft will be registered with a single Certificate of Aircraft
Registration issued to the aircraft owner. As with all other small
unmanned aircraft, registration must be completed prior to operation of
a small unmanned aircraft exclusively as a model aircraft. Owners of
small unmanned aircraft intended to be used as model aircraft must
complete the registration application process by submitting basic
contact information, such as name, address, and email address. The
owner will receive a Certificate of Aircraft Registration with a single
registration number that constitutes the registration for each of this
particular owner's aircraft. There would be no limit to the number of
small unmanned aircraft registered under the owner's registration. This
approach serves the purpose of the statutory aircraft registration
requirement because each small unmanned aircraft must bear the owner's
registration number, thus allowing for the aircraft and its owner to be
identified.
The agency notes that, once an aircraft is no longer exclusively
used as a model aircraft, then the owner must complete a new
registration application in accordance with the requirements for
aircraft used as other than model aircraft.
The owner of a small unmanned aircraft intended to be used as other
than a model aircraft must complete the registration application by
providing aircraft-specific information in addition to basic contact
information. The owner will receive a Certificate of Aircraft
Registration with a registration number for each individual aircraft
registered.
The agency determined that this registration approach is necessary
for entities intending to use small
[[Page 78617]]
unmanned aircraft as other than model aircraft because, based on the
agency's experience with exemptions issued under section 333 of Public
Law 112-95, these entities are expected to conduct a higher volume of
operations, utilize multiple aircraft and at times conduct multiple
simultaneous operations across the country, which introduces more risk
into the NAS. In contrast, a small unmanned aircraft owner who operates
small unmanned aircraft exclusively as a model aircraft is expected to
use only one of his or her aircraft at a time and to do so on a less
frequent basis than a person conducting operations with small unmanned
aircraft intended to be used as other than as a model aircraft.
Components of the owner registration approach will still be
available for small unmanned aircraft used as other than model aircraft
in that the agency will utilize an owner profile for the registration
Web site under which multiple aircraft can be registered. Owners will
have a single profile that contains all of their aircraft, and although
they may register multiple aircraft under that profile, each aircraft
must have a unique number that exists under that profile. The FAA notes
that persons using small unmanned aircraft other than as model aircraft
will not be able to use the part 48 registration system until March 31,
2016.
The FAA notes that commenters comparing the registration
requirement to licensure misconstrue the purpose of registration. While
registration allows the agency an opportunity to educate sUAS
operators, the primary purpose of registration is to identify the
aircraft owner.
F. Registration Process
1. Design of Registration System
sUAS Operation and Certification NPRM: The sUAS Operation and
Certification NPRM requested comments on the registration process. Both
supporters and opponents of the proposed registration provision said
FAA should take steps to ease the registration process. The Property
Drone Consortium stated that a streamlined registration process was
necessary to ensure growth in the UAS industry. Amazon, Association of
Unmanned Vehicle Systems International, the American Farm Bureau
Federation, and several others urged FAA to allow online registration
of aircraft. Similarly, Small UAV Coalition and AUVSI, among other
commenters, urged FAA to establish an electronic UAS registration
database.
Clarification/Request for Information: In the Clarification/Request
for Information, the Administrator and the Secretary requested
information related to the logistics of the small unmanned aircraft
registration process. Specifically, the FAA and DOT requested comments
on how the registration process should be designed to minimize burdens
and best protect innovation and encourage growth in the UAS industry.
The FAA and DOT also requested comments on whether registration should
be electronic or web-based, and whether there were existing tools that
could support an electronic registration process.
In response to issues raised in the October 22, 2015 Clarification/
Request for Information, commenters provided numerous suggestions for
designing the registration process to minimize burdens and best protect
innovation and encourage growth in the UAS industry. Suggestions
included: Registering operators instead of individual aircraft;
providing a variety of ways to register, including online, via
telephone, through a mobile application, or at various locations, such
as post offices or retail outlets; implementing a licensure procedure
similar to that required by FCC for ham radio operators; allowing
aircraft that already comply with AMA or FCC labeling practices to meet
the labeling requirements to avoid conflicting requirements; and
permitting operation of UAS upon submission of registration information
rather than instituting a waiting period. Some commenters recommend
that small unmanned aircraft manufacturers provide information to the
FAA or assist owners in providing information to the FAA.
A law firm recommended the agency use the same registration system
it uses for registering manned aircraft. The commenter noted the
current registration system requires the following information: A
notarized statement by the builder, manufacturer, or applicant for
registration describing the UAS in detail, evidence of ownership, and
an Aircraft Registration Application (FAA AC Form 8050-1), which
identifies UAS and the owner. This commenter suggested manufacturers
provide the information regarding the UAS and its capabilities, which
would reduce burdens on retailers and consumers and result in a high
degree of compliance.
Comments submitted as part of the AMA form letter campaign stated
that the registration process should be as automated as possible and
minimally intrusive. Those commenters stated that the system of
aircraft identification used by AMA members (i.e., where members place
their names and addresses or AMA numbers on their model aircraft)
should be acceptable for AMA members as an alternative means of
complying with the registration requirement. The Experimental Aircraft
Association agreed that the identification used by AMA members could be
allowed to meet the UAS registration requirements, which would
alleviate some of the burden on the FAA while maintaining the
accountability that DOT seeks through registration. However, EAA
expressed doubts about the practicality of requiring registration of
millions of UAS and model aircraft currently in use in the United
States and feared the magnitude of the system would overshadow other
safety measures.
An individual stated the main problem registration is intended to
solve is the unsafe use of UAS by inexperienced or uninformed
operators; therefore, the commenter recommended registrants be required
to pass a test as part of the registration process.
The National Agricultural Aviation Association and the Colorado
Agricultural Aviation Association stated FAA should focus on its
aviation safety mission, including focusing on the safety of manned
aircraft even if that resulted in requiring registration and more
safety equipment for unmanned aircraft. These commenters said requiring
items, such as indestructible data plate, ADS-B, and visible strobes,
in addition to registration would encourage growth of the industry
through accident prevention. In contrast, several individual commenters
contended any registration requirement will stifle innovation and
discourage growth.
Several individual commenters questioned whether the agency can
handle the registration of millions of recreational UAS. One commenter
noted that the registration database could become overloaded and
unmanageable if every person registers every model aircraft they
purchase or receive--many of which will not last past a single flight--
but then fail to notify the FAA when a model is lost, destroyed, or
sold. Also pointing to the short life span of most small UAS, another
commenter similarly said the registration system will become
overwhelmed if recreational users are required to register and re-
register each model aircraft they obtain. Another commenter said that
requiring UAS owners to renew their registration will ``complicate
everything'' and lead to people involuntarily breaking the law when
they forget to re-register their UAS.
[[Page 78618]]
Task Force: The Task Force broadly agreed that in order to promote
greater acceptance of the registration requirement, the registration
process should be as quick and easy as possible. The Task Force
encouraged the FAA to consider implementing additional methods and
strategies to maximize compliance with the registration requirement but
without adding cumbersome steps into the process.
IFR Requirement: As has been noted previously, the FAA has
developed and, by this rule, is creating an alternative, web-based
registration system to register small unmanned aircraft prior to their
operation. This web-based registration system is responsive to comments
seeking an automated approach that is capable of managing the expected
volume of registration. The agency expects that the web-based
registration system will facilitate compliance with the aircraft
registration requirement because of its accessibility and ease of use.
Additionally, an electronic registration system complies fully with the
Government Paperwork Elimination Act, Public Law 105-277, which
requires that when practicable, federal agencies use electronic forms,
filing, and signatures to conduct official business with the public.
As has been noted, the agency considered a point-of-sale
registration approach, but ultimately determined that it would be not
be feasible for manufacturers, retailers, and the agency to implement
at this time. As discussed earlier in this preamble, the agency is
evaluating how to address the burdens associated with point-of-sale
registration identified by commenters.
2. Web-Based Registration Application
The FAA received many comments regarding whether or not the agency
should create an online registration system to register UAS or their
operators. The vast majority of commenters were supportive of the use
of an electronic or web-based registration system to collect
registration information. However, commenters articulated significant
differences in how they preferred the system be established,
implemented, and enforced. Several commenters said that web-based
registration would be the least intrusive and burdensome method of
registration. These commenters also suggested that an online system may
be the cheapest way to register individuals, reducing paperwork and
processing time.
Clarification/Request for Information: In responding to the
Clarification/Request for Information, multiple commenters, including
Horizon Hobby LLC, recommended that FAA create a registration platform
that would be accessible from anywhere and any web-based device,
including mobile devices. As stated by commenters, this platform could
then be accessed repeatedly by individuals, allowing them to update
registration information as their device specifications change.
Commenters said that this type of online system would allow individuals
to add new small unmanned aircraft to the registry easily and in a
minimally burdensome fashion.
ATA stated that an electronic registration system would
dramatically shorten the registration process and make it more
manageable for the FAA. ATA also noted that any cost associated with
updating the FAA's system is likely to be fairly minimal and could be
offset by charging a small registration fee.
Other commenters suggested that web-based registrations be
integrated into online points of sale to ensure that those devices
purchased from kits are registered without placing an outside burden on
operators. Commenters said that this registration would be a part of
the retailer's sale process and would be a requirement of purchase;
however, registration and approval would be instantaneous. These
commenters, including Aviation Management Associates, indicated that
this type of online registration could also include educational
material and a quiz that must be passed as a condition of registration.
According to the commenters, the educational material and quiz could
serve as a mechanism to ensure that operators understand basic aviation
laws and safety guidelines.
While most commenters were supportive of electronic or web-based
registrations, some expressed concern with an entirely electronic
system. Many commenters expressed concern for the registration needs of
those without consistent internet access. They instead recommended a
paper alternative, in conjunction with online registration, be
implemented to ease the registration burden of some operators.
Multiple commenters suggested that outside of new technologies, the
agency could use existing electronic registration systems as a template
from which to craft a specific FAA registration program. For example, a
few commenters recommended using existing e-commerce registration
templates as a model. One commenter suggested that FAA work with
commercial retailers like DJI to use their current registration
platforms as a basis for point of sale registration. Other commenters
suggested that FAA implement the registration procedures of the AMA for
all operators, or use the AMA system as a template upon which the FAA
can develop an equivalent system.
NetMoby and other commenters suggested that FAA leverage existing
FAA and other Federal agencies' electronic registration systems to
build a registration system unique to UASs. Examples provided by these
commenters included creating a registration system similar to the one
currently in place for FAA tail numbers, or developing a registration
Web site with similar functionality to radio licensing sites. Skyward
Inc, for example, recommended that FAA leverage its current FAA IT
systems that it uses for other programs for use with UAS.
Several commenters remarked that there are multiple available
technologies that FAA could use to aid an electronic registration
process. Some of these included QR codes and RFID technologies.
Commenters stated that both could be used to register and track the
flight paths of UAS in the NAS. They said an RFID can be placed on
aircraft that can then be read by interested parties from long
distances. However, these same commenters indicated that there are
potential security concerns with using RFID technology as well. Along
with these technologies, commenters asserted that there are several
private software development companies in operation that could produce
a sufficient web-based registration product for FAA to use and
implement. Two individuals noted the cost to design, implement, and
maintain a centralized registration system will be significant, without
an increase the safety of the NAS. Another individual said the cost of
the registration program will hurt small businesses by adding an
external expense to their operations.
Task Force: The Task Force also addressed the question of whether
registration should be electronic or web-based, and what tools exist to
support an electronic registration process. The Task Force believed the
registration process should be web-based, and that the FAA should
create an online registration system that allows for multiple entry
points through an application programming interface (API). This would
allow, for example, a sUAS manufacturer or trade organization to
develop an application that communicates through an API by which it can
register its customers or members by submitting registration
information directly to the FAA database on their behalf. The
registration information required and the certificate of registration
received
[[Page 78619]]
would be the same regardless of what point of entry is used into the
registration system. The online registration system should provide for
an option for owners to edit and delete their registration information,
as well as to view and print physical copies of their registration
certificates through access to a password-protected web-based portal.
IFR Requirement: In Sec. 48.30, the FAA sets out a process for
streamlined registration of small unmanned aircraft. This streamlined
process is exclusively web-based. The FAA agrees with commenters and
the Task Force that a web-based system is much more functional than a
paper system would be, and also agrees that registration compliance
rates will increase dramatically when registration can be accomplished
through a simple, web-based system. Additionally, the current FAA
Registry would be unable to quickly process the dramatic increase in
paper volume that the FAA would receive from small unmanned aircraft
registration. With the implementation of the small unmanned aircraft
registration process, small unmanned aircraft registration will be
fully automated, allowing for the registration of small unmanned
aircraft without delay. Therefore, a web-based system benefits both
applicants and the FAA. The paper-based part 47 process will remain
available for those applicants who are unable to avail themselves of
the part 48 process.
The web-based registration system itself will be simple, easy to
use, and mobile friendly. To complete the registration process, the
owner of a small unmanned aircraft will enter the information
identified in Sec. 48.100 (identified within the registration system
as data fields) and pay a fee through the web-based registration
system. A Certificate of Aircraft Registration will be available to
print within the registration system or sent to the registrant via
email following the initial registration and subsequent renewals. The
applicant will have 24 hours to correct registration information after
the initial payment without having to pay a second time.
Once registered, owners will be able to access the registration Web
site to update the information provided to register the aircraft as
well as cancel registration as circumstances require (e.g., aircraft
destruction, transfer, sale, change in owner eligibility to register).
Aircraft owners may also view and print physical copies of their
registration certificate through access to this password-protected web-
based portal, but must only pay a fee for the initial registration and
renewals. There is no fee for updating personal information or
accessing the registration certificate. For the initial release the
user can add an alternate email address which can be used to reset the
account password and all functionality of the system could still be
utilized if the user lost access to their primary email address. For
future releases we will have the ability to change the primary email
address on file and revalidate the new one.
Canceling a registration would change the state of the registration
in the database to ``cancelled'' or another state that is not
associated with an active registration. Aircraft registration records
are permanent records and would not be deleted or destroyed. Please
refer to the NARA schedule for additional details
With respect to Task Force and Federal Register comments regarding
different technical aspects the database should contain, the agency
expects to continuously evaluate the database and the web-based
registration process and look for opportunities to further develop the
technical functionality of both. The FAA's goal in utilizing the least
burdensome approach is to encourage prompt compliance by removing
barriers. As with other aspects of sUAS integration into the NAS, our
approach to registration will be incremental. The Administrator may
authorize expanded technical capabilities going forward, but the
initial goal is to make this process as minimally burdensome as
possible to encourage compliance with the registration requirement, and
provide the FAA and law enforcement the ability to quickly connect
individuals to their aircraft with the least amount of steps possible.
With regard to comments addressing the use of RFI technology or use
of small unmanned aircraft beacons to assist with registration and
identification, the FAA believes that RFI and other technology could be
cost prohibitive, and could add weight to smaller aircraft. The FAA
believes that the same goal--identification of small unmanned aircraft
and their owners--can be achieved through an online registration
process with less expense and less technological investment.
3. Information Required
sUAS Operation and Certification NPRM: The sUAS Operation and
Certification NPRM requested comments on what information should be
required for registration. A few commenters provided feedback as to
whether small UAS owners should be required to provide additional
information during the registration process so that UAS could be
categorized. Amazon, American Farm Bureau Federation and an individual
stated that small UAS owners should not be required to provide any
additional information beyond what is currently required of manned
aircraft. The University of North Dakota's John D. Odegard School of
Aerospace Sciences recommended that FAA adopt a simplified information-
gathering process to include the following data: Manufacturer
identification (if applicable); known performance and limitations;
physical size, weight, and characteristics; and, if self-built, a list
of major components similar to that provided by commercial
manufacturers. The commenter stated that this minimal information would
allow for future safety-related research by establishing base
categories from which comparisons could be made. NOAA and Schertz
Aerial Services, Inc. suggested that FAA impose similar requirements as
those imposed on amateur-built aircraft. According to NOAA, UAS owners
should be required, at a minimum, to describe the aircraft by class
(UAS), size, color, number of motors/props/wings, serial number, make,
and model. Predesa, LLC recommended that digital photos or video
recordings of the aircraft, as well as written records of
manufacturers' part numbers of supporting equipment used by the
operator, can satisfy the need for additional information to accurately
describe a non-standardized small UAS.
Clarification/Request for Information: A majority of commenters
stated that only basic information should be collected during the
registration process because of commenters' concerns about data
security. Several commenters suggested that commercial UAS operators
should provide more in-depth information than recreational operators.
The vast majority of commenters, including individuals and
organizational stakeholders, stated that owner/business name, address,
telephone number, email address, and description of the UAS should be
collected during the registration process. Some commenters further
broke down the UAS's description to include make, model, manufacturer's
serial number, weight, range, performance capability, flight controller
serial number and whether the UAS was purchased or home-built. Many
commenters also suggested that registrants should upload a picture of
the UAS. Several commenters suggested that date of sale/purchase, point
of sale, date of operation, intended use and geographic location of
primary use would also be helpful information.
[[Page 78620]]
AMA members also stated that their AMA member numbers should be
collected.
To provide further information about the aircraft owner, many
commenters suggested that the operator's date of birth, driver's
license, Social Security Number, and number of aircraft owned should be
provided during the registration process. Other commenters specifically
objected to providing their Social Security Numbers because of concerns
about data security. A few individuals who identified as hobbyists
stated that insurance information and professional license numbers
should also be collected during registration. A small number of
commenters suggested registrants should provide their passport numbers,
credit card numbers, nationality, and proof of citizenship.
EPIC stated that the FAA should limit the collection of registrant
information to what is necessary to maintain the aircraft registry and
UAS safety. In particular, EPIC stated that the FAA should not collect
``highly restricted personal information,'' including ``an individual's
photograph or image, social security number, medical or disability
information.'' \37\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\37\ To support its position, EPIC cited to and quoted from 18
U.S.C. 2725(4). Title 18 of the United States Code covers Crimes and
Criminal Procedure. Section 2725 covers the definitions used in
Chapter 123--Prohibition on Release and Use of Certain Personal
Information from State Motor Vehicle Records.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
EPIC also recommended that the FAA require disclosure of each UAS's
technical and surveillance capabilities, including data collection and
storage. EPIC asserted that UAS are ``surveillance platforms'' that are
able to carry a multitude of different data-collection technologies,
including high-definition cameras, geolocation devices, cellular radios
and disruption equipment, sensitive microphones, thermal imaging
devices, and LIDAR. EPIC further asserted that UAS owners should be
required to make clear at registration the specific capabilities of any
video or audio surveillance technologies the UAS is carrying. EPIC
stated that the public should not be left to wonder what surveillance
devices are enabled on a UAS flying above their heads. EPIC further
stated that the registration framework the FAA is considering does not
go far enough, and should include a requirement that a UAS broadcast
its capabilities and its registration number during operation, to allow
members of the public and law enforcement officials to easily identify
the operator and responsible party.
EPIC also suggested that the FAA consider collecting aggregate data
to assist research into UAS flights and usage. EPIC clarified, however,
that such research data should not include personal information.
Task Force: To ensure accountability, the Task Force recommended
the FAA require all registrants to provide their name and street
address, with the option to provide an email address or telephone
number. While the Task Force recognized that a registrant's email
address and telephone number may be useful for the FAA to disseminate
safety-related information to UAS owners, the Task Force nevertheless
believed disclosure of such information should be optional.
Because the Task Force recommended the FAA institute an owner-based
registration system, it believed registrants should not be required to
provide any vehicle information, such as serial number or make and
model of the UAS, during the registration process. Registrants should,
however, have the option to provide the aircraft's manufacturer serial
number, so that the serial number can then be used to satisfy the
marking requirement. Additionally, to ensure the broadest possible
participation, this registration system should make no distinction for,
or impose additional requirements upon, sUAS manufactured or purchased
outside the United States.
IFR Requirement: For small unmanned aircraft used exclusively as
model aircraft, the FAA adopts the Task Force recommendation to provide
only basic contact information (name, address, and email address) for
the small unmanned aircraft owner. This basic contact information is
appropriate for registration of small unmanned aircraft intended to be
used exclusively as model aircraft because owners typically only
operate one aircraft at a time, which limits the variables in terms of
owner identification. Accordingly, the FAA is requiring an applicant's
name, physical address, mailing address if the applicant does not
receive mail at their physical address, and email address. An accurate
mailing address is necessary because the FAA often relies on regular
mail via the United States Postal Service to provide notice of
administrative actions, serve enforcement documents and provide other
information. Although email will reduce the agency's reliance on
regular mail for certain purposes such as the provision of educational
material, a mailing address is still required to support the agency's
compliance and enforcement actions.
At this time, the FAA will not be accepting manufacturer name,
model name, and serial number from individuals registering small
unmanned aircraft intended to be used exclusively as model aircraft.
However, as discussed in the preamble discussion on registration
marking, the Administrator will continue to evaluate whether serial
number can serve the purpose of aircraft identification and in the
future, may require use of serial number for aircraft marking purposes
in place of an FAA-issued registration number. In that case, this
information would be acquired at point of sale by a manufacturer.
The agency considered comments pertaining to the use of a
membership number issued by an aeromodeling club such as the AMA as the
registration number for an individual. After considering the design of
the web-based information system, which will automatically assign a
registration number to each individual applying for registration, the
FAA determined that use of an aeromodeling club registration number
would add unnecessary complexity.
For persons expecting to operate small unmanned aircraft as other
than model aircraft, in addition to the same basic contact information
required for model aircraft, registrants must provide aircraft-specific
information. A manufacturer and model name, and serial number must be
provided for each aircraft being registered. As previously noted, based
on the agency's experience with exemptions issued under section 333 of
Public Law 112-95, persons seeking to operate small unmanned aircraft
other than as model aircraft are expected to conduct a higher volume of
operations, utilize multiple aircraft and at times conduct multiple
simultaneous operations across the country, which thereby introduces
more risk into the NAS. Moreover, these entities may operate multiple
identical small unmanned aircraft at one time in different locations,
with different persons operating the owner's aircraft. Accordingly, the
FAA has determined that aircraft data is necessary to identify aircraft
used as other than model aircraft due to the range of variables with
respect to the operations they conduct. The aircraft-specific data will
also allow the agency to assess the demand of these small unmanned
aircraft on the NAS and whether additional safety-related actions are
necessary as the FAA works to integrate sUAS into the NAS.
With respect to the Task Force's recommendation that the provision
of an email address should be optional, the FAA generally agrees that
personal information that is not necessary for law enforcement and FAA
to identify an owner should not be a mandatory entry. However, in this
instance, an email
[[Page 78621]]
address is necessary to create an account for a web-based registration
system that includes email delivery of the Certificate of Aircraft
Registration. Additionally, email allows for targeted delivery of
educational other safety-related materials directly to small unmanned
aircraft owners. Thus, the FAA has determined that an email address
will be required for registration under part 48. However, individual's
email addresses would not be released to the general public. For more
information regarding the privacy protections afforded to this system
and intended use of the data, please review the privacy impact
assessment for this rulemaking, as well as the accompanying System of
Records Notice (SORN), available for review in Docket No. DOT-OST-2015-
0235.
Regarding other suggested information, such as date of birth,
Social Security number, driver's license number, or specific
information about components or capabilities of small unmanned aircraft
being registered, the FAA believes the data identified in new part 48
is sufficient for the purposes of this registry and is the minimum that
would be necessary for connecting an individual to their aircraft.
4. Fee for Registration
Currently, the FAA assesses a fee of $5 for a Certificate of
Registration for each aircraft. See 14 CFR 47.17(a). The FAA has not
updated this fee since it was initially established in 1966. See 31 FR
4495 (Mar. 17, 1966).
sUAS Operation and Certification NPRM: The sUAS Operation and
Certification NPRM did not differentiate the process of registering a
small unmanned aircraft from that of a manned aircraft and thus did not
directly address fees. Under that proposed rule, an applicant
registering a small unmanned aircraft would pay the same $5 fee as an
applicant seeking a Certificate of Registration for a manned aircraft.
Three commenters responded to the issues related to fees for
aircraft registration. One individual recommended FAA require all
``amateur enthusiasts'' to pay a fee to use the NAS. Another individual
argued that the fees associated with any licensing, required yearly
maintenance, and registry should be kept affordable for the small
business operator.
Clarification/Request for Information: Commenters also responded to
the issue of a registration fee and how the fee should be collected
based on questions posed in the Clarification/Request for Information.
Of the commenters that supported a registration fee, the majority
stated that the fee should be nominal and suggested between $1 and $40.
Other commenters suggested fees as high as $250 for hobbyists and
$1,000 for commercial users. Several commenters stated that the amount
of registration fee should be based upon the value of the UAS e.g., a
more expensive UAS would necessitate a higher registration fee. The
Minnesota Department of Transportation stated that its department
charges registration fees commensurate with the base price of the
aircraft. This commenter explained that it charges $100 for
registration for UASs valued less than $500,000. Other commenters
proposed that only commercial operators should pay a registration fee.
Several AMA members stated that registration should be free for AMA
members. Many commenters stressed that the fee should only be used for
maintenance of the Web site, education, and enforcement actions.
Many commenters said registration should be free. A number of
commenters participating in a form letter campaign stated that a
registration fee ``would place an unfair burden on those who may barely
be able to afford to purchase model aircraft in the first place and may
place barriers to continued education and technological advancement.''
A large number of commenters were concerned that registration fees
for each individual UAS would be unduly burdensome because many
hobbyists own several UASs and the cumulative cost of registration
would be prohibitively expensive. As an alternative, many commenters
suggested that the FAA should charge one registration fee per operator
and allow the operator to register multiple UASs.
The vast majority of commenters objected to the imposition of any
registration fee. Many commenters expressed concern that imposition of
a fee would only serve to increase the size of the Federal Government
and not contribute in any way to the safe operation of UASs. Commenters
stated that a fee will deter registration and place an unnecessary
financial burden on hobbyists. Several commenters suggested that
instead of charging a registration fee, the FAA should collect fines
from operators who fail to register.
The majority of commenters suggested that if registration occurs at
point of sale, the cost of registration should be collected in the same
manner as a sales tax. Other commenters suggested that registration
fees should be collected by the retailer or built in to the purchase
price. Retail Industry Leaders Association and National Retail
Federation expressed opposition to point of sale registration and
collection of registration fees by retailers. They cited concern about
collecting personal information from customers in a checkout line and
the complexity of refunding the registration fee if the UAS is returned
by the customer. Commenters also expressed concerns that foreign
vendors would not comply with registration requirements and consumers
would be adversely impacted.
Many commenters commented generally on the collection of a
registration fee and expressed that UAS operators should be able to pay
the registration fee online. Commenters specifically identified support
for online payments via PayPal, Amazon payments, and Bitcoin.
Commenters also stated that mailing in checks or money orders should
also be supported.
Skyward, Inc. and individual commenters said the system must have
safeguards against false registrations, unauthorized ownership
transfers, and other malicious activity.
Task Force: The Task Force believed the FAA should not impose a
registration fee so as to encourage the highest level of compliance
with the registration requirement. In the event that the FAA must
charge a fee, the Task Force suggested a fee of 1/10th of one cent
($0.001).
IFR Requirement and Responses to Comments/Recommendations: Although
the Task Force and some commenters recommended no fee for small
unmanned aircraft registration for varying reasons, the FAA is required
by statute to charge a fee for registration services. Section 45305 of
title 49 U.S.C. directs the FAA to establish and collect fees for
aircraft registration and airman certification activities to recover
the cost of providing those services. Accordingly, the revenue stream
generated by the fees collected under this IFR support the development,
maintenance and operation of the Registry. The agency notes that
section 45305 also directs the FAA to adjust these fees when the
Administrator determines that the cost of the service has changed.
Given that the registration process established under part 48
differentiates between registration of small unmanned aircraft used
exclusively as model aircraft and registration of small unmanned
aircraft used as other than model aircraft, registration fees also
differ between the two populations.
An individual owner registering small unmanned aircraft operated
exclusively as model aircraft must pay a single fee of $5 for the
issuance of a Certificate of
[[Page 78622]]
Aircraft Registration and registration number and an additional $5 fee
every three years for renewal of the registration. As previously noted,
for owners of small unmanned aircraft used exclusively as model
aircraft, this registration constitutes registration for all small
unmanned aircraft of a single owner, provided those aircraft are all
used exclusively as model aircraft. Thus, for this population, part 48
provides cost reduction as compared to part 47, which requires aircraft
owners to submit a separate application and $5 fee for each aircraft
the owner would like to register.
The FAA will require persons owning small unmanned aircraft used as
other than model aircraft (e.g., for a commercial purpose) to pay a fee
of $5 to register each aircraft in accordance with part 48, and a $5
fee every three years for renewal of each aircraft registration. The
fees for small unmanned aircraft registration and renewal for this
population is the same as that currently required by part 47.
This fee structure is in line with the recommendations from
commenters who believed that the FAA should charge one fee for
individuals who own small unmanned aircraft for hobby or recreational
purposes. As sought by commenters, the registration requirement and fee
structure for small unmanned aircraft used exclusively as model
aircraft alleviates the need for these owners to complete frequent,
multiple registration applications and submit a new fee each time they
build or rebuild an aircraft or change out parts.
The fee for small unmanned aircraft registration must be submitted
through the web-based registration application process. The
registration system will permit the use of any credit, debit, gift or
prepaid card using the Visa, MasterCard, American Express, JCB,
Discover, or Diners Club network. If none of these methods of payment
are available to the small unmanned aircraft owner, that owner may
register the aircraft using the existing paper-based system under 14
CFR part 47, which allows payment by check or money order. Credit card
payment is one of the attributes of the part 48 registration process
that streamlines the registration process. Consistent with the
requirements of 49 U.S.C. 45305, the fees are based on the estimated
costs to develop and maintain the registry under 14 CFR part 48. The
FAA will adjust these fees based on the actual costs of the system.
Regarding the Minnesota Department of Transportation's
recommendation for a fee structure based on the value of the small
unmanned aircraft, FAA's statutory authority for charging a fee for the
registration of a small unmanned aircraft relates to the amount it
costs for the FAA to maintain the registry, and not the value of an
unmanned aircraft.
In response to comments stating that, in place of the registration
fee, the FAA should collect fines for failure to comply with
registration requirements, the FAA clarifies that such a fine would
constitute a civil penalty. Civil penalties for failure to register are
discussed in the Enforcement section of this preamble. In addition to
civil penalties, however, the law requires the FAA to collect a fee for
registration of aircraft. 49 U.S.C. 45305. Congress requires this fee
assessment in order for the agency to offset the cost of registration.
The agency does not have authority to use civil penalties to offset its
costs.
5. Transfer of Ownership
Clarification/Request for Information: Commenters to the
Clarification/Request for Information responded to the FAA's request
for input on transfer of small unmanned aircraft.
The Aerospace Industries Association stated that transfer of
ownership would require that the new end-user registers his or her
identification and the platform registration. This would allow a re-
check of intended use, changes/modifications to the platform, and the
indication that the new user is aware of the rules of use. Delair-Tech
stated that the seller should surrender ownership by deactivating the
ground control software; the new owner would then register to
reactivate it.
A law firm stated that the existing FAA Aircraft Bill of Sale and
Aircraft Registration Application would be equally applicable to UAS.
The firm also said that the current regulatory framework contains an
aircraft registration renewal requirement that would be beneficial for
updating records regarding ownership of UAS. The firm went on to say
that the regulatory obligation to collect and submit the registration
information should be placed on the seller who would have an incentive
to properly transfer the registration, or otherwise risk facing certain
penalties or fines related to the illegal operation of the UAS by a
future owner.
Individual commenters stated that if the registration database is
available online, the seller could easily record transfers of
registration. A few commenters stated that the FAA should impose a fee
for transfers. Individuals differed on whether the seller or buyer
should be responsible for registering the transfer. A few commenters
stated that the seller could remove the identification markings before
sale. One suggested that the seller remove the beacon before sale.
Another stated that the only registration should be the name and
contact information placed on the UAS.
Modovolate Aviation stated that recording transfers would be
burdensome and unenforceable. An individual stated that UASs are often
altered after purchase so that transferring a registration for the
original UAS may not accurately reflect the UAS that is being resold.
The commenter also stated that there is no way for the seller to ensure
that the buyer will register.
Task Force: Because the Task Force recommended an owner-based
registration system, it believed that questions concerning how to deal
with transfers of ownership are easily addressed by the registrants'
marking methods.
IFR Requirement: The registration requirements in part 48 do not
differentiate between methods of aircraft transfer. The registration
requirements are the same whether a person or other entity acquires an
aircraft by gift, purchase or other method.
The FAA agrees in part with the commenters who state that the
seller should register or take other action upon a transfer and in part
with the commenters who state that the buyer must register. Different
actions will be necessary upon transfer or sale of a small unmanned
aircraft, because the registration system differentiates between
aircraft used exclusively as model aircraft and aircraft used other
than as model aircraft and thus collects different information for each
population.
As discussed elsewhere in the preamble, individual owners of small
unmanned aircraft used exclusively as model aircraft are not required
to submit aircraft-specific information. Thus, there is no need to
update the registration system upon a transfer or sale. The owner,
however, should remove his or her unique identifier from the aircraft
before transfer or sale. The buyer or recipient of a transfer must
create a new registration prior to operation only if that buyer does
not already have an owner registration number. A buyer or recipient of
a transfer of a small unmanned aircraft who wishes to use the aircraft
as other than a model aircraft must register that aircraft and obtain a
registration number specific to that aircraft. The only time a fee
would be required is if the buyer or recipient must create a new
registration.
[[Page 78623]]
Part 48 requires owners of small unmanned aircraft used other than
as model aircraft to update the registration system upon transfer of
ownership, destruction or export of a registered small unmanned
aircraft. Thus, once a transfer of ownership has taken place, the
aircraft owner must access their profile on the registration system and
update the aircraft information to indicate that the aircraft has been
transferred. By indicating that the aircraft has been transferred, the
registration of that aircraft will be cancelled in its entirety.
Any new owner, who acquires a small unmanned aircraft by any means,
and intends to use the aircraft other than as a model aircraft must
register that aircraft prior to operation and mark the device with the
appropriate information as discussed in the preamble discussion
entitled, ``Marking.'' Consistent with the comment on the payment of a
fee for a transfer, a new owner intending to use a small unmanned
aircraft other than as a model aircraft must register the aircraft and
thus pay the same registration fee as any other person who acquires
such a device and wishes to operate it in the NAS.
In response to commenters' concerns about the identification of a
transferred aircraft, owners may determine the best approach for
ensuring that once they transfer an aircraft, that they are no longer
identified as the owner. One commenter noted that the seller may want
to remove the registration information from the aircraft. The agency
supports this as a best practice but it is not required.
The agency considered comments suggesting other methods to approach
the registration of transferred small unmanned aircraft (e.g.,
deactivation of ground control software), but has determined that this
approach will ensure complete and current registration information for
each aircraft in the least burdensome manner.
G. Certificate of Aircraft Registration
sUAS Operation and Certification NPRM: The agency received comment
on issues pertaining to certificates of registration from commenters to
the sUAS Operation and Certification NPRM. In the sUAS Operation and
Certification NPRM, the agency proposed to extend the part 47
registration process to sUAS but did not propose any changes to the
delivery, content, or duration of registration. In the NPRM preamble,
however, the agency specifically addressed its intent to retain the
existing requirement for registration renewal every three years for
small unmanned aircraft registration because it would increase the
likelihood that the FAA's registration database contains the latest
information on small unmanned aircraft and aircraft owners.
An individual recommended that aircraft registration for small UAS
expire after a period of 12 to 24 months, reasoning that an annual or
bi-annual renewal of registration will ensure the registration system
does not become bogged down with UAS's that are no longer in operation.
Furthermore, the commenter argued that the renewal process would give
FAA a secondary means of verifying that operators are current and/or
maintaining their licensing requirements to operate. The Kansas Farm
Bureau suggested lengthening the time before a registration would
expire to 6 years to assist in managing program costs from both the FAA
and the small UAS operator standpoint. The News Media Coalition
encouraged FAA to consider requiring re-registration only upon the sale
of a UAS.
Another individual commenter suggested that UAS operators be
required to store their ``official registration document'' on the card
reader contained in the UAS's camera. That commenter also recommended
that the ``official registration document'' contain the registrant's
name, registration number, date of registration, and type of operator
license (i.e., commercial or hobby).
Clarification/Request for Information: Commenters to the
Clarification/Request for Information also provided comments related to
the Certificate of Aircraft Registration. One individual commenter
recommended that UAS operators should be issued a registration card
that contains basic safety information and UAS rules and regulations.
Another individual suggested that UAS operators be required to store
their ``official registration document'' on the card reader contained
in the UAS's camera. This commenter also recommended that the
``official registration document'' contain the registrant's name,
registration number, date of registration, and type of operator license
(i.e., commercial or hobby).
Task Force: The Task Force developed and recommended methods for
proving registration and marking of small unmanned aircraft. In doing
so, it addressed the issue of how Certificates of Aircraft Registration
would be issued. The Task Force recommended that the FAA issue a
certificate of registration to each registrant at the time of
registration and that the certificate should be issued electronically
(perhaps in PDF form), unless the registrant specifically requests a
paper copy.
The Task Force also provided recommendations regarding the content
of the certificate. The certificate should contain the registrant's
name, the registrant's FAA-issued registration number, and the address
of the FAA registration Web site that is accessible by law enforcement
or other authorities for the purposes of confirming registration
status. For registrants who elect to provide the serial number(s) of
their aircraft, the certificate should also contain those serial
number(s). The Task Force encouraged the FAA to include safety and
regulatory information with the certificate of registration. Any time a
registered sUAS is in operation, the operator of that sUAS should be
prepared to produce a legible copy of the certificate of registration
for inspection, in either electronic or printed form.
IFR Requirement: The agency agrees with Task Force recommendations
and comments recommending delivery and availability of the Certificate
of Aircraft Registration. Since the part 48 registration process is
exclusively web-based, the FAA can immediately issue an electronic
Certificate of Aircraft Registration, an efficiency not available under
part 47.
Recognizing the prevalence of handheld electronic devices, once the
registrant completes the part 48 registration process, the Certificate
will be available for download. Owners may also print a hard copy of
the Certificate if they wish. The applicant will also receive a copy of
the Certificate via email, with accompanying educational information.
Although some commenters addressed certificate storage options, the
final rule does not restrict how the Certificate is stored as long as
the certificate is readily available to the owner or operator, as
applicable. See Sec. Sec. 91.9(b) and 91.203(a)(2); see also Legal
Interpretation from Mark W. Bury to John Duncan, August 8, 2014.
Persons operating a small unmanned aircraft are required under 49
U.S.C. 44103(d) to present the certificate of registration when
requested by a United States Government, State, or local law
enforcement officer.
The Certificate of Aircraft Registration will include information
that will allow the FAA and law enforcement agencies to identify the
owner of each small unmanned aircraft registered under part 48. As a
result, although the FAA received comments suggesting varying
information that should appear on the Certificate, the FAA has
determined that the Certificate will include the small unmanned
aircraft owner name and FAA-issued registration number. At this
[[Page 78624]]
time, these two pieces of information suffice to identify the small
unmanned aircraft and its owner. The agency does not agree with the
comment suggesting that the Certificate include information pertaining
to the ``type of operator license'' because this information is not
relevant to the identification of the aircraft's owner and notes that
at the time of this rulemaking, there is no ``license'' required for
sUAS operations. Additionally, the FAA emphasizes that the Certificate
does not imply authorization to operate.
Certificates of Aircraft Registration issued to owners who are
using their small unmanned aircraft exclusively as model aircraft
constitute valid registration for all of the small unmanned aircraft
owned by the individual specified on the application, regardless of how
many small unmanned aircraft the owner owns, though all being operated
are required to be marked with the registration number. Certificates of
Aircraft Registration issued to owners who are not using their aircraft
exclusively as model aircraft constitute valid registration only for
the specific aircraft identified on the Certificate of Aircraft
Registration.
A Certificate of Aircraft Registration issued in accordance with
part 48 will be effective once the registration process is complete and
must be renewed every three years to provide for regular validation of
aircraft registration and owner contact information. To facilitate the
identification of a valid Certificate of Aircraft Registration, each
Certificate will contain the issue date.
The agency agrees with comments suggesting that aircraft
registrations should be renewed but does not agree with the purpose of
the renewal and the time frame for renewal provided by commenters. The
registration process does not collect information on airman
qualifications so it may not be used to validate any related
requirements. A Certificate of Aircraft Registration issued to a person
using their small unmanned aircraft as a model aircraft must simply be
renewed by the owner every three years, regardless of when aircraft are
added to the owner's registration. Certificates of Aircraft
Registration issued for aircraft used for other than model aircraft
purposes must be renewed for the specific aircraft designated on the
Certificate every three years.
Further, the agency has determined that three years is the
appropriate duration of a certificate. This period of time is
consistent with the aircraft registration renewal requirement in part
47. It also balances the cost concerns raised by the Kansas Farm Bureau
with the individual's comments suggesting renewal on 12-24 month
intervals.
The renewal process consists of a simple verification of existing
registration information. The renewal must be completed through the
web-based registration system at any time within 6 months prior to the
expiration date. The system will send out a reminder at 6 months prior
to certification expiration. Once completed, the Certificate will be
extended for three years from the expiration date. The agency expects
renewal to be efficient, particularly if the aircraft owner has ensured
that the information provided to the Registry in accordance with the
final rule registration process remains current during the term of the
registration. If the information provided to register the aircraft
changes during the period of registration, the aircraft owner must
update the Registry through the web-based registration system within 14
days of the change. No fee is charged for updating information during
the period of registration.
The agency agrees with the intent of the recommendation from the
Task Force and the commenter to the Clarification/Request for
Information regarding owner and operator education. One of the purposes
of small unmanned aircraft registration is to educate sUAS owners
regarding safe operations within the NAS as well as other safety
information relevant to UAS operations and equipment. As discussed
later in this preamble, the agency expects to accomplish its sUAS
education goals by providing information to the aircraft owner during
the registration process and through follow-up email communication.
Although the News Media Coalition suggested reregistration only
upon a sale, there are other circumstances that would result in a need
to re-register an aircraft (e.g., expiration of registration due to
failure to renew) and have been captured in the final rule.
H. Registration Marking
The purpose of aircraft registration marking is to provide a means
for connecting an aircraft to its owner. The agency received comments
on the information that should be used to identify that the aircraft is
registered as well as the methods by which to display the identifying
information.
sUAS Operation and Certification NPRM: The sUAS Operation and
Certification NPRM proposed a requirement for small unmanned aircraft
to be marked in accordance with part 45, subpart C. Subpart C provides
requirements for size, spacing, and location of nationality and
registration marks.
Many commenters, including the Small UAV Coalition, Aircraft Owners
and Pilots Association, California Agricultural Aircraft Association,
Aerospace Industries Association, Modovolate Aviation, LLC,
Professional Photographers of America, Airlines for America, National
Association of Mutual Insurance Companies, National Association of
Realtors, DJI, and Google, generally supported the marking requirement
as proposed in the NPRM.
Information that may be used for aircraft identification: Other
commenters suggested alternatives to the marking requirement proposed
in the NPRM. Commenters including the Association of Unmanned Vehicle
Systems International, Associated General Contractors of America, the
University of North Carolina System, Property Drone Consortium and
Cherokee Nation Technologies suggested the FAA require registration
based only on the manufacturer's serial numbers, instead of requiring
an ``N'' registration number. Several individuals proposed the use of
cell phone numbers in lieu of, or to augment, the registration number.
The Virginia Department of Aviation supported the use of a bar code
system, while Schertz Aerial Services, Inc., favored a parts-tracking
requirement to facilitate a more efficient and accurate assessment of
responsibility in the event of an accident. An individual commenter
recommended a labeling requirement for all UAS, similar to the labeling
the FCC requires for all transmitters that can be purchased at
electronic outlets. Another individual commenter said that instead of
requiring small unmanned aircraft to be registered with ``N'' numbers,
the aircraft should be identified with an exterior label with the
owner/operator's name, address, and phone number, as well as an
operator certificate number where appropriate. Several other individual
commenters suggested that affixing operator name and phone number to a
small unmanned aircraft is a more efficient way to identify the
aircraft in the event of an incident.
The New Jersey Institute of Technology and the Kansas State
University UAS Program recommended the FAA add a unique designator to
the ``N'' registration number (e.g., ``NX'') to clearly identify the
aircraft as a UAS. ASTM pointed out that it is in the process of
developing consensus practice standards for the registration and
marking of unmanned aircraft systems, which an individual
[[Page 78625]]
commenter recommended the FAA follow.
Methods to display aircraft identification: Another individual
commenter said the marking requirement should be consistent with recent
certificates of waiver or authorization provided to persons issued
exemptions under section 333 of the FAA Modernization and Reform Act,
which allow for ``appropriate'' sized markings, or as large as
practicable for the particular aircraft. Other commenters, including a
joint submission from the State of Nevada, the Nevada Institute for
Autonomous Systems and the Nevada FAA-designated UAS Test Site,
similarly said small unmanned aircraft should be required to display
registration numbers in the largest size that is appropriate. An
individual commenter questioned whether the markings should be on the
underside of the small unmanned aircraft to increase visibility from
the ground. The University of North Dakota's John D. Odegard School of
Aerospace Sciences urged the FAA to require small UAS manufacturers to
provide at least one additional manner of identifying a device other
than the registration number. The commenter suggested a VIN-type system
or simply etching the manufacturer's serial number on a substantial
component of the small UAS.
Several commenters proposed various electronic means to aid in
small unmanned aircraft identification. Washington State Department of
Transportation, Aviation Division and Drone Labs proposed having the
registration numbers transmitted as part of the transponder signal or
other means. The Center for Democracy and Technology advocated for an
unmanned aircraft to emit a signal, such as a radio signal, to aid in
identification. SkyView Strategies, Inc., recommended a microchip on
each unmanned aircraft programmed with the registration number so that
a device, such as a smart phone app, could read the microchip and
display the aircraft's registration number. SkyView recognized this
requirement could not go into effect until it is technologically
feasible.
Several commenters opposed the requirement that small unmanned
aircraft display their registration numbers because it would be
impractical due to the small size of the aircraft. Some of those
commenters, including the Association for Unmanned Vehicle Systems
International, noted that many small unmanned aircraft have limited
surface area available and often have no adequate fuselage for
placement of registration markings. Those commenters said the FAA
should develop alternative means of displaying a registration number
more conducive to small unmanned aircraft. An individual commenter
pointed out that for small unmanned aircraft with no ``hull'' or
fuselage, the only place available for markings is on the booms, which
are not permanently attached to the hub plate. Thus, the commenter
noted, the marking would not be permanent, but, rather, on an ``easily
removed and easily replaced'' component. Associated General Contractors
of America said the requirement ``would serve little or no useful
purpose'' because even when displayed in the ``largest practicable
manner'' such numbers would be invisible from anything more than a few
feet away.
Kansas State University UAS Program said the final rule should
describe acceptable means for locating registration markings for
nontraditional aircraft (or reference an industry consensus standard
that does so) that cannot meet current subpart C in part 45
requirements. Prioria Robotics, Inc. also expressed concern about the
applicability of the markings requirement to certain small unmanned
aircraft airframes, and questioned whether, if a vehicle undergoes
repair and a fuselage is changed, the operator will need to re-register
the aircraft.
Several commenters recommended the sUAS operator make the
aircraft's registration number visible to others on the ground. Trimble
Navigation Limited and Federal Airways & Airspace favored having the
sUAS operator display an ID badge with the registration number of the
aircraft on their person. Trimble Navigation clarified that a badge
display would be helpful if the FAA intends to use registration of an
aircraft to identify the operator, but that visual or electronic
identification of the aircraft is appropriate if the intent is to
assist in the investigation of accidents. Federal Airways & Airspace
clarified that this may be useful for very small unmanned aircraft but
may not be necessary if the unmanned aircraft is large enough to
display markings to the standard size. Predesa, LLC stated that the
sUAS operator should be required to post aircraft registration
information in their vicinity on the ground.
Regarding whether the rule should require small unmanned aircraft
to have a fireproof identification plate, as required by part 45
subpart B, the Small UAV Coalition, Aviation Management Associates,
Predessa, LLC, and the University of North Dakota's John D. Odegard
School of Aerospace Sciences agreed with the FAA that a requirement for
small UAS manufacturers to install a fireproof identification plate
would not be cost-effective. The National Business Aviation
Association, DJI, Modovolate Aviation, LLC, and several individual
commenters also agreed that fireproof plating should not be required.
Crew Systems, on the other hand, said small unmanned aircraft
should have a data plate installed, as required by 14 CFR 45.11.
Aerospace Industries Association also said UAS manufacturers should
install fireproof identification information on every unmanned
aircraft, ``[p]erhaps through an electronic device (i.e., imbedded
chip) or other easy-to-read and damage-resistant means of
identification.''
Other commenters addressed the need for ``indestructible''
identification plates, although they did not comment specifically on
whether small UAS manufacturers should be required to attach fireproof
identification plates in compliance with subpart B of part 45. The Air
Line Pilots Association said a fire proof plate should be attached to
the small UAS ``as a permanent identification of the registration of
the sUAS.'' The Civil Aviation Authority of the Czech Republic said a
fireproof identification plate should be required and enforced
according to ICAO Annex 7, which requires the nationality, registration
mark, and operator name and phone number. The National Agricultural
Aviation Association, Colorado Agricultural Aviation Association, and
CropLife America said small UAS should have a registered N-number on
``an indestructible and unmovable plate'' attached to the UAS for
identification in case of an accident or incident. Reabe Spraying, Inc.
said each UAS should have an ``indestructible and non-removable data
tag with a unique ID code.'' Texas A&M University Corpus Christi/LSUASC
said that if the registration number is not easily displayed on the
aircraft, then an ``identifying tag'' should be permanently attached to
the small UAS. The Aircraft Owners and Pilots Association said the FAA
should implement ``additional requirements'' to ensure that a UAS can
be identified in the event of an accident, incident, or violation, but
the commenter did not specify what those additional requirements should
be.
The Motion Picture Association of America, Inc., the National
Association of Broadcasters, National Cable & Telecommunications
Association, and Radio Television digital News Association, and the
International Association of Amusement Parks and Attractions favored
not having registration marks on small unmanned
[[Page 78626]]
aircraft that will be seen in theatrical and television productions.
Clarification/Request for Information: In addition to the comments
on identification and marking provided in response to the sUAS
Operation and Certification NPRM, the agency also received comments on
aircraft identification and marking in response to the clarification/
Request for Information. The Clarification/Request for Information
sought specific information pertaining to aircraft identification and
marking. Specifically, the document asked for information regarding
methods currently available for identifying unmanned aircraft, whether
every unmanned aircraft sold has an individual serial number, and
methods to identify unmanned aircraft sold without serial numbers or
those built from kits.
Information that may be used for aircraft identification:
Commenters said that no standard method of aircraft identification
exists for UAS and they recommended ways to identify UAS for
registration purposes. Chronicled, Inc., wrote that it explored several
options for including unique identifiers in consumer products,
including serial number, radio frequency identification (RFID), near
field communication (NFC), Bluetooth low energy (BLE), QR code, and DNA
marker. This commenter determined that serial number or encrypted (PKI)
microchips are the best options currently available and recommended the
agency initially require the use of serial numbers for registration and
then over a two year period, require PKI microchips to be included in
all UAS. Aerospace Industries Association said various methods to
identify platforms exist, but recommended that FAA seek to collect as
much information as possible. According to this commenter, high value
commercial platforms have a serial number to manage warranty claims
while other commercial platforms, at a minimum, have a stock keeping
unit (SKU) that can be used to identify the product model number.
Morphism, LLC recommended using identifiers that encode information
regarding the type of airframe, operating limitations and operators'
contact information. Researchers at the University of California,
Berkeley said UAS should receive and display an identification code to
enable people and other aircraft to identify them. These researchers
developed an identification system based on LEDs and unique color
sequences. NetMoby, Inc. recommended that FAA adopt the Federal
Communications Commission's registration process and tailor it to meet
FAA's needs.
Several commenters noted that many UAS are assembled by consumers
using parts from a range of sources, which presents a challenge for
identifying individual products. Additionally, UAS components are
frequently modified, replaced or upgraded. Some commenters recommended
that the registration system require use of either a serial number for
UAS that have serial numbers, or an FAA-generated identification number
that can be applied to the UAS for those without serial numbers. Other
commenters recommended that FAA issue a single registration number to
the UAS operator rather than to each aircraft because hobbyists often
have dozens of aircraft and it would be too burdensome to register
every aircraft they buy or build. Several AMA members suggested the
agency allow AMA members to place their names and addresses or AMA
numbers on their aircraft as an alternative means of complying with the
registration requirement.
Another individual suggested identifying consumer grade UAS by
serial number and hobby built UAS by radio transmitter and receiver. A
number of commenters participating in a form letter campaign stated
that ``there is fundamentally no way to define any major component on a
model aircraft that could reasonably be registered.''
Commenters addressing whether each unmanned aircraft sold has a
unique serial number generally stated that every unmanned aircraft sold
does not have individual serial numbers, though some UAS do. The
University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign said serial numbers are not
required on UAS and they are not required to be distinct across
manufacturers, so the agency could not rely on them for identifying
UAS. Modovolate Aviation, LLC said most UAS have serial numbers and
asserted it would impose a relatively small burden on manufacturers to
imprint a serial number as part of the manufacturing process. A law
firm suggested the agency require manufacturers assign a serial number
to all UAS operated in the United States. This commenter also said that
products manufactured before this requirement and other UAS without
serial numbers could be assigned a registration number by FAA and the
number would be affixed to the UAS. Delair-Tech suggested if no serial
number is available for the UAS, the serial number of the autopilot
module should be used. The Retail Industry Leaders Association said
most UAS models on the market today do not contain product-specific
unique identification numbers that consumers can use when registering
UAS. This commenter noted manufacturers will need time to implement
process changes to incorporate identification numbers and urged the
agency to take the time to work with manufacturers with respect to this
requirement. The commenter cautioned that if FAA adopts the
registration requirement without waiting for manufacturers to make the
necessary process changes, the only information consumers will be able
to provide during registration is the model or inventory number of the
UAS, which will not be helpful to identify a UAS owner involved in an
incident.
Commenters suggested various methods for identifying UAS sold
without serial numbers or those built with kits. The Wireless Registry
suggested including a UAS' wireless signal identifier as part of the
information collected as part of the registration process. The
commenter explained the UAS' MAC address, a wireless identifier that
cannot be altered, tied to a specific device would enable FAA to match
the UAS to other information in the registry, including operator
information. An individual stated the FCC already requires that all
model aircraft operate on a very narrow frequency band and UAS
manufacturers adhere to those rules. This commenter suggested FAA and
FCC work together to establish a method of encoding each radio system
with an identifier that would enable the FAA to monitor airspace in
which UAS are not allowed. The Air Medical Operators Association said
any UAS with the potential to conflict with a manned aircraft in flight
must possess a unique identification that can allow for registration.
This commenter also recommended that product packaging should clearly
inform the consumer of his or responsibilities as operator. Other
commenters suggested the following methods for identifying UAS sold
without serial numbers or those build from kits:
Digital photo.
Detailed description of aircraft (e.g., black quadcopter, white
hexcopter).
QR code with 8-digit unique alphanumeric identifier that can be affixed
to aircraft.
RFID tags or transponders.
FAA-issued registration number.
Name and address or AMA number affixed to the inside or outside of the
airframe.
Methods to display aircraft identification: Several people
commented on how operators should
[[Page 78627]]
display markings of their registration number on the UAS. Commenters'
recommendations included: registration numbers should be prominently
displayed on the exterior of the unmanned aircraft and be sized based
on the largest single dimension of the unmanned aircraft; the markings
should be visible from the ground; registration numbers should be
displayed using a placard of some sort, or bar code, placed on the
aircraft; and registration markings should be replaceable because UAS
operators change parts on a regular basis. A number of commenters
suggested using a sticker similar to automobile registration tags,
which would provide visual confirmation of compliance and allow for
consistency of data. Other commenters expressed concern about required
markings adding weight to their unmanned aircraft or ruining the
appearance of their scale models of real aircraft.
One commenter recommended a registration system in which
individuals can request from the FAA a reasonable number of stickers
that are pre-printed with successive serial numbers, and the FAA will
then record to whom those stickers were sent in a publicly accessible
database. The individuals can then apply those serial-numbered stickers
to any model aircraft they own. The commenter contemplated that the
stickers will self-destruct if the owner attempts to remove them to
reuse them on a different aircraft. The commenter also suggested that
if an aircraft is destroyed or sold, the original owner can log onto
the FAA database to update the information associated with that
aircraft's serial number.
Several other commenters noted that a marking system is problematic
because many aircraft do not have a large enough area on which to place
an identifier that would be visible from a distance. Some of these
commenters stated the only reason for a unmanned aircraft to carry a
registration number is to identify the owner after a crash. These
commenters asserted that it would make more sense to require UAS
operators to affix a label with their contact information inside their
aircraft than to develop and implement a registration system. Noting
markings will not be visible on most unmanned aircraft during flight,
Delair-Tech recommended using a position reporting mechanism to enable
authorities to access information on in-flight devices. This commenter
said following an accident, a marking of the manufacturer name, serial
number and type designator, designed to withstand a certain degree of
damage, would enable authorities to find the UAS owner through the
registration system.
Comments on the use of the N-numbering system to register UAS: A
few commenters recommended that the registration system for UAS be
separate from the current N-numbering system used for manned aircraft.
To ensure that the FAA does not run out of N-numbers, one individual
suggested moving to a 6- or 7-digit number for UAS, while another
individual suggested the FAA open up the first 3 spaces to allow the
use of letters, which the commenter asserted will increase the
availability of the numbers by 44,279,424 spaces. Another individual
said the registration number should be ``sufficiently long/random'' to
prevent people from creating registration numbers without actually
registering.
One individual commenter suggested that the registration numbering
system delineate between commercial users (for which the N-numbering
system could be used) and private users. Another individual said the N-
number given to small UAS intended for commercial use should be
followed by a ``- C'' designation to clearly show that this aircraft is
going to be used commercially. Several other individuals recommended
the FAA use alternate prefixes for the registration number (e.g.,
``U,'' ``UX,'' ``UAS,'' ``UAV,'' ``NQ,'' or ``M'' for model aircraft).
The Property Drone Consortium pointed out that an N-number on a UAS
will not be visible to observers while the UAS is in flight, and will
therefore only be used to identify the owner of a UAS that has been
involved in an incident and recovered. This commenter also questioned
whether it will be sufficient to self-register based on a serial
number, requiring an FAA assigned N-number only when a serial number is
not available or easily accessible. An individual commenter said the
manufacturer serial number should be sufficient for identification
purposes, instead of a separate N-number. Another individual also
supported the use of a manufacturer serial number, but said an ``N''
should still be placed in front of the serial number to show that it is
registered.
One individual commenter stated that because some UAS are too small
to effectively display an N-number, an electronic version of an N-
number should be used. This commenter asserted that the electronic
serial number (ESN) can be encoded into the receiver/transmitter used
to control the UAS, and then broadcast whenever the transmitter
commands the aircraft. The commenter suggested that authorities could
then identify the UAS in question, and that that interception would be
legal as the ESN is broadcast over the 2.4 GHZ publicly shared
frequencies.
One individual commenter recommended a separate category of N-
numbers for historic airplanes, similar to what has been done for full-
scale historic cars and aircraft.
A few individual commenters supported the use of the current N-
numbering system for UAS, with one commenter asserting that it is
already working well for commercial UAS operations.
Task Force: The FAA asked the Task Force to develop and recommend
methods for proving registration and marking. Factors to consider
included, but were not limited to, how a small unmanned aircraft will
be able to be identified with the registered owner (i.e., a marking
requirement).
Information that may be used for aircraft identification: Because
the main goal of registration is to create a connection between the
aircraft and its owner, the Task Force recognized that it is necessary
to mark each registered small unmanned aircraft with a unique
identifier that is readily traceable back to its owner. The Task Force
recommended two options for complying with this marking requirement.
Specifically, registrants can either affix a single FAA-issued
registration number to all the aircraft they own or they can rely on a
manufacturer's serial number that is already permanently affixed to the
aircraft. A small unmanned aircraft owner may only rely on the
manufacturer's serial number, however, if the owner provided that
serial number to the FAA during registration and if it appears on the
owner's certificate of registration.
Methods to display aircraft identification: The Task Force further
recommended a requirement that the owner and operator ensure that all
markings are readily accessible and maintained in a condition that is
readable and legible upon close visual inspection prior to any
operation. The Task Force believed that markings enclosed in a
compartment, such as a battery compartment, should be considered
``readily accessible'' if they can be easily accessed without the use
of tools.
IFR Requirement: Information that may be used to identify an
aircraft. The IFR requires all small unmanned aircraft to display a
unique identifier. As discussed throughout this preamble, individuals
registering aircraft that will be used exclusively as model aircraft
will receive a Certificate of Registration
[[Page 78628]]
with a single registration number that constitutes registration of all
of the individual's small unmanned aircraft. This number must be
displayed on each small unmanned aircraft owned by this individual and
used exclusively as model aircraft as proof of registration and to
connect the small unmanned aircraft with an owner.
Each aircraft used as other than a model aircraft will receive a
Certificate of Aircraft Registration with a unique registration number
that must be displayed on the aircraft.
The FAA received a variety of recommendations pertaining to the
information that should be affixed to the small unmanned aircraft for
purposes of identification (e.g., phone numbers, bar codes, QR codes,
operator contact information and AMA number). In some cases, commenters
recommended information in addition to a registration number. The
agency considered these recommendations but determined that once an
aircraft is registered, the registration number provides sufficient
information to locate the aircraft's owner in the FAA's registration
database. Therefore, requiring the owner to display additional contact
information on the aircraft would create an unnecessary burden.
Regarding the comment seeking to display an AMA number in
particular, the Civil Aircraft Registry and the registration system
implemented in this IFR are premised on the ability to uniquely
identify and owner and their aircraft. The FAA does not govern the
membership structures of section 336 organizations and cannot be
assured of the uniqueness of those organizations' identification
systems. Therefore, the FAA has no assurance that such a member number
will provide the requisite unique identifier. Thus, the FAA will
maintain an FAA-issued registration number for the marking scheme for
small unmanned aircraft used as model aircraft.
With regard to ASTM consensus and marking standards, the FAA notes
that, as of this writing, those standards are still in development, and
thus, they cannot be used for this rulemaking.
Finally, a number of commenters assumed that an FAA registration
number would include the ``N'' prefix that is used for identification
of U.S. registered aircraft. The agency clarifies that the registration
numbers issued to small unmanned aircraft under the IFR are not
intended to be used for nationality identification and thus will not
include the ``N'' prefix because the part 48 registration process is
available only to small unmanned aircraft operating within the United
States.
Methods to display aircraft identification: To ensure that the
small unmanned aircraft can be identified, the FAA will require that
the unique identifier must be maintained in a condition that is
legible. The unique identifier must be affixed to the small unmanned
aircraft by any means necessary to ensure that it will remain affixed
to the aircraft during routine handling and all operating conditions.
For small unmanned aircraft registered under this part, the FAA
does not specify a particular surface upon which the unique identifier
must be placed. Rather, recognizing commenters' concern about the small
size of many of the small unmanned aircraft that must be registered,
the FAA simply requires that the unique identifier must be readily
accessible and visible upon inspection of the small unmanned aircraft.
In accordance with Task Force recommendations, a unique identifier
is deemed readily accessible if it can be accessed without the use of
any tools (e.g., battery compartment). This flexibility is expected to
resolve the concerns of the television and motion picture industry and
preserve the authenticity of a replica if so desired, given that the
unique identifier need not be displayed on the exterior of the small
unmanned aircraft.
Additionally, the flexibility with respect to the location of the
unique identifier will facilitate the use of a small unmanned aircraft
serial number as the unique identifier at such time as the
Administrator determines that serial numbers can be effectively used to
identify aircraft owners within the small unmanned aircraft
registration system. The FAA notes that, currently, serial numbers may
be repeated since there is no mechanism in place for manufacturers to
ensure that a given serial number is unique to a specific aircraft.
However, the FAA supports any efforts by sUAS manufacturers to
collectively standardize aircraft serial numbers, such that each small
unmanned aircraft will receive a unique serial number in production.
With regard to comments on the visibility of the markings, the FAA
cannot require all small unmanned aircraft to display a registration
number visible to people on the ground because some small unmanned
aircraft may be too small to satisfy this requirement. The agency
notes, however, that during operation of the sUAS, a Certificate of
Aircraft Registration must be readily available to the person operating
the sUAS, so that they may provide it to federal, state, or local law
enforcement when requested. See 49 U.S.C. 44103(d); 14 CFR 91.9(b) and
91.203(a); see also Legal Interpretation from Mark W. Bury to John
Duncan, August 8, 2014. The Certificate of Registration can be a
legible paper copy (or photocopy), or it may be provided by showing it
in a legible electronic form, such as on a smartphone. Thus, while the
agency considered comments suggesting additional documentation
requirements such as an ID badge or placard on or near the sUAS
operator, the FAA has determined that such requirements would not serve
a valid purpose.
Additionally, commenters' recommendations pertaining to a
requirement to identify a small unmanned aircraft using certain
equipment are beyond the scope of this rule. Neither the sUAS Operation
and Certification NPRM nor this rule contain minimum equipage
requirements for small UAS, such as a transponder. Thus, small unmanned
aircraft may not have the equipage necessary to electronically transmit
a registration number.
Regarding comments related to the installation of fireproof plates,
Executive Order 12,866 prohibits an executive agency from adopting a
regulation unless the agency determines ``that the benefits of its
intended regulation justify its costs.'' \38\ In the sUAS Operation and
Certification NPRM, the FAA explained its belief that requiring the
installation of identification plates would not be cost-justified. None
of the commenters advocating for the use of fireproof identification
plating or other forms of fireproof marking submitted data that would
allow the FAA to find that adopting this requirement would result in
benefits sufficient to justify the costs of this requirement.
Additionally, the FAA notes that for some of the smaller and lighter
weight unmanned aircraft that operate under this rule, an
identification plate would add additional weight, which could result in
reduced flight performance and/or endurance. Accordingly, the FAA has
decided against including a requirement for a fireproof identification
plate in this rule.
I. Education
sUAS Operation and Certification NPRM: Availability of education
materials was addressed in the sUAS Operation and Certification NPRM.
The National Association of REALTORS, SkyView Strategies, Inc., and
others recommended that FAA initiate a campaign to educate the general
public on UAS due to the abundance of misinformation currently
available. The Air Line Pilots Association urged FAA to take advantage
of internet-based
[[Page 78629]]
communication of safety material, training resources, databases of
airport locations and airspace restrictions, best practices, in-service
irregularity reports and the like, because this is possibly the only
practical means of reaching the small UAS pilot population.
Clarification/Request for Information: Many commenters, including
the National Air Transportation Association (NATA) and the National
Retail Federation, stated that a public education campaign and the
development of guidance materials and handbooks to ensure users know
the rules for flying UAS is essential to promote responsible use of
UAS. Other commenters said that requiring manufacturers to include a
pamphlet with each aircraft that describes these rules would also be
effective. Another commenter suggested that online retailers require
purchasers to navigate to a page describing UAS safety requirements
before completing the purchase. Many commenters, including the
Experimental Aircraft Association, lauded FAA's existing Know Before
You Fly program and recommended continuing to expand it. Some
commenters suggested creating a GPS-enabled app that would identify
safe and unsafe areas for flying, while others said FAA should further
develop its existing B4UFly app for all mobile platforms. A commenter
said that off-limit areas should be marked or advertised as such. Some
commenters said that operators should be required to pass a training
course, a practical exam, or obtain an operator certificate before
flying a UAS.
Task Force: Recognizing how important it is that all users of the
NAS receive information on safety in the NAS, the Task Force
recommended the registration process contain some sort of education
component and acknowledgment, with controls in place such that the
registration process would be incomplete until the registrant has
acknowledged receipt of this information. The information provided
could be similar to the existing content in the Know Before You Fly
program.
IFR Requirement: The FAA establishes regulatory standards to ensure
safe operations in the NAS. The FAA's safety system is largely based
on, and dependent upon, voluntary compliance with these regulatory
standards. An essential element of this strategy is FAA's effort to
encourage a safety culture, and, to that end, ensure comprehensive
educational material is readily available to every user of the NAS. The
FAA agrees with commenters and the Task Force with respect to the
importance of educational information in the registration process.
The small unmanned aircraft registration platform described in this
rule will require the registrant to review a summary of sUAS
operational guidelines before completing small unmanned aircraft
registration. The FAA believes this is an invaluable access point to
deliver sUAS operational safety information. The information will also
direct registrants to additional sources of safety information
generated by the FAA and other stakeholders, such as faasafety.gov and
knowbeforeyoufly.org.
To reach registrants after they complete the registration process,
the FAA will develop a process to use the small unmanned aircraft
registry information (such as email and mailing address) to offer
safety-related information. Delivering post-registration safety
information to registrants on a continuing basis will help to remind
the registrant of their safety-of-flight obligations and help reduce
sUAS risks in the NAS. The FAA will develop, maintain, and deliver
easily-accessible safety information directed specifically to sUAS
owners and operators. To maximize usage of the information by the
recipient, the FAA will carefully meter its delivery of information via
these access points to maximize effective consumption.
J. Compliance Philosophy and Enforcement
Clarification/Request for Information: The FAA received several
comments about enforcement. Modovolate Aviation, LLC expressed support
of FAA's proposed registration requirement of UAS stating it will
improve the ability for law enforcement officials ``to investigate
unsafe and reckless practices and to take enforcement action when
appropriate.''
The Minnesota Department of Transportation's (MnDOT) Office of
Aeronautics, the Arlington Police Department (APD) and several
individual commenters raised concerns about enforcing a registration
requirement. MnDOT Office of Aeronautics noted one challenge associated
with enforcement of the current program is a general lack of awareness
of the State's role in regulating UAS and aviation, as well as a lack
of awareness among operators, airports, law enforcement and the general
public of the aircraft registration requirements and commercial
operators licensing requirements. This commenter noted that
registration could be used as a vehicle for providing information to
the public about program requirements and the States in regulating UAS
and aviation
APD said it and other local law enforcement agencies across the
country do not have the capacity or the authority to enforce FAA's UAS
rules and regulations. While APD will assist the FAA as witnesses or
reporting entities for UAS rules violations, the commenter said the FAA
must retain the responsibility for enforcement.
A number of individual commenters raised general concerns about the
enforceability of a registration requirement. Several commenters
asserted extending registration requirements to recreational users will
be difficult to enforce and will not be worth the expense required to
develop and implement the program, including the cost to train local
law enforcement officials. Others noted no Federal, State or local law
enforcement agency has the budget or work force to enforce a
registration requirement for all aircraft, including model aircraft.
One commenter compared this registration requirement to the Federal
Communications Commission's effort to require Citizen Band radio users
to apply for a license to operate, which, according to the commenter,
ultimately was too costly to enforce. Other commenters questioned
whether the FAA has sufficient manpower to enforce the registration
requirement and how enforcement responsibilities will be shared with
local law enforcement.
Some individuals provided general comments about penalties for
failing to register a UAS. One commenter recommended a one-time
allowance for anyone caught violating the registration requirement and
a large fine for subsequent violations, while other commenters
suggested a large fine for all offenses.
Several commenters addressed the issue of penalties. One commenter
remarked that registration will be worthless unless there are negative
consequences (e.g., fines or revocation of registration certificate)
for operators who fail to register or mark their aircraft. Another
commenter suggested that a penalty similar to the penalty for driving
an unlicensed car be imposed for operating a UAS without the proper
registration.
Task Force: The Task Force recommended that the FAA establish a
clear and proportionate penalty framework for violations. It cited the
FAA's current registration-related penalties and stated they were
established in order to deter suspected drug traffickers and tax
evaders who failed to register aircraft as part of larger nefarious
schemes. The Task Force
[[Page 78630]]
recommended a separate FAA policy driving a proportionate response for
inadvertent sUAS registration violations, without which operators could
find themselves exposed to aggressive enforcement.
FAA Response: The FAA Administrator has the authority to prescribe,
revise, and enforce standards in accordance with Title 49 of the United
States Code, Subtitle VII, Chapter 447, Safety Regulation. This
authority is used to protect the public's safety and the agency's
enforcement authority is exercised to obtain compliance with applicable
aviation safety and security requirements.
Earlier this year, the FAA announced a new compliance philosophy
that uses a strategic approach to safety oversight.\39\ The FAA
believes that its compliance philosophy, supported by an established
safety culture, is instrumental in ensuring both compliance with
regulations and the identification of hazards and management of risk.
If an individual or entity is found to have not registered the aircraft
prior to its operation, the FAA's compliance philosophy will be applied
appropriately.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\39\ See FAA Order 8000.373 available at http://www.faa.gov/documentLibrary/media/Order/FAA_Order_8000.373.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
To mitigate risks in the NAS and ensure compliance FAA has used and
will continue to use outreach and education to encourage compliance
with regulatory requirements that pertain to the registration of
unmanned aircraft. The FAA may also use administrative action or legal
enforcement action to gain compliance. Failure to register an aircraft
can result in civil penalties up to $27,500. Criminal penalties for
failure to register can include fines of up to $250,000 under 18 U.S.C.
3571 and/or imprisonment up to 3 years. 49 U.S.C. 46306.
K. Privacy
sUAS Operation and Certification NPRM: In the NPRM for the sUAS
Operation and Certification rule, one commenter addressed database
accessibility. Event 38 Unmanned Systems suggested that FAA create a
database of registered operators, but limit accessibility to FAA and
law enforcement.
Clarification/Request for Information: The Clarification/Request
for Information requested information about the storage of registration
data.
Registration Data Storage Method: Many commenters expressed concern
about the security of personal identifying information in light of
recent breaches, and recommended that data be stored in some sort of
secure database (e.g., encrypted database, secured server, database
under the control of FAA, central database with 256 bit AES digital
encryption, protected with HIPAA-type controls) in compliance with
government requirements. Several commenters noted the data should be
stored in a nationally accessible database so that it can be shared
with local law enforcement agencies responsible for enforcing the
rules. Other commenters recommended the FAA store registration data the
same way the FCC stores amateur (HAM) radio licenses. Another commenter
suggested registration data for model aircraft should be maintained by
the AMA. Some commenters said there should not be a central registry
due to data security concerns, while others recommended storing the
registration information on paper to reduce the possibility of personal
information being hacked or stolen.
EPIC stated that recreational UAS operators have an expectation of
privacy, so the FAA should adopt safeguards to protect those
registrants' information from improper release and use by both the
public and other government agencies.
Multiple commenters, including South Florida UAV Consortium and
Morris P. Hebert, Inc., expressed concern with the security of online
registration systems. Some commenters indicated that they would be
supportive of electronic or Web-based registration if the agency could
guarantee that the registration site would be secure. A commenter also
suggested to ensure that an electronic signature be included in the
registration process to increase security. Along with adding security
measures to any online site, an individual expressed concern with the
authentication process of online registrations. A few commenters
suggested that it would be difficult for the agency to create and
implement an authentication program sufficient to verify the identity
of those registering prior to the proposed December 2015 deadline.
The Air Medical Operators Association and the Colorado Agricultural
Aviation Association said the data should be stored and maintained by
the FAA and easily accessible to the agency and law enforcement
agencies for enforcement purposes. The National Retail Federation
asserted retailers should not be required to store any kind of UAS
registration information; the system should be maintained by the FAA
for use by the FAA and local law enforcement agencies. Similarly, the
Toy Industry Association said manufacturers should not be required to
maintain UAS registration information.
Chronicled, Inc. suggested using a distributed blockchain based
system in which the FAA would not own the data, but would have complete
access to the data. In a blockchain-based system, the registrants would
own their registration data and the UAS product history would pass on
to any subsequent owners of the UAS. Travelers Insurance Company
recommended the data be stored in a searchable database that would
allow for data mining with respect to all the registration information,
including manufacturer, type, serial number, vendor and purchaser with
protections for personally identifiable information.
Registration Data Accessibility: In the Clarification/Request for
Information, DOT and FAA asked who should have access to the
registration data. Many commenters, including Modovolate Aviation, LLC,
and NetMoby, said that the UAS registration data should be available to
the public via the same search methods as the current manned aircraft
registration data. Many commenters noted the data must be available to
the public in order for the public to identify the owner of a UAS
involved in an incident and to notify the appropriate government
authority. NetMoby also said State laws require the exchange of
information for automobile accidents and asserted the same should be
required for UAS incidents.
Aerospace Industries Association, Property Drone Consortium, Real
Time Technology Group and individual commenters suggested all
stakeholders require access to the data, but different stakeholders
have different information needs. These commenters said the type of
information each stakeholder should have access to should be controlled
on a need to know basis. Aerospace Industries Association also cited
FAA's Federal Records Center (FRC) as an example of how the data could
be managed. The commenter explained licensees are registered and have
access to their detailed information, while third parties have access
to a limited amount of the information necessary to conduct business,
but not to all of the detailed information. A law firm noted concerns
about confidential proprietary information could be addressed by
allowing for redaction of certain confidential financial information,
as is currently done with the FAA Civil Aircraft Registry.
Several commenters said only the registrant and authorized
government
[[Page 78631]]
agencies, including DOT, FAA, the National Transportation Safety Board,
and Federal Bureau of Investigation, and local law enforcement
officials should have access to the registration data because of
privacy concerns. One commenter said the data should only be available
to law enforcement and FAA personnel via the existing National Crime
Information Computer datalinks. Some commenters said law enforcement
officials should have access to this data only when there is an active
investigation into a particular registration and registrants should be
informed when their data is accessed. Many commenters said the data
should be treated as confidential information and a few suggested DOT
or FAA personnel should have the ability to access the data only with a
court order, warrant or FOIA request. A few commenters expressed
concern that if the registration data were publically available, owners
of expensive UAS would be targets of robbery.
EPIC stated that there must be strict restrictions against the
general disclosure of registrants' personal information to government
agencies and private entities, except as necessary to promote the FAA's
mission of establishing safety and privacy in UAS operations. Noting
that privacy concerns are greater for hobbyists (who are more likely to
register with private home addresses) than for commercial operators,
EPIC recommended that the registration database of commercial operators
be publicly accessible, but the database of recreational operators only
be accessible for limited purposes related to protecting the safety and
privacy of the public. EPIC claimed that, given the fast-growing market
for UAS, a publicly accessible database of operators would implicate
privacy and safety concerns comparable to those that inspired the
Driver's Privacy Protection Act, which generally prohibits the release
and use of registered drivers' personal information except for limited
purposes. As such, EPIC asserted that UAS registration information
should be treated the same as the driver records collected by state
departments of motor vehicles.
The Arlington, Texas, Police Department said that local law
enforcement agencies should be given real-time access to the database
to enable them to seek information about a specific UAS registration
and to provide notification about unregistered UAS.
Usage of Registration Data: Many of the commenters who responded to
this question, including the National Retail Federation and
individuals, said the data should only be used for law enforcement
purposes. Other commenters suggested additional uses of the data. For
example, Travelers insurance company recommended the data be available
for use for underwriting, risk assessment, and for establishing loss
history. AIA said regulators could use the metadata to determine market
size, concentration and type and volume of operations. Aerospace
Industries Association also said registration should not prompt
additional State tax collection processes as it does with manned
aircraft purchases. Real Time Technology suggested the data could be
used at FAA's discretion for a number of purposes, including: To
maintain an accurate association of UAS with multiple users over time;
to compile accurate records of corporate UAS assets; to assure
compliance with registration requirements for UAS operations; to
authenticate registration for operational integrity in the field; to
track incidents associated with UAS or owners; and to collect
operational flight data from participating facilities. An individual
said FAA could use the data to generate aggregate statistical data on
commercial UAS activities to gauge commercial UAS impact on the NAS. A
few commenters noted registration data could be used to recover stolen
or lost property, alert owners of recalls, or to disseminate safety
information, including Notices to Airmen, to registrants. Some
commenters expressed concern that registration data could be used to
abuse or harass UAS owners. Others expressed concern that in asking how
the data should be used, the agency does not seem to know why it is
seeking to collect the data.
EPIC stated its position that recreational operators have a
legitimate privacy interest in avoiding the disclosure of their names,
addresses, and telephone numbers, and that it would serve no legitimate
purpose to make such personal information available beyond the scope of
a particular privacy or security threat.\40\ As such, EPIC stated the
FAA should adopt a general prohibition against the disclosure of
personal information, including the name, address, and number of the
registration. EPIC further stated that permitted uses of the registry
should be limited to serve the FAA's stated purposes of allowing
``individuals and title search companies to determine the legal
ownership of an aircraft'' and to ``provide aircraft owners and
operators information about potential mechanical defects or unsafe
conditions of their aircraft in the form of airworthiness directives.''
To that end, EPIC suggested that appropriate uses of registration data
by the FAA would include providing information to identify the operator
of a UAS that has caused injury, or in connection with a legal
proceeding, and providing UAS owners and operators information on any
relevant mechanical defects or unsafe aircraft conditions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\40\ EPIC cited legal precedent to support the propositions that
individuals have a legitimate privacy interest in avoiding
disclosure of their names, addresses, and telephone numbers (see
Dep't of Defense v. Fed. Labor Relations Auth., 510 U.S. 487, 500
(1994)) and that this privacy interest remains intact even when the
information is properly disclosed to the public under certain
circumstances (see U.S. Dept. of Justice v. Reporters Comm. for
Freedom of the Press, 489 U.S. 749, 767, 770 (1989)). EPIC further
stated that limiting the use and disclosure of personal information
submitted by registrants is consistent with their expectations of
privacy.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Other General Comments: Commenters raised additional concerns
regarding a UAS registration system. Skyward, Inc. said in 2013 the
DOT's Office of the Inspector General found that the aircraft
registration system had experienced significant data quality and
security issues. The commenter noted data quality and security issues
are exacerbated when data are hard to update or there is little
incentive for individuals to provide updated information. Skyward, Inc.
was ``concerned (1) that the Department's focus on enforcement may
alienate potential registrants, (2) about questions related to managing
registration of aircraft owned by individuals who are not US citizens
or are not permanent residents, and (3) about how such a registration
system may manage [s]UAS that are passing through the US by visitors
who bring drones into the US temporarily.''
Skyward, Inc. also expressed concern about unintended consequences
that could result from ``hasty implementation'' of the registration
system. Similarly, an individual stated that based on the questions
posed in the Clarification/Request for Information, it appears ``the
FAA has not done the necessary preparation to stand-up a registration
system to handle the necessary volume of registrants.''
Task Force: The Task Force recommended that the FAA collect only
name and street address of applicants for registration. While the Task
Force recognized that a registrant's email address and telephone number
may be useful for the FAA to disseminate safety-related information to
UAS owners, the Task Force nevertheless believed disclosure of such
information be optional. With the exception of information released to
law
[[Page 78632]]
enforcement, the Task Force urged the FAA to prevent the release of any
personal information that the agency is not specifically required by
law to disclose. Because this new requirement will impact unmanned
aircraft owners who do not have the means to protect their identities
and addresses behind corporate structures (as some manned aircraft
owners currently do), the Task Force believed that it is important for
the FAA to take all possible steps to shield the information of
privately owned aircraft from unauthorized disclosure, including
issuing an advance statement that the information collected will be
considered to be exempt from disclosure under the Freedom of
Information Act.
IFR Requirement: This rule provides a Web-based process for
registration of small unmanned aircraft and issuance of Certificates of
Aircraft Registration. The privacy impacts have been analyzed by the
FAA in the Privacy Impact Assessment (PIA) for the Civil Aviation
Registry Applications (AVS Registry) and the Privacy Act System of
Records Notice (SORN) DOT/FAA 801 Aircraft Registration System has been
updated accordingly.
The FAA conducted a 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 rule on the
privacy of information in an identifiable form. The FAA has determined
that this 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 disseminating PII and
examined and evaluated protections and alternative information handling
processes in developing the rule in order to mitigate potential privacy
risks. The PIA has been included in the docket for this rulemaking.
The FAA agrees with the Task Force that accessibility of this
information to law enforcement and the FAA is the utmost priority in
establishing this registry. As such, the security, simplicity, and
accessibility of the system to those groups were the foremost goals in
the FAA's determinations of system design. Routine uses are described
in the SORN.\41\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\41\ Persons wishing to access or comment on the System of
Records Notice should consult docket No. DOT-OST-2015-0235.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Commenters were mainly concerned with two issues: information
security and access to the registry information. First, regarding the
security of the registry information, the FAA developed this Web-based
registration system in compliance with all federal information
technology requirements and guidelines regarding security and
protection of information including the Federal Information Security
Management Act of 2002 as amended by the Federal Information Security
Modernization Act of 2014 and OMB and National Institute of Standards
and Technology guidelines. Access to the system depends on a validated
email address and a password created by the user. The system is
identified by a digital certificate so that the public has confidence
that they are interacting with the authentic registration site. The
system encrypts all of the information provided by the users while they
use the system as well as user information stored within the system.
The system has also been designed to protect information based on the
potential for serious impact from a security compromise. In addition,
the system protects credit card information in accordance with PCI Data
Security Standards.
Second, regarding the accessibility of the system data, the Privacy
Act System of Records Notice DOT/FAA 801 Aircraft Registration System,
provides notice to the public of the agency's privacy practices
regarding the collection, use, sharing, safeguarding, maintenance, and
disposal of information that affects individuals and their personally
identifiable information (PII). The SORN identifies the routine uses
for the PII collected for small unmanned aircraft registration. The
SORN has been published in the Federal Register and addresses the
disclosure of the small unmanned aircraft owner's name and address.
The FAA disagrees with commenters who say that the Registry should
reside with the AMA or any other organization. By statute, the FAA is
charged with establishing such a registry.
As provided in the SORN, all information in the database will be
available to law enforcement in order to achieve one of the FAA's
primary priorities in creating this system, which is to ensure a safe
and secure NAS. Accomplishing this goal involves prioritizing the
ability of law enforcement to help us identify the owner of a sUAS that
has violated an operating rule or has been used to either accidentally
or intentionally endanger other NAS users or people on the ground.
Additionally, as provided in the SORN, the general public will be
able to search the part 48 registry database by the unique identifier.
The name and address associated with that unique identifier will
populate in accordance with that search.
L. Other Methods To Encourage Accountability and Responsible Use of the
National Airspace System
Clarification/Request for Information: The FAA received comments
from many organizations and individuals on additional means beyond
aircraft registration to encourage accountability and responsible use
of UAS.
The agency received comments affirming the registration requirement
as a method to encourage accountability and responsible use of UAS. The
Air and Surface Transport Nurses Association said that a registration
requirement would be a ``step in the right direction in terms of
safety.'' EAA stated that while registration will create a system of
accountability, safety is dependent on the knowledge and decisions made
by UAS users. An individual commenter noted registration would help
recreational operators to take UAS use seriously. Another individual
stated requiring all operators to register their UAS and to obtain a
pilot license are both necessary to document the aircraft are airworthy
and the operators are properly trained in safe operation. Rotor Sport
and other commenters recommended the FAA look to the AMA for guidance
and counsel so that the agency can create policies that foster
acceptable use and safety for the public while at the same time are
intelligent and flexible to meet the needs of all model aviation
stakeholders.
Most of the commenters addressing this issue asserted that a
registration requirement would not encourage accountability and
responsible use of UAS. Two of the main reasons given for this
assertion were that registration would only be useful in rare cases
when a registered UAS is recovered after an incident, and ``bad
actors'' will simply not register. Several commenters, including the
Competitive Enterprise Institute, noted registration numbers on a UAS
would be invisible to those observing a reckless or malicious UAS
operation, thereby limiting the enforcement benefits. These
[[Page 78633]]
commenters said FAA has not provided any evidence to demonstrate that
registration of these aircraft will improve safety of the NAS or people
on the ground. They believe the safety rules are important, but a
registration requirement would have no effect on safety. One commenter
noted registration of UAS will enable FAA to identify the operator in
case of an accident, but it does not address the actual problem:
untrained pilots operating in the NAS. This commenter stressed the
importance of a type certificate stating, ``It certifies that the UAS
is airworthy, and also requires a trained pilot to operate in the
NAS.''
A few commenters asserted FAA has not been able to accurately track
many of the 357,000 aircraft registered under the current registration
program, and questioned the agency's ability to manage the registration
of hundreds of thousands of UAS. A number of commenters participating
in a form letter campaign stated that registration of model aircraft,
in particular, ``would have had little to no effect on the few rogue
pilots that have caused concern with the FAA and DOT and would only
serve to prevent law abiding citizens from enjoying the freedom and
liberty set forth by the US Constitution.'' Many commenters said
instead of encouraging accountability and responsible use, a
registration requirement would increase burdens on responsible
operators, waste tax payer dollars, and punish those who follow the
rules.
Several individual commenters asserted that the proposed
registration requirement is unnecessary as the registration issue is
already being addressed in the current section 333 exemption process
and proposed part 107 (the sUAS Operation and Certification NPRM).
A few commenters proposing other methods to encourage
accountability and responsible UAS use said that manufacturers should
be required to install geo-fencing software in their models to prevent
UAS from flying in restricted areas. Other commenters said they should
be required to install transponders that would transmit the
registration number.
Modovolate Aviation said the following would encourage
accountability and responsible use of UAS: ``(1) Prompt promulgation of
a general rule for sUAS, following the FAA's 25 February 2015 proposal;
(2) streamlining and acceleration of the section 333 exemption process;
and (3) eventual replacement of this system of regulation with one
requiring vendor self-certification of specific technological safety
features as a condition of sale.''
Delair-Tech recommended various options that would require the
manufacturer to install software that would trigger the need to
register before the UAS would be operational. The South Florida UAV
Consortium recommended that UASs be restricted to a limited operation
until the operator completes a training course and receives a code to
unlock the software to allow it to fly its full range. An individual
commenter said there should be an identification process that requires
a name and address to be registered to a serial number before
electronic operating software can be downloaded to the UAS.
Skyward, Inc. said the Task Force should examine approaches that
promote safety ``by providing opt-in conduits for registrants to
receive educational material, safety/recall information from
manufacturers, insurance discounts, and other benefits.'' In addition,
Skyward suggested that the proposed registration system serve as a
facilitator for subsequent services such as automated delivery of
temporary flight restrictions. Other commenters similarly recommended
the registration system contain some sort of educational or training
component. Aviation Management Associates said the FAA should encourage
registration of all UAS (including those that are not required to
register) by providing information and services of value, such as
enabling operators to receive discounted insurance rates by virtue of
meeting educational requirements that qualify for registration.
EPIC recommended that any UAS operating the NAS include a mandatory
GPS tracking feature that would broadcast the location, course, speed
over ground, and owner identifying and contact information, similar to
the Automated Identification System (AIS) for commercial vessels. EPIC
noted that, unlike with aircraft that are equipped with ADS-B, aircraft
information about aircraft equipped with AIS is available to the public
through freely available apps.
Union Pacific Railroad stated that it supports other reasonable
measures to encourage accountability and responsibility in small UAS
operations, including restrictions on any unauthorized commercial or
recreational operations over certain safety-sensitive locations, such
as railroad facilities.
Task Force: While the Task Force did not make a specific
recommendation on encouraging accountability and responsible use of UAS
outside the registration process, it asserted within its report that
operator accountability and responsible use were its principal goals of
registration. The NPRM did not request comment on this issue.
IFR Requirement: Accountability and responsible sUAS operation
along with identification of the aircraft owner are the desired
outcomes for this rule. While commenters provided a number of
recommendations for further action toward these goals that are outside
of the scope of this rulemaking, the FAA found that one predominant
recurring theme addressed education regarding safe sUAS operations. As
described in the preamble discussion pertaining to education, the FAA
agrees that education is a key component for reaching the agency's
aircraft registration goals and is an overarching tenet in ensuring the
safety of the NAS. The FAA will continue to evaluate these additional
methods recommended by the commenters for encouraging safe and
responsible use among sUAS operators for future guidance material and
rulemaking.
M. Legal Implications of the Registration Requirement
A number of comments were received to the Clarification/Request for
Information regarding the legal implications of the registration
requirement.
1. Comments addressing Section 336 of the FAA Modernization and Reform
Act of 2012
Many commenters stated that the FAA's decision to require
registration of model aircraft is in violation of section 336 of the
FAA Modernization and Reform Act of 2012, Public Law 112-95, which
stipulates that the FAA ``may not promulgate any rule or regulation
regarding a model aircraft'' that meets certain criteria. Commenters
pointed out that one such criterion is that the model aircraft be
operated ``in accordance with a community-based set of Safety
Guidelines and within the programming of a nationwide community-based
organization.'' Commenters stated that the AMA is one such
organization, and that the FAA must therefore exempt AMA members from
the registration requirement. Other commenters stated more generally
that FAA must identify all nationwide community-based organizations and
exempt their members from any rule or regulation (including
registration) when the aircraft is operated in accordance with a
community-based set of safety guidelines.
[[Page 78634]]
The Competitive Enterprise Institute asserted that the FAA conceded
in its interpretation of section 336 that ``a model aircraft operated
pursuant to the terms of section 336 would potentially be excepted from
a UAS aircraft rule,'' an interpretation that the commenter said
``would logically lend itself to a UAS aircraft registration rule as
well.'' This commenter accused the FAA of ignoring both the plain
language of the statute and its own interpretation of it, and asked the
FAA to explain how it has the jurisdiction to regulate small UAS
operated by hobbyists.
Several commenters found fault with the FAA's justification for
requiring registration of model aircraft--i.e., that it is applying
existing law that applies to all ``aircraft'' and not promulgating new
regulations regarding model aircraft. The Mercatus Center at George
Mason University asserted that the current proceeding ``relied quite
directly on laws that by statute may not be used as justification for
an expansion of the regulatory obligations of model aircraft
operators;'' namely, its UAS integration mandate under the FAA
Modernization and Reform Act. This commenter further asserted that if
the FAA does not restart the process without references to that mandate
there is a possibility that registration of non-commercial UAS will be
overturned if challenged in court. An individual commenter stated that
if, as the FAA asserts, the definition of model aircraft as
``aircraft'' means that all existing federal aviation regulations
retroactively apply to model aircraft, the congressional prohibition on
regulating them would be pointless. This commenter further stated that
the clear intent of Congress was to prohibit the FAA from regulating
model aircraft at all, and that if Congress meant instead to apply the
full array of existing aviation regulations to model aircraft, it would
have said so. This commenter also asserted that, even if the FAA is
correct that all existing aviation regulations apply to model aircraft,
it is not acting consistently with that principle because it is picking
only one of the many regulations that apply to manned aircraft and
arbitrarily applying it to model aircraft. This commenter further
asserted that this ``is the very epitome of arbitrary and capricious,
and clearly shows that the FAA is being disingenuous when it claims it
is merely applying existing regulations.'' This commenter went on to
say that ``[t]he fact that the FAA finds it necessary to request public
comments in a sort of expedited unofficial NPRM, followed by assembling
a special Task Force (somewhat like an Advisory Rulemaking Committee
(ARC) to determine what steps are necessary to implement the
registration process, clearly reveals the FAA's proposal to be in fact
a new regulation regarding model aircraft in direct contravention of
[FAA Modernization and Reform Act] Sec. 336.''
Another individual stated that the FAA is not being forthright in
averring that its decision not to register model aircraft until now was
``discretionary.'' This commenter expressed doubt that a regulatory
document exists in which the agency explicitly stated that ``model
aircraft need not be registered, as a discretionary exclusion from 49
U.S.C. 44101,'' and that if such a document does exist it should have
been referenced in the Clarification/Request for Information. This
commenter further asserted that the absence of such a document destroys
the premise of the ``clarification'' the FAA has now put forth.
Two individual commenters challenged the agency's reliance on the
NTSB ruling in Administrator v. Pirker (NTSB Order No. EA-5739), noting
that the ruling only held that model aircraft qualify as ``aircraft''
as the term is used in 14 CFR 91.13(a), which prohibits careless and
reckless operation.\42\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\42\ The commenter cited to Administrator v. Pirker, NTSB Order
No. EA-5739 at 12 (Nov. 17, 2014).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Two individual commenters stated that the FAA's authority to pursue
enforcement action against persons who endanger the safety of the NAS
(under section 336(b) of Public Law 112-95) cannot reasonably be
interpreted to mean the agency has the blanket authority to mandate
registration of model aircraft.
The FAA disagrees with the comments asserting that the registration
of model aircraft is prohibited by section 336 of Public Law 112-95.
While section 336 bars the FAA from promulgating new rules or
regulations that apply only to model aircraft, the prohibition against
future rulemaking is not a complete bar on rulemaking and does not
exempt model aircraft from complying with existing statutory and
regulatory requirements. As previously addressed, Public Law 112-95
identifies model aircraft as aircraft and as such, the existing
statutory aircraft registration requirements implemented by part 47
apply.
This action simply provides a burden-relieving alternative that
sUAS owners may use for aircraft registration. Model aircraft operated
under section 336 as well as other small unmanned aircraft are not
required to use the provisions of part 48. Owners of such aircraft have
the option to comply with the existing requirements in part 47 that
govern aircraft registration or may opt to use the new streamlined,
web-based system in part 48.
2. Comments Addressing Requirements Under the Administrative Procedure
Act
A number of commenters questioned the FAA's approach to rulemaking
pertaining to small unmanned aircraft registration. Several commenters
said the FAA does not have good cause to issue a rule without notice
and comment. The Competitive Enterprise Institute (CEI) stated that
under section 553(b)(3)(B) of the APA, agency rulemakings are required
to include a notice and comment period of at least 30 days unless ``the
agency for good cause finds (and incorporates the finding and a brief
statement of reasons therefor in the rules issued) that notice and
public procedure thereon are impracticable, unnecessary, or contrary to
public interest.'' Citing to a legal treatise on administration law,
CEI asserted that the good cause exception ``is not an escape clause,''
and ``should be narrowly construed and only reluctantly countenanced,''
with ``the agency bear[ing] the burden of demonstrating the ground for
good cause.'' CEI further asserted that notice and comment in this case
is not ``impractical,'' because ``[i]mpracticality exists when the
agency cannot both follow the notice-and-comment procedure and execute
its statutory duty.'' CEI stated that in this case the FAA is arguably
proceeding with a UAS registration mandate in direct contradiction of
its statutory duty ``not [to] promulgate any rule or regulation
regarding a model aircraft.'' CEI also stated that the notice and
comment process cannot be said to be ``unnecessary,'' because a rule
that mandates hobbyists register their model aircraft creates a
substantial new burden on the public. Finally, CEI stated that notice
and comment is not ``contrary to public interest.'' CEI claimed that,
although the FAA will presumably argue that providing notice and
comment would result in significant harm to the public interest by
failing to immediately mitigate UAS safety risks that only mandatory
registration can address, ``there is little evidence that registration
will, on its own, do much of anything to mitigate UAS safety risk,
which itself is likely very low relative to other aircraft safety
risks, such as birds.''
The Mercatus Center at George Mason University stated that ``agency
inaction leading to perceived deadline pressure
[[Page 78635]]
does not constitute good cause to dispense with public notice and
comment.'' \43\ The Mercatus Center asserted that a public notice-and-
comment period is necessary and in the public interest because any
requirement to register UASs potentially adversely affects numerous
non-commercial operators. The Mercatus Center further asserted that the
issuance of a final rule without notice and comment opens up the
registration requirement to reversal if challenged in court.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\43\ The commenter cited Air Transport Association of America v.
Department of Transportation, 900 F.2d 369 (D.C. Cir. 1990
(``Insofar as the FAA's own failure to act materially contributed to
its perceived deadline pressure, the agency cannot now invoke the
need for expeditious action as `good cause' to avoid the obligations
of section 553(b)).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
A number of individual commenters similarly asserted that the FAA
has not presented any data to substantiate the need to proceed with
this rulemaking on an emergency or expedited basis. Like CEI, these
commenters pointed to a lack of data showing either that there is an
increased safety risk that needs to be addressed or that registration
will, on its own, adequately address that risk. Some commenters
specifically found fault with FAA's reliance on increased number of UAS
``incidents'' reported to the FAA by manned aircraft pilots. Several
commenters noted that the AMA analyzed those reported ``incidents'' and
found that out of the 764 reported records, only 27 (or 3.5%) were
identified as a near mid-air collision, with nearly all of those
involving government-authorized military drones.\44\ The commenters
noted that most of the ``incidents'' have merely been sightings of UAS.
One individual pointed out that the FAA has published no analysis of
its own ``sightings'' data; nor has it disputed the AMA's analysis of
that data. This individual also asserted that a doubling in the rate of
UAS ``sightings'' in 2015 is consistent with the rate of growth of
consumer small UAS, and is not cause for overreaction.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\44\ A few commenters provided a link to the AMA report. http://www.modelaircraft.org/gov/docs/AMAAnalysis-Closer-Look-at-FAA-Drone-Data_091415.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Another individual claimed that FAA statistics show that birds are
far more of a threat to air traffic than toy helicopters, and that not
one single incident of a toy model causing an accident has been
reported, while bird strikes number over 7,000 a year. Several other
commenters noted that there has only been one recorded collision
between a manned aircraft and a model aircraft. One such individual
stated that it was a well-known incident in which a biplane struck a
large model airplane that was hovering over a runway at an air show.
This individual further stated that even though that model airplane was
larger than the vast majority of models most hobbyists fly, the biplane
received only a minor dent to its wing. Another individual questioned
whether the FAA has examined empirical evidence from the millions of
model flight operations to determine if lack of compliance with the
labeling requirement had any correlation to the frequency or severity
of mishaps. Another individual pointed to a recent NTSB interpretation
(NTSB-AS-2015-0001) that clarifies that ``model aircraft'' do not fall
within the definition of unmanned aircraft for accident notification/
investigation purposes. Quoting that interpretation, this commenter
stated that the NTSB ``has historically not investigated the rare
occasions in which a model aircraft has cause serious injury or
fatality,'' and clearly does not believe unregistered small UAS to be a
significant threat to the NAS.
A number of commenters characterized the registration requirement
as a ``knee jerk'' reaction to a perceived problem based solely on
anecdotal evidence, which will punish the many for the acts of a few.
Other commenters said that any UAS-related incidents can easily be
remedied by stricter enforcement of existing laws.
In contrast to those commenters who claimed that the FAA does not
have good cause to issue a rule without going through notice and
comment rulemaking, Modovolate Aviation, LLC that the FAA does have
good cause to issue a rule without notice and comment, and should
therefore set up a simple database and registration interface
immediately and issue an emergency rule requiring compliance. This
commenter asserted that such authority comes from both the APA (5
U.S.C. 553(b)(3)(B)) and the FAA's own rules (14 CFR 11.29(a)), and
that the FAA's statements that the growing number of pilot reports of
UAS sightings reveals an imminent problem and serves as an appropriate
basis for such an ``emergency rule.'' This commenter also asserted that
the FAA will not achieve its goals by engaging in another protracted
rulemaking process that takes two years.
In the preamble discussion of the agency's good cause for
proceeding with an IFR, the agency explains its rationale for forgoing
notice and comment prior to the effective date of this rulemaking and
issuing this immediately effective IFR. The agency also notes that it
is seeking comment on this rulemaking and may modify the rule based on
comments received.
3. Comments Addressing Other Legal Issues With the Proposed
Registration Requirement
The Mercatus Center at George Mason University stated that under
Executive Order 12866, a rule on non-commercial UAS registration may be
economically significant and therefore require a cost-benefit analysis.
The Mercatus Center claimed that past experience with national registry
systems suggests that there will be dramatic implementation and
compliance costs that the DOT may be systematically underestimating.
The Mercatus Center further claimed that these costs will be
exacerbated by factors such as fast UAS depreciation and replacement
rates, difficulty of enforcing retroactive compliance, and the sheer
volume and speed at which UASs are being produced, among other factors.
Several other commenters also stated that the FAA needs to conduct
cost-benefit analysis before proceeding with this rulemaking. For
example, one individual stated that a cost benefit analysis ``based on
a scientific collection of unbiased safety data'' should be conducted
before any new registration program is put in place. This individual
asserted that the FAA has not provided a convincing case that small UAS
pose a safety risk to the NAS, or that that a registration program will
be any more successful than an approach, such as the AMA's Safety Code,
that requires owners to put their name and address on the aircraft. A
few other individuals said the FAA needs to consider that a
registration requirement may expose UAS owners to additional state-
imposed taxes and fees. Another individual pointed to the potential
economic impact a registration requirement may have on small
businesses. This individual asserted that the requirement may impact
small hobby shops, as well as major distributors like Horizon Hobby and
Hobbico, because people will not want to register their aircraft with
the FAA and will therefore choose to participate in other consumer
hobbies that do not require registration with the government. The News
Media Coalition stated that any registration process established by the
FAA ``must avoid placing undue burden on the First Amendment right to
gather and disseminate news.''
Several individual commenters stated that a registration
requirement is an invasion of privacy. EPIC discussed its concerns
about the privacy and civil liberty risks posed by the use of UAS in
[[Page 78636]]
the United States, and asserted that the enhanced surveillance
capabilities of UAS raise significant Fourth Amendment
implications.\45\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\45\ EPIC made reference to its 2012 petition to the FAA to
undertake a rulemaking to establish privacy regulations prior to the
deployment of commercial drones in the national airspace, and its
lawsuit against the FAA for denying that petition. EPIC also made
reference to its testimony before Congress regarding the need to
adopt comprehensive legislation to limit drone surveillance in the
United States.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Consistent with comments regarding Executive Order 12866, the FAA
has completed an economic analysis of this rulemaking. The economic
analysis for this rulemaking can be found in the docket with the IFR.
Regarding comments pertaining to free speech and privacy, the
agency clarifies that this IFR does not provide operating restrictions.
Rather, this rulemaking is intended only to establish a streamlined
approach for small unmanned aircraft registration.
N. Alternatives to Registration
The FAA received a number of comments recommending alternatives to
a requirement of registration.
Clarification/Request for Information: Several commenters suggested
a requirement for small UAS operators to become members of a community-
based organization, instead of a registration requirement. One
commenter recommended that an organization similar to the USPA (United
States Parachute Association) be formed to manage UAS training,
licensing, and registration. Another commenter said it would make more
sense for the DOT and FAA to mandate that small UAS pilots join any
community-based organization that follows a set of standardized rules.
Several commenters recommended that the FAA specifically require model
aircraft operators to become AMA members. One commenter suggested that
AMA be put in charge of the registration of small UAS users, with the
registration database maintained by the AMA independently, or with a
subsidy from the DOT/FAA. Several other commenters, however, opposed
the idea of requiring AMA membership or allowing the AMA to be any part
of the official registration requirement. One individual stated that
registration is an inherently governmental function that should not be
ceded to any dues collecting organization. This commenter pointed out
that neither the Experimental Aircraft Association nor the Aircraft
Owners and Pilots Association register manned aircraft. Another
individual said the AMA should not be part of the registration process
because it is ``a privately run optional insurance consortium for
hosting a common airfield,'' not an authority regarding model aircraft
design, standards, and practices. The Drone User Group Network said
that the AMA ``while a venerable association, does not have the
interests of responsible and dedicated UAS operators at the core of its
mission.'' Another individual listed a number of concerns about the
AMA's safety programming (e.g., failure to enforce their own
requirement to have AMA number and/or address in their member's
aircraft) and said that he is not comfortable with the AMA being
permitted to manage the inherently governmental function of
registration.
Several commenters who opposed a registration requirement said the
FAA should review the FCC's experience with the explosive growth of
mobile Citizen Band radios some years ago, which ultimately resulted in
abandoning the licensing requirement for those radios. One commenter
recommended that driver's licenses be used for registration, instead of
creating a new registry system. Another commenter said recreational
operators could be required to carry a current driver's license and a
safety card, which would be issued after the operator watched an FAA
video on proper flying procedures.
A number of commenters said the FAA needs to clarify what it will
consider to be a UAS for purposes of the registration requirement. Some
commenters asserted that relying on the FAA's definition of
``aircraft'' is problematic because that definition can be construed to
mean any device which takes to air, including, for example, a Frisbee,
a paper airplane, a foam airplane, or a balsa wood rubber-band powered
airplane. As discussed above, many commenters urged the agency to
exclude traditional model aircraft from the definition of UAS for
purposes of the registration requirement. Some of those commenters
questioned why model aircraft would be included in a registration
requirement while other types of ``aircraft,'' such as ultralights,
model rockets and kites, would not. Several commenters pointed out that
ultralights can weigh up to 249 pounds, carry up to 5 gallons of
flammable fuel, carry an unlicensed pilot, be unregistered, and still
operate in the NAS (in many, but not all areas).
Several individual commenters questioned whether the agency can
handle the registration of millions of recreational UAS. One commenter
noted that the registration database could become overloaded and
unmanageable if every person registers every model aircraft they
purchase or receive--many of which will not last past a single flight--
but then fail to notify the FAA when a model is lost, destroyed, or
sold. Also pointing to the short life span of most small UAS, another
commenter similarly said the registration system will become
overwhelmed if recreational users are required to register and re-
register each model aircraft they obtain. Another commenter said that
requiring UAS owners to renew their registration will ``complicate
everything'' and lead to people involuntarily breaking the law when
they forget to re-register their UAS. Several commenters wondered how
the registration process will be funded.
Several commenters addressed the effect of a registration
requirement on innovation and growth. The National Association of
Mutual Insurance Companies (NAMIC) encouraged the FAA and the Task
Force to consider how the registration system will be integrated into
or used in conjunction with the commercial development of UAS.
Specifically, NAMIC said the FAA and Task Force should consider how
industries that are critical to UAS development will depend on or
require UAS registration. NAMIC asserted that ``streamlining
requirements for UAS registration would certainly be in the interest of
avoiding duplication, minimizing burdens, and best protecting
innovation and encouraging growth in the UAS industry. Similarly, TIA
said the FAA must implement UAS regulations that do not inhibit
advancement but rather spur growth and inspire future innovators. The
University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign urged the FAA and DOT to
consider alternatives to a registration (which is said is likely to
prove both burdensome and ineffective) because ``onerous regulations
applied to UAS research will stifle innovation and put the United
States at a competitive disadvantage.'' An individual commenter
similarly said that regulation ``will increase costs, drive people from
the activity, and retard innovation.'' One individual commenter argued
that model aircraft ``represent a huge employment, technological, and
economic opportunity for our country (and world), and we cannot afford
to squash this potential with more laws.'' A group of academics noted
that traditional model aircraft have inspired generations of our
scientists, engineers, and inventors. A number of other commenters also
expressed concern that a registration requirement will
[[Page 78637]]
discourage young people from becoming involved in model aviation which,
in turn, will discourage them from entering careers in STEM-related
fields.
A commenter who had been issued an exemption under section 333 of
Public Law 112-95 questioned whether he or she would have to re-
register their UAS, and what the time-frame for that would be. Another
commenter questioned how the registration requirement would apply to
UAS that are flown infrequently or not at all. Another individual
commenter questioned what the process would be for removing non-
functional UAS from the registration system. Another commenter working
overseas wondered whether he would have to register his UAS to be
permitted to operate it during visits to the United States.
Delair-Tech recommended the following registration process for
manufactured UAS: (1) Each UAS produced is assigned an aircraft type
designator (assigned by ICAO) and a unique serial number (assigned by
the manufacturer); (2) the user manual for each UAS instructs its owner
to turn on the UAS and its ground control station/software within
internet connectivity coverage; (3) the ground control software detects
an unregistered UAS and opens a registration window, which prompts the
owner to enter their contact information (including phone number); (4)
the registration information is transmitted to the national
registration system, which sends a verification code to the owner via
text message; (5) the owner enters the code through the ground control
software and then the registration system verifies the code and sends a
registration number to the ground control station; (6) the ground
control software programs the registration number into the UAS, which
enables the owner to fly the UAS. As an alternative to using the ground
control software to connect directly to the national registration
system, Delair-Tech suggested the owner be given the URL of the
registration system, through which the owner would input contact
information and receive a verification code. The owner would also
receive the registration number through the web application, which they
would then input into the UAS through the ground control software.
An individual commenter suggested that as an alternative to issuing
an expedited registration rule the agency issue a temporary,
immediately effective rule mandating point-of-sale distribution of
agency materials summarizing the operational restrictions for model
aircraft. This commenter stated that acting promptly to require
retailers to communicate the core regulatory message would more
directly address the fear of improperly operated UAS becoming a safety
risk as more are sold to hobbyists. The commenter also stated that such
materials largely already exist and the requirement for distributing
the information could be satisfied, particularly by online retailers,
by a check-box acknowledgment or an emailed link to existing FAA
educational Web sites. The commenter cited legal authority that would
support an exercise of authority to compel commercial speech when it is
in the service of a significant public interest.
RILA urged the establishment of a preemptive federal standard for
UAS to allow for uniformity, consistency, and alleviate potential
burdens on both retailers and consumers if states are left to legislate
potentially inconsistent UAS safety.
Some commenters said an education program, geo-fencing, and strict
enforcement of the safety rules would be more effective than requiring
registration of these aircraft.
A few commenters advocated for a tiered licensing process, allowing
operators who have qualified for higher tiers (e.g., through additional
training or testing) to operate UAS with advanced capabilities. Several
commenters said that FAA should regulate UAS operators in the same way
the FCC licenses amateur (ham) radio operators, and one commenter also
said that retailers of certain UAS should require proof of FCC
licensing before purchase.
The Mercatus Center at George Mason University stated that the DOT
and FAA should define a threshold ``that liberalize most small UASs,
requiring registrations for only the largest and highest-powered UASs,
while continuing to focus on integrating all nongovernmental UASs
within a framework based on the principles of permissionless
innovation.'' This commenter went on to say that, instead of an
``impractical'' registration scheme, the FAA should adopt Transport
Canada's model and require simple online notification for commercial
operations within a middle weight class. Other commenters said that
operators should have to abide by the AMA safety code.
The South Florida UAV Consortium recommended that UASs be
restricted to a limited operation until the operator completes a
training course and receives a code to unlock the software to allow it
to fly its full range.
One commenter recommended two categories of licenses--one for
commercial products that can be purchased off the shelf (with
limitations on the degree to which they can be modified) and one for
home-built or substantially modified aircraft. The commenter asserted
that this second category of licenses ``would address the impossibility
of implementing a per-device registration scheme in a world of imported
electronics and homebrew experimentation.'' Within the two categories
of licenses, the commenter recommended different classes based on the
available power carried on the aircraft.
IFR Requirement: The FAA disagrees with commenters who stated that
all small unmanned aircraft should be registered with the AMA and that
AMA should be exclusively responsible for the registry. The FAA is
specifically directed by statute to develop and maintain an aircraft
registry. Accordingly, the FAA cannot abdicate its responsibility to
AMA or any other organization outside the FAA.
Some commenters on this topic addressed the need for a clear
definition of which aircraft require registration and which do not; the
FAA has addressed that definition in an earlier section. In response to
the comments about capacity issues and streamlining registration, the
web-based registration system established by this rule will allow the
Registry to better accommodate the aircraft registration required for
owners of small unmanned aircraft.
O. Comments Beyond the Scope
The nature of the FAA's request for comment in the Clarification/
Request for Information resulted in some commenters providing
information that did not fall within the twelve comment areas. The FAA
is summarizing those comments that were outside the scope of the twelve
questions in this section.
A few commenters remarked on the make-up of the Task Force. One
individual stated that the presence of Amazon, Walmart and Best Buy,
among other major corporations, ``gives the impression, as face value,
of being politically driven by major corporations to restrict tax
paying citizens in this country from using their airspace and the
enjoyment of flying their model aircraft in favor of a major
corporation.'' This individual asserted that these corporations would
prefer to eliminate model aviation in order to have open skies to
operate their delivery service. Two other commenters similarly said
that the UAS industry representatives on the Task Force ``have a
penchant for regulations and may actually benefit from such regulation
given that they have the resources to cover the cost required by such
regulation and that
[[Page 78638]]
inevitably such regulation will limit free enterprise.'' These
commenters questioned why the FAA did not invite grass-roots small UAS
organizations, such as the Small UAV Coalition.
A commenter suggested reducing risk to aviation by permitting local
authorities to utilize a transmitter to electronically disable UAS that
are being flown illegally. The commenter also suggested developing a
means to report illegal UAS operation. Another commenter said that law
enforcement should be able to confiscate UAS that are flown illegally.
The National Association of Mutual Insurance Companies, Minnesota
Department of Transportation, and other commenters suggested requiring
UAS operators to purchase liability insurance. Additionally, NetMoby
and other commenters remarked that FAA should impose significant fines
and other civil or criminal penalties on operators who fail to register
or fly in a dangerous or illegal manner.
The Toy Industry Association urged FAA to implement an IFR instead
of a final rule at this point. The commenter said that an interim rule
would permit the agency and UAS Task Force to create a pilot
registration system that would include only UAS that have ``high risk''
capabilities, and study this system before implementing a final rule.
Other commenters, including the News Media Coalition, encouraged FAA to
finalize the small UAS rule proposed for commercial users to provide an
example of clear guidelines for all users.
Skyward, Inc. recommended that FAA develop a more comprehensive
approach to UAS management, including technical standards for a UAS
system for the NAS, and said that FAA should review NASA's UAS Traffic
Management program and the Department of Homeland Security's STIX and
TAXII standards as examples of technical standards development. Skyward
said that, for example, a comprehensive UAS system could include
``detection capabilities that are able to detect and localize non-
participating or malfunctioning aircraft as part of expanded airspace
radar and surveillance systems.''
Many commenters expressed concern about the expedited timeframe in
which the DOT and the FAA plan to implement the registration system.
UAVUS said the plan to create a registration system this holiday season
is ``overly ambitious, and could add to the confusion created by the
absence of the FAA's final rulemaking for the commercial use of small
UASs.'' RILA stated its appreciation for the agency's goal of
increasing safe and responsible UAS use, but asserted that the
logistical challenges in implementing such a system within the current
expedited timeframe ``make doing so responsibly and coherently
impossible.'' Given the expedited timeframe, RILA, NRF, and TIA
encouraged the FAA to consider the use of an interim final rule instead
of a direct final rule. NRF alternatively suggested a pilot program to
evaluate the operational needs of a registration system.
The National Agricultural Aviation Association (NAAA), Colorado
Agricultural Aviation Association, and Alaska Legislative Task Force on
Unmanned Aircraft Systems recommended that UAS should be required to be
more visible to manned aircraft to avoid collision by requiring UAS to
be equipped with strobe lights and painted conspicuous colors.
Two commenters suggested that as an alternative to registering
individual UAS, that owners be required to register their transmitters.
One of those commenters asserted that the transmitter registration
would provide an easy way to identify operators without having to
physically locate them or their UAS because transmitters broadcast a
radio signal that can be picked up by anyone in the vicinity. This
commenter further asserted that relying on markings on the aircraft
will do nothing to identify a problem unless the UAS crashes, but, as
technology advances, transmitters can transmit a personal ID that can
be read with receiver equipment. A few other individual commenters
recommended a requirement to register the flight controller instead of
the aircraft.
P. Miscellaneous
The FAA has updated Sec. 91.203(a)(2) to allow the Certificate of
Aircraft Registration issued under part 48 to satisfy the requirements
of that paragraph.
The FAA has also made the following technical amendments to part
47: The Department of Homeland Security currently exercises the
oversight responsibilities of the former Immigration and Naturalization
Service. Part 47 has been updated to reflect this change.
The agency has also clarified that the reference to ``armed
forces'' includes only those armed forces of the United States.
VIII. Section-by-Section Discussion of the Interim Final Rule
In part 1, definitions and abbreviations, definitions for ``model
aircraft,'' ``small unmanned aircraft,'' ``small unmanned aircraft
system,'' and ``unmanned aircraft'' are added.
In part 45, identification and registration marking, Sec. 45.1 is
revised to add a specific cross-reference to 14 CFR part 47 to indicate
that the marking requirements of part 45 only relate to aircraft
registered under part 47.
In part 47, aircraft registration, in Sec. 47.2 the definition of
``resident alien'' is revised to remove the reference to the
Immigration and Naturalization Service and replace it with a reference
to the Department of Homeland Security. The term ``U.S. citizen'' is
revised to read ``Citizen of the United States or U.S. citizen'' to
conform to other uses of this term.
Section 47.3 is revised to make clear that, when stating that no
person may operate an aircraft that is eligible for registration under
49 U.S.C. 44101-44104, Armed Forces refers to Armed Forces of the
United States.
Section 47.7 is revised to remove the reference to the Immigration
and Naturalization Service and replace it with a reference to the
Department of Homeland Security.
The FAA is adding new 14 CFR part 48, registration and markings for
small unmanned aircraft.
Section 48.1 provides the applicability for the part. It states
that small unmanned aircraft eligible for registration in the United
States must be registered and identified in accordance with either the
registration and identification requirements in part 48, or the
registration requirements in part 47 and the identification and
registration marking requirements in subparts A and C of part 45.
Section 48.1 also explains that small unmanned aircraft intended to be
operated outside of the territorial airspace of the United States, or
registered through a trust or voting trust, must be registered in
accordance with part 47 and satisfy the identification and registration
marking requirements of subparts A and C of part 45.
Section 48.5 provides the compliance dates for small unmanned
aircraft used exclusively as model aircraft, and the compliance dates
for small unmanned aircraft used as other than model aircraft.
Section 48.10 provides definitions of ``Citizen of the United
States or U.S. citizen,'' ``Registry,'' and ``resident alien.'' These
are the same definitions found in part 47.
Section 48.15 provides that no person may operate a small unmanned
aircraft that is eligible for registration under 49 U.S.C. 44101-44103
unless the owner has registered and marked the aircraft in accordance
with the requirements of
[[Page 78639]]
part 48; the aircraft weighs 0.55 pounds or less on takeoff, including
everything that is on board or otherwise attached to the aircraft; or
the aircraft is an aircraft of the Armed Forces of the United States.
Section 48.20 provides the criteria for eligibility of the small
unmanned aircraft for registration.
Section 48.25 describes the requirements for applicants wishing to
register a small unmanned aircraft using part 48. Applicants must
provide the required information, and must meet other ownership
requirements listed in the section.
Section 48.30 provides the fees for small unmanned aircraft
registration.
Section 48.100 describes information applicants must submit when
registering a small unmanned aircraft intended to be used as other than
a model aircraft, and the information applicants must submit when
registering a small unmanned aircraft intended to be used exclusively
as a model aircraft.
Section 48.105 requires small unmanned aircraft owners to maintain
current information in the registration system.
Section 48.110 provides the Certificate of Aircraft Registration
information for small unmanned aircraft intended to be used other than
as model aircraft. It provides the effective date of the Certificate,
information regarding registration renewal, and describes events
affecting the effectiveness of the Certificate of Aircraft
Registration.
Section 48.115 provides the Certificate of Aircraft Registration
information for small unmanned aircraft intended to be used exclusively
as model aircraft. It provides the effective date of the Certificate,
information regarding registration renewal, and describes events
affecting the effectiveness of the Certificate of Aircraft
Registration.
Section 48.120 discusses circumstances in which a small unmanned
aircraft registration is invalid. Circumstances include when the
aircraft is registered in a foreign country; the applicant is not the
owner, except when the applicant registers on behalf of an owner who is
under 13 years of age; the applicant is not eligible to submit an
application under part 48; or the interest of the applicant in the
aircraft was created by a transaction that was not entered into in good
faith, but rather was made to avoid (with or without the owner's
knowledge) compliance with 49 U.S.C. 44101-44103.
Section 48.125 explains that for those persons who do not meet the
citizenship requirements for U.S. registration, the certificate issued
under part 48 constitutes a recognition of ownership.
Section 48.200 contains general provisions for small unmanned
aircraft marking.
Section 48.205 provides the requirements for the display and
location of the unique identifier.
In part 91, general operating and flight rules, Sec. 91.203 is
revised to reference Certificates of Aircraft Registration provided in
part 48.
In part 375, navigation of foreign civil aircraft within the United
States, Sec. 375.11 is clarified to note that this includes a small
unmanned aircraft.
Section 375.38 authorizes owners of foreign civil aircraft that are
small unmanned aircraft used exclusively as model aircraft to operate
within the U.S. and requires owners of aircraft engaged in such
operations to complete the part 48 registration process prior to
operation.
IX. 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
(Pub. L. 96-39 as amended) prohibits agencies from setting standards
that create unnecessary obstacles to the foreign commerce of the United
States. In developing U.S. standards, the Trade Agreements 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
IFR. We suggest readers seeking greater detail read the full regulatory
evaluation, a copy of which we have placed in the docket for this
rulemaking.
In conducting these analyses, FAA has determined this IFR has
benefits that justify its costs, and is a ``significant regulatory
action'' as defined in section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866 because it
raises novel policy issues contemplated under that executive order. The
rule is also ``significant'' as defined in DOT's Regulatory Policies
and Procedures. The IFR will have a positive economic impact on a
substantial number of small entities, will not create unnecessary
obstacles to international trade, and will not impose an unfunded
mandate on state, local, or tribal governments, or on the private
sector. These analyses are summarized below.
Total Benefits and Costs
There are problems arising from the rapid proliferation of small
unmanned aircraft and these problems are occurring more frequently.
Sales projections show the number of small unmanned aircraft continuing
to increase dramatically, and thus addressing the problem is urgent.
Registration provides an immediate and direct opportunity to educate
new users of unmanned aircraft who may have no knowledge of the system
in which they are operating, and thus, no knowledge of how to operate
safely within it. Registration and marking of small unmanned aircraft
will provide owners education regarding operating in the NAS and will
promote accountability in those operations, at a minimal cost to
operators and the government.
Currently aircraft registration is a paper-based process defined in
part 47. Under current statutory and regulatory policy, the FAA could
require UAS model aircraft owners,\46\ at a significant cost, to
register their small unmanned aircraft under part 47 using the legacy
paper-based system. Commercial owners \47\ that have been granted
exemptions or certificates of authorization to operate small unmanned
aircraft in the NAS have been required to register their aircraft under
part 47. Also, the sUAS Operation and Certification NPRM would require
non-model aircraft owners (e.g., commercial and public owners of sUAS)
to register their aircraft under part 47 as outlined in the NPRM. The
agency expects to finalize that rulemaking in 2016.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\46\ for purposes of the economic analysis of this IFR, the term
``modeler'' means the owner of a small unmanned aircraft that
satisfies the definition of ``model aircraft'' added to 14 CFR 1.1
\47\ For purposes of the economic analysis of this IFR, the term
``commercial owners'' or ``non-modeler'' means the owner of a small
unmanned aircraft used for non-model purposes.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 78640]]
The FAA has used agency discretion in the past by not requiring
owners of small unmanned aircraft intended to be used as model aircraft
in accordance with section 336 of Public Law 112-95 to register their
aircraft although as noted commercial operators of small unmanned
aircraft have been required to register their aircraft. Due to the
rapid increase in sUAS for hobby use (and soon at much greater volumes
for commercial purposes), the FAA is creating an alternative simple,
web-based registration process to significantly reduce the time to
register small unmanned aircraft. In addition, to ease the burden to
modelers this regulation will allow those owners to register once and
use the same identification number for all their aircraft, instead of
registering each of their small unmanned aircraft separately.
In order to implement the new streamlined, web-based system
described in this IFR, the FAA will incur costs to develop, implement,
and maintain the system. Small UAS operators will require time to
register and mark their aircraft, and that time has a cost. The total
of government and registrant resource cost for small unmanned aircraft
registration and marking under this new system is $56 million ($46
million present value at 7 percent) through 2020.
In evaluating the impact of this rule, we compare the costs and
benefits of the IFR to a baseline consistent with existing practices:
for modelers, the exercise of discretion by FAA (not requiring
registration), and for non-modelers, registration via part 47 in the
paper-based system. We also calculate the costs of the rejected
alternative: requiring modelers and non-modelers alike to register
aircraft via the paper-based system.
In order to compare the costs of this rule to this baseline, the
FAA estimated the costs of registering sUAS aircraft under the web-
based registration system resulting from this part 48 rulemaking (the
IFR). The two populations, modelers and non-modelers, have slightly
different processes as noted in this evaluation. In all of these
scenarios, sUAS weighing 0.55 pounds or less are excluded from
registration. In these analyses, we estimate the private-sector
compliance costs and government costs for each scenario.
Table 5--Summary of Quantified Costs and Benefits ($M)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total cost
Year Calendar year -------------------------------- Difference 7% P.V.
Baseline IFR
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
0............................... 2015 $ 0.0 $ 5.5 -$ 5.5 -$ 5.47
1............................... 2016 21.3 6.3 15.0 14.00
2............................... 2017 86.5 8.3 78.1 68.25
3............................... 2018 89.0 12.1 76.9 62.77
4............................... 2019 91.6 11.6 80.0 61.03
5............................... 2020 94.2 11.8 82.5 58.79
---------------------------------------------------------------
Total....................... .............. 382.5 55.6 327.0 259.4
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Note: numbers may not add due to rounding.
Who is potentially affected by this rule?
All owners of small unmanned aircraft which weigh more than 0.55
pounds and less than 55 pounds on takeoff.
Assumptions and Data
The benefit and cost analysis for the regulatory evaluation is
based on the following factors/assumptions. Technology, markets, and
uses for small unmanned aircraft are evolving rapidly and there is a
high degree of uncertainty how the future will unfold and so the FAA
requests comments (supported with data) on these assumptions.
The period of the regulatory impact analysis begins in
2015 (denoted Year 0) and ends in 2020 (denoted Year 5).
This analysis considers the benefits and costs of
requiring the registrations of sUAS weighing less than 55 pounds and
more than 0.55 pounds on takeoff.
We use a seven percent discount rate for the benefits as prescribed by
OMB in Circular A-4.
Population and Forecast
Most of these assumptions, unless otherwise noted, were
based on interviews with manufacturers, retailers, and other industry
experts.
Estimates of small unmanned aircraft registrations are
based on projections of sUAS sales for the period of analysis. A sales
forecast was developed based on use cases and likely adoption rates by
commercial application and consumer electronic s-curve analysis for
non-commercial applications. This forecast was then adjusted to obtain
the number of modelers and the number of non-modeler sUAS units.
Two basic populations are estimated: (1) Model aircraft
owners and their sUAS units and (2) the number of commercial/public
owners and their sUAS units. In this document, the term ``modeler''
means the owner of a small unmanned aircraft that satisfies the
statutory definition of ``model aircraft'' now codified in 14 CFR 1.1.
The term ``commercial owner'' or ``non-modeler'' means the owner of a
small unmanned aircraft used for non-model aircraft purposes.
For non-modelers, we assume that on average, all sUAS fail
within a year and are replaced in the next year. For modelers we use
the assumption that an average of ten percent of the modelers' sUAS
survive into a second year, because they are used less intensively.
These assumptions are based on manufacturers' information.
Unmanned aircraft weighing 0.55 pounds or less are
excluded from the registrations forecast. We assume 20 percent of the
sales forecast will be unmanned aircraft weighing 0.55 pounds or less.
This analysis is based on an examination of the current unit size
distribution. While there may be some incentive for manufacturers to
increase the number of aircraft produced below the registration size
cut-off, the FAA believes the inherent limitations of the weight and
available technology will not drive large shifts during analysis
period. SUAS flown exclusively indoors need not be registered. FAA
assumes most sUAS over 0.55 pounds will be flown outdoors and must be
registered.
The entire existing fleet of model aircraft and 2015
fourth quarter sales are assumed to be registered in Period 0 or 2015.
Most non-modelers will register their aircraft after the
FAA has finalized the sUAS Operation and Certification
[[Page 78641]]
NPRM, anticipated to go into effect in June 2016.
On average, model aircraft owners are assumed to own an
average fleet size of 1.5 sUAS.
80 percent of model aircraft owners replace each aircraft
as it is destroyed. (In other words, 20 percent of modelers drop out of
the hobby each year).
On average, non-model sUAS owners are assumed to own 2
aircraft at a time. Every year all of the non-model sUAS owners go
through the registration system replacing their two aircraft.
Time
The estimated time to register an aircraft via the part 47
(paper-based system) system is 30 minutes.\48\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\48\ See Supporting Statement, OMB 2120-0042 Aircraft
Registration Including Assignment and Cancellation of U.S.
Identification Marks
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The estimated time for a model aircraft owner to establish
an online account and register an aircraft, under this rulemaking, is
estimated to take 5 minutes; a registration renewal for these owners is
also estimated to take 5 minutes. The bulk of this time includes
reading and acknowledging basic safety information presented during the
registration process.
The estimated time for a non-modeler registrant to
establish an online account and register two small unmanned aircraft is
7 minutes; 5 minutes to establish an account plus 1 minute per small
unmanned aircraft.
The estimated time for a non-modeler registrant to de-
register each aircraft is three minutes.
The time for an owner to mark an aircraft with its
registration number is de minimis.
The analysis assumes that all sUAS owners will comply with
the registration processes considered in the regulatory analysis (part
47 baseline system and the web-based systems resulting from this part
48 rulemaking).
Costs
The FAA assigns an hourly value of $19.13 per hour for the
value of time for model aircraft registrants and $24.89 per hour for
the value of time for non-modeler registrants in 2015. These hourly
values are in 2013 dollars adjusted to reflect the growth of real
changes in median household income over the analysis interval. \49\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\49\ The hourly opportunity cost for modelers is based on the
mid-point estimate of the range values as specified in Section 1.2.3
of FAA's Treatment of Time: Economic Values for Evaluation of FAA
Investment and Regulatory Decisions (http://www.faa.gov/regulations_policies/policy_guidance/benefit_cost/). The hourly
opportunity cost for non-modelers is estimated as the median gross
compensation which is the sum of median hourly wage and an estimate
of hourly benefits. This estimate is reported in DOT guidance titled
Revised Departmental Guidance on Valuation of Travel Time in
Economic Analysis (Washington DC, 2015).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
FAA estimates that its costs are $22 for the registration
of an aircraft in the current paper-based system. This estimate is
based on an internal cost model developed by FAA's Civil Aviation
Registry for managerial purposes.
FAA cost information for the streamlined, web-based
registrations was developed based on cost models and FAA data. Costs
for the web-based system include startup costs, costs to provide
interfaces for retailers and manufacturers, the cost of providing for
public search function based on the unique identifier, the cost of
providing for law enforcement access, and maintenance costs, whether
incurred by FAA personnel or FAA's contractors. We do not include costs
for manufacturers or retailers to provide information to the
registration system or to change packaging as those are voluntary
actions. FAA expects that retailers will make point-of-sale interfaces
available in the future.
As is standard practice, FAA does not include costs of
enforcement of this rule.
Safety
We assume this regulation does not affect the levels of
FAA manpower or resources expended on UAS safety education and outreach
but it will allow the FAA to target those efforts, making those on-
going efforts more effective.
We do not attempt to quantify any safety benefit from this
regulation. (See ``Qualitative Benefits'' section in the Regulatory
Evaluation for further discussion).
Fees
The fee to register an aircraft under part 48, as well as
in the current paper-based system in part 47, is $5. This fee is
required by statute and is based on an estimate of the costs of the
system and services associated with aircraft registration. If actual
costs for the web-based system are known before a final rule is issued,
we will adjust the fee accordingly in the final rule. If not, we will
continue to monitor and determine the actual costs and adjust the fee
in a subsequent rulemaking. FAA notes that under part 47, the
registration fee using the paper-based system is $5 per aircraft. FAA
has begun a rulemaking to update this fee based on current costs.
(Aircraft Registration and Airmen Certification Fees, RIN 2120-AK37).
We have estimated the registration fee for the new web-
based system to be $5, based on the projected costs to build and
maintain the system and provide the registration service. Model
aircraft owners will pay $5 to register and will be assigned a unique
identifier that can be marked on the owner's entire fleet of model
aircraft. Model aircraft owners will be required to renew their
registration every 3 years and pay a $5 fee. There would be no charge
for de-registration. Fees will be adjusted based on actual costs.
Non-modeler aircraft owners will also pay a $5 fee to
establish an online account and register an initial aircraft in the new
web-based system. They will also pay a $5 fee to add each additional
sUAS to their existing account. Aircraft must be re-registered after
three years, but as noted above, FAA expects very few, if any, sUAS to
last that long. Non-modeler aircraft owners will not pay a fee to de-
register a sUAS.
Government fees and taxes are considered transfers and, by
Office of Management and Budget guidance, transfers are not considered
a societal cost. These transfers are estimated separately from the
costs and benefits of this IFR. The FAA acknowledges fees and transfers
can create incentives for behavior change.
Costs of This Rule
Table 6--Cost Summary
[$M]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total cost Total costs 7% P.V.
Calendar -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Year year Interim Rejected Interim Rejected
Baseline final rule alternative Baseline final rule alternative
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
0...................................................... 2015 $ 0.0 $ 5.5 $ 44.2 $ 0.0 $ 5.5 $ 44.2
1...................................................... 2016 21.3 6.3 65.1 19.9 5.9 60.9
[[Page 78642]]
2...................................................... 2017 86.5 8.3 140.6 75.5 7.3 122.8
3...................................................... 2018 89.0 12.1 155.7 72.6 9.9 127.1
4...................................................... 2019 91.6 11.6 173.9 69.9 8.8 132.7
5...................................................... 2020 94.2 11.8 195.9 67.2 8.4 139.6
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total.............................................. ........... 382.5 55.6 775.4 305.1 45.7 627.3
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Totals may not add due to rounding.
Benefits of This Rule
In this section, we discuss beneficial impacts to the non-modeler
from the cost savings of this rule over registering sUAS aircraft using
the baseline system. The cost savings offsets, by an order of
magnitude, the new costs associated with modelers and non-modelers
registering aircraft in the streamlined Web-based system.
The baseline column in Table 7 shows the total costs for non-
modelers to register their aircraft using the paper-based system, while
modelers do not register their aircraft. The IFR column shows the total
costs to FAA and registrants (modelers and non-modelers) of the new
web-based system. Table 7 shows the significant cost savings of
subtracting the costs of registration between the baseline system from
the registration costs imposed by this rulemaking.
Table 7--Cost Savings of the Baseline Versus the Part 48 Rulemaking
[$M]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total Cost
Year Calendar year -------------------------------- Difference 7% P.V.
Baseline IFR
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
0............................... 2015 $ 0.0 $ 5.5 -$ 5.5 -$ 5.5
1............................... 2016 21.3 6.3 15.0 14.0
2............................... 2017 86.5 8.3 78.1 68.3
3............................... 2018 89.0 12.1 77.9 62.8
4............................... 2019 91.6 11.6 80.0 61.0
5............................... 2020 94.2 11.8 82.5 58.8
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total....................... .............. 382.5 55.6 327.0 259.4
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Note: numbers may not add due to rounding.
This IFR also brings qualitative benefits. Registrants will be
required to read and acknowledge some basic safety information during
the registration process. The email and mailing addresses provided
during the registration process provides further opportunity for future
targeted safety education and information.
This rulemaking will improve the education of recreational sUAS
owners and operators by making them aware of the regulatory and safety
requirements affecting their activities. At the same time, it will
provide essential educational tools to the legions of new and current
flyers that are taking to the skies, so that they can use their
unmanned aircraft safely.
The requirement to mark the aircraft with the registration number
links the owner to the aircraft; providing accountability should an
accident, incident, or regulatory violation occur. This IFR also has
the potential to benefit sUAS owners. In the event of a mistake where
the aircraft flies away from the owner, the registration marking
provides a means for the aircraft to be returned to its owner.
Requiring aircraft registration and display of marking information
often has a direct and immediate impact on safety-related issues. For
example, aircraft registration and marking provides the FAA and law
enforcement agencies an invaluable tool during inspections and
investigations of inappropriate or prohibited behavior, as well as
during emergency situations. One of the FAA's goals is to provide the
FAA and local law enforcement agencies the immediate ability to quickly
connect individuals to their aircraft with the fewest number of steps
possible.
B. Regulatory Flexibility Determination
The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 (Public Law 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.
The Regulatory Flexibility Act analysis requirements are limited to
rulemakings for which the agency ``is required by section 553 . . . or
any other law, to publish a general notice of proposed rulemaking for
any proposed rule.'' 5 U.S.C. 603(a).In this instance, the agency has
determined under section 553(b)(3)(B) of the APA that there is good
cause for forgoing notice and comment for this rulemaking. Thus,
[[Page 78643]]
compliance with the RFA is not required in this instance.
Nonetheless, the FAA believes that this IFR will have a positive
economic impact on a substantial number of entities for the following
reasons. Individuals using small unmanned aircraft exclusively as model
aircraft are not small business entities. For owners of aircraft used
for commercial or non-model purposes, the $5 registration fee per small
unmanned aircraft under this IFR is the same as what was proposed under
the sUAS Operation and Certification NPRM. However this IFR reduces the
burden for these small entities to register their small unmanned
aircraft as compared to the current paper-based FAA registration
system. Thus, due to the relieving nature of this IFR, there will be a
positive economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.
C. International Trade Impact Assessment
The Trade Agreements Act of 1979 (Public Law 96-39), as amended by
the Uruguay Round Agreements Act (Public Law 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
has assessed the potential effect of this IFR and determined that it
has a legitimate domestic objective--the protection of safety--and does
not operate in a manner that excludes imports that meet this objective.
Further, it is not an unnecessary obstacle because currently, there is
no foreign registry that the FAA can recognize and the other
requirements (compliance with provisions of part 48) impose no greater
burden than that which is imposed on U.S. citizens.
D. Unfunded Mandates Assessment
Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Public Law
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 $155.0 million in lieu of $100
million. This IFR 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 new information collection. As
required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3507(d)),
the FAA has submitted this information collection to OMB for its
review.
Summary: Persons owning small unmanned aircraft, whether intended
to be used as model aircraft or as other than model aircraft, are
required to register those aircraft with the FAA pursuant to 49 U.S.C.
44101-44103. Persons may register small unmanned aircraft pursuant to
the requirements of 14 CFR part 48 as an alternative to the
registration requirements of 14 CFR part 47. Aircraft registration is
necessary to ensure personal accountability among all users of the
national airspace system. Aircraft registration also allows the FAA and
law enforcement agencies to address non-compliance by providing the
means by which to identify an aircraft's owner and operator.
Use: Information will be used to identify small unmanned aircraft
owners and to provide educational information regarding use of small
unmanned aircraft in the national airspace system.
Respondents (including number of): See Table 8.
Frequency: As needed. Persons will register small unmanned aircraft
prior to operation and, if they continue to own the aircraft, will
renew registration every three years thereafter.
Annual Burden Estimate: For the modelers and non-modelers, the
following table shows the total number of modelers, their time, and
their costs to fill out the on-line system and register plus the time
to re-register and for the non-modelers, the number of total
respondents (small unmanned aircraft), their time to fill out the
online system and register, the time to register each of their small
unmanned aircraft, and their time de-register their aircraft after they
retire their aircraft. There are no costs associated with this
information collection aside from the time spent to complete
registration.
Table 8--Average Annual Burden Estimates
[Years 0-5 (6 Years)]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Number of
Category responses Minutes per Frequency Hours
(M) response (000)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Modeler
Owner Registration................... 0.57 5 1 time...................... 47.8
Owner Re-Registration................ 0.16 5 Every 3 years............... 12.9
Non-Modeler
Small Unmanned Aircraft Registration. 1.82 3.5 1 Time...................... 121.9
Small Unmanned Aircraft De- 1.66 3 1 Time...................... 69.0
Registration.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Rows may not sum due to rounding.
The agency is soliciting comments to--
(1) 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;
[[Page 78644]]
(2) Evaluate the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden;
(3) Enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to
be collected; and
(4) 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 January 15, 2016. 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 20503.
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. In the
instance of this rulemaking, the FAA does not intend to comply with
international standards. The registration and marking requirements in
this IFR apply only to operations within the United States. The agency
will file differences as is appropriate.
G. Environmental Analysis
FAA Order 1050.1F 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 5-6.6f and involves no extraordinary
circumstances.
X. Executive Order Determinations
A. Executive Order 13132, Federalism
The FAA has analyzed this immediately adopted final rule under the
principles and criteria of Executive Order 13132, Federalism. The
agency determined that this action will 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, does not have Federalism implications.
B. Executive Order 13211, Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy
Supply, Distribution, or Use
The FAA analyzed this immediately adopted final 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 is not a ``significant energy
action'' under the executive order and it is not likely to have a
significant adverse effect on the supply, distribution, or use of
energy.
C. Executive Order 13609, Promoting International Regulatory
Cooperation
Executive Order 13609, Promoting International Regulatory
Cooperation, (77 FR 26413, May 4, 2012) promotes international
regulatory cooperation to meet shared challenges involving health,
safety, labor, security, environmental, and other issues and reduce,
eliminate, or prevent unnecessary differences in regulatory
requirements. The FAA has analyzed this action under the policy and
agency responsibilities of Executive Order 13609, Promoting
International Regulatory Cooperation. 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.
XI. How To Obtain Additional Information
A. Rulemaking Documents
An electronic copy of a rulemaking document may be obtained via the
Internet by--
Searching the Federal eRulemaking Portal (http://www.regulations.gov);
Visiting the FAA's Regulations and Policies Web page at http://www.faa.gov/regulations_policies/ or
Access the Government Publishing Office's Web page at: http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/.
Copies may also be obtained by sending a request (identified by
notice, amendment, or docket number of this rulemaking) to the Federal
Aviation Administration, Office of Rulemaking, ARM-1, 800 Independence
Avenue SW., Washington, DC 20591, or by calling (202) 267-9677.
B. Comments Submitted to the Docket
Comments received may be viewed by going to http://www.regulations.gov and following the online instructions to search the
docket number for this action. Anyone is able to search the electronic
form of all comments received into any of the FAA's dockets by the name
of the individual submitting the comment (or signing the comment, if
submitted on behalf of an association, business, labor union, etc.).
C. Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act
The Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act (SBREFA) of
1996 requires FAA to comply with small entity requests for information
or advice about compliance with statutes and regulations within its
jurisdiction. A small entity with questions regarding this document,
may contact its local FAA official, or the person listed under the FOR
FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT heading at the beginning of the preamble.
To find out more about SBREFA on the Internet, visit http://www.faa.gov/regulations_policies/rulemaking/sbre_act/.
List of Subjects
14 CFR Part 1
Air transportation.
14 CFR Part 45
Aircraft, Signs and symbols.
14 CFR Part 47
Aircraft, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
14 CFR Part 48
Aircraft, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Signs and
symbols, Small unmanned aircraft, Unmanned aircraft.
14 CFR Part 91
Air traffic control, Aircraft, Airmen, Airports, Aviation safety,
Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
14 CFR Part 375
Administrative practice and procedure, Aircraft, Foreign relations,
Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
The Amendment
In consideration of the foregoing, the Federal Aviation
Administration amends Chapter I of Title 14, Code of Federal
Regulations, as follows:
PART 1--DEFINITIONS AND ABBREVIATIONS
0
1. The authority citation for part 1 is revised to read as follows:
Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(f), 106(g), 40113, 44701.
0
2. In Sec. 1.1, add the definitions of ``Model aircraft'', ``Small
unmanned aircraft'', ``Small unmanned aircraft
[[Page 78645]]
system'', and ``Unmanned aircraft'' in alphabetical order to read as
follows:
Sec. 1.1 General definitions.
* * * * *
Model aircraft means 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.
* * * * *
Small unmanned aircraft means an unmanned aircraft weighing less
than 55 pounds on takeoff, including everything that is on board or
otherwise attached to 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.
* * * * *
PART 45--IDENTIFICATION AND REGISTRATION MARKING
0
3. 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
4. In Sec. 45.1, revise paragraph (b) to read as follows:
Sec. 45.1 Applicability.
* * * * *
(b) Nationality and registration marking of aircraft registered in
the United States in accordance with part 47.
PART 47--AIRCRAFT REGISTRATION
0
5. The authority citation for part 47 is revised to read as follows:
Authority: 4 U.S.T. 1830; Public Law 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, 45305, 46104, 46301.
0
6. Revise Sec. 47.2 to read as follows:
Sec. 47.2 Definitions.
The following are definitions of terms used in this part:
Citizen of the United States or U.S. citizen means one of the
following:
(1) An individual who is a citizen of the United States or one of
its possessions.
(2) A partnership each of whose partners is an individual who is a
citizen of the United States.
(3) A corporation or association organized under the laws of the
United States or a State, the District of Columbia, or a territory or
possession of the United States, of which the president and at least
two-thirds of the board of directors and other managing officers are
citizens of the United States, which is under the actual control of
citizens of the United States, and in which at least 75 percent of the
voting interest is owned or controlled by persons that are citizens of
the United States.
Registry means the FAA, Civil Aviation Registry, Aircraft
Registration Branch.
Resident alien means an individual citizen of a foreign country
lawfully admitted for permanent residence in the United States as an
immigrant in conformity with the regulations of the Department of
Homeland Security (8 CFR Chapter 1).
0
7. In Sec. 47.3, revise paragraph (b)(3) to read as follows:
Sec. 47.3 Registration required.
* * * * *
(b) * * *
(3) Is an aircraft of the Armed Forces of the United States.
* * * * *
0
8. In Sec. 47.7, Revise paragraph (b) to read as follows:
Sec. 47.7 United States citizens and resident aliens.
* * * * *
(b) Resident aliens. An applicant for aircraft registration under
49 U.S.C. 44102 who is a resident alien must furnish a representation
of permanent residence and the applicant's alien registration number
issued by the Department of Homeland Security.
* * * * *
0
9. Add part 48 to read as follows:
PART 48--REGISTRATION AND MARKING REQUIREMENTS FOR SMALL UNMANNED
AIRCRAFT
Subpart A--General
Sec.
48.1 Applicability.
48.5 Compliance dates.
48.10 Definitions.
48.15 Requirement to register.
48.20 Eligibility for registration.
48.25 Applicants.
48.30 Fees.
Subpart B--Certificates of Aircraft Registration for Small Unmanned
Aircraft
48.100 Application.
48.105 Requirement to maintain current information.
48.110 Registration: Persons intending to use small unmanned
aircraft for purposes other than as model aircraft.
48.115 Registration: Individuals intending to use the small unmanned
aircraft exclusively as a model aircraft.
48.120 Invalid registration.
48.125 Foreign civil aircraft.
Subpart C--Aircraft Marking
48.200 General.
48.205 Display and location of unique identifier.
Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(f), 106(g), 40101, 40103, 40113-40114,
41703, 44101-44103, 44105-44106, 44110-44113, 45302, 45305, 46104,
46301, 46306.
Subpart A--General
Sec. 48.1 Applicability.
(a) This part provides registration and identification requirements
for small unmanned aircraft that are part of a small unmanned aircraft
system as defined in Sec. 1.1 of this chapter.
(b) Small unmanned aircraft eligible for registration in the United
States must be registered and identified in accordance with either:
(1) The registration and identification requirements in this part;
or
(2) The registration requirements in part 47 and the identification
and registration marking requirements in subparts A and C of part 45.
(c) Small unmanned aircraft intended to be operated outside of the
territorial airspace of the United States, or registered through a
trust or voting trust, must be registered in accordance with subparts A
and B of part 47 and satisfy the identification and registration
marking requirements of subparts A and C of part 45.
Sec. 48.5 Compliance dates.
(a) Small unmanned aircraft used exclusively as model aircraft. For
small unmanned aircraft operated by the current owner prior to December
21, 2015, compliance with the requirements of this part or part 47 is
required no later than February 19, 2016. For all other small unmanned
aircraft, compliance with this part is required prior to operation of
the small unmanned aircraft.
(b) Small unmanned aircraft used as other than model aircraft.
Small unmanned aircraft owners authorized to conduct operations other
than model aircraft operations must register the small unmanned
aircraft in accordance
[[Page 78646]]
with part 47 of this chapter. Beginning March 31, 2016, small unmanned
aircraft operated as other than model aircraft may complete aircraft
registration in accordance with this part.
Sec. 48.10 Definitions.
For purposes of this part, the following definitions apply:
Citizen of the United States or U.S. citizen means one of the
following:
(1) An individual who is a citizen of the United States or one of
its possessions.
(2) A partnership each of whose partners is an individual who is a
citizen of the United States.
(3) A corporation or association organized under the laws of the
United States or a State, the District of Columbia, or a territory or
possession of the United States, of which the president and at least
two-thirds of the board of directors and other managing officers are
citizens of the United States, which is under the actual control of
citizens of the United States, and in which at least 75 percent of the
voting interest is owned or controlled by persons that are citizens of
the United States.
Registry means the FAA, Civil Aviation Registry, Aircraft
Registration Branch.
Resident alien means an individual citizen of a foreign country
lawfully admitted for permanent residence in the United States as an
immigrant in conformity with the regulations of the Department of
Homeland Security (8 CFR Chapter 1).
Sec. 48.15 Requirement to register.
No person may operate a small unmanned aircraft that is eligible
for registration under 49 U.S.C. 44101-44103 unless one of the
following criteria has been satisfied:
(a) The owner has registered and marked the aircraft in accordance
with this part;
(b) The aircraft weighs 0.55 pounds or less on takeoff, including
everything that is on board or otherwise attached to the aircraft; or
(c) The aircraft is an aircraft of the Armed Forces of the United
States.
Sec. 48.20 Eligibility for registration.
A small unmanned aircraft may be registered under 49 U.S.C. 44103
and under this part only when the aircraft is not registered under the
laws of a foreign country and is--
(a) Owned by a U.S. citizen;
(b) Owned by an individual citizen of a foreign country lawfully
admitted for permanent residence in the United States;
(c) Owned by a corporation not a citizen of the United States when
the corporation is organized and doing business under the laws of the
United States or a State within the United States, and the aircraft is
based and primarily used in the United States; or
(d) An aircraft of--
(1) The United States Government; or
(2) A State, the District of Columbia, a territory or possession of
the United States, or a political subdivision of a State, territory, or
possession.
Sec. 48.25 Applicants.
(a) To register a small unmanned aircraft in the United States
under this part, a person must provide the information required by
Sec. 48.100 to the Registry in the form and manner prescribed by the
Administrator. Upon submission of this information, the FAA issues a
Certificate of Aircraft Registration to that person.
(b) A small unmanned aircraft must be registered by its owner using
the legal name of its owner, unless the owner is less than 13 years of
age. If the owner is less than 13 years of age, then the small unmanned
aircraft must be registered by a person who is at least 13 years of
age.
(c) In accordance with 49 U.S.C. 44103(c), registration is not
evidence of aircraft ownership in any proceeding in which ownership of
an unmanned aircraft by a particular person is in issue.
(d) In this part, ``owner'' includes a buyer in possession, a
bailee, a lessee of a small unmanned aircraft under a contract of
conditional sale, and the assignee of that person.
Sec. 48.30 Fees.
(a) The fee for issuing or renewing a Certificate of Aircraft
Registration for aircraft registered in accordance with Sec. 48.100(a)
is $5.00 per aircraft.
(b) The fee for issuing or renewing a Certificate of Aircraft
Registration for aircraft registered in accordance with Sec. 48.100(b)
is $5.00 per certificate.
(c) Each application for and renewal of a Certificate of Aircraft
Registration must be accompanied by the fee described in paragraphs (a)
and (b), as applicable, paid to the Federal Aviation Administration
through the web-based aircraft registration system, or in another
manner if prescribed by the Administrator.
Subpart B--Certificates of Aircraft Registration for Small Unmanned
Aircraft
Sec. 48.100 Application.
(a) Required information: Persons intending to use the small
unmanned aircraft as other than a model aircraft. Each applicant for a
Certificate of Aircraft Registration issued under this part must submit
all of the following information to the Registry:
(1) Applicant name and, for an applicant other than an individual,
the name of the authorized representative applying for a Certificate of
Aircraft Registration.
(2) Applicant's physical address and, for an applicant other than
an individual, the physical address for the authorized representative.
If the applicant or authorized representative does not receive mail at
their physical address, a mailing address must also be provided.
(3) Applicant's email address or, for applicants other than
individuals, the email address of the authorized representative.
(4) The aircraft manufacturer and model name.
(5) The aircraft serial number, if available.
(6) Other information as required by the Administrator.
(b) Required information: Individuals intending to use the small
unmanned aircraft exclusively as a model aircraft. Each applicant for a
Certificate of Aircraft Registration issued under this part must submit
all of the following information to the Registry:
(1) Applicant name.
(2) Applicant's physical address and if the applicant does not
receive mail at their physical address, a mailing address must also be
provided.
(3) Applicant's email address.
(4) Other information as required by the Administrator.
(c) Provision of information. The information identified in
paragraphs (a) and (b) of this section must be submitted to the
Registry through the Web-based small unmanned aircraft registration
system in a form and manner prescribed by the Administrator.
(d) Issuance of Certificate of Aircraft registration. The FAA will
issue a Certificate of Aircraft Registration upon completion of the
application requirements provided in paragraph (a) or (b) of this
section as applicable.
Sec. 48.105 Requirement to maintain current information.
(a) The holder of a Certificate of Aircraft Registration must
ensure that the information provided under Sec. 48.100 remains
accurate.
(b) The holder of a Certificate of Aircraft Registration must
update the information using the web-based small unmanned aircraft
registration system within 14 calendar days of the following:
[[Page 78647]]
(1) A change in the information provided under Sec. 48.100.
(2) When aircraft registration requires cancellation for any reason
including sale or transfer, destruction, or export.
Sec. 48.110 Registration: Persons intending to use small unmanned
aircraft for purposes other than as model aircraft.
(a) Certificate of Aircraft Registration. A Certificate of Aircraft
Registration issued in accordance with Sec. 48.100 for aircraft used
for purposes other than as model aircraft constitutes registration only
for the small unmanned aircraft identified on the application.
(b) Effective date of registration. An aircraft is registered when
the applicant receives a Certificate of Aircraft Registration for the
specific aircraft. The effective date of registration is shown by the
date of issue on the Certificate of Aircraft Registration issued for
the aircraft.
(c) Registration renewal. A Certificate of Aircraft registration
issued under this part expires 3 years after the date of issue unless
it is renewed.
(1) The holder of a Certificate of Aircraft Registration must renew
the Certificate by verifying, in a form and manner prescribed by the
Administrator, that the information provided in accordance with Sec.
48.100 of this subpart is accurate and if it is not, provide updated
information. The verification may take place at any time within the six
months preceding the month in which the Certificate of Aircraft
registration expires.
(2) A certificate issued under this paragraph expires three years
from the expiration date of the previous certificate.
(d) Other events affecting effectiveness of Certificate. Each
Certificate of Aircraft Registration issued by the FAA under this
subpart is effective, unless registration has ended by reason of having
been revoked, canceled, expired, or the ownership is transferred, until
the date upon which one of the following events occurs:
(1) Subject to the Convention on the International Recognition of
Rights in Aircraft when applicable, the aircraft is registered under
the laws of a foreign country.
(2) The small unmanned aircraft is totally destroyed or scrapped.
(3) The holder of the Certificate of Aircraft Registration loses
U.S. citizenship.
(4) Thirty days have elapsed since the death of the holder of the
Certificate of Aircraft Registration.
(5) The owner, if an individual who is not a citizen of the United
States, loses status as a resident alien, unless that person becomes a
citizen of the United States at the same time.
(6) The owner is a corporation other than a corporation which is a
citizen of the United States and one of the following events occurs:
(i) The corporation ceases to be lawfully organized and doing
business under the laws of the United States or any State thereof; or
(ii) The aircraft was not operated exclusively within the United
States during the period of registration under this part.
Sec. 48.115 Registration: Individuals intending to use small unmanned
aircraft exclusively as a model aircraft.
(a) Certificate of Aircraft Registration: A Certificate of Aircraft
Registration issued in accordance with Sec. 48.100 for small unmanned
aircraft used exclusively as model aircraft constitutes registration
for all small unmanned aircraft used exclusively as model aircraft
owned by the individual identified on the application.
(b) Effective date of registration. An aircraft is registered when
the applicant receives a Certificate of Aircraft Registration. The
effective date of registration is shown by the date of issue on the
Certificate of Aircraft Registration issued under this part.
(c) Registration renewal. A Certificate of Aircraft registration
issued under this part expires 3 years after the date of issue unless
it is renewed.
(1) The holder of a Certificate of Aircraft Registration must renew
the Certificate by verifying, in a form and manner prescribed by the
Administrator, that the information provided in accordance with Sec.
48.100(b) and (c) of this part is accurate and if it is not, provide
updated information. The verification may take place at any time within
the six months preceding the month in which the Certificate of Aircraft
registration expires.
(2) A certificate issued under this paragraph expires three years
from the expiration date of the previous certificate.
(d) Other events affecting effectiveness of Certificate. Each
Certificate of Aircraft Registration issued by the FAA under this part
is effective, unless registration has ended by reason of having been
revoked, canceled or expired, or until the date upon which one of the
following events occurs:
(1) The holder of the Certificate of Aircraft Registration loses
U.S. citizenship.
(2) Thirty days have elapsed since the death of the holder of the
Certificate of Aircraft Registration.
(3) The owner, if an individual who is not a citizen of the United
States, loses status as a resident alien, unless that person becomes a
citizen of the United States at the same time.
Sec. 48.120 Invalid registration.
The registration of a small unmanned aircraft is invalid if, at the
time it is made--
(a) The aircraft is registered in a foreign country;
(b) The applicant is not the owner, except when the applicant
registers on behalf of an owner who is under 13 years of age;
(c) The applicant is not eligible to submit an application under
this part; or
(d) The interest of the applicant in the aircraft was created by a
transaction that was not entered into in good faith, but rather was
made to avoid (with or without the owner's knowledge) compliance with
49 U.S.C. 44101-44103.
Sec. 48.125 Foreign civil aircraft.
Except for corporations eligible to register under Sec. 48.20(c),
the FAA will issue a recognition of ownership to persons required to
comply with the provisions of this part pursuant to an authorization to
operate issued under part 375 of this title. The recognition of
ownership does not have the effect of U.S. aircraft registration.
Subpart C--Aircraft Marking
Sec. 48.200 General.
(a) No person may operate a small unmanned aircraft registered in
accordance with this part unless the aircraft displays a unique
identifier in accordance with the requirements of Sec. 48.205 of this
subpart.
(b) A unique identifier is one of the following:
(1) The registration number issued to an individual or the
registration number issued to the aircraft by the Registry upon
completion of the registration process provided by this part; or
(2) If authorized by the Administrator and provided with the
application for Certificate of Aircraft Registration under Sec. 48.100
of this part, the small unmanned aircraft serial number.
Sec. 48.205 Display and location of unique identifier.
(a) The unique identifier must be maintained in a condition that is
legible.
(b) The unique identifier must be affixed to the small unmanned
aircraft by any means necessary to ensure that it will remain affixed
for the duration of each operation.
(c) The unique identifier must be readily accessible and visible
upon
[[Page 78648]]
inspection of the small unmanned aircraft. A unique identifier enclosed
in a compartment is readily accessible if it can be accessed without
the use of any tool.
PART 91--GENERAL OPERATING AND FLIGHT RULES
0
10. 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
11. In Sec. 91.203, revise paragraph (a)(2) to read as follows:
Sec. 91.203 Civil aircraft: Certifications required.
(a) * * *
(2) An effective U.S. registration certificate issued to its owner
or, for operation within the United States, the second copy of the
Aircraft registration Application as provided for in Sec. 47.31(c), a
Certificate of Aircraft registration as provided in part 48, or a
registration certification issued under the laws of a foreign country.
* * * * *
PART 375--NAVIGATION OF FOREIGN CIVIL AIRCRAFT WITHIN THE UNITED
STATES
0
12. The authority citation for part 375 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 49 U.S.C. 40102, 40103, and 41703.
0
13. Revise Sec. 375.11 to read as follows:
Sec. 375.11 Other Foreign Civil Aircraft.
A foreign civil aircraft, including unmanned aircraft as defined in
Sec. 1.1 of this title, other than those referred to in Sec. 375.10
may be navigated in the United States only when:
(a) The operation is authorized by the Department under the
provisions of this part, and
(b) The aircraft complies with any applicable airworthiness
standards of the Federal Aviation Administration for its operation.
0
14. Add Sec. 375.38 to subpart D to read as follows:
Sec. 375.38 Other foreign civil aircraft: Small unmanned aircraft
operated exclusively as model aircraft.
Foreign civil aircraft that are small unmanned aircraft used
exclusively as model aircraft may be operated in the United States only
when the individual:
(a) Completes the registration process in accordance with
Sec. Sec. 48.30, 48.100(b) and (c), 48.105, and 48.115 of this title;
(b) Identifies the aircraft in accordance with the aircraft marking
requirements in Sec. Sec. 48.200 and 48.205 of this title; and
(c) Complies with the requirements of Sec. 336 of Pub. L. 112-95
(Feb. 14, 2012).
Issued under the authority of 49 U.S.C. 106(f), 41703, 44101-
44103, in Washington, DC on December 14, 2015.
Anthony R. Foxx,
Secretary of Transportation.
Michael P. Huerta,
Administrator.
[FR Doc. 2015-31750 Filed 12-15-15; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P