USCA Case #15-1495 Document #1590543 Filed: 12/24/2015 Page 1 of 71 ORIGINAL IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF FOR IHF DISTRIC) OF flLUMBTA ‘iTR,iuFcoLUMBIAcIRCUIT JOb fjEO 4 FILED[EC42O1 A. TAYLOR Z015 Petitioner CLERK RECEIVED Petition for Review Case No. vs. MICHAEL P. HUERTA As Administrator ?EDERAL AVIATION ADMINTSTRATION, 5 Federal Aviation Administration Serve: Mchael P. Huerta, Administrator ecieral Aviation Administration 800 Independence Avenue, SW Washington, DC 20591 £ulorney General of the United States Main Justice Building 10th and Constitution Avenue, NW Washington. DC 20530 U.S. Attorney for the District of Columbia h 4 St., NW ‘Washington, DC 20530 Respondent PETITION FOR REViEW l-euioner, John A. Taylor,pro se, hereby petitions the court for review of an interim Final ie (SO FR 7)3) issd by the Federal Aviation Administraiion (“FAA”) on Deemher 16. 2i and ftr iiS cause of action states as follows: USCA Case #15-1495 Document #1590543 Filed: 12/24/2015 Page 2 of 71 JURISDICTION 1. This Court has jurisdiction and over this matter pursuant to 49 U.S.C. §46110(a). FACTS COMMON TO ALL COUNTS 2. Petitioner is a citizen of the United States. 3. Petitioner is a model aircraft hobbyist. 4. Petitioner is the owner of one or more small unmanned hobby aircraft that were operated by Petitioner prior to December 21, 2015. 5. Petitioner is the owner of a small unmanned hobby aircraft that was acquired subsequent to December 21, 2015. 6. Petitioner desires to acquire additional small unmanned hobby aircraft. 7. The FAA Modernization and Reform Act of 2012 (“the Act”) was enacted by Congress and signed by the President on February 14, 2012.1 8. Sec. 336(a) of the Act provides that “... the administrator of the Federal Aviation Administration may not promulgate any rule or regulation regarding a model aircraft, or an aircraft being developed as a model aircraft if. . .“ the aircraft is “flown strictly for hobby or recreational use...” and meets other safety criteria. 9. Petitioner’s aforesaid aircraft meet the definition established by Sec. 336(a) of the AcE aircraft that are not subject to regulation by the FAA. 10. On December 16, 2015, the FAA issued an Interim Final Rule (80 FR 78593), which amends Title 14 of the Code of Federal Regulations. H.R. 658/P.L. 112-95, Feb. 14, 2012, 126 Stat. ii. 2 USCA Case #15-1495 Document #1590543 Filed: 12/24/2015 Page 3 of 71 ii. The function of the Interim Final Rule is to create a registry for small unmanned aircraft. 14 CFR 48.1(b), created by the Interim Final Rule, provides, “Small unmanned aircraft eligible for registration in the United States must be registered and identified...” pursuant to specified requirements. 12. The Interim Final Rule sets a trigger date of December 21, 2015 for the requirement that newly-acquired small unmanned aircraft be registered prior to operation. 13. The aforesaid trigger date was timed knowingly and intentionally to coincide with the timing of gifts exchanged for Christmas. 14. Petitioner’s aforesaid aircraft meet definition of aircraft eligible for registration pursuant to 14CFR48.1(b). 15. Under the terms of the Interim Final Rule, Petitioner would be required to register his aforesaid aircraft and affix a registration number assigned by Respondent. 16. Petitioner’s aforesaid aircraft are unmanned aircraft that are capable of sustained flight in the atmosphere. 17. Petitioner’s aforesaid aircraft are unmanned aircraft that are flown within visual line of sight of the person operating the aircraft. 18. Petitioner’s aforesaid aircraft are unmanned aircraft that are flown for hobby or recreational purposes. 19. Petitioner’s aforesaid aircraft are, or will be, part of small unmanned aircraft systems. 20. Prior to adoption of the Interim Final Rule, the FAA’s longstanding rule, articulated on their website, was that, “Registration is not required for model aircraft operated solely tr hobby or recreational purposes.” Under to mandates of the Rule, such model aircraft niust be registered. 3 USCA Case #15-1495 Document #1590543 Filed: 12/24/2015 Page 4 of 71 21. The Interim Final Rule, in its entirety, constitutes a violation of Sec. 336(a) of the Act. COUNT I (Declaratory Relief) 22. Petitioner incorporates by reference the preceding allegations of fact contained in the Complaint. WHEREFORE, Petitioner demands that the Court issue an order declaring that the Interim Final Rule is void as a violation of Sec. 3 36(a) of the Act. Petitioner further requests that he be awarded costs and reasonable attorney’s fees pursuant to 28 U.S.C.A. §24 12. COUNT!! (Permanent Inj unction) 23. Petitioner incorporates by reference the preceding allegations of fact contained in the Complaint. 24. Petitioner will suffer irreparable harm in the absence of a permanent injunction. 25. The balance of equities tips in Petitioner’s favor. 26. A permanent injunction is in the public interest. WHEREFORE, Petitioner demands that the Court issue a stay enjoining Respondent from: A. Enforcing upon or further implementing the provisions of the Interim Final Rule (80 FR 78593). B. Requiring or accepting registrations for model aircraft operated by Petitioner or others solely for hobby or recreational purposes that meet the use criteria set forth in Sec. 336(a) 4 USCA Case #15-1495 Document #1590543 Filed: 12/24/2015 Page 5 of 71 of the FAA Modernization and Reform Act of 2012 (H.R. 658/P.L. 112-95, Feb. 14, 2012, 126 Stat. 11). C. Taking enforcement action regarding Petitioner or other persons who fail to comply with the registration or other requirements of the Interim Final Rule (80 FR 78593). D. Disseminating any registration information received by Respondent from Petitioner or others pursuant to the registration process established by the Interim Final Rule (80 FR 78593). E. Continuing to maintain any registration information received by Respondent from Petitioner or others pursuant to the registration process established by Interim Final Rule (80 FR 78593). Petitioner further requests that he be awarded costs and reasonable attorney’s fees pursuant to 28 U.S.C.A. § 2412. Submitted, Maryland 20906 I 5 USCA Case #15-1495 Document #1590543 Filed: 12/24/2015 Page 6 of 71 AFFIDAVIT I, JOHN A. TAYLOR, HEREBY CERTIFY, under penalty of perjury, that the representations contained herein are true and correct to the best of my knowledge, information and belief. John 6 USCA Case #15-1495 Document #1590543 Filed: 12/24/2015 Page 7 of 71 ORIGINAL SEC. 336. SPECIAL RULE FOR MODEL AIRCRAFT. (a) In Genera/.--Notwithstanding any other provision of law relating to the incorporation of unmanned aircraft systems into Federal Aviation Administration plans and policies, including this subtitle, the Administrator of the Federal Aviation Administration may not promulgate any rule or regulation regarding a model aircraft, or an aircraft being developed as a model aircraft. if(1) the aircraft is flown strictly for hobby or recreational use: (2) the aircraft is operated in accordance with a community-based set of safety guidelines and within the programming of a nationwide community-based organization: (3) the aircraft is limited to not more than 55 pounds unless otherwise certified through a design, construction. inspection, flight test, and operational safety program administered by a community-based organization: (4) the aircraft is operated in a manner that does not interfere with and gives way to any mamied aircraft; and (5) when flown within 5 miles of an airport, the operator of the aircraft provides the airport operator and the airport air traffic control tower (when an air traffic facility is located at the airport) with prior notice of the operation (model aircraft operators flying from a permanent location within 5 miles of an airport should establish a mutually-agreed upon operating procedure with the airport operator and the airport air traffic control tower (when an air traffic facility is located at the airport)). (b) Statutoiy Construction.--Nothing in this section shall be construed to limit the authority of the Administrator to pursue enforcement action against persons operating model aircraft who endanger the safety of the national airspace system. (c) Model Aircraft Defined.--In this section, the term 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. USCA Case #15-1495 Document #1590543 Filed: 12/24/2015 Page 8 of 71 FEDERAL REGISTER VoL 80 Wednesday, No, 241 December 16, 2015 F art ‘J Department of Transportation Federal Aviation Administration 14 CFR Parts 1, 45, 47, et al. Registration and Marking Requirements for Small Unmanned Aicraft; F’nai Rule USCA Case #15-1495 78594 Document #1590543 Filed: 12/24/2015 Page 9 of 71 Federal Register/Vol. 80, No. 241 /Wednesday, December 16, 2015 /Rules and Regulations 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. 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 .ceived regarding the proposed registration process in the Operation and Certification of Small Unmanned Aircraft notice of proposed rulemaking, he request for information regarding nm anned 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 SUMMARY: on or before January 15, 2016. comments identified by docket number FAA—2015—7396 using any of the following methods: Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to http://www.regu]ations.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 ADDRESSES: Send Avenue SE., Room W12—140, West Building Ground Floor, Washington, DC 20590—0001. Hand Delivery or Courier: Take comments to Docket Operations in Room Wi 2—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 UASRegistration@faa.gov. 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 nonU.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 C. 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 0. 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 U. Unfunded Iviandates Assessment E. Paperwork Reduction Act F. International Compatibility and Cooperation C. 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 USCA Case #15-1495 Document #1590543 Filed: 12/24/2015 Page 10 of 71 Federal Register/Vol. 80, No. 241/Wednesday, December 16, 2015 /Rules and Regulations 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 78595 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 registration requirement. Unmanned aircraft weighing less than 55 pounds and more than 0.55 pounds (250 grams) on takeoff, in cluding everything that is on board or otherwise attached to the aircraft and operated outdoors in the na tional airspace system must register. §48.15 Owners of small unmanned aircraft must register their aircraft prior to operation of the sUAS. §48.15 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. §48.5 Persons 13 years of age and older are permitted to use the part 48 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. §48.25 Registration will occur through an online web-based system. §48.100(c) 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. §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 air craft owned by that individual that are intended to be used exclusively as model aircraft. §48.115(a) 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). Timing of registration Compliance dates Minimum age to register a small unmanned aircraft. Registration platform Registration number Registration information USCA Case #15-1495 78596 Document #1590543 Filed: 12/24/2015 Page 11 of 71 Federal Register/Vol. 80, No. 241/Wednesday, December 16, 2015/Rules and Regulations TABLE 1—SUMMARY OF MAJOR PROvtSIONS.—Continued Issue Registration fee Delivery of Certificate of Aircraft Registration. Information contained on the Certifi cate of Aircraft Registration. Registration renewal and fee Marking Interim final rule requirement • Applicant e-mail address. • Other information as required by the Administrator. §48.100 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. §48.30 Upon completion of the registration process, the Certificate of Aircraft registration will be delivered to the aircraft owner via the same web-based platform used to register the aircraft. § 48.100(d) Small unmanned aircraft owner name, issue date and registration number. 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. §48.110(c), 48.115(c) 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. §48.200 C. Summaiy of Costs and Benefits 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 II. Compliance for purposes other than model aircraft once the Operation and Certification of Any small unmanned aircraft operated exclusively as a model aircraft Small Unmanned Aircraft Systems notice of proposed rulemaking (the by its current owner prior to December 21, 2015 must be registered no later than “sUAS Operation and Certification 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 nonmodelers, 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 nonmodelers 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. 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. 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 180 FR 9544 (Feb. 23, 2015). USCA Case #15-1495 Document #1590543 Filed: 12/24/2015 Page 12 of 71 Federal Register/Vol. 80, No. 241/Wednesday, December 16, 2015 /Rules and Regulations 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, the Department and the FAA have become aware that there may be commercial operators who may be risking operating without the requisite authority. 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 78597 example, the agency has received reports of unmanned aircraft at high altitudes in congested airspace, unmanned aircraft operations near passenger-carrying aircraft or major 4 and interfering with airports, 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. 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 0 1 2 5 11 16 36 30 41 41 33 22 238 Count TABLE 3—UNMANNED AIRCRAFT REPORTs, 2015 2015 Month Count Unmanned aircraft reports Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sept Oct Nov Total 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—b 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 2 This forecast is based on a largely unconstrained operating environment. 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 stoiy.cfm?newsld= 19555. 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-nearnewark-airport; FAA Investigating Close Calls with Drones Near JFK Airport, Albany Business Review, Nov. 20, 2014, available at 2014 WLNR 32783307. See, e.g., Associated Press, Drones Interfering with Emergency Wildfire Responders, CBSNEWS.com, Aug. 10, 2015, http:// wwsv.cbsnews.cam/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.cam/drones-interfere firefighters-battling-california-wildfire-34 7774. 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-nearnewark-airport. See FAA Investigating Close Calls with Drones Near JFK Airport, Albany Business Review, Nov. 20, 2014, available at 2014 WLNR 32783307. Lake Fire Crew After Private Drone Flight 5 Disrupted Air Flights. Las Angeles Times, June 25, continued ‘ USCA Case #15-1495 78598 Document #1590543 Filed: 12/24/2015 Page 13 of 71 Federal Register/Vol. 80, No. 241/Wednesday, December 16, 2015/Rules and Regulations said the failed mission cost between opening football game. 13 No injuries $10,000 and $15,000. This estimate only were reported. The unmanned aircraft, which had hovered near parachuting reflects operational costs and does not military skydivers, crashed in the suite reflect the additional damage caused to level of Commonwealth Stadium. The property by the delay in being able to Kentucky campus police chief told a combat the fires. news conference that the same student • July 17, 2015: A fire began in operated an unmanned aircraft over a California near Interstate 15, a highway soccer match the previous week. that runs between Los Angeles and Las • September 12, 2015: Debris from an Vegas. Due to hot, 40 mile per hour unmanned aircraft that had fallen near winds, the fire spread at a rapid pace. bystanders cut and bruised an 11The Air Attack Officer, upon arrival, month-old girl in a stroller during an observed small unmanned aircraft outdoor movie screening in Pasadena, activity operating contrary to a California. The Pasadena Police temporary flight restriction in the area. Department said a 24-year-old man lost This resulted in aircraft being removed control of his small unmanned aircraft, from the area for a period of twenty causing it to crash to the ground. The minutes. The delay of 20 minutes in 11-month-old received injuries to her aircraft response was critical in the head. She was treated at Huntington growth of the fire. With the heavy Memorial Hospital and then released.’ 4 aviation response on the scene of the During the last quarter of this fire, Air Attack Officers estimate this calendar year, approximately 800,000 fire could have been stopped at less new sUAS are expected to enter the than 100 acres if the small unmanned system and begin operating. In 2016, the aircraft had not interfered by FAA expects sales of an additional 1.9 9 A total of penetrating the airspace. million small unmanned aircraft used as eighteen vehicles and two trucks were model aircraft. The FAA also expects destroyed by fire. sales of 600,000 aircraft used for other • September 3, 2015: An unmanned than model purposes, after the aircraft was flown into Louis Armstrong Operation and Certification of Small Stadium, which is located within 5 Unmanned Aircraft Systems notice of miles of LaGuardia Airport, during a proposed rulemaking (the “sUAS U.S. Open tennis match. The unmanned Operation and Certification NPRI\4”) is aircraft crashed in an empty section of finalized. Model aircraft sales alone the stands.lO are expected to grow by 23 percent each year for the next 5 years.’ 6 Sales for • October 26, 2015: An unmanned sUAS used for commercial applications aircraft flew into primary conductors will rapidly accelerate as well, with bringing down one span of power line different growth rates in different in West Hollywood, California. The incident report from Southern California applications. Sales are forecast to grow from very few sUAS employed Edison indicates that initially 640 commercially today, to nearly 11 customers were impacted. 11 million units by 2020 (about 40% of • January 26, 2015: An unmanned total units sold that year). aircraft operator crashed his unmanned Many of the owners of these new aircraft on the grounds of the White sUAS may have no prior aviation House. The flight occurred in the White experience and have little or no House prohibited flight zone, P56.12 understanding of the NAS, let alone • September 5, 2015: A University of knowledge of the safe operating Kentucky student flew an unmanned requirements and additional aircraft directly into the campus’ authorizations required to conduct stadium during the school’s seasoncertain operations. Aircraft registration provides an immediate and direct 2015, available at http://www.latimes.com/locol/ opportunity for the agency to engage lanow/la-me-ln-wildfires-southern-california and educate these new users prior to 201 50625-stary.html. operating their unmanned aircraft and °SAFEC0M (2015, July 18). Incident Report. to hold them accountable for Retrieved November 13, 2015 from https:// www.safecom.gov/searchone.asp?ID=1 9694. ‘°Drone Crash at U.S. Open, New York City Teacher Arrested, NPR, September 4, 2015, available at http://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo way/201 5/09/04/437539727/drone-crash-at-u-sopen-new-york-city-teacher-arrested. 11 Incident report from Robert Laffoan-Villegas, media relations, Southern california Edison, provided November 13, 2015. A Drone, Too Small for Radar to Detect, Rattles 2 ‘ the White House. New York Times, Jan. 26, 2015, available at http://www.nytimes.com/2015/01/27/ us/white-house-drone.html. 13 Charged with Endangerment After Drone Crashes into Stadium, Ars Technica, September 11, 2015, available at http://arstechnica. com/tech-policy/201 5/09/student-charged-withendangerment-after-drone-croshes-into-footbali stadium!. 14 Fallen Drone Injures 11 -mointh old near Pasadena City Hall, Pasadena Star News, September 15, 2015 available at http://www.pasadenastar news.com/general-news/201 50915/falling-droneinjures-Il -month-old-near-pasadena-city-hall. ‘80 FR 9544 (Feb. 23, 2015). 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 USCA Case #15-1495 Document #1590543 Filed: 12/24/2015 Page 14 of 71 Federal Register/Vol. 80, No. 241/Wednesday, December 16, 2015/Rules and Regulations 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 paperbased, 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. 78599 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. Statutoiy 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 Administratorv. Pirker, NTSB Order No. EA—5 730 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 USCA Case #15-1495 78600 Document #1590543 Filed: 12/24/2015 Page 15 of 71 Federal Register/Vol. 80, No. 241/Wednesday, December 16, 2015/Rules and Regulations 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—i) 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 heirat-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: (i) 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 USCA Case #15-1495 Document #1590543 Filed: 12/24/2015 Page 16 of 71 Federal Register/Vol. 80, No. 241 /Wednesday, December 16, 2015 /Rules and Regulations 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),’ 7 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. 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 95 74— 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 RIN 2120—AJ60. 7 ‘ 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 78601 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, “[Tihe 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 USCA Case #15-1495 78602 Document #1590543 Filed: 12/24/2015 Page 17 of 71 Federal Register/Vol. 80, No. 241 /Wednesday, December 16, 2015 /Rules and Regulations recommendations pertaining to these three objectives.1B The following table, taken from the Task Force report, describes the Task Force’s recommendations. TABLE 4—SMALL UAS REGIsTRATION TASK FORCE AvIATION RULEMAKING C0MMrrrEE REcOMMENDATIONs SUMMARY Issue Task force recommendation UAS that weigh under 55 pounds and above 250 grams maximum takeoff weight, and are op erated outdoors in the NAS. No. The registration system is owner-based, so each registrant will have a single registration number that covers any and all UAS that the registrant owns. No. Registration is mandatory prior to operation of a UAS in the NAS. Name and street address of the registrant are required. Mailing address, email address, telephone number, and serial number of the aircraft are op tional. No. Is there a citizenship requirement’? Yes. Persons must be 13 years of age to register. Is there a minimum age requirement’? No. Is there a registration fee’? Is the registration system electronic or web- The system for entry of information into the database is web-based and also allows for mul tiple entry points, powered by an API [application programming interface] that will enable based? custom apps [applications] to provide registry information to the database and receive reg istration numbers and certificates back from the database. Registrants can also modify their information through the web or apps. A certificate of registration will be sent to the registrant at the time of registration. The certifi How does a UAS owner prove registration’? cate 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 have to be affixed Yes, unless the registrant chooses to provide the FAA with the aircraft’s serial number. Wheth er the owner chooses to rely on the serial number or affix the FAA-issued registration num to the aircraft? ber 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. What category of UAS is covered by the reg- istration requirement? Do owners need to register each individual UAS they own? Is registration required at point-of-sale’? What information is required for the registration process? 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 18 Task Force final report can be found in the docket for this rulemaldng and at https:// www.fao.gov/uas/publicotions/medicz/ RTFARCFInaJReport_1 1-21 -15.pdf In its report, the Task Force stated, “[Tihe 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. 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 USCA Case #15-1495 Document #1590543 Filed: 12/24/2015 Page 18 of 71 Federal Register/Vol. 80, No. 241/Wednesday, December 16, 2015/Rules and Regulations 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 § 48.15 and the eligibility requirements in § 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. 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 NPRIvI 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. ‘ S 9 ec. 331(9) of Public Law 112—95. Public Law defines an “unmanned aircraft system” as “an unmanned aircraft and associated elements (including communication links and the 112—95 components that control the unmanned aircraft) that are required for the pilot in command to operate safely and efficiently in the national airspace system.” 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.” 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 . . 20 ico circular 328 (Unmanned Aircraft Systems (UAS)) (2011). 78603 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 “[cilearly 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 USCA Case #15-1495 78604 Document #1590543 Filed: 12/24/2015 Page 19 of 71 Federal Register/Vol. 80, No. 241 /Wednesday, December 16, 2015 /Rules and Regulations weight of the aircraft and any payload on board) or simply the weight of an 6 The NPRM proposed to 2 empty aircraft. 4. Trusts and Voting Trusts define small unmanned aircraft using The FAA requires that a person total takeoff weight because: (1) Heavier 1. Unmanned Aircraft holding legal title to an aircraft in trust aircraft generally pose greater amounts In the sUAS Operation and must, when applying to register that of public risk in the event of an accident Certification NPRM, the FAA proposed aircraft in the United States, submit a as they can do more damage to people to define “unmanned aircraft” as “an “copy of each document legally and property on the ground; and (2) this aircraft operated without the possibility approach would be similar to the affecting a relationship under the trust of direct human intervention from 14 CFR 47.7(c)(2)(i). The purpose approach that the FAA has taken with of this requirement is to ensure the FAA within or on the aircraft.” 21 This other aircraft, such as large aircraft, proposed definition would codify the has access to all documents relevant to 27 light-sport aircraft, and small aircraft. the trust relationship when determining statutory definition of “unmanned Commenters including the Aircraft aircraft” specified in Public Law 112— whether a trust provides an adequate Owners and Pilots Association (AOPA), 9522 basis for registering an aircraft in Air Line Pilots Association (ALPA), The Management Association for accordance with FAA regulations. A Helicopter Association International Private Photogrammetric Surveyors fundamental part of the registration (HAT), the Small UAV Coalition, the (MAPPS) stated that the definition of process for aircraft held in trust is News Media Coalition, and the “unmanned aircraft” needs to be determining whether the underlying Professional Photographers of America, clarified because the current definition agreements meet and are not in conflict expressed support for the proposed leaves open the possibility that paper with the applicable requirements and definition. The New England Chapter of airplanes, model airplanes, model therefore are sufficient to establish the the Association of Unmanned Vehicles rockets, and toys could be considered trustee’s eligibility to register the International supported the weight unmanned aircraft. The Aviators Model aircraft. The analysis of voting trusts is limitation as a reasonable starting point, Code of Conduct Initiative stated that similarly intricate. but pointed out that there are Use of trusts and voting trusts involve this definition and the definition of commercial applications being small unmanned aircraft may permit complex relationships that have been developed that will need to exceed 55 infant passengers and asked the FAA to used to obscure the identity of the pounds. Event 38 Unmanned Systems, beneficial owners of an aircraft. For this amend the definition to categorically Inc. stated that, rather than segregate prohibit the carriage of passengers on an small unmanned aircraft by total weight, reason, part 47 applies a higher level of unmanned aircraft. scrutiny when trusts and voting trusts FAA should use a “kinetic energy split” Lastly, an individual said that because that combines weight and speed. seek to register aircraft. This higher level of scrutiny is inconsistent with the 14 CFR 1.1 defines aircraft as “a device Several commenters asked that the 55that is used or intended to be used for streamlined registration process pound weight limit be lowered. Event flight in the air,” only a “whole” or established under part 48. Accordingly, 38 Unmanned Systems recommended an initial weight restriction of 10 trusts and voting trusts must continue to “complete” aircraft can meet this definition for registration purposes. pounds, with adjustments based on register small unmanned aircraft under The definition of unmanned aircraft subsequent research. Prioria Robotics part 47 so that the FAA can identify and as “an aircraft operated without the stated that the weight limitation for evaluate the applicants. possibility of direct human intervention small unmanned aircraft should be less B. Definitions from within or on the aircraft” is a than 25 pounds, and that the definition The new part created by this final rule statutory definition, and as such, this should include a requirement that the rule will finalize that definition as includes definitions of several terms aircraft be “hand-launchable.” An 22 proposed. that are relevant to the registration of individual commenter asked for the small unmanned aircraft. The weight limit to be reduced to 33 pounds. 2. Small Unmanned Aircraft definitions of “U.S. Citizen,” “resident Green Vegans stated that FAA must In the sUAS Operation and alien,” and “Registry” have the same provide test data on the collision impact Certification NPRM, the FAA proposed meaning as provided in the aircraft of a 55 pound UAS, traveling at various registration process provided by part 47. to define “small unmanned aircraft” as speeds, on both humans and birds. The “an unmanned aircraft weighing less See §47.2. The definition of “model advocacy group argued that the public than 55 pounds including everything aircraft” is identical to the definition cannot make informed comments on the 24 provided in section 336(c) of Public Law that is on board the aircraft.” The proposed weight limitation without NPRM noted that Public Law 112—95 112—95. such data. The commenter also noted defines a small unmanned aircraft as Additionally, the agency finds it that such data would be provided by a “an unmanned aircraft weighing less necessary to codify the statutory National Environmental Protection Act than 55 pounds.” 25 However, the definitions of “small unmanned Environmental Impact Statement, which NPRM pointed out that this statutory aircraft,” “unmanned aircraft,” and the group stated FAA must do. Crew “small unmanned aircraft system” given definition does not specify whether the Systems similarly opposed the 55-pound weight limit refers to the total maximum weight limitation, arguing the limited applicability of the new subpart to small unmanned aircraft that weight of the aircraft at the time of that FAA provided no justification for it. takeoff (which would encompass the are an associated element of a small The company asserted that a 55 pound UAS. The agency proposed definitions limit is large enough to be hazardous 2180 FR at 9588. of these three terms in the Operation when operating in an urban 2280 FR at 9556 (citing Pub. L. 112—95, section and Certification NPRM. This environment, even if care is taken. 331(811. rulemaking finalizes these proposed Although it did not expressly object to 23 Pub. L. 112—95, section 331(8). definitions because they are applicable 2480 FR at 9586. 8o FR at 9556. to the small unmanned aircraft 2580 FR at 9556 (citing Pub. L. 112—95, section 80 FR at 9556. registration process provided by this 331(6)1. other than model aircraft operations in the spring of 2016. .“ final rule. The definitions will be added to § 1.1 General definitions, because the agency expects them to be applicable to several parts throughout title 14. USCA Case #15-1495 Document #1590543 Filed: 12/24/2015 Page 20 of 71 Federal Register/Vol. 80, No. 241/Wednesday, December 16, 2015 /Rules and Regulations 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 55pound 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. However, as the FAA pointed out in the sUAS Operation and Certification NPRM, the statutory definition contains an ambiguity with regard to how the 55pound 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 55pound weight limitation should include payload that is carried by the small unmanned aircraft. DJl 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 28 Pub. L. 112—95, section 331(6). 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. 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 § 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, See 14 CFR 1.1 (referring to ‘takeoff weight” 29 for large, light-sport, and small aircraft in the definitions for those aircraft). 78605 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 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 32 NPRM. 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 remotelypiloted 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. As such, this rule will codify the proposed definition. Because Congress has selected the term “unmanned aircraft system” to °8O FR at 9586. 31 80 FR at 9556 (citing Pub. L. 112—95, section 331(9)). 80 FR at 9556. Pub. L. 112—95, section 331(9). 33 USCA Case #15-1495 78606 Document #1590543 Filed: 12/24/2015 Page 21 of 71 Federal Register/Vol. 80, No. 241/Wednesday, December 16, 2015/Rules and Regulations 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 4. Model Aircraft emergency or rescue missions that operate at all altitudes and from areas This rulemaking includes the other than certificated airports). definition of the term “model aircraft” Chronicled, Inc. said that if the as it appears in section 336 of Public registration procedure is “efficient and Law 112—95. Thus, in this IFR, “model seamless” then it should include all aircraft” means an unmanned aircraft unmanned aircraft. that is (1) capable of sustained flight in The National Association of the atmosphere; (2) flown within visual Broadcasters asserted that UAS line of sight of the person operating the registration is a reasonable step to aircraft; and (3) flown for hobby or mitigate the dangers posed by a small recreational purposes. minority of hobbyist UAS operators that C. Exclusion From the Requirement to are flying in a careless and reckless Register manner that endangers the public. The Clarification/Request for Information: City of Arlington (Texas) Police Department stated that “the increasing The DOT and the FAA posed the popularity of the recreational use of following question in the October 22, UAS by model aircraft operators has 2015 Clarification/Request for Information document (80 FR at 63914): presented significant public safety and regulatory challenges in Arlington and Consistent with past practice of discretion, our nation’s cities,” and strongly urged should certain UAS be excluded from the FAA to require the registration of all registration based on performance capabilities or other characteristics that could UAS systems. The Air Medical be associated with safety risk, such as weight, Operators Association stated that all speed, altitude operating limitations, UAS capable of entering the NAS and duration of flight? If so, please submit conflicting with manned aircraft in information or data to help support the flight should be considered aircraft and suggestions, and whether any other criteria be subject to the registration should be considered. requirement. The agency received many comments The Colorado Agricultural Aviation Association (CoAAA) supported its responding to this inquiry. A few position that all UAS need to be commenters said this question is registered by pointing out that low premature because there is insufficient data available to determine what, if any, altitude airspace is already being shared safety risk is posed by various categories by manned and unmanned flight of UAS. One individual commenter said operations “without any definitive safety protocols beyond operate in a safe this question should not be asked until manner and yield to manned aircraft.” after there are “thorough, independent As the number of unmanned aircraft studies available showing the effects of 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 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 mode] 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 USCA Case #15-1495 Document #1590543 Filed: 12/24/2015 Page 22 of 71 Federal Register/Vol. 80, No. 241/Wednesday, December 16, 2015/Rules and Regulations 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 80year 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 homebuilt 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 78607 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 ibs) are excluded from database.” 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. 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. 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. 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 Wildlife Strikes to civil Aircraft in the United 34 States 1990—2014 (July 2015), available at http:// www.faa.gov/airports/airport safety/wildlife! media/Wildlife-Strike-Report-i 990-201 4.pdf. The sUAS Operation and certification NPRM considered the creation of a micro UAS classification for UAS weighing no more than 4.4 pounds (2 idlograms) for purposes of operation and certification requirements. 80 FR at 9556—9558. USCA Case #15-1495 78608 Document #1590543 Filed: 12/24/2015 Page 23 of 71 Federal Register/Vol. 80, No. 241/Wednesday, December 16, 2015/Rules and Regulations 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 cammenters, including individuals who submitted comments as part of an AMA form letter campaign, said the registration requirement should apply oniy 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 remotecontrolled 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 ¼ 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 USCA Case #15-1495 Document #1590543 Filed: 12/24/2015 Page 24 of 71 Federal Register/Vol. 80, No. 241/Wednesday, December 16, 2015/Rules and Regulations they asserted to be long-range first not automatically be required to register person view and GPS waypoint because some small UAS flown by navigation—and then “transparently beginners use GPS to stabilize the aircraft, which increases their safety assess” the results of this registration. These commenters noted that if the FAA level. The commenter noted that these determines that conventional model UAS have controls that will not let the aircraft fly above a certain altitude. aircraft are still creating an undue Several commenters said that any hazard for aviation, then additional requirement to register all UAS that measures (such as a requirement for low-cost pressure altimeters that limit have the ability to fly above a certain model aircraft below 400 feet) could be altitude or to enter controlled airspace implemented. should exclude UAS that are The Aerospace Industries Association programmed with geofencing or “Safe said that only aircraft capable of Fly” technology, which limits altitude sustained, untethered flight should be and restricts flight into controlled registered. A few individual airspace. The Toy Industry Association commenters similarly recommended cautioned against using altitude as a exemptions for aircraft that are controlthreshold for registration. The line operated (i.e., tethered flight), that commenter noted that not all companies are hand-thrown or rubber-band use technology that limits the height a powered (i.e., “free flight” aircraft), and UAS can fly and that it would be that are unpowered (e.g., gliders). premature to spell out specific Several members of the “free flight” technological requirement to ensure that community specifically recommended UAS fly below a certain altitude when that the FAA create an exemption for other technology advancements may light-weight, free flight model aircraft develop that achieve the same purpose. that weigh 10 ounces or less and have The Toy Industry Association also no means of externally controlling their asserted that the issue of whether a UAS aircraft while in flight. is equipped with a camera is not Another individual similarly asserted relevant to registration. The association that speed, altitude, and flight duration stated that, while there are legitimate will depend on battery, motor, and privacy concerns to consider, “this propeller size, and that weight should conversation should not take place in therefore be used to determine which the context of the aviation industry UAS should be exempt from the safety at this time.” registration requirement. The The National Retail Federation said commenter noted that consideration of that unmanned aircraft “that are factors such as speed, altitude, and designated as ‘toys’ with limited flight duration raises the question of performance capabilities” should be what defines the actual UAS (e.g., the exempt from the registration process. fuselage for a plane, the frame of a The commenter did not, however, quadcopter). The commenter further specify what qualifies as “toys,” or what noted that the same fuselage can have performance capabilities would remove dramatically different performance an unmanned aircraft from the “toy” characteristics if the battery, motor, or category. Rather, the commenter said propeller is changed. The commenter the FAA should require registration asserted that registering each based on potential safety and security combination “would be absurd,” and risks associated with performance any change in propeller, motor, or capabilities or material specifications of battery size would raise questions of the unmanned aircraft, or the age of the when an owner needs to re-register the operator. aircraft. Some commenters stated more There were commenters, however, generally that aircraft capabilities who disagreed with a requirement to should not be a consideration for register UAS that possess some of the exemption from registration. One above-listed capabilities. An individual individual said speed, altitude, and commenter, for example, said that flight duration should not be criteria for enhanced capabilities such as first registration because they can vary person view or flight controls capable of depending on a wide-variety of “userautonomous flight should not be a selectable UAS components” such as reason for requiring registration. The props choice, battery size, and flight commenter claimed that an aircraft that mode, among others. Another does not exceed safe mass/speed! individual said that because unmanned altitude/duration thresholds is not aircraft are constantly changing and automatically a threat to manned evolving, it would be a poor choice to develop limitations based on aircraft simply by virtue of being performance. Several other individuals equipped with enhanced capabilities. Another individual commenter said that stated that registration should only be small UAS equipped with GPS should required if the operator intends to 78609 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 c ommenters recommended an exemption from the registration requirement for UAS that are flown under AMA safety guidelines on AMAsanctioned 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, USCA Case #15-1495 78610 Document #1590543 Filed: 12/24/2015 Page 25 of 71 Federal Register/Vol. 80, No. 241/Wednesday, December 16, 2015/Rules and Regulations 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 fixedwing 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 highvolume 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 minidrones” 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, ‘rn” 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., USCA Case #15-1495 Document #1590543 Filed: 12/24/2015 Page 26 of 71 Federal Register/Vol. 80, No. 241/Wednesday, December 16, 2015/Rules and Regulations 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 108, 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, 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 78611 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 grains 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 USCA Case #15-1495 78612 Document #1590543 Filed: 12/24/2015 Page 27 of 71 Federal Register/Vol. 80, No. 241 /Wednesday, December 16, 2015 /Rules and Regulations 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 aircraftregistration 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. DJl 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. DJT 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 USCA Case #15-1495 Document #1590543 Filed: 12/24/2015 Page 28 of 71 Federal Register/Vol. 80, No. 241 /Wednesday, December 16, 2015 /Rules and Regulations 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 § 48.30 and pay a $5 fee, complete the application and the registration process in § 48.100(b) and (c), 48.105, and 48.115; mark the aircraft in accordance with the provisions in § 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. § 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 78613 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 agerelated limitations applicable to Webbased 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. USCA Case #15-1495 78614 Document #1590543 Filed: 12/24/2015 Page 29 of 71 Federal Register/Vol. 80, No. 241/Wednesday, December 16, 2015/Rules and Regulations As a matter of policy (0MB 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 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 E. Registration Required Prior to that the registration occurred. One Operation suggested that the vendor submit a temporary registration with the 1. Registration Prior to Operation purchaser required to submit a final Clarification/Request for Information: version. The FAA requested comments on the Most commenters that addressed this point at which registration should occur issue expressed either opposition to the (e.g., point-of-sale or prior to operation). approach or concerns about the viability Several trade associations whose of point-of-sale registration for some members use UAS (News Media sales. AT&T Services, Inc. questioned Coalition, Air Medical Operators the FAA’s legal authority to impose a Association, Aerospace Industries registration requirement at the point-ofsale, given that the statutory authority Association (AlA), and Property Drone underlying the UAS registration Consortium), Modovolate Aviation, requirement, as well as its LLC, and Morris P. Hebert, Inc. implementing regulation, applies to supported point-of-sale registration. A persons who “operate” aircraft. In this number of individuals stated that registration at point of sale was the only case, AT&T asserted, it is the owner of the UAS who “operates” it, and should approach that would ensure that therefore be responsible for registering registration would occur at least for it. ready-to-fly UASs. These commenters The Retail Industry Leaders stated that many operators would not Association (RILA) stated that point-ofregister later. Some of these sale registration would require the FAA commenters, however, questioned to build new information technology whether point-of-sale registration could systems to collect the information and be applied to home-built or traded UASs. A few commenters compared the retail outlets would have to build and registration process to that which occurs test systems to link to the FAA. RILA for car and gun sales. Some commenters stated that this was unlikely to happen in the short timeframe the FAA is stated that an unlock process should be proposing. RILA further stated that the included so that the UAS could not be practical realities of implementing a used until registration was complete. 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 § 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. USCA Case #15-1495 Document #1590543 Filed: 12/24/2015 Page 30 of 71 Federal Register/Vol. 80, No. 241 /Wednesday, December 16, 2015 /Rules and Regulations 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 TJPC 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 78615 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 pointof-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 36 of the UAS to register the owner commenters said the registration requirement should apply to the “owner” while other commenters said it should apply to the continued USCA Case #15-1495 78616 Document #1590543 Filed: 12/24/2015 Page 31 of 71 Federal Register/Vol. 80, No. 241 /Wednesday, December 16, 2015 /Rules and Regulations 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. 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 “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. 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 USCA Case #15-1495 Document #1590543 Filed: 12/24/2015 Page 32 of 71 Federal Register/Vol. 80, No. 241/Wednesday, December 16, 2015/Rules and Regulations 78617 by AMA members (i.e., where members place their names and addresses or AMA numbers on their model aircraft) Information, the Administrator and the should be acceptable for AMA members Secretary requested information related as an alternative means of complying to the logistics of the small unmanned with the registration requirement. The aircraft registration process. Experimental Aircraft Association Specifically, the FAA and DOT agreed that the identification used by requested comments on how the AMA members could be allowed to registration process should be designed meet the UAS registration requirements, to minimize burdens and best protect innovation and encourage growth in the which would alleviate some of the burden on the FAA while maintaining UAS industry. The FAA and DOT also the accountability that DOT seeks requested comments on whether registration should be electronic or web- through registration. However, EAA expressed doubts about the practicality based, and whether there were existing of requiring registration of millions of tools that could support an electronic UAS and model aircraft currently in use registration process. In response to issues raised in the in the United States and feared the October 22, 2015 Clarification/Request magnitude of the system would for Information, commenters provided overshadow other safety measures. An individual stated the main numerous suggestions for designing the problem registration is intended to solve registration process to minimize burdens and best protect innovation and is the unsafe use of UAS by inexperienced or uninformed operators; encourage growth in the UAS industry. therefore, the commenter recommended Suggestions included: Registering registrants be required to pass a test as operators instead of individual aircraft; part of the registration process. providing a variety of ways to register, The National Agricultural Aviation including online, via telephone, through Association and the Colorado a mobile application, or at various Agricultural Aviation Association stated locations, such as post offices or retail FAA should focus on its aviation safety outlets; implementing a licensure mission, including focusing on the procedure similar to that required by safety of manned aircraft even if that FCC for ham radio operators; allowing resulted in requiring registration and aircraft that already comply with AMA more safety equipment for unmanned or FCC labeling practices to meet the aircraft. These commenters said labeling requirements to avoid conflicting requirements; and permitting requiring items, such as indestructible data plate, ADS—B, and visible strobes, operation of UAS upon submission of in addition to registration would registration information rather than encourage growth of the industry instituting a waiting period. Some through accident prevention. In commenters recommend that small contrast, several individual commenters unmanned aircraft manufacturers provide information to the FAA or assist contended any registration requirement will stifle innovation and discourage owners in providing information to the growth. FAA. Several individual commenters A law firm recommended the agency F. Registration Process questioned whether the agency can use the same registration system it uses handle the registration of millions of for registering manned aircraft. The 1. Design of Registration System recreational UAS. One commenter noted commenter noted the current sUAS Operation and Certification that the registration database could registration system requires the NPRM: The sUAS Operation and become overloaded and unmanageable following information: A notarized Certification NPRM requested if every person registers every model statement by the builder, manufacturer, aircraft they purchase or receive—many comments on the registration process. or applicant for registration describing Both supporters and opponents of the of which will not last past a single the UAS in detail, evidence of flight—but then fail to notify the FAA proposed registration provision said ownership, and an Aircraft Registration when a model is lost, destroyed, or sold. FAA should take steps to ease the Application (FAA AC Form 8050—1), Also pointing to the short life span of registration process. The Property Drone which identifies UAS and the owner. most small UAS, another commenter Consortium stated that a streamlined This commenter suggested similarly said the registration system registration process was necessary to manufacturers provide the information will become overwhelmed if ensure growth in the UAS industry. regarding the UAS and its capabilities, recreational users are required to Amazon, Association of Unmanned which would reduce burdens on register and re-register each model Vehicle Systems International, the retailers and consumers and result in a aircraft they obtain. Another commenter American Farm Bureau Federation, and high degree of compliance. said that requiring UAS owners to Comments submitted as part of the several others urged FAA to allow renew their registration will online registration of aircraft. Similarly, AMA form letter campaign stated that “complicate everything” and lead to the registration process should be as Small UAV Coalition and AUVSI, people involuntarily breaking the law among other commenters, urged FAA to automated as possible and minimally establish an electronic UAS registration intrusive. Those commenters stated that when they forget to re-register their the system of aircraft identification used UAS. database. 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. Clarification/Request for Information: In the Clarification/Request for USCA Case #15-1495 78618 Document #1590543 Filed: 12/24/2015 Page 33 of 71 Federal Register/Vol. 80, No. 241/Wednesday, December 16, 2015/Rules and Regulations registration platform that would be accessible from anywhere and any webbased 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 2. Web-Based Registration Application registrations, some expressed concern The FAA received many comments with an entirely electronic system. regarding whether or not the agency Many commenters expressed concern should create an online registration for the registration needs of those system to register UAS or their without consistent internet access. They operators. The vast majority of instead recommended a paper commenters were supportive of the use alternative, in conjunction with online registration, be implemented to ease the of an electronic or web-based registration system to collect registration registration burden of some operators. Multiple commenters suggested that information. However, commenters outside of new technologies, the agency articulated significant differences in could use existing electronic registration how they preferred the system be established, implemented, and enforced. systems as a template from which to Several commenters said that web-based craft a specific FAA registration registration would be the least intrusive program. For example, a few and burdensome method of registration. commenters recommended using existing e-commerce registration These commenters also suggested that templates as a model. One commenter an online system may be the cheapest suggested that FAA work with way to register individuals, reducing commercial retailers like DJl to use their paperwork and processing time. Clarification/Request for Information: current registration platforms as a basis for point of sale registration. Other In responding to the Clarification! commenters suggested that FAA Request for Information, multiple implement the registration procedures commenters, including Horizon Hobby LLC, recommended that FAA create a of the AMA for all operators, or use the 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. 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 mc, 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 webbased 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 webbased, 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 USCA Case #15-1495 Document #1590543 Filed: 12/24/2015 Page 34 of 71 Federal Register/Vol. 80, No. 241/Wednesday, December 16, 2015/Rules and Regulations 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 webbased portal. IFR Requirement: In § 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, webbased 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 § 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 78619 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. USCA Case #15-1495 78620 Document #1590543 Filed: 12/24/2015 Page 35 of 71 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 241 / Wednesday, December 16, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 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.” 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 datacollection technologies, including highdefinition 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 To support its position, EPIC cited to and 37 quoted from 18 U.s.c. 2725(4). Title 18 of the United States Code covers Crimes ond Crimino] Procedure. Section 2725 covers the definitions used in Chapter 123—Prohibition on Releose ond Use of Certoin Personol Informotion from Stote Motor Vehicle Records. 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 FAAissued 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 aeromodeHng 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 USCA Case #15-1495 Document #1590543 Filed: 12/24/2015 Page 36 of 71 Federal Register/Vol. 80, No. 241/Wednesday, December 16, 2015/Rules and Regulations stated that the fee should be nominal and suggested between $1 and $40. Other commenters suggested fees as high as 8250 for hobbyists and 81,000 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 4. Fee for Registration continued education and technological Currently, the FAA assesses a fee of advancement.” $5 for a Certificate of Registration for A large number of commenters were each aircraft. See 14 CFR 47.17(a). The concerned that registration fees for each individual UAS would be unduly FAA has not updated this fee since it was initially established in 1966. See 31 burdensome because many hobbyists own several UASs and the cumulative FR 4495 (Mar. 17, 1966). sUAS Operation and Certification cost of registration would be NPRM: The sUAS Operation and prohibitively expensive. As an Certification NPRM did not differentiate alternative, many commenters suggested the process of registering a small that the FAA should charge one unmanned aircraft from that of a registration fee per operator and allow the operator to register multiple UASs. manned aircraft and thus did not The vast majority of commenters directly address fees. Under that proposed rule, an applicant registering a objected to the imposition of any registration fee. Many commenters small unmanned aircraft would pay the expressed concern that imposition of a same $5 fee as an applicant seeking a fee would only serve to increase the size Certificate of Registration for a manned of the Federal Government and not aircraft. contribute in any way to the safe Three commenters responded to the operation of UASs. Commenters stated issues related to fees for aircraft that a fee will deter registration and registration. One individual recommended FAA require all “amateur place an unnecessary financial burden enthusiasts” to pay a fee to use the NAS. on hobbyists. Several commenters suggested that instead of charging a Another individual argued that the fees registration fee, the FAA should collect associated with any licensing, required yearly maintenance, and registry should fines from operators who fail to register. The majority of commenters suggested be kept affordable for the small business that if registration occurs at point of operator. Clarification/Request for Information: sale, the cost of registration should be Commenters also responded to the issue collected in the same manner as a sales tax. Other commenters suggested that of a registration fee and how the fee registration fees should be collected by should be collected based on questions the retailer or built in to the purchase posed in the Clarification/Request for price. Retail Industry Leaders Information. Of the commenters that supported a registration fee, the majority Association and National Retail 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 safetyrelated 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. 78621 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 ($0001). 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 S5 for the issuance of a Certificate of USCA Case #15-1495 78622 Document #1590543 Filed: 12/24/2015 Page 37 of 71 Federal Register/Vol. 80, No. 241 /Wednesday, December 16, 2015 /Rules and Regulations Aircraft Registration and registration number and an additional S5 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 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 5. Transfer of Ownership addressed by the registrants’ marking Clarification/Request for Information: methods. Commenters to the Clarification/Request IFR Requirement: The registration for Information responded to the FAA’s requirements in part 48 do not request for input on transfer of small differentiate between methods of aircraft unmanned aircraft. The Aerospace Industries Association transfer. The registration requirements are the same whether a person or other stated that transfer of ownership would acquires an aircraft by gift, entity require that the new end-user registers purchase or other method. his or her identification and the The FAA agrees in part with the platform registration. This would allow commenters who state that the seller a re-check of intended use, changes/ should register or take other action upon modifications to the platform, and the indication that the new user is aware of a transfer and in part with the commenters who state that the buyer the rules of use. Delair-Tech stated that must register. Different actions will be the seller should surrender ownership necessary upon transfer or sale of a by deactivating the ground control small unmanned aircraft, because the software; the new owner would then system differentiates registration register to reactivate it. between aircraft used exclusively as A law firm stated that the existing model aircraft and aircraft used other FAA Aircraft Bill of Sale and Aircraft than as model aircraft and thus collects Registration Application would be different information for each equally applicable to UAS. The firm population. also said that the current regulatory As discussed elsewhere in the framework contains an aircraft preamble, individual owners of small registration renewal requirement that would be beneficial for updating records unmanned aircraft used exclusively as model aircraft are not required to submit regarding ownership of UAS. The firm aircraft-specific information. Thus, there went on to say that the regulatory is no need to update the registration obligation to collect and submit the system upon a transfer or sale. The registration information should be placed on the seller who would have an owner, however, should remove his or her unique identifier from the aircraft incentive to properly transfer the before transfer or sale. The buyer or registration, or otherwise risk facing recipient of a transfer must create a new certain penalties or fines related to the registration prior to operation only if illegal operation of the UAS by a future that buyer does not already have an owner. owner registration number. A buyer or Individual commenters stated that if recipient of a transfer of a small the registration database is available unmanned aircraft who wishes to use online, the seller could easily record the aircraft as other than a model transfers of registration. A few commenters stated that the FAA should aircraft must register that aircraft and obtain a registration number specific to impose a fee for transfers. Individuals that aircraft. The oniy time a fee would differed on whether the seller or buyer should be responsible for registering the be required is if the buyer or recipient must create a new registration. transfer. A few commenters stated that 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. USCA Case #15-1495 Document #1590543 Filed: 12/24/2015 Page 38 of 71 Federal Register/Vol. 80, No. 241 /Wednesday, December 16, 2015 /Rules and Regulations 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. 78623 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 webbased, 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 § 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 USCA Case #15-1495 78624 Document #1590543 Filed: 12/24/2015 Page 39 of 71 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 241 / Wednesday, December 16, 2015 I Rules and Regulations 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 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 NPRIvI. 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 H. Registration ?vlarking and phone number to a small unmanned aircraft is a more efficient way to The purpose of aircraft registration identify the aircraft in the event of an marking is to provide a means for incident. connecting an aircraft to its owner. The The New Jersey Institute of agency received comments on the Technology and the Kansas State information that should be used to University UAS Program recommended identify that the aircraft is registered as well as the methods by which to display the FAA add a unique designator to the “N” registration number (e.g., “NX”) to the identifying information. clearly identify the aircraft as a UAS. sUAS Operation and Certification ASTM pointed out that it is in the NPRM: The sUAS Operation and process of developing consensus Certification NPRM proposed a practice standards for the registration requirement for small unmanned aircraft to be marked in accordance with and marking of unmanned aircraft systems, which an individual part 45, subpart C. Subpart C provides 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 webbased 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 webbased 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. USCA Case #15-1495 Document #1590543 Filed: 12/24/2015 Page 40 of 71 Federal Register/Vol. 80, No. 241 /Wednesday, December 16, 2015/Rules and Regulations c ommenter 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 FAAdesignated 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 78625 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, “[plerhaps through an electronic device (i.e., imbedded chip) or other easy-to-read and damageresistant 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 Nnumber 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 lID 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 USCA Case #15-1495 78626 Document #1590543 Filed: 12/24/2015 Page 41 of 71 Federal Register/Vol. 80, No. 241/Wednesday, December 16, 2015/Rules and Regulations 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. ?vlethods to display aircraft identification: Several people commented on how operators should USCA Case #15-1495 Document #1590543 Filed: 12/24/2015 Page 42 of 71 Federal Register/Vol. 80, No. 241/Wednesday, December 16, 2015/Rules and Regulations 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 Nnumbering 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 6or 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!transmjtter 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 “- 78627 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 Nnumbers 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 Nnumbering 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. Ivlethods 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 USCA Case #15-1495 78628 Document #1590543 Filed: 12/24/2015 Page 43 of 71 Federal Register/Vol. 80, No. 241/Wednesday, December 16, 2015/Rules and Regulations 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. ?vlethods 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 costjustified. 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 NPRIvI. 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 USCA Case #15-1495 Document #1590543 Filed: 12/24/2015 Page 44 of 71 Federal Register/Vol. 80, No. 241/Wednesday, December 16, 2015 /Rules and Regulations importance of educational information communication of safety material, in the registration process. training resources, databases of airport The small unmanned aircraft locations and airspace restrictions, best registration platform described in this practices, in-service irregularity reports and the like, because this is possibly the rule will require the registrant to review a summary of sUAS operational only practical means of reaching the guidelines before completing small small UAS pilot population. Clarification/Request for Information: unmanned aircraft registration. The FAA believes this is an invaluable Many commenters, including the National Air Transportation Association access point to deliver sUAS operational safety information. The information will (NATA) and the National Retail also direct registrants to additional Federation, stated that a public sources of safety information generated education campaign and the by the FAA and other stakeholders, development of guidance materials and such as faasafety.gov and handbooks to ensure users know the knowbeforeyo ufly. org. rules for flying UAS is essential to To reach registrants after they promote responsible use of UAS. Other the registration process, the complete commenters said that requiring FAA will develop a process to use the manufacturers to include a pamphlet small unmanned aircraft registry with each aircraft that describes these information (such as email and mailing rules would also be effective. Another address) to offer safety-related commenter suggested that online information. Delivering post-registration retailers require purchasers to navigate safety information to registrants on a to a page describing UAS safety continuing basis will help to remind the requirements before completing the of their safety-of-flight registrant purchase. Many commenters, including obligations and help reduce sUAS risks the Experimental Aircraft Association, in the NAS. The FAA will develop, lauded FAA’s existing Know Before You maintain, and deliver easily-accessible Fly program and recommended safety information directed specifically continuing to expand it. Some to sUAS owners and operators. To commenters suggested creating a GPS maximize usage of the information by enabled app that would identify safe the recipient, the FAA will carefully and unsafe areas for flying, while others meter its delivery of information via said FAA should further develop its these access points to maximize existing B4UF1y app for all mobile effective consumption. platforms. A commenter said that offlimit areas should be marked or J. Compliance Philosophy and Enforcement advertised as such. Some commenters said that operators should be required to Clarification/Request for Information: pass a training course, a practical exam, The FAA received several comments or obtain an operator certificate before about enforcement. Modovolate flying a UAS. Aviation, LLC expressed support of Task Force: Recognizing how FAA’s proposed registration important it is that all users of the NAS requirement of UAS stating it will receive information on safety in the improve the ability for law enforcement NAS, the Task Force recommended the officials “to investigate unsafe and registration process contain some sort of reckless practices and to take education component and enforcement action when appropriate.” acknowledgment, with controls in place The Minnesota Department of such that the registration process would Transportation’s (MnDOT) Office of be incomplete until the registrant has Aeronautics, the Arlington Police acknowledged receipt of this Department (APD) and several information. The information provided individual commenters raised concerns could be similar to the existing content about enforcing a registration in the Know Before You Fly program. requirement. MnDOT Office of Aeronautics noted one challenge IFR Requirement: The FAA associated with enforcement of the establishes regulatory standards to current program is a general lack of ensure safe operations in the NAS. The FAA’s safety system is largely based on, awareness of the State’s role in regulating UAS and aviation, as well as and dependent upon, voluntary a lack of awareness among operators, compliance with these regulatory airports, law enforcement and the standards. An essential element of this general public of the aircraft registration strategy is FAA’s effort to encourage a requirements and commercial operators safety culture, and, to that end, ensure licensing requirements. This commenter comprehensive educational material is noted that registration could be used as readily available to every user of the NAS. The FAA agrees with commenters a vehicle for providing information to the public about program requirements and the Task Force with respect to the 78629 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 USCA Case #15-1495 78630 Document #1590543 Filed: 12/24/2015 Page 45 of 71 Federal Register/Vol. 80, No. 241 /Wednesday, December 16, 2015 /Rules and Regulations 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 c ommenters 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 K. Privacy authentication process of online sUAS Operation and Certification registrations. A few commenters NPRM: In the NPRM for the sUAS suggested that it would be difficult for Operation and Certification rule, one the agency to create and implement an commenter addressed database authentication program sufficient to accessibility. Event 38 Unmanned verify the identity of those registering Systems suggested that FAA create a prior to the proposed December 2015 database of registered operators, but deadline. limit accessibility to FAA and law The Air Medical Operators enforcement. Association and the Colorado Clarification/Request for Information: Agricultural Aviation Association said The Clarification/Request for the data should be stored and Information requested information maintained by the FAA and easily about the storage of registration data. accessible to the agency and law Registration Data Storage Method: enforcement agencies for enforcement Many commenters expressed concern purposes. The National Retail about the security of personal Federation asserted retailers should not identifying information in light of recent be required to store any kind of UAS registration information; the system See FAA Order 8000.373 available at http:// should be maintained by the FAA for w’.vw.faa.gov/documentLibrary/media/Order/FAA_ use by the FAA and local law Order_8000.373.pdf 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 39 The FAA believes that its oversight. 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. 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. 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 o’vn 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 c ommenters 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 USCA Case #15-1495 Document #1590543 Filed: 12/24/2015 Page 46 of 71 Federal Register/Vol. 80, No. 241 /Wednesday, December 16, 2015 /Rules and Regulations 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. AlA 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 ° 4 particular privacy or security threat. As such, EPIC stated the FAA should adopt a general prohibition against the ° Epic cited legal precedent to support the propositions that individuals have a legitimate privacy interest in avoiding disclosure of their names, addresses, arid 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 arid disclosure of personal information submitted by registrants is consistent with their expectations of privacy. 78631 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. Other Genera] 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 [sIUAS 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 USCA Case #15-1495 78632 Document #1590543 Filed: 12/24/2015 Page 47 of 71 Federal Register/Vol. 80, No. 241 /Wednesday, December 16, 2015 /Rules and Regulations 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 (PTA) 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 PTA 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 (PH). As part of the PTA that the FAA conducted as part of this rulemaking, the FAA analyzed the effect this impact might have on collecting, storing, and disseminating PIT and examined and evaluated protections and alternative information handling processes in developing the rule in order to mitigate potential privacy risks. The PTA 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 41 SORN. 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 0MB 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 (P11). The SORN identifies the routine uses for the P11 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 41 Persons wishing to access or comment on the System of Records Notice should consult docket No. DOT—OST—2015—0235. 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 c ommenters, 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 USCA Case #15-1495 Document #1590543 Filed: 12/24/2015 Page 48 of 71 Federal Register/Vol. 80, No. 241 /Wednesday, December 16, 2015 /Rules and Regulations 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 78633 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. USCA Case #15-1495 78634 Document #1590543 Filed: 12/24/2015 Page 49 of 71 Federal Register/Vol. 80, No. 241 /Wednesday, December 16, 2015 /Rules and Regulations 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 “[tihe 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 9 1.13(a), which prohibits 42 careless and reckless operation. 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 burdenrelieving 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 42 The comrnenter cited to Administrator v. Pirker, NTSB Order Na. EA—5739 at 12 (Nov. 17, 2014). 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 “[ilmpracticality 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 USCA Case #15-1495 Document #1590543 Filed: 12/24/2015 Page 50 of 71 Federal Register/Vol. 80, No. 241 /Wednesday, December 16, 2015 /Rules and Regulations does not constitute good cause to dispense with public notice and 43 The Mercatus Center comment.” asserted that a public notice-andcomment 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. 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 CET, 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. 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. 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 The commenter cited Air Transport 43 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 few cammenters provided a link to the AMA 44 report. http://wwsv.madelaircraft.org/gav/dacs/ AivlAAnalysis-Closer-Laak-at-FAA-Drane-Data_ 0914 15.pdf. 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 78635 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 costbenefit 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 costbenefit 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 USCA Case #15-1495 78636 Document #1590543 Filed: 12/24/2015 Page 51 of 71 Federal Register/Vol. 80, No. 241/Wednesday, December 16, 2015/Rules and Regulations the United States, and asserted that the enhanced surveillance capabilities of UAS raise significant Fourth Amendment implications.45 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 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, 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 UrbanaChampaign 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 USCA Case #15-1495 Document #1590543 Filed: 12/24/2015 Page 52 of 71 Federal Register/Vol. 80, No. 241 /Wednesday, December 16, 2015 /Rules and Regulations 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 78637 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 perdevice 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. 0. 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 USCA Case #15-1495 78638 Document #1590543 Filed: 12/24/2015 Page 53 of 71 Federal Register/Vol. 80, No. 241/Wednesday, December 16, 2015/Rules and Regulations 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 TAXTI 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 § 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, § 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 § 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 USCA Case #15-1495 Document #1590543 Filed: 12/24/2015 Page 54 of 71 Federal Register/Vol. 80, No. 241 /Wednesday, December 16, 2015 /Rules and Regulations 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 48.12 5 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, § 91.2 03 is revised to reference Certificates of Aircraft Registration provided in part 48. In part 375, navigation of foreign civil aircraft within the United States, § 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. 78639 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 IX. Regulatory Notices and Analyses addressing the problem is urgent. A. Regulatozy Evaluation Registration provides an immediate and direct opportunity to educate new users Changes to Federal regulations must of unmanned aircraft who may have no undergo several economic analyses. knowledge of the system in which they First, Executive Order 12866 and are operating, and thus, no knowledge Executive Order 13563 direct that each of how to operate safely within it. Federal agency shall propose or adopt a Registration and marking of small regulation only upon a reasoned unmanned aircraft will provide owners determination that the benefits of the education regarding operating in the intended regulation justify its costs. NAS and will promote accountability in Second, the Regulatory Flexibility Act those operations, at a minimal cost to of 1980 (Pub. L. 96—3 54) requires operators and the government. agencies to analyze the economic impact of regulatory changes on small Currently aircraft registration is a entities. Third, the Trade Agreements paper-based process defined in part 47. Act (Pub. L. 96—3 9 as amended) Under current statutory and regulatory prohibits agencies from setting policy, the FAA could require UAS standards that create unnecessary 46 at a significant model aircraft owners, obstacles to the foreign commerce of the cost, to register their small unmanned United States. In developing U.S. aircraft under part 47 using the legacy standards, the Trade Agreements Act paper-based system. Commercial requires agencies to consider 47 that have been granted owners international standards and, where exemptions or certificates of appropriate, that they be the basis of authorization to operate small U.S. standards. Fourth, the Unfunded unmanned aircraft in the NAS have Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. been required to register their aircraft 104—4) requires agencies to prepare a under part 47. Also, the sUAS Operation written assessment of the costs, benefits, and Certification NPRM would require and other effects of proposed or final non-model aircraft owners (e.g., rules that include a Federal mandate commercial and public owners of sUAS) likely to result in the expenditure by to register their aircraft under part 47 as State, local, or tribal governments, in the outlined in the NPRM. The agency aggregate, or by the private sector, of expects to finalize that rulemaking in $100 million or more annually (adjusted 2016. for inflation with base year of 1995). This portion of the preamble 46 for purposes of the economic analysis of this summarizes the FAA’s analysis of the IFR, the term “modeler” means the owner of a small unmanned aircraft that satisfies the definition of economic impacts of this IFR. We “model aircraft” added to 14 CFR 1.1 suggest readers seeking greater detail “ For purposes of the economic analysis of this read the full regulatory evaluation, a IFR, the term “commercial owners” or “noncopy of which we have placed in the modeler” means the owner of a small unmanned aircraft used for non-model purposes. docket for this rulemaking. USCA Case #15-1495 78640 Document #1590543 Filed: 12/24/2015 Page 55 of 71 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 241 / Wednesday, December 16, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 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, webbased 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 556 million ($46 million present value at 7 percent) through 2020. In evaluating the impact of this rule, we compare the costs and benefits of the IFR to a baseline consistent with existing practices: for modelers, the exercise of discretion by FAA (not requiring registration), and for non- modelers, registration via part 47 in the paper-based system. We also calculate the costs of the rejected alternative: requiring modelers and non-modelers alike to register aircraft via the paperbased system. In order to compare the costs of this rule to this baseline, the FAA estimated the costs of registering sUAS aircraft under the web-based registration system resulting from this part 48 rulemaking (the IFR). The two populations, modelers and non-modelers, have slightly different processes as noted in this evaluation. In all of these scenarios, sUAS weighing 0.55 pounds or less are excluded from registration. In these analyses, we estimate the private-sector compliance costs and government costs for each scenario. TABLE 5—SUMMARY OF QUANTIFIED COSTS AND BENEFITS ($M) Total cost Year 0 1 2 3 4 5 Baseline 2016 Total Difference Calendar year 7% P.V. FR $ 0.0 $ 5.5 —$ 5.5 —$ 5.47 21.3 86.5 89.0 91.6 94.2 6.3 8.3 12.1 11.6 11.8 15.0 78.1 76.9 80.0 82.5 14.00 68.25 62.77 61.03 58.79 382.5 55.6 327.0 259.4 Note: numbers may not add due to rounding. interviews with manufacturers, retailers, average of ten percent of the modelers’ sUAS survive into a second year, and other industry experts. All owners of small unmanned because they are used less intensively. • Estimates of small unmanned aircraft which weigh more than 0.55 These assumptions are based on aircraft registrations are based on pounds and less than 55 pounds on projections of sUAS sales for the period manufacturers’ information. takeoff. of analysis. A sales forecast was • Unmanned aircraft weighing 0.55 developed based on use cases and likely pounds or less are excluded from the Assumptions and Data adoption rates by commercial registrations forecast. We assume 20 The benefit and cost analysis for the application and consumer electronic s percent of the sales forecast will be regulatory evaluation is based on the curve analysis for non-commercial aircraft weighing 0.55 unmanned following factors/assumptions. applications. This forecast was then pounds or less. This analysis is based on Technology, markets, and uses for small adjusted to obtain the number of an examination of the current unit size unmanned aircraft are evolving rapidly modelers and the number of nondistribution. While there may be some and there is a high degree of uncertainty modeler sUAS units. incentive for manufacturers to increase how the future will unfold and so the • Two basic populations are number of aircraft produced below the FAA requests comments (supported estimated: (1) Model aircraft owners and the registration size cut-off, the FAA with data) on these assumptions. their sUAS units and (2) the number of believes the inherent limitations of the • The period of the regulatory impact commercial/public owners and their weight and available technology will analysis begins in 2015 (denoted Year 0) sUAS units. In this document, the term not drive large shifts during analysis and ends in 2020 (denoted Year 5). “modeler” means the owner of a small period. SUAS flown exclusively indoors • This analysis considers the benefits unmanned aircraft that satisfies the need not be registered. FAA assumes registrations the of requiring costs and statutory definition of “model aircraft” most sUAS over 0.55 pounds will be of sUAS weighing less than 55 pounds now codified in 14 CFR 1.1. The term flown outdoors and must be registered. and more than 0.55 pounds on takeoff. “commercial owner” or “non-modeler” • The entire existing fleet of model We use a seven percent discount rate for means the owner of a small unmanned and 2015 fourth quarter sales are aircraft aircraft aircraft used for non-model the benefits as prescribed by 0MB in to be registered in Period 0 or assumed purposes. Circular A—4. 2015. • For non-modelers, we assume that Population and Forecast • Most non-modelers will register on average, all sUAS fail within a year their aircraft after the FAA has finalized and are replaced in the next year. For • Most of these assumptions, unless modelers we use the assumption that an the sUAS Operation and Certification otherwise noted, were based on Who is potentially affected by this rule? USCA Case #15-1495 Document #1590543 Filed: 12/24/2015 Page 56 of 71 Federal Register/Vol. 80, No. 241 /Wednesday, December 16, 2015 /Rules and Regulations 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. • FAA estimates that its costs are $22 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. 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. Time • The estimated time to register an aircraft via the part 47 (paper-based 48 system) system is 30 minutes. • 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 nonmodeler 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 nonmodeler 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). 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 paperbased system in part 47, is $5. This fee is required by statute and is based on an 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- 78641 estimate of the costs of the system and services associated with aircraft registration. If actual costs for the webbased 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—AK3 7). 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 $5 fee to add each additional sUAS to their existing account, Aircraft must be re-registered after three years, but as noted above, FAA expects very few, if any, sUAS to last that long. Nonmodeler aircraft owners will not pay a fee to de-register a sUAS. • Government fees and taxes are considered transfers and, by Office of Management and Budget guidance, transfers are not considered a societal cost. These transfers are estimated separately from the costs and benefits of this IFR. The FAA acknowledges fees and transfers can create incentives for behavior change. Costs of This Rule TABLE 6—COST SUMMARY [$Mj Year year 0 1 See Supporting Statement, 0MB 2120—0042 48 Aircraft Registration Including Assignment and cancellation of U.S. Identification Marks 49 hourly opportunity cost for modelers is based on the mid-point estimate of the range values Baseline 2015 2016 Total costs 7% Total cost Calendar $ 0.0 21.3 Interim final rule $ 5.5 6.3 Rejected alternative $ 44.2 65.1 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.foo.gov/regulotions_policies/policy_guidorzce/ benefit_cost!). The hourly opportunity cost for nonmodelers is estimated as the median gross Baseline $ 0.0 19.9 I Interim final rule $ 5.5 5.9 P.V. I Rejected alternative $ 44.2 60.9 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). USCA Case #15-1495 78642 Document #1590543 Filed: 12/24/2015 Page 57 of 71 Federal Register/Vol. 80, No. 241/Wednesday, December 16, 2015/Rules and Regulations TABLE 6—COST SUMMARY—Continued [$M] Total costs 7% P.V. Total cost Calendar year ear Baseline 2017 2018 2019 2020 2 3 4 5 Total Interim final rule Rejected alternative Baseline Rejected alternative Interim final rule 86.5 89.0 91.6 94.2 8.3 12.1 11.6 11.8 140.6 155.7 173.9 195.9 75.5 72.6 69.9 67.2 7.3 9.9 8.8 8.4 122.8 127.1 132.7 139.6 382.5 55.6 775.4 305.1 45.7 627.3 Totals may not add due to rounding. Benefits of This Rule In this section, we discuss beneficial impacts to the non-modeler from the cost savings of this rule over registering sUAS aircraft using the baseline system. The cost savings offsets, by an order of magnitude, the new costs associated with modelers and non-modelers reoisterina aircraft in the streamlined Wb-baseI system. The baseline column in Table 7 shows the total costs for non-modelers to register their aircraft using the paperbased system, while modelers do not register their aircraft. The IFR column shows the total costs to FAA and reGistrants (modelers and non-modelers) of the new web-based system. Table 7 shows the significant cost savings of subtracting the costs of registration between the baseline system from the registration costs imposed by this rulemaking. TABLE 7—COST SAVINGS OF THE BASELINE VERSUS THE PART 48 RuLEMAKING [$M] Total Cost Year Baseline 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 0 1 2 3 4 5 Total 7% P.V. Difference Calendar year IFR $ 0.0 21.3 86.5 89.0 91.6 94.2 $ 5.5 6.3 8.3 12.1 11.6 11.8 —$ 5.5 —$ 5.5 15.0 78.1 77.9 80.0 82.5 14.0 68.3 62.8 61.0 58.8 382.5 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. Regulatozy Flexibility Determination The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 (Public Law 96—3 54) (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-forprofit organizations, and small governmental jurisdictions. The Regulatory Flexibility Act analysis requirements are limited to rulemakings for which the agency “is or any required by section 553 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, . . . USCA Case #15-1495 Document #1590543 Filed: 12/24/2015 Page 58 of 71 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 241 / Wednesday, December 16, 2015 I Rules and Regulations 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 nonmodel 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—3 9), 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 ivlan dates 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 (0MB) 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 78643 submitted this information collection to 0MB 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)] Category Modeler Owner Registration Owner Re-Registration Non-Modeler Small Unmanned Aircraft Registration Small Unmanned Aircraft De-Registration Frequency responses 0.57 0.16 5 5 1 time Every 3 years 1.82 1.66 3.5 3 1 Time 1 Time 47.8 12.9 121.9 69.0 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; USCA Case #15-1495 78644 Document #1590543 Filed: 12/24/2015 Page 59 of 71 Federal Register/Vol. 80, No. 241/Wednesday, December 16, 2015/Rules and Regulations levels of government, and, therefore, (2) Evaluate the accuracy of the does not have Federalism implications. agency’s estimate of the burden; (3) Enhance the quality, utility, and B. Executive Order 13211, Regulations clarity of the information to be That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, collected; and Distribution, or Use (4) Minimize the burden of collecting The FAA analyzed this immediately information on those who are to respond, including by using appropriate adopted final rule under Executive Order 13211, Actions Concerning automated, electronic, mechanical, or Regulations that Significantly Affect other technological collection techniques or other forms of information Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use (May 18, 2001). The agency has technology. determined that it is not a “significant Individuals and organizations may energy action” under the executive send comments on the information order and it is not likely to have a collection requirement to the address significant adverse effect on the supply, listed in the ADDRESSES section at the distribution, or use of energy. beginning of this preamble by January 15, 2016. Comments also should be C. Executive Order 13609, Promoting submitted to the Office of Management International Regulatory Cooperation and Budget, Office of Information and Executive Order 13609, Promoting Regulatory Affairs, Attention: Desk Regulatory Cooperation, International Officer for FAA, New Executive Office (77 FR 26413, May 4, 2012) promotes Building, Room 10202, 725 17th Street international regulatory cooperation to NW., Washington, DC 20503. meet shared challenges involving F. International Compatibility and health, safety, labor, security, Cooperation environmental, and other issues and reduce, eliminate, or prevent In keeping with U.S. obligations unnecessary differences in regulatory under the Convention on International requirements. The FAA has analyzed Civil Aviation, it is FAA policy to this action under the policy and agency conform to International Civil Aviation responsibilities of Executive Order Organization (ICAO) Standards and 13609, Promoting International Recommended Practices to the Regulatory Cooperation. The FAA has maximum extent practicable. In the analyzed this action under the policies instance of this rulemaking, the FAA and agency responsibilities of Executive does not intend to comply with Order 13609, and has determined that registration standards. The international this action would have no effect on and marking requirements in this IFR international regulatory cooperation. apply only to operations within the United States. The agency will file XI. How To Obtain Additional differences as is appropriate. Information 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 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:// urww.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—i, 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://wwriv.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 I 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 • 1. The authority citation for part 1 is revised to read as follows: Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(f), 106(g), 401i3, 44701. • 2. In § 1.1, add the definitions of “Model aircraft”, “Small unmanned aircraft”, “Small unmanned aircraft USCA Case #15-1495 Document #1590543 Filed: 12/24/2015 Page 60 of 71 Federal Register/Vol. 80, No. 241 /Wednesday, December 16, 2015 /Rules and Regulations system”, and “Unmanned aircraft” in alphabetical order to read as follows: General definitions. §1.1 * * * Mode] 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. * * * * * Sma]] unmanned aircroft means an unmanned aircraft weighing less than 55 pounds on takeoff, including everything that is on board or otherwise attached to the aircraft. Sma]] unmonned aircraft system (sma]] U/iS) 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 • 3. The authority citation for part 45 is revised to read as follows: 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 a]ien 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). K 7. In § 47.3, revise paragraph (b)(3) to read as follows: §47.3 * Registration required. * * * * (b) * * * (3) Is an aircraft of the Armed Farces of the United States. 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. • 8. In • 4. In § 45.1, revise paragraph (b) to §47.7 United States citizens and resident aliens. read as follows: * * * * * * (b) Nationality and registration marking of aircraft registered in the United States in accordance with part 47. PART 47—AIRCRAFT REGISTRATION • 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. • 6. Revise § 47.2 to read as follows: §47.2 Definitions. The following are definitions of terms used in this part: * * * § 47.7, Revise paragraph (b) to read as follows: * Applicability. §45.1 * * * * * (b) Resident a]iens. 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. • 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 48.30 78645 Applicants. Fees. Subpart 8—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 §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 § 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. § 48.5 Compliance dates. (a) Sma]] unmanned aircraft used exc]usive]y as mode] 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) Sma]] unmanned aircraft used as other than mode] aircraft. Small unmanned aircraft owners authorized to conduct operations other than model aircraft operations must register the small unmanned aircraft in accordance USCA Case #15-1495 78646 Document #1590543 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. Registiy 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). §48.15 Page 61 of 71 Federal Register/Vol. 80, No. 241/Wednesday, December 16, 2015/Rules and Regulations 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. § 48.10 Filed: 12/24/2015 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. § 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. § 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 § 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. §48.30 Fees. (a) The fee for issuing or renewing a Certificate of Aircraft Registration for aircraft registered in accordance with §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 §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 §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. §48.105 Requirement to maintain current information. (a) The holder of a Certificate of Aircraft Registration must ensure that the information provided under §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: USCA Case #15-1495 Document #1590543 Filed: 12/24/2015 Page 62 of 71 Federal Register/Vol. 80, No. 241/Wednesday, December 16, 2015 /Rules and Regulations (1) A change in the information provided under § 48.100. (2) When aircraft registration requires cancellation for any reason including sale or transfer, destruction, or export. § 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 § 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 § 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. §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 §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 § 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. 78647 (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. §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. §48.125 Foreign civil aircraft. Except for corporations eligible to register under § 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 §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 § 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 §48.100 of this part, the small unmanned aircraft serial number. § 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 USCA Case #15-1495 78648 Document #1590543 Filed: 12/24/2015 Federal Register/Vol. 80, No. 241 /Wednesday, December 16, 2015 /Rules and Regulations 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. § 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 91—GENERAL OPERATING AND FLIGHT RULES PART 375—NAVIGATION OF FOREIGN CIVIL AIRCRAFT WITHIN THE UNITED STATES • 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 • 12. The authority citation for part 375 continues to read as follows: Authority: 49 U.S.C. 40102, 40103, and 41703. • 13. Revise § 375.11 to read as follows: Other Foreign Civil Aircraft. convention on International civil Aviation §375.11 (61 Stat. 1180), (126 Stat. 11). A foreign civil aircraft, including unmanned aircraft as defined in § 1.1 of this title, other than those referred to in § 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 (h) The aircraft complies with any applicable airworthiness standards of the Federal Aviation Administration for • 11. In § 91.203, revise paragraph (a)(2) to read as follows: § 91.203 required. (a) * * Page 63 of 71 Civil aircraft: Certifications * (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 its operation. • 14. Add § 375.38 to subpartD to read as follows: Other foreign civil aircraft: Small unmanned aircraft operated exclusively as model aircraft. § 375.38 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 § 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 § 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; BILLING CODE 4910—13—P 8:45 am] 12/16/2015 Aircraft Registry —Aircraft Registration: Unmanned Aircraft (UA) USCA Case #15-1495 Document #1590543 Filed: 12/24/2015 Page 64 of 71 Federal Aviation ,,..1 Administration Aircraft Registry Aircraft Registration: Unmanned Aircraft (UA) Registration is not required for model aircraft operated solely for hobby or recreational purposes. Guidelines for responsible hobby and recreational operations are available at http://www.faa.gov/uas/model aircraft! (httrx//www.faa.gov/uas/model aircraftñ. Registration is required for all unmanned aircraft (UA) operated for non-hobby or non-recreational purposes. Registration is also required for Government UA. All Aircraft owned by agencies, offices or subdivisions (httr://www.faa.gov/uas/rublic oerations/) of: the United States (other than aircraft of the U.S. Armed Forces), the States, the District of Columbia, or a territory or possession of the United States are required to be registered. UA Registration Assistance Aircraft Registration requirements and directions are provided in 14 Code of Federal Regulations Part 47 (http://www.ecfr.Qov/cgi-bin/text-idx7SID=1 0f2c4539074face0af1 6e24e02809f8&node=t1 4.1 .47&rQn=div5htt://www.ecfr,gov/cgi-bin/text-idx? SD=10f2c4539074face0af16e24e02809f8&node=ot14.1.47&rcin=div5). The basic steps that follow will assist most UA registration applicants complete registration requirements. • • • • • To Register a New Small Unmanned Aircraft (sUAWunder 55 lbs.) To Register a New Unmanned Aircraft (UA) To Register a Used sUA or UA Aircraft (of any size) Sample Wording for sUA and UA Notarized Statements Selling your U.S. registered sUA or UA - - - To Register a New - Small Unmanned Aircraft (sUA): An unmanned aircraft is considered a new sUA when it has never been registered anywhere, and its maximum takeoff weight is less than 55 pounds. To register the owner must provide the following: 1. A completed Aircraft Registration Application, AC Form 8050-1. o An original Aircraft Registration Application, AC Form 8050-1 must be used. Photocopies or computer generated copies of this form will not be accepted. These forms may be obtained from the FAA Aircraft Registration Branch or any Flight Standards District Office. (http://www.faa.gov/aboutloffice org/field offices/fsdoI o When a Limited Liability Corporation (LLC) is an applicant to register a sUA it also must provide information regarding its organization, how management authority is held, and how it meets the definition of a U.S. citizen for aircraft registration. The Limited Liability Corporation Registration Information Sheet (http:/!www.faa.gov/licenses certificates/aircraft certification/aircraft registry/media/LLCINFO.PDF) (PDF) provides http://www.faa.gov/licenses_certificates/aircraft_certification/aircratt_registry/UN 1/8 12116/2015 Aircraft Registry —Aircraft Registration: Unmanned Aircraft (UA) instructions meeting this requirement. USCA Caseon#15-1495 Document #1590543 o Filed: 12/24/2015 Page 65 of 71 Form AFS-750-94 (http ://www.faa .ciov/licenses certificates/aircraft certification/aircraft recistry/med ia/AFS-75094.pdf) (PDF), Information to Aid in the Registration of U.S. Civil Aircraft, provides helpful information about eligibility, types of registration, the proper form of names, signatures, titles, and addresses plus other related issues. 2. A full description of the UA provided by the manufacturer, builder or applicant in a Notarized statement. sUA Required Description Items Full Legal Name of UA Manufacturer or Builder sUA Model Designation o sUA Serial Number o Class (Airplane, Airship, Rotorcraft, Gyroplane, Ducted Fan) o sUA Maximum Takeoff Weight o Category (Land, Sea, or Both) o Name of Engine Manufacturer o Engine Model Designation o Engine Serial-Numbers (if none shown, enter ‘none’) o Number of Engines o Engine Power Output (given in HP or Lbs. Thrust) o Engine Type (2 or 4 Cycle Reciprocating, Electric, Turbo Fan/Prop/Shaft/Jet) o o - The notarized statement must also state “To the best of the undersigned’s knowledge the information provided above is correct, the described UA is not currently registered in another country, and the undersigned is the aircraft’s rightful owner” 3. Evidence of Ownership: An Aircraft Bill of Sale, AC Form 8050-2 (httix/!www.faa .gov/documentLibrary/media/form/ac8050-2. pdf) (PDF) ,or an equal transfer of ownership document is required for each change in ownership from the sUA manufacturer or builder through any intervening owner(s) to the owner making application for registration. However, the FAA recognizes that bills of sale may not be available for sUA that have been in operation since before sUA registration became necessary or for sUA that were purchased as off-the-shelf items from a retail shop, or internet retailer not associated with the builder or manufacturer. When a bill of sale or other transfer of ownership document is unobtainable, the applicant may provide for consideration a notarized statement that: o o o o o identifies the subject sUA by the builder’s full name, its model designation and serial number, identifies undocumented transfers to the extent possible by the date they occurred, the purchaser’s name, as well as the name and location (city, state & country) of the person, company, or vendor that sold the sUA. explains why any missing transfers of ownership are unavailable. describes the other evidence provided with the notarized statement like an invoice, sales receipt or witness statement that proves the transfer of ownership took place. This alternative evidence is especially important when documenting the transfer of ownership to the applicant. certifies, to the best of the applicants knowledge that; the information provided is correct, the described UA is not currently registered in another country, and the undersigned is the aircraft’s rightful owner. Sample statements are available for review. NOTE: Items 2 and 3 may be combined into one notarized affidavit. 4. Confirmation the sUA is not registered in another country. When a 5UA is purchased from a manufacturer or seller located in another country it is considered an import. This requires a statement from the Civil Aviation Authority of the exporting country confirming that the registration of the sUA in that country has been canceled or that the sUA was never issued registration by that country. 5. An N-number to be assigned to the registered aircraft. If a special N-number (http i/www.faa .ov/licenses certificates/aircraft certification/aircraft registry/n numbers!) was reserved in advance by the sUA owner for this registration, this number will be assigned if it is entered on the forms in the indicated blanks. o A special N-number may be reguested (httn://www.faa.nov/Iicenses certificates/aircraft certification/aircraft registry/n numbers/) when filing the application and other documents for registration. Include a letter that lists several N-number choices, and the $10.00 special number fee. The first listed number verified as available will be assigned to the aircraft. http://www.taa.gov/Iicenses certificates/aircraft certification/aircraft registry/UN 218 12116/2015 Aircraft Registry —Aircraft Registration: Unmanned Aircraft (UA) A random N-number will be assigned at no #1590543 cost if the indicated blanks the registration forms USCA Case #15-1495 Document Filed:on12/24/2015 Pageare66leftofempty, 71 or a o random number is requested. 6. The $5.00 registration fee by check or money order made payable to the Federal Aviation Administration. This fee is waived when the applicant is a Federal, State or local government office, agency or institution. Send your Registration documents to the FAA, Aircraft Registration Branch. Addresses for regular mail and overnight courier deliveries are available through the Contact the Aircraft Registration Branch menu item. Once the sUA is registered, apply for the appropriate operational authority. The following links will take you to information and directions. Operating for Non-Recreational Purposes (http:/!www.faa.gov/uas/civil_operations!) Aircraft Owned by Government Agencies or Offices (http:!!www.faa.gov/uas!public operations!) To Register a New Unmanned Aircraft (UA): - A new unmanned aircraft is an UA that has not been registered anywhere and its takeoff weight is over 55 lbs. To register the owner must provide the following: 1. A completed Aircraft Registration Application, AC Form 8050-1, o An original Aircraft Registration Application, AC Form 8050-1 must be used. Photocopies or computer generated copies of this form will not be accepted. These forms may be obtained from the FAA Aircraft Registration Branch (http://www.faa .gov/licenses certificates/aircraft certification/aircraft registry/contact aircraft certificationh or any o When a Limited Liability Corporation (LLC) is an applicant to register a UA it also must provide information regarding its organization, how management authority is held, and how it meets the definition of U.S. citizen for aircraft registration. The Limited Liability Corporation Registration Information Sheet (http://www.faa .gov!licenses certificates/aircraft_certification/aircraft registry/media/LLCINFO.PDF) (PDF) provides instructions on meeting this requirement. Form AFS-750-94, Information to Aid in the Registration of U.S. Civil Aircraft (http://www.faa .gov/licenses certificates/aircraft certification/aircraft_registry/media/AFS-750-94.pdf) (PDF), provides helpful information about registration eligibility, types of registration, the proper form of: names, signatures, titles, addresses plus other related issues. Flight Standards District Office (http://www.faa.gov/about/office org/field offices/fsdo/) o The notarized statement must also state “To the best of the undersigned’s knowledge the information provided above is correct, the described UA is not currently registered in another country, and the undersigned is the aircraft’s rightful owner” 2. A full description of the UA provided by the manufacturer or builder in a Notarized statement is required when the UA model is not produced under a U.S. Type Certificate. UA Required Description Items o o o o o o o o o o o o Full Legal Name of UA Manufacturer or Builder UA Model Designation UA Serial Number Class (Airplane, Airship, Rotorcraft, Gyroplane, Ducted Fan) UA Maximum Takeoff Weight Category (Land, Sea, or Both) Name of Engine Manufacturer Engine Model Designation Engine Serial-Numbers (If none shown, enter ‘none’) Number of Engines Engine Power Output (Given in HP or Lbs. Thrust) Engine Type (2 or 4 Cycle Reciprocating, Electric, Turbo Fan/Prop/Shaft/Jet) - http://www .faa.qov/Iicenses certificates/aircraft certification/aircraft registry/UN 3/8 12/16/2015 Aircraft Registry —Aircraft Registration: Unmanned Aircraft (UA) TheUSCA notarized statement must alsoDocument state “To the#1590543 best of the undersigned’s the information provided Case #15-1495 Filed:knowledge 12/24/2015 Page 67 of 71above is correct, the described UA is not currently registered in another country, and the undersigned is the aircraft’s rightful owner” 3. Evidence of Ownership: An Aircraft Bill of Sale, AC Form 8050-2 (http://www.faa.gov/documentLibrary/media/form/ac8050-2.pdf) (PDF), or an equal transfer of ownership document is required for each change in ownership from the UA manufacturer or builder through any intervening owner(s) to the owner making application for registration. When a bill of sale or other transfer document is unobtainable for one or more changes of ownership, the applicant may provide for consideration a notarized statement that: o o o o o describes the subject UA by the builders name, its model designation, and serial number; gives the history and whereabouts of the UA telling how the applicant became its owner and explains why the missing transfer of ownership document is unavailable. identifies undocumented transfers to the extent possible by the date they occurred, the purchaser’s name, the name and location (city, state & country) of the person, company, or vendor that sold the UA. describes the other evidence provided with the notarized statement like an invoice, sales receipt or witness statement that proves the transfer of ownership took place. This alternative evidence is especially important when documenting the transfer of ownership to the applicant. certifies, to the best of the applicants knowledge, that the information provided is correct, that the described UA is not currently registered in another country, and that the undersigned is the aircraft’s rightful owner. Sample statements are available for review NOTE: Items 2 and 3 may be combined into one notarized affidavit. 4. Confirmation the UA is not registered in another country. When a UA is purchased directly from a manufacturer or seller located in another country it is considered an import. This requires a statement from the Civil Aviation Authority of the exporting country confirming that registration for this UA has ended or that the UA was never issued registration in that cou ntry. 5. An N-number to be assigned to the registered aircraft. If a special N-number (http://www.faa .gov/Iicenses certificates/aircraft certification/aircraft registry/n numbers!) was reserved in advance by the UA owner for this registration, this number will be assigned if it is entered on the forms in the indicated blanks. o o A special N-number (http://www.faa.gov/Iicenses certificates/aircraft certification/aircraft registry/n numbers/) may be requested when filing the application and other documents for registration. Include a letter that lists several N-number choices. The first listed number verified as available will be assigned to the aircraft. The special number fee is $10.00, payable by check or money order payable to the Federal Aviation Administration. A random N-number will be assigned at no cost if the indicated blanks on the registration forms are left empty, or a random number is requested. 6. The registration fee of $5.00 per UA. Please pay all fees by check or money order made payable to the Federal Aviation Administration. Multiple fees may be consolidated into a single payment. Registration and N-number fees are waived when the applicant is a Federal, State or local government office, agency or institution. Send your Registration documents to the FAA, Aircraft Registration Branch. Addresses for regular mail and overnight courier deliveries are available through the Contact the Aircraft Registration Branch (http://www.faa menu item. Once the sUA is registered, apply for the appropriate operational authority. The following links will direct you to useful information and directions. Operating for Non-Recreational Purposes (http://www.faa.gov/uas/civil_operations/) Aircraft Owned by Government Agencies or Offices (http://.faa.gov/uasJpubiic_operations/) To Register a Used - sUA or UA Aircraft: A used sUA or UA is an unmanned aircraft that has been registered in the U.S. or another country, or operated by the military forces of any country. http://www.faa.gov/Iicenses_certificates/aircraftcertification/aircraft_registry/UN 4/8 12116/2015 Aircraft Registry —Aircraft Registration: Unmanned Aircraft (UA) To register the owner must provide the following: USCA Case #15-1495 Document #1590543 Filed: 12/24/2015 Page 68 of 71 1. A completed Aircraft Registration Application, AC Form 8050-1, An original Aircraft Registration Application, AC Form 8050-1 must be used. Photocopies or computer generated copies of this form will not be accepted. These forms may be obtained from the FAA Aircraft Registration Branch or any Flight Standards District Office (httr:!/www.faa.oov/abouUoffice org/field offices/fsdoh. When a Limited Liability Corporation (LLC) is an applicant to register a used sUA or UA, it must provide information regarding its organization, how management authority is held, and how it meets the definition of U.S. citizen for aircraft registration. The Limited Liability Corporation Registration Information Sheet (http://www.faa.gov/licenses certificates/aircraft certification/aircraft registry/media/LLCINFO. PDF) (PDF) provides instructions on meeting this requirement. Form AFS-750-94, Information to Aid in the Registration of U.S. Civil Aircraft (http://www.faa.gov/licenses certificates/aircraft certification/aircraft registry/media/AFS-750-94.pdf) (PDF), provides helpful information about registration eligibility, types of registration, the form of: names, signatures, titles, and addresses plus other related issues. o o 2. Evidence of Ownership: An Aircraft Bill of Sale, AC Form 8050-2 (http://www.faa .ov/documentLibrary/media/form/ac8050-2.pdf) (PDF), or an equal transfer of ownership document is required for each change in ownership from the last registered owner or military owner through any intervening owner(s) to the owner making application for registration. If a bill of sale or other transfer document is unobtainable for one or more changes of ownership, the applicant may provide for consideration a notarized statement that: o o o o o o describes the used sUA or UA by the builders name, its model designation, and serial number; gives the relative history and whereabouts of the sUA or UA telling how the applicant became its owner and explains why the missing transfer of ownership document is unavailable. identifies undocumented transfers to the extent possible by the by the date they occurred, the purchaser’s name, the name and address (with country) of the person, company, or vendor that sold the sUA or UA. describes the other evidence provided with the notarized statement like an invoice, sales receipt or witness statement that proves the transfer of ownership took place. This alternative evidence of ownership is especially important when documenting the transfer of ownership to the applicant. certifies, that to the best of the applicants knowledge, that the information provided is correct, the described sUA or UA is not currently registered in another country, and that the undersigned is the aircraft’s rightful owner. Sample statements are available for review. 3. Confirmation the used sUA or UA is not registered in another country. When a previously registered or military operated sUA or UA is purchased from a manufacturer or other seller located in another country the sale is considered an import. This requires a statement from the Civil Aviation Authority of the country where the aircraft was last registered or operated that confirms the registration for this sUA or UA has ended or that the sUA or UA was never issued civil registration in that country. 4. A full description of the sUA or UA: If the model of an imported or former military UA or sUA is not covered by a U.S. Type Certificate, a full description of the aircraft is needed. The description elements listed below may be provided by the builder, manufacturer or applicant in a Notarized statement provided with the aircraft’s registration documents. This item is not required if the aircraft was last previously registered in the U.S. Used sUA, UA Required Description Items Full Legal Name of UA Manufacturer or Builder UA Model Designation o UA Serial Number o Class (Airplane, Airship, Rotorcraft, Gyroplane, Ducted Fan) o UA Maximum Takeoff Weight o Category (Land, Sea, or Both) o Name of Engine Manufacturer o Engine Model Designation o o http://www.faa.gov/licensescertificates/aircraft_certification/aircraftjegistry/UN 5/8 12/16/2015 Aircraft Registry —Aircraft Registration: Unmanned Aircraft (UA) Engine Serial-Numbers (if none shown, enter ‘none’) USCA Case #15-1495 Document #1590543 o Number of Engines o Engine Power Output (Given in HP or Lbs Thrust) o Engine Type (2 or 4 Cycle Reciprocating, Electric, Turbo Fan/Prop/Shaft/Jet) o Filed: 12/24/2015 Page 69 of 71 The notarized statement must also state “To the best of the undersigned’s knowledge the information provided above is correct, the described UA is not currently registered in another country, and the undersigned is the aircraft’s rightful owner” 5. The N-number assigned to the registered aircraft. When a U.S. registered sUA or UA is sold to another U.S. owner, it already has an assigned N-number. The new owner should show the assigned N-number in the indicated blanks on the application and bill of sale forms. The aircraft will then be registered and a registration certificate issued using this Nnumber. o If a special N-number (http://www.faa .gov/licenses certificates/aircraft certification/aircraft registry/n numbers!) was reserved or is desired by the new owner for use on this sUA or UA, we suggest that the new owner allow the registration process to take place using the already assigned N-number to ensure continued operability of the aircraft. Once registration is issued to the new owner an N-number chancie may be reguested. o A random N-number will be assigned at no cost to import and former military aircraft if the indicated blanks on the registration forms are left empty, or a random number is requested. (http://www.faa .gov/Iicenses certificates/aircraft certification/aircraft registry/n nu mbersi) 6. The registration fee of $5.00 per aircraft. Please pay all fees by check or money order made payable to the Federal Aviation Administration. Multiple fees may be consolidated into a single payment. Registration and N-number fees are waived when the applicant is a Federal, State or local government office, agency or institution. Send your Registration documents to the FAA, Aircraft Registration Branch. Addresses for regular mail and overnight courier deliveries are available through the Contact the Aircraft Registration Branch menu item. Once the sUA or UA is registered, apply for the appropriate operational authority. The following links will direct you to useful information and directions. Operatinci for Non-Recreational Purposes (http:/!www.faa.gov/uas/civil operations!’ Aircraft Owned by Government Aciencies or Offices (http://www.faa.gov/uas/public_operations/) Sample Wording for sUA and UA Notarized Statements Describe the sUA or UA with complete name of the aircraft’s builder or manufacturer, its official model designation, and its serial number. (If the complete 12 item sUA or UA description statement is also needed, it may be combined here with the affidavit statement for convenience.) THE UNDERSIGNED OWNER CERTIFIES 1. For new retail purchased sUA only: I purchased the sUA described above as a new off-the-shelf item on (date) from (name, city, state & country of retail shop or internet vendor) A manufacturer’s bill of sale was not available at the time of purchase, and the (receipt / invoice / other evidence)(is enclosed / is not available) to confirm the purchase. 2. For any size KIT built UA: I built the UA described above from a prefabricated kit. The kit bill of sale from the kit manufacturer (and if applicable, evidence of ownership through all intervening owners) to the undersigned is enclosed. 3. For any size UA: I built the UA described above using salvaged, fabricated, or miscellaneous spare parts. 4. For manufacturers, any size UA: The UA described above is newly manufactured using standard parts in a proprietary design by the undersigned manufacturer. 5. For Used UA of any size: The UA described above was purchased used. My evidence of ownership from the previous http://www.faa.gov/Iicensescertificates/aircrafLcertification/aircraftjegistry/UA/ 6/8 1J16/2O15 Aircraft Registry —Aircraft Registration: Unmanned Aircraft (UA) owner is attached. A good taitri ettort was made to obtain eVidence ot ownership trom the UAs (builder/manutacturer/last USCA Case #15-1495 Document #1590543 Filed: 12/24/2015 Page 70 of 71 registered owner/other) through all intervening owners to the previous owner. (Enter explanation of aircraft’s history and whereabouts, why any ownership change is not documented by a bill of sale and what evidence of the transaction(s) is provided.) To the best of the undersigned owner’s knowledge, the information provided above is correct, the described UA is not registered in another country, and the undersigned is the aircraft’s rightful owner. Name(s) of Owner(s): Signature(s): Title of Signers: Address: Telephone: NOTARY PUBLIC State: County: Country: Subscribed and sworn before me this: day of: Signature: (Signature of individual authorized under local law to administer oaths) My Commission Expires: (Seal as required by State or local law.) Selling your US. registered sUA or UA: • The seller should execute a bill of sale transferring all or a specific portion of their right, title and interest in the sUA or UA to the purchaser. Provide the original signed bill of sale to the purchaser. Use the aircraft description shown on the registration certificate or the Search Aircraft Registration Information (http:/!registrv.faa .gov/aircraftingu iry/) website to correctly describe the sUA or UA on the bill of sale. • The seller should also retain their Certificate of Aircraft Registration, AC Form 8050-3, complete the applicable items on the reverse side, and return it to the FAA Aircraft Registration Branch (htt:!/www.faa .gov/Iicenses certificates/aircraft certification/aircraft reQistrv/contact aircraft certification!). • The purchaser should forward the bill of sale with the seller’s original signature, a completed Aircraft Registration Application, AC Form 8050-1, and the $5.00 registration fee to the FAA Aircraft Registration Branch (http://www.faa .gov/licenses certificates/aircraft certification/aircraft registry/contact aircraft certification!). • All signatures on all forms must have the typed or printed name of the signer next to their signature in the signature block. • All fees should be paid by check or money order made payable to the Federal Aviation Administration. Helpful links for sUA and UA registration. Aircraft owned by a Limited Liability Corporation, LLC (Http://www.faa .gov/licenses certificates/aircraft_certification/aircraft_registrv/media/LLCINFO.pdf) (PDF) Aircraft Registration Forms Information to Aid in the Registration of U.S. Civil Aircraft (http://www.faa.gov/licenses_certificates/aircraft_certification/aircraft_registry/media/8050-94.pdf) (PDF) Information to Aid in The Recording of Aircraft Ownership and Security Documents (http://www.faa .Qov/licenses certificates/aircraft_certification/aircraft_registry/media/AFS-750-93.pdf) (PDF) About Aircraft Registration Renewal (http://www.faa.gov/Iicenses certificates/aircraft certification/aircraft_registry/reregistration!) Contact the Aircraft Registration Branch, by telephone or e-mail for assistance http://www.faa.gov/licenses_certificates/aircraft_certification/aircraftjegistry/UN 7/8 12/16/2015 Aircraft Registry Aircraft Registration: Unmanned Aircraft (UA) jfltp://www.Taa.gov/IIcensescertIncates/aircrattcerti1ication/aircratt reo istry/contact_aircratt_certitication/teIep s) USCA Case #15-1495 Document #1590543 Filed: 12/24/2015 Page 71 ofnoneNumber 71 Operating Hobby or Recreational sUA and Model Aircraft (http://www.faa.gov/uas/model aircraft!) — FAA UAS Interation Office webpage (http://www.faa.Qov/uas!) 14 Code of Federal Regulations Part 47 Aircraft Registration Regulations (http://www.ecfr.gov/ci-bin/text-idx? SID=1 Of2c4539O74faceOafl 6e24e02809f8&node=ptl 4.1 .47&rgn=d iv5httD:J/wwwecfr.clov/cQi-bin/text-idx ? - SID=1 Of2c4539O74faceOafl 6e24e02809t8&node=ntl 4.1 .47&rcindiv5) Page last modified: August 21,2015 9:45:12 AM EDT This page was originally published at: http://www.faa.gov!licenses_certificates!aircraft_certification/aircraft_registry/ UAI http:llwww.faa.gov/licenses_certificates/aircraft_certificationlaircraft_registry/UN 8/8