[Federal Register Volume 86, Number 10 (Friday, January 15, 2021)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 4390-4513]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2020-28948]
[[Page 4389]]
Vol. 86
Friday,
No. 10
January 15, 2021
Part IV
Department of Transportation
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Federal Aviation Administration
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
14 CFR Parts 1, 11, 47, et al.
Remote Identification of Unmanned Aircraft; Final Rule
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 10 / Friday, January 15, 2021 / Rules
and Regulations
[[Page 4390]]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
Federal Aviation Administration
14 CFR Parts 1, 11, 47, 48, 89, 91, and 107
[Docket No.: FAA-2019-1100; Amdt. Nos. 1-75, 11-63, 47-31, 48-3, 89-1,
91-361, and 107-7]
RIN 2120-AL31
Remote Identification of Unmanned Aircraft
AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), Department of
Transportation (DOT).
ACTION: Final rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: This action requires the remote identification of unmanned
aircraft. The remote identification of unmanned aircraft in the
airspace of the United States will address safety, national security,
and law enforcement concerns regarding the further integration of these
aircraft into the airspace of the United States, laying a foundation
for enabling greater operational capabilities.
DATES:
Effective dates: This rule is effective March 16, 2021, except for
amendatory instruction 19, adding subpart C to part 89, which is
effective September 16, 2022.
Incorporation by reference: The incorporation by reference of
certain publications listed in the rule is approved by the Director of
the Federal Register as of March 16, 2021.
Compliance dates: Compliance with Sec. Sec. 89.510 and 89.515 is
required September 16, 2022. Compliance with Sec. Sec. 89.105, 89.110,
and 89.115, and subpart C of part 89 is required September 16, 2023.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ben Walsh, Flight Technologies and
Procedures Division, Federal Aviation Administration, 470 L'Enfant
Plaza SW, Suite 4102, Washington, DC, 20024; telephone 1-844-FLY-MY-UA
(1-844-359-6981); email: UAShelp@faa.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Table of Contents
I. Executive Summary
A. Remote Identification Requirements
B. Registration Requirements
C. Elimination of the Network-Based Remote Identification
Requirement
D. Summary of Benefits and Costs
II. Authority for This Rulemaking
III. Background
IV. Remote Identification of Unmanned Aircraft
A. Clarification of Use of the Term Unmanned Aircraft in This
Rule
B. Purpose for the Remote Identification of Unmanned Aircraft
C. Public Comments and FAA Response
V. Terms Used in This Rule
A. Definition of Unmanned Aircraft System
B. Definition of Visual Line of Sight
C. Definition of Broadcast
D. Definition of Home-Built Unmanned Aircraft
E. Definition of Declaration of Compliance
F. Requests for Other Definitions
VI. Applicability of Operating Requirements
A. Discussion of the Final Rule
B. Public Comments and FAA Response
VII. Operating Requirements for Remote Identification
A. Elimination of Network-Based Remote Identification
Requirement
B. Limited Remote Identification UAS
C. Standard Remote Identification Unmanned Aircraft
D. Remote Identification Broadcast Modules
E. Other Broadcast Requirements Applicable to Standard Remote
Identification Unmanned Aircraft and Unmanned Aircraft With Remote
Identification Broadcast Modules
F. Unmanned Aircraft Without Remote Identification
VIII. Message Elements and Minimum Performance Requirements:
Standard Remote Identification Unmanned Aircraft
A. Message Elements for Standard Remote Identification Unmanned
Aircraft
B. Minimum Performance Requirements for Standard Remote
Identification Unmanned Aircraft
C. Message Elements Performance Requirements for Standard Remote
Identification Unmanned Aircraft
IX. Message Elements and Minimum Performance Requirements: Remote
Identification Broadcast Modules
X. Privacy Concerns on the Broadcast of Remote Identification
Information
A. Discussion of the Final Rule
B. Public Comments and FAA Response
XI. Government and Law Enforcement Access to Remote Identification
Information
A. Discussion of the Final Rule
B. Public Comments and FAA Response
XII. FAA-Recognized Identification Areas
A. Discussion of the Final Rule
B. Eligibility
C. Time Limit for Submitting an Application To Request an FAA-
Recognized Identification Area
D. Process To Request an FAA-Recognized Identification Area and
FAA Review for Approval
E. Official List of FAA-Recognized Identification Areas
F. Amendment of the FAA-Recognized Identification Area
G. Duration of an FAA-Recognized Identification Area,
Expiration, and Renewal
H. Requests To Terminate an FAA-Recognized Identification Area
I. Termination by FAA and Petitions To Reconsider the FAA's
Decision To Terminate an FAA-Recognized Identification Area
XIII. Means of Compliance
A. Performance-Based Regulation
B. Applicability and General Comments
C. Submission of a Means of Compliance
D. Acceptance of a Means of Compliance
E. Rescission of FAA Acceptance of a Means of Compliance
F. Record Retention Requirements
XIV. Remote Identification Design and Production
A. Applicability of Design and Production Requirements
B. Exceptions to the Applicability of Design and Production
Requirements
C. Requirement To Issue Serial Numbers
D. Labeling Requirements
E. Production Requirements
F. Accountability
G. Filing a Declaration of Compliance
H. Acceptance of a Declaration of Compliance
I. Rescission of FAA Acceptance of a Declaration of Compliance
J. Record Retention
XV. Registration
A. Aircraft Registration Requirements
B. Registration Fees for the Registration of Individual Aircraft
C. Information Included in the Application for Registration
D. Proposed Changes to the Registration Requirements To Require
a Serial Number as Part of the Registration Process
E. Serial Number Marking
F. Compliance Dates
XVI. Foreign Registered Civil Unmanned Aircraft Operated in the
United States
A. Discussion of the Final Rule
B. Public Comments and FAA Response
XVII. ADS-B Out and Transponders for Remote Identification
A. Discussion of the Final Rule
B. Public Comments and FAA Response
XVIII. Environmental Analysis
A. Public Comments and FAA Response
XIX. Effective and Compliance Dates
A. Effective Date of This Rule
B. Production Requirements Compliance Date
C. Operational Requirements Compliance Date
D. Incentives for Early Compliance
XX. Comments on the Regulatory Impact Analysis--Benefits and Costs
A. General Comments about Cost Impacts of the Rule
B. Comments on Benefits and Cost Savings
C. Comments on Data and Assumptions
D. Comments on Regulatory Alternatives
E. Miscellaneous Comments
XXI. Guidance Documents
XXII. Regulatory Notices and Analyses
A. Regulatory Evaluation
B. Regulatory Flexibility Act
C. International Trade Impact Assessment
D. Unfunded Mandates Assessment
E. Paperwork Reduction Act
F. International Compatibility and Cooperation
G. Environmental Analysis
XXIII. Executive Order Determinations
A. Executive Order 13132, Federalism
B. Executive Order 13175, Consultation and Coordination With
Indian Tribal Governments
[[Page 4391]]
C. Executive Order 13211, Regulations That Significantly Affect
Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use
D. Executive Order 13609, Promoting International Regulatory
Cooperation
E. Executive Order 13771, Reducing Regulation and Controlling
Regulatory Costs
XXIV. Additional Information
A. Availability of Rulemaking Documents
B. Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act
List of Abbreviations Frequently Used in This Document
AC--Advisory Circular
ADS-B--Automatic Dependent Surveillance-Broadcast
AGL--above ground level
ARC--Aviation Rulemaking Committee
ATC--Air traffic control
BVLOS--Beyond visual line of sight
DOT--U.S. Department of Transportation
FAA--Federal Aviation Administration
GPS--Global Positioning System
ICAO--International Civil Aviation Organization
LAANC--Low Altitude Authorization and Notification Capability
LOS--line-of-sight
MOA--Memorandum of Agreement
NPRM--notice of proposed rulemaking
OMB--Office of Management and Budget
UAS--Unmanned aircraft system
UAS-ID ARC--UAS Identification and Tracking Aviation Rulemaking
Committee
USS--UAS service supplier
UTM--Unmanned aircraft systems traffic management
VLOS--visual line of sight
I. Executive Summary
This rule establishes requirements for the remote identification of
unmanned aircraft \1\ operated in the airspace of the United States.
Remote identification (commonly known as Remote ID) is the capability
of an unmanned aircraft in flight to provide certain identification,
location, and performance information that people on the ground and
other airspace users can receive. The remote identification of unmanned
aircraft is necessary to ensure public safety and the safety and
efficiency of the airspace of the United States. Remote identification
provides airspace awareness to the FAA, national security agencies, law
enforcement entities, and other government officials. The information
can be used to distinguish compliant airspace users from those
potentially posing a safety or security risk. Remote identification
will become increasingly important as the number of unmanned aircraft
operations increases in all classes of airspace in the United States.
While remote identification capability alone will not enable routine
expanded operations, such as operations over people or beyond visual
line of sight, it is the next incremental step toward enabling those
operations.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ The FAA does not use the terms unmanned aircraft system and
unmanned aircraft interchangeably. The FAA uses the term unmanned
aircraft as defined in 14 CFR 1.1 to refer specifically to the
unmanned aircraft itself. The FAA uses the term unmanned aircraft
system to refer to both the unmanned aircraft and any communication
links and components that control the unmanned aircraft. As
explained in section V.A of this rule, the FAA is adding the
definition of unmanned aircraft system to 14 CFR part 1.
The FAA acknowledges that UAS may have components produced by
different manufacturers (e.g., an unmanned aircraft could be
manufactured by one manufacturer and the control station could be
manufactured by another). In addition, unmanned aircraft that
operate beyond the radio-line-of-sight may use third-party
communication links. As finalized, the remote identification
requirements in this final rule apply to the operation and the
design and production of unmanned aircraft. Unmanned aircraft
producers are responsible for ensuring that the unmanned aircraft
comply with the design and production requirements of this rule even
when the unmanned aircraft uses control station equipment (such as a
smart phone) or communication links manufactured by a different
person. The unmanned aircraft producer must address how any
dependencies on control station functionality are incorporated as
part of the remote identification design and production
requirements.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Unmanned aircraft operating in the airspace of the United States
are subject to the operating requirements of this rule, irrespective of
whether they are operating for recreational or commercial purposes. The
rule requires operators to seek special authorization to operate
unmanned aircraft without remote identification for aeronautical
research and other limited purposes.
Unmanned aircraft produced for operation in the airspace of the
United States are subject to the production requirements of this rule.
There are limited exceptions allowing the production of unmanned
aircraft without remote identification, which include home-built
unmanned aircraft and unmanned aircraft of the United States
Government, amongst others.
A. Remote Identification Requirements
There are three ways to comply with the operational requirements
for remote identification. The first way is to operate a standard
remote identification unmanned aircraft that broadcasts identification,
location, and performance information of the unmanned aircraft and
control station. The second way to comply is by operating an unmanned
aircraft with a remote identification broadcast module. The broadcast
module, which broadcasts identification, location, and take-off
information, may be a separate device that is attached to an unmanned
aircraft, or a feature built into the aircraft. The third way to comply
allows for the operation of unmanned aircraft without any remote
identification equipment, where the UAS is operated at specific FAA-
recognized identification areas. The requirements for all three of
these paths to compliance are specified in this rule.
Except in accordance with the requirements of this rule, no
unmanned aircraft can be produced for operation in the airspace of the
United States after September 16, 2022, and no unmanned aircraft can be
operated in the airspace of the United States after September 16, 2023.
1. Standard Remote Identification Unmanned Aircraft
Standard remote identification unmanned aircraft broadcast the
remote identification message elements directly from the unmanned
aircraft from takeoff to shutdown. The required message elements
include: (1) A unique identifier to establish the identity of the
unmanned aircraft; (2) an indication of the unmanned aircraft latitude,
longitude, geometric altitude, and velocity; (3) an indication of the
control station latitude, longitude, and geometric altitude; (4) a time
mark; and (5) an emergency status indication. Operators may choose
whether to use the serial number of the unmanned aircraft or a session
ID (e.g., an alternative form of identification that provides
additional privacy to the operator) as the unique identifier. The
required message elements for standard remote identification unmanned
aircraft are discussed in section VIII.A of this preamble.
A person can operate a standard remote identification unmanned
aircraft only if: (1) It has a serial number that is listed on an FAA-
accepted declaration of compliance; (2) its remote identification
equipment is functional and complies with the requirements of the rule
from takeoff to shutdown; (3) its remote identification equipment and
functionality have not been disabled; and (4) the Certificate of
Aircraft Registration of the unmanned aircraft used in the operation
must include the serial number of the unmanned aircraft, as per
applicable requirements of parts 47 and 48, or the serial number of the
unmanned aircraft must be provided to the FAA in a notice of
identification pursuant to Sec. 89.130 prior to the operation.
Persons operating a standard remote identification unmanned
aircraft in the airspace of the United States must comply with the
operational rules in subpart B of part 89 by September 16, 2023.
Operating requirements for standard remote identification unmanned
aircraft are discussed in greater detail in section VII.C of this
preamble.
[[Page 4392]]
2. Remote Identification Broadcast Modules
An unmanned aircraft can be equipped with a remote identification
broadcast module that broadcasts message elements from takeoff to
shutdown. The required message elements include: (1) The serial number
of the broadcast module assigned by the producer; (2) an indication of
the latitude, longitude, geometric altitude, and velocity of the
unmanned aircraft; (3) an indication of the latitude, longitude, and
geometric altitude of the unmanned aircraft takeoff location; and (4) a
time mark. The required message elements for remote identification
broadcast modules are discussed in section IX of this preamble.
Persons can operate an unmanned aircraft equipped with a remote
identification broadcast module only if: (1) The remote identification
broadcast module meets the requirements of this rule; (2) the serial
number of the remote identification broadcast module is listed on an
FAA-accepted declaration of compliance; (3) the Certificate of Aircraft
Registration of the unmanned aircraft used in the operation includes
the serial number of the remote identification broadcast module, or the
serial number of the unmanned aircraft must be provided to the FAA in a
notice of identification pursuant to Sec. 89.130 prior to the
operation; (4) from takeoff to shutdown the remote identification
broadcast module broadcasts the remote identification message elements
from the unmanned aircraft; and (5) the person manipulating the flight
controls of the unmanned aircraft system must be able to see the
unmanned aircraft at all times throughout the operation.
A person operating an unmanned aircraft equipped with a remote
identification broadcast module in the airspace of the United States
must comply with the operational rules in subpart B of part 89 by
September 16, 2023.
The operating requirements for remote identification broadcast
modules are discussed in greater detail in section VII.D of this
preamble.
3. Unmanned Aircraft Without Remote Identification Equipment
This rule requires all unmanned aircraft operating in the airspace
of the United States to have remote identification capabilities, except
as described below.
Upon full implementation of this rule, most unmanned aircraft will
have to be produced as standard remote identification unmanned
aircraft. However, there will be some unmanned aircraft (e.g., home-
built unmanned aircraft and existing unmanned aircraft produced prior
to the date of compliance of the production requirements of this rule)
that might not meet the requirements for standard remote identification
unmanned aircraft.
Persons operating an unmanned aircraft without remote
identification in the airspace of the United States must comply with
the operational rules in subpart B of part 89 by September 16, 2023.
Unless operating under an exception to the remote identification
operating requirements, a person operating an unmanned aircraft without
remote identification must always operate within visual line of sight
\2\ and within an FAA-recognized identification area.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ Part 89 limits unmanned aircraft without remote
identification and unmanned aircraft with remote identification
broadcast modules to visual line of sight operations. Nothing in
part 89 authorizes beyond visual line of sight (BVLOS) operations
for any unmanned aircraft; such authority will spring from other FAA
regulations.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
An FAA-recognized identification area is a defined geographic area
where persons can operate UAS without remote identification, provided
they maintain visual line of sight. Persons eligible to request
establishment of FAA-recognized identification areas include community-
based organizations recognized by the Administrator and educational
institutions including primary and secondary educational institutions,
trade schools, colleges, and universities. The FAA will begin accepting
applications for FAA-recognized identification areas on September 16,
2022. The FAA will maintain a list of FAA-recognized identification
areas at https://www.faa.gov. FAA-recognized identification areas are
discussed further in section XII of this preamble.
4. Prohibition Against the Use of ADS-B Out and Transponders
This rule prohibits use of ADS-B Out and transponders for UAS
operations under 14 CFR part 107 unless otherwise authorized by the
FAA, and defines when ADS-B Out is appropriate for UAS operating under
part 91. The FAA is concerned the potential proliferation of ADS-B Out
transmitters on unmanned aircraft may negatively affect the safe
operation of manned aircraft in the airspace of the United States. The
projected numbers of unmanned aircraft operations have the potential to
saturate available ADS-B frequencies, affecting ADS-B capabilities for
manned aircraft and potentially blinding ADS-B ground receivers.
Therefore, unmanned aircraft operators, with limited exceptions, are
prohibited from using ADS-B Out or transponders. The prohibition
against the use of ADS-B Out and transponders is discussed in section
XVII of this preamble.
Persons must comply with the ADS-B Out and transponder prohibition
as of March 16, 2021.
5. Design and Production
Standard remote identification unmanned aircraft and remote
identification broadcast modules must be designed and produced to meet
the requirements of this rule. The FAA recognizes that UAS technology
is continually evolving, making it necessary to harmonize new
regulatory action with technological advancements. To promote that
harmonization, the FAA is implementing performance-based requirements
to describe the desired outcomes, goals, and results for remote
identification without establishing a specific means or process for
regulated entities to follow.
A person designing or producing a standard remote identification
unmanned aircraft or broadcast module for operation in the United
States must show that the unmanned aircraft or broadcast module meets
the requirements of an FAA-accepted means of compliance. A means of
compliance describes the methods by which the person complies with the
performance-based requirements for remote identification.
Under this rule, anyone can create a means of compliance; however,
the FAA must accept that means of compliance before it can be used for
the design or production of any standard remote identification unmanned
aircraft or remote identification broadcast module. A person seeking
acceptance by the FAA of a means of compliance for standard remote
identification unmanned aircraft or remote identification broadcast
modules is required to submit the means of compliance to the FAA. The
FAA reviews the means of compliance to determine if it meets the
minimum performance requirements and includes appropriate testing and
validation procedures in accordance with the rule. Specifically, the
person must submit a detailed description of the means of compliance, a
justification for how the means of compliance meets the minimum
performance requirements of the rule, and any substantiating material
the person wishes the FAA to consider as part of the application. FAA-
accepted consensus standards are one way, but not the only way, to show
compliance
[[Page 4393]]
with the performance requirements of this rule. Accordingly, the FAA
encourages consensus standards bodies to develop means of compliance
and submit them to the FAA for acceptance.\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ A means of compliance is not considered to be ``FAA-
accepted'' until the means of compliance has been evaluated by the
FAA, the submitter has been notified of acceptance, and the means of
compliance has been published at https://www.faa.gov as available
for use in meeting the requirements of part 89.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The FAA indicates acceptance of a means of compliance by notifying
the submitter of the acceptance of the proposed means of compliance.
The FAA also expects to notify the public that it has accepted the
means of compliance by including it on a list of accepted means of
compliance at https://www.faa.gov. The FAA will not disclose
commercially sensitive information from the means of compliance that
has been marked as such. The FAA may disclose the non-proprietary
broadcast specification and radio frequency spectrum so that sufficient
information is available to develop receiving and processing equipment
and software for the FAA, law enforcement, and members of the public.
See section XIII of this preamble for more information on means of
compliance and FAA acceptance.
In addition, a person responsible for the production of standard
remote identification unmanned aircraft (with limited exceptions) or
remote identification broadcast modules is required to:
Issue each unmanned aircraft or remote identification
broadcast module a serial number that complies with the ANSI/CTA-2063-A
serial number standard.
Label the unmanned aircraft or remote identification
broadcast module to indicate that it is remote identification
compliant.
Submit a declaration of compliance for acceptance by the
FAA, declaring that the standard remote identification unmanned
aircraft or remote identification broadcast module complies with the
requirements of the rule.
A person producing a standard remote identification unmanned
aircraft for operation in the airspace of the United States must comply
with the requirements of subpart F of part 89 by September 16, 2022.
A person producing a remote identification broadcast module must
comply with the requirements of subpart F of part 89 by March 16, 2021.
See the design and production requirements in section XIV of this
preamble for more information about the production requirements for
standard remote identification unmanned aircraft and remote
identification broadcast modules, and the process for declarations of
compliance.
B. Registration Requirements
The FAA proposed requiring all unmanned aircraft, including those
used for limited recreational operations, to obtain a unique
registration number. After reviewing comments and further
consideration, the FAA decided not to adopt this requirement. Owners of
small unmanned aircraft used in civil operations (including commercial
operations), limited recreational operations,\4\ or public aircraft
operations, among others, continue to be eligible to register the
unmanned aircraft under part 48 in one of two ways: (1) Under an
individual registration number issued to each unmanned aircraft; or (2)
under a single registration number issued to an owner of multiple
unmanned aircraft used exclusively for limited recreational operations.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ The FAA is revising its regulations and guidance documents
to delete references to ``model aircraft.'' Consistent with the
exception for limited recreational operations of unmanned aircraft
in 49 U.S.C. 44809, the FAA now refers to recreational unmanned
aircraft or limited recreational operations of UAS.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The FAA adopts the requirement tying remote identification
requirements to registration requirements and the requirements to
submit the unmanned aircraft's serial number and other information.
This rule also revises and adopts certain requirements originally
established in the interim final rule on Registration and Marking
Requirements for Small Unmanned Aircraft.\5\ These requirements
directly affect registration-related proposals made in the Remote
Identification of Unmanned Aircraft Systems NPRM (``the NPRM'') (84 FR
72438, Dec. 31, 2019). See section XV of this preamble for more
information about registration requirements.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ 80 FR 78593.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
C. Elimination of the Network-Based Remote Identification Requirement
In the NPRM, the FAA proposed requiring standard remote
identification UAS and limited remote identification UAS to transmit
remote identification message elements through a network connection.\6\
To comply with this requirement, UAS would have had to transmit the
remote identification message elements through the internet to a third-
party service provider, referred to as a Remote ID UAS Service Supplier
(USS). Remote ID USS would have collected and, as appropriate,
disseminated the remote identification information through the
internet.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\6\ As used in this rule, terms such as ``network,'' ``network-
based requirement,'' ``network solution,'' ``network framework,''
and ``network transmission'' typically refer to the transmission of
remote identification message elements through an internet
connection to a Remote ID USS, as proposed in the NPRM.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In response to the NPRM, the FAA received significant feedback
about the network requirement identifying both public opposition to,
and technical challenges with, implementing the network requirements.
The FAA had not foreseen or accounted for many of these challenges when
it proposed using the network solution and USS framework. After careful
consideration of these challenges, informed by public comment, the FAA
decided to eliminate the requirement in this rulemaking to transmit
remote identification messages through an internet connection to a
Remote ID USS.
Without the requirement to transmit remote identification through
the internet, limited remote identification UAS, as proposed, would
have no means to disseminate remote identification information. As a
result, limited remote identification UAS as proposed in the NPRM are
no longer a viable concept. Nonetheless, the FAA recognizes the need
for the existing unmanned aircraft fleet to be able to comply with
remote identification requirements. To meet that need, the FAA
incorporates a modified regulatory framework in this rule under which
persons can retrofit unmanned aircraft with remote identification
broadcast modules.
The FAA's decision to eliminate the network-based remote
identification requirement is discussed in greater detail in section
VII.A of this preamble.
D. Summary of Benefits and Costs
This rule requires remote identification of unmanned aircraft to
address safety, security, and law enforcement concerns regarding the
further integration of these aircraft into the airspace of the United
States. The remote identification framework promotes compliance by
operators of unmanned aircraft by providing UAS-specific data, which
may be used in tandem with new technologies and infrastructure to
provide airspace awareness to the FAA, national security agencies, law
enforcement entities, and other government officials which can
[[Page 4394]]
use the data to discern compliant airspace users from those potentially
posing a safety or security risk. In addition, as being finalized, the
rule reduces obsolescence of the existing unmanned aircraft fleet.
This rule results in additional costs for persons responsible for
the production of unmanned aircraft, owners and operators of registered
unmanned aircraft, entities requesting the establishment of an FAA-
recognized identification area, and the FAA. This rule provides cost
savings for the FAA from a reduction in hours and associated costs
expended investigating unmanned aircraft incidents.\7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\7\ This analysis includes quantified savings to the FAA only. A
variety of other entities involved with airport operations, facility
and infrastructure security, and law enforcement would also save
time and resources involved with unmanned aircraft identification
and incident reporting, response, and investigation.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The analysis of this rule is based on the fleet forecast for small
unmanned aircraft as published in the FAA Aerospace Forecast 2020-
2040.\8\ The FAA forecast includes base, low, and high scenarios. This
analysis provides a range of net impacts from low to high based on
these forecast scenarios. The FAA considers the primary estimate of net
impacts of the rule to be the base scenario. For the primary estimate,
over a 10-year period of analysis this rule would result in present net
value costs of about $227.1 million at a three percent discount rate
with annualized net costs of about $26.6 million. At a seven percent
discount rate, the present value net costs are about $186.5 million
with annualized net costs of $26.6 million.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\8\ FAA Aerospace Forecast Fiscal Years 2020-2040, available at
https://www.faa.gov/data_research/aviation/aerospace_forecasts/media/FY2020-40_FAA_Aerospace_Forecast.pdf. The forecast provides a
base (i.e., likely) with high (or optimistic) and low (or
pessimistic) scenarios.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The following table presents a summary of the primary estimates of
the quantified costs and cost savings of this rule, as well as
estimates for the low and high forecast scenarios. Additional details
are provided in the Regulatory Evaluation section of this rule and in
the Regulatory Impact Analysis available in the docket for this
rulemaking.
Table 1--Costs and Savings of Final Rule
[$Millions] *
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
10 Year present Annualized 10 Year present Annualized
Forecast scenario value (3%) (3%) value (7%) (7%)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Base Scenario--Primary Estimate:
Costs..................................... 230.69 27.04 189.38 26.96
Cost Savings.............................. (3.58) (0.42) (2.85) (0.41)
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Net Costs............................. 227.11 26.62 186.53 26.56
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Low Scenario:
Costs..................................... 217.08 25.45 178.60 25.43
Cost Savings.............................. (3.47) (0.41) (2.77) (0.39)
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Net Costs............................. 213.61 25.04 175.83 25.03
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
High Scenario:
Costs..................................... 250.18 29.33 204.90 29.17
Cost Savings.............................. (3.74) (0.44) (2.98) (0.42)
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Net Costs............................. 246.44 28.89 201.92 28.75
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* Table notes: Columns may not sum to total due to rounding. Savings are shown in parenthesis to distinguish
from costs. Estimates are provided at three and seven percent discount rates per Office of Management and
Budget (OMB) guidance.
The final rule incorporates several important changes that reduce
costs and provide additional flexibilities compared to the proposed
rule. These include simplifying the approach to remote identification
by requiring only broadcast transmission of data, and authorizing a
remote identification broadcast module option that enables retrofitting
of unmanned aircraft that do not meet the requirements for standard
remote identification unmanned aircraft. These changes allow unmanned
aircraft built without remote identification (e.g., existing unmanned
aircraft fleet, home built unmanned aircraft) to be operated outside of
FAA-recognized identification areas. These changes also eliminate the
requirement for a person to connect the unmanned aircraft to the
internet. This shift allows unmanned aircraft with remote
identification broadcast modules to operate in areas where the internet
is unavailable. As a result, the final rule reduces compliance costs
compared to the proposed rule.
The net costs of the final rule have decreased by about 60 percent
as compared to the proposed rule. The NPRM stated that the primary
estimate over a 10-year period of analysis for the proposed rule would
have resulted in net present value costs of about $582 million at a
three percent discount rate with annualized net costs of about $68
million. At a seven percent discount rate, the net present value costs
for the proposed rule were about $474 million with annualized net costs
of $67 million.
The FAA expects this rule will result in several important benefits
and enhancements to support safety and security in the airspace of the
United States. Remote identification provides information that helps
address existing challenges faced by the FAA, law enforcement entities,
and national security agencies responsible for the safety and security
of the airspace of the United States. As unmanned aircraft operations
increase, so does the risk of unmanned aircraft being operated in close
proximity to manned aircraft, or people and property on the ground, or
in airspace unsuitable for these operations. Remote identification
provides a means to identify these aircraft and locate the person who
controls them (e.g., operators, pilots in command). It allows the FAA,
law
[[Page 4395]]
enforcement, and national security agencies to distinguish compliant
airspace users from those potentially posing a safety or security risk.
It permits the FAA and law enforcement to conduct oversight of persons
operating UAS and to determine whether compliance actions, enforcement,
educational, training, or other types of actions are needed to mitigate
safety or security risks and foster increased compliance with
regulations. Remote identification data also informs the public and
users of the airspace of the United States of the local operations that
are being conducted at any given moment.
II. Authority for This Rulemaking
The FAA's authority to issue rules on aviation safety is found in
Title 49 of the United States Code (49 U.S.C.). Subtitle I, section 106
describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII,
Aviation Programs, describes the scope of the Agency's authority.
This rulemaking is promulgated pursuant to 49 U.S.C. 40103(b)(1)
and (2), which direct the FAA to issue regulations: (1) To ensure the
safety of aircraft and the efficient use of airspace; and (2) to govern
the flight of aircraft for purposes of navigating, protecting and
identifying aircraft, and protecting individuals and property on the
ground. In addition, 49 U.S.C. 44701(a)(5) charges the FAA with
promoting safe flight of civil aircraft by prescribing regulations the
FAA finds necessary for safety in air commerce and national security.
Section 2202 of Public Law 114-190 requires the Administrator to
convene industry stakeholders to facilitate the development of
consensus standards for remotely identifying operators and owners of
UAS and associated unmanned aircraft and to issue regulations or
guidance based on any standards developed.
The Administrator has authority under 49 U.S.C. 44805 to establish
a process for, among other things, accepting risk-based consensus
safety standards related to the design and production of small UAS.
Under 49 U.S.C. 44805(b)(7), one of the considerations the
Administrator must take into account prior to accepting such standards
is any consensus identification standard regarding remote
identification of unmanned aircraft developed pursuant to section 2202
of Public Law 114-190.
In addition, 49 U.S.C. 44809(f) provides that the Administrator is
not prohibited from promulgating rules generally applicable to unmanned
aircraft, including those UAS eligible for the exception for limited
recreational operations of unmanned aircraft. Among other things, this
authority extends to rules relating to the registration and marking of
unmanned aircraft and the standards for remotely identifying owners and
operators of UAS and associated unmanned aircraft.
The FAA has authority to regulate registration of aircraft under 49
U.S.C. 44101-44106 and 44110-44113, which require aircraft to be
registered as a condition of operation, and to establish the
registration requirements and registration processes.
This rulemaking is also 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.
40101(d), which authorizes the FAA to consider in the public interest,
among other things, the enhancement of safety and security as the
highest priorities in air commerce, the regulation of civil and
military operations in the interest of safety and efficiency, and
assistance to law enforcement agencies in the enforcement of laws
related to regulation of controlled substances, to the extent
consistent with aviation safety.
Finally, this rulemaking is also being issued consistent with DOT's
regulatory policy which requires that DOT regulations ``be
technologically neutral, and, to the extent feasible, they should
specify performance objectives, rather than prescribing specific
conduct that regulated entities must adopt.'' \9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\9\ 49 CFR 5.5(e).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
III. Background
The rapid proliferation of unmanned aircraft has created
significant opportunities and challenges for their integration into the
airspace of the United States. The relatively low cost of highly
capable UAS technology has allowed for hundreds of thousands of new
operators to enter the aviation community.
The complexities surrounding the full integration of UAS into the
airspace of the United States have led the FAA to engage in a phased,
incremental, and risk-based approach to rulemaking based on the
statutory authorities delegated to the Agency. On December 16, 2015,
the Administrator and Secretary jointly published an interim final rule
in the Federal Register titled Registration and Marking Requirements
for Small Unmanned Aircraft (``Registration Rule''),\10\ which provides
for a web-based aircraft registration process for small unmanned
aircraft in 14 CFR part 48 that serves as an alternative to the
registration requirements for aircraft established in 14 CFR part 47.
The Registration Rule imposes marking requirements on small unmanned
aircraft registered under part 48, according to which the small
unmanned aircraft must display a unique identifier in a manner that is
visible upon inspection. The unique identifier could be the
registration number issued to an individual or to the small unmanned
aircraft by the FAA Registry or the small unmanned aircraft's serial
number if authorized by the Administrator and provided with the
application for the certificate of aircraft registration.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\10\ 80 FR 78594.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
On June 28, 2016, the FAA and DOT jointly published the final rule
for Operation and Certification of Small Unmanned Aircraft Systems
(``the 2016 Rule'') in the Federal Register.\11\ This was an important
step towards the integration of civil small UAS operations (for
aircraft weighing less than 55 pounds) into the airspace of the United
States. The 2016 Rule set the initial operational structure and certain
restrictions to allow routine civil operations of small UAS in the
airspace of the United States in a safe manner. Prior to the 2016 Rule,
the FAA authorized commercial UAS operations, including but not limited
to real estate photography, precision agriculture, and infrastructure
inspection, under section 333 of Public Law 112-95. Over 5,500
operators received this authorization. The FAA also issued over 900
Certificates of Waiver or Authorization (COA), allowing Federal, State,
and local governments, law enforcement agencies, and public
universities to perform numerous tasks with UAS, including but not
limited to search-and-rescue, border patrol, and research activities.
The 2016 Rule allows certain operations of small UAS to be conducted in
the airspace of the United States without an airworthiness certificate,
exemption, or COA.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\11\ 81 FR 42064.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The 2016 Rule also imposed certain restrictions on small UAS
operations. The restrictions included a prohibition on nighttime
operations, limitations on operations conducted during civil twilight,
restrictions on operations over people, a requirement for all
operations to be conducted within visual line of sight, and other
operational, airspace, and pilot certification requirements. Since the
2016 Rule took effect on August 29, 2016, most low-risk small UAS
operations that were previously authorized on a case-by-case basis
under
[[Page 4396]]
section 333 of Public Law 112-95 became routine operations. With some
exceptions,\12\ these operations are now permitted without further
interaction with the FAA if they comply with the requirements of part
107. Publishing part 107 was the first significant regulatory step to
enable lower risk, less complex UAS operations in the airspace of the
United States.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\12\ See, e.g., 14 CFR 107.41 (requiring prior FAA authorization
for small unmanned aircraft operation in certain types of airspace).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Part 107 opened the airspace of the United States to the vast
majority of routine small UAS operations, allowing flight within visual
line of sight while maintaining flexibility to accommodate future
technological innovations. Part 107 allows individuals to request
waivers from certain provisions, including those prohibiting operations
over people and beyond visual line of sight. Petitions for waivers from
the provisions of part 107 must demonstrate that the petitioner has
provided sufficient mitigations to safely conduct the requested
operation.
On October 5, 2018, Congress enacted Public Law 115-254, also known
as the FAA Reauthorization Act of 2018. The FAA Reauthorization Act of
2018 amended part A of subtitle VII of title 49, United States Code by
inserting a new chapter 448 titled Unmanned Aircraft Systems and
incorporating additional authorities and mandates to support the
further integration of UAS into the airspace of the United States,
including several provisions that specifically deal with the need for
remote identification of UAS. Section 376 of the FAA Reauthorization
Act of 2018 requires the FAA to perform testing of remote
identification technology, and to assess the use of remote
identification for the development of unmanned aircraft systems traffic
management (UTM).
Additional congressional action supports the implementation of
remote identification requirements for most UAS. Section 349 of the FAA
Reauthorization Act of 2018 goes so far as to indicate that the
Administrator may promulgate rules requiring remote identification of
UAS and apply those rules to UAS used for limited recreational
operations.\13\ The provision denotes Congress' acknowledgment that
remote identification is an essential part of the UAS regulatory
framework.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\13\ See 49 U.S.C. 44809.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
On February 13, 2019, the FAA published three rulemaking documents
in the Federal Register as part of the next phase of integrating small
UAS into the airspace of the United States. The first of such documents
was an interim final rule titled ``External Marking Requirement for
Small Unmanned Aircraft,'' \14\ in which the FAA required small
unmanned aircraft owners to display the registration number assigned by
the FAA on an external surface of the aircraft. The second rulemaking
document was a notice of proposed rulemaking titled ``Operation of
Small Unmanned Aircraft Systems Over People,'' \15\ in which the FAA
proposed to allow operations of small unmanned aircraft over people in
certain conditions and operations of small UAS at night without
obtaining a waiver. The third rulemaking document was an advance notice
of proposed rulemaking titled ``Safe and Secure Operations of Small
Unmanned Aircraft Systems,'' \16\ in which the FAA sought information
from the public on whether, and under which circumstances, the FAA
should promulgate new rules to require stand-off distances, additional
operating and performance restrictions, the use of UTM, additional
payload restrictions, and whether the Agency should prescribe UAS
design requirements and require that unmanned aircraft be equipped with
critical safety systems.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\14\ 84 FR 3669.
\15\ 84 FR 3856.
\16\ 84 FR 3732.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
On December 31, 2019, the FAA published the Remote Identification
of Unmanned Aircraft Systems NPRM. The FAA received approximately
53,000 comments on the NPRM. A significant amount of the comments were
submitted by individuals, many of whom identified as recreational
flyers. In addition, the FAA received numerous comments from UAS
manufacturers, other aviation manufacturers, organizations representing
UAS interest groups, organizations representing various sectors of
manned aviation, State and local governments, news media organizations,
academia, and others.
IV. Remote Identification of Unmanned Aircraft
A. Clarification of Use of the Term Unmanned Aircraft in This Rule
As a result of the comments concerning the use of the term unmanned
aircraft system (UAS), the FAA clarifies that the term ``unmanned
aircraft'' is used when referring to the aircraft, and UAS is used when
referring to the entire system, including the control station.
The FAA acknowledges that UAS may have components produced by
different manufacturers (e.g., an unmanned aircraft could be
manufactured by one manufacturer and the control station could be
manufactured by another). In addition, unmanned aircraft that operate
beyond the range of the radio signal being transmitted from the control
station may use third-party communication links, such as the cellular
network. As finalized, the remote identification requirements in this
rule apply to the operation, and the design and production of unmanned
aircraft. Unmanned aircraft producers are responsible for ensuring that
the unmanned aircraft comply with the design and production
requirements of this rule even when the unmanned aircraft uses control
station equipment (such as a smart phone) or communication links
manufactured by a different person. The unmanned aircraft producer must
address how any dependencies on control station functionality are
incorporated as part of the remote identification design and production
requirements.
B. Purpose for the Remote Identification of Unmanned Aircraft
UAS are fundamentally changing aviation and the FAA is committed to
working to fully integrate them into the airspace of the United States.
The next step in that integration is enabling unmanned aircraft
operations over people and at night. Remote identification of unmanned
aircraft is a critical element to enable those operations that
addresses safety and security concerns.
Remote identification is the capability of an unmanned aircraft in
flight to provide identification, location, and performance information
that people on the ground and other airspace users can receive. In its
most basic form, remote identification can be described as an
electronic identification or a ``digital license plate'' for UAS.
Remote identification provides information that helps address
existing challenges of the FAA, law enforcement entities, and national
security agencies responsible for the safety and security of the
airspace of the United States. As a wider variety of UAS operations
such as operations over people are made available, the risk of unmanned
aircraft being operated in an unsafe manner, such as in close proximity
to people and property on the ground, is increased. Remote
identification provides a means to identify these aircraft and locate
the person who controls them (e.g., operators, pilots in command). It
allows the FAA, law enforcement, and national security agencies to
distinguish compliant airspace users from those potentially posing a
safety or security risk. It permits the FAA and law
[[Page 4397]]
enforcement to conduct oversight of persons operating unmanned aircraft
and to determine whether compliance actions, enforcement, educational,
training, or other types of actions are needed to mitigate safety or
security risks and foster increased compliance with regulations.
The requirements for the identification of manned and unmanned
aircraft form an integral part of the FAA's regulatory framework. Prior
to this rule, the requirements included aircraft registration and
marking and electronic identification using transponders and Automatic
Dependent Surveillance-Broadcast (ADS-B). This rule creates a new
regulation, 14 CFR part 89, which establishes the remote identification
requirements for unmanned aircraft. These requirements are particularly
important for unmanned aircraft because the person operating the
unmanned aircraft is not onboard the aircraft, creating challenges for
associating the aircraft with its operator. In addition, the small size
of many unmanned aircraft means the registration marking is only
visible upon close inspection, making visual identification of unmanned
aircraft in flight difficult or impossible.
As discussed in the NPRM, the remote identification framework is
necessary to enable expanded UAS operations and further integration.
This final rule scales that framework to support the next steps in that
integration: Operations over people and operations at night. Though the
NPRM discussed remote identification as a building block for UAS
Traffic Management (UTM), the FAA has determined that, at this time,
this rule will only finalize the broadcast-based remote identification
requirements. See section VII.A of this preamble for a discussion on
the FAA's decision to eliminate network-based remote identification
requirements at this time. The broadcast-based approach of this rule
contains the minimum requirements necessary to allow for remote
identification of unmanned aircraft under the current operational
rules.
C. Public Comments and FAA Response
1. General Support for Remote Identification
Comments: Many commenters expressed general support for the NPRM,
including the Helicopter Association International, the League of
California Cities, and, commenting jointly, the Michigan Department of
Transportation Office of Aeronautics, Michigan Aeronautics Commission,
and Michigan Unmanned Aircraft Systems Task Force. Most commenters in
support of the rule cited improvements to safety and privacy.
Commenters expressed that with UAS becoming increasingly widespread,
the rule would make identification easier, increase the safety of
airspace, particularly for manned aircraft operating at the same
altitudes as unmanned aircraft, and protect citizens' privacy.\17\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\17\ Though remote identification potentially allows for greater
ability of law enforcement to locate the person controlling an
unmanned aircraft, this rule has not been promulgated for the
purpose of addressing concerns about unmanned aircraft that violate
privacy laws.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The International Association of Amusement Parks and Attractions
supported the rule, stating that the rule would enhance situational
awareness and foster accountability of the operator and improved
knowledge for the FAA, law enforcement, and operators of certain
facilities identified by Congress in section 2209 of the FAA Extension,
Safety and Security Act of 2016.\18\ The Edison Electric Institute,
American Public Power Association, and National Rural Electric
Association, commenting jointly, expressed support for the rule and for
FAA's real-time access to UAS location information, particularly over
energy infrastructure. Various institutions of higher education
expressed support for remote identification and mentioned it would
assist law enforcement agencies affiliated with said institutions to
better identify UAS operators, particularly where the UAS poses risk or
nuisance to bystanders, facilities, or other aircraft.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\18\ Section 2209 requires ``the Secretary of Transportation to
establish a process to allow applicants to petition the
Administrator of the Federal Aviation Administration to prohibit or
restrict the operation of an unmanned aircraft in close proximity to
a fixed site facility.'' The FAA Extension, Safety and Security Act
of 2016, Public Law 114-190, sec. 2209, 130 Stat. 615, 633-635
(2016).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The National Transportation Safety Board stated it had no technical
objections provided the FAA can ensure that remote identification
functions do not interfere with aviation safety.
FAA Response: The FAA acknowledges the support of commenters and
finalizes this rule and related policies to implement a remote
identification framework that provides near-real time information
regarding unmanned aircraft operations and increases situational
awareness of unmanned aircraft to the public, operators of other
aircraft, law enforcement and security officials, and other related
entities.
2. General Opposition to Remote Identification
The FAA received a multitude of comments opposing remote
identification. Many of the commenters opposed the concept, as a whole,
while others expressed opposition to specific aspects, concepts, or
proposed in the NPRM.
Comments: Among the comments expressing general disagreement with
the proposed rule was one of the two form letters written and submitted
by the First Person View Freedom Coalition (FPVFC) and 90 of its
members. The commenters argued that the proposed rule would have many
negative effects, including destroying the hobby of building and flying
recreational remote controlled aircraft, making the sport of drone
racing illegal, ending the ``multi-million [dollar] cottage industry
around home built drones,'' outlawing ``acrobatic drone videography,''
imposing costs on both hobbyists and the drone industry by making
current fleets obsolete, and making criminals of hobbyists. These
commenters asked the FAA to rewrite the proposed rule with input from
the FPVFC and Academy of Model Aeronautics (AMA). Similar concerns were
common among many other commenters who opposed the NPRM in general
terms. Instead of finalizing the rule as proposed, a member of the
executive board for the AMA suggested the FAA adopt a ``technology
agnostic'' approach to remote identification, so a variety of technical
solutions could be used to meet the remote identification needs.
The most common objections to the proposed rule were that it would
impose burdens and costs that would make it difficult or impossible for
hobbyists to fly model aircraft; that it would impose an unnecessary
financial burden on UAS or model aircraft owners; and that it would
harm or end the recreational UAS hobby. Commenters noted that it would
be very difficult to upgrade many existing UAS because of the burden of
carrying and powering new equipment such as navigation receivers and
remote identification transmitters. They argued that this would reduce
available flight time and could affect safety of operations if the
additional weight is excessive. The FPVFC form letter and many other
comments included similar objections.
Many commenters, including 33 persons who submitted a form letter
addressed as the ``Traditional Hobbyist Form Letter Campaign,'' argued
that the proposed rule would not achieve its
[[Page 4398]]
objectives of providing safety for the airspace of the United States
and protecting national security. Many of these commenters questioned
whether the FAA provided an adequate justification for the proposed
rule, with many commenters stating the FAA has not demonstrated that
UAS are dangerous. The commenters questioned the need for the rule,
often stating that existing regulations and standards are sufficient
for protecting public safety. They mentioned that historically UAS have
not been dangerous and have not caused fatalities and indicated the FAA
should concentrate on enforcing current rules. A related and separate
statement repeatedly made by commenters was that model aircraft are not
dangerous. These comments often distinguish between model aircraft and
other UAS, stating that model aircraft are not dangerous because they
must remain in the pilot's visual line of sight to stay airborne due to
lack of navigation equipment, flight planning capability, flight
stabilization, first person view capability, or automation that is
common on newer UAS. Some commenters saw the proposed rule as an
attempt to privatize the airspace in which UAS and model aircraft
operate.
Commenters indicated remote identification would have negative
effects. Many stated the proposed rule would harm innovation in the UAS
industry. Others believed it would harm the educational and research
potential of UAS or model aviation. Commenters pointed to model
aviation driving young people's interest in science, technology,
engineering, and math fields and aviation; and providing educational
benefits that relate to these fields. Those commenters believed the
rule would contribute to exacerbating a national shortage of manned
aircraft pilots.
Many commenters believed the rule would be unenforceable. A related
argument was that only lawful flyers would follow the rules and that
the rule would do nothing to change the behavior of bad actors. Some
expressed concerns for widespread noncompliance with the rule.
A significant number of commenters opposed any regulation of UAS
used for recreational operations.
A number of commenters believed remote identification requirements
for UAS are stricter than ADS-B Out or transponder requirements for
manned aircraft. Several commenters suggested permitting UAS operations
without remote identification in uncontrolled airspace and away from
airports, similar to the requirements for ADS-B Out that only apply in
certain airspace. Commenters also stated that manned aircraft should be
required to broadcast ADS-B Out in all airspace if all UAS are required
to transmit remote identification. Several commenters also noted that
manned aircraft were offered grants and rebates to help cover the cost
of ADS-B implementation and had over 10 years to equip for ADS-B Out
compared to the shorter implementation time proposed for remote
identification.
FAA Response: The FAA acknowledges the significant number of
comments opposing the proposed regulation and related policies. After
further consideration of public comments, the FAA has modified some of
the remote identification policies in the final rule, as further
discussed throughout this preamble, to reduce the burdens on unmanned
aircraft operators and producers while maintaining the necessary
requirements to address the safety and security needs of the FAA, law
enforcement, and national security agencies. The FAA does not agree
with commenters who believed remote identification will harm innovation
in the UAS industry. On the contrary, the Agency believes that this
performance-based regulation provides opportunities for innovation and
growth of the UAS industry by addressing the security concerns
associated with unmanned aircraft flight at night and over people. In
addition, the FAA does not agree that the remote identification
requirements are stricter than ADS-B Out requirements. Remote
identification has fewer technical requirements compared to ADS-B, and
this rule provides accommodations for unmanned aircraft operations
without remote identification.
The FAA does not agree that the requirements of this rule are
unenforceable. In fact, the enforcement mechanism for this rule will in
many respects parallel existing regulatory compliance activities for
manned aviation. The Agency intends to meet its statutory and
regulatory compliance and enforcement responsibilities by following a
documented compliance and enforcement program that includes legal
enforcement action, including civil penalties and certificate actions,
as appropriate, to address violations and help deter future violations.
Many commenters opposed remote identification because they believed
it would impact the recreational UAS community. The remote
identification requirements apply to unmanned aircraft operating in the
airspace of the United States irrespective of what the unmanned
aircraft are being used for. However, the FAA has incorporated
additional flexibilities into this rule to facilitate compliance with
the remote identification requirements. For example, an operator of an
unmanned aircraft without remote identification can now retrofit the
unmanned aircraft with a remote identification broadcast module to
identify remotely. See section VII.D of this preamble for further
discussion of remote identification broadcast modules.
The Agency has also eliminated the requirement to transmit remote
identification message elements through the internet to a Remote ID
USS, which will decrease costs to operators by eliminating the
potential for subscription fees. See section VII.A of this preamble for
further discussion on the elimination of the limited remote
identification UAS concept. The revised rule also increases the
availability of FAA-recognized identification areas where operations
may occur without remote identification equipment. See section XII of
this preamble for further discussion on FAA-recognized identification
areas. The FAA also revised the definition of amateur-built UAS as
discussed in section V.D of this preamble. The term is now addressed in
this rule as home-built unmanned aircraft.
3. Alternatives Proposed by Commenters
Many commenters, including the Academy of Model Aeronautics,
AirMap, American Farm Bureau Federation, the Experimental Aircraft
Association, Flite Test, Kittyhawk, and the Small UAV Coalition noted
that the best path to widespread compliance is a simple, affordable
solution. They recommended an application-based interface that would
permit a UAS operator to self-declare an operational area and time
either at the beginning, or in advance of, operations in areas where
internet service might not be available, similar to current LAANC
implementations. Some commenters suggested either a smart phone
application or phone-in option where UAS operators could reserve a
small block of airspace so other non-participating UAS could
voluntarily re-route around that operations area.
The Academy of Model Aeronautics recommended providing a path to
compliance using ground-based or application-based remote
identification for the pilot in command rather than specific equipment
mandates applicable to manufacturers. For non-autonomous UAS which
require continuous pilot input and visual line of sight (e.g., no
programmable waypoints or other automation), the Charles River Radio
Controllers also recommended a pre-flight registration via the internet
where
[[Page 4399]]
operators would indicate their destination, flight parameters, and time
of operation. Streamline Designs suggested permitting UAS that self-
report location to operate in rural locations.
Wing Aviation suggested revising limited remote identification UAS
to permit recreational operations within VLOS for UAS that are not
highly automated and not available for sale to third parties, provided
that operators declare their operational intent to a Remote ID USS. The
intent information would include the flight area, maximum height AGL,
earliest and latest operations times, and the actual or expected
location of the ground control station, while also requiring the
operator to share actual control station location if the internet is
available. SenseFly also supported uploading a flight plan and stated
that this type of identification would give adequate information,
especially for a short-range flight, such as those limited to a 400-
foot range. The U.S. Chamber of Commerce Technology Engagement Center
recommended permitting remote identification UAS to continue to operate
without a persistent connection to a Remote ID USS if operators declare
their identifier and flight intent to provide situation awareness for
other airspace users.
Kittyhawk stated that network-based solutions are the most agile,
scalable, and information-rich, but also recommended providing a
variety of options to better achieve remote identification compliance.
They proposed a three-tier solution that would permit volume-based
reservations without requiring network or broadcast remote
identification information for UAS operations in VLOS below 200 feet in
Class G airspace and 100 feet in controlled airspace, as well as UAS
operations within VLOS below 400 feet with volume-based reservations
and transmission of remote identification information by either
broadcast or network.
One commenter suggested permitting the installation of Broadcom
chips in UAS so they could be tracked similar to cellular phones. One
commenter suggested the FAA supply RFID tags to track each UAS for a
fee upon completion of their UAS knowledge test. Several commenters,
including the American Property Casualty Insurance Association,
suggested remote identification data could be stored locally and
uploaded after flight in areas with no internet coverage. The New
Hampshire Department of Transportation assumed that many retrofit UAS
would become limited remote identification UAS and recommended
permitting those UAS to operate when the internet is not available if
equipped with an anti-collision beacon that is visible for at least 3
statute miles to increase conspicuity for manned aircraft.
FAA Response: The FAA considered the alternative approaches
proposed by commenters and assessed whether they met the needs of the
FAA, law enforcement, and national security agencies to ensure the
safety and efficiency of the airspace of the United States sufficient
to enable unmanned aircraft to fly over people and at night. The Agency
agrees with commenters that a retrofit option could enable operators to
meet the remote identification requirements of this rule. Therefore,
the FAA adopts the concept in this rule by incorporating operating
requirements, discussed in section VII.D of this preamble, and
production requirements, discussed in section XIV.E.3 of this preamble,
to permit the production and use of remote identification broadcast
modules. A person may now equip an unmanned aircraft without remote
identification with a remote identification broadcast module to enable
the unmanned aircraft to identify remotely.
At this time, the FAA has determined that the other options
proposed by commenters do not meet the needs of the Agency or are
outside the scope of this rule. For example, the volume-based
reservation proposal from Kittyhawk would affect airspace access and is
outside the scope of identification. The FAA declines to require the
installation of Broadcom chips as suggested by one commenter because
the FAA is committed to performance-based requirements that do not
require using a specific manufacturer's equipment. The recommendation
to require unmanned aircraft to be equipped with anti-collision
lighting when not transmitting remote identification information is
unacceptable because it does not provide information about the identity
of the unmanned aircraft or the control station location. The FAA also
notes that providing flight intent information as a means to satisfy
the remote identification requirements would not ensure that flight
information is available in areas where there is no internet
connectivity. However, the remote identification broadcast requirements
in this rule ensure that remote identification information is available
even in areas where the internet may not be available.
V. Terms Used in This Rule
The NPRM proposed to define a number of terms to facilitate the
implementation of the remote identification of unmanned aircraft. In
part 1, definitions and abbreviations, the FAA proposed to add
definitions of unmanned aircraft system and visual line of sight to
Sec. 1.1. The FAA also proposed several definitions to be included in
Sec. 89.1, including the definitions for broadcast, amateur-built
unmanned aircraft system, and Remote ID USS.
A. Definition of Unmanned Aircraft System
1. Discussion of the Final Rule
The FAA proposed that the term unmanned aircraft system (UAS) means
an unmanned aircraft and its associated elements (including
communication links and the components that control the unmanned
aircraft) that are required for the safe and efficient operation of the
unmanned aircraft in the airspace of the United States. The FAA adopts
the term ``unmanned aircraft system'' as proposed.
2. Public Comments and FAA Response
Comments: Many commenters suggested that the definition be changed
for a variety of reasons including a need to distinguish between
various categories of UAS, particularly to distinguish between drones,
quadcopters, and remote control model aircraft. Commenters raised
issues such as the interchangeable nature of home-built kits and models
with interchangeable parts. Commenters also cited a lack of clarity
regarding when the communication links are considered part of the UAS.
In addition, some commenters stated the definition of UAS was not
detailed enough and recommended it be amended to list the specific
components that are covered.
FAA Response: Congress established the definition of unmanned
aircraft system in 49 U.S.C. 44801(12). Therefore, the FAA adopts the
definition of unmanned aircraft system as proposed. The FAA also
considers that any kit containing all the parts and instructions
necessary to assemble a UAS would meet this definition. As further
explained in section XIV.B.2 of this preamble, producers of complete
kits offered for sale are subject to the production requirements of
this rule.
B. Definition of Visual Line of Sight
1. Discussion of the Final Rule
The FAA proposed that the term visual line of sight means the
ability of a person manipulating the flight
[[Page 4400]]
controls of the unmanned aircraft or a visual observer (if one is used)
to see the unmanned aircraft throughout the entire flight with vision
that is unaided by any device other than corrective lenses. The FAA
recognized that this definition is consistent with how ``visual line of
sight'' is currently used in part 107. The term is specifically
described in Sec. 107.31(a). The FAA proposed that because visual line
of sight will now be used in multiple parts, providing a definition in
Sec. 1.1 would ensure that the term is used consistently throughout
all FAA regulations. To account for the use of the term in proposed
part 89 and the potential use of the term in other parts of 14 CFR, the
FAA proposed to include a slightly modified version of the description
used in part 107.
The FAA will not be adopting the definition in this rule because
the concept may apply differently to various persons and conditions
depending upon the type of operation. In addition, future rules, such
as rules providing for routine unmanned aircraft BVLOS operations, may
need to describe visual line of sight in a different manner or context
in order to establish the difference between VLOS and BVLOS operations.
2. Public Comments and FAA Response
Comments: An individual commenter noted that the maximum distance
one can operate under visual line of sight varies based on several
factors such as the size and speed of the aircraft, terrain, and
weather.
FAA Response: As noted, the FAA has determined not to adopt a
definition for ``visual line of sight'' in this rule. The FAA
recognizes that the concept of visual line of sight allows for
variation in the distance to which an unmanned aircraft may fly and
still be within visual line of sight of the person manipulating the
flight controls of the UAS or the visual observer. The FAA believes
this is appropriate given the performance-based nature of current UAS
regulations.
C. Definition of Broadcast
The FAA proposed to define broadcast in part 89 to mean ``to send
information from an unmanned aircraft using radio frequency spectrum.''
The definition was necessary to distinguish the concept from the
transmission of remote identification information through the internet
to a Remote ID USS. As explained in section VII.A of this preamble, the
Agency has determined there is no longer a need to draw a difference
between the terms ``broadcast'' and ``transmission'' because the FAA is
eliminating the network framework and focusing on a broadcast-only
solution for the time being. Therefore, the FAA will not be adopting
the definition in this rule.
D. Definition of Home-Built Unmanned Aircraft
1. Discussion of the Final Rule
The FAA proposed that amateur-built unmanned aircraft system be
defined in part 89 as ``an unmanned aircraft system, the major portion
of which has been fabricated and assembled by a person who undertook
the construction project solely for their own education or
recreation.'' Under this proposal, the person building the amateur-
built UAS would have been required to fabricate and assemble at least
50 percent of the UAS. After reviewing comments and further
consideration, the FAA relabeled this definition as home-built unmanned
aircraft and eliminated the fabrication and major portion requirements
for the reasons explained in the responses to comments below.
Accordingly, this rule finalizes the definition of home-built unmanned
aircraft as an unmanned aircraft that an individual built solely for
education or recreation.
This rule adopts the term home-built unmanned aircraft as opposed
to home-built UAS to reflect the changes discussed in section IV.A of
this preamble.
2. Public Comments and FAA Response
i. Fabrication and Assembly
Comments: The FAA received numerous comments arguing that the
proposed definition of amateur-built unmanned aircraft system failed to
account for common ways that amateur builders of unmanned aircraft put
together UAS. These commenters noted that it is not common practice for
builders of amateur unmanned aircraft to fabricate UAS components and
that UAS are often assembled by hobbyists from a variety of different
levels of kits or prefabricated components. Commenters also pointed out
that many typical components of home-built UAS are electrical and
difficult for the average hobbyist to fabricate on his or her own.
Embry-Riddle Aeronautical University--Prescott Campus mentioned that
its students assemble unmanned aircraft from parts purchased online but
do not fabricate the parts that are necessary for the assembly of an
unmanned aircraft. They noted that meeting the production requirements
of the proposed rule would be overly burdensome for students.
Many commenters also requested a revised definition for amateur-
built UAS that would account for changes to significant parts of a
design of a UAS.
Many commenters took issue with the ``major portion'' (fabricating
and assembling at least 50 percent or more of the UAS) requirement of
the proposed definition for amateur-built UAS. The Small UAV Coalition
believed manufacturer performance requirements should not apply to
unmanned aircraft built for recreational operations or personal use.
They believed these unmanned aircraft should not be defined based on
what they perceived as an arbitrary percentage threshold, for parts or
ambiguous ``fabrication assessments.'' The Berks County Aero Modelers &
Lehigh Valley Radio Control Society asserted the ``51 percent rule for
amateur build models'' was not practical and agreed with the UAS
Identification and Tracking Aviation Rulemaking Committee
recommendations to exempt amateur-built, non-autonomous model aircraft
from the remote identification requirements.
FAA Response: The FAA agrees with these commenters and has
eliminated the major portion requirement from the definition of home-
built unmanned aircraft.
Comments: Some commenters encouraged the FAA to replace the
amateur-built definition with terms commonly used in the recreational
hobby industry such as ``bind and fly'' or ``ready to fly.'' Brands
Hobby provided detailed descriptions of five levels of ``manufactured''
model aircraft in use today and noted concerns that the definition
should include an ``almost ready to fly'' concept for amateur built
aircraft. The Flite Test Community Association commented the definition
would not accommodate the diverse types of products and kits in the
model aviation community and suggested the FAA expand the definition of
amateur-built UAS or allow the amateur-built community to comply with
the rule through either an app-based solution or by installing a
``compliant standalone device.''
FAA Response: The FAA agrees that given the unique characteristics
of UAS, the definition of home-built unmanned aircraft should cover the
wide range of ways hobbyists build UAS. The FAA also believes that
home-builders should have a method for remotely identifying so they can
operate outside of FAA-recognized identification areas. The FAA has
revised this rule to allow home-built unmanned aircraft to equip with
remote identification broadcast modules to identify remotely. Section
VII.D of this preamble discusses the
[[Page 4401]]
remote identification broadcast modules in greater detail.
Comments: A few commenters proposed to expand the definition of
amateur-built UAS to all incomplete UAS, including ``scratch built from
plans,'' models built from parts, or models built from kits of
subassemblies and pieces that lack radio control receiver electronics.
One commenter proposed focusing on intended use and asked the FAA to
use the following definition: ``any UAS that requires some final
assembly before flight that requires continual input from the operator
throughout the entire flight from launch to recovery.'' The New
Hampshire Department of Transportation mentioned that the definition of
``amateur built'' UAS should be broadened to include UAS built entirely
from pre-fabricated parts, including parts such as electronics that
cannot be fabricated. They also warned of compliance issues when
operators replace a part for a UAS that they originally assembled from
a kit containing 100 percent of the parts necessary to assemble a
complete and functional UAS. The Academy of Model Aeronautics
recommended the definition of amateur-built UAS should include UAS with
parts purchased and assembled by an individual. In their view, there is
no verifiable increase in safety risk for aircraft with less than 50
percent fabrication and construction by the builder and the rule should
eliminate or greatly reduce the required percentage of self-
manufactured components.
FAA Response: The FAA agrees with commenters that unmanned aircraft
are not built by hobbyists with the same degrees of fabrication as
amateur-built manned aircraft. This rule removes the major portion
requirement; the definition now includes any unmanned aircraft that an
individual built solely for education or recreation. This definition
would include any level of assembly of the unmanned aircraft so long as
that assembly was done solely for education or recreation of the
individual building the UAS. The FAA considers that the individual
constructing the home-built unmanned aircraft, even if through assembly
alone, is not responsible for meeting the production requirements of
the final rule. A hobbyist assembling an unmanned aircraft from a
complete kit that contains all the parts and instructions to assemble
an unmanned aircraft would not be responsible for meeting the
production requirements of this rule. However, the company that
produced that complete kit would be required to meet the production
requirements. As discussed in section VII of this preamble, persons
operating these unmanned aircraft continue to be subject to the
operating rules of part 89, so a home-built unmanned aircraft without
remote identification can only be operated in an FAA-recognized
identification area, unless it can identify remotely in accordance with
this rule (e.g., by equipping the home-built unmanned aircraft with a
remote identification broadcast module).
To distinguish this type of unmanned aircraft from its manned
aircraft counterpart, this rule adopts the definition as home-built
unmanned aircraft rather than as amateur-built unmanned aircraft
system. As explained in section IV.A of this preamble, the remote
identification requirements apply to the operation, and the design and
production of unmanned aircraft. Therefore, this adopted definition is
specific to unmanned aircraft, not the entire UAS.
ii. Education or Recreation
Comments: Commenters generally supported the requirement that
amateur-built UAS be produced for educational or recreational purposes
only. One commenter felt the term ``amateur-built'' should be replaced
with the term ``STEM built.'' This commenter felt the change in
terminology would establish a better mindset for the extensive
revisions needed in the proposed rule to address the needs of the
remote-controlled aviation community. Some commenters suggested that
amateur-built be defined as UAS restricted to non-commercial use or
with no flights over people or with limited weight. Several commenters
felt the FAA should define ``amateur-built UAS'' based upon restricted
operation such as limiting to recreational or educational flights with
``non-autonomous'' flight control, flights within line of sight, and
flights restricted to uncontrolled airspace or requiring Low Altitude
Authorization and Notification Capability (LAANC) approval for
controlled airspace.
FAA Response: The FAA adopts the requirement that the unmanned
aircraft be built for the education or recreation of the builder, as
proposed. The FAA declines to add operating restrictions on the use of
home-built unmanned aircraft, finding that existing operating rules are
sufficient to ensure safety. For example, when a home built aircraft is
flown under part 107, it is restricted in being able to fly over
people, its weight cannot exceed 55 pounds, and it cannot enter certain
classes of airspace without authorization. Similarly, a home-built
unmanned aircraft flown recreationally under 49 U.S.C. 44809 remains
subject to the requirements of that section, such as remaining within
visual line of sight and complying with the requirement to receive
authorization for flights in certain classes of airspace. In addition,
home-built unmanned aircraft remain subject to the remote
identification operating requirements of this rule.
iii. Other Comments Received
Comments: Some commenters suggested the definition of amateur-built
UAS should include any UAS with limited capability or any model
aircraft operated exclusively at an FAA-recognized identification area.
FAA Response: The FAA finds that commenters' definition would
create far too wide of an exception to the remote identification
production requirements, undermining the effectiveness of remote
identification.
Comments: One commenter suggested changing the ``amateur-built''
definition to include any model aircraft produced without a radio
receiver or flight control system.
FAA Response: The FAA considers that such aircraft would be
considered home-built unmanned aircraft if they were assembled for
educational and recreational purposes but does not choose to limit
home-built unmanned aircraft to only the model aircraft mentioned by
the commenter.
Comments: One commenter proposed the amateur-built definition
should be based around the language used by the Academy of Model
Aeronautics for radio-controlled aircraft.
FAA Response: Though the FAA expects many home-built unmanned
aircraft will be similar to the radio-controlled aircraft described by
the commenter, the FAA finds that the definition of home-built unmanned
aircraft as adopted can encompass those aircraft as well as a wider
range of unmanned aircraft, as long as such unmanned aircraft are built
solely for education or recreation.
Comments: Many commenters expressed concern that the proposed
definition of amateur-built unmanned aircraft would prohibit them from
flying their existing model aircraft.
FAA Response: The FAA does not agree. Unmanned aircraft produced
without remote identification (e.g., those produced prior to the
production compliance date of this rule) may be flown in an FAA-
recognized identification area or may be upgraded or retrofitted to
meet the remote identification requirements of this rule. FAA has also
amended the final rule to allow for less costly compliance by allowing
unmanned aircraft to be
[[Page 4402]]
equipped with a remote identification broadcast module.
Comments: One commenter suggested the rule differentiate between
three classes of producers: ``mass manufacturers,'' ``small
commercial,'' and ``experimental/hobbyist.'' The proposed description
of ``experimental/hobbyist'' included three characteristics: (1) ``may
build or buy dozens of aircraft, many for purposes of education,
experimentation, or recreation''; (2) ``life span of the unmanned
aircraft may be as little as one flight or it may last decades''; (3)
``components are regularly recycled.''
Wing Aviation LLC commented that in their view, there is no need
for an amateur-built definition if the limited UAS concept is
implemented with the changes they proposed.
FAA Response: Though the requirements for unmanned aircraft
equipped with remote identification broadcast modules finalized in this
rule are an option for people constructing home-built unmanned
aircraft, the FAA considers that there may always be home-built
unmanned aircraft that cannot be equipped with broadcast modules and
may be used solely for flights within FAA-recognized identification
areas, and therefore a definition for those unmanned aircraft built for
educational or recreational purposes is still necessary.
For the foregoing reasons, the FAA will adopt the definition of
home-built unmanned aircraft as an unmanned aircraft that an individual
built solely for education or recreation.
E. Definition of Declaration of Compliance
The FAA did not propose to add a definition for declaration of
compliance. However, to avoid potential confusion given the use of the
term in both this final rule and in the part 107 rules for operations
over people, the FAA determines that incorporating a new definition in
Sec. 89.1 is necessary to ensure sufficient clarity for the term as it
is used in part 89. A declaration of compliance means a record
submitted to the FAA by the producer of a standard remote
identification unmanned aircraft or remote identification broadcast
module to attest that all the requirements of subpart F of this part
have been met.
F. Requests for Other Definitions
1. Discussion of the Final Rule
The FAA received comments on other terms that were not defined in
the NPRM, but did not include them in the final rule for the reasons
explained below.
2. Public Comments and FAA Response
Comments: The Experimental Aircraft Association proposed adding the
terms ``traditional model aircraft,'' ``control line,'' and ``free
flight'' to this rule.
FAA Response: The FAA declines to add these definitions in this
rulemaking because these terms are not used in part 89 or any
regulation modified by this rule.
Comments: The International Association of Fire Fighters and the
American Farm Bureau Federation requested the FAA define internet
availability and ``sufficient signal strength,'' citing a lack of
clarity when determining whether a UAS would be required to connect to
the internet or when a UAS would be expected to lose connection to the
internet.
FAA Response: The FAA has decided not to include definitions for
these terms because this rule does not adopt requirements related to
internet connection.
VI. Applicability of Operating Requirements
A. Discussion of the Final Rule
The NPRM proposed to apply the remote identification operating
requirements to all persons operating unmanned aircraft registered or
required to be registered under part 47 or 48. The NPRM also proposed
that the remote identification operating rules apply to all persons
operating foreign civil unmanned aircraft in the United States. The
proposed applicability did not include exceptions for specific types of
operations (e.g., recreational operations, operations conducted by
governmental entities) but the operating rules did include deviation
authority through which the Administrator would be able to authorize
persons to conduct certain operations without remote identification. In
addition, the operating rules would allow certain unmanned aircraft
without remote identification to be operated in FAA-recognized
identification areas.
The FAA received a significant number of comments recommending
changes to the applicability of the operating requirements for remote
identification. Commenters identified types of operations that they
believed should be excepted from the requirement to identify remotely.
After consideration of those comments, the FAA continues to support
linking the remote identification rule with the registration rule.
Because most unmanned aircraft are required by law to meet the aircraft
registration requirements, the FAA determined that linking the remote
identification and registration requirements is necessary to ensure
that there is widespread coverage of the remote identification
requirements of this rule. In Sec. 89.101 the FAA adopts the
requirement that all unmanned aircraft registered or required to be
registered under part 47 or 48 must comply with the operating
requirements of part 89. Persons operating foreign civil unmanned
aircraft in the United States must also comply with the operating
requirements.
In response to comments received, the FAA is clarifying in Sec.
89.101 that the operating requirements do not apply to unmanned
aircraft operations under part 91 that are transmitting ADS-B Out
pursuant to Sec. 91.225.
B. Public Comments and FAA Response
Comments: Many commenters supported the FAA's proposal to require
unmanned aircraft operating in the airspace of the United States to
have remote identification.
Many commenters requested revisions to the registration
requirements so that unmanned aircraft of a particular size or weight
do not have to be registered.
A number of commenters requested the applicability of the operating
requirements in part 89 be determined based on the type of operation
conducted. Many commenters specifically sought ``blanket exceptions''
from the operating requirements for operations that meet certain
criteria (e.g., safety record, weight, altitude, line of sight,
airspace) and for operations conducted for specific purposes (e.g.,
governmental, recreational, aeronautical research, education, public
safety, and emergency operations). Others suggested that all UAS,
regardless of size, should comply with remote identification.
Many commenters stated that any exception to the operating
requirement should be based on the intended use, application, or
capability of the unmanned aircraft rather than its size or weight.
Some commenters recommended excepting UAS based on the terrain or areas
of operation. Some commenters proposed requiring remote identification
only within a specific distance of airports, large cities, and critical
infrastructure, or where certain population density exists.
Some commenters requested the FAA except UAS used in agricultural
operations from the requirements of the rule, and others asked for
flexibility for UAS used in farming, ranching, and other business
related operations.
Some commenters supported excepting Federal, State, or local
government operations from the applicability of the operating
[[Page 4403]]
requirements, while others opposed excepting any government UAS. The
FAA received many comments supporting and opposing broad exemptions for
public safety and critical infrastructure operations. Many commenters
indicated that a government exception is necessary because the
transmission and broadcast of message elements could compromise the
safety or security of public safety and emergency operations. Others
believed that only sensitive governmental operations should be excepted
from the remote identification requirements. The National Public Safety
Telecommunications Council, AiRXOS, the Civil Air Patrol/United States
Air Force Auxiliary, the International Association of Fire Fighters,
and DRONERESPONDERS Public Safety Alliance, asked for a remote
identification solution for ``trusted users'' such as State and local
public safety agencies instead of excepting certain parties (e.g., DOD)
from having to comply with the operating requirements.
Multiple commenters requested the FAA except certain commercial
operations from the operating requirements in subpart B. For example,
several small businesses asked for an exception for operations limited
to a certain altitude or conducted for a specific scope or purpose.
Commenters also requested the FAA except operations conducted by
persons with remote pilot certificates issued under part 107 because
they are trained to follow aviation regulations and are certificated.
A significant number of commenters expressed opposition to
requiring recreational unmanned aircraft to identify remotely.
A number of commenters requested an operational exception for UAS
used for educational purposes, aeronautical research activities, and
non-aviation related research done with a UAS for testing and
filmmaking.
Many private UAS operators, small business, and governmental
entities asked the FAA to except UAS operations in class G airspace
from having to identify remotely. A number of commenters asked the FAA
to consider the distance above ground level where the UAS are operating
when determining the applicability of the rule.
Some commenters mentioned that UAS operations receiving air traffic
services should be required to use ADS-B Out. Other commenters such as
the Aerospace Industries Association, Airbus UTM, the Association for
Unmanned Vehicle Systems International (AUVSI), General Atomics
Aeronautical Systems, and Northeast UAS Airspace Integration Research
mentioned that the proposed rule did not clearly state that UAS
authorized by the FAA to use ADS-B Out or transponders are excepted
from meeting the operating rules in part 89.
A number of commenters asked the FAA to clarify whether the remote
identification requirements apply to operations occurring indoors,
underground, or within a contained space, such as a netted outdoor
enclosure.
FAA Response: The FAA's rationale for linking the applicability of
the operating requirements to the registration requirements is the need
to identify aircraft operating in the airspace of the United States,
regardless of the type or purpose of the operation. Parts 47 and 48
implement the registration requirements codified in 49 U.S.C. 44101-
44103. According to these statutory and regulatory requirements, no
person may operate an unmanned aircraft in the airspace of the United
States unless it has been registered by its owner, or unless the
aircraft is excepted from registration (e.g., aircraft of the national
defense forces of the United States or unmanned aircraft weighing 0.55
pounds or less). Congress also clarified in 49 U.S.C. 44809(a)(8) that
UAS used in limited recreational operations must be registered and
marked in accordance with chapter 441 of Title 49 of the United States
Code. Because most unmanned aircraft that will be operated in the
airspace of the United States are required to meet the aircraft
registration requirements, by law, the FAA determined linking remote
identification to the registration requirements is in the interest of
the safety and security of the United States airspace. In light of the
above, as of September 16, 2023, all persons operating unmanned
aircraft registered or required to be registered under part 47 or 48
must follow the remote identification operating requirements unless the
operation meets one of the following: (1) The operation is not subject
to the operating requirement in accordance with Sec. 89.101(b); (2)
the Administrator authorizes a deviation for aeronautical research or
to show compliance with regulations, in accordance with Sec. 89.120;
or (3) the Administrator authorizes the operator to deviate from the
operating requirements, in accordance with Sec. 89.105. To ensure that
there is appropriate identification of civil unmanned aircraft operated
in United States airspace, these requirements also extend to all
persons operating foreign civil unmanned aircraft in the United States.
Exception for Recreational Unmanned Aircraft. The FAA considered
public comments requesting the Agency to except recreational unmanned
aircraft operations from the remote identification operating
requirements. The FAA does not agree with such a request. The FAA
believes that successfully integrating unmanned aircraft into the
airspace of the United States requires the identification of unmanned
aircraft. Recreational unmanned aircraft represent a significant
portion of unmanned aircraft operating in the airspace of the United
States and, in accordance with 49 U.S.C. 44809(f), the FAA is not
prohibited from promulgating rules generally applicable to unmanned
aircraft, including those unmanned aircraft eligible for the exception
for limited recreational operations of UAS. Among other things, the
authority extends to rules relating to the standards for the remote
identification of owners and operators of UAS and associated unmanned
aircraft. Broad applicability of remote identification is necessary to
ensure public safety and the safety and efficiency of the airspace of
the United States. The remote identification framework provides UAS-
specific data, which allows the FAA, national security agencies, and
law enforcement entities to identify the pilots of UAS that are posing
safety or security risks.
While the FAA is not excepting recreational unmanned aircraft from
the remote identification requirements, this final rule allows persons
to retrofit unmanned aircraft by equipping them with remote
identification broadcast modules to allow them to identify remotely.
This concept will facilitate compliance with the remote identification
requirements for recreational and other operators. In addition, this
rule also finalizes the FAA-recognized identification areas concept
where unmanned aircraft without remote identification can be operated.
Other types of exceptions requested. The FAA carefully considered
the requests to include exceptions for other types of operations (e.g.,
operations below a specific altitude or in certain airspace, UAS
without advanced capabilities, agricultural operations) and determined
that granting such ``blanket exceptions'' is not appropriate The FAA
has determined that the remote identification requirements should apply
to unmanned aircraft to address safety, national security, and law
enforcement concerns regarding expanded unmanned aircraft operations
[[Page 4404]]
at night and over people. A broad applicability of the remote
identification requirements enhances the FAA's ability to monitor
compliance with applicable regulations, assists the FAA in undertaking
compliance, enforcement, and educational actions required to mitigate
safety risk, and advances the safe and secure integration of UAS into
the airspace of the United States. Though the FAA is not including
additional ``blanket exceptions'' to the applicability of subpart B,
the Agency has revised the rule to add flexibility and to provide
various options to make it simpler for operators to comply with the
remote identification requirements. For example, based on comments
received, the FAA eliminated the limited remote identification concept
and replaced it with the ability for unmanned aircraft to equip with
remote identification broadcast modules. In Sec. 89.105, the rule
allows the Administrator to authorize deviations from the operating
requirements. The Administrator could issue such deviations when he or
she determines that there is a need, and that the deviation would not
adversely affect safety or that appropriate mitigations are in place to
provide a level of safety at least equal to that provided by this rule.
Weight-based applicability. While some of the registration
requirements are driven by the weight of an aircraft, the FAA does not
believe it is appropriate to use the unmanned aircraft size or weight,
apart from the weight standards already incorporated into the
registration requirements, as a basis for applicability of the remote
identification requirements. As discussed earlier, tying remote
identification to registration requirements ensures the broad coverage
necessary to address the safety and security concerns associated with
unmanned aircraft operations being performed at this time.
Unmanned aircraft operated by government entities. The operating
requirements of subpart B of part 89 do not apply to aircraft of the
Armed Forces of the United States because these aircraft are not
required to be registered under part 47 or 48. Aircraft operated by
other government entities (e.g., Federal, State, the District of
Columbia, territories, possessions, or Indian Tribal governments) are
subject to the registration requirements in part 47 or 48 regardless of
whether the aircraft is used in civil aircraft operations or public
aircraft operations. Therefore, unmanned aircraft operations conducted
by such government entities must comply with the operating requirements
of this rule. Nevertheless, any covered government entity that wishes
to use an unmanned aircraft without remote identification at a location
other than FAA-recognized identification areas may request
authorization from the Administrator under Sec. 89.105 to deviate from
the operating requirements or under Sec. 89.120 to conduct
aeronautical research or to show compliance with regulations.
Educational activities. The FAA does not agree with commenters that
supported an operational exception for unmanned aircraft used for
educational purposes. As previously mentioned, the applicability of the
operating requirements is not based on the type or purpose of
operation. Remote identification is necessary regardless of the
operation or intended use of the unmanned aircraft. However, the FAA
recognizes the need for educational institutions to be able to conduct
unmanned aircraft activities, and has expanded the list of persons
eligible to request establishment of an FAA-recognized identification
area to include educational institutions. The FAA believes this change
appropriately addresses the concerns expressed by educators regarding
unmanned aircraft activities. In addition, the Agency is now allowing
persons to equip unmanned aircraft with remote identification broadcast
modules, which will facilitate compliance with the operating
requirements.
Aeronautical research. The FAA considered comments requesting that
aeronautical research activities be excluded from the operating
requirements of part 89 and agrees with commenters because the
deviation would contribute to the further development and improvement
of UAS equipment and technologies. Therefore, as finalized, Sec.
89.120 allows the Administrator to authorize operations without remote
identification where the operation is solely for the purpose of
aeronautical research or to show compliance with regulations.
Unmanned aircraft operated indoors, underground, or in enclosed
spaces. The FAA regulates the navigable airspace of the United States.
Therefore, this rule does not apply to unmanned aircraft operations
conducted entirely indoors, underground, or inside an enclosed space
such as a netted enclosure. The remote identification requirements
apply when the unmanned aircraft exits the interior of a building or
structure and is operated outside. While the remote identification
operating requirements do not apply to unmanned aircraft operating
indoors, certain design requirements for unmanned aircraft with remote
identification, especially standard remote identification unmanned
aircraft, may create operational challenges in these environments. For
example, standard remote identification unmanned aircraft will not take
off unless broadcasting the remote identification message elements.
Depending on the particular design, some unmanned aircraft with remote
identification may not be able to operate if they cannot broadcast the
unmanned aircraft position because GPS is not available. Operators of
unmanned aircraft intended to be used both indoors and outdoors should
understand how their unmanned aircraft will perform when services like
GPS may be unavailable.
Unmanned aircraft equipped with ADS-B Out. The FAA agrees with the
commenters who stated that certain UAS operating under air traffic
control and equipped with ADS-B Out and ATC transponders are already
meeting the intent of the remote identification rule, and that remote
identification may be redundant for such operations. The FAA adopts an
exception to the remote identification operating requirements in Sec.
89.101(b) for persons conducting unmanned aircraft operations under
part 91 that are transmitting ADS-B Out pursuant to Sec. 91.225.
Operators of unmanned aircraft that meet the criteria are not required
to comply with the operating requirements of part 89. The operation may
be conducted under any type of flight plan that is acceptable for the
intended operation. The FAA has provided a similar exception from the
remote identification production requirements for unmanned aircraft
certified under a part 21 design or production approval that are
equipped with ADS-B Out. Notwithstanding the exception in Sec.
89.101(b), nothing in this rule precludes unmanned aircraft from being
equipped with both ADS-B Out and remote identification equipment.
However, to ensure that unmanned aircraft do not place a strain on the
ADS-B system, ADS-B Out may not be used to meet remote identification
requirements outside of those unmanned aircraft operations for which it
is required. The use of ADS-B Out in transmit mode is restricted to
those unmanned aircraft operations for which it is required.
VII. Operating Requirements for Remote Identification
This rule establishes requirements for the remote identification of
unmanned aircraft operated in the airspace of the United States. Remote
identification is the capability of an unmanned aircraft, in flight, to
provide certain
[[Page 4405]]
identification, location, and performance information that people on
the ground and other airspace users can receive. An operator of an
unmanned aircraft can comply with the operating requirements for remote
identification in one of three ways:
(1) Standard remote identification unmanned aircraft. The first way
to comply is referred to as ``standard remote identification'' and
requires the operator to use an unmanned aircraft that broadcasts
identification, location, and performance information for both the
unmanned aircraft and the control station. See Sec. 89.110 of this
rule.
(2) Remote identification broadcast module. The second way to
comply is for the operator to equip an unmanned aircraft with a
``remote identification broadcast module'' that broadcasts
identification, location, and performance information about the
unmanned aircraft, and the unmanned aircraft's takeoff location. See
Sec. 89.115(a) of this rule.
(3) FAA-recognized identification area. The third way to comply,
and the only option available for most unmanned aircraft without remote
identification capabilities (e.g., an unmanned aircraft manufactured
without remote identification equipment or an unmanned aircraft whose
remote identification equipment or remote identification broadcast
module is not working) is for the operator to fly his or her unmanned
aircraft in certain specific geographic areas called ``FAA-recognized
identification areas.'' These areas are established under this rule
specifically to accommodate UAS that do not identify remotely. See
Sec. 89.115(b) of this rule.
The NPRM proposed various ways for an operator of UAS to identify
remotely: (1) Operating a limited remote identification UAS; (2)
operating a standard remote identification UAS; or (3) operating
unmanned aircraft without remote identification at an FAA-recognized
identification area. After reviewing public comments and giving further
consideration, the FAA decided to eliminate the concept of a limited
remote identification UAS and incorporate the ability to retrofit
unmanned aircraft with remote identification broadcast modules that
broadcast the remote identification information required by this rule.
The FAA also decided to revise some of the parameters and requirements
for operations of standard remote identification UAS and operations at
FAA-recognized identification areas, as discussed below.
A significant change from the proposal is that the FAA decided to
eliminate the requirement for UAS with remote identification to connect
to the internet and to transmit the remote identification message
elements through the internet connection to a Remote ID USS. While the
FAA recognizes that there are potential benefits associated with
establishing a network of Remote ID USS, the FAA believes that, for the
time being and given the types of unmanned aircraft operations that are
currently allowed, the broadcast remote identification solution
fulfills agency and law enforcement needs to maintain the safety and
security of the airspace of the United States. Accordingly, this rule
now generally requires unmanned aircraft operators outside of an FAA-
recognized identification area to use either standard remote
identification unmanned aircraft or unmanned aircraft with remote
identification broadcast modules to broadcast remote identification
message elements.
A. Elimination of Network-Based Remote Identification Requirement
1. Discussion of the Final Rule
The FAA initially proposed requiring both standard remote
identification UAS and limited remote identification UAS to transmit
the remote identification message elements through an internet
connection to a Remote ID USS. After careful consideration of public
comments and the implementation challenges associated with requiring
UAS to transmit to Remote ID USS, the FAA decided to eliminate this
proposed requirement in this rule. Without the requirement to transmit
remote identification through the internet, limited remote
identification UAS as proposed is no longer a viable concept. In its
place, the FAA is incorporating a regulatory framework under which
persons can retrofit an unmanned aircraft with a remote identification
broadcast module to satisfy the remote identification requirements of
this rule. The requirements for remote identification broadcast modules
are described in section VII.D of this preamble. The effects of this
change on standard remote identification unmanned aircraft are
discussed in section VII.A of this preamble.
Though the FAA recognizes that there are potential benefits
associated with establishing a network of Remote ID USS, the FAA
believes that, for the time being and given the types of unmanned
aircraft operations that are currently allowed, the broadcast remote
identification solution fulfills agency and law enforcement needs to
maintain the safety and security of the airspace of the United States.
Original Concept for internet-Based Network. During the UAS-ID ARC,
industry representatives proposed a concept for an internet-based
network to complement the core functionality of a digital ``license
plate'' broadcast-based solution. Under this concept, the aircraft's
control station (often a mobile phone) would connect to the internet
and transmit remote identification information to a third-party service
provider. The network concept was attractive for several reasons, but
primarily because of the ability to receive remote identification
information through existing mobile telephony infrastructure without
having to deploy equipment to ``listen'' for a radio frequency
broadcast. The primary challenge with this concept is its reliance on
Wi-Fi or cellular network service being available where an aircraft is
flying; the concept would not work in areas lacking cellular telephone
coverage. The ARC did not reach consensus on a single remote
identification concept--broadcast or network.
Ultimately, the FAA proposed both broadcast and network
requirements in the NPRM, in an attempt to balance the interests of all
stakeholders. As part of the proposed network requirement, UAS would
have had to transmit the remote identification message elements through
the internet to a third-party service provider, referred to as a
``Remote ID USS.'' Remote ID USS would have collected and, as
appropriate, disseminated the remote identification information through
the internet.
The Remote ID USS concept was a critical component to the
successful implementation of the network requirement, as a commercial
endeavor at no cost to the United States Government. Prospective Remote
ID USS would have been required to meet technical requirements and
contractually agree to abide by certain performance standards and other
requirements on matters including, but not limited to, privacy
protections of data collected pursuant to part 89, disclosure or
dissemination of data, and data retention. The successful
implementation of the network concept relied on prospective USS'
willingness to enter into no-cost contracts with the FAA to provide
these services. The FAA has successfully used a similar construct to
authorize small UAS operations around airports through its Low Altitude
Authorization and Notification Capability (LAANC) program. Through this
public-private
[[Page 4406]]
partnership arrangement, the government benefits from the speed and
quality of industry innovation while industry benefits from profits
derived from marketing other services or products.
Emerging Problems with the Concept for internet-Based Network. The
FAA received significant feedback about the network requirements in
response to the NPRM. Commenters expressed concerns that the network
component could enable nefarious actors to perform a coordinated
Distributed Denial of Service (DDoS) attack on Remote ID USS. Industry
commenters also highlighted concerns about implementing the network
requirement in the absence of a standardized interface for network
connection and raised concerns about giving potential business
intelligence to competitors or third parties with access to network
information. Many commenters also expressed valid concerns about
privacy, cybersecurity, and other security-related issues. Others
expressed concerns about access and protection of data transmitted to,
and stored by, a Remote ID USS. Some law enforcement agencies mentioned
they would or could rely, for the time being, on a broadcast solution,
rather than a network solution, for threat discrimination.
It has become apparent to the FAA that Remote ID USS may struggle
in facing significant technical and regulatory requirements that go
beyond existing industry consensus standards. Early in 2020, the FAA
convened a Remote ID USS cohort to explore developing the network
solution that is necessary to implement the proposed network
requirements. The cohort identified several challenges with
implementing the network requirements, which the FAA acknowledges it
had not foreseen or accounted for when it proposed the network solution
and Remote ID USS framework. For example, the cohort raised the
challenge of developing and issuing technical specifications to govern
remote identification interoperability when producers of UAS have not
yet designed UAS with remote identification.
Based on the above, the FAA decided to take a simplified approach
at this time to remote identification by only adopting the broadcast
requirements in this rule. As adopted, this broadcast-only rule
provides an initial remote identification framework and sets the
foundation for future regulatory actions. As the FAA builds the
regulatory constructs that support increasingly advanced concepts, such
as BVLOS and UTM, the United States Government will be prepared to
solve safety and security issues related to those concepts based on
more mature understandings. At this stage, however, the unknowns
regarding UAS integration make it impractical to expand this rule
beyond a broadcast-only solution.
For these reasons, the Agency is revising all of part 89, including
but not limited to the operating requirements and minimum performance
requirements for standard remote identification unmanned aircraft, to
eliminate all references to the network capability.
2. Public Comments and FAA Responses
Comments: Many commenters, including individuals, associations, and
government organizations, expressed concerns with requiring UAS to
connect to the internet and transmit to a Remote ID USS without a
suitable alternative to continue operations when the internet is
unavailable. Commenters noted that there are many areas in the United
States, particularly remote and rural areas that do not have reliable
internet access. Commenters mentioned that these are often some of the
safest places to fly UAS due to low population density on the ground
and less manned aircraft traffic.
Many commenters asked the FAA to provide a better explanation for
why an internet connection would be required at all, particularly
because under certain circumstances, the proposal allowed for a UAS to
fly when not connected to the internet.
Depth from Above and others noted that network-based solutions
provide an incomplete picture for the safety and security of standard
remote identification UAS operations because standard remote
identification UAS could operate, in certain scenarios, without
internet access using only broadcast remote identification. The
commenters suggested removing the network requirement to reduce cost
and improve compliance.
The European Union Aviation Safety Agency noted that unmanned
aircraft designed and manufactured to be compliant with the EU
regulations may not be able to comply with this proposed rule because
under the EU's regulations, broadcast remote identification is
mandatory, whereas the network remote identification is optional.
Many commenters had questions about the meaning of internet
availability. Commenters noted that many geographic areas might have
internet connectivity but that the signal in some of those areas may
not have enough strength to adequately support internet connected
applications. Many commenters expressed concerns that rural UAS
operators who have limited broadband or cellular access could be
required to purchase increasingly expensive data plans or multiple data
plans to ensure adequate coverage, which may increase costs and lead to
compliance issues.
The National Rural Electric Cooperative Association (NRECA)
mentioned the FAA was assuming there would be a network of Remote ID
USS able to provide services in rural areas and indicated that
deficiencies exist when market forces are left to provide services to
rural areas. NRECA recommended the FAA consider an FAA-provided service
for at least some parts of the country and a longer implementation
timetable or pilot program.
Many commenters, including the American Civil Liberties Union,
opposed the requirement to transmit to a Remote ID USS and expressed
concerns with the security of UAS operations using network remote
identification. The commenters listed a number of privacy and security
concerns, including: Hacking into the controls of one or multiple UAS;
deliberate interference with remote identification or Command and
Control (C2) frequencies utilizing unlicensed spectrum; interference
amongst the remote identification and C2 equipment; and cellular high
speed packet access (HSPA) and long term evolution (LTE) interference
with frequencies used for C2 or to downlink video from the unmanned
aircraft to the control station. The American Civil Liberties Union
suggested that requiring UAS to connect to the internet as a condition
of takeoff is not justified because there is insufficient benefit
relative to the related costs and privacy issues. Several commenters
suggested ensuring that network remote identification is isolated from
C2 frequencies to prevent the hijacking of UAS.
Many commenters, including the Medina County Office of Emergency
Management and Homeland Security, expressed concerns about the
potential to ground hundreds or thousands of UAS nationwide, including
UAS performing public safety operations, if there is a dedicated denial
of service or similar cyberattack which causes an outage of Remote ID
USS. Other commenters expressed concerns about someone hacking a Remote
ID USS or spoofing broadcast remote identification to make it appear
erroneously as if there are UAS in flight. Several commenters stated
that some government agencies
[[Page 4407]]
have discontinued their use of some foreign-made UAS due to security
concerns and mentioned that it is not in the best interests of national
security to require private users to transmit similar surveillance
information through the internet. In some cases, operators are
operating the types of UAS that the government has stopped using for
security reasons.
Commenters expressed concerns about non-State actors as well as
adversarial nations. Various commenters highlighted the national
security implications of certain remote identification data becoming
available to the public. Unmanned Systems Canada asked for the network
requirement to be optional until each Remote ID USS can demonstrate
sufficient security and reliability and stated that a properly licensed
and registered UAS operation should not be grounded if a connection to
a Remote ID USS is not available.
Commenters such as Juniper Unmanned mentioned that some commercial
operations supporting critical infrastructure involve strict
cybersecurity rules and prohibit internet connectivity during flight
operations.
Many commenters involved in emergency response expressed concerns
with relying on the internet to comply with the requirement to
transmit. Similarly, several state government agencies and universities
noted that their UAS enforcement and research activities would be
greatly restricted if the FAA were to adopt the requirement for the UAS
to connect to the internet and transmit to a Remote ID USS without a
suitable alternative means of compliance that would permit the UAS to
take off and operate when internet access is not available.
Zipline and the Alabama Department of Transportation noted that the
requirement to connect to a Remote ID USS if the internet is available
would prevent a person from using a UAS to support emergency response
operations if the internet is available but the UAS cannot reliably
interface with a Remote ID USS.
Many commenters expressed concerns with the requirement that Remote
ID USS retain the remote identification message elements for 6 months
from the date the remote identification message elements are received.
Some commenters cited shorter FAA record retention periods for other
information while others contended the 6-month term was not long
enough. Various commenters expressed support for the record retention
requirements, noting that access to the data is useful for law
enforcement, regulatory compliance, and legitimate safety, security,
compliance, accident, and incident investigation purposes.
The Consumer Technology Association and Wing Aviation, LLC stated
that the final rule should restrict access to historical data by
government, limit the collection and aggregation of remote
identification data by third parties, and ensure privacy. The Small UAV
Coalition urged the FAA to prohibit Remote ID USS from sharing
information with Federal, State, or local governments absent a law
enforcement or national security interest or consent of the UAS
operator.
Many commenters noted the potential costs, complexity, and
operational restrictions associated with network remote identification
requirements and expressed concerns that they may foster a culture of
non-compliance. Many commenters observed that the use of a
subscription-based service would prove costly for some UAS operators.
Many commenters stated that monthly subscription fees would be unfair
to those who do not fly that regularly for a variety of reasons.
Many commenters expressed concerns about the cost of depending on
internet service via cellular phones or other enabled devices that
would be required to support network remote identification. They also
expressed concerns about the costs of subscribing to a Remote ID USS.
Both recreational and commercial operators expressed concerns about the
cost of the data plans that would be required to serve multiple UAS.
One UAS services company estimated increased monthly costs of $360 to
$500 a month for cellular services. Several commenters noted that
adding an additional device, such as an unmanned aircraft, to a
cellular data plan to support direct transmission to the internet
generally costs $30 to $70 a month, and one commenter noted this is
likely to be the largest part of many users' overall operating costs.
The Alliance for Drone Innovation opposed a network requirement for
remote identification, noting that many UAS in use today, including
model aircraft, model helicopters, and racing aircraft, would be
burdened with increased costs for equipment, data plans, and USS
subscriptions because they do not currently have a way to connect to
the internet. SenseFly expressed concerns about the cost that designers
and producers of remote identification UAS will incur if they are
required to make UAS compatible with different internet providers.
A significant number of commenters expressed privacy concerns with
the proposed requirement to have UAS transmit remote identification
data to Remote ID USS. Many individuals opposed having third parties
collect information including, but not limited to, their name, address,
and location. Some commenters also mentioned that the requirement to
transmit their location could cause business and tactical issues,
particularly for businesses or persons that want or need to ensure
their flight data remains confidential or out of reach of most parties.
Many commenters indicated that the pilot and flight data should only be
made available to law enforcement and Federal entities.
Many commenters contended that the best way to ensure privacy is to
encrypt certain remote identification data (e.g., control station or
unmanned aircraft location) and to make it available only to the FAA
and law enforcement. Amazon Prime Air commented that the FAA could
mitigate the potential loss of user privacy by requiring position and
velocity data to be encrypted or by requiring security protocols that
can provide law enforcement with real time access while enhancing
privacy. A significant number of commenters opposed making the data
transmitted to a Remote ID USS available to the general public.
Commenters expressed concerns that a UAS operator's data could be
sold or provided to third parties. Other commenters were concerned
about requiring companies to provide sensitive information to a Remote
ID USS. Many expressed concerns that the information could be hacked.
Other commenters expressed concern over where the privacy data would
reside and what regulations would be in place to prohibit United States
citizens' data from being sent and sold overseas.
Multiple commenters expressed the view that unfettered access by
law enforcement to remote identification data could lead to specific
monitoring of the media by law enforcement agencies and impact the
freedom of the press.
Several commenters noted that cellular networks are optimized to
work with ground-based equipment rather than airborne equipment and
suggested that it is not practical to provide an internet connection to
a UAS using terrestrial cellular networks due to reliability that is
much lower than typical aviation requirements; the potential for
numerous UAS to interfere with ground-based users; and the downward
tilt and narrow vertical beam width of the cellular base transceiver
station used to optimize battery life for ground-based user equipment.
[[Page 4408]]
Several commenters noted that their control stations connect to
their unmanned aircraft only through Wi-Fi which makes an internet
connection impossible when away from Wi-Fi access and others noted that
they fly using tablets or unique monitors which do not include cellular
access.
A number of commenters generally supported the broadcast
requirement for remote identification. The commenters noted that many
UAS are already capable of broadcasting UAS information or could be
upgraded with equipment or software to meet the remote identification
requirements, for a one-time cost. Commenters noted the various
benefits of broadcast remote identification, such as independence; ease
of compliance due to the capabilities of existing systems; tamper
resistance; and simplicity regarding account management, data plans
needed for large fleets, and cost. Commenters noted that broadcast
remote identification is sufficient for law enforcement to determine
the identity and location of the operator in VLOS operations.
Many commenters suggested the FAA should view broadcast-only remote
identification as sufficiently safe and secure for achieving remote
identification. The commenters stated that broadcast-only should be
sufficient because standard remote identification UAS operations are
permitted when the internet is not available, or when the UAS loses its
connection to the Remote ID USS, as long as the unmanned aircraft is
broadcasting. Many commenters also noted that broadcast remote
identification may provide an affordable and effective path to
compliance for many existing UAS that currently have the ability to
broadcast telemetry data in the proposed radio frequency spectrum via
the command-and-control link.
Various commenters noted that a broadcast solution is less
expensive, simpler, and provides increased privacy when compared to
network solutions; and that other UAS or manned aircraft without an
internet connection will not be able to detect a limited remote
identification UAS using only network remote identification.
Many commenters noted that European Union requirements permit
operations with only broadcast remote identification. The EU Aviation
Safety Agency noted that under EU regulations, ``broadcast'' is
mandatory, while the ``network'' or ``limited'' remote identification
is optional.
Discover Flying Club and Phirst Technologies suggested permitting a
broadcast-only option for remote identification UAS, with governments
or third party companies responsible for receiving and collecting
remote identification data, as needed, in specific locations. The
American Civil Liberties Union mentioned that broadcast remote
identification is sufficient to meet security needs to identify hostile
UAS and for public awareness.
In further support of a broadcast-only option, many commenters,
such as Motorola Solutions, Inc., stated that natural disasters and
search and rescue operations often take place in areas of limited
internet coverage. They mentioned that instead of requiring ``trusted
users'' to comply with remote identification, the FAA should allow them
to operate broadcast-only. The Edison Electric Institute and other
electric and power associations stressed the importance of broadcast
remote identification to ensure the UAS continues to send out the
message elements in the event of lost internet connectivity. The
National Rural Electric Cooperative Association and the Northwest
Electric Power Cooperative recommended creating a broadcast-only option
for limited remote identification UAS to permit safe operation in
remote areas.
Other commenters opposed a broadcast-only remote identification
solution, stating that it could introduce unnecessary risks to law
enforcement due to the potential for frequency congestion on unlicensed
spectrum. Amazon Prime Air, Verizon, Skyward, and others noted
weaknesses of the broadcast solution, such as broadcast coverage
limitations due to altitude, terrain, interference, and power. Most of
these commenters also recognized that broadcast may still be required
for specific operations, such as in areas with no internet access or
areas where a local, independent source of remote identification
information is required for safety or security purposes. Many industry
commenters were concerned with the requirement to broadcast their data,
because it could impact their ability to keep their customers' flight
information private and could potentially be used by their competitors.
Some commenters expressed support for a network-only remote
identification solution, noting the advantages of network remote
identification such as the capability for stronger authentication,
availability regardless of proximity to the UAS, ability to share
additional message elements, availability of internet access, and
importance to further development of UTM and traffic deconfliction.
AirMap agreed that network remote identification is appropriate when
the internet is available, to support UTM, and to enable a greater
volume of flights. AirMap indicated that operations with only network
remote identification would permit tighter control of personally
identifiable information (PII), eliminate the possibility of data
scraping from aircraft broadcasts, help with operator location
security, maintain the privacy of UAS delivery service customers, and
offer tiered data access so that law enforcement has access to
different data than the general public.
AT&T Services, CTIA--The Wireless Association, GSMA, and Qualcomm
supported network remote identification, noting benefits such as
greater security than broadcast on unlicensed frequencies, encryption,
available cellular infrastructure already driven by external demand for
increased data service, device authentication to support positive
identification, and support for the development of UTM.
Some commenters supported the role of Remote ID USS to receive the
required message elements, the framework of using a contractual MOA to
govern the Remote ID USS, and the idea that LAANC served as a model for
the concept.
FAA Response: The FAA has carefully considered the wide variety of
perspectives received in public comments as well as the need for remote
identification of unmanned aircraft. Throughout the process of
integrating unmanned aircraft into the airspace of the United States,
the FAA has taken a phased, incremental approach that fosters industry
innovation while meeting the corresponding safety and security needs
that are presented. The FAA believes this should be the case with
remote identification of unmanned aircraft as well.
The FAA continues to work toward full integration of UAS into the
airspace of the United States by partnering with industry to develop
UTM and facilitate advanced unmanned aircraft operations, like BVLOS.
However, the FAA has determined that a broadcast-based remote
identification system that provides for immediate awareness of unmanned
aircraft in the widest variety of settings will be adequate to support
the phased, incremental approach, while allowing the UAS industry
additional time to continue developing the network-based UTM ecosystem.
The FAA recognizes concerns related to an internet connectivity
requirement, such as internet availability or connectivity issues;
increased costs for UAS upgrades; internet data plans; Remote ID USS
subscriptions; and
[[Page 4409]]
reduced air and ground risk when operating in remote areas with less
air traffic and lower population density. The FAA acknowledges the
ability to connect to the internet is dependent on a variety of factors
including geographic coverage of cellular internet networks, wide-scale
network disruptions, or natural disasters. The FAA agrees with
commenters that unmanned aircraft operations should not be
unnecessarily restricted when the internet is not available or not
sufficient to establish and maintain a connection to a Remote ID USS
provided the unmanned aircraft is broadcasting the required message
elements.
There are some remote areas where an operator cannot connect to the
internet, such as locations where cellular or other internet signals
are not available or sufficient to establish and maintain a connection
to a Remote ID USS. While loss of the broadcast capability is an
indication of a remote identification equipment failure, loss of
connectivity to the internet or a Remote ID USS could be attributed to
a lack of internet availability that is outside the control of the
unmanned aircraft operator. A functioning broadcast capability is
necessary for remote identification information to be available in
areas that do not have internet availability.
The FAA is not adopting the requirement to transmit message
elements through the internet to a Remote ID USS in this rule at this
time. While the FAA recognizes the potential benefits of network remote
identification as stated by several commenters, the FAA believes a
broadcast-only solution is sufficient, for the time being and given the
types of unmanned aircraft operations that are currently allowed, to
maintain the safety and security of the airspace of the United States
given the types of operations that are authorized in the operating and
airspace regulations.
Certain commenters suggested allowing unmanned aircraft operators
to choose between either broadcast or network remote identification.
These commenters suggested that while a Remote ID USS-dependent
solution might be overly burdensome to certain types of recreational or
small-scale commercial operators, some operators may prefer network
remote identification. These commenters noted that network remote
identification allows operators to better protect the privacy of their
operations from the general public, which may have benefits for
consumers receiving sensitive deliveries or to protect a company's
confidential business information regarding where they operate.
According to these commenters, allowing either broadcast or network
remote identification would permit operators to transmit remote
identification information via the mechanism most appropriate for their
use, while ensuring that the public still had the capability of rapidly
identifying nearby unmanned aircraft.
The FAA notes that this rule does not preclude industry from
establishing Remote ID USS-like networks where entities can exchange
remote identification information to facilitate a safer and more
efficient airspace of the United States. The FAA encourages further
development and maturation of UTM concepts, especially those that
consider aviation safety national security, and law enforcement needs.
However, as indicated in the NPRM, broadcasting the message elements
has always been considered a critical aspect of remote identification,
even in situations when the NPRM also allowed for network transmission.
The FAA believes that broadcasting the message elements is fundamental
to ensuring that remote identification information is always accessible
to members of the public, and as such, the FAA does not agree with
commenters' suggestions to allow unmanned aircraft operators to choose
between broadcast and network remote identification.
The FAA agrees with the commenters who proposed that broadcast
remote identification is sufficient to provide the required remote
identification message elements to support typical unmanned aircraft
operations and satisfy security requirements. Broadcast remote
identification does not rely on internet availability, and is a secure
method that is less susceptible to widespread failure caused by
malicious actors or systems outages. Broadcast remote identification is
also an independent, less expensive, and less complex method of
providing the required remote identification message elements. The FAA
has determined that a requirement for unmanned aircraft to broadcast
remote identification information will provide the FAA, law
enforcement, the general public, and other parts of the aviation
community with real-time information about unmanned aircraft operations
in any area in which broadcast signals can be received. The broadcast
will permit detection of unmanned aircraft and will permit law
enforcement and the general public that receives the broadcasted
message elements to have information about the unmanned aircraft
location as well as information about the control station or takeoff
location. Personal wireless devices that are capable of receiving 47
CFR part 15 frequencies, such as smart phones, tablets, or other
similar commercially available devices, will be able to receive
broadcast remote identification information directly without reliance
on an internet connection.
After reviewing the comments and further consideration, the FAA
decided to modify the proposal and, as finalized, this rule only
requires unmanned aircraft to broadcast the message elements.
Accordingly, the FAA has eliminated all requirements for unmanned
aircraft to connect to the internet to transmit to a Remote ID USS.
B. Limited Remote Identification UAS
1. Discussion of the Final Rule
The NPRM proposed that limited remote identification UAS would only
have to transmit the remote identification message elements through an
internet connection to a Remote ID USS. As discussed in section VII.A
of this preamble, limited remote identification UAS are no longer a
viable concept for this rule. Accordingly, this final rule has
eliminated all proposed requirements related to limited remote
identification UAS.
2. Public Comments and FAA Response
Comments: Only a few commenters supported the proposed limited
remote identification UAS. Commenters who supported the proposed
requirements wanted the FAA to move forward with implementing its
proposed policies.
Many commenters were opposed to the concept and requirements for
limited remote identification UAS and believed the FAA should not adopt
those requirements. Commenters noted that many areas in the United
States, particularly remote and rural areas, do not have reliable
internet access due to cellular coverage limitations, signal
obstructions caused by terrain and obstacles, poor connection quality,
or temporary outages. Many commenters noted that the costs, complexity,
and operational restrictions associated with network remote
identification requirements may foster a culture of non-compliance. As
a result, many commenters suggested eliminating or substantially
altering limited remote identification UAS.
Several commenters suggested there was no need for the limited
remote identification concept. DJI Technology appreciated the attempt
to create a concept intended to impose a lower burden and ease for
compliance for less capable UAS that pose less risk but suggested the
limited remote identification UAS concept is virtually
[[Page 4410]]
useless as proposed. Degenkolb Engineers noted that any controller
designed to meet limited remote identification UAS requirements could
be upgraded to meet the standard remote identification UAS requirements
at trivial cost.
Other commenters suggested the limited remote identification UAS
concept would create unnecessary complexity and would not contribute to
flight safety. They recommended permitting broadcast options for
limited remote identification UAS, which could provide the unmanned
aircraft location information to suitably equipped manned aircraft at
any altitude without dependency on network solutions or command and
control links.
Many commenters weighed in on specific aspects of limited remote
identification UAS, including the proposed 400-foot range limitation,
the requirement to fly within visual line of sight, and the requirement
to land the aircraft in the event the connection with the Remote ID USS
was lost.
FAA Response: A common theme in the public comments received
regarding the limited remote identification UAS concept was a general
dissatisfaction and disagreement with the operating and design
requirements of the proposed concept. The FAA attempted to provide a
regulatory framework to accommodate existing unmanned aircraft without
remote identification so they could be modified or retrofitted in a
manner to provide remote identification capabilities. The FAA agrees
with the commenters who argued that limiting unmanned aircraft to
operating only where internet connectivity is available limits the
utility and marketability of such unmanned aircraft. However, the FAA
does not agree with commenters who supported only a single concept for
remote identification. The FAA believes that a remote identification
option is necessary for owners of existing unmanned aircraft without
built-in remote identification capability who do not wish to operate
solely at FAA-recognized identification areas. For that reason, the FAA
is incorporating into this rule a concept known as ``remote
identification broadcast module'' to allow persons to retrofit an
unmanned aircraft by equipping it with a broadcast module that enables
compliance with the operating requirements of this rule. The remote
identification broadcast module concept is discussed in section VII.D
of this preamble.
The FAA acknowledges all of the comments related to limited remote
identification UAS and took them into consideration as a part of its
decision to eliminate the concept.
C. Standard Remote Identification Unmanned Aircraft
1. Discussion of the Final Rule
The FAA is adopting the requirements for standard remote
identification unmanned aircraft in Sec. 89.110, as discussed below. A
key difference from the NPRM is that the Agency has decided to
eliminate the requirement for the standard remote identification
unmanned aircraft to transmit the remote identification message
elements through the internet to a Remote ID USS. This rule only
requires the standard remote identification unmanned aircraft to
broadcast the remote identification message elements directly from the
unmanned aircraft from takeoff to shutdown. The FAA is also updating
the term to ``standard remote identification unmanned aircraft, as
opposed to ``standard remote identification UAS'' for clarity purposes.
See section IV.A for an in-depth discussion regarding the use of
unmanned aircraft instead of UAS. The modifications in Sec. 89.110
mainly reflect the change to the broadcast-only solution, or changes
made for clarity purposes.
The FAA clarifies that unmanned aircraft without remote
identification may be upgraded to standard remote identification
unmanned aircraft if the upgrade enables the unmanned aircraft to meet
all of the remote identification requirements of this rule.
i. Use of Standard Remote Identification Unmanned Aircraft
A person operating a standard remote identification unmanned
aircraft that complies with Sec. 89.110 can operate the unmanned
aircraft outside of FAA-recognized identification areas. Standard
remote identification unmanned aircraft can be used irrespective of the
operating rules that apply to the specific flight. For example, a
standard remote identification unmanned aircraft could be used in
limited recreational operations conducted under 49 U.S.C. 44809, or
operations conducted under part 91, part 107, part 135, or any other
operating part.
ii. Elimination of Network Transmission Requirement
As previously stated, the FAA proposed to require standard remote
identification UAS to transmit the remote identification message
elements through the internet to a Remote ID USS and to broadcast the
same message elements directly from the unmanned aircraft using radio
frequency spectrum. After reviewing public comments and further
consideration of a significant amount of comments, the FAA decided to
amend the regulatory framework for standard remote identification
unmanned aircraft by eliminating the requirement to transmit the
message elements through the internet to a Remote ID USS. As adopted,
Sec. 89.110 is now a broadcast-only solution where standard remote
identification unmanned aircraft are required to broadcast the message
elements directly from the unmanned aircraft. The FAA determined that
the requirement, as adopted, facilitates compliance with this rule and,
at this time, meets the safety and security needs of the FAA, national
security agencies, and law enforcement.
iii. Remote Identification Equipment and Message Elements
The person operating a standard remote identification unmanned
aircraft must ensure the unmanned aircraft is broadcasting the standard
remote identification unmanned aircraft message elements. This
broadcast equipment must be functional from takeoff to shutdown of the
unmanned aircraft and must not be disabled.
The operator of a standard remote identification unmanned aircraft
must ensure the unmanned aircraft is broadcasting the message elements
listed in Sec. 89.305. The message elements broadcast by standard
remote identification unmanned aircraft include a unique identifier; an
indication of the control station's latitude, longitude, and geometric
altitude; an indication of the unmanned aircraft's latitude, longitude,
and geometric altitude; an indication of the velocity of the unmanned
aircraft; a time mark; and an indication of the emergency status of the
unmanned aircraft. The requirement to broadcast the remote
identification message elements applies from takeoff to shutdown of the
unmanned aircraft. The message elements for standard remote
identification unmanned aircraft are discussed in more detail in
section VIII.A of this preamble. The minimum performance requirements
for standard remote identification unmanned aircraft are discussed in
more detail in section VIII.B of this preamble.
The FAA adopts design and production requirements for standard
remote identification unmanned aircraft in subpart F of part 89. The
production requirements are meant to help a person comply with the
operational requirements that apply to standard
[[Page 4411]]
remote identification unmanned aircraft. The Agency intends for
compliance with the remote identification requirements to be simple and
straightforward for individuals operating standard remote
identification unmanned aircraft produced in accordance with an FAA-
accepted means of compliance. For example, a standard remote
identification unmanned aircraft must automatically broadcast the
remote identification message elements, and its design must prohibit it
from taking off if the broadcast equipment is not functional.
iv. Serial Number Requirements
A person may operate a standard remote identification unmanned
aircraft if its serial number is listed on an FAA-accepted declaration
of compliance, or the standard remote identification unmanned aircraft
is covered by a design approval or production approval issued under
part 21.
The serial number issued to the standard remote identification
unmanned aircraft must be included in the application for registration
of the unmanned aircraft under part 47 or 48 and may not be duplicative
of a serial number associated with a different certificate of aircraft
registration. For owners registering small unmanned aircraft
exclusively for limited recreational operations under 49 U.S.C. 44809,
more than one serial number may be included on a single Certificate of
Aircraft Registration. The registration requirements that apply to
standard remote identification unmanned aircraft are discussed in more
detail in section XV of this preamble. Alternatively, the serial number
of the unmanned aircraft must be provided to the FAA in a notice of
identification pursuant to Sec. 89.130 prior to the operation. The
requirements that apply to foreign registered civil unmanned aircraft
operating in the airspace of the United States are discussed in section
XVI of this preamble.
2. Public Comments and FAA Response
Comments: The Air Line Pilots Association, International mentioned
that only standard remote identification UAS should be permitted to
access LAANC airspace.
FAA Response: Considering the requirement for all unmanned aircraft
to broadcast remote identification information, the FAA finds that
access to controlled airspace via the LAANC process does not require
additional restrictions.
Comments: Some commenters strongly supported the requirement for
standard remote identification UAS to transmit via a network and
broadcast, noting that each system has strengths that address the other
system's weaknesses to support safety, security, and future operational
capabilities. Others supported the standard remote identification UAS
requirements provided the rule maintains the option to continue to
operate when there is no connection to the internet or transmission to
a Remote ID USS.
FAA Response: For the reasons explained in section VII.A of the
preamble, the FAA has decided to eliminate the network-based
requirements from this rule at this time. Accordingly, in accordance
with Sec. 89.110(a), standard remote identification unmanned aircraft
must broadcast the remote identification message elements directly from
the unmanned aircraft.
Comments: Some commenters suggested the FAA consider requiring
operators to comply with either a broadcast or a network requirement,
but not both, unless requiring both is necessary for specific
operations such as BVLOS. Commenters suggested the requirement to
simultaneously broadcast remote identification data that is transmitted
to the network does not add any substantial public safety or security
benefit.
FAA Response: The FAA is not adopting the requirement to transmit
message elements through the internet to a Remote ID USS in this rule.
While the FAA recognizes the potential benefits of network remote
identification, as stated by several commenters, the FAA believes a
broadcast-only solution is sufficient, at this time, to maintain the
safety and security of the airspace of the United States. The FAA
agrees with the commenters who proposed that a broadcast-only solution
is sufficient at this time to provide the required remote
identification message elements to support typical unmanned aircraft
operations and satisfy security concerns.
D. Remote Identification Broadcast Modules
1. Discussion of the Final Rule
This rule finalizes the regulatory framework that allows persons to
equip unmanned aircraft with remote identification broadcast modules to
enable them to identify remotely. See Sec. 89.115(a) of this rule. As
previously mentioned in section VII.D of this preamble, the remote
identification broadcast module concept is a retrofit option that
replaces the limited remote identification UAS regulatory framework of
the proposed rule and provides flexibility to operators of unmanned
aircraft that do not meet the requirements for standard remote
identification unmanned aircraft. The concept allows unmanned aircraft
built without remote identification (e.g., existing unmanned aircraft
fleet, home-built unmanned aircraft) to be operated outside of FAA-
recognized identification areas because the broadcast modules enable
the unmanned aircraft to broadcast the remote identification message
elements required by this rule. Through this regulatory framework, the
FAA is also allowing a pathway for existing unmanned aircraft that have
certain broadcast capabilities and equipment already integrated to be
upgraded to meet the requirements of a remote identification broadcast
module.
The FAA decided to incorporate this concept into this rule after
reviewing public comments and considering the significant concerns
raised with respect to the limited remote identification UAS framework.
The FAA determined a remote identification broadcast module facilitates
compliance with this rule and, at this time, meets the safety and
security needs of the FAA, national security agencies, and law
enforcement. The concept is broadcast-based and does not require a
person to connect to the internet to identify remotely, as the limited
remote identification UAS proposal did. This shift allows unmanned
aircraft with remote identification broadcast modules to operate in
areas where the internet is unavailable. In addition, by making this a
broadcast solution, the FAA has determined that the 400-foot range
limitation included in the proposed requirements for limited remote
identification UAS is no longer warranted and has removed the design
constraint. However, the FAA has determined that persons manipulating
the flight controls of UAS where the unmanned aircraft is equipped with
remote identification broadcast modules must be able to see the
unmanned aircraft at all times throughout the operation. Commenters
generally supported a visual line of sight requirement for unmanned
aircraft operations that do not meet the requirements for standard
remote identification unmanned aircraft and therefore FAA is
incorporating the restriction into the operating requirements for
unmanned aircraft with remote identification broadcast modules.\19\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\19\ The FAA emphasizes that this rule does not relieve any
existing visual-line-of-sight requirements. See, e.g., 49 U.S.C.
44809(a)(3); 14 CFR 107.31 and 107.33. The purpose of the visual-
line-of-sight provision of this rule is to impose a separate visual-
line-of-sight requirement on unmanned aircraft operated with remote
broadcast modules to ensure that these aircraft are operated within
visual line of sight even if the existing operating requirements are
changed through future integration efforts.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 4412]]
The requirements for unmanned aircraft with remote identification
broadcast modules are discussed below.
i. Use of Remote Identification Broadcast Modules
The FAA adopts the requirements in Sec. 89.115(a) for the
operation of unmanned aircraft equipped with remote identification
broadcast modules. A person may equip an unmanned aircraft with a
remote identification broadcast module by securing or integrating a
remote identification broadcast module to the unmanned aircraft or by
other means (e.g., software upgrade). The operating requirements for
unmanned aircraft equipped with remote identification broadcast modules
are the same irrespective of how the broadcast module is secured to the
unmanned aircraft or integrated into the unmanned aircraft.
Remote identification broadcast modules allow operators of unmanned
aircraft without remote identification (e.g., existing unmanned
aircraft and unmanned aircraft excepted under Sec. 89.501(c) from the
design and production requirements of this rule) to operate outside of
an FAA-recognized identification area. For example, a home-built
unmanned aircraft can be produced without remote identification and can
be operated without remote identification in an FAA-recognized
identification area. However, if an operator wishes to operate a home-
built unmanned aircraft outside of an FAA-recognized identification
area, he or she can do so by equipping the unmanned aircraft with a
remote identification broadcast module.
A person may use an unmanned aircraft equipped with a remote
identification broadcast module in operations conducted under any
operating rule (e.g., limited recreational operations conducted under
49 U.S.C. 44809, or operations conducted under part 91, part 107, part
135, or any other operating part). However, as discussed below,
operations of unmanned aircraft equipped with remote identification
broadcast modules are limited to visual line of sight of the person
manipulating the flight controls of the UAS.
ii. Remote Identification Equipment and Message Elements
The operator of an unmanned aircraft with a remote identification
broadcast module must ensure that the remote identification broadcast
module is broadcasting the message elements listed in Sec. 89.315 of
this rule and that the remote identification broadcast module is listed
on an FAA-accepted declaration of compliance. The message elements
broadcast by remote identification broadcast modules include a unique
identifier; an indication of the unmanned aircraft latitude, longitude,
and geometric altitude; an indication of the unmanned aircraft take-off
location latitude, longitude, and geometric altitude; an indication of
the unmanned aircraft velocity; and a time mark. The requirement to
broadcast the remote identification message elements applies from
takeoff until shutdown of the unmanned aircraft.
The remote identification broadcast module message elements are
identical to those for standard remote identification unmanned
aircraft, with the exception of the unmanned aircraft take-off location
and altitude, which replaces the control station location and altitude,
and the emergency status which is only a required message element for
the standard remote identification unmanned aircraft. The take-off
location and altitude indications are intended to provide an
approximate location of the UAS operator, based on an expectation that
the UAS operator is located in close proximity to the unmanned aircraft
take-off location and altitude. The FAA believes this is an appropriate
assumption for VLOS operations. The requirement to indicate the take-
off location and altitude enables the retrofit installation of remote
identification broadcast modules on unmanned aircraft because the take-
off location and altitude can be measured by a stand-alone broadcast
module without any dependency on external systems or equipment.
Further, the FAA is not requiring that an unmanned aircraft with a
remote identification broadcast module broadcast an indication of the
emergency status of the unmanned aircraft. To indicate an emergency
status, the remote identification equipment would likely need to be
integrated into the unmanned aircraft and designed to recognize
specific aircraft failure modes or off-nominal situations. Because
remote identification broadcast modules can be installed on existing
unmanned aircraft with different characteristics, the FAA finds that an
emergency status indication for remote identification broadcast modules
presents too many technological challenges to require at this time.
The message elements and minimum performance requirements for
remote identification broadcast modules are discussed in more detail in
section IX of this preamble.
iii. Broadcast Module Installation and Instructions
As previously mentioned, this rule allows a person to use an
unmanned aircraft equipped with a remote identification broadcast
module. The person installing the remote identification broadcast
module must perform the retrofit in accordance with the instructions
provided by the producer of the remote identification broadcast module
to ensure that the broadcast module is compatible with the unmanned
aircraft, that the installation is completed successfully, and that the
remote identification functionality is compliant with all the
requirements of this rule.
iv. Serial Number Requirements
The producer of remote identification broadcast modules must issue
each module a serial number that complies with ANSI/CTA-2063-A in
accordance with Sec. 89.505. The serial number must be listed on an
FAA-accepted declaration of compliance.
The serial number must be included in the application for
registration of the unmanned aircraft under part 47 or 48 and may not
be duplicative of a serial number associated with a different
certificate of aircraft registration. For owners registering small
unmanned aircraft exclusively for limited recreational operations under
49 U.S.C. 44809, more than one serial number may be included on a
single Certificate of Aircraft Registration. The registration
requirements that apply to unmanned aircraft with remote identification
broadcast modules are discussed in more detail in section XV.A of this
preamble. Foreign registered civil unmanned aircraft must provide the
serial number of the unmanned aircraft or remote identification
broadcast module to the FAA in a notice of identification pursuant to
Sec. 89.130 prior to the operation in the airspace of the United
States. The requirements that apply to foreign registered civil
unmanned aircraft operating in the airspace of the United States are
discussed in section XVI of this preamble.
[[Page 4413]]
v. Operations Restricted to Visual Line of Sight
Operations of unmanned aircraft with remote identification
broadcast modules must be conducted so that the person manipulating the
flight controls of the UAS is able to see the unmanned aircraft at all
times throughout the operation. Commenters generally supported a visual
line of sight requirement for unmanned aircraft operations that do not
meet the requirements for standard remote identification unmanned
aircraft and therefore the FAA is incorporating the restriction into
the operating requirements for unmanned aircraft with remote
identification broadcast modules.
2. Public Comments and FAA Response
Comments: Many commenters recommended that the FAA permit an add-on
component or module that comes from an FAA-approved manufacturer. These
commenters recommended permitting stand-alone broadcast modules that
could be serialized to enable off the shelf solutions and lower the
cost for existing UAS and amateur-built UAS to meet the remote
identification requirements via broadcast, network, or both. Some
suggested a beacon or broadcast remote identification requirement with
no network requirement.
Many commenters suggested the FAA allow remote identification add-
on equipment that can be mounted on UAS that were originally
manufactured without remote identification. Many commenters also
recommended permitting modules that could be registered to a specific
user and swapped between multiple UAS so existing UAS and amateur-built
UAS can meet remote identification requirements. One commenter
suggested the FAA move forward with a simple and minimally burdensome
solution such as an add-on broadcast module for limited remote
identification UAS instead of the proposed requirements. Another
commenter suggested allowing the use of an external broadcast module
that could be changed as technology changes or additional airspace is
available and noted that the European Union and France permit external
modules.
Many commenters supported a broadcast remote identification option
that would permit operations in areas with no internet access or in the
event of Remote ID USS outages.
The National Transportation Safety Board noted that broadcast
remote identification may support aircraft-to-aircraft collision
avoidance capability, but it was unclear whether a network remote
identification could as well.
FAA Response: The FAA agrees with public comments and has revised
this rule to include the remote identification broadcast module
concept. An unmanned aircraft produced, built, or assembled without
remote identification can now be equipped with a remote identification
broadcast module that broadcasts the message elements required by this
rule. Since an unmanned aircraft with a remote identification broadcast
module is able to identify remotely, the unmanned aircraft can be
operated outside of an FAA-recognized identification area.
E. Other Broadcast Requirements Applicable to Standard Remote
Identification Unmanned Aircraft and Unmanned Aircraft With Remote
Identification Broadcast Modules
1. Broadcast Directly From the Unmanned Aircraft
i. Discussion of the Final Rule
This rule requires standard remote identification unmanned aircraft
and unmanned aircraft with remote identification broadcast modules to
broadcast the remote identification message elements directly from the
unmanned aircraft.
ii. Public Comments and FAA Response
Comments: Several commenters suggested permitting the control
station to broadcast the required message elements.
FAA Response: The FAA does not agree with commenters because of the
likelihood of decreased reception range caused by terrain or ground
obstacles. In addition, if the unmanned aircraft were to go outside the
range of the remote identification broadcast from the control station,
persons near the unmanned aircraft may not be able to identify it.
Therefore, the FAA maintains the requirement that the remote
identification message elements must be broadcast directly from the
unmanned aircraft.
2. Broadcast From Takeoff to Shutdown
i. Discussion of the Final Rule
The FAA proposed that a person would be able to operate a UAS with
remote identification only if the UAS sends the remote identification
message elements from takeoff to shutdown. The FAA requested comments
regarding when automatic Remote ID USS connections should be required.
Though the Remote ID USS connection is no longer required in this rule,
the responses were instructive and helped inform the Agency's decision
to modify the requirement, as it applies to the broadcast of message
elements by standard remote identification unmanned aircraft and remote
identification broadcast modules.
The FAA is finalizing this rule to require the broadcast of message
elements directly from the unmanned aircraft from takeoff to shutdown.
ii. Public Comments and FAA Response
Comments: Commenters stated the remote identification requirements
should only apply for the duration of the flight and should not apply
to unmanned aircraft that are active but not flying. Many of these
commenters cited difficulties in performing maintenance on unmanned
aircraft if the connection was required at power up when the UAS is not
intended to be flown. One individual suggested the connection
requirement should apply when the unmanned aircraft is in motion.
Many commenters offered options to the proposed requirement. They
proposed requiring UAS to broadcast from takeoff to landing, from start
up to shutdown, and start up to landing. The responses were generally
divided into two main considerations: When the UAS should start to
broadcast and when it should cease to broadcast.
Commenters who believed the UAS should transmit the message
elements from the time the UAS is started up mentioned that a certain
amount of time is needed to establish connectivity to the network. Some
suggested there is a need or value for law enforcement to gain
awareness of the operation prior to flight. Others mentioned a UAS
should not be required to broadcast any message elements while powered
on, as long as actual flight is not intended or commenced (e.g., when a
person powers on the UAS to conduct maintenance or download data).
Some commenters believed the UAS should continue to broadcast until
the UAS lands while others believed it should broadcast until the UAS
is shutdown. Those supporting the landing cutoff noted the unmanned
aircraft is no longer in the airspace of the United States upon landing
and there is no longer a safety risk because the unmanned aircraft is
no longer in the air. They also mentioned a person may want to keep the
power on (e.g., to conduct maintenance or download data) for some time
prior to shutdown. Other commenters mentioned the broadcast should end
upon shutdown because it would grant additional time for law
enforcement and other security partners to locate the unmanned
aircraft, after it
[[Page 4414]]
lands, which could help identify an operator.
FAA Response: The FAA agrees with comments supporting a broadcast
requirement that begins at takeoff rather than start up because
different unmanned aircraft have different startup sequences and may
not all be capable of broadcasting remote identification elements at
the same point in their startup process. Takeoff is the first part of
an unmanned aircraft operation that is common to all unmanned aircraft,
which is why FAA has decided to tie the requirement to begin
broadcasting to takeoff. In addition, unmanned aircraft are often
powered on for purposes other than flight, such as conducting
maintenance or configuring the unmanned aircraft hardware and software.
Finally, unmanned aircraft that are powered on indoors, where
maintenance typically occurs, would likely not be able to generate some
of the remote identification message elements, making such a
requirement ineffective.
The FAA also agrees with comments supporting the extension of the
broadcast requirement until the unmanned aircraft is shutdown because
the additional data can assist the Agency and law enforcement to
identify unmanned aircraft or operators engaged in unsafe or illegal
operation. The FAA does not agree with commenters that believe once an
unmanned aircraft lands there is no longer the potential for safety
risk because in many cases, the safety risk is the result of careless
or clueless operators that will continue the potentially unsafe
behavior without FAA or law enforcement intervention. Requiring
unmanned aircraft to broadcast the message elements until the unmanned
aircraft is shutdown provides additional time for the FAA or law
enforcement to locate an unmanned aircraft operator, even after the
unmanned aircraft has landed. Therefore, after reviewing public
comments and giving further consideration, the FAA decided to modify
the proposal and adopts the requirement so unmanned aircraft must
broadcast the required message elements from takeoff to shutdown.
3. In-Flight Loss of Remote Identification Broadcast
i. Discussion of the Final Rule
A standard remote identification unmanned aircraft must perform a
self-test and provide a notification to the person manipulating the
flight controls of the UAS if the remote identification equipment is
not functioning properly. In addition, a standard remote identification
unmanned aircraft must be designed to not take off if it fails the
self-test.
A remote identification broadcast module must also perform a self-
test and provide a notification to the person manipulating the flight
controls of the UAS if the remote identification equipment is not
functioning properly. Unmanned aircraft operators may only use remote
identification broadcast modules that pass the self-test.
Both standard remote identification unmanned aircraft and remote
identification broadcast modules must continuously monitor their
performance while in use and provide an indication if the remote
identification equipment is not functioning properly. If the remote
identification equipment provides an indication of failure or
malfunction during flight, the unmanned aircraft operator must land the
unmanned aircraft as soon as practicable. The FAA notes that it does
not expect unavailability of GPS or other types of location services
(as the rule does not require GPS specifically) to result in a
notification to the unmanned aircraft operator nor require the operator
to land the unmanned aircraft as soon as practicable. The FAA expects
that means of compliance will stipulate that only equipment failures or
malfunctions would trigger a notification to the operator that the
unmanned aircraft was no longer broadcasting the message elements.
When determining how and when to land the unmanned aircraft as soon
as practicable, the FAA expects the person manipulating the flight
controls of the UAS to operate in a manner that minimizes risk to other
users of the airspace and people and property on the ground, while
using aeronautical decision making to quickly and safely land the
unmanned aircraft at a suitable landing area. The FAA recommends
including UAS remote identification contingency planning, including
plans for landing as soon as practicable, as part of a pre-flight
assessment.
ii. Public Comments and FAA Response
Comments: Many commenters recommended clarification of the proposed
requirement to ``land as soon as practicable'' in the event that remote
identification information does not transmit or broadcast. Many other
commenters noted it is more appropriate to notify the operator that
remote identification equipment is not working properly than to
forcibly ground a UAS by design.
To reduce the need for case-by-case authorizations, the Association
of American Railroads and the United States Rail Subsidiaries of the
Canadian National Railway Company requested amending proposed Sec.
89.110(b) to state that ``land as soon as practicable'' does not apply
when remote identification cannot be transmitted because there is a
potential to interfere with critical communication systems, when law
enforcement is responding to an emergency situation, disaster response,
critical infrastructure protection, or in other situations with the
potential to jeopardize public safety. Commenters suggested permitting
emergency operations with specific stipulations, such as operating
within VLOS, determining there is no undue risk to persons or property
on the ground or risk to UAS or manned aircraft in flight, and
notifying local law enforcement. A few commenters were concerned that
improper application of these requirements would result in automatic
power shut down in flight.
FAA Response: The requirement to ``land as soon as practicable''
does not require an immediate landing upon notification of a failure of
the broadcast equipment, but instead requires remote pilots to use
aeronautical decision making to quickly and safely land the unmanned
aircraft while considering the suitability of the landing area and the
safety of other aircraft, as well as persons and property on the
ground.
While there may be some operations, such as emergency or disaster
response, where continued unmanned aircraft operations, even in the
presence of a broadcast equipment failure, may provide significant
societal benefit, the FAA does not find that any particular activity
warrants a specifically stated exception in the regulation from the
requirement to land as soon as practicable. Instead, authorizations may
be granted on a case-by-case basis if there is sufficient justification
and an acceptable level of safety.
F. Unmanned Aircraft Without Remote Identification
1. Discussion of the Final Rule
The FAA proposed to allow unmanned aircraft without remote
identification capabilities to operate in specific areas, referred to
as FAA-recognized identification areas, or under a deviation authority
granted by the Administrator. The FAA adopts the substance of this
requirement with minor adjustments. Accordingly, the vast majority of
unmanned aircraft operated in the airspace of the United States must
identify remotely; however, unmanned aircraft without remote
identification may operate if they meet certain requirements. Mainly,
the
[[Page 4415]]
operation of unmanned aircraft without remote identification is
allowed: (1) Under Sec. 89.115(b) if the person manipulating the
flight controls of the UAS is able to see the unmanned aircraft at all
times throughout the operation, and within the boundaries of an FAA-
recognized identification area; or (2) under Sec. 89.120 when the
Administrator authorizes operations without remote identification where
the operation is solely for the purpose of aeronautical research or to
show compliance with regulations.
2. Operations at FAA-Recognized Identification Areas
A person may operate an unmanned aircraft without remote
identification if that operation is within the boundaries of an FAA-
recognized identification area and the person manipulating the flight
controls of the UAS is able to see the unmanned aircraft at all times
throughout the operation. As the FAA explained in the NPRM, the phrase
``operated within an FAA-recognized identification area'' means that
both the unmanned aircraft and the person manipulating the flight
controls of the UAS must be located within the boundaries of the FAA-
recognized identification area from takeoff to landing. However, this
rule does not allow for the remote identification capability to be
disabled, unless otherwise authorized by the Administrator. Therefore,
a person operating a standard remote identification unmanned aircraft
or an unmanned aircraft with a remote identification broadcast module
must continue to identify remotely when operating in an FAA-recognized
identification area.
i. Public Comments Regarding Operations at FAA-Recognized
Identification Areas
Many commenters agreed with the concept of FAA-recognized
identification areas. Others expressed concerns, however, that the FAA-
recognized identification areas would be too limited to address
adequately the needs of hobbyists who primarily fly amateur-built or
home-built UAS. The commenters noted that these operators tend to have
dozens of UAS, many of which do not have navigation equipment to
determine location. Commenters also expressed concerns about increased
cost of travel and membership in national and local community-based
organizations. Many commenters, including commercial operators,
modelers, UAS racers, and educational groups, believed the FAA-
recognized identification areas would be the only option for certain
persons to continue to fly UAS and stated the cost of upgrading a UAS
to one with built-in remote identification could be cost prohibitive.
Many commenters expressed concerns that they will be confined to
operating their existing UAS at an FAA-recognized identification area
due to prohibitions or complexities of adding remote identification
equipment to their existing UAS. Commenters expressed concerns about
continued operations of existing UAS, particularly for recreational
users operating under current rules, and asked the FAA to consider how
to provide a cost-effective path to compliance, or otherwise
``grandfather'' those UAS, including amateur-built UAS and model
aircraft, to support operations outside of FAA-recognized
identification areas and otherwise prevent obsolescence.
Commenters also noted specific types of UAS are not permitted to
operate at many existing flying fields that are likely to be FAA-
recognized identification areas. These UAS include quad copters, racing
UAS, and UAS conducting first person view (FPV) operations. Many
commenters noted that crowding a large number of existing unmanned
aircraft operators into a limited number of FAA-recognized
identification areas could make it difficult to have sufficient space
to fly or could increase collision and crash risk due to radio
interference and proximity of aircraft when numerous unmanned aircraft
are flown at once. The commenters noted the likely number of FAA-
recognized identification areas would not provide sufficient capacity
to accommodate operations of hundreds of thousands of current UAS that
would not be permitted to fly elsewhere. In addition, several
commenters noted increased UAS activity and noise at flying fields is
likely to increase tension with neighboring communities. Some
commenters also noted many existing flying fields have limited hours.
Dragonfly UAS and many other commenters noted many flying fields
are consumed by surrounding development and recommended permitting a
greater number of FAA-recognized identification areas to be approved
over time and at private property sites.
Some commenters expressed concerns that existing recreational
flying fields might not be eligible to become FAA-recognized
identification areas and that this would negatively affect recreational
flyers.
The government of the District of Columbia objected to permitting
operations in an FAA-recognized identification area because there would
be no mechanism to ensure those UAS without remote identification
cannot be operated illegally in other locations. The National Business
Aviation Association contended that limiting operations to FAA-
recognized identification areas seems unrealistic and unmanageable.
A few commenters objected to relying on FAA-recognized
identification areas and questioned whether this requirement would
conflict with 49 U.S.C. 44809. Many individual, industry, and
organizational commenters recommended eliminating the FAA-recognized
identification area concept altogether. Others suggested that the FAA
provide alternative paths for existing UAS without remote
identification, including recreational UAS and traditional model
aircraft, to comply with the remote identification requirements.
Many commenters believed the FAA-recognized identification area
concept does not adequately address model aircraft events and other UAS
competitions, including those that raise money for charity and
impromptu flight events. These commenters noted many events take place
in locations that are unlikely to request a designation or that are
unlikely to be approved as an FAA-recognized identification area, such
as airports serving manned aircraft or other public locations that are
likely to be ineligible. Many commenters suggested the FAA implement a
simple authorization process for UAS events, with some commenters
recommending an application-based request and approval system similar
to LAANC. The Drone Racing League noted they would be unable to provide
any first-person view racing events in the United States due to the
VLOS and FAA-recognized identification area requirements. They also
requested the final rule permit commercial UAS events with input and
specific authorization by the FAA, similar to other aviation events
such as air shows.
Instead of being limited to operating in FAA-recognized
identification areas, UAS Colorado recommended allowing community-based
organizations to self-verify their fields and permit letters of
agreement to operate on airports, and recommended developing a LAANC-
style system to allow self-reporting of location for non-compliant UAS
as well as organized events that are not in FAA-recognized
identification areas.
ii. FAA Response
The FAA does not agree with the feedback from commenters who
believe FAA-recognized identification areas are
[[Page 4416]]
unnecessary to accommodate operations of unmanned aircraft without
remote identification or believe there are better pathways for
accommodating the operation of UAS without remote identification. Other
proposals for enabling operations without remote identification do not
enable an observer to determine readily which unmanned aircraft are
expected to be broadcasting, and which are not. The Agency determined
there is a need for a space for unmanned aircraft without remote
identification to continue to operate and therefore adopts a policy to
allow operations of unmanned aircraft without remote identification
when operated within the boundaries of an FAA-recognized identification
area and within visual line of sight.
To address the commenters who expressed concerns with the policy
that limited the types of entities that could request to establish an
FAA-recognized identification area and the available time for making
such requests, this rule expands the types of entities that can apply
for the establishment of FAA-recognized identification area and removes
the deadline for applications. These changes are discussed in sections
XII.B and XII.C of the preamble. The FAA is effecting these changes in
response to concerns regarding the availability and utility of FAA-
recognized identification areas that allow continued operations of
unmanned aircraft without remote identification. In addition, the FAA
believes the concept incorporated into this rule allowing unmanned
aircraft to equip with remote identification broadcast modules provides
a practical way for unmanned aircraft without remote identification to
be upgraded or modified to meet the remote identification requirements,
which reduces the need to operate at FAA-recognized identification
areas.
FAA-recognized identification areas are locations where unmanned
aircraft without remote identification can operate, but these areas are
not limited to only unmanned aircraft without remote identification;
other unmanned aircraft may also be operated in these areas to the
extent otherwise permitted in accordance with all applicable
regulations. Therefore, unmanned aircraft with remote identification
can also be operated within the boundaries of an FAA-recognized
identification area.
Though FAA-recognized identification areas would not be authorized
for temporary use, the FAA expects that instances such as air shows or
temporary drone racing events would be handled, where warranted,
through authorization from the Administrator to deviate from the remote
identification operating rules.
3. Operations for Aeronautical Research
The second way a person can operate an unmanned aircraft without
remote identification is pursuant to an authorization from the FAA
Administrator for the purpose of aeronautical research or to show
compliance with regulations. As explained in the NPRM, the FAA
considers aeronautical research to be limited to the research and
testing of the unmanned aircraft, the control systems, equipment that
is part of the unmanned aircraft (such as sensors), and flight
profiles, or development of specific functions and capabilities for the
UAS. Producers and other persons authorized by the Administrator have
the ability to operate unmanned aircraft prototypes without remote
identification exclusively for researching and testing the unmanned
aircraft design, equipment, or capabilities; or to conduct research,
development, and testing necessary for UAS infrastructure, systems, and
technologies, including but not limited future UTM and United States
Government counter-UAS capabilities. A person may also be authorized by
the Administrator to conduct flight tests and other operations with
non-compliant remote identification equipment to show compliance with
an FAA-accepted means of compliance for remote identification or
airworthiness regulations. These types of unmanned aircraft operations
could include flights to show compliance for issuance of type
certificates and supplemental type certificates, flights to
substantiate major design changes, and flights to show compliance with
the function and reliability requirements of the regulations. This
deviation authority does not extend to any other type of research using
an unmanned aircraft.
As discussed in section XIV.B.5, UAS designed or produced
exclusively for the purpose of aeronautical research are excepted from
the production requirements of subpart F of this rule. The production
exceptions are discussed in section XIV.B of this preamble.
i. Public Comments Regarding Operations for Aeronautical Research
Though some commenters objected to allowing UAS without remote
identification to operate outside of FAA-recognized identification
areas for only aeronautical research purposes, many organizations,
companies, and individual commenters generally supported the concept,
with numerous suggestions to ensure research, development, and
innovation are not unnecessarily restricted. Other commenters noted
that only permitting aeronautical research was unnecessarily stifling
for UAS research initiatives that are ongoing in multiple fields, such
as forestry, wildlife biology, geology, agriculture, hydrology, and
other fields utilizing geographic information systems.
Some commenters suggested adding exceptions to accommodate
education, such as training students, model airshows, and other
educational events. Ax Enterprize mentioned that work testing UAS
situation awareness systems should be permitted. Wing Aviation
recommended the FAA to outline factors that weigh in favor of this
authorization, such as a controlled access location with effective
mitigations to ensure operation containment. SRP Aero asked how long it
will take to grant an authorization to permit test flights of prototype
UAS. A commenter from Evergreen State College asked the FAA to consider
permitting research and emergency operations in remote areas.
The Association for Unmanned Vehicle Systems International, the
General Aviation Manufacturers Association, the University of Maryland
UAS Test Site, and the University of Alabama in Huntsville requested
that the FAA specifically clarify what kinds of operations qualify
under the ``aeronautical research'' exception to ensure it is not too
restrictive, such as development activities, non-production and
experimental prototypes, avionics interfaces, and concept of operations
development. AiRXOS, the Commercial Drone Alliance, FlyGuys Inc., and
others requested that commercial research be expressly listed as
permitted under ``aeronautical research,'' and requested the FAA to
clarify that research conducted in an FAA-recognized identification
area does not require FAA approval. To prevent the restriction of
research activities, the University of Texas--Austin recommended
expanding the aeronautical research exception to cover other
educational uses, and the Small UAV Coalition recommended expanding
this exception to include commercial and academic research and
development activities. Verizon and Skyward suggested FAA approval
should not be required for research activities and suggested permitting
FAA-recognized identification area applications for the purpose of
research, development, testing, and product evaluation.
[[Page 4417]]
ii. FAA Response
In this rule, the FAA adopts the deviation authority to allow
persons authorized by the Administrator to conduct operations without
remote identification where the operation is solely for the purpose of
aeronautical research or to show compliance with regulations. At this
time, the FAA has decided that there is no need to expand the types of
operations that qualify for a deviation from the operating rules and
notes that the examples provided by commenters (e.g., non-aeronautical
research, data collection, or educational activities) can be conducted
using unmanned aircraft with remote identification, or using unmanned
aircraft without remote identification at an FAA-recognized
identification area.
The FAA envisions that UAS operated for aeronautical research would
typically be experimental, prototype, or testbed systems operated for
specific purposes under special operating conditions and limited
durations. These types of unmanned aircraft are not typically available
to the general public for purchase or use.
The FAA does not believe it is necessary to provide additional
information regarding what types of operations constitute
``aeronautical research'' beyond what was provided in the NPRM and this
rule. FAA notes that intending to conduct aeronautical research simply
authorizes the operator to apply for a deviation; if requests for a
deviation show confusion as to the meaning of this term in spite of the
guidance in this rule, FAA may issue additional guidance at that time.
VIII. Message Elements and Minimum Performance Requirements: Standard
Remote Identification Unmanned Aircraft
The FAA proposed certain requirements for remote identification
message elements and minimum performance requirements for standard
remote identification UAS. The FAA adopts those requirements with the
changes and adjustments described below.
A. Message Elements for Standard Remote Identification Unmanned
Aircraft
The FAA proposed requiring certain minimum message elements
necessary to meet the objectives of this rule. The proposed message
elements were: (1) The UAS Identification; (2) an indication of the
control station's latitude and longitude; (3) an indication of the
control station's barometric pressure altitude; (4) an indication of
the unmanned aircraft's latitude and longitude; (5) an indication of
the unmanned aircraft's barometric pressure altitude; (6) a time mark;
and (7) an indication of the emergency status of the UAS.
After reviewing public comments and further consideration, the FAA
adopts the seven message elements proposed with some modifications and
adds an eighth message element: Velocity. The FAA explains these
requirements, including changes from the NPRM, in the following
subsections.
1. Unmanned Aircraft Unique Identifier
i. Discussion of the Final Rule
The NPRM discussed that the UAS Identification message element
establishes the unique identity of UAS operating in the airspace of the
United States. The FAA proposed that this message element would consist
of one of the following: (1) A serial number assigned to the unmanned
aircraft by the person responsible for the production of the standard
remote identification UAS; or (2) a session identification number
(session ID) assigned by a Remote ID USS.
The FAA proposed to allow UAS operators to use a session ID
assigned by a Remote ID USS as the UAS Identification instead of the
unmanned aircraft serial number. The FAA explained that the association
between a given session ID and the unmanned aircraft serial number
would not be available to the public through the broadcast message.
This association would be available to the issuing Remote ID USS, the
FAA, and other authorized entities, such as law enforcement. Where a
session ID would have been issued, the FAA explained that the Agency
and authorized entities would have the means to correlate the session
ID to the UAS serial number and would consequently be able to correlate
the unmanned aircraft serial number to its registration data. The FAA
also proposed that a UAS would be designed to broadcast its serial
number regardless of whether the unmanned aircraft has been registered
or not.
The FAA adopts the UAS Identification message element concept, but
instead uses the more general term ``unique identifier'' in this rule
and clarifies that the unique identifier is applicable to the unmanned
aircraft and not the UAS. However, because the FAA has eliminated the
Remote ID USS-related requirements, the FAA plans to develop an
alternative strategy for assignment of session ID to UAS operators. The
FAA is retaining the concept that the session ID will be uniquely
identifiable such that law enforcement and the FAA will be able to
correlate each session ID to a specific unmanned aircraft serial
number, but that this ability will not be publicly available. The FAA
will consider existing policies, such as the Privacy ICAO Address (PIA)
program for aircraft equipped with ADS-B Out, when developing the
session ID policy.
ii. Public Comments and FAA Response
Comments: Many commenters expressed support for the session ID
concept to protect the privacy of operations while deterring
irresponsible operators. Pierce Aerospace recommended a unique session
ID be created by default to protect privacy. Qualcomm and Streamline
Designs both supported session IDs assigned by a Remote ID USS but
suggested permitting the operator to cycle through a set of temporary
IDs or have a session ID assigned with a time limit rather than
requiring a unique session ID for each flight, to minimize the burden
of assigning unique identifiers for short flights typical of many UAS.
Kittyhawk supported the concept of assigning a session ID, and
submitted survey data showing the importance of privacy for the
majority of those pilots surveyed. Sky Eye Network recommended
permitting the session ID option without an additional charge for
operators due to the required Remote ID USS subscription to receive a
session ID. The News Media Coalition supported the session ID concept
to protect the privacy of journalists operating UAS, but was concerned
about how to generate a unique session ID when operating in an area
with no internet availability.
Some commenters, including the New Hampshire Department of
Transportation and Unifly, suggested permitting registration numbers to
be broadcast or transmitted for aircraft identification as well as
serial numbers or session ID while controlling access to the UAS and
pilot registration database, similar to vehicle license plates and
current manned aircraft requirements. Unifly also noted that this would
be consistent with European Regulation 2019/945 and the ASTM F3411-19
Standard Specification for Remote ID and Tracking.
One commenter was concerned about the requirement to broadcast or
transmit the serial number as it may be difficult to keep the same
serial number due to quality control issues in the event of major
repairs to the UAS, such as repairs to the UAS or control station
transmitters, or other parts.
[[Page 4418]]
AiRXOS and Motorola supported the session ID concept for most
missions, but further recommended developing a ``trusted user'' process
to allow law enforcement to flag missions for which Remote ID USS
should not provide information to the general public. The Alabama
Department of Transportation and the District of Columbia office of the
Deputy Mayor for Public Safety and Justice commented that while session
ID offers privacy to the UAS operator, it could be a hindrance for
identification that unscrupulous operators may exploit, which may
negate the security benefit.
Airlines for America (A4A) opposed the option for Remote ID USS to
issue and assign session IDs. A4A thought session ID was not justified,
stating that the combination of session ID and the UAS pilot being at a
different location than the UAS provided additional privacy for UAS
operators than other airspace users, which may be a disincentive to
safe operating practices. Several other commenters suggested that the
Session ID option could reduce accountability and inadvertently
increase unsafe and irresponsible operations due to the added privacy.
The American Civil Liberties Union noted that session ID will not
shield individuals from tracking by the government but will likely
shield corporate operators from public scrutiny by removing public
ability to track a UAS across multiple flight sessions. They suggested
permitting session ID for individuals but not commercial operators, and
that government UAS be subject to a higher level of scrutiny and
disclosure. The Electronic Privacy Information Center (EPIC) suggested
the FAA avoid session IDs to reduce potential UAS identification
problems for the public and ensure that UAS identity is not masked.
FAA Response: Many commenters provided suggestions on how to
implement the session ID concept, including cost models, how operators
could use a session ID, or how Remote ID USS could issue them. The FAA
finds that the performance-based requirements allow the unmanned
aircraft community to innovate and find the solutions that work best
but still meet the safety and security objectives of the rule.
Some commenters suggested the registration number also be allowed
as a UAS Identification message element. The addition of the
registration number would likely require operator input and be
susceptible to misuse, omission, or errors, and would require
validation by an external system and require the external system to
have access to registration information, which would create privacy and
security concerns. As noted by a commenter, sharing of the registration
data might lead others to misuse that information. Hence, the FAA finds
that adding the registration number to the identification message
element does not provide enough benefits to warrant the added
complexity and potential for misuse of its addition.
An individual commenter noted the difficulty of having the unmanned
aircraft and control station both transmit the same serial number if a
repair was needed that necessitated the remote identification equipment
of one element needing replacement. The FAA expects that standard
remote identification unmanned aircraft will incorporate remote
identification equipment that is highly integrated into the various
unmanned aircraft components. Therefore, such repair actions would be
undertaken by a specialist or someone trained by the manufacturer and
that person would be capable of ensuring the proper functionality of
the remote identification equipment post repair.
The FAA agrees with many commenters that the session ID option
strikes a balance between protecting the privacy of individual
operations while still deterring irresponsible operators. The public
can use remote identification messages with a session ID to report
suspicious UAS operations to law enforcement, and law enforcement can,
in coordination with the FAA, establish the identity of the responsible
persons. The FAA agrees with commenters that session IDs must be
traceable to enable the FAA and authorized entities to know the
corresponding unmanned aircraft serial number or registration number
for each individual session ID. The FAA does not agree, however, that
session ID be the default option, and instead finds that both session
ID and the serial number are equally acceptable. Thus, industry and
individual operators are free to choose the option that best meets
their needs.
The FAA proposed that a session ID would be assigned by a Remote ID
USS. Because this rule does not retain the requirement for standard
remote identification unmanned aircraft to have an internet connection
to a Remote ID USS, the FAA plans to develop an alternative strategy
for assignment of session ID to unmanned aircraft operators. The FAA
will consider existing policies, such as the Privacy ICAO Address (PIA)
program for aircraft equipped with ADS-B Out, when developing the
session ID policy. Pursuant to the Department of Transportation's
procedures regarding significant guidance documents,\20\ FAA will seek
public comment on the session ID policy prior to finalizing it.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\20\ See 49 CFR 5.41(a).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
2. An Indication of the Control Station's Latitude and Longitude
i. Discussion of the Final Rule
The FAA proposed that standard remote identification UAS broadcast
and transmit to a Remote ID USS the latitude and longitude of its
control station. The FAA did not propose a specific type of position
source used to determine this information, to allow the greatest
flexibility to designers and producers of UAS. The FAA proposed to
require that the person manipulating the flight controls of the UAS be
co-located with the control station; therefore, knowing the control
station location would also provide the location of the person
manipulating the flight controls of the UAS. This message element would
be used by the FAA and authorized entities to locate the UAS operator
when necessary for the safety, security, or efficiency of aircraft
operations in the airspace of the United States. The FAA adopts this
message element as proposed.
ii. Public Comments and FAA Response
Comments: A significant number of commenters, representing manned
and unmanned aviation, manufacturers, users of unmanned aircraft, some
State and local law enforcement agencies, and numerous individuals
opposed the proposed requirement to provide the location of the control
station to the public and cited a number of reasons including ensuring
the safety of the person manipulating the flight controls of the UAS.
Commenters expressed concerns about the privacy of their operations and
that this information could increase the dangers for UAS operators and
their property potentially resulting in assault, home invasion, and
theft of their UAS and other equipment. Other commenters who opposed
providing the ground control station location provided examples of
confrontations, threats (including threats with firearms), and assaults
that they or others have received during operations or referenced media
reports of incidents involving confrontations, assaults of UAS
operators, and people shooting at unmanned aircraft if their location
becomes public. Many of these commenters supported the FAA and properly
authorized law enforcement or government agencies gaining access to
control station location information, but were concerned that making
this
[[Page 4419]]
information available to the public would increase the danger for UAS
operators and their property. See section X of this preamble for a
discussion of privacy issues raised by commenters, and section XI of
this preamble for a discussion of law enforcement access to remote
identification information.
Commenters suggested that requiring the control station location
would reduce the compliance rate. Others expressed concern for the
safety of UAS operations if the remote pilot in command is distracted
due to questions or a confrontation from a member of the public who has
tracked the pilot using control station location information.
Commenters noted that public availability of control station location
information is contrary to current practices for manned aircraft
pilots, such as locked cockpit doors as well as takeoffs and landings
that occur at secure locations on airport property.
Many commenters suggested that instead of making the control
station location publicly available, issues regarding UAS operations
are best addressed by noting the session ID or operator ID and
contacting appropriate law enforcement agencies who can use that
information to initiate an investigation. Many commenters suggested
that the location of the control station should be encrypted and
available only to the FAA and law enforcement but not to the general
public, or location data should be degraded or obfuscated if the
general public is permitted access. Several commenters were concerned
about the safety of UAS operators and other support staff engaged in
law enforcement or emergency management operations, and asked the FAA
to justify the safety or security reason for the public to have access
to the control station location. Many commenters referenced the UAS
Identification and Tracking Aviation Rulemaking Committee (UAS-ID ARC)
recommendation that only the unmanned aircraft unique identifier should
be available to the public and asked the FAA to explain why that
recommendation was discarded.
Some commenters referred to the ASTM F3411-19 Standard
Specification for Remote ID and Tracking, which supports making control
station location available only to authorized users and permits the use
of takeoff location in lieu of control station location. Others
referenced international standards with similar requirements. Ax
Enterprize suggested that UAS operator contact information is generally
preferable to control station location information.
Several commenters expressed alternatives for providing the
location of the control station. Instead of providing the control
station location as proposed, Digital Aerolus recommended requiring the
location of the control station ``when available'' to permit UAS
operations in areas of poor GPS coverage, such as indoors, underground,
or under bridges. Qualcomm suggested masking the control station
location or assigning a separate session ID to the control station, so
that this information is only available to the Remote ID USS, FAA, and
law enforcement. The North Carolina Department of Transportation
commented that control station location information should be available
not only to law enforcement, but also to other first responders so UAS
interference can be addressed quickly in emergency response situations
such as hurricanes.
The Association for Unmanned Vehicle Systems International broadly
supported making operator location publicly available but suggested the
FAA consider ways to protect this potentially private or confidential
information, such as an opt-out or a trusted operator status that would
only reveal the location to law enforcement and government agencies.
FAA Response: While many commenters from a variety of backgrounds
opposed the requirement to share the control station location publicly,
the FAA finds that the requirement, as proposed, is necessary to meet
the core objectives of this rulemaking effort to promote the safety and
efficiency of the airspace of the United States. The inclusion of the
control station location enables the remote identification message to
create a direct link between an unmanned aircraft and its operator;
promoting the accountability inherent in manned aviation. Some
commenters raised the issue that the availability of this information
could put remote pilots at greater risk of assault, theft, or other
crimes. Though the FAA acknowledges the concerns expressed by
commenters regarding personal safety, the FAA emphasizes that there are
rules against interfering with an aircraft. The FAA finds that removal
of the proposed requirement is not the appropriate solution, rather
community outreach and other precautions are better suited to tackle
these issues. Some commenters noted that sharing of the control station
location is counter to the current practice of locking aircraft doors;
however, the FAA finds that the analogous and appropriate practice
would be to operate from a secure or restricted access location as
necessary.
Many commenters suggested the FAA modify the proposed regulation to
allow for the control station location to only be available to specific
entities such as the FAA and law enforcement. Though some commenters
suggested using encryption techniques to accomplish this, the FAA finds
that implementation of such a nuanced requirement would be highly
complex, costly, and impractical. The FAA does not intend to limit who
can receive the broadcast messages, and allowing encryption of certain
message elements would limit who can receive the broadcast messages
only to those with the capability to decrypt the messages. Allowing
encryption is inconsistent with the FAA's policy that the remote
identification message elements should be publicly available
information. Further, as some commenters suggested, different
situations may necessitate certain emergency responders or other
individuals to make contact with a remote pilot. In these situations, a
privacy or encryption implementation may prohibit the on-scene
individuals from having the critically needed information. In addition,
an encryption requirement would present technical challenges leading to
increased cost and complexity. For example, encryption key management
could require standard remote identification unmanned aircraft,
broadcast modules, and authorized receivers to have internet
connectivity and specialized software, increasing the cost of this rule
and potentially creating cybersecurity vulnerabilities. Therefore, the
FAA adopts the control station location requirement as proposed.
The FAA acknowledges that location sensors such as GPS systems have
physical limitations such as not being operational in certain urban
environments. While some intermittent loss of position data is
acceptable, this rule is being finalized in a performance-based manner
and the FAA expects that industry will use a variety of inputs (such as
GPS and cellular signals) to estimate position such that the unmanned
aircraft is able to generate the complete remote identification message
in its intended operating environment.
The FAA acknowledges that the UAS industry is rapidly evolving and
that unmanned aircraft are controlled using a multitude of methods. The
FAA, however, continues to require all unmanned aircraft operating in
the airspace of the United States be controllable by a responsible
person or remote pilot. Therefore, the FAA adopts this rule in a
performance-based manner that allows industry to innovate and use
[[Page 4420]]
the appropriate solution that meets the requirements, yet is adapted to
the control scheme of the particular unmanned aircraft. If the person
is controlling the flight through non-physical flight controls, then
that person's location would be used as the control station location.
For example, if the UAS utilizes a wrist device, then the location of
the wrist device could be used as the control station location. For
camera tracking technologies, the unmanned aircraft could use its own
location estimate plus the same tracking system to calculate the
location of the remote pilot.
3. An Indication of the Control Station's Altitude
i. Discussion of the Final Rule
The FAA proposed that standard remote identification UAS have an
indication of the control station's barometric pressure altitude,
referenced to standard sea level pressure of 29.92 inches of mercury or
1013.2 hectopascals. This information can be used to approximate the
control station's height above ground level. Understanding height above
ground level is necessary to help locate an operator in circumstances
under which the person manipulating the flight controls of the UAS is
not at ground level, such as a person operating a UAS from the roof of
a building.
In the NPRM, the FAA considered and rejected a requirement to
indicate the control station's geometric altitude, which is a measure
of altitude provided by GPS that is not affected by atmospheric
pressure. The FAA stated that barometric pressure altitude is a more
precise measurement than geometric altitude and is the standard
altitude reference for aviation. The FAA requested comments regarding
whether both barometric pressure altitude and geometric altitude of the
control station should be part of the remote identification message
elements.
After considering comments and engaging in further analysis, the
FAA is finalizing the requirement that standard remote identification
unmanned aircraft include an indication of control station altitude as
a required message element, but replaces the requirement to indicate
barometric pressure altitude with geometric altitude. There are several
reasons for this change from the proposal. First, barometric pressure
sensors are not as common on unmanned aircraft control stations as GPS-
based altitude sensors, and they also require more calibration,
testing, and maintenance. Second, geometric altitude is more compatible
with the GPS technologies integrated into smart devices, which are
often used as the control station for recreational unmanned aircraft.
Third, a performance-based geometric altitude requirement allows
industry to use the right combination of technologies to produce a
sufficiently accurate altitude estimate for the intended environment.
The FAA expects that UAS will use GPS to determine geometric altitude
measured as height above ellipsoid referenced to the WGS-84 datum. The
FAA also anticipates UAS could utilize cellular and other signals to
complement the GPS signal and provide for a robust solution.
ii. Public Comments and FAA Response
Several commenters suggested that control station location provides
sufficient detail and that identifying altitude is unnecessary and
could render many devices such as tablets and cell phones obsolete for
use as a control station. Other commenters supported the need to
understand whether an operator is on the ground or on the roof.
Many commenters recommended that control station barometric
altitude not be a required message element because many control
stations do not have the capability to report this information
accurately and compliance will be difficult and costly. UAS Colorado
and Wing Aviation also noted the lack of available barometric pressure
settings to adjust a sensitive altimeter as well as stating that this
capability does not exist for UAS ground stations.
Many commenters recommended using geometric altitude for control
stations, suggesting that it would be of greater usefulness,
reliability, and less technically complex to integrate into UAS. One
commenter suggested that barometric altitude is appropriate because
geometric altitude may encounter difficulties with coverage and
multipath errors in urban areas or areas with rising terrain or other
obstacles.
Some commenters suggested requiring geometric altitude while
permitting but not requiring barometric pressure altitude. Others
suggesting permitting one or the other, while others recommended
requiring both. Several commenters recommended a performance-based
altitude requirement rather than specifying either barometric or
geometric. Others recommended different requirements depending on
whether the operation was for recreational or commercial purposes. One
commenter suggested permitting use of the barometric pressure altitude
of the unmanned aircraft at takeoff as a substitute to providing real
time barometric pressure altitude.
FAA Response: After reviewing public comments and giving further
consideration, the FAA adopts this message element to require geometric
altitude for the control station instead of barometric pressure
altitude, for the reasons described above.
The FAA declines to require both barometric pressure and geometric
altitude as there are no significant benefits associated with such a
requirement. Geometric altitude alone is sufficient to meet the safety
and security needs being addressed by this rule. Further, requiring
both forms of altitude indications would necessitate additional
equipment, testing, and maintenance that would increase UAS costs.
Also, the FAA declines to use the take-off altitude instead of the
control station altitude as standard remote identification unmanned
aircraft will already have a means to indicate the control station
latitude and longitude. The FAA expects that providing an indication of
the control station geometric altitude will not add significant cost or
complexity to the remote identification equipment, and provides a
substantially higher safety and security benefit, especially in urban
areas.
4. An Indication of the Unmanned Aircraft's Latitude and Longitude
i. Discussion of the Final Rule
The FAA proposed that standard remote identification UAS provide
the position of the unmanned aircraft using its latitude and longitude,
which could be derived from a position source, such as a GPS receiver.
The purpose of this message element is to associate a specific unmanned
aircraft with its associated control station position. It would also be
used to provide situational awareness to other aircraft, both manned
and unmanned, operating nearby.
The FAA adopts this message element as proposed.
ii. Public Comments and FAA Response
Comments: Many commenters, including commenters from manned and
unmanned aviation, manufacturers, users of unmanned aircraft, some
State and local law enforcement agencies, and numerous individuals
opposed the proposed requirement to provide the location of the
unmanned aircraft to the public. Commenters expressed concerns about
the privacy of their operations and that this information could
increase the dangers for UAS operators and their property potentially
resulting in assault, home invasion, and theft of their UAS and other
equipment. Other commenters
[[Page 4421]]
who opposed providing the unmanned aircraft location provided examples
of confrontations, threats (including threats with firearms), and
assaults that they or others have received during operations or
referenced media reports of incidents involving confrontations,
assaults of UAS operators, and people shooting at unmanned aircraft if
their location becomes public. Robotic Research opposed the requirement
to share unmanned aircraft location, and stated they cannot publicly
broadcast the position of their unmanned aircraft due to the
sensitivity of their platforms and missions.
Instead of making the unmanned aircraft location public, many
commenters, suggested the public should only have access to the UAS
session ID or other identification to support reporting unsafe
operations to the appropriate authorities. Some of these commenters
suggested, if unmanned aircraft location is available to the public, it
should be an approximated or obfuscated location and only available
within a limited distance of the public requestor. Other commenters
suggested using technology to limit the information available to the
public. The Experimental Aircraft Association recommended permitting
operators to opt-out of providing remote identification data accessible
to the public if that data is only needed by the FAA and law
enforcement.
Many commenters agreed that FAA, law enforcement, and other
appropriate government agencies, including first responders should have
access to unmanned aircraft location information. A few commenters
noted that this proposed requirement would be similar to making airline
information available. Some commenters supported sharing unmanned
aircraft location information even if they are concerned about public
access to control station location.
Airbus UTM and the Electronic Privacy Information Center
recommended standardizing message formats for standard and limited
remote identification UAS by requiring unmanned aircraft location
information, to support better identification and operational
capabilities. Pierce Aerospace recommended requiring unmanned aircraft
and control station location for standard remote identification UAS,
though they suggested an exception for amateur and recreational
operations that abide by a volume-based UTM capability.
Many commenters stated transmitting unmanned aircraft location
information would be burdensome because most model aircraft are not
equipped with GPS or other navigation equipment and there are not many
solutions currently available.
Commenters expressed concern about how this would affect indoor UAS
operations, noting that GPS is not available or reliable indoors, and
that these activities are not currently regulated but will become
regulated by default, because new commercially built unmanned aircraft
would be prohibited from flight, even indoors, by the manufacturing
regulations proposed. American Fuel and Petrochemical Manufacturers
were concerned this proposed requirement would eliminate unmanned
aircraft tank inspections, which is one of the best use cases for UAS
in the oil and gas industry.
Other commenters expressed concern about the effect of this
requirement on operations that take place in locations with limited
GPS. Digital Aerolus recommended requiring the location of the unmanned
aircraft ``when available'' to permit UAS operations in areas of poor
GPS coverage, such as indoors, underground, or under bridges. A
commenter recommended either permitting transmission of the last known
unmanned aircraft location or operator location, permitting operators
to manually specify they are indoors to override the remote
identification requirement when GPS is not available.
FAA Response: Though many commenters opposed the inclusion of the
unmanned aircraft location message element due to privacy and safety
concerns, the FAA finds this message element is a foundational part of
remote identification. By including this message element, the remote
identification message allows the FAA, law enforcement, and the public
to have awareness of unmanned aircraft operations and correlate the
location of unmanned aircraft with the location of their respective
operators. The availability of this information will promote
accountability and trust in the unmanned aircraft community overall.
Further, remote identification in combination with community outreach
will foster a better public understanding of the important role
unmanned aircraft play in the economy and society overall. Some
commenters raised the issue that the availability of this information
could put remote pilots at greater risk of assault, theft, or other
crimes. As noted previously, though the FAA acknowledges the concerns
expressed by commenters regarding personal safety and the marginal risk
created by broadcasting a control station's location, the FAA
emphasizes that there are statutory prohibitions against interfering
with an aircraft. Additionally, there are local, State, and Federal
laws against assault, theft, and other crimes.
Many commenters suggested that this message element should only be
available to specific entities and not be publicly available, but the
FAA finds this would adversely impact the intended transparency of
remote identification information and the effectiveness of this rule.
The public availability of the unmanned aircraft location as well as
all the other message elements allows persons to associate each element
of the unmanned aircraft and control station with a unique identifier.
The FAA notes that the broadcast range of remote identification
information will have a finite limit based on signal strength
limitations for unlicensed devices.
The FAA agrees with the comments that supported the inclusion of
this message element and found the sharing of the unmanned aircraft
location is similar to how airlines and other pilots share their
aircraft locations publicly through ADS-B Out broadcasts. The FAA
further agrees with these commenters that the accountability, safety,
and security benefits exceed the suggested privacy impacts.
The FAA does not agree with the commenters who suggested that
inclusion of this message element would hinder their ability to fly
unmanned aircraft indoors or in specific outdoor environments due to
lack of GPS coverage. The FAA expects that there will be a variety of
ways for industry to implement the requirement to indicate the unmanned
aircraft's latitude and longitude under different environmental
conditions, including when a position source such as GPS, is
unavailable. For example, when position information is not available, a
means of compliance may specify that the remote identification
equipment broadcast all zeros for the indication of latitude and
longitude to show that the position is unknown. This would allow an
unmanned aircraft to take off even when position information is
unavailable. These design options will be described in each FAA-
accepted means of compliance. Because of this flexibility, the FAA does
not consider that this message element will negatively impact
operations indoors. In addition, for unmanned aircraft intended to
routinely operate in areas where there is no GPS coverage, operators
may choose to use an unmanned aircraft that relies on a position source
other than GPS. The FAA declines to include a requirement where the
unmanned aircraft only broadcasts the message element of latitude and
longitude when the
[[Page 4422]]
position source is ``available.'' The location of the unmanned aircraft
is an essential element of remote identification, and the FAA considers
that the addition of this language would add unnecessary design
complexity and uncertainty over whether the unmanned aircraft was
required to broadcast the position information. However, as noted
previously, the FAA would consider means of compliance that include a
standardized message for when that position source is unavailable.
The applicability of this rule does not extend to unmanned aircraft
manufactured solely for indoor use. Further, the FAA adopts this
requirement using a performance-based approach that allows industry to
use technologies best suited for the intended environment. Location
estimation can be done using GPS in combination with cellular and other
signals to work in a greater number of urban and even indoor
environments. Smart device manufacturers commonly employ these
techniques. The FAA thus finds that the inclusion of this message
element will not significantly hinder the ability for people to conduct
operations in areas with poor GPS coverage.
5. An Indication of the Unmanned Aircraft's Altitude
i. Discussion of the Final Rule
The FAA proposed to require standard remote identification UAS
indicate the unmanned aircraft's barometric pressure altitude
referenced to standard sea level pressure of 29.92 inches of mercury or
1013.2 hectopascals. The purpose of this information would be to
establish a standard altitude reference for UAS operating in the
airspace of the United States. It can also be used to provide
situational awareness to other aircraft, both manned and unmanned,
operating nearby. As with control station altitude, the FAA requested
comments on whether to require barometric pressure or geometric
altitude.
After considering comments and engaging in further analysis, the
FAA adopts the requirement that standard remote identification unmanned
aircraft include an indication of the unmanned aircraft's altitude as a
required message element. As with the message element indicating
control station altitude, the FAA replaces the requirement to indicate
barometric pressure altitude with geometric altitude. This change is
made for the same reasons explained in the discussion of control
station altitude message elements, above.
ii. Public Comments and FAA Response
Comments: Commenters provided many of the same comments for
unmanned aircraft altitude as they did for control station altitude,
including support for barometric, geometric, either barometric or
geometric, both barometric and geometric, and neither. Airbus UTM
agreed with the use of barometric rather than geometric altitude,
because barometry is how altitude is typically defined in the airspace
of the United States today, and the control station, Remote ID USS, or
other service provider will be able to make adjustments based on
locally reported barometric pressure to make more accurate comparisons
to manned aircraft. One other commenter suggested that barometric
altitude is more appropriate than geometric altitude, which may
encounter difficulties with coverage and multipath errors in urban
areas or areas with rising terrain or other obstacles.
Several commenters, including AirMap, suggested that geometric or
GPS altitude be required instead of barometric pressure altitude.
Commenters suggested that barometric pressure altitude should not be
required or should be optional. The Small UAV Coalition and Streamline
Designs suggested that FAA should not require unmanned aircraft
barometric pressure altitude because most unmanned aircraft use
geometric altitude almost exclusively, and many unmanned aircraft do
not have barometric pressure altitude capability so compliance will be
difficult and costly. ANRA Technologies noted that many unmanned
aircraft use geometric altitude as their primary reference and
suggested that should be the requirement, with barometric pressure
altitude as an optional element. Because remote identification is not
being used to ensure aircraft separation, Amazon Prime Air commented
that permitting geometric altitude for standard remote identification
UAS would not negatively impact safety or accountability, and would
improve compliance by leveraging current designs in smart phones and
other equipment with GPS receivers.
The Virginia Tech Mid-Atlantic Aviation Partnership recommended
using geometric altitude instead of barometric pressure altitude due to
errors in static pressure systems, complexity of adding those to the
unmanned aircraft, and lack of critical need when remote identification
is not intended for navigation or deconfliction. Another commenter
asked the FAA not to require new sensors that would add more weight or
require more power for the UAS, such as barometric sensors or a
coordinated universal time clock, when similar information is already
provided on UAS that have navigation and telemetry information.
Airlines for America and AiRXOS recommended requiring both the
barometric and the geometric altitude to provide redundancy and better
ensure safe separation of unmanned and manned aircraft; one commenter
noted that manned aircraft use both barometric and geometric altitude,
so these elements should be transmitted if the unmanned aircraft is
capable. Wingcopter recommended using barometric altitude as the main
information source but also using geometric altitude for comparison and
error detection, especially to provide a higher level of safety for
higher risk operations.
A commenter from the Johns Hopkins University noted that ground
users, such as law enforcement, will need remote identification
altitude information presented in a different format because they may
not be experienced with barometric pressure altitudes. They recommended
the FAA require transmission of both barometric and geometric altitude
as well as a containment value and probability of exceedance, which
could be met by fusing altitude and position data from multiple
sources.
FAA Response: The FAA agrees with the commenters that supported
using geometric altitude instead of barometric pressure altitude for
the unmanned aircraft. The FAA believes that an indication of the
unmanned aircraft geometric altitude provides sufficient information to
meet the safety and accountability goals of remote identification.
Further, the FAA agrees that barometric altimetry equipment is less
prevalent than GPS-based geometric altimetry in UAS and could add
unnecessary complexity both in integration as well as operation. To
align with the change from barometric pressure altitude to geometric
altitude for the control station altitude message element, the FAA
adopts a requirement to indicate the geometric altitude of the unmanned
aircraft rather than the barometric pressure altitude.
The FAA declines to require both geometric and barometric altitude
reporting because geometric altitude alone meets the safety and
security needs for this rule. While both forms of altitude reporting
would add a layer of redundancy, the additional cost and complexity is
not warranted for the core intended functions of remote identification
information.
[[Page 4423]]
The FAA agrees with a performance-based requirement that is
technology agnostic. The FAA envisions that industry could meet the
altitude requirement by using a variety of technologies and signals
including GPS and cellular, and still report geometric altitude using a
common reference frame.
The FAA acknowledges that users of remote identification
information such as law enforcement may not be experienced with
different types of altitude reporting. The FAA envisions that
standardized software would be available to these users to display the
data in an easy to understand format that suits their unique needs. The
FAA also finds that the requirements are sufficient to ensure
standardized reporting by UAS in a manner that is processed by software
to support display applications.
6. Time Mark
i. Discussion of the Final Rule
The FAA proposed to require a time mark identifying the Coordinated
Universal Time (UTC) time of applicability of a position source output.
A position source output is the latitude and longitude coordinates of
the unmanned aircraft or control station, as applicable. The time of
applicability is a record of the UTC time when the unmanned aircraft or
control station was at a particular set of coordinates. The FAA adopts
this requirement as proposed.
ii. Public Comments and FAA Response
Comments: No commenters objected to the FAA proposal to require a
time mark as a remote identification message element. The Small UAV
Coalition agreed with the requirement for a time mark. Digital Aerolus
noted that internal UAS systems will gradually lose synchronization
when location services are not available, and recommended updating the
requirements to reflect this possibility by adding ``when location
services are available'' or similar language. Unifly recommended
permitting external ``add-on'' equipment such as a remote
identification module that provides remote identification, GNSS, and
time information.
FAA Response: The FAA agrees that synchronization may be a problem
when location services are not available but finds that this situation
would not be a limiting factor to the generation of remote
identification messages because the message also includes location
information. The FAA adopts the requirement as proposed.
7. An Indication of the Emergency Status of the UAS
i. Discussion of the Final Rule
The FAA proposed to require standard remote identification UAS to
include a message element that specifies a code indicating the
emergency status, which could include lost-link, downed aircraft, or
other abnormal status of the UAS. The FAA adopts this requirement as
proposed.
The FAA anticipates that an industry standard for remote
identification would specify the different emergency codes applicable
to unmanned aircraft affected by this rule. This message element could
be initiated manually by the person manipulating the flight controls of
the UAS or automatically by the UAS, depending on the nature of the
emergency and the UAS capabilities. The purpose of this message element
would alert others that the UAS is experiencing an emergency condition
and would indicate the type of emergency.
The FAA expects that this message element may provide an indication
of UAS that are lost-link, are in a low battery or low fuel state, or
are in other off-nominal or failure modes that might result in
unexpected behaviors that other airspace users or people in the
vicinity would benefit from knowing. The FAA anticipates that the
emergency status indication would be used by display applications
available to pilots and the general public to indicate when a UAS is
experiencing an off-nominal event, such as lost-link, that may not be
clear by visual observation alone.
The FAA envisions that industry, through consensus standards
bodies, will develop and incorporate specific implementations of the
message element into a means of compliance that balances utility,
safety, and privacy.
ii. Public Comments and FAA Response
Comments: One commenter supported sharing the emergency status of
the UAS as proposed. Another commented recommended removing this
requirement, questioning its utility. Other commenters requested that
the requirement be explained in greater detail and specificity. Wing
Aviation suggested UAS not be required to transmit non-critical, off-
nominal conditions that do not affect compliance or security, and
recommended amending the requirement to ``critical emergency status.''
Theia recommended that the emergency status of a downed UAS should not
be shared with the public because of the safety and security risks.
FAA Response: The FAA acknowledges the request for greater
specificity regarding what types of off-nominal situations should be
included in the emergency status indication, but the FAA believes that
the UAS industry is in the best position to determine this criteria,
and any specificity provided by the FAA at this time may not provide
flexibility for future changes as UAS technology evolves. As such, the
FAA adopts the requirement as proposed without requiring any specific
implementation.
8. Velocity
In the NPRM, the FAA asked for public comments on whether standard
remote identification UAS should broadcast other message elements. A
number of commenters recommended requiring speed or velocity as
required message elements.
After reviewing these comments and further consideration, the FAA
decided to require velocity as an additional message element for
standard remote identification unmanned aircraft. By adding an
indication of the unmanned aircraft's velocity, the remote
identification message set will better align with existing remote
identification standards, such as ASTM F3411-19 and international
implementations, as well as provide a complete description of an
unmanned aircraft's state to the FAA, law enforcement, and the public.
The FAA envisions that the velocity message element would be a three-
dimensional vector that conveys horizontal and vertical speed, as well
as the direction of movement of the aircraft. The FAA notes that the
velocity message element, when used to display unmanned aircraft flight
information, includes both speed and direction information. The FAA is
not prescribing specific requirements for UAS velocity, and expects
this message element to be incorporated into a means of compliance
which will be reviewed and evaluated as a part of the acceptance
process.
9. Other Message Elements
As stated above, in the NPRM, the FAA asked for public comments on
whether standard remote identification UAS should broadcast other
message elements. As described below, the FAA received a number of
comments on different message elements that could be included. After
review and careful consideration, the FAA determined that, except for
velocity (described above), the FAA would not adopt requirements for
additional message elements.
Comments: Johns Hopkins University Applied Physics Lab supported
the concept of a common message structure
[[Page 4424]]
and recommended this be further applied to Remote ID USS as well, to
ensure that UAS are not compatible with only one Remote ID USS. One
commenter agreed that message elements other than those proposed did
not yield enough benefit to necessitate recording and transmitting.
Wing Aviation recommended that required message elements be aligned to
the ASTM F3411-19 Standard Specification for Remote ID and Tracking to
reflect established industry consensus, specifically mentioning
barometric altitude and emergency status.
A few commenters suggested requiring message elements to note if
the remote pilot is part 107 certified, if the UAS is properly
registered, and to add the LAANC approval code or COA identification.
UPS Flight Forward suggested adding the direction of flight and mode of
flight (manual, automated, autonomous) to the required message
elements. The Stadium Managers Association also recommended adding
message element(s) to help future-proof remote identification in the
event of a UAS operating automatically or autonomously miles away from
the control station, such as mode of flight, flight path, and intended
destination. The Utah Department of Transportation recommended
requiring speed, UAS attitude (pitch, roll, and yaw), and power status
as a message element. The Air Line Pilots Association International,
the Consumer Technology Association, the Port of Long Beach, and the
Small UAV Coalition recommended requiring message elements reporting
current velocity, direction, and route, such as magnetic course and
ground speed, with the Small UAV Coalition noting that this would be
consistent with remote identification proposals in the European Union.
A few commenters suggested adding message elements for horizontal and
vertical uncertainty estimates, and another suggested aircraft
direction, speed, and vertical speed. Ax Enterprize suggested a message
element to specify which Remote ID USS the UAS is connected to. SeeScan
recommended requiring a detailed flight plan to be submitted to the
Remote ID USS, including flight plan, name, certificate number, contact
number, flight volume polygon, maximum altitude, nearest airport, date,
time, and duration of flight.
The National Association of State Aviation Officials recommended
the creation of options that provide flight data including airspeed,
altitude, directional tracking, and battery or fuel life status
information.
The American Association of Airport Executives suggested a message
element to convey if the UAS has obtained an FAA airspace
authorization. The Alabama Department of Transportation asked why LAANC
authorizations and COA information were not included as message
elements, believing that this information would help law enforcement
and public safety agencies better differentiate illegal UAS operations
from those with specific authorization to conduct operations in certain
areas. Airports Council International-North America asked how UAS
remote identification information would be fused with other critical
UAS operational information, notably LAANC data, which would enable
local authorities to determine whether UAS had received FAA approval to
operate in the airspace where it is necessary.
The Electronic Privacy Information Center (EPIC) suggested several
message elements to better convey the characteristics of all UAS and
their missions, such as surveillance capabilities (audio, infrared,
thermal sensors) and UAS purpose (recreational, commercial, government)
with further subcategories such as commercial-delivery, media, or
infrastructure inspection.
FAA Response: The FAA agrees that a common message structure is
critical to the successful implementation of this rule. The FAA is
committed to utilizing a performance-based approach to rulemaking where
industry can develop and update means of compliance as needed.
The FAA agrees with the commenters that suggested adding unmanned
aircraft velocity as a required message element, for the reasons
explained above. The FAA finds that the other message elements proposed
by commenters, while valuable in specific situations, are not essential
to meeting the safety and security needs being addressed by this rule.
Some of the message elements proposed by commenters are better aligned
with remote pilots sharing their flight intent. The FAA agrees that the
sharing of flight intent is valuable in promoting the safety and
efficiency of the airspace of the United States, but finds that such a
requirement is appropriate to consider once UTM has been further
developed and implemented. Flight intent is a foundational concept of
UTM, and the FAA envisions such requirements may be a part of a future
rulemaking to enable wide scale use of the UTM ecosystem.
Some commenters suggested that FAA waiver and authorization
information be included as a message element. The FAA declines to
include this information for two reasons. First, part 89 applies to
unmanned aircraft regardless of the operating rules that apply to the
operation of that aircraft. Operations under 49 U.S.C. 44809 may not
have any waiver or authorization information that would be applicable.
In addition, requiring that this information be included would be
technologically challenging because the remote identification
capability is tied to the unmanned aircraft or broadcast module being
used whereas waivers and authorizations are issued for a specific
operation. An unmanned aircraft may be used for an operation that has
been granted a waiver one day and then used under other circumstances
in which the waiver would not apply. Similarly, airspace authorizations
are granted for specific times and airspace and would be challenging to
encode into the remote identification capability for either the
standard remote identification unmanned aircraft or the remote
identification broadcast module. Instead of requiring that this
information be included in a remote identification transmission, the
FAA envisions that authorized entities will be able to access this type
of information through the FAA based on the unique identifier and other
message elements included in the broadcast.
B. Minimum Performance Requirements for Standard Remote Identification
Unmanned Aircraft
The FAA proposed to require standard remote identification UAS to
meet the minimum performance requirements established in proposed Sec.
89.310 by using an FAA-accepted means of compliance. Those requirements
related to the control station location, automatic connection to a
Remote ID USS, time mark, self-testing and monitoring, tamper
resistance, connectivity, error correction, interference
considerations, message transmission, message element performance
requirements, and cybersecurity.
After reviewing public comments and further consideration, the FAA
adopts these minimum performance requirements with some modifications
to reflect, among other things, the elimination of Remote ID USS
requirements. The FAA explains the adopted requirements, identifies
changes from the NPRM, and responds to public comments in the following
subsections.
1. Control Station Location
i. Discussion of the Final Rule
The FAA proposed to require all UAS with remote identification to
generate
[[Page 4425]]
and encode a control station location that corresponds to the location
of the person manipulating the flight controls of the UAS. The
rationale for this requirement is to assist the FAA and law enforcement
to locate the person manipulating the flight controls of the UAS. The
FAA intended for an FAA-accepted means of compliance to outline a
process for UAS designers and producers to determine which part or
element of the control station should be incorporated into the remote
identification message due to its close proximity to the person
manipulating the flight controls of the UAS. The FAA adopts this
requirement as proposed.
ii. Public Comments and FAA Response
Comments: Unmanned Systems Canada commented the requirement to
encode the ground control station could be problematic for dual-pilot
operations. This could conceivably require the installation of more
than one remote identification device. Many commenters stated
transmitting unmanned aircraft location information would be burdensome
because most model aircraft are not equipped with GPS or other
navigation equipment and there are not many solutions currently
available. A few commenters stated there are gaps in GPS coverage that
could prevent operators from complying with the requirement to provide
control station information. An individual commenter suggested limiting
the remote pilot in command to 100 feet of the takeoff point if the UAS
cannot transmit control station location.
FAA Response: While a small number of commenters noted the
confusion that may arise with multiple operators of the same unmanned
aircraft or multiple unmanned aircraft operating in a relatively small
area, the FAA finds that the inclusion of a unique identifier, which is
part of the remote identification message, is sufficient to prevent
such confusion. The FAA did not find a need to make changes to this
requirement and will adopt it as proposed.
With respect to concerns regarding gaps in GPS coverage, the FAA
acknowledges that location sensors such as GPS systems have physical
limitations such as not being operational in certain urban
environments. While some intermittent loss of position data is
acceptable, the FAA adopts this rule in a performance-based manner and
expects that industry will use a variety of inputs (such as GPS and
cellular signals) to estimate position such that the UAS is able to
generate the complete remote identification message in its intended
operating environment.
The FAA declines to specify conditions, such as remaining within
100 feet of the take-off location, when standard remote identification
unmanned aircraft cannot broadcast an indication of the control station
location. If the unmanned aircraft can no longer broadcast the message
elements, the person operating the unmanned aircraft must land as soon
as practicable.
2. Automatic Remote ID USS Connection
The FAA proposed that from takeoff to landing, standard remote
identification UAS would be required to maintain a connection to the
internet automatically when available and would be required to transmit
the message elements to a Remote ID USS through that connection. This
minimum performance requirement is no longer applicable with the
removal of the Remote ID USS connection requirements and has been
removed.
3. Time Mark
i. Discussion of the Final Rule
The FAA proposed that standard remote identification UAS would be
required to generate and transmit remote identification messages with
the time mark message element. The FAA proposed that the time mark
message element be synchronized to the time when all other message
elements are generated. The purpose of this requirement is to ensure
that position and other data contained in remote identification
messages would have a usable time reference for the purposes of
reconstructing unmanned aircraft flight profiles. The FAA adopts this
requirement as proposed.
ii. Public Comments and FAA Response
The FAA did not receive any comments opposing this requirement.
4. Self-Testing and Monitoring
i. Discussion of the Final Rule
The FAA proposed to require UAS with remote identification to test
the remote identification functionality automatically when the UAS is
powered on and to notify the person manipulating the flight controls of
the UAS of the result of the test. Further, the FAA proposed to
prohibit these UAS from taking off if the remote identification
equipment is not fully functional. Because a person would only be
allowed to operate a standard remote identification UAS if its remote
identification equipment is functional, the FAA envisioned that UAS
designers and producers would build a notification system to alert
potential operators of any remote identification equipment-related
malfunction. This notification requirement would help operators comply
with the operating requirements of part 89.
The FAA also proposed that the UAS be required to self-monitor the
remote identification functionality continuously throughout the flight
and provide notification of malfunction or failure to the person
manipulating the flight controls of the UAS. With this capability, the
person manipulating the flight controls of the UAS can make informed
decisions about what actions to take to minimize risk to other users of
the airspace and people and property on the ground. This requirement is
necessary because a standard remote identification unmanned aircraft
would be required to land as soon as practicable if it loses broadcast
capability in-flight.
The FAA adopts this requirement with modifications. In the NPRM,
the FAA proposed that the automatic test must occur when the UAS is
powered on. This rule modifies the proposal to require the automatic
self-test to occur prior to takeoff. The FAA believes this change
provides greater flexibility to developers of means of compliance as
well as UAS producers when meeting this requirement. In addition, the
requirement to monitor the remote identification equipment
functionality has been expanded from takeoff to landing to takeoff to
shutdown to reflect the changes to the operating rules that require
persons operating UAS with remote identification to broadcast the
message elements from takeoff to shutdown, as discussed in section
VII.E.2 of this preamble.
ii. Public Comments and FAA Response
Comments: Even though this requirement only specified a
notification for equipment that fails or malfunctions during flight,
many commenters emphasized that it is appropriate to notify the
operator that remote identification equipment is not working properly
rather than to forcibly ground an unmanned aircraft by design. The
University of California, Irvine recommended restricting UAS from
takeoff by operational regulation instead of hardware regulation.
Unifly noted that in the event of loss of broadcast capability, the
person manipulating the flight controls of the UAS should be
responsible to not take off. Ax Enterprize agreed that the monitoring
function should notify the remote pilot if remote identification fails.
The FPVFC suggested an equipment solution for an indicator system, and
recommended
[[Page 4426]]
permitting the unmanned aircraft to be flown as a non-equipped UAS if
the self-test failed.
The Small UAV Coalition and one individual were concerned this
requirement could add a potential failure point with possible loss of
control during flight. In addition, they noted the proposed rule
required remote identification equipment to be functional for any
operation, even if that operation occurs within an FAA-recognized
identification area. One individual suggested eliminating the
requirement that UAS disable themselves under certain conditions, as it
could introduce a hazardous situation if a UAS is performing multiple
takeoffs and landings, as it would be required to detect a landing,
check the internet connection, and prohibit takeoff if the connection
is lost. This could cause a loss of power at a critical phase of
flight.
DJI Technology, Inc. commented on its view that the NPRM reflected
a fundamental change in philosophy, specifically that Americans cannot
be trusted to act responsibly or in compliance with regulations. In
addition, they stated the requirement raises technical challenges
regarding design, application, and upgrades. They also noted potential
legal liability concerns with the shift of responsibilities from the
pilot to the manufacturer.
FAA Response: The FAA does not agree that the requirements
represent a fundamental shift of responsibility from the operator to
the manufacturer. Rather, the two requirements are complementary. A
failed self-test at start up would result in the operator being
notified that the remote identification equipment is not functioning
properly, and the unmanned aircraft would not be able to take off.
Though this may introduce a possible failure point if the self-test
feature produces errors, the FAA does not agree that this requirement
could introduce a loss of control situation. The requirement would
inhibit take-off in the event of a remote identification equipment
failure, but not prohibit an operator from having control of the
unmanned aircraft mid-flight given the same failure. This design
feature will help operators fulfill their responsibility to not takeoff
with malfunctioning or failed remote identification equipment. Overall,
the FAA anticipates that the manufacturing and operator requirements
will significantly reduce instances of UAS operating in the airspace of
the United States without properly functioning remote identification
equipment.
5. Tamper Resistance
i. Discussion of the Final Rule
The FAA proposed to require that UAS with remote identification be
designed and produced in a way that reduces the ability of a person to
tamper with the remote identification functionality. The FAA envisioned
the UAS would have tamper-resistant design features to hinder the
ability to make unauthorized changes to the remote identification
equipment or messages. The FAA adopts this requirement as proposed.
ii. Public Comments and FAA Response
Comments: Many commenters supported the inclusion of a tamper
resistance requirement. Qualcomm Incorporated stated that a secure UAS
should respond to a tamper event by noting the event and/or ceasing to
operate. Airlines for America urged the FAA to include a provision to
protect against deactivation of the remote identification system. Some
commenters requested the FAA provide additional detail on tamper
resistance requirements. Other commenters raised concerns about added
weight and costs.
Some commenters opposed including tamper resistance requirements.
Several commenters raised concerns about how this requirement would
affect repairs, hardware upgrades, or home-built UAS. Other commenters
raised concerns that the requirement for a tamper resistance remote
identification UAS will create a cybersecurity threat because many
commercially available UAS are made in foreign countries such as China.
They also suggested this requirement will make it difficult or
impossible to assess any cybersecurity threat.
FAA Response: Analysis of the comments regarding tamper resistance
of the remote identification functionality found that while most
commenters supported the requirement, a small number of commenters were
against it. Several commenters favored the tamper resistance of the
remote identification functionality, but argued that the requirement
would result in UAS that could not be repaired, maintained, or receive
hardware upgrades as this could constitute tampering with the UAS. This
appears to be a misunderstanding, as only the remote identification
equipment and functionality is covered by the tamper resistance
requirement. Commenters opposed to the tamper resistance requirement
mentioned additional weight or cost, while others speculated that
tamper resistance may introduce a cybersecurity threat. The FAA does
not agree with these assertions because the FAA considers this
requirement to be performance-based. The FAA envisions industry will
find ways to comply without increasing the weight or cost significantly
(for example, anti-tamper stickers), or introducing additional
cybersecurity or other threats.
6. Connectivity
For standard remote identification UAS, the FAA proposed that the
UAS would be designed to not take off unless it is connected to the
internet and transmitting the message elements to a Remote ID USS if
the internet was available. As a part of this proposal, a standard
remote identification UAS would have to continuously monitor its
connection to the internet and the transmission of remote
identification message elements to a Remote ID USS. If either is lost,
the UAS would have to notify the person manipulating the flight
controls of the UAS so he or she may take appropriate action, such as
landing as soon as practicable. As discussed above in section VII.A of
this preamble, the requirement for the UAS to be designed to connect to
the internet is not included in this rule. Accordingly, the requirement
to monitor the connection to the internet is no longer necessary and is
not included in this rule.
7. Error Correction
i. Discussion of the Final Rule
The FAA proposed to require all UAS with remote identification
equipment to incorporate error correction in the transmission and
broadcast of the message elements. Error correction allows remote
identification broadcast receivers, such as smart phones, and Remote ID
USS to detect potential errors that may exist in the message and take
the appropriate action. The FAA adopts this requirement as proposed,
with a modification to remove references to transmitting message
elements through the internet to a Remote ID USS.
ii. Public Comments and FAA Response
Comments: Most commenters agreed with the error correction
requirements with some requesting additional specificity. Some offered
slight changes in semantics, but still supported the requirement. One
commenter stated the NPRM confused two concepts from wireless
communications engineering. The first is error correction, which
encompasses techniques intended to increase the sensitivity of the
receiver, and focuses on minimizing rather than detecting errors. The
second is error detection, which includes techniques intended to detect
when a message is
[[Page 4427]]
correctly received, and focuses on detecting rather than minimizing
errors.
FAA Response: The FAA declines to provide additional specificity
regarding the error correction requirement because a performance-based
requirement is appropriate to allow for flexibility in meeting this
requirement as well as incorporating new techniques as technology
evolves. Any specific error correction capabilities incorporated into a
proposed means of compliance would be reviewed and evaluated as a part
of the acceptance process.
The FAA appreciates the comment that highlighted the differences
between error correction and error detection techniques, and suggested
the FAA may have confused the two concepts. The FAA confirms that
``error correction'' was the intended minimum performance requirement
in the NPRM and adopts this requirement.
8. Interference Considerations
i. Discussion of the Final Rule
Consistent with FCC regulations, which include exempted devices
under 47 CFR 15.103, the FAA proposed to prohibit the remote
identification equipment used in standard remote identification UAS
from causing harmful interference to other systems or equipment
installed on the unmanned aircraft or control station. The FAA adopts
this requirement as proposed.
The design of the UAS must ensure that the broadcast remote
identification equipment is independent of command and control
interfaces. The FAA explained that, for example, the remote
identification equipment could not cause harmful interference to the
UAS command and control datalink and could not otherwise be in
violation of FCC regulations. In addition, the remote identification
equipment would not meet the requirements of this rule if its operation
would be adversely affected by interference from other systems or
equipment installed on the unmanned aircraft or control station, such
as the UAS command and control datalink or a camera feed from the
unmanned aircraft to a display at the control station. Therefore, the
FAA expects that producers under subpart F will provide secure and
reliable interfaces well protected from interference or attacks by
malicious entities, and will validate minimum performance via the means
of compliance acceptance process as well as through ongoing oversight,
auditing, and monitoring of UAS producers that have an FAA-accepted
declaration of compliance.
The FAA explained that a specific means of compliance may include
requirements to use specific radio frequency emitters and receivers.
The FAA envisioned that a proposed means of compliance could include an
analysis of frequency congestion and interference considerations. The
FAA did not propose a particular method by which interference
considerations are identified or mitigated by designers or producers.
Instead, the FAA would consider proposed methods for dealing with
interference considerations and would verify that they are appropriate
for the types of equipment and operations applicable to those means of
compliance and do not run counter to any applicable regulations,
including FCC regulations.\21\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\21\ FCC regulatory requirements are enforced by the FCC. It is
the producer's responsibility to ensure that broadcast equipment
meets all applicable FCC regulatory requirements.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
ii. Public Comments and FAA Response
Comments: Commenters were generally supportive of this provision.
One commenter suggested the FAA set the level of interference that
rises to the level of `harmful.'
FAA Response: As used in this rule, interference is considered
harmful if it adversely affects a system's ability to operate safely.
The FAA declines to specify a level of interference that would be
considered ``harmful'' because different systems may be able to
tolerate different levels of interference before their performance is
adversely affected. Instead, FAA will allow developers of means of
compliance to incorporate the appropriate interference requirements as
needed. This approach is in line with the FAA's continued commitment to
a performance-based rulemaking.
9. Message transmission
i. Discussion of the Final Rule
The FAA proposed that standard remote identification UAS be capable
of transmitting message elements through an internet connection to a
Remote ID USS. In addition, the FAA proposed to require that standard
remote identification UAS be capable of broadcasting the message
elements using a non-proprietary broadcast specification and radio
frequency spectrum compatible with personal wireless devices in
accordance with 47 CFR part 15. The FAA envisioned that remote
identification would be broadcast using spectrum similar to that used
by Wi-Fi and Bluetooth devices. The FAA did not, however, propose a
specific frequency band. Rather, the FAA envisioned industry
stakeholders would identify the appropriate spectrum to use for this
capability and would propose solutions through the means of compliance
acceptance process. The purpose of this requirement is to ensure that
the public has the capability, using existing commonly available and 47
CFR part 15 compliant devices, such as cellular phones, smart devices,
tablet computers, or laptop computers, to receive these broadcast
messages.
The FAA considered the conditions of operation, the general
technical requirements, and the performance limitations associated with
the use of 47 CFR part 15 devices and has determined that these
conditions, requirements, and limitations would be acceptable and
compatible with the proposed use and expected performance of the
broadcast capability of standard remote identification UAS. The FAA
acknowledged that, under FCC regulation, 47 CFR part 15 devices,
including those used for the remote identification broadcast, may not
cause harmful interference and must accept any interference received.
To meet the proposed requirement of compatibility with personal
wireless devices, the FAA explained that a means of compliance may take
into consideration whether the remote identification capability would
be compatible with current and older models of personal wireless
devices still in common usage. The FAA intended the proposed
requirement to ensure that the broadcast message from standard remote
identification UAS would be accessible by most personal wireless
devices in use.
In addition, for standard remote identification UAS, the FAA
proposed that the broadcast device use radio frequency spectrum in
accordance with 47 CFR part 15 that is compatible with personal
wireless devices and must be designed to maximize the range at which
the broadcast can be received, while complying with the 47 CFR part 15
and any other laws in effect as of the date the declaration of
compliance is submitted for FAA acceptance, and must be integrated into
the unmanned aircraft or control station without modification to its
authorized radio frequency parameters. The purpose of this requirement
is to ensure that producers use a means of compliance that specifies a
broadcast technology or broadcast technology characteristics that
maximize the broadcast range while still meeting the other minimum
performance requirements under this rule. Maximizing the broadcast
range would ensure that remote identification information would be
available to the largest number of potential receiving
[[Page 4428]]
devices within the limits permitted by law.
The FAA adopts the substance of this requirement as proposed, with
modifications to reflect the removal of the network transmission
requirement (see section VII.A of this preamble for a discussion of the
removal of the network requirement). Accordingly, this rule changes the
title of this requirement from ``message transmission'' to ``message
broadcast'' in Sec. 89.310(g).
ii. Public Comments and FAA Response
Comments: The FAA received numerous comments on the use of radio
frequency spectrum in accordance with 47 CFR part 15 for the remote
identification broadcast, including recommendations to require or allow
the use of licensed spectrum as well as establishing government-
allocated spectrum.
Many commenters expressed concerns regarding the broadcasting
requirement, noting potential radio frequency spectrum issues,
including potential for interference with UAS systems and other
systems. A number of commenters suggested using licensed instead of, or
in addition to, unlicensed spectrum for a variety of reasons, including
distance and reliability.
FAA Response: The FAA acknowledges that the use of part 15 devices
for remote identification broadcasts may result in reduced distance and
reliability as compared to solutions leveraging licensed spectrum. The
FAA finds that such solutions, however, would necessitate specialized
equipment to receive the broadcasts that would be incompatible with the
concept of remote identification data being widely accessible to the
public using existing smart devices.
Comments: The Alliance for Telecommunications Industry Solutions
recommended the FAA confirm the broadcast identification concept is a
local broadcast directly from the unmanned aircraft to receivers in
physical proximity without a network requirement. CTIA--The Wireless
Association also asked the FAA to consider requiring an interoperable
encryption and authorization mechanism for all remote identification
broadcasts, and to consider incorporating a 15 digit IMEI number as the
ANSI standard serial number, which could support tracking lost or
stolen UAS and registration within a central equipment identity
register.
FAA Response: The FAA reaffirms the remote identification broadcast
requirement, as adopted, is a local broadcast that would be receivable
to smart devices and other compatible receivers within a limited
proximity to the aircraft.
The FAA declines to include additional capabilities specifically to
facilitate the tracking of lost or stolen UAS to the remote
identification rules, but does acknowledge a limited capability might
exist based on the rules as adopted. This use-case is not the focus of
this rule, and any changes as suggested would be out of scope of this
rulemaking.
Comments: AERO Corporation supported the requirement to broadcast,
and suggested a remote identification transponder similar to ADS-B Out.
FAA Response: The FAA notes that broadcast equipment, while
somewhat similar in general concept to ADS-B Out, is also different in
many significant ways. Moreover, as detailed in section XVII of this
preamble, ADS-B Out is not a form of remote identification.
Comments: The Small UAV Coalition recommended removing the
requirement for the broadcast device to be designed to maximize the
range and replacing it with a performance-based requirement for minimum
range for the intended operation.
FAA Response: The FAA considered all comments regarding the use of
licensed spectrum and determined that using unlicensed 47 CFR part 15
frequencies is the most practical way to ensure interoperability and
access to the greatest number of potential users.
The FAA does not agree with the recommendation to remove the
requirement that the broadcasting device be designed to maximize range,
as removal of this requirement would allow systems to be designed that
broadcast at short ranges that are incompatible with the objective of
providing remote identification information to as many receivers as
possible located nearby the unmanned aircraft. The method of compliance
must address how it maximizes range for the applicable unmanned
aircraft and expected operating environments.
10. Interoperability
i. Discussion of the Final Rule
To achieve interoperability among standard remote identification
UAS that may be produced using different means of compliance, the FAA
proposed that for standard remote identification UAS, a means of
compliance must require that the message elements be broadcast using a
non-proprietary specification for remote identification. For the
broadcast to be interoperable with personal wireless devices, the
message elements for standard remote identification UAS would have to
be broadcast using a message format available to the public. The FAA
explained that a known message format is necessary for the receiving
personal wireless devices to decode the messages and make the message
elements available for use by software applications on the receiving
devices.
The FAA adopts this requirement as proposed.
ii. Public Comments and FAA Response
Comments: Some commenters suggested using existing broadcast-based
systems, such as Wi-Fi Aware or similar systems rather than network-
based systems. Others requested additional specificity. One commenter
suggested that the FAA specify all aspects of the link, to include
frequency, power, antenna patterns, modulation and data format. Other
commenters were concerned that the interoperability requirement would
limit the acceptable types of broadcast to Wi-Fi and Bluetooth and that
this could limit operational deployment in the short term. AiRXOS
recommended an additional performance requirement related to
interoperability. The Small UAV Coalition suggested that the rule make
clear that message encryption is permitted.
FAA Response: Interoperability for standard remote identification
UAS and the requirement that the message elements be broadcast using a
non-proprietary specification for remote identification are necessary
for the receiving wireless devices to decode the messages and make the
contents of the remote identification messages usable to the public.
The FAA does not require a specific message format because the current
performance-based requirement allows the UAS industry to collaborate
and innovate to optimize the message format. As broadcast technologies
evolve, the specified message format may need to evolve as well, and
the requirement adopted in this rule allows for that without a need to
update the regulations. In addition, reflecting the removal of the
network transmission requirement, and to provide the necessary
interoperability to ensure publicly receivable remote identification
information, the FAA clarifies that encryption of the required message
elements is not permitted.
11. Cybersecurity
i. Discussion of the Final Rule
The FAA proposed to require all UAS with remote identification
equipment to incorporate cybersecurity protections for the transmission
and broadcast of the message elements, as appropriate.
[[Page 4429]]
The FAA did not propose any specific cybersecurity protection methods
that would be required to be incorporated into an FAA-accepted means of
compliance. Instead, the cybersecurity protection methods incorporated
into a proposed means of compliance would be reviewed and evaluated as
a part of the acceptance process.
The proposed minimum performance requirement related to
cybersecurity is removed from this rule because of the deletion of the
requirement for standard remote identification UAS to connect to the
internet and transmit information to a Remote ID USS. As discussed in
the NPRM, the cybersecurity requirement applied to both the
transmission and broadcast of the remote identification message
elements, and the requirement to broadcast the remote identification
messages is retained in this rule. However, the FAA believes that with
the removal of the internet connectivity requirement, cybersecurity
requirements for the broadcast functionality are no longer warranted.
While this rule no longer requires standard remote identification
UAS to have an internet connection for the purpose of remote
identification, the FAA acknowledges that many UAS could have internet
connection capabilities to support other design features or
capabilities not related to remote identification. The FAA encourages
designers and producers of remote identification UAS that can connect
to the internet to incorporate cybersecurity protections to ensure that
those other design features or capabilities are protected from cyber
threats.
ii. Public Comments and FAA Response
Comments: The FAA received many comments supporting cybersecurity
in general, but that also requested the FAA provide greater specificity
or adopt specific standards. The vast majority of these comments
related to transmission of message elements through the internet to the
Remote ID USS.
The FPVFC noted that if a radio frequency broadcast remote
identification system is used, there are no cybersecurity concerns.
FAA Response: As described in section VII.A of this preamble, this
rule does not require transmission of message elements through the
internet to a Remote ID USS. In addition, the FAA agrees with the FPFVC
that broadcasting the message elements does not raise cybersecurity
concerns. Accordingly, the proposed minimum performance requirement
related to cybersecurity is removed from this rule, for the reasons
described above.
12. Other Performance Requirements
i. Discussion of the Final Rule
In the NPRM, the FAA identified several potential requirements that
it considered, but ultimately decided were not necessary to include in
the proposed minimum performance requirements, and requested comments
on whether and why any of those should be required. The list included:
Other message elements such as certain UAS operator
contact information or other aircraft or control station information
such as velocity, direction, route, or altitude above ground level.
Equipment interface requirements such as the appropriate
connections between GPS receivers, altimeters, and the remote
identification message compiler; the communication protocol between the
aircraft and the control station through which remote identification
message data is exchanged; or protocols and interfaces between UAS,
internet providers, and Remote ID USS.
Flight data recording features to store remote
identification information within the UAS.
Requirements for connection indications such as a separate
indication of whether the UAS is connected to the internet and its
connection to a specific Remote ID USS, an indication of the
transmission latency, or a notification of the specific Remote ID USS
to which the UAS is connected.
Transmission or broadcast requirements during a command
and control lost-link event.
After reviewing comments and further consideration, the FAA decided
to require velocity as an additional message element for standard
remote identification unmanned aircraft, as discussed in section
VIII.A.8 of this preamble. The FAA is not adopting in this rule any of
the other minimum performance requirements described in this section
that were identified for potential inclusion.
ii. Public Comments and FAA Response
Comments: Airbus UTM suggested minimum performance requirements for
the remote identification broadcast to include range, reliability, and
authenticity. uAvionix suggested a requirement for minimum broadcast
power. Ciconia Aviation Services suggested a minimum radio transmission
range of 1.5 to 2 kilometers for UTM and possibly other manned
interfaces. Wing Aviation LLC suggested defining loss to mean
persistent (not temporary) loss of signal, contending that remote
identification is not critical to flight safety and a brief
interruption should not trigger an immediate contingency. The Aviators
Code Initiative recommended establishing a maximum power output for
broadcast equipment. Droneport Texas LLC requested that any additional
performance requirements beyond those in the NPRM undergo a public
comment process in accordance with the Administrative Procedure Act.
DroneBusiness Center suggested changing the performance standard
requirement to a consensus standard approach. ANRA Technologies and
Small UAV Coalition suggested using ASTM standards. Ax Enterprize noted
that that ASTM F3411-19 Standard Specification for Remote ID and
Tracking has taken the position that remote identification is strictly
for security, not safety functions, thereby excluding detect-and-avoid.
They suggested a prescriptive definition of ``real-time'' and ``near
real-time.'' They also proposed Trustworthy Multipurpose Remote
Identification Protocol which is intended to satisfy several
requirements including, but not limited to, verifying that messages are
from the stated sender and the UAS Identification is in a registry,
looking up public and private information, and structuring that
information for readability.
The FPVFC suggested UAS equipment interfaces should be determined
by industry, and the performance requirements for self-testing and
monitoring, error correction, interference considerations, message
element performance requirements, and cybersecurity are too vague. They
were also concerned that UAS would be grounded if the requirements are
too rigid. Unmanned Systems Canada stated the performance standard is
unreasonable and more restrictive than altitude requirements on manned
aviation. One individual commenter stated that requirements on modelers
is greater than the requirements on manned aircraft operations, and
others stated the proposed rule mandates technology that is not yet
available or mature.
FAA Response: The FAA finds that the message elements proposed by
commenters, while valuable in specific situations, are not essential to
meeting the safety and security needs being addressed by this rule. In
addition, the performance requirements as finalized meet the needs of
remote identification while remaining sufficiently performance-based to
allow for technological innovation.
[[Page 4430]]
C. Message Elements Performance Requirements for Standard Remote
Identification Unmanned Aircraft
The FAA proposed to require that all UAS with remote identification
meet certain minimum requirements regarding the transmission of the
message elements including the minimum performance requirements related
to positional accuracy, barometric pressure accuracy, message latency,
and message transmission rate. The FAA invited comments on whether the
proposed minimum performance requirements for the message elements are
appropriate and requested that commenters provide feedback and
recommendations, supported by data, to sustain their position. The FAA
also proposed that standard remote identification UAS must transmit and
broadcast identical message elements.
The message element minimum performance requirements proposed in
the NPRM are considered design requirements, not operational
performance requirements. A standard remote identification UAS must
demonstrate that it meets minimum performance requirements for these
message elements under test conditions specified in an FAA-accepted
means of compliance. The test conditions must be representative of
those that are likely to be encountered during typical UAS operations.
The FAA acknowledges and accepts that the actual in-service performance
may vary from the performance established under test conditions. The
operator of a standard remote identification is not required to monitor
the actual in-service performance of the UAS.
After reviewing public comments and further consideration, the FAA
is adopting the message element performance requirements that were
proposed, with some modifications. The FAA explains these requirements,
including changes from the NPRM, in the following subsections.
1. Transmit and Broadcast Identical Message Elements
The FAA proposed that the UAS be required to transmit through the
internet to a Remote ID USS and broadcast identical message elements.
As described above, the FAA eliminated the requirement to transmit
remote identification message elements to a Remote ID USS. As a result,
performance requirements related to the requirement to transmit and
broadcast identical message elements have been removed from this rule.
2. Positional Accuracy
i. Discussion of the Final Rule
The FAA proposed positional accuracy requirements that are
compatible with commercial off the shelf position sources, such as GPS
receivers integrated into many existing UAS, smart phones, or other
smart devices. For an unmanned aircraft, the position source is
considered to be equipment onboard the aircraft that computes a
geometric position (latitude and longitude). The position source can be
a separate sensor or can be integrated into other systems. While the
FAA anticipated that most unmanned aircraft would use a GPS receiver as
the position source, other equipment could be used as long as it is
capable of producing the required message elements and meets the
proposed accuracy requirement. For a control station, the position
source is considered to be equipment that is either integrated into the
control station or separate from, but in close proximity to, the
control station.
For standard remote identification UAS, the FAA proposed that the
reported position of the unmanned aircraft and control station would
have to be accurate to within 100 feet of the true position, with 95
percent probability.
The FAA is adopting this requirement as proposed.
ii. Public Comments and FAA Response
Skydio commented that the proposed unmanned aircraft location
accuracy and latency requirements, including the prohibition on takeoff
and the requirement to land as soon as practicable, are unjustified in
areas of limited or degraded GPS based on the known deficiencies of GPS
and the advantages of computer vision-enabled UAS, and recommended
increasing the accuracy requirement from 100 feet to 500 feet to
accommodate these UAS operations. Ciconia Aviation Services suggested
that current devices are capable of greater than 100 feet accuracy for
UAS position, and suggested requiring 30-foot accuracy as well as 0.1
seconds latency and a 4 Hz transmission rate to support conflict
management and collision avoidance.
FAA Response: The FAA considered comments that suggested both
increased and decreased positional accuracy compared to the proposed
requirement, while still other comments asserted that the positional
accuracy proposed was not possible under certain conditions where GPS
was limited or degraded. The FAA emphasizes that GPS is one possible
position source, but using GPS is not a requirement and there may be
other types of position sources that perform better in different
operating environments. As such, this rule adopts the proposed
requirement that the reported position of the control station and
unmanned aircraft be accurate to within 100 feet of the true location,
with 95 percent probability.
The positional accuracy requirement is a design requirement and not
an operational performance requirement, and the specific test method
for ensuring that the UAS design meets this accuracy requirement will
be reviewed and evaluated as a part of the means of compliance
acceptance process. Depending on the unmanned aircraft operating
environment, the actual in-service accuracy may be better or worse than
accuracy demonstrated under the test conditions of an FAA-accepted
means of compliance.
3. Geometric Altitude Accuracy
i. Discussion of the Final Rule
The FAA proposed that for standard remote identification UAS, the
reported barometric pressure altitude for the unmanned aircraft and the
control station must be accurate to within 20 feet of the true
barometric pressure altitude for pressure altitudes ranging from 0 to
10,000 feet. The FAA sought comments from UAS designers and producers
and other interested individuals on whether the proposed barometric
pressure altitude accuracy requirement is consistent with current and
anticipated future UAS performance capabilities. As discussed in
section VIII.A.3 of this preamble, after considering comments and
engaging in further analysis, the FAA decided to adopt the requirement
that standard remote identification include an indication of control
station altitude as a required message element, replacing the
requirement to indicate barometric pressure altitude with geometric
altitude. As a result, the FAA removed the minimum performance
requirements for an indication of barometric pressure altitude and
instead adopts minimum performance requirements for an indication of
geometric altitude as follows.
Though the barometric pressure altitude accuracy requirement was
the same for both the control station and the unmanned aircraft, the
transition to a geometric altitude indication warrants different
accuracy requirements for the control station and the unmanned
aircraft. For the unmanned aircraft, the FAA is adopting a geometric
altitude accuracy requirement that is compatible with commercial off
the shelf position
[[Page 4431]]
sources, such as GPS receivers integrated into many existing unmanned
aircraft. The reported geometric altitude for the unmanned aircraft
must be accurate to within 150 feet of the true geometric altitude,
with 95 percent probability. The FAA expects that future unmanned
aircraft will take advantage of technological advancements in geometric
altitude accuracy to provide even greater accuracies as technologies
evolve.
For the control station, the FAA is adopting a geometric altitude
accuracy requirement that is compatible with the performance
requirements being established for cellular service providers under the
E911 mandate that allows emergency service providers to accurately
locate the geographic position of the mobile device. The reported
geometric altitude for the unmanned aircraft must be accurate to within
15 feet of the true geometric altitude, with 95 percent probability.
The FAA anticipates that most standard remote identification unmanned
aircraft will be designed to be paired with an existing smart phone or
smart device to provide the control station location information. If
the unmanned aircraft design does not use a smart phone or smart device
as the position source for the control station location, the FAA
believes the geometric altitude accuracy requirement is compatible with
the performance of modern GPS receivers.
The geometric altitude accuracy requirement is a design requirement
and not an operational performance requirement, and the specific test
method for ensuring that the unmanned aircraft design meets this
accuracy requirement will be reviewed and evaluated as a part of the
means of compliance acceptance process.
ii. Public Comments and FAA Response
Many commenters weighed in on various aspects of the barometric
pressure altitude accuracy, including technical capabilities of
currently available technology. These comments are no longer applicable
because the FAA eliminated this requirement. The FAA appreciates these
comments, however, because they helped inform the FAA's analysis with
respect to the accuracy requirement for the geometric altitude
indication for the control station and unmanned aircraft.
4. Remote Identification Message Latency
i. Discussion of the Final Rule
The FAA proposed a latency of no more than one second for the
remote identification message set for standard remote identification
UAS. This is the time between when a position is measured by the
unmanned aircraft or control station position source and when it is
emitted by the remote identification equipment. The FAA proposed the
latency requirement to apply to both the transmitted message set and
the broadcast message set. The FAA noted that the latency requirement
does not apply to any systems external to the UAS, such as broadcast
receivers or information display devices.
The FAA is adopting this requirement as proposed with respect to
the broadcast message set. As discussed in section VII.A of this
preamble, the FAA eliminated the requirement to transmit message
elements through the internet to a Remote ID USS. Accordingly, the FAA
is promulgating this rule without reference to latency requirements for
internet-based transmissions.
ii. Public Comments and FAA Response
Comments: The majority of the comments the FAA received regarding
latency raised concerns about the technical feasibility or cost
associated with internet-based transmission latency. An individual
commented that latency in transmitting data, particularly regarding the
location of the UA, would render such data immediately obsolete.
FAA Response: With the removal of the requirement for a standard
remote identification UAS to connect to the internet and transmit the
message elements to a Remote ID USS, the majority of these comments are
not applicable. The FAA finds that this requirement is appropriate for
the broadcast of the remote identification message elements and is
adopting the requirement as proposed.
The FAA does not agree with the individual commenter who expressed
concern regarding the latency issues in transmitting data. The FAA
notes that remote identification messages that meet the requirements
must be transmitted no more than one second after being generated, and
a message must be transmitted at least every second. The FAA finds that
these two requirements ensure that the data is sufficiently current for
purposes of remote identification.
5. Remote Identification Message Transmission Rate
i. Discussion of the Final Rule
The FAA proposed a transmission rate of at least 1 message per
second (1 hertz) as the minimum transmission rate for the remote
identification message elements for standard remote identification UAS.
The proposed transmission rate applied to both the message elements
transmitted to a Remote ID USS and broadcast, and is the minimum rate
at which the remote identification message would be either broadcast or
transmitted to a Remote ID USS by the remote identification equipment.
The FAA is adopting this requirement as proposed with respect to
the broadcast message set. As discussed in section VII.A of this
preamble, the FAA eliminated the requirement to transmit message
elements through the internet to a Remote ID USS. Accordingly, the FAA
is adopting this rule without reference to a transmission rate
requirement for internet-based transmissions.
ii. Public Comments and FAA Response
The FAA did not receive any comments with data to support a change
from the proposal.
IX. Message Elements and Minimum Performance Requirements: Remote
Identification Broadcast Modules
The FAA is promulgating this rule with a regulatory framework that
allows persons to equip unmanned aircraft with remote identification
broadcast modules to enable them to identify remotely. Further
discussion on the operational requirements for remote identification
broadcast modules is available in Sec. 89.115(a) of this rule.
As previously discussed in section VII.D of this preamble, the
remote identification broadcast module is a retrofit-option that
replaces the limited remote identification UAS regulatory framework and
provides flexibility to achieve remote identification for operators of
unmanned aircraft that do not qualify as standard remote identification
unmanned aircraft. The required message elements and minimum
performance requirements for remote identification broadcast modules
are discussed in this section.
A remote identification broadcast module must broadcast the
following message elements: A unique identifier (the serial number
assigned to the remote identification broadcast module); an indication
of the unmanned aircraft latitude, longitude, and geometric altitude;
an indication of the unmanned aircraft take-off location latitude,
longitude, and geometric altitude; an indication of the unmanned
aircraft velocity; and a time mark. The message elements for remote
identification broadcast modules are the same as those for standard
remote identification unmanned aircraft, with the exception of the
control station location and altitude, the emergency
[[Page 4432]]
status indication, and the Session ID. Remote identification broadcast
modules must include the unmanned aircraft take-off location and
altitude as a message element instead of control station location and
altitude. In addition, remote identification broadcast modules cannot
use a Session ID as the unique identifier.
Otherwise, the following required message elements are identical to
those required for standard remote identification unmanned aircraft:
A unique identifier.
An indication of the unmanned aircraft latitude,
longitude, and geometric altitude.
An indication of the unmanned aircraft velocity.
A time mark.
A discussion of the message elements and the need for them is in
section VIII.A of this preamble.
The minimum performance requirements and message elements
performance requirements for remote identification broadcast modules
are similar to those for standard remote identification unmanned
aircraft, but are modified to accommodate the use of broadcast modules
on unmanned aircraft produced without remote identification. For a
discussion of the minimum performance requirements and the need for
them see section VIII.B of this preamble. For a discussion of the
message elements performance requirements and the need for them see
section VIII.C of this preamble.
One of the differences between the requirements for standard remote
identification unmanned aircraft and remote identification broadcast
modules is that the latter includes takeoff location as a message
element in lieu of control station location. Because the remote
identification broadcast module may be a separate module secured to the
unmanned aircraft or implemented through a software upgrade using
existing equipment on the unmanned aircraft, a requirement to broadcast
an indication of the control station location may not be feasible.
However, the FAA maintains that knowledge of the remote pilot's
location is a necessary component of remote identification. Therefore,
the FAA is requiring that the remote identification broadcast module
provide an indication of the unmanned aircraft takeoff location as a
proxy for the remote pilot's location.
The FAA expects this message element to be a static message element
that does not change for the duration of the unmanned aircraft flight
operation. The FAA declines to prescribe how the takeoff location is
determined by the remote identification broadcast module, but
anticipates the equipment will be designed in a manner that allows the
latitude and longitude of the takeoff location to be determined and
stored as part of the broadcast module initialization prior to takeoff.
The FAA is also adopting a requirement to indicate the geometric
altitude of the unmanned aircraft take-off location--instead of the
altitude of the control station. This information will help to
determine whether the takeoff location was from ground level or some
other elevation.
Under the final rule, the takeoff location message element
broadcast by remote identification broadcast modules may not be
distinguishable from the control station location message element
broadcast by standard remote identification unmanned aircraft. As such,
a smart phone app being used by a member of the public to display
remote identification information may not be able to immediately
distinguish between whether an indication is a takeoff location or
control station location solely from FAA's requirements. The FAA notes,
however, that smart device apps that display remote identification
information may be able to recognize this distinction by detecting the
emergency status message element which is only broadcast by standard
remote identification unmanned aircraft. Moreover, as discussed
elsewhere in the preamble, the FAA notes that industry consensus
standards may include message element requirements above and beyond the
FAA's minimum performance requirements, and such a standard could
include methods for differentiating these message elements.
Other differences between the minimum performance requirements for
standard remote identification unmanned aircraft and remote
identification broadcast modules include removing the design
requirement that the unmanned aircraft cannot take off if it fails the
self-test or is not broadcasting the message elements. There are also
changes to the interference considerations to accommodate use of
broadcast modules on compatible types of unmanned aircraft, and
adjustments to the accuracy requirement for the indication of the take-
off location geometric altitude.
To meet the minimum performance requirements established in this
rule, the equipment must be capable of recording the geometric position
and geometric altitude of the unmanned aircraft takeoff location for
these indications to be broadcast by the remote identification
equipment. The aircraft takeoff location must meet the positional
accuracy requirements as discussed in section VIII.C.2 of this
preamble. The takeoff location altitude must meet the geometric
altitude accuracy requirements applicable to the unmanned aircraft as
discussed in section VIII.C.3 of this preamble.
X. Privacy Concerns on the Broadcast of Remote Identification
Information
A. Discussion of the Final Rule
As explained in the proposed rule, remote identification message
elements that are broadcast would be publicly available to any device
capable of receiving the broadcast. The proposed rule explained that
though the message elements themselves would be publicly accessible
information, the ability to cross-reference that information with non-
public registry data would not be publicly available. This information
would be limited to the FAA and available only to government agencies
for the purpose of security or enforcement of laws, unless otherwise
required by law to be released. This policy remains unchanged for this
rule.
B. Public Comments and FAA Response
Comments: Many commenters were confused regarding the accessibility
of certain registration information. Commenters expressed concerns over
access to registration information potentially being open to the
general public and wanted to restrict access to law enforcement. Other
individuals commented that the registration system should not divulge
the name of the registrant, and should include only the unmanned
aircraft serial number, FAA aircraft registration number, phone number,
and location of the UAS pilot. A commenter was concerned that using a
serial number issued under ANSI/CTA-2063-A poses a concern for
potential Personal Identifying Information (PII) leakage. Commenters
mentioned that the serial number would allow an unmanned aircraft to be
linked back to prior owners after resale. They also argued that
competitors could track historical information on UAS usage (e.g., by a
delivery company). The Consumer Technology Association expressed the
importance of protecting the privacy, confidentiality, and data of
users through the proper storage of personally identifiable
information.
Many commenters felt that both the registration and remote
identification broadcast information should only be available to
government, law enforcement, and emergency services. Some commenters
specifically referenced the 1989 murder of Rebecca Schaeffer, which led
to passage of the
[[Page 4433]]
1994 Driver's Privacy Protection Act. Several commenters offered the
example of the privacy protections required for automobile license
plate numbers as well as manned aircraft registry privacy provisions,
and suggested that UAS identification should be afforded similar
protections. A commenter suggested that sharing remote identification
information with the public should be a Federal crime similar to
driver's license and license plate information. Qualcomm suggested only
granting public access to a limited set of message elements.
Several commenters suggested the FAA consider the privacy of
commercial and recreational users differently. These commenters
suggested doing so by requesting recreational operators to provide less
information in comparison to commercial ones, noting the potential
security and safety resources available to large commercial operators.
Though the Small UAV Coalition expected the accountability that
comes with the remote identification final rule would deter
irresponsible operations, including invasions of privacy by UAS, it
mentioned the privacy interests of both UAS end-users and operators
should also be protected. The Small UAV Coalition suggested the rule
include limitations on: (1) The type of entities that can access
historical message element data stored by a Remote ID USS (directly or
indirectly); (2) the purposes for accessing this data; and (3) the
correlation of public information such as remote identification message
elements with non-public information like registration data.
Numerous commenters believed remote identification of UAS does not
include privacy and personally identifiable information protection, and
others commented that the NPRM conflicted with existing privacy
regulations at the State or Federal levels and could violate
Constitutional rights. Kittyhawk submitted survey data showing the
importance of privacy for the majority of those pilots surveyed. The
Consumer Technology Association submitted survey results showing 90
percent of UAS owners were not comfortable with publicly sharing remote
identification information such as pilot location, identification
information, and historical flight data; and nearly 40 percent were
less likely to purchase a UAS if that is required. Some commenters
expressed fear that their personal data could be misused by those who
are ``enraged by drones'' and otherwise harbor antipathy toward UAS
operators. Other comments were concerned about the possibility of the
broadcasted information being vulnerable to hackers or available for
data mining and misuse of registrants' information, as well as the need
to properly protect the data because of proprietary techniques and
maneuvers of a company. Several commenters were also concerned about
protecting the safety of young pilots and women, and were concerned
that criminals may use the data to track them. Many commenters
expressed privacy concerns if remote identification message elements
became public, including issues related to confrontation leading to
assaults or thefts as well as concerns that persons may be able to
track where delivery unmanned aircraft have dropped packages.
One commenter suggested that if FAA makes the real-time location
data available to the public, they should also have a data log that
shows who looked up the pilot's location. Another commenter also wanted
FAA to use an open standard of flight logs, and adherence to the flight
regulations set by the FAA, stating that ``like operating a motor
vehicle, we do not need private companies tracking our movements to
create a safe and orderly system.''
FAA Response: Though the remote identification message elements
broadcast from unmanned aircraft are publicly available information,
registration data pertaining to individuals is protected in accordance
with the requirements of the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. 552a). Therefore,
registry information pertaining to individuals will only be disclosed
outside DOT if a Privacy Act exception applies. In addition to other
disclosures generally permitted under the Privacy Act, DOT has
published System of Records Notice (SORN) DOT/FAA 801, which identifies
the specific circumstances under which the DOT discloses individuals'
registry information to the public under the Privacy Act's routine use
exception. 81 FR 54187, August 15, 2016.
For those individuals who register small unmanned aircraft under 14
CFR part 48, the only registration information generally available to
the public includes the registrant's country, state, city, postal code,
and number of unmanned aircraft registered. For individuals and
entities who register unmanned aircraft, including small unmanned
aircraft, under part 47, the registry information generally available
to the public includes the registrant's name, street address, country,
state, city, postal code, and additional information about the
registered unmanned aircraft. For both categories of unmanned aircraft
registration, these are the same data elements that have always been
publicly available, and are unchanged by this rule. Serial numbers of
unmanned aircraft are not included in the information publicly
available from the registry for those who register under part 48. As
with all other information maintained within the registry, the FAA has
implemented the required privacy and security measures to protect data
maintained in the registry system. Therefore, the FAA does not believe
that there are compelling concerns regarding PII data leakage from
serial numbers.
Because the serial number is not generally available to the public,
members of the public will be unable to correlate a broadcasted serial
number with identifying information of the individual who owns the UAS
through the public facing registry. In addition, in accordance with
routine use (1) contained in SORN DOT/FAA 801, the FAA will not
routinely disclose identifying information of individuals who register
under 14 CFR part 48 to the public unless a member of the public
provides the unmanned aircraft registration number, which is not one of
the data elements that the unmanned aircraft will broadcast. Members of
the public cannot generally receive a part 48 registrant's name or
address if their request to the FAA identifies only the serial number,
rather than the registration number.
Any correlation of other information held by the FAA that would
identify any individual member of the public beyond the public remote
identification message elements will be strictly limited to authorized
FAA and other government and law enforcement personnel who are
operating in their official capacities pursuant to all legal
limitations and authorized use of the information. This correlation may
occur with data such as unmanned aircraft registration information held
by the FAA, authorizations to operate UAS under 14 CFR part 107 and 49
U.S.C. 44809, and any waivers from the operating requirements of 14 CFR
part 107. All personnel, whether FAA or other government or law
enforcement, allowed to access the data will need to be authorized and
will access the information only through approved, secured channels
when necessary to perform proper actions authorized by law in
accordance with all due process and other legal and constitutional
requirements.
UAS operators will broadcast the serial number or session ID of
their unmanned aircraft. However, that serial number is non-identifying
unless it is correlated with the information in the FAA aircraft
registration databases. Access to the part 48 database is strictly
[[Page 4434]]
controlled, and no member of the public may have access to FAA's
database; information within the database is disclosed to members of
the public only in accordance with the Privacy Act. As with correlating
information related to session IDs, access will be limited to
authorized official personnel who are engaged in approved duties with
proper legal foundation and authority. For persons with concerns about
broadcasting the unmanned aircraft serial number, a session ID may be
used and broadcasted instead of the serial number to help protect the
privacy of the individual user or the confidentiality of a business.
These message elements for standard remote identification unmanned
aircraft are discussed in more detail in section VIII.A of this
preamble.
The only information that will be broadcast or otherwise available
publicly is the remote identification message elements as described in
subpart D of part 89. As these message elements will be broadcast
directly from the unmanned aircraft, they are public data.
In connection with this rule, DOT has conducted a Privacy Impact
Assessment (PIA) further analyzing the privacy impact of this rule on
individuals. This PIA is published on the DOT website and has been
included in the docket for this rulemaking.
XI. Government and Law Enforcement Access to Remote Identification
Information
A. Discussion of the Final Rule
In addition to aiding the FAA in its civil enforcement of FAA
regulations, the FAA anticipates that law enforcement and Federal
agencies will find remote identification information useful for
enforcement of laws, public safety, and security purposes. The FAA
envisions pairing remote identification data with certain registration
data, when necessary, for accredited and verified law enforcement and
Federal agencies. The information could be used to identify, locate, or
contact the person manipulating the flight controls of the UAS during
an incident response. This information will help with preliminary
threat discrimination.
For example, when correlated with registration information, remote
identification of UAS also enables law enforcement officers to
determine some information about who the unmanned aircraft owner is
before engaging with the person manipulating the flight controls of the
UAS. In addition, once located, a law enforcement officer can speak
with the person manipulating the flight controls of the UAS to gain
potential insight into his or her intentions, and allow the officer to
either educate the person manipulating the flight controls of the UAS
or begin an investigation. Though remote identification of UAS may not
deter all nefarious actors, this rule allows the swift interdiction of
clueless and careless persons manipulating the flight controls of the
UAS and can help law enforcement and security partners focus their
efforts on truly nefarious actors. This information will also aid in
any subsequent criminal or civil enforcement action.
B. Public Comments and FAA Response
1. Law Enforcement Access to Remote Identification Information
Comments: Several commenters expressed support for law
enforcement--including Federal, State, and local agencies--as well as
the FAA, having access to remote identification information. The
Stadium Managers Association commented that remote identification
information should be made available to law enforcement and that
information available to the general public should be limited,
particularly in the case of stadiums. The University of Washington--NSF
RAPID Facility, Pierce Aerospace, and many individual commenters
believed the remote identification message should be encrypted or
otherwise protected to ensure that only law enforcement, and not the
general public, had access to the information. A number of commenters,
including the American Association of Airport Executives, supported the
need for law enforcement to have access to remote identification
information, but believed that the proposed rule did not outline in
enough detail how, when, why, and to what extent the data would be
available to law enforcement or even to the general public.
A few commenters expressed support for law enforcement and other
entities having access to remote identification information in
controlled airspace or while operating near sensitive security
locations, but opposed having information other than aircraft location
made available while operating in Class G airspace.
Commenters mentioned a need to clarify who would grant access to
the information. Airlines for America stated the FAA should provide
details of the standard(s) and processes verifying and accrediting law
enforcement for UAS enforcement and allow the public to provide
comments on such standards and processes. Some commenters believed that
no one should have access to their remote identification information,
including law enforcement.
A form letter from the Academy of Model Aeronautics stated the
safety of law enforcement officers depends on having remote
identification information available in real-time. The Academy of Model
Aeronautics expressed concerns that many local law enforcement agencies
do not have the resources to outfit their officers with smart phones or
other technology capable of receiving remote identification
information.
A significant number of commenters, while not necessarily objecting
to having information provided to law enforcement, questioned the value
of the remote identification rule entirely. These commenters asserted
that only law-abiding UAS operators would comply with remote
identification requirements and those persons who intend to violate the
law will not comply with remote identification requirements at all.
Based on this assumption, these commenters questioned the value of the
rule and its necessity. The Stadium Managers Association was skeptical
of remote identification's ability to assist law enforcement in
locating and apprehending UAS pilots given the amount of time they
believed it will take to identify the unmanned aircraft and then locate
the pilot some distance away from the aircraft.
FAA Response: A remote identification broadcast is, by nature and
intent, public. Though remote identification provides situational
awareness to law enforcement, it will also provide the public with
basic information about a particular unmanned aircraft to facilitate
reporting to law enforcement, if appropriate. This information will be
anonymous, however. Under this rule, the FAA will not grant members of
the public access to information that could be correlated to a
particular unmanned aircraft or operation. This is similar to the
public ADS-B Out broadcast emitted by manned aircraft. As in the case
with ADS-B Out, it is possible that members of the public could develop
systems for tracking and aggregating information about UAS flights, but
those systems would not include personal information from the FAA's
databases.
The FAA finds that remote identification information plays a
critical role in threat discrimination by law enforcement and national
security entities regardless of class of airspace. Law enforcement
officials have made clear that it can be very difficult to make a
decision about the risk posed by a person manipulating the flight
controls
[[Page 4435]]
of the UAS with the limited information available from visually
observing an unmanned aircraft. Remote identification information will
enable better threat discrimination, an immediate and appropriate law
enforcement response, and a more effective follow-on investigation.
This is because remote identification information can be correlated
with unmanned aircraft registry information to inform law enforcement
officers about the registered owner. This information, along with the
real-time location of the unmanned aircraft operator, provides critical
input to a law enforcement officer's decision on whether intervention
is appropriate. The remote identification message is broadcast over
unlicensed radio frequency spectrum and therefore would be accessible
by any device capable of receiving that broadcast. Though the FAA does
not consider that such a device would be costly, this rule does not
place any compliance requirements on local law enforcement agencies,
leaving them free to choose not to use remote identification as a tool.
The FAA's regulatory approach is based on the fundamental
assumption that regulated entities will comply with the rules; the FAA
does not assume noncompliance. Acknowledging that not all entities will
comply with regulations, the FAA is promulgating this rule to be a tool
to help relevant authorities distinguish between compliant and
noncompliant actors. The FAA recognizes that certain nefarious actors
may not comply with remote identification requirements; however, the
fact that an unmanned aircraft or an unmanned aircraft operation is
noncompliant is an important data point for law enforcement to consider
as they engage in a threat analysis. A noncompliant actor will stand
out, allowing law enforcement to shift its attention appropriately.
Even if the noncompliant actor has no nefarious intent, there is value
in this type of threat discrimination. A careless or clueless operator
may be introducing unnecessary risk into the airspace of the United
States without realizing it. Remote identification allows appropriate
authorities to identify the operator for follow up or education on how
to operate safely and in compliance with the FAA's rules.
2. Law Enforcement Uses of Remote Identification Information
Comments: Commenters expressed concerns regarding potential abuse
of remote identification information by law enforcement. Some
commenters described the proposed remote identification system as a
central database, and believed that the information would be used
inappropriately when provided to local law enforcement. The Academy of
Model Aeronautics expressed concern that there is nothing in the NPRM
about how remote identification information will be integrated with the
rest of the data that law enforcement routinely uses. The Academy of
Model Aeronautics believed this is a critical point because law
enforcement officers are trained to use personal identifying
information about the person they have in front of them. Many
commenters believed that all remote identification information for all
unmanned aircraft flights would be provided to all law enforcement
organizations regardless of need. These commenters argued that law
enforcement, particularly local law enforcement, does not need this
type of information for every pilot and every flight regardless of
origin, destination, and other factors. Other commenters argued that
law enforcement does not need information regarding every flight in
real time, noting that law enforcement does not have access to real-
time driving information for every vehicle on the roads. Commenters
questioned local law enforcement agencies' need for this information,
particularly as the Federal Government is the sole regulator of
airspace.
Wing Aviation asserted that persistent surveillance without cause
is not consistent with community expectations of privacy and due
process, nor is it necessary to support compliance, accident
investigation, or security. If agencies intend to use retained data for
other purposes, Wing Aviation believed that request should be subject
to administrative, civil, or criminal procedures.
Many commenters believed that Federal, State, and local law
enforcement agencies would use the data provided to identify, harass,
and arrest remote operators. Some commenters believed this was a
particular possibility if law enforcement believed that the UAS
operator was using unmanned aircraft-mounted camera systems to expose
law enforcement's behavior or activities to the public. Still other
commenters believed that the proposal creates the potential for illegal
tracking, unwarranted surveillance, and harassment of American citizens
by Federal, State, and local law enforcement. An individual commenter
asked the FAA to clarify if remote pilots operating small UAS under
part 107 have the same protection as manned pilots from outside
interference, and if such interference would carry ``hefty penalties.''
The commenter noted that he had been ``accosted by law enforcement even
when operating [his] UAS responsibly.'' The commenter suggested that an
emphasis be placed on ensuring that law enforcement officers do not
interfere with remote pilots during flight operations. Multiple
commenters expressed the view that unfettered access by law enforcement
to remote identification information could lead to both a compromise of
personally identifiable information and potential abuses. Many
individual commenters believed that law enforcement should not be
granted access to any remote identification information without
probable cause and a warrant.
The Consumer Technology Association stated that remote
identification requirements should include due process protections and
articulate a legal standard for law enforcement and security officials
seeking access to database information, if they will have access with
less than a subpoena or warrant. To ensure accountability and prevent
abuse, the Consumer Technology Association advocated the FAA should
maintain a record that documents every instance where officials access
the remote identification database, with this information (who
requested access, when was it requested, and for what purpose) subject
to the Freedom of Information Act.
Other commenters were concerned about the inappropriate policing of
UAS activities. Several commenters used examples of having incorrect
altitude readings above the 400-foot limit for part 107 operations of
unmanned aircraft broadcast and questioned what type of enforcement
action would result at the Federal, State, or local level. Commenters
also asked who would validate the data, determine whether violations
had been committed, and assess fines or other penalties.
Further, several commenters expressed the view that unfettered
access by law enforcement to remote identification information could
lead to specific monitoring of the media by law enforcement agencies,
impacting freedom of the press.
FAA Response: The FAA emphasizes that any use of remote
identification data by law enforcement agencies is bound by all
Constitutional restrictions and any other applicable legal
restrictions. The purpose of this rule is to provide a tool for
identifying an unmanned aircraft and locating its operator. One of
those uses is to help
[[Page 4436]]
local law enforcement engage in threat discrimination while discharging
their lawful law enforcement duties. This rulemaking does not speak to
the use of information by law enforcement agencies or how remote
identification data will be correlated with other law enforcement data.
Real-time information is critical for law enforcement and national
security purposes because compliance is a useful tool for threat
discrimination.
The FAA considers that the remote identification requirements are
analogous to surface transportation vehicles. Though real-time driving
information is not available for every vehicle on the road, an
indication of certain compliance status is viewable to law enforcement
for all vehicles by way of visible markings such as a license plate,
registration marking, and inspection marking. Similarly, a vehicle not
in compliance with license plate display, registration, or inspection
would be apparent to law enforcement, and the driver is co-located with
the vehicle. There is currently no standardized system to query such
information for unmanned aircraft for law enforcement and national
security purposes, and this rule would meet that need.
3. Law Enforcement Training on Remote Identification Information
Comments: A number of commenters discussed the necessity for public
safety training to recognize questionable operations. Several
commenters, including the National Sheriffs' Association, were
concerned that law enforcement will need training as to what is, and is
not, a legal UAS operation. Some commenters believed that information
gathered from remote identification would be used by local law
enforcement to enforce local regulations that conflict with FAA
regulations pertaining to use of the airspace of the United States.
Individual commenters discussed the confusion of local law enforcement
regarding operations permitted under part 107 and believed that access
by these organizations to remote identification information would be
used to further harass persons conducting such legitimate operations.
Several individual commenters also raised concerns about flight
safety if they were interrupted, interfered with, interrogated, or
harassed by law enforcement while conducting a lawful unmanned aircraft
operation. These commenters believed the FAA needed to provide greater
training to law enforcement. Commenters emphasized the need for law
enforcement to learn how to interact with a UAS pilot appropriately to
ensure the safety of the operation, including the safe landing of the
aircraft if necessary. The National Sheriffs' Association called
specifically on the FAA to work with more than Federal law enforcement
agencies, by providing training or assistance to State and local
agencies as to what is, and is not, a UAS threat. One commenter also
cited the need for an easy-to-use system to report illegal UAS
operations.
The executive director of the Academy of Model Aeronautics (AMA)
asked who was going to fund, train, and equip law enforcement to use
the remote identification system. AMA believes that the remote
identification rule should not be implemented without further research
and data, to include the impact on privacy.
The Coconino County Sheriff's Office asked the FAA, prior to
adoption of any rule on remote identification, to seek further
clarification in consultation with Federal, State, local, and tribal
law enforcement representatives regarding the provision of equipment
and training for local law enforcement for access to remote
identification information.
FAA Response: The FAA is actively engaged in significant outreach
and education to law enforcement on many matters related to UAS,
including educating the public safety community on understanding how to
distinguish between, and respond to, authorized and unauthorized or
unsafe UAS operations. The FAA also maintains an updated toolkit for
public safety and government users. Further, law enforcement personnel
can contact Law Enforcement Assistance Program (LEAP) Special Agents,
who regularly assist law enforcement on matters related to FAA
regulations. The desire of a commenter for an easy-to-use system to
report illegal unmanned aircraft operations is outside the scope of
this rulemaking. The purpose of this rule is to provide a tool for
locating and identifying an unmanned aircraft and locate its operator.
One of those uses is to help local law enforcement engage in threat
discrimination while discharging their law enforcement duties. This
rulemaking does not speak to the use of information by law enforcement
agencies, or how remote identification data will be correlated with
other law enforcement data.
XII. FAA-Recognized Identification Areas
A. Discussion of the Final Rule
As discussed in section VII.F.2 of this preamble, FAA-recognized
identification areas are locations where unmanned aircraft may operate
without remote identification equipment. The FAA proposed subpart C to
outline the requirements for establishment of FAA-recognized
identification areas. After consideration, the FAA is making changes to
this subpart in the final rule. This rule expands eligibility to apply
for establishment of an FAA-recognized identification area to include
educational institutions in addition to community-based organizations
(CBOs), and also removes the 12-month limitation on time to submit
applications. The FAA is also clarifying the application review
criteria and required information for application. The criteria will be
described in greater detail in the advisory circular on FAA-recognized
identification areas, which will be published following this
rulemaking.
Finally, this rule removes the prohibition on re-application for
FAA-recognized identification areas for (1) locations that have
expired, or (2) locations that have been terminated, so long as the
conditions that led to termination are no longer in effect.
This rule promulgates the other provisions of subpart C as
proposed.
B. Eligibility
1. Discussion of the Final Rule
In the NPRM, the FAA discussed the purpose of FAA-recognized
identification areas and acknowledged that after the production
compliance date, unless a UAS fell into an exception such as amateur-
built UAS, most UAS would have remote identification. Because the FAA
recognized that certain UAS, such as amateur or home-built UAS, would
not be able to equip, the FAA proposed that a CBO recognized by the
Administrator would be eligible to apply for the establishment of a
flying site as an FAA-recognized identification area to enable
operations of UAS without remote identification within those areas.\22\
This rule maintains eligibility for CBOs. In addition, to better
accommodate science, technology, engineering, and math programs and
encourage participation in aviation for educational purposes, the rule
expands that eligibility to also include education institutions,
including institutions of primary and secondary education, trade
schools, colleges, and universities.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\22\ The FAA clarified in the proposed rule that the concept of
FAA-recognized identification areas is different and independent
from the fixed-site concept in 49 U.S.C. 44809(c)(1) and a fixed
site would not automatically be approved as an FAA-recognized
identification area.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 4437]]
2. Public Comments and FAA Response
Comments: Commenters, including AOPA, the Massachusetts Department
of Transportation and the Air Line Pilots Association, supported the
idea of FAA-recognized identification areas generally. Many commenters,
including the National Agricultural Aviation Association supported CBOs
being eligible to apply for FAA-recognized identification areas.
However, some commenters raised concerns that limiting eligibility to
CBOs was too restrictive, and that many individuals would not want to
join a CBO to fly. Flite Test Community Association said they have
surveyed hobbyists and 65 percent of respondents indicated they would
not join a CBO even if it were free.
Many commenters such as Signatory Higher Education Associations and
Institutions of Higher Education, Wing Aviation LLC, and the North
Carolina Department of Transportation supported the idea that in
addition to CBOs, other persons should be eligible to apply for FAA-
recognized identification areas. Several commenters, including State
and local governments, such as the Minnesota Department of
Transportation, and several individual commenters suggested that
educational institutions and State and local governments should be
eligible to apply for FAA-recognized identification areas. Commenters
reasoned that educational institutions are well-positioned to ensure
UAS operations comply with regulations and campus safety, security, and
privacy policies. In addition, commenters argued that not allowing
universities to request and control FAA-recognized identification areas
would pose an unnecessary impediment to science and engineering
opportunities for university students, faculty, and staff. Some
commenters such as the Alliance for Drone Innovation and AiRXOS
contended that expanding eligibility to educational institutions is
necessary to spur innovation and promote workforce development and
public safety.
Commenters emphasized that certain universities and other entities
such as State and local governments could not qualify to become CBOs in
accordance with 49 U.S.C. 44809(h) due to the 501(c)(3) requirement and
because they are not membership-based associations. Organizations such
as the National Association of State Aviation Officials, City of
Albuquerque Parks and Recreation Department, Experimental Aircraft
Association, Southern Company, The Commercial Drone Alliance, and
University of Texas Austin UAV Committee made similar comments in
support of expanding eligibility. Some commenters highlighted section
350 of the FAA Reauthorization Act of 2018 as evidence that Congress
intended for the FAA to create allowances for recreational UAS that are
operated by an institution of higher education for educational
purposes.
FAA Response: The FAA agrees with commenters that eligibility to
apply for establishment of an FAA-recognized identification area should
be expanded to include educational institutions. Community-based
organizations will continue to be eligible to apply.
The FAA is including educational institutions--including primary
and secondary educational institutions, trade schools, colleges, and
universities--in recognition of the critical role they play in
providing pathways to aviation careers, whether through science,
technology, engineering, and math curricula; the building and flight of
unmanned aircraft; or other educational activities. The FAA determined
it is appropriate to allow educational institutions to request the
establishment of FAA-recognized identification areas. The FAA believes
that extending the ability to request establishment of FAA-recognized
identification areas to educational institutions will provide
additional convenient locations for those associated with the
educational institution to be able to operate unmanned aircraft without
remote identification and reduce costs associated with travel time to
other FAA-recognized identification areas.
Comments: Several commenters advocated for wider expansion of
eligibility for FAA-recognized identification areas beyond just CBOs
and educational institutions. Several commenters requested the FAA
consider expanding eligibility to State and local governments. Many
individual respondents believed the proposed eligibility criteria would
force local governments and schools to work through a non-governmental
organization to request FAA-recognized identification area designations
on public property. One commenter noted there are many local
organizations not affiliated with a CBO that operate from local private
and municipal fields. Commenters stated that limiting eligibility to
CBOs would discourage student model flyers who predominately learn at
parks, schools, and gyms, and could disadvantage low-income and urban
enthusiasts who cannot afford CBO dues.
FAA Response: The FAA considers that expanding eligibility to CBOs
and educational institutions at all levels is sufficient to meet the
needs of student model flyers and declines to expand eligibility to
State and local governments. Expanding eligibility to State and local
governments could expand the scope of FAA-recognized identification
areas to an extent that would undermine the effectiveness of remote
identification. The purpose of FAA-recognized identification areas is
to help accommodate traditional model aircraft, many of which are home-
built unmanned aircraft and may not meet remote identification
requirements, and not to provide sites for State or local governments
to operate.
Comments: The New Hampshire Department of Transportation stated
that anyone should be able to request an FAA-recognized identification
area by certifying that they are responsible for the area and will
operate within FAA regulations. A large number of individual commenters
believed that private individuals should be able to register their
private property as an FAA-recognized identification area. Some
commenters also asserted this restriction infringes on private property
rights. The American Association of Airport Executives recommended that
local governments should control the use of FAA-recognized
identification areas through local laws and ordinances. The
Experimental Aircraft Association suggested that if the FAA adopted a
system like the FAA's Web-based Operations Safety System (WebOPSS) to
automate the application process, a CBO intermediary would be
unnecessary.
FAA Response: The FAA declines to extend eligibility to request
FAA-recognized identification areas to any individual or individual
property owner, regardless of affiliation. As discussed in the NPRM,
the FAA intends most UAS to identify remotely. The operation of
unmanned aircraft without remote identification equipment at FAA-
recognized identification areas is primarily for those who are truly
unable to use either standard remote identification UAS or remote
identification broadcast modules. The benefits of requiring remote
identification generally are undermined if the FAA-recognized
identification area eligibility criteria are expanded to a point where
every backyard could be a potential site. Permitting private
individuals to seek FAA-recognized identification areas would undermine
the FAA's primary goal in establishing the remote identification
requirements: Enabling
[[Page 4438]]
the identification of unmanned aircraft operating in the airspace of
the United States by the FAA, law enforcement, and other government
officials. That goal cannot be met if every individual is able to
operate without remote identification by requesting an FAA-recognized
identification area.
Comments: Many commenters equated a ``community-based
organization'' with the Academy of Model Aeronautics (AMA) and
expressed concern that the FAA would favor the AMA when establishing
FAA-recognized identification areas. These commenters argued that model
aircraft flyers would be compelled to join Academy of Model
Aeronautics-affiliated clubs to pursue their hobby. Some commenters
requested the FAA automatically establish FAA-recognized identification
areas at all existing AMA flying sites.
FAA Response: The FAA considers that CBOs and educational
institutions can perform an important function in promoting safety in
recreational UAS flying. These organizations must submit applications
for any sites for which they request establishment of FAA-recognized
identification areas. Only by submitting an application and providing
the FAA with the information requested will the FAA be able to
appropriately and objectively evaluate each site to determine its
eligibility. The FAA is not pre-approving any existing flying sites as
FAA-recognized identification areas with the publication of this rule.
C. Time Limit for Submitting an Application To Request an FAA-
Recognized Identification Area
1. Discussion of the Final Rule
The FAA proposed that applications for establishment of an FAA-
recognized identification area would have to be submitted within 12
calendar months from the effective date of a final rule. Under the
proposal, at the end of that 12-calendar month period, no new
applications for FAA-recognized identification areas would be accepted.
This rule eliminates the 12 calendar month limitation on applications,
and the FAA will begin accepting applications September 16, 2022.
2. Public Comments and FAA Response
Comments: Though a few commenters suggested varying timeframes over
12 months for the application period, the vast majority of commenters
opposed the 12-month application time period limitation. Commenters
including the Airports Council International-North America, AiRXOS,
AirMap, the Consumer Technology Association, DJI, New Frontier
Airspace, the North Carolina Department of Transportation, Wing
Aviation, and others strongly opposed the 12-month application period.
Some commenters, including AUVSI and AOPA, expressed concern that the
12-month limit on new FAA-recognized identification areas would
adversely affect science, technology, engineering, and mathematics
access, especially for those young persons interested in aviation as a
career. Academic respondents, such as the Mobile County Public School,
Mobile County Public School JROTC, the University of Maryland UAS Test
Site, the Virginia Tech Mid-Atlantic Aviation Partnership, University
of Texas at Austin, the Minnesota Department of Transportation, and
Embry-Riddle Aeronautical University opposed the 12-month limit on
similar grounds--as did a number of private organizations. The New
Hampshire Department of Transportation and many individual respondents
opposed the 12-month window as potentially limiting not only
recreational opportunity, but also economic growth.
Many commenters pointed out that the need to establish and change
the parameters of an FAA-recognized identification area would continue
after the 12-month period had passed, asserting that land development,
re-zoning, community encroachment, sale of property or loss of lease,
demographics, and other factors regularly necessitated that flying
clubs cease operations and re-locate. Commenters also expressed concern
that the 12-month period would result in the elimination of traditional
radio controlled flying through attrition. Nearly all commenters felt
that the 12-month limit should be eliminated, and that recreational UAS
without remote identification should be permitted to operate--at least
at selected sites--in perpetuity.
FAA Response: Based on the comments received, the FAA has
determined that there will be a continued need for FAA-recognized
identification areas for certain types of unmanned aircraft such as
home-built unmanned aircraft and that these areas will not phase out as
originally conceived. Though the FAA considered that the addition of
the remote identification broadcast module option and elimination of
the proposed network requirements would reduce the need for FAA-
recognized identification areas, the FAA still foresees an ongoing need
for these areas for some operators such as some home-built UAS that
cannot equip and educational science, technology, engineering, and math
programs. Due to this ongoing need, the FAA has decided to remove the
12 calendar month limitation on applications to establish an FAA-
recognized identification area.
In addition, comments about the potential impacts on education and
the recreational community were persuasive.
The FAA will begin accepting applications for FAA-recognized
identification areas September 16, 2022.
D. Process To Request an FAA-Recognized Identification Area and FAA
Review for Approval
1. Discussion of the Final Rule
The NPRM proposed in Sec. 89.210 that certain information be
provided to the FAA as part of an application for an FAA-recognized
identification area. With the exception of minor adjustments to reflect
the expansion of organizations eligible to apply as discussed
previously in this section, the FAA will adopt this list as proposed.
Applications for establishment of an FAA-recognized identification area
must include: (1) The name of the community based organization or
educational institution eligible under Sec. 89.205; (2) the name of
the individual making the request on behalf of eligible persons (i.e.,
the CBO or educational institution per Sec. 89.205); (3) a declaration
that the individual making the request has the authority to act on
behalf of the community-based organization or educational institution;
(4) the name and contact information, including telephone number(s), of
the primary point of contact for communications with the FAA; (5) the
physical address of the proposed FAA-recognized identification area;
(6) the location of the FAA-recognized identification area in a form
and manner prescribed by the Administrator; (7) if applicable, a copy
of any existing letter of agreement regarding the flying site; (8) a
description of the intended purpose of the FAA-recognized
identification area and why the proposed FAA-recognized identification
areas is necessary for that purpose; and (9) any other information
required by the Administrator. The advisory circular on the FAA-
recognized identification area application process will be published
following this rulemaking.
In Sec. 89.215 of the NPRM, the FAA proposed that the
Administrator may consider certain criteria when reviewing a request
for establishment of an FAA-recognized identification area. This rule
clarifies the criteria proposed in Sec. 89.215 to explain how the FAA
may evaluate the requested location of an
[[Page 4439]]
FAA-recognized identification area. In Sec. 89.215(a), the FAA
clarifies that it may consider the existence of flight or airspace
restrictions and special flight rules, including any restrictions or
regulations limiting UAS flight for safety, efficiency, national
security, or homeland security, which may overlap with a requested or
established FAA-recognized identification area. The Agency may also
consider the need for an FAA-recognized identification area in the
proposed location and proximity of other FAA-recognized identification
areas to determine whether to grant or deny an application. The
effectiveness of remote identification relies upon the majority of
operators remotely identifying, therefore, these considerations are
necessary to prevent undermining of that effectivity. The FAA has
removed the separate criteria of the effects on airspace capacity,
determining that the criteria is already encompassed in the
consideration of the safe and efficient use of the airspace by other
aircraft.
The FAA is adopting the other criteria (e.g., the safe and
efficient use of airspace by other aircraft and the safety and security
of persons or property on the ground) as proposed. The FAA will issue
an advisory circular to provide additional guidance on FAA-recognized
identification areas, which will be published following this
rulemaking.
2. Public Comments and FAA Response
Comments: The FAA received comments on the information required for
application as well as the criteria used to evaluate potential FAA-
recognized identification areas. Some commenters, including the
Airports Council International-North America, requested that FAA-
recognized identification areas also be bound by height above ground
level and that information be required in addition to latitude and
longitude boundaries.
FAA Response: The FAA declines to include height above ground level
in the required application criteria as unnecessary. Operations in FAA-
recognized identification areas will continue to be bound by the
constraints of the operating rules followed by each UAS operator in
those areas (e.g., part 107, 49 U.S.C. 44809, etc.). These operating
rules contain altitude restrictions and adherence to airspace
requirements that sufficiently bound the maximum altitude in which UAS
would be operating in these areas without including height above ground
level.
Comments: Some commenters argued that geographic boundaries are too
complex a request and that the default boundary shape should be
circular. They suggested that the application should only require the
latitude and longitude coordinates of the center point of the circular
area for the FAA-recognized identification area boundary.
FAA Response: The advisory circular on FAA-Recognized
Identification Areas will provide additional guidance for how the FAA
may accept descriptions of the location and boundary shapes. The FAA
adopts this application requirement for geographic boundaries as ``the
location of the FAA-recognized identification area in a form and manner
prescribed by the Administrator.'' The FAA expects that a CBO or
educational institution requesting establishment of an FAA-recognized
identification area would need to have a clear understanding of the
boundaries of the area they are requesting and that the FAA may require
specific details about that location's geographic boundaries. The
application information and criteria established in this rule do not
preclude circular FAA-recognized identification areas; however, the FAA
foresees a need for increasingly specific boundary information to
depict these areas accurately for the public. The advisory circular for
FAA-recognized identification areas will provide additional guidance,
and will be published following this rulemaking.
Comments: Some commenters including the Commercial Drone Alliance
supported the criteria for evaluation proposed in the NPRM and
recommended that FAA take all four factors into consideration for every
application. Other commenters requested additional requirements prior
to the establishment of an FAA-recognized identification area. The
Association of American Railroads and Association of Airport Executives
recommended that critical infrastructure operators be allowed to review
and comment on FAA-recognized identification area applications near
critical infrastructure, for example within 5 miles of an airport.
Multiple organizations including The Airports Council International-
North America and International Association of Amusement Parks and
Attractions recommended FAA use a public notification process such as
the Federal Register along with a 30 day public comment period, as part
of the FAA review and approval process for FAA-recognized
identification areas to get input from local communities, citizens, and
other stakeholders such as existing airspace users, critical
infrastructure operators, public and private infrastructure owners, and
neighborhoods affected by FAA-recognized identification areas.
FAA Response: The FAA does not consider that public notice and
comment is appropriate for the approval of FAA-recognized
identification areas. The existence of an FAA-recognized identification
area does not change airspace requirements for the area; all operating
rules and airspace requirements and restrictions remain in effect
whether an FAA-recognized identification area is established or not.
The FAA-recognized identification area merely indicates that unmanned
aircraft in that location are not required to be equipped with remote
identification broadcast. Because the decision to establish an FAA-
recognized identification area does not alter airspace requirements,
the FAA finds that public notice and comment is not necessary.
Comments: Flite Test Community Association recommended that the
application process for FAA-recognized identification areas could be
implemented similarly to the process for part 107 waivers. Commenters
mentioned the FAA could identify default risk and safety thresholds and
if the requested locations of the FAA-recognized identification areas
meet those thresholds the location could be granted automatic approval.
FAA Response: The FAA notes the granting of part 107 waivers is not
automatic and operational waivers are reviewed on a case-by-case basis.
The Small UAV Coalition recommended the FAA should not simply approve
or disapprove applications as submitted, but should grant approval if
attributes of the proposed FAA-recognized identification area such as
geographic boundaries can be altered to address FAA concerns. The FAA
considers this to be unnecessary because applicants for FAA-recognized
identification areas would be able to re-apply with different
geographic boundaries if the initial application is denied.
Comments: Many other commenters looked for greater specificity in
the criteria and processes for requesting and approving an FAA-
recognized identification area. Commenters argued that it is more
effective for them to build an FAA-recognized identification area to
FAA-established requirements than to risk FAA disapproval because their
application did not meet the generalized criteria of Sec. 89.215. In
particular, commenters sought clarity regarding the term ``critical
infrastructure.''
FAA Response: The FAA has revised the criteria to clearly state
that the FAA may consider the existence of flight or airspace
restrictions and special flight rules, including any restrictions or
regulations limiting UAS flight for
[[Page 4440]]
safety, efficiency, national security, or homeland security that
overlap with the request. The FAA considers that this criteria would
include any airspace restrictions over critical infrastructure. The
advisory circular on FAA-Recognized Identification Areas will provide
greater specificity in the criteria and process for establishment of an
FAA-recognized identification area, and will be published following
this rulemaking.
E. Official List of FAA-Recognized Identification Areas
1. Discussion of the Final Rule
The FAA stated it would maintain a list of FAA-recognized
identification areas at https://www.faa.gov, and that the location of
FAA-recognized identification areas would be made available to the
public. The list would enable operators of unmanned aircraft without
remote identification, and the public, to stay informed about these
locations where unmanned aircraft without remote identification may be
flown. In addition, law enforcement and security personnel would be
able to identify if a suspect unmanned aircraft without remote
identification is legally operating within an FAA-recognized
identification area. Though no comments were received on this aspect of
the proposal, the FAA believes it is appropriate to retain flexibility
concerning the means by which FAA will publish the locations of
approved FAA-recognized identification areas and ensure the information
is made available in a useful format for the flying public and other
stakeholders. The FAA clarifies in this rule that it will publish the
location of FAA-recognized identification areas on a publicly
accessible website in a form and manner to be prescribed by the
Administrator. This may take the form of a list or another format, such
as a graphical depiction. Additional guidance will be provided in the
advisory circular on FAA-Recognized Identification Areas, which will be
published following this rulemaking.
2. Public Comments and FAA Response
The FAA received no public comments on this topic.
F. Amendment of the FAA-Recognized Identification Area
1. Discussion of the Final Rule
In Sec. 89.220 the FAA proposed that any change to the information
submitted in a request for establishment of an FAA-recognized
identification area be submitted to the FAA within 10 calendar days of
the change, including changes to the point of contact or organizational
affiliation of an FAA-recognized identification area. The geographic
boundaries of the FAA-recognized identification area will not change
unless they have been approved in accordance with Sec. 89.215. The FAA
would review and approve or deny any requested changes to the
geographic boundaries using the same criteria used for a request for
establishment of an FAA-recognized identification area. Any change
submitted to the Administrator may result in the termination of the
FAA-recognized identification area pursuant to proposed Sec. 89.230 or
modification of the FAA-recognized identification area if the FAA-
recognized identification area no longer meets the criteria or
eligibility requirements. After reviewing the public comments, the FAA
adopts the time period to amend information as proposed. The FAA finds
that 10 calendar days is a reasonable amount of time for the holder of
the FAA-recognized identification area to submit administrative changes
to the FAA, and that this process does not impact operations within the
site.
2. Public Comments and FAA Response
Comments: Many members of AMA provided comments that stated the
need to change geographic boundaries over time due to club movement,
population encroachment, or lease expiration, among other reasons. They
requested that FAA not only consider amendments to the geographic
boundaries of an FAA-recognized identification area, but also consider
entire new geographic areas if the current flying site needs to move.
FAA Response: The FAA agrees with commenters and acknowledges that
there may be situations that require an FAA-recognized identification
area's boundaries to be altered or completely relocated. The FAA will
allow for submission of revised geographic boundaries but will evaluate
the revised location against the criteria in Sec. 89.215. The FAA
considers that changes to geographic location that would require
entirely new geographic boundaries can also be submitted as a new
application for an FAA-recognized identification area and would be
subject to the same criteria. With the removal of the 12 calendar month
limitation, the FAA finds that this requirement is not overly
burdensome. One commenter suggested allowing applicants to transfer the
affiliation of an approved FAA-recognized identification areas from one
CBO to another, which may be necessitated by CBO reorganization. The
FAA finds that such a change in affiliation may be acceptable but would
require the new CBO to submit an application and indicate the change,
and for the FAA to review and approve the application.
Comments: An individual commenter stated the allowance of only 10
days to submit amended information for an FAA-recognized identification
area is too short for volunteer-based clubs that may only meet once
every 30 days.
FAA Response: The FAA adopts the time period to amend information
as proposed. The FAA finds that 10 calendar days is a reasonable amount
of time for the holder of the FAA-recognized identification area to
submit administrative changes to the FAA, and that this process does
not impact operations within the site. The FAA envisions that CBOs that
meet infrequently would likely make such administrative changes during
these meetings or members could communicate with each other through
other means and still provide the FAA notice within the required
timeframe.
G. Duration of an FAA-Recognized Identification Area, Expiration, and
Renewal
1. Discussion of the Final Rule
Under Sec. 89.225, the FAA proposed a term of 48 calendar months
after the date of approval for FAA-recognized identification areas. The
FAA explained that a person wishing to renew the FAA-recognized
identification area would have to submit a request for renewal no later
than 120 days before the expiration date. In the proposal, if a request
for renewal is submitted after that time but prior to the expiration
date, the Administrator could choose not to consider the request.
Requests for renewal submitted after the expiration date of the
designation would not be considered by the Administrator. The FAA has
determined that 48 calendar months is a reasonable term for a renewal
interval. A 48 calendar month renewal period gives the FAA the
opportunity to update its FAA-recognized identification area database
to delete abandoned and non-operational sites, and therefore, the FAA
is keeping the site duration term as proposed. The proposed rule
included the restriction that once an FAA-recognized identification
area had expired, it could not be re-established. This rule removes
that restriction.
1. Public Comments and FAA Response
Comments: Commenters did not agree on whether FAA-recognized
identification areas should ever expire. Some noted that many fixed
flying sites
[[Page 4441]]
are used (and reused) on a short-term basis for infrequent events such
as competitions. Many commenters noted that current flying sites are
leased from private property owners and are subject to renewal. Some
commenters felt the 48 month renewal requirement is burdensome, while
others disputed that sites should require any renewal to retain their
approval status. One commenter argued that expiration should only occur
if a characteristic used to approve the FAA-recognized identification
area has changed. Several commenters asserted that the renewal period
should be longer than 48 months. The Small UAV Coalition and an
individual commenter recommended extending the renewal period to 60
months to align with the duration of AMA-affiliated fixed site land
leases. The commenter also recommended allowing FAA-recognized
identification areas to continue to operate while the renewal is being
considered, to include any period of time where the FAA's determination
is under appeal. One individual commenter recommended a 60-month
duration but with annual reviews for changes in site parameters. The
Aircraft Owners and Pilots Association and two individual commenters
recommended the FAA change the renewal period to 120 calendar months.
They commented that 48 months is too burdensome for both community-
based organizations and the FAA as well. Commenters generally objected
to provisions such as expiration and the prohibition on re-applying for
an FAA-recognized identification area in the location of an expired or
terminated FAA-recognized identification area. Commenters asserted the
FAA's assumption that non-equipped UAS would dwindle is faulty and
demonstrates a flawed understanding of the modeling community.
Commenters stated that the requirement to request renewal of FAA-
recognized identification areas no later than120 days before the
expiration date was onerous or unnecessary. The Small UAV Coalition did
not raise concerns with the renewal time period requirement.
FAA Response: The FAA has determined that 48 months is a reasonable
term for a renewal interval. A 48-calendar month renewal period gives
the FAA the opportunity to update its FAA-recognized identification
area database to delete abandoned and non-operational sites. In
addition, the 48-month renewal period gives the FAA the opportunity to
validate that these sites are still necessary and continue to meet the
applicable safety and security criteria. The FAA has determined that a
48-calendar month term balances the safety and security needs to
periodically review FAA-recognized identification areas against the
administrative overhead associated with conducting the review. The FAA
finds that commenter suggestions for longer time periods (60 months or
120 calendar months) do not allow for sufficiently frequent review. For
the reasons detailed above, the FAA has also determined the requirement
to submit a renewal request for FAA-recognized identification areas is
also reasonable. The FAA determines that the requirement to request
renewal no later than 120 days before the expiration period is
necessary to provide the FAA time to process the renewal.
Comments: Commenters objected to the restriction on re-
establishment of FAA-recognized identification areas that have expired.
AiRXOS commented that the FAA provided no reasonable explanation for
prohibiting applicants from applying to reestablish a previously
approved FAA-recognized identification area that had expired, and noted
that it does not appear to be a risk-based provision.
FAA Response: The FAA agrees with commenters that these areas will
not phase out as initially conceived. In addition to removing the 12-
calendar month limitation for application, the FAA will allow
applicants to re-apply for an area that had expired. The FAA envisions
that the process to re-apply be the same as the process for new
applications, because the application would be evaluated against the
same criteria.
H. Requests to Terminate an FAA-recognized Identification Area
1. Discussion of the Final Rule
As proposed in Sec. 89.230(b)(1), if the holder of an FAA-
recognized identification area seeks to terminate the site prior to the
expiration date, the organization would do so by submitting a request
for termination to the Administrator. In the proposed rule, that site
would no longer be eligible to be an FAA-recognized identification area
in the future. This rule removes this restriction and allows
voluntarily terminated FAA-recognized identification areas to be
submitted to be re-established.
2. Public Comments and FAA Response
Comments: Commenters objected to the proposed restriction against
the re-establishment of an FAA-recognized identification area that was
voluntarily terminated.
FAA Response: The FAA agrees. This rule allows applicants to re-
apply for an area that has been terminated by the previous holder of
the FAA-recognized remote identification area. The FAA envisions that
the process to re-apply be the same as the process for new
applications, because the application would be evaluated against the
same criteria and the 12-calendar month limitation on new applications
is no longer applicable.
I. Termination by FAA and Petitions To Reconsider the FAA's Decision To
Terminate an FAA-Recognized Identification Area
1. Discussion of the Final Rule
The FAA proposed in Sec. 89.230(b)(2) that the FAA would be able
to terminate an FAA-recognized identification area for cause or upon a
finding, including but not limited to: (1) The FAA-recognized
identification area may pose a risk to aviation safety, public safety,
or national security; (2) a finding that the FAA-recognized
identification area is no longer associated with a community-based
organization recognized by the Administrator; or (3) a finding that the
person who submitted a request for establishment of an FAA-recognized
identification area provided false or misleading information during the
submission, amendment, or renewal process.
The FAA proposed that a person whose FAA-recognized identification
area has been terminated by the Agency would be able to petition for
reconsideration by submitting a request for reconsideration within 30
calendar days of the date of issuance of the termination as required in
proposed Sec. 89.230.
This rule adopts this section with minor changes to clarify the
rationale for terminating an FAA-recognized identification area and the
criteria to petition to reconsider the FAA's decision to terminate an
FAA-recognized identification area.
As proposed, once an FAA-recognized identification area is
terminated by the FAA, a CBO would not be able to reapply to have the
associated area reestablished as an FAA-recognized identification area.
In this rule, the FAA clarifies that except as provided in petitions
for reconsideration, if the FAA terminates an FAA-recognized
identification area based upon a finding that the FAA-recognized
identification area may pose a risk to aviation safety, public safety,
or national security, that flying site will no longer be eligible to be
an FAA-recognized identification area for as long as those conditions
[[Page 4442]]
remain in effect. The FAA is also adding ``homeland security'' to the
list of considerations in Sec. 89.230(b)(2) that may necessitate
termination, for consistency with other changes made in Sec. 89.215.
The FAA agrees that if at some point there is reasonable expectation
that the reason for terminating the FAA-recognized identification area
is no longer relevant, then an FAA-recognized identification area
application should be open to consideration.
2. Public Comments and FAA Response
Comments: Many commenters, including AOPA and the Utah Department
of Transportation, did not agree with the termination and expiration of
FAA-recognized identification areas generally and specifically were
concerned with the inability to re-establish these sites. PRENAV and
some individual commenters suggested CBOs should be allowed to reapply
to have a flying site reestablished as an FAA-recognized identification
area following a failed appeal. These commenters noted the conditions
which led to the FAA's decision to terminate an FAA-recognized
identification area may have changed at some point after the
termination.
FAA Response: The FAA agrees that if the conditions that led to the
termination are no longer in effect, a previously-established FAA-
recognized identification area should be allowed to be re-established
and has modified this final rule, accordingly. However, if those
conditions that led to termination are still present, the FAA would not
re-establish the site. The FAA is committed to not allowing FAA-
recognized identification areas in locations that would pose a risk to
aviation safety, public safety, or national security.
Comments: A number of commenters expressed concern with the
termination and appeal process, in particular over whether due process
was being sufficiently applied. AOPA suggested the FAA allow for a
decision reconsideration process so that CBOs may address and resolve
any relevant outstanding safety issues that lead to the FAA termination
decision. AOPA further proposed that impacted parties should be able to
seek an administrative hearing concerning the FAA's decision to
terminate an FAA-recognized identification area under part 13,
expressing concern that without an administrative hearing there was no
guarantee that all the relevant facts would be considered, nor that an
impartial decision on the matter would be reached.
FAA Response: The absence of an FAA-recognized identification area
does not prohibit UAS from operating in the area so long as those UAS
are able to identify remotely. However, the FAA recognizes that the
termination of an FAA-recognized identification area could affect
persons flying unmanned aircraft without remote identification because,
for example, the persons would have to fly their unmanned aircraft at
another FAA-recognized identification area or would have to retrofit
their unmanned aircraft with a remote identification broadcast module.
As discussed in this rule, Sec. 89.230(b) establishes the grounds for
termination of an FAA-recognized identification area. Because of the
effect of the termination on persons operating unmanned aircraft, the
FAA included a reconsideration process in Sec. 89.230(c) to ensure due
process by providing a reasonable time frame for eligible persons to
submit a petition to the Administrator requesting reconsideration of
the decision by stating the reasons justifying the request and
including any supporting documentation. The FAA believes this process
is reasonable and adequate because the termination of an FAA-recognized
identification area does not ground unmanned aircraft that can remotely
identify, persons can choose to retrofit their unmanned aircraft with
remote identification broadcast modules if they want to continue flying
in that airspace, and they can continue to fly their unmanned aircraft
without remote identification at other FAA-recognized identification
areas.
Comments: Some individual commenters were unsatisfied with the
wording of this section. One individual commenter requested the FAA
amend the wording to specify that a ``FAA-recognized identification
area representative or CBO representative'' rather than a ``person''
can submit a petition. This commenter felt the current wording was not
broad enough to encompass a CBO or property owner or lessee.
FAA Response: The FAA clarifies that the word ``person'' carries
the meaning ascribed to it in 14 CFR 1.1, and includes corporate
entities and other organizations as well as individuals. The FAA agrees
that if at some point there is reasonable expectation that the reason
for terminating the FAA-recognized identification area is no longer
relevant, an FAA-recognized identification area application should be
open to consideration. The advisory circular will contain further
details regarding FAA-recognized identification areas, including the
process for termination and appeal. The advisory circular on FAA-
recognized identification areas will be published following this
rulemaking.
XIII. Means of Compliance
A. Performance-Based Regulation
The FAA adopts the regulatory framework for remote identification
with performance-based requirements rather than prescriptive text to
provide a flexible regulation that allows a person to develop a means
of compliance--which may include industry consensus standards--that
adjusts to the fast pace of technological change, innovation, design,
and development while still meeting the regulatory requirements.
Performance-based requirements describe outcomes, goals, or results
without establishing a specific means or process for regulated entities
to follow.\23\ The FAA recognizes that UAS technology is continually
evolving, making it necessary to harmonize regulatory action with
technological growth. Setting performance requirements is one way to
promote that harmonization.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\23\ See OMB Circular A-4.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The FAA encourages consensus standards bodies to develop means of
compliance and submit them to the FAA for acceptance. These bodies
generally incorporate openness, balance, due process, appeals process,
and peer review. The FAA has an extensive history of working with
consensus standards bodies such as ASTM International (ASTM), Society
of Automotive Engineers (SAE), and Institute of Electrical and
Electronics Engineers (IEEE). Section 12(d) of the National Technology
Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (NTAA) \24\ directs Federal
agencies to use consensus standards in lieu of government-unique
standards except where inconsistent with law or otherwise impractical.
The FAA intends to rely increasingly on consensus standards as FAA-
accepted means of compliance for UAS performance-based regulations for
remote identification, consistent with FAA precedent for general
aviation aircraft and other initiatives taken with respect to UAS.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\24\ Public Law 104-113; 15 U.S.C. 3701 et seq.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The approach aligns with DOT regulatory policy, which requires that
DOT regulations be ``be technologically neutral, and, to the extent
feasible, they should specify performance objectives, rather than
prescribing specific conduct that regulated entities must adopt.'' \25\
This approach is also consistent with the direction of the Office of
[[Page 4443]]
Management and Budget (OMB) Circular A-119, which favors the use of
performance-based regulations and voluntary consensus standards. OMB
Circular A-119 states that, for cases in which no suitable voluntary
consensus standards exist, an agency may consider using other types of
standards. In addition, an agency may develop its own standards or use
other government-unique standards, solicit interest from qualified
standards development organizations for development of a standard, or
develop a standard using the process principles outlined in section 2e
of the Circular.\26\ OMB Circular A-119 cautions regulators to avoid
standards with biases in favor of a few large manufacturers that create
an unfair competitive advantage.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\25\ 49 CFR 5.5(e).
\26\ OMB Circular A-119, Section 5d.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. Discussion of the Final Rule
As promulgated in this rule, a person may use a means of compliance
to meet the remote identification minimum performance requirements. The
FAA has determined that the use of an FAA-accepted consensus standard
as a means of compliance provides stakeholders the flexibility to
comply with the remote identification requirements. However, the FAA
recognizes that consensus standards are one way, but not the sole
means, to show compliance with the performance requirements of this
rule. The FAA emphasizes that, though a means of compliance developed
by a consensus standards body (e.g., ASTM, SAE, Consumer Technology
Association (CTA), etc.) may be available, any individual or
organization can submit its own means of compliance to the
Administrator for consideration and potential acceptance under subpart
E of this rule.
The FAA adopts subpart E essentially as proposed in the NPRM.
However, the Agency is making certain modification to subpart E to
reflect the revisions made to the remote identification framework in
subpart B and subpart D. The FAA is eliminating all references to
limited remote identification UAS in subpart E because of the decision
not to move forward with that concept. The Agency is also incorporating
the remote identification broadcast module solution into subpart E to
enable the development of means of compliance used to produce the
broadcast modules. For more information on these changes, see sections
VII.A and VII.D of this preamble.
2. Public Comments and FAA Response
Comments: The Association for Unmanned Vehicle Systems
International (AUVSI) and other commenters believed that the FAA's
proposal is not performance-based; they mentioned that the rule is
based on prescriptive technology mandates. AUVSI asked the FAA to adopt
performance-based requirements that comply with international standards
and avoid requiring specific technology mandates.
FAA Response: The FAA does not agree with this assertion because
this rule mainly describes outcomes, goals, and results without
establishing a specific way to achieve it. The FAA recognizes that UAS
technology is continually evolving, making it necessary to harmonize
regulatory action with technological growth. By establishing
performance requirements in part 89, the FAA is promoting harmonization
and is providing a flexible regulation that allows a person to develop
a means of compliance that adjusts to the fast pace of technological
change, innovation, design, and development while still meeting the
regulatory requirements.
B. Applicability and General Comments
In Sec. 89.401, the FAA describes the applicability of subpart E.
The FAA did not receive significant comments on this section and adopts
the section mostly as proposed. The Agency is revising the regulatory
text to delete references to the limited remote identification UAS, and
incorporate the remote identification broadcast module concept.
C. Submission of a Means of Compliance
1. Discussion of the Final Rule
In accordance with Sec. 89.405, any person may submit a means of
compliance for acceptance by the FAA. Section 89.405 also establishes
the information that has to be submitted to seek the FAA's acceptance
of a means of compliance, and requires a means of compliance to include
testing and validation procedures.
The FAA adopts this section mostly as proposed. The Agency is
revising the regulatory text to delete references to limited remote
identification UAS, and incorporate the remote identification broadcast
module concept so that persons can file a means of compliance for the
latter.
2. Public Comments and FAA Response
Comments: Some commenters questioned the value and use of the means
of compliance process. Others believed that the proposed requirements
for the submission of the means of compliance were vague. A number of
commenters asked the FAA to clarify what information must be submitted
for the FAA to accept a means of compliance under subpart E. Some asked
the FAA to include standards or performance metrics for persons to
follow when submitting a means of compliance for FAA-acceptance. Other
commenters asked the FAA to consider ``best practices'' when evaluating
submissions. Commenters also asked the Agency to publish guidance
material or examples of FAA-accepted means of compliance and related
documents.
Multiple commenters asked the Agency to identify the standards and
organizations it would work with to develop and accept the means of
compliance under part 89.
FAA Response: The FAA does not agree with commenters who believe
the means of compliance process is vague. Section 89.405 describes the
information that must be submitted by any person seeking the FAA's
acceptance of a means of compliance. The FAA has determined this
information is necessary to assess whether a proposed means of
compliance (e.g., a standard) meets all of the remote identification
requirements of subpart D and subpart E of this rule and whether it can
be used for the design and production of standard remote identification
unmanned aircraft or remote identification broadcast modules.
The process is an essential component of the remote identification
framework because an FAA-accepted means of compliance is used by
designers and producers of standard remote identification unmanned
aircraft or remote identification broadcast modules to ensure that the
unmanned aircraft or broadcast modules meet the minimum performance
requirements of this rule.
Consistent with its statements in the NPRM, the Agency is not
planning on publicly disclosing the details or specification of any
FAA-accepted means of compliance or related documents because they may
contain proprietary data or commercially valuable information. The FAA
is, however, publishing an advisory circular on the Means of Compliance
Process for Remote Identification of Unmanned Aircraft Systems, that
provides further guidance on the process. The advisory circular
addresses the process and information that must be submitted under
subpart E and is available in the public docket for this rulemaking.
Comments: Multiple commenters believed the requirements in subpart
E will impose financial and
[[Page 4444]]
administrative burdens, and will prevent or dissuade persons from
submitting a means of compliance for FAA acceptance.
FAA Response: The FAA acknowledges that the rule imposes certain
costs related to the development and submission of a means of
compliance. These costs are justified by the benefits that will result
from the rule, and both costs and benefits are evaluated and addressed
in the regulatory evaluation available in section XXII.A of this
preamble.
Comments: Many commenters, including some that identified as home-
builders, expressed concerns about the submission requirements and
mentioned that the process is geared towards large manufacturers. They
mentioned that small manufacturers, non-commercial manufacturers, or
home-builders could have difficulties in submitting means of
compliance. Some commenters believed that only manufacturers can submit
a means of compliance for FAA-acceptance.
FAA Response: As being promulgated, Sec. 89.405(a) allows any
person to submit a means of compliance. This includes, but is not
limited to consensus standard bodies, designers and producers of
unmanned aircraft, or other persons (e.g., universities or
individuals.) The FAA noticed a common misunderstanding among
commenters who believed that producers of standard remote
identification unmanned aircraft or remote identification broadcast
modules must develop and submit their own means of compliance for FAA
acceptance. This is not the case. A producer must use an FAA-accepted
means of compliance, but it can be any FAA-accepted means of compliance
(e.g., one developed by a third party).
While this rule allows a home-builder to submit a means of
compliance for FAA-acceptance, the Agency does not expect many home-
builders to do so because home-built unmanned aircraft are explicitly
excepted from the design and production requirements of subpart F. Even
when a home-builder chooses to voluntarily opt into the design and
production requirements of subpart F to produce a home-built standard
remote identification unmanned aircraft, the FAA does not envision that
many home-builders will file their own means of compliance. The FAA
expects most will use an FAA-accepted means of compliance submitted by
another person, such as a consensus standards body.
Comments: Wingcopter and other commenters mentioned that the
testing and validation requirements in Sec. 89.405(c) are complex and
might make it difficult for persons to comply with the regulation. The
commenters specifically questioned whether the means of compliance
framework applies to UAS produced under part 21. The commenters said it
was confusing because the certification specifications, special
conditions, or Technical Standard Order requirements of part 21 cover
testing and validation in addition to compliance demonstrations as part
of the type certification process. Commenters specifically asked the
FAA to clarify that the testing and validation requirements for
certificated unmanned aircraft are addressed through the type
certification process of part 21 instead of the requirements in part
89.
FAA Response: The FAA has determined that the testing and
verification procedures are essential because an FAA-accepted means of
compliance is used for the production of standard remote identification
unmanned aircraft and remote identification broadcast modules. The
requirement enables the person responsible for the production of the
unmanned aircraft or remote identification broadcast module to
demonstrate to the FAA through analysis, ground test, or flight test,
as appropriate, how the unmanned aircraft or broadcast module performs
its intended functions and meets the requirements in subpart D.
The FAA clarifies that the means of compliance framework applies to
standard remote identification unmanned aircraft manufactured under
parts 89 and 21. While unmanned aircraft that are certified under the
airworthiness certification processes of part 21 may have other
identification requirements in addition to those included in this rule,
the requirements in subpart D of part 89 (which can be met through an
FAA-accepted means of compliance issued under subpart E) will be
applied during the type or supplemental type certification process for
standard remote identification unmanned aircraft certificated and
produced under part 21.
Comments: A multitude of commenters urged the FAA to revise the
rule to allow for the submission of a means of compliance for remote
identification retrofit equipment. Commenters support allowing
manufacturers to produce these means of compliance to produce retrofit
equipment and argued it would help increase compliance with the remote
identification operating requirements.
FAA Response: As discussed in sections VII.A and VII.D of this
preamble, after reviewing public comments and giving further
consideration, the FAA is incorporating the remote identification
broadcast module concept into this rule. Accordingly, the Agency is
revising this rule by incorporating minimum performance requirements
for remote identification broadcast modules. With the changes effected
in this rule, persons can now develop means of compliance for remote
identification broadcast modules and submit them to the FAA for
acceptance. The procedural requirement for submission and acceptance of
means of compliance remains the same as with standard remote
identification unmanned aircraft. Such FAA-accepted means of compliance
can be used for the production of remote identification broadcast
modules under subpart F. With these revisions, operators are now able
to equip their existing unmanned aircraft with remote identification
broadcast modules to comply with the operating requirements of subpart
B.
Comments: The Motion Picture Association asked the FAA to develop
an alternate means of compliance particularly for UAS operated indoors
or those unable to utilize certain means to determine location reliably
(e.g., GPS).
FAA Response: The FAA regulates the navigable airspace of the
United States. Because this rule does not apply to indoor operations of
unmanned aircraft, the FAA has determined that there is no need to
incorporate the alternate means proposed by the Motion Picture
Association. See section VI.B for more information on the applicability
of operating requirements.
D. Acceptance of a Means of Compliance
1. Discussion of the Final Rule
Section 89.410 prescribes the requirements for accepting a means of
compliance. This section requires that a person must demonstrate to the
Administrator that the means of compliance submitted for assessment and
potential acceptance addresses all of the requirements of subpart D and
E, and that any standard remote identification unmanned aircraft or
remote identification broadcast module designed and produced in
accordance with such means of compliance would meet the performance
requirements of subpart D. Section 89.410 also clarifies that the
Administrator will evaluate a means of compliance that is submitted to
the FAA and may request additional information or documentation, as
needed, to supplement the means of compliance. The Administrator will
notify the person submitting the means
[[Page 4445]]
of compliance whether the means of compliance has been accepted or not.
The FAA adopts this section mostly as proposed. The Agency is
revising the regulatory text to delete references to limited remote
identification UAS and incorporate the remote identification broadcast
module concept.
2. Public Comments and FAA Response
Comments: The National Association of State Aviation Officials,
Skydio Inc., the Consumer Technology Association (CTA), and others
asked the FAA to commit to a deadline to review all submissions of
means of compliance. Commenters indicated that without deadlines, the
review process could be lengthy, impede the ability of designers and
producers of UAS to bring products to market quickly, and inhibit
innovation. Some commenters suggested specific deadlines. For example,
Skydio Inc. asked the FAA to render a decision within 90 days of the
submission unless there is a justified reason for the delay. Commenters
also mentioned that the FAA should notify submitters, in writing, of
the reason of any delay in reviewing the application.
FAA Response: A means of compliance must be accepted prior to being
listed on a declaration of compliance for the design and production of
a standard remote identification unmanned aircraft or remote
identification broadcast module. The FAA acknowledges that the review
process and response time will vary, and will be dependent on the
complexity of the application and the technology employed. In certain
circumstances the Administrator may need additional information or
documentation to supplement the filing to be able to make a
determination. Therefore, the FAA cannot commit to a specific timeline
for review because the process is dynamic, however the Agency is
committed to working with stakeholders and allocating the necessary
resources to review submissions of means of compliance in a timely
manner.
Comments: Various commenters mentioned that the Agency should
explain the grounds for rejecting a means of compliance, so submitters
can understand the issues and correct defects.
FAA Response: The FAA will evaluate the means of compliance to
ensure completeness and compliance with the requirements of subpart D
or E. Consistent with Sec. 89.410(c), if the Administrator determines
the person has not provided sufficient evidence to demonstrate that the
means of compliance meets the requirements of subpart D or E, the
Agency will notify the person that the Administrator has not accepted
the means of compliance and provide the reasons for the decision.
Comments: Streamline Designs LLC and others asked the FAA to file a
notice of availability in the Federal Register whenever it accepts a
means of compliance submitted by a standards body.
FAA Response: As discussed in the NPRM and as promulgated in this
rule, the FAA will indicate acceptance of a means of compliance by
notifying the submitter and publishing a notice in the Federal Register
identifying that a means of compliance is accepted. All FAA-accepted
means of compliance will be listed on https://www.faa.gov. The FAA will
not disclose proprietary information in the document and will only
provide general information stating that FAA has accepted the means of
compliance. The FAA may disclose the non-proprietary broadcast
specification and radio frequency spectrum so that sufficient
information is available to develop receiving and processing equipment
and software for the FAA, law enforcement, and the public.
Comments: The Air Line Pilots Association, Int'l and various
commenters expressed concerns with the ability of the FAA to handle the
workload created by this rule. Commenters specifically mentioned issues
regarding cost, timeliness, and availability of resources. For example,
they argued that the FAA and other stakeholders would need to invest a
significant amount of money and identify substantial resources.
FAA Response: As stated earlier, the FAA is committed to the
implementation of remote identification and is developing internal
procedures and allocating the appropriate resources to facilitate the
review and acceptance processes under part 89. The FAA is committed to
working with internal and external stakeholders to ensure that the
process for submitting and obtaining FAA-acceptance of a means of
compliance is conducted in an effective and timely manner.
Comments: Many commenters, including Amazon Prime Air, AUVSI, GSMA,
ASTM International, Drone Delivery Systems, and others urged the FAA to
accept the American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM)
international F3411-19 Standard Specification for Remote ID and
Tracking as a means of compliance under this rule and requested the FAA
work with ASTM to develop a rigorous standardized test plan. Drone
Delivery Systems mentioned it supported the ASTM F3411-19 Standard
Specification for Remote ID and Tracking for commercial UAS but that
they did not expect it to become the requirement for every UAS.
FAA Response: The FAA recognizes that FAA-accepted consensus
standards are one way, but not the sole means, to show compliance with
the performance requirements of part 89. The FAA encourages ASTM and
all other consensus standards bodies and interested parties to submit a
means of compliance for FAA acceptance in accordance with the
requirements of subpart E. The FAA emphasizes that, though a means of
compliance developed by a consensus standards body may be available,
any individual or organization is able to submit its own means of
compliance to the Administrator for consideration and potential
acceptance. Only FAA-accepted means of compliance can be used to
produce standard remote identification unmanned aircraft and remote
identification broadcast modules.
The FAA acknowledges those comments requesting the FAA adopt ASTM
F3411-19 as a remote identification means of compliance as part of this
final rule. The FAA recognizes the significant work that ASTM and its
members have put into the development of ASTM F3411-19. The FAA notes
that some aspects of ASTM F3411-19 may need to be revised or updated as
a result of the requirements of this final rule. Once that process has
occurred, the FAA looks forward to evaluating ASTM F3411-19 as a
potential means of compliance for remote identification of unmanned
aircraft.
E. Rescission of FAA Acceptance of a Means of Compliance
1. Discussion of the Final Rule
According to Sec. 89.415, the Administrator may rescind its
acceptance of a means of compliance if that means of compliance no
longer meets the requirements of subpart D or E. The FAA will publish a
notice of rescission in the Federal Register.
The FAA adopts this section as proposed.
2. Public Comments and FAA Response
Comments: Some commenters expressed concerns that UAS might no
longer comply with this rule if the means of compliance used by the
manufacturer for the production of the standard remote identification
UAS or the remote identification broadcast module is rescinded.
Commenters
[[Page 4446]]
believed the requirement could inhibit the production of UAS and
broadcast equipment and stifle UAS research and development, especially
if the means of compliance becomes obsolete a couple of years after it
has been accepted.
FAA Response: An FAA-accepted means of compliance will remain in
effect until the FAA rescinds its acceptance after the Administrator
determines that the means of compliance does not meet the requirements
in subpart D or E. This means that a standard remote identification
unmanned aircraft or a remote identification broadcast module that is
produced under a means of compliance that remains accepted by the FAA--
however old it may be--complies with the requirements of this rule as
long as it continues to meet all of the requirements of subparts D and
E. The filing of new means of compliance for the manufacturing of new
or upgraded standard remote identification unmanned aircraft or remote
identification broadcast modules that addresses technological
advancements does not render the older versions obsolete.
In the event the means of compliance is rescinded, the FAA's
acceptance of any declaration of compliance that relies on the no
longer accepted means of compliance may be rescinded as well. The FAA
may allow the submitter of the FAA-accepted declaration of compliance
to amend the declaration of compliance to include another FAA-accepted
means of compliance, as long as the standard remote identification
unmanned aircraft or remote identification broadcast module produced
and listed on the declaration of compliance complies with the newly-
listed means of compliance. The FAA will not rescind its acceptance of
a declaration of compliance that is promptly amended to list another
FAA-accepted means of compliance. However, failure to amend the
declaration of compliance may result in the rescission of the FAA's
acceptance of the declaration of compliance in accordance with subpart
F.
F. Record Retention Requirements
1. Discussion of the Final Rule
The FAA adopts Sec. 89.420 as proposed. According to this section,
a person who submits a means of compliance must retain all
documentation and substantiating data submitted to the FAA for
acceptance of the means of compliance; records of all test procedures,
methodology, and other procedures, as applicable; and any other
information necessary to justify and substantiate how the means of
compliance enables compliance with the remote identification
requirements. The person must retain these records for as long as the
means of compliance is accepted, plus an additional 24 calendar months.
The person is also required to make the records available for the
Administrator's inspection.
The record retention requirement in Sec. 89.420 applies to all
persons holding FAA-accepted means of compliance. These could be, for
example, consensus standards bodies; designers and producers of remote
identification unmanned aircraft of all sizes; or other persons (e.g.,
universities or individuals.)
2. Public Comments and FAA Response
Comments: Drone Delivery Systems and other commenters indicated
that the record retention requirements in subpart E of this rule would
increase unmanned aircraft costs. Some mentioned that the requirements
would be overly burdensome for home-builders and small to medium size
designers and producers of UAS.
FAA Response: The costs related to the record retention requirement
in subpart E are justified by the benefits that will result from the
rule, and both costs and benefits are evaluated and addressed in the
Regulatory Evaluation section of this rule and in the Regulatory Impact
Analysis available in the docket for this rulemaking.
The FAA clarifies that home-builders do not have to submit a means
of compliance under subpart E. Home-builders are also not required to
comply with the design and production requirements of subpart F unless
they voluntarily opt into such requirements to build a home-built
standard remote identification unmanned aircraft. If a home-builder
opts into the design and production requirements, the home-builder can
develop and use its own means of compliance or can use an FAA-accepted
means of compliance held by another person (e.g., a consensus
standard). The home-builder would not need to comply with the data
retention requirements of subpart E unless it chooses to submit its own
means of compliance under subpart E.
Comments: Streamline Designs LLC and others asked which data the
holders of an FAA-accepted means of compliance have to retain.
FAA Response: Section 89.420 lists the data that the holders of
FAA-accepted means of compliance have to retain. Further guidance is
also provided in the advisory circular for means of compliance process
for remote identification of unmanned aircraft systems, which is
available in the public docket for this rulemaking.
XIV. Remote Identification Design and Production
The FAA adopts the design and production requirements for remote
identification of unmanned aircraft in subpart F. The essence of
subpart F remains as proposed but the Agency is revising the regulation
to reflect the elimination of the limited remote identification UAS
concept and the incorporation of the remote identification broadcast
module concept. The FAA is also reorganizing various sections in
subpart F to clarify the production requirements that apply to unmanned
aircraft produced under a design and production approval issued under
part 21; unmanned aircraft designed and produced under a declaration of
compliance issued under part 89; and remote identification broadcast
modules.
A. Applicability of Design and Production Requirements
1. Discussion of the Final Rule
According to Sec. 89.501, subpart F prescribes the requirements
for the design and production of unmanned aircraft with remote
identification produced for operation in the airspace of the United
States and remote identification broadcast modules. It also prescribes
procedural requirements for the submission, acceptance, and rescission
of declarations of compliance and certain rules governing persons
submitting declarations of compliance for FAA acceptance.
2. Public Comments and FAA Response
Comments: Multiple commenters mentioned that the applicability of
subpart F extends beyond the statutory authority of the FAA. They
believed subpart F prohibits the manufacturing of UAS for indoor
operations and in places other than the airspace of the United States
and asked the Agency to except such UAS from the requirements of
subpart F.
FAA Response: The FAA does not agree with commenters and the
suggested production exception for unmanned aircraft operated indoors
is unnecessary. The Agency regulates aircraft operated in the navigable
airspace of the United States--not unmanned aircraft operations
conducted indoors. As indicated in Sec. 89.501, the production
requirements apply to unmanned aircraft with remote identification
operated in the airspace of the United States.
Comments: Aerospace Industries Association and others asked the FAA
[[Page 4447]]
to clarify who is a ``manufacturer'' under subpart F to help people
identify whether they need to comply with the design and production
requirements. Airlines for America, the Experimental Aircraft
Association, and others questioned whether the FAA has statutory
authority to regulate the foreign manufacturing of UAS as well as the
importation and sale of UAS, particularly those without an
airworthiness certification. A commenter asked the FAA to clarify how
it would ensure foreign producers comply with the requirements of
subpart F within the timeframes established in the rule, and without
burdening operators.
FAA Response: The FAA clarifies that it does not regulate the sale
or importation of unmanned aircraft. The requirements in subpart F
apply to the production of remote identification broadcast modules and
the production of unmanned aircraft with remote identification operated
in the airspace of the United States. Any person, whether in the United
States or a foreign country, producing such unmanned aircraft or
broadcast modules must file a declaration of compliance, provide
certain information, and agree to abide by the production requirements
and certain terms and conditions (e.g., inspection, audit, product
support and notification, instructions). If the person produces an
unmanned aircraft or broadcast module that is not covered by an FAA-
accepted declaration of compliance, the unmanned aircraft or broadcast
module would not meet the remote identification requirements of part
89, and the operation would be restricted to an FAA-recognized
identification area when conducted in the airspace of the United
States. This regulatory framework is necessary to ensure that standard
remote identification unmanned aircraft and remote identification
broadcast modules used in the airspace of the United States can
broadcast the remote identification message elements required by this
rule, irrespective of where the unmanned aircraft or broadcast module
is produced.
Persons producing unmanned aircraft identified in Sec. 89.501(c),
as discussed below, are not subject to the requirements of subpart F,
and do not need to follow the production requirements or file a
declaration of compliance.
Comments: The Small UAV Coalition, Wing Aviation, and other
commenters mentioned that the manufacturing requirements should only
apply to certain UAS, such as highly automated unmanned aircraft used
for commercial purposes or sold to third parties. The Small UAV
Coalition described ``highly automated'' as a UAS with a combination of
``geo-awareness, self-flying, and self-navigation capabilities.''
Some commenters asked the FAA to modify the applicability of
subpart B based on a risk-based approach that maximizes opportunities
for compliance and enhances the safety and security outcomes for
airspace users. Wing Aviation indicated that risk factors associated
with UAS operations are most closely correlated with careless,
clueless, or higher-risk operations, and indicated that the design and
production requirements would impose unnecessary restrictions on self-
built UAS, which typically pose a lower risk. Multiple commenters also
mentioned that the design and production requirements would preclude
many hobbyists from designing, building, and flying their own UAS. The
Experimental Aircraft Association (EAA) and many individuals indicated
that the design and production requirements should not apply to
traditional model aircraft given their low risk profile and lack of
need for specialized equipment. Many recreational UAS owners expressed
concerns that only FAA-approved ready-to-fly UAS would be allowed for
sale and this would increase the financial burden to UAS operators.
Some commenters mentioned that the design and production
requirements should apply to manufacturers of a certain size or to
``mass manufacturers'' of UAS. A significant number of commenters
opposed requiring manufacturers of single units, UAS used in
recreational operations, UAS used for experimental purposes, or similar
UAS from having to comply with subpart F. Another commenter mentioned
that the FAA should create an expedited process (e.g., with less
documentation requirements) to allow persons manufacturing few UAS to
have a simpler means to comply with the design and production
requirements.
FAA Response: The FAA does not agree with comments that the design
and production requirements should be based on the performance or
capacity of the unmanned aircraft, the number of unmanned aircraft
produced, the size or weight class, or the risk of the operation. The
FAA also does not agree that the requirements should only apply to
highly automated aircraft intended for sale to third parties or for
commercial use.
The design and production requirements of this rule apply to most
unmanned aircraft operating in the airspace of the United States. They
are necessary to ensure that standard remote identification unmanned
aircraft and remote identification broadcast modules used in the United
States broadcast the remote identification message elements to enable
compliance with the operating requirements of subpart B. The FAA has
determined that it is in the interest of safety and security to require
most unmanned aircraft to identify remotely when operating in the
airspace of the United States. Accordingly, it has determined that the
design and production requirements should be a rule of general
applicability.
The FAA acknowledges that certain exceptions are warranted and
adopts these exceptions in Sec. 89.501(c), as further discussed below.
B. Exceptions to the Applicability of Design and Production
Requirements
1. Exceptions: In General
i. Discussion of the Final Rule
The FAA has determined that--as a general rule--the design and
production requirements should apply to unmanned aircraft operated in
the airspace of the United States and should not be based on the
intended use of the aircraft because the FAA's need to identify
unmanned aircraft operating in the airspace of the United States is
independent of the purpose of the operation or the perceived or actual
risk associated with an unmanned aircraft operation.
As promulgated in this rule, Sec. 89.501(c) establishes the
exceptions to the applicability of subpart F. The design or production
requirements do not apply to: home-built unmanned aircraft; unmanned
aircraft of the United States Government; unmanned aircraft that weigh
0.55 pounds or less on takeoff, including everything that is on board
or otherwise attached to the aircraft; and unmanned aircraft designed
or produced exclusively for the purpose of aeronautical research or to
show compliance with regulations.
The FAA is making conforming changes to Sec. 89.501(c). Section
89.501(c)(1) was revised to replace the term ``amateur-built unmanned
aircraft system'' with the term ``home-built unmanned aircraft,'' which
is consistent with the terminology change addressed in section V.D of
this preamble. Furthermore, in Sec. 89.501(c)(3), the FAA
inadvertently included the wrong threshold by saying the exclusion
would apply to unmanned aircraft that weigh less than 0.55 pounds. The
FAA is correcting this error and clarifying that the exception applies
to unmanned aircraft ``that weigh 0.55 pounds or less on takeoff,
including everything that is
[[Page 4448]]
on board or otherwise attached to the aircraft.''
ii. Public Comments and FAA Response
Comments: The FAA received many comments addressing exceptions to
the design and production requirements. The Boeing Company asked the
FAA to remove the proposed exceptions for home-built UAS, UAS of the
United States Government, and UAS designed or produced for aeronautical
research or to show compliance with regulations, unless the UAS are
intended exclusively for operations at FAA-recognized identification
areas. Boeing believed that, when operated in civil airspace, those
excepted UAS should be subject to the same rules and requirements as
other UAS to ensure safe operations for all.
Multiple commenters also mentioned that the design and production
requirements should apply to all UAS. Some commenters indicated that
the FAA could create tiers of design and production requirements so
that the requirements that apply to certain UAS (e.g., home-built UAS
and UAS used in recreational operations) are less strict than those
that apply to other UAS (e.g., UAS used in commercial operations).
FAA Response: The FAA considered extending the design and
production requirements to all unmanned aircraft operating in the
airspace of the United States. However, the Agency identified a need to
except certain unmanned aircraft from the design and production
requirements of this rule. As discussed above, home-built unmanned
aircraft, unmanned aircraft of the United States Government, and
unmanned aircraft designed or produced exclusively for the purpose of
aeronautical research or to show compliance with regulations, are
included in the exceptions to the design and production requirement the
FAA is adopting in this rule. These exceptions, as well as the
exception for unmanned aircraft that weigh 0.55 pounds or less on
takeoff, including everything that is on board or otherwise attached to
the aircraft, are discussed in detail in sections XIV.B.2 through
XIV.B.5 of this preamble.
Comments: A number of commenters opposed requiring UAS used in
recreational operations or traditional model aircraft to comply with
the requirements of subpart F. The commenters argued that these
aircraft are typically used in low risk profile operations.
FAA Response: The FAA does not agree with comments that the design
and production requirements of subpart F should not apply to unmanned
aircraft used in recreational operations or to traditional model
aircraft given the low risk profile of the operations. The design and
production requirements of subpart F are implemented to ensure unmanned
aircraft have the remote identification capabilities necessary to
enable operators to comply with the operational requirements in subpart
B, which apply to most unmanned aircraft operating in the airspace of
the United States.
2. Exceptions: Home-Built Unmanned Aircraft
i. Discussion of the Final Rule
The FAA chose to exclude home-built unmanned aircraft from the
design and production requirements because persons building these
unmanned aircraft may not have the necessary technical knowledge,
ability, or financial resources to design and produce an unmanned
aircraft that meets the minimum performance requirements of this rule.
The FAA believes requiring home-built unmanned aircraft to comply with
the performance requirements for remote identification would place an
undue burden on homebuilders. The Agency expects home-built unmanned
aircraft will represent a very small portion of the total number of
unmanned aircraft operating in the airspace of the United States. The
FAA's position is that nothing in this rule prohibits a person from
building a home-built standard remote identification unmanned aircraft
for educational or recreational purposes. However, in that case, the
person would be subject to all of the requirements of subpart F, even
if the unmanned aircraft would otherwise be considered a home-built
unmanned aircraft.
ii. Public Comments and FAA Response
Comments: The Utah Department of Transportation and many others
supported the FAA's proposal to except home-built UAS from the design
and production requirements of subpart F. However, numerous commenters
believed the requirements in subpart F apply to home-built UAS and
urged the FAA to revise the rule to except home-built UAS from having
to meet the design and production requirements of subpart F. Many
commenters mentioned that the requirement to show compliance with
subpart F is too expensive and time-consuming for homebuilders, and
persons building UAS for recreational purposes or science, technology,
engineering and math education needs.
FAA Response: As the FAA explained in the NPRM, and as being
promulgated in Sec. 89.501(c)(1) of this rule, home-built unmanned
aircraft are excepted from the design and production requirements of
subpart F, unless the homebuilder is specifically intending to produce
a home-built standard remote identification unmanned aircraft.
The remote identification design and production requirements are
different from the operating requirements. While some producers may be
excepted from the design and production requirements under subpart F,
operators would still have to comply with the remote identification
operating requirement prescribed in subpart B of this rule. So, while
home-built unmanned aircraft are not subject to the design and
production requirements of subpart F, all operators of unmanned
aircraft (including home-built unmanned aircraft) in the airspace of
the United States must comply with the operating requirements of
subpart B if the unmanned aircraft is registered or required to be
registered under part 47 or 48. This means that the operator of a home-
built unmanned aircraft that is not produced as a standard remote
identification unmanned aircraft under subpart F must operate within
FAA-recognized identification areas, must equip their unmanned aircraft
with a remote identification broadcast module to operate outside of
FAA-recognized identification areas, or must request authorization from
the Administrator to deviate from the operating requirements of subpart
B to operate without remote identification.
Comments: The FPVFC asserted that the requirements, as proposed,
would make it unlawful for individuals to produce home-built UAS.
FAA Response: This is incorrect. As explained in the NPRM and as
adopted in this rule, this rule establishes certain operational,
design, and production requirements for unmanned aircraft. Nothing in
the rule prohibits the production of home-built unmanned aircraft.
Under Sec. 89.501(c)(1), home-built unmanned aircraft are excepted
from having to comply with the design and production requirements of
subpart F. However, designers or producers of home-built unmanned
aircraft can choose to comply with the design and production
requirements by voluntarily opting into subpart F and building home-
built standard remote identification unmanned aircraft.
Comments: Some commenters expressed concerns with the exception for
home-built UAS. These commenters said that the exception could increase
the demand for UAS kits and lead to an increase in UAS being built
without remote identification. The Motion Picture Association (MPA)
expressed concerns with excepting home-built
[[Page 4449]]
UAS from the design and production requirements because they could have
the ability to fly several miles from the control station using a
remotely viewable camera, even though they are not equipped with remote
identification capabilities. The MPA asked the FAA to add a
technological requirement to the home-built UAS exception in Sec.
89.501(c) to clarify that the exception would not apply to highly-
capable aircraft.
FAA Response: The FAA determined that the exception for home-built
unmanned aircraft is necessary because many homebuilders do not have
the necessary technical knowledge, ability, or financial resources to
design and produce unmanned aircraft that meet the minimum performance
requirements of this rule. The FAA also determined that the risks of
excepting home-built unmanned aircraft from the design and production
requirements are mitigated by the fact that the operators of home-built
unmanned aircraft must still comply with the operating rules of subpart
B.
Comments: Several commenters asked the FAA for an alternate way for
home-built UAS to comply, noting that hobbyists often build UAS from
parts, including foam and balsa wood, rather than kits from recognized
manufacturers. Other commenters mentioned that kit-built UAS are
considered home-built and should be excepted from the design and
production requirements, while other commenters mentioned that kit-
built UAS should have some type of remote identification, particularly
if they are operated outside an FAA-recognized identification area. For
example, DJI Technology, Inc. asserted that excepting UAS from the
remote identification requirements when a person fabricates and
assembles more than 50 percent of the UAS makes no difference to safety
and would not address approximately 80 percent or more of home-built
aircraft as they are built today. DJI recommended a focus on the
performance of the resulting UAS, basing the need to comply with remote
identification on the risk the UAS creates due to its performance.
The Academy of Model Aeronautics supported excepting persons
assembling UAS from kits that contain 100 percent of the parts and
instructions from having to comply with the design and production
requirements. They recognized that many of these kit UAS would only be
flown at FAA-recognized identification areas. Droneport Texas LLC
stated that UAS kit designers or producers and suppliers should be able
to provide 100 percent of the parts and instructions that are necessary
for assembly of a fully functioning UAS without remote identification
capabilities. The New Hampshire Department of Transportation suggested
that the rule would motivate designers and producers of UAS to produce
kits with less than 100 percent of the necessary parts to shift
responsibility for subpart F compliance to homebuilders who would be
reluctant or unable to comply.
FAA Response: As further discussed in section V.D of this preamble,
the FAA originally proposed to use the term amateur-built unmanned
aircraft system for the exception in Sec. 89.501(c)(1) and defined it
as ``an unmanned aircraft system the major portion of which has been
fabricated and assembled by a person who undertook the construction
project solely for their own education or recreation.'' Under the
proposal, the person building the amateur-built unmanned aircraft would
have been required to fabricate and assemble at least 50 percent of the
UAS. Following comments received, the FAA relabeled the exception as
home-built unmanned aircraft and eliminated the fabrication and major
portion requirements. This rule adopts the definition of home-built
unmanned aircraft that an individual built solely for education or
recreation.
The FAA recognizes that homebuilders may produce unmanned aircraft
from scratch, may use partial kits in the building process, or may
assemble unmanned aircraft from a complete kit produced by another
person or entity. The exception for home-built unmanned aircraft in
Sec. 89.501(c)(1) of this rule applies to persons producing unmanned
aircraft from scratch or using partial kits to build unmanned aircraft
without remote identification solely for education or recreation. These
persons do not have to comply with the design and production
requirements in subpart F.
As commenters noted, many unmanned aircraft, especially model
aircraft, are produced with various levels of completion, such as
ready-to-fly or almost ready-to-fly. Unmanned aircraft kits that are
produced without key components of the unmanned aircraft, such as the
engine or electric motor, flight control servos, or RF receiver, are
not considered complete kits and the producers of these partial kits
are not subject to the production requirements in subpart F.
However, the exception in Sec. 89.501(c)(1) does not apply to the
manufacturing of a complete unmanned aircraft kit because the complete
kit is essentially a deconstructed unmanned aircraft. The FAA considers
that any kit containing all the parts and instructions necessary to
assemble an unmanned aircraft must have remote identification
capabilities; therefore, a person or entity producing complete kits is
subject to the production requirements of this rule. A different
determination would grant a way to circumvent the intent of the design
and production requirements of this rule. Accordingly, the person or
entity producing the complete kit must comply with the design and
production requirements of this rule, and must ensure that the complete
kit contains all necessary parts and instructions for homebuilders to
assemble a standard remote identification unmanned aircraft, even if
the unmanned aircraft is considered home-built for other purposes. A
homebuilder assembling an unmanned aircraft from a complete kit is not
the designer or producer of the unmanned aircraft for purposes of
subpart F of this rule. Therefore, the homebuilder does not need to
comply with the design and production requirements in subpart F.
Nevertheless, the operator of a home-built unmanned aircraft--whether
produced from scratch or assembled from a partial kit or a complete
kit--must comply with the operating requirements in subpart B of part
89.
3. Exceptions: Unmanned Aircraft of the United States Government
i. Discussion of the Final Rule
The FAA chose to exclude unmanned aircraft of the United States
Government from the design and production requirements because of the
need for the Federal Government of the United States to produce
aircraft without remote identification to meet certain operational
missions.
The production requirements and operational requirements are
independent of each other. Even though subpart F establishes an
exception for unmanned aircraft of the United States Government, an
entity of the Federal Government of the United States operating an
unmanned aircraft must assess whether it is subject to the operational
requirements of part 89. The entity will have to comply with the remote
identification operating requirements if it operates an unmanned
aircraft that is registered, or required to be registered under part 47
or 48. Only the aircraft of the national defense forces of the United
States are excepted from the aircraft registration requirements and are
therefore not required to comply with the operating requirements of
subpart B. This means that all other entities of the Federal Government
of the United States, as
[[Page 4450]]
well as all entities of the government of a State, the District of
Columbia, or a territory or possession of the United States or a
political subdivision of one of these governments or an Indian Tribal
government, that wish to operate an unmanned aircraft without remote
identification at a location other than an FAA-recognized
identification area would be required to seek authorization from the
Administrator to deviate from the operating provisions of subpart B of
part 89.
ii. Public Comments and FAA Response
Comments: The Utah Department of Transportation requested that the
FAA clarify which aircraft are covered by the exception in Sec.
89.501(c)(2) by deleting the phrase ``aircraft of the United States
Government'' and replacing it with ``aircraft of the United States
Military.''
FAA Response: The FAA adopts the language as proposed because
aircraft of the Federal Government of the United States are excepted
from the design and production requirements of subpart F. This
includes, but is not limited to, aircraft of the United States
Military.
Comments: Multiple commenters expressed concerns with the proposed
exception for UAS of the United States Government because they believe
it could cause public distrust. The commenters mentioned that a better
approach would be to create requirements (e.g., specific operational or
pilot-related requirements) to enable sensitive operations to be
conducted safety while still identifying in a general or broader
manner.
FAA Response: The FAA has determined the exception is necessary so
that the United States Government can produce unmanned aircraft without
remote identification equipment, or can deviate from the design and
production requirements of this rule. The exception is necessary to
facilitate certain operational missions of the United States
Government. The FAA believes that--unlike with the Federal Government--
a State, the District of Columbia, territories, possessions, or Indian
Tribal governments are unlikely to produce their own unmanned aircraft.
However, the FAA acknowledges that these governments may have a need to
deviate from the operating requirements of this rule when conducting
sensitive operations. This is why this rule incorporates a deviation
option. Through this deviation, governments can request authorization
from the Administrator to deviate from the operating provisions of
subpart B.
4. Exceptions: Unmanned Aircraft That Weigh 0.55 Pounds or Less on
Takeoff, Including Everything That Is On Board or Otherwise Attached to
the Aircraft
i. Discussion of the Final Rule
The FAA chose to exclude unmanned aircraft that weigh 0.55 pounds
or less on takeoff, including everything that is on board or otherwise
attached to the aircraft from the design and production requirements
because, most of these unmanned aircraft may not be subject to the
registration or recognition of ownership requirements of part 48, and
therefore would not need to comply with the operating requirements of
subpart B of part 89.
As discussed in section XV of this preamble, if an unmanned
aircraft weighing 0.55 pounds or less is operated under part 91, 107,
or 135, an exemption issued under 49 U.S.C. 44807, or any other
regulatory part requiring the aircraft to be registered, the design and
production of such unmanned aircraft would have to comply with subpart
F of part 89 and the operation of the unmanned aircraft would have to
comply with subpart B.
ii. Public Comments and FAA Response
Comments: Several commenters suggested that the FAA should except
small UAS from the remote identification requirements because many
cannot carry additional equipment to comply with the rule. Commenters
asked the FAA to expand this exception to cover UAS that end up
exceeding the 0.55 pound threshold as a result of the installation of
remote identification equipment. A commenter stated that UAS that weigh
less than 0.55 pounds should be allowed up to an additional 0.1 pounds
of add-ons to enable compliance with this rule.
Some commenters believed only large UAS would be capable of
carrying remote identification equipment. Similarly, others believed
that the Agency should only require large UAS to identify remotely.
Therefore, many commenters suggested the FAA implement remote
identification requirements based on the weight or size of the unmanned
aircraft. For example, a commenter mentioned that a UAS weighing less
than 20 pounds and with a wingspan of less than 80 inches should be
excepted from the remote identification requirements of this rule.
FAA Response: The FAA does not agree with comments urging the
Agency to expand the exception in Sec. 89.501(c)(3) to unmanned
aircraft that exceed the 0.55 pounds threshold as a consequence of
installing remote identification equipment. The exception covers a
subgroup of unmanned aircraft that is not subject to the registration
requirements of part 48 because they weigh 0.55 pounds or less on
takeoff, including everything that is on board or otherwise attached to
the aircraft. Because aircraft that exceed the weight threshold have to
register (or file a confirmation of identification for foreign civil
unmanned aircraft) and comply with the operating requirements of
subpart B, the FAA determined these unmanned aircraft should also
comply with the design and production requirements of this rule.
5. Exceptions: Unmanned Aircraft Designed or Produced Exclusively for
the Purpose of Aeronautical Research or To Show Compliance With
Regulations
i. Discussion of the Final Rule
The FAA chose to exclude unmanned aircraft designed or produced
exclusively for the purpose of aeronautical research or to show
compliance with regulations from the design and production requirements
of this rule. This exclusion fosters innovation and encourages
research, development, and testing activities related to the unmanned
aircraft, the unmanned aircraft's control systems, equipment that is
part of the unmanned aircraft (such as sensors), and the unmanned
aircraft's flight profiles, as well as the development of specific
functions and capabilities for the unmanned aircraft. The FAA
determined that the exception is also necessary so that unmanned
aircraft prototypes can show compliance with FAA regulations. This
exception includes regulations related to FAA-accepted means of
compliance or declarations of compliance for remote identification, and
airworthiness regulations including but not limited to flights to show
compliance for the issuance of type certificates and supplemental type
certificates, flights to substantiate major design changes, and flights
to show compliance with the function and reliability requirements of
the regulations. The exception further supports research, development,
and testing necessary for UAS infrastructure, systems, and
technologies, including but not limited to future UTM and United States
Government counter-UAS capabilities.
ii. Public Comments and FAA Response
Comments: A number of commenters asked the FAA to expand the scope
of the exception in Sec. 89.501(c)(4) so that UAS could be produced
without remote identification for other purposes such as educational
activities; science,
[[Page 4451]]
technology, engineering, and math-related activities; and recreational
operations. Wing Aviation, LLC mentioned that the FAA should clarify
whether this exception applies to UAS designed or produced for an
operation approved by the Administrator under proposed Sec. 89.120
(the operating requirements for operations at FAA-recognized
identification areas and operations for aeronautical research).
FAA Response: The FAA does not agree with the request to expand the
activities covered under the exception in Sec. 89.501(c)(4). The term
``educational activity'' is broad and conceivably covers areas beyond
the design and production of the unmanned aircraft and its component
parts. Many educational activities are covered by the home-built
exception in Sec. 89.501(c)(1) of this rule. The aeronautical research
exception is meant to allow the testing of prototype UAS, unmanned
aircraft component parts, and related infrastructure, systems, and
technologies without the requirement that the producer meet all of the
design and production requirements of the rule. Persons operating UAS
built without remote identification under this exception must comply
with the operating requirements in subpart B of this rule.
C. Requirement To Issue Serial Numbers
1. Discussion of the Final Rule
As promulgated in Sec. 89.505, no person may produce a standard
remote identification unmanned aircraft under part 21 or 89, or a
remote identification broadcast module, unless the unmanned aircraft or
broadcast module is issued a serial number that complies with ANSI/CTA-
2063-A. A producer of an unmanned aircraft with an integrated broadcast
capability may update the serial number as part of the software upgrade
to install the remote identification broadcast module. The ANSI/CTA-
2063-A standard is incorporated by reference into this regulation, and
is available for review and download, free of charge, at the time of
publication of this rule.
The FAA adopts the use of the ANSI/CTA-2063-A standard because
using a single accepted format for serial numbers helps ensure
consistency in the broadcast of the message element. The FAA adopts
this section essentially as proposed, but is making certain
modification to the regulation to eliminate the limited remote
identification UAS concept and incorporate the remote identification
broadcast module concept.
The NPRM sought comments regarding the adoption of ANSI/CTA-2063-A
as the serial number standard for remote identification. The FAA
specifically requested comments on whether ANSI/CTA-2063-A can be
effectively used as a serial number standard for larger unmanned
aircraft. The Agency particularly sought feedback from designers and
producers of unmanned aircraft that assign serial numbers in accordance
with ANSI/CTA-2063-A and inquired about the type and number of unmanned
aircraft that the serial numbers are being assigned to.
2. Public Comments and FAA Response
i. General Comments Regarding The Requirement To Issue a Serial Number
to Unmanned Aircraft With Remote Identification
Comments: Droneport Texas LLC, Wing Aviation, LLC, and others urged
the FAA to modify the serial number requirement so that it only applies
to UAS intended to be flown in the airspace of the United States,
BVLOS, or for commercial use. Along these lines, a number of commenters
opposed requiring producers of UAS used for limited recreational
operations to comply with the serial number requirement in Sec.
89.505. They mentioned that many of the unmanned aircraft will fly
within FAA-recognized identification areas or VLOS, and therefore
believed there is no need to require such aircraft to comply with the
serial number requirement. The Drone U, Brands Hobby, University of
Utah and many individuals also asked the FAA to eliminate the serial
number requirement or to except UAS used for limited recreational
operations from having to comply.
Many stated that this requirement would be impossible to comply
with for those with amateur-built aircraft, as they do not come with
serial numbers. Some of the commenters believed the requirement would
potentially destroy the value of recreational UAS and threaten
recreational operations of UAS and supporting industries. The Executive
Director of the Academy of Model Aeronautics stated that a serial
number requirement would destroy the historical accuracy of scale
replicas of manned aircraft. The DRONERESPONDERS Public Safety Alliance
worried that many current models from popular manufacturers do not have
serial numbers that comply with the proposal.
FAA Response: Aircraft registration and identification is
consistent with preserving aviation safety. The FAA has determined that
the serial number requirement must apply to all aircraft and broadcast
modules subject to subpart F, and should not be based on the purpose or
intent of the operation of the unmanned aircraft. The serial number
requirement is necessary because it enables the unique identification
of unmanned aircraft operating in the airspace of the United States.
The requirement is particularly necessary to identify every unmanned
aircraft that is registered under a single registration number issued
under 14 CFR part 48 to the owner of multiple unmanned aircraft used
exclusively for limited recreational operations in accordance with 49
U.S.C. 44809. This is particularly important when these unmanned
aircraft are flown outside of FAA-recognized identification areas.
Home-built unmanned aircraft are excluded from the design and
production requirements under subpart F. Producers of home-built
unmanned aircraft do not have to comply with Sec. 89.505, which
requires producers of standard remote identification unmanned aircraft
or remote identification broadcast modules to issue serial numbers that
comply with ANSI/CTA-2063-A.
Comments: Some commenters asked the FAA to clarify which serial
number enables compliance with Sec. 89.505 because, in theory, every
component of a UAS could have a serial number of its own. Commenters
wanted the FAA to clarify which serial number would an owner retain,
including for registration purposes, if the UAS parts were swapped in
any way--whether due to an accident, suffering damages, or for general
improvements. Watts Innovations LLC mentioned that many UAS use common
components such as flight controllers, radio, and motors, and that
there should be one ANSI/CTA-2063-A serial number for each component of
the UAS.
FAA Response: This rule does not require a producer to assign a
serial number to individual components. Producers subject to the design
and production requirements must comply with the requirements under
subpart F of part 89. To comply with Sec. 89.505, the producer must
issue an ANSI/CTA-2063-A compliant serial number to the standard remote
identification unmanned aircraft, as a whole, or the remote
identification broadcast module. That serial number has to be listed in
the FAA-accepted declaration of compliance corresponding to the
standard remote identification unmanned aircraft or the remote
identification broadcast module. That same serial number also has to be
[[Page 4452]]
included in the unmanned aircraft's registration, and must be broadcast
in accordance with the operating requirements of this rule.
Comments: The General Aviation Manufacturers Association suggested
that a serial number not be required for those UAS already required to
be equipped with ADS-B.
FAA Response: The FAA agrees that the requirement to issue a serial
number should only apply to producers of standard remote identification
unmanned aircraft and remote identification broadcast modules. Unmanned
aircraft that are only equipped with ADS-B Out would not be required to
have a serial number assigned by the producer under Sec. 89.505.
Comments: A number of commenters urged the FAA to establish an
alternative mechanism to enable UAS produced prior to the effective
date of this rule or with a serial number that does not conform to the
ANSI/CTA-2063-A standard to comply with Sec. 89.505. Multiple
commenters asked the FAA to allow the installation and use of remote
identification add-on equipment on those UAS. Commenters mentioned that
the serial number of the remote identification add-on equipment could
be used to meet the serial number requirement in Sec. 89.505.
Other commenters believed that the serial number requirement in
Sec. 89.505 would make the existing UAS fleet obsolete.
FAA Response: As explained earlier, the requirements for remote
identification have been modified to allow persons to produce a
retrofit solution, known as remote identification broadcast modules, to
equip unmanned aircraft without remote identification to enable them to
identify remotely. See section VII.D of this preamble for more
information on the operating requirements for remote identification
broadcast modules. Remote identification broadcast modules that comply
with all requirements in part 89 can be produced after the effective
date of this rule. The availability of remote identification broadcast
modules helps facilitate the early adoption of remote identification by
operators of unmanned aircraft.
In accordance with the serial number requirement in Sec. 89.505, a
producer would assign an ANSI/CTA-2063-A compliant serial number to
each remote identification broadcast module. An unmanned aircraft
produced without remote identification that is retrofitted with a
remote identification broadcast module would broadcast the ANSI/CTA-
2063-A compliant serial number and would be able to fly outside of FAA-
recognized identification areas.
Even without the broadcast solution, an existing unmanned aircraft
that is not retrofitted with a remote identification broadcast module
is not obsolete or grounded. A person may continue to operate such
existing unmanned aircraft at FAA-recognized identification areas. See
section VII.F.2 of this preamble for more information on operating
unmanned aircraft without remote identification. This rule does not
require any person to assign an ANSI/CTA-2063-A compliant serial number
to any existing unmanned aircraft produced prior to the compliance date
of the design and production requirements.\27\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\27\ Producers may choose to assign an ANSI/CTA-2063-A compliant
serial number to an unmanned aircraft produced prior to the
compliance date of the design and production requirements of this
rule (e.g., through a software upgrade). The assignment of the
serial number--by itself--does not make the unmanned aircraft a
standard remote identification unmanned aircraft or a compliant
unmanned aircraft that is properly equipped with a remote
identification broadcast module. Persons who wish to ``upgrade'' an
unmanned aircraft produced prior to the compliance date of this rule
to make it a standard remote identification unmanned aircraft or an
unmanned aircraft equipped with a remote identification broadcast
module may do so by meeting all design and production requirements
in subpart F. Subpart F contains the design and production
requirements for a standard remote identification unmanned aircraft
and a remote identification broadcast module.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
ii. Comments Addressing ANSI/CTA-2063-A and Other Alternatives
Comments: The District of Columbia office of the Deputy Mayor for
Public Safety and Justice, senseFly, Ax Enterprize, Wing Aviation, LLC,
and many other commenters expressed support for the FAA's proposal to
adopt ANSI/CTA-2063-A as the serial number standard for remote
identification of UAS. In contrast, Watts Innovations LLC and some
individuals indicated the requirement to issue a serial number that
complies with ANSI/CTA-2063-A is unnecessary, especially for
recreational UAS and home-built UAS.
Numerous AMA members said homebuilders should be allowed to select
a personal serial number (e.g., a serial number that does not conform
to the ANSI/CTA-2063-A standards) for their home-built UAS. Some
commenters recommended the FAA not require an ANSI serial number
standard or permit existing unmanned aircraft to be exempted from this
requirement. A commenter added that current popular manufacturers do
not follow the ANSI/CTA-2063-A serial number standard, so adopting that
standard would place many manufacturers in noncompliance, unless
granted exemptions. The commenter believed that this proposal could
force operators to purchase new UAS before the expiration of their
current fleet in the absence of a clear path to retrofit.
The Coconino County Sheriff's Office expressed concern about
current serial numbers not complying with the ANSI/CTA-2063-A standard,
but suggested that compliant serial numbers could perhaps be issued by
the FAA at the time of registration or re-registration. One commenter
stated the FAA should permit the use of user-generated serial numbers
at least until industry makes available modular dongles that transmit
serial numbers compliant with ANSI/CTA-2063-A. Another individual
suggested the FAA provide a mechanism allowing for serial number
equivalent assignment during registration of amateur-built UAS using an
approved open source code.
Commenters questioned whether the requirement applied to the legacy
UAS fleet. Other commenters mentioned that producers should be able to
provide the serial number through a software upgrade. Some of these
commenters raised concerns with a software upgrade because UAS
manufacturers might not have the ability to track whether the upgrade
was successfully installed for the UAS to meet the serial number
requirement.
FAA Response: The broadcast of a serial number is an essential
component of remote identification. The FAA has decided to maintain its
position to adopt the ANSI/CTA-2063-A standard, and require applicable
producers to assign ANSI/CTA-2063-A compliant serial numbers to
standard remote identification unmanned aircraft and remote
identification broadcast modules. While ANSI/CTA-2063-A was
specifically developed to provide a serial number format for small
unmanned aircraft serial numbers, the FAA has determined that ANSI/CTA-
2063-A is appropriate to issue serial numbers under this rule
regardless of the size of the unmanned aircraft or broadcast module
because it enables the issuance of unique serial numbers, and promotes
worldwide standardization of unmanned aircraft remote identification
requirements. The use of ANSI/CTA-2063-A would provide a single
accepted format for serial numbers. It would also help ensure
consistency and avoid duplication in the broadcast of this message
element at any given moment. The ANSI/CTA-2063-A standard is available
for viewing and download free of charge as of the publication of this
final rule.
The FAA reaffirms that subpart F of this rule does not apply to the
production of home-built unmanned
[[Page 4453]]
aircraft. Accordingly, individuals constructing home-built unmanned
aircraft are not required to obtain ANSI/CTA-2063-A serial numbers for
their aircraft. As previously discussed, the serial number requirement
in Sec. 89.505 does not apply to existing unmanned aircraft. Unmanned
aircraft without remote identification can continue to operate, as long
as they comply with the operating requirements under subpart B of this
rule.
The FAA is permitting the production and use of remote
identification broadcast modules that may be retrofitted in unmanned
aircraft without remote identification to meet the requirements of this
rule. If operators of unmanned aircraft without remote identification,
such as home-built unmanned aircraft or existing unmanned aircraft,
want to operate outside of FAA-recognized identification areas, they
would need to equip their unmanned aircraft with remote identification
broadcast modules to comply with the operational requirements of this
rule.
In addition, the ANSI/CTA-2063-A standard has been available since
before the publication of this rule, and nothing in this rule prohibits
a producer from voluntarily assigning a compliant serial number to
existing unmanned aircraft (e.g., through a software upgrade). A
producer of unmanned aircraft with integrated broadcast capability may
update the serial number as part of the software upgrade to install the
remote identification broadcast module--this way existing unmanned
aircraft may be issued an ANSI/CTA-2063-A compliant serial number and
comply with the remote identification requirements.
Comments: Multiple commenters expressed concerns with their ability
to access the ANSI/CTA-2063-A standard and the economic burdens of
obtaining it.
FAA Response: As of the publication of this rule, the ANSI/CTA-
2063-A standard is available for viewing and download free of charge,
so the FAA does not believe its adoption will pose financial hardships.
Comments: Various individuals said the FAA should obtain a
``manufacturer code'' so they can issue ANSI/CTA-2063-A compliant
serial numbers to the existing fleet of UAS. Other commenters indicated
the FAA should provide a compliant serial number when the unmanned
aircraft is registered or if the producer of the unmanned aircraft did
not assign a serial number to the unmanned aircraft. Some commenters
believe the FAA should create an automatic process to enable producers
to obtain a manufacturer code to enable them to issue serial numbers
via the FAA or ICAO website. Some commenters questioned whether they
would have sufficient time to comply with the requirement.
FAA Response: The FAA has determined there is no need for the
Agency to issue serial numbers to the existing unmanned aircraft fleet,
at this time. As discussed in this rule, an existing unmanned aircraft
that does not meet all requirements of subpart F can continue to fly at
FAA-recognized identification areas. It can also be retrofitted with a
remote identification broadcast module to fly elsewhere. The remote
identification broadcast module would need to have a serial number
issued by the producer in accordance with Sec. 89.505.
This rule does not establish a specific process to issue serial
numbers. Producers may develop or follow any process that enables them
to issue and assign ANSI/CTA-2063-A compliant serial numbers to the
standard remote identification unmanned aircraft or remote
identification broadcast modules.
Comments: Some commenters highlighted that ANSI/CTA-2063-A covers
the issuance of serial numbers for small UAS. The National Agricultural
Aviation Association and others asked the FAA to revise the rule so
that the serial number requirement applies to UAS of a particular size
or larger. The Small UAV Coalition and others asked the FAA to revise
Sec. 89.505 to require compliance with the ANSI serial number standard
at the time of production of the UAS. Another commenter suggested the
requirement be to use ``an accepted industry standard on serial
numbers.'' A commenter asked the FAA to use a standard that provides a
scalable format for serial numbers and a scalable process for producers
to request or assign serial numbers.
FAA Response: While ANSI/CTA-2063-A was specifically developed to
provide a serial number format for small unmanned aircraft serial
numbers, the FAA has determined that ANSI/CTA-2063-A is appropriate to
issue serial numbers under this rule regardless of the size of the
unmanned aircraft or broadcast module because it enables the issuance
of unique serial numbers, and promotes worldwide standardization of
unmanned aircraft remote identification requirements. The use of ANSI/
CTA-2063-A provides a single accepted format for serial numbers,
helping to ensure consistency in the broadcast of this message element.
The FAA believes this standard provides for flexibility and
scalability, noting that the ``Manufacturer's Serial Number'' field of
the full serial number allows for over a quadrillion different number
and letter combinations. The FAA notes that ANSI/CTA-2063-A is the
current version of the standard as of the date of this rule and
declines to include a policy for accepting new serial number standards.
Any future changes to the requirement to issue serial numbers that
comply with ANSI/CTA-2063-A would require a new rulemaking activity.
The incorporation by reference approach requires pointing to a
specific standard and the FAA must evaluate each standard to ensure it
is consistent with the remote identification requirements and
appropriately supports the transmission of the message elements. While
this rule adopts ANSI/CTA-2063-A, the Agency may consider revisions to
this standard--as well as other serial number standards--and may
incorporate them into the regulation at a later time.
iii. Incorporation by Reference
As promulgated in Sec. 89.505, the producer of a standard remote
identification unmanned aircraft or remote identification broadcast
module must issue a serial number to the unmanned aircraft or broadcast
module that complies with ANSI/CTA-2063-A, Small Unmanned Aerial
Systems Serial Numbers (September 2019). The Office of the Federal
Register (OFR) has regulations concerning incorporation by reference. 1
CFR part 51. These regulations require that, for a final rule, agencies
must discuss in the preamble to the rule the way in which the materials
that the Agency incorporated by reference are reasonably available to
interested persons, and how interested parties can obtain the
materials. In addition, in accordance with 1 CFR 51.5(b), the Agency
must summarize the material in the preamble of the final rule.
In accordance with the OFR's requirements, the FAA states that the
ANSI/CTA-2063-A standard outlines the elements and characteristics of
serial numbers used by small UAS. Each serial number is comprised of
three basic components: The manufacturer code, the length code, and the
manufacturer's serial number. Thus, each serial number is unique to a
specific unmanned aircraft and can also be used to identify the
manufacturer of the unmanned aircraft.
Interested persons can view and download ANSI/CTA-2063-A at:
https://www.cta.tech by creating a free account and searching under
``Research and Standards.'' The ANSI/CTA-2063-
[[Page 4454]]
A standard is available for review and download, free of charge, at the
time of publication of this rule.
D. Labeling Requirements
1. Discussion of the Final Rule
According to Sec. 89.525, no person may produce a standard remote
identification unmanned aircraft under the declaration of compliance
process of part 89 or a stand-alone remote identification broadcast
module unless the unmanned aircraft or the broadcast module displays a
label indicating that it meets the requirements of part 89. The label
must be in English and be legible, prominent, and permanently affixed
to the unmanned aircraft or the broadcast module. For existing unmanned
aircraft that are upgraded to have remote identification broadcast
module capabilities integrated into the aircraft, the FAA envisions
that the label would be affixed to the unmanned aircraft. In those
instances, the producer may provide the label to the operator and
instructions on how to affix them to the unmanned aircraft. Standard
remote identification unmanned aircraft produced under a design or
production approval issued under part 21 have to comply with the
labeling requirements of part 21, as applicable.
The FAA is adopting the labeling requirement in Sec. 89.525
essentially as proposed. The section was revised to eliminate the
limited remote identification UAS concept and replace it with the
remote identification broadcast module concept.
2. Public Comments and FAA Response
Comments: The FAA received many comments supporting the proposed
labeling requirements. Commenters that agreed with this requirement
included Edison Electric Institute, American Public Power Association,
National Rural Electric Association, Alliance for Drone Innovation, the
Northwest Electric Power Cooperative, Streamline Design, and many
individual commenters. Some commenters asked the FAA to require
producers to label their product compliance levels at the time of
purchase.
The FAA also received numerous comments opposing the labeling
requirement. DJI Technology, Inc. and other commenters indicated that
the requirement was unnecessary and would complicate compliance with
the regulation. Commenters noted that some small UAS may not have room
for multiple labels (e.g., a remote identification label in addition to
the registration markings.) Others mentioned that the labeling
requirement could potentially limit the physical space for collision-
avoidance sensors and other features in small UAS because a significant
portion of the unmanned aircraft could be covered with multiple labels.
Many commenters raised concerns regarding the impact of the
labeling requirement on home-built unmanned aircraft or UAS used for
recreational operations. Some commenters believed that the labeling
requirement may reduce the performance and appearance of scale model
aircraft. Many individual commenters expressed concerns that the
labeling requirement would raise the costs of building, owning, or
operating UAS for recreational purposes. Commenters requested the final
rule be revised so that the labeling requirement only applies to UAS
used for commercial operations.
FAA Response: The FAA is adopting the labeling requirement because
there is a need for unmanned aircraft operators, FAA inspectors,
investigators, and law enforcement to know the remote identification
capabilities of a specific unmanned aircraft. The labeling requirement
is necessary because it communicates information that would otherwise
not be known by looking at the aircraft. A producer label enables the
operator to determine what the operator can or cannot do with the
unmanned aircraft. If the unmanned aircraft has no label, the
presumption is that it has no remote identification capabilities, so
the operator must either equip the unmanned aircraft with a remote
identification broadcast module or operate the aircraft within an FAA-
recognized identification area. The costs related to the labeling
requirement are justified by the benefits that will result from the
rule, and both costs and benefits are evaluated and addressed in the
Regulatory Evaluation section of this rule and in the Regulatory Impact
Analysis available in the docket for this rulemaking.
The FAA does not agree with commenters who believed the labeling
requirement would impact performance and limit surface area
availability for other sensors. This rule is performance-based and
there is no prescriptive requirement for how the labeling must be done.
There is no requirement on font type, size, or location of the label.
The label will adjust to the size of the unmanned aircraft. Also, a
standards body or any person may create a labeling standard to meet all
labeling requirements with a single label (e.g., remote identification,
registration, operations over people, etc.).
Comments: Commenters including FPVFC and SenseFly asked the FAA to
clarify how retrofitted UAS or UAS with remote identification add-on
equipment would meet the labeling requirement. The Commercial Drone
Alliance, FlyGuys, Inc., and ANRA Technologies suggested that if the
rule allows for retrofit UAS or UAS with remote identification add-on
equipment, then these aircraft would also have to meet all remote
identification standards, including labeling.
FAA Response: As previously discussed, the FAA modified this rule
to allow for the production and use of remote identification broadcast
modules to identify remotely. Section 89.525(b) establishes the
labeling requirements for remote identification broadcast modules. The
requirements are similar to those that apply to standard remote
identification unmanned aircraft.
Comments: Wingcopter mentioned that the labeling requirements
should be moved to part 21 for UAS with a type certificate or
production certificate issued under part 21.
FAA Response: The FAA revised subpart F to clarify which remote
identification requirements apply to standard remote identification UAS
produced under a design approval or production approval issued under
part 21. While these aircraft are not subject to the labeling
requirements in Sec. 89.525, they must be labeled in accordance with
the applicable requirements of part 21.
E. Production Requirements
This rule finalizes the design and production requirements in
subpart F. These requirements apply to the production of new standard
remote identification unmanned aircraft or remote identification
broadcast modules. The FAA clarifies that a person must also follow
these requirements to upgrade an unmanned aircraft to meet the remote
identification requirements for standard remote identification unmanned
aircraft or for unmanned aircraft with remote identification broadcast
modules.
The essence of subpart F remains the same but the Agency made a
number of changes to eliminate the limited remote identification UAS
concept and replace it with the remote identification broadcast module
concept. The FAA also restructured the sections to clarify which
production requirements apply to standard remote identification
unmanned aircraft produced under part 21, and which requirements apply
to standard remote identification unmanned aircraft and remote
identification broadcast modules produced under an FAA-accepted
declaration of compliance under subpart F.
[[Page 4455]]
1. Production Requirements: Standard Remote Identification Unmanned
Aircraft Produced Under a Design or Production Approval Issued Under
Part 21
i. Discussion of the Final Rule
The FAA added Sec. 89.510 and made various changes to subpart F to
clarify the production requirements that apply to standard remote
identification unmanned aircraft produced under a design approval or
production approval issued under part 21.
First, type certificated unmanned aircraft must meet the serial
number requirement in Sec. 89.505.
Second, type certificated unmanned aircraft must meet the
production requirements in Sec. 89.510. The unmanned aircraft must be
designed and produced to meet the minimum performance requirements for
standard remote identification unmanned aircraft systems established in
Sec. 89.310 in accordance with an FAA-accepted means of compliance; or
be equipped with Automatic Dependent Surveillance-Broadcast (ADS-B) Out
equipment that meets the requirements of Sec. 91.225. Nothing in the
rule precludes producers from producing unmanned aircraft that have
both the remote identification and ADS-B capabilities identified in the
regulation.
Lastly, type certificated unmanned aircraft must meet all
applicable requirements of part 21, including but not limited to, any
applicable labeling or record retention requirements. The minimum
performance requirements for remote identification in subpart D of part
89 will be addressed as part of the type certification process for
unmanned aircraft.
ii. Public Comments and FAA Response
Comments: Many commenters conflated the declaration of compliance
process under part 89 with the FAA airworthiness certification process
under part 21. They referred to the ``certification'' process as a
rather burdensome approach to determine whether a UAS complies with the
remote identification requirements.
Some commenters asked the Agency to clarify whether the design and
production requirements of subpart F apply to UAS certified under part
21. Some commenters believed the requirements do not apply but felt the
regulatory text was not sufficiently clear. The commenters mentioned
that subpart F of part 89 includes requirements already covered by the
part 21 certification process and indicated that the lack of clarity
could cause confusion, could lead to additional administrative burdens,
and could delay the airworthiness certification of UAS under part 21.
UPS Flight Forward, United Parcel Service Co., and UPS Airlines
indicated that the FAA should implement a technology-based solution
that includes design requirements and a comprehensive system of
oversight for the design and production of unmanned aircraft. UPSFF and
UPS Airlines mentioned that the FAA should clarify how the requirements
in the NPRM would affect or play into the approval of a type
certificate for a UAS under part 21. UPSFF and UPS Airlines also
requested clarification on whether all FAA-accepted means of compliance
under subpart E were acceptable as part of the certification basis
under 14 CFR 21.17.
FAA Response: UAS certificated under part 21 do not have to meet
all of the design and production requirements in subpart F of part 89
because the requirements are redundant with some requirements that have
to be met as part of the certification processes of part 21. Therefore,
the FAA revised the subpart to clarify which requirements of subpart F
apply to UAS certificated under part 21 and which apply to all other
UAS produced under a declaration of compliance issued under part 89.
The FAA clarifies that the minimum performance requirements in
subpart D of part 89 (which can be met through an FAA-accepted means of
compliance issued under subpart E) will be applied during the type or
supplemental type certification process for standard remote
identification UAS under part 21.
The FAA also clarifies that the declaration of compliance process
related to the production of all other UAS under subpart F is not a
certification process. Therefore, an FAA-accepted declaration of
compliance is not a type certificate or an airworthiness certificate.
2. Production Requirements: All Other Standard Remote Identification
Unmanned Aircraft
i. Discussion of the Final Rule
The FAA adopts the production requirements in Sec. 89.515 that
apply to standard remote identification unmanned aircraft produced
without a design approval or production approval issued under part 21.
The essence of the requirements remains as proposed in the NPRM. The
FAA made some changes for clarity and to remove the limited remote
identification UAS concept from the regulation.
According to Sec. 89.515, an unmanned aircraft produced under an
FAA-accepted declaration of compliance under part 89 must be designed
and produced to meet the minimum performance requirements for standard
remote identification unmanned aircraft systems established in Sec.
89.310 in accordance with an FAA-accepted means of compliance.
The producer of the unmanned aircraft must meet certain inspection
requirements for production of the unmanned aircraft; audit
requirements; and product support and notification requirements.
ii. Public Comments and FAA Response
Comments: Various commenters mentioned that the FAA should add
detailed technical specifications (e.g., weight and the size of
transmitters) to the design and production requirements.
FAA Response: The FAA does not agree with the commenters. This rule
establishes minimum performance requirements for remote identification.
It does not establish prescriptive production requirements on matters
such as weight or size of the broadcast equipment, because the Agency
wants producers to have the flexibility to adjust their designs based
on the available technologies and market demand.
Comments: ALPA, National Agricultural Aviation Association (NAAA),
CTIA--The Wireless Association, and other commenters expressed support
for requiring remote identification UAS to meet the proposed minimum
performance requirements. CTIA--The Wireless Association and NAAA,
however, requested the FAA modify certain minimum performance
requirements. NAAA asked the FAA to certify all UAS and UAS components.
They believed that there should be prescriptive measures to determine
whether a UAS is airworthy. For example, they mentioned that some of
the requirements should include where to place the registration number
and the need to equip the UAS with ADS-B In.
FAA Response: The FAA promulgates this rule as a performance-based
rule to grant producers flexibility to demonstrate that a standard
remote identification unmanned aircraft or remote identification
broadcast module was designed and produced to meet the minimum
performance requirements in subpart D to enable the unmanned aircraft
or broadcast module to broadcast the required remote identification
message elements.
At this time, the FAA does not agree with commenters asking the
Agency to certify all standard remote identification unmanned aircraft
and remote
[[Page 4456]]
identification components. As discussed in section XIV.E.1 of this
preamble, the declaration of compliance process under subpart F is not
a certification or airworthiness process and an FAA-accepted
declaration of compliance is not a type certificate or an airworthiness
certificate. A different determination would be extremely burdensome
(e.g., cost and time) for designers and producers. The FAA notes,
however, that standard remote identification unmanned aircraft produced
under a design approval or production approval issued under part 21 are
subject to all applicable requirements and airworthiness determinations
under part 21, as required in Sec. 89.510. The FAA also notes that if
a manufacturer has been issued a production certificate or other
approval to produce an unmanned aircraft, part 89 precludes production
of that unmanned aircraft unless the unmanned aircraft complies with
the minimum performance requirements for remote identification
contained in that part or is subject to an exception from the
requirements in subpart F (e.g., the unmanned aircraft is equipped with
ADS-B Out equipment.)
Comments: American Tower Corporation and others asked the FAA to
permit UAS producers to set certain limits (AGL, Fly Zone, restriction
areas) for the UAS they produce. The commenters believed this approach
would grant flexibility to producers, would foster innovation, and
would provide operators with greater options to meets their individual
needs.
FAA Response: As previously discussed, this rule is performance-
based and allows the production of unmanned aircraft that exceed the
minimum performance requirements. While the operators must abide by the
operating rules in subpart B, nothing in the rule precludes producers
from implementing stricter standards or imposing additional equipment
restrictions (e.g., geo-fencing technology).
Comments: Some individuals recommended the FAA eliminate subpart F
and limit the rule to operational requirements. Others asked the FAA to
remove requirements related to producer certification and standards,
and mentioned that the burden for complying with remote identification
should rest on the operators of UAS instead of producers.
FAA Response: The success of the remote identification frameworks
rests on having both operational and production requirements. Producers
must follow requirements to ensure that standard remote identification
unmanned aircraft and remote identification broadcast modules meet the
minimum performance requirements and broadcast the message elements
required by this rule. Operators must use such unmanned aircraft or
broadcast modules to ensure they identify remotely when operating in
the airspace of the United States.
Comments: Commenters recommended that the FAA align the production
requirements and UAS designations with ICAO guidance, especially
regarding the aircraft make, model, and serials taxonomy. Many
commenters mentioned that the United States should strive for
international harmonization of the remote identification requirements.
FAA Response: The FAA follows Order 8000.71 ``Aircraft Make, Model,
and Series Taxonomy'' which establishes key definitions for the FAA's
Make, Model, and Series (MMS) taxonomy and is based on the
international standard taxonomy for MMS developed by the Commercial
Aviation Safety Team/ICAO Common Taxonomy Team. The FAA recognizes that
UAS technology is continually evolving, making it necessary to
harmonize regulatory action with technological growth. The FAA
regularly reaches out to its international partners on a bilateral and
multilateral basis to harmonize regulations to the maximum extent
possible. By establishing performance requirements, the FAA is
promoting that harmonization and is providing a flexible regulation
that allows persons to develop means of compliance that adjust to the
fast pace of technological change, innovation, design, and development,
and use them to design and produce unmanned aircraft that meet the
remote identification requirements of this rule.
Comments: Many commenters expressed concerns with the cost of
complying with the design and production requirements. Commenters
requested the FAA revise the requirements of subpart F to reduce the
impact and burden on producers and recreational flyers. Some commenters
believed the requirements would substantially increase the cost of
production of UAS, and could impact innovation and the United States
UAS market as a whole.
FAA Response: Though the FAA does agree that the production
requirements may impose additional burden on producers and increase
production costs, the FAA is committed to the added safety and security
benefits provided by remote identification and to the role it will play
in the development of future UAS rules and concepts.
The FAA has revised the design and production requirements under
subpart F to allow for a simpler compliance process by introducing the
remote identification broadcast module. Comments specific on the design
and production of the remote identification broadcast module are
discussed in section XIV.E.3 of this preamble. Based on comments
received and information from unmanned aircraft producers, part of the
existing fleet of unmanned aircraft could be modified to enable
compliance with remote identification requirements with relative
simplicity and minimal cost (e.g., by securing a remote identification
broadcast module or doing a software upgrade through the internet).
The Agency clarifies that subpart F applies to producers and not
operators (e.g., recreational flyers). A recreational flyer who is also
a producer of unmanned aircraft would be excepted from the design and
production requirement in accordance with Sec. 89.501(c) if he or she
is building a home-built unmanned aircraft. See section XIV.B.2 of this
preamble for a discussion of the home-built exception.
Comments: Many commenters argued against involving original
equipment manufacturers (OEM) in the rule requirements. First Person
View Freedom Coalition believed OEM should not be involved with the
NPRM on remote identification; another commenter stated the FAA should
eliminate all OEM requirements. One individual commenter suggested the
FAA needs to create a system, create the standards, and allow producers
of devices to choose to adopt and self-certify rather than requiring
OEM to meet the production requirements. Kittyhawk.io, Inc. stated that
OEM should not have that much responsibility for remote identification
and control over its function, suggesting that the inclusion of OEM
requirements and producers having a central role in access to the
airspace presents not only complexity in execution, but also national
security risks. WhiteFox Defense Technologies, Inc. added that the
requirements should be revised to allow for UAS to be retrofitted with
remote identification modules manufactured by third-parties other than
the UAS OEM.
FAA Response: The FAA does not agree with the arguments not to
involve OEM in the development of the remote identification of unmanned
aircraft. Partnering with the manufacturers or OEM is important to the
success of unmanned aircraft remote identification. This will support
the primary intent of this rule: To provide
[[Page 4457]]
a safe and secure airspace for manned and unmanned aircraft operations.
OEMs are essential to the advancement and proliferation of the remote
identification technology and incorporation into UAS products. Without
the commitment and involvement of the UAS OEM, the safety and security
benefits gained from remote identification will never fully develop or
be implemented into the airspace of the United States. The FAA
recognizes the need for the existing unmanned aircraft fleet to be able
to comply with remote identification requirements and, to meet that
need, this rule allows persons to retrofit unmanned aircraft with
remote identification broadcast modules to allow them to identify
remotely.
3. Production Requirements: Remote Identification Broadcast Modules
i. Discussion of the Final Rule
After considering public comments, the FAA decided to allow for the
production and use of remote identification broadcast modules to enable
unmanned aircraft without remote identification to comply with the
remote identification requirements of part 89. Section 89.520
establishes the production requirements for remote identification
broadcast modules. This section prescribes that no person is allowed to
produce a remote identification broadcast module unless it is designed
and produced to meet the minimum performance requirements for a remote
identification broadcast module established in Sec. 89.320 using an
FAA-accepted means of compliance.
The producer of the remote identification broadcast modules must
meet certain inspection requirements for production of the module;
audit requirements; and product support and notification requirements.
These requirements are aligned with similar requirements for standard
remote identification unmanned aircraft. The FAA added an additional
requirement for producers of remote identification broadcast modules in
Sec. 89.520(b)(4). Producers must provide instructions for installing
and operating the remote identification broadcast module to any person
operating an unmanned aircraft with the remote identification broadcast
module. The producer must also explain how the person would obtain the
ANSI/CTA-2063-A compliant serial number assigned to the broadcast
module. The instructions could be made available on a website or
through any other venue, as long as the person installing and operating
the remote identification broadcast module has access to the
instructions. The FAA expects these instructions would provide details
about how to ensure the remote identification broadcast module is
correctly installed, secured, or upgraded into the unmanned aircraft,
and details to prevent the broadcast module from interfering with the
aircraft flight characteristics or flight controls, as applicable. The
instructions must describe any limitations associated with use of the
broadcast module, such as certain features or characteristics of an
unmanned aircraft that would prevent the broadcast module from meeting
the required minimum performance requirements.
Persons producing remote identification broadcast modules must
comply with the declaration of compliance process in subpart F. This is
the same process that applies to the production of standard remote
identification unmanned aircraft without a design approval or
production approval issued under part 21.
The FAA envisions that some manufacturers would develop remote
identification broadcast modules that can be installed on many
different types of unmanned aircraft, whereas other manufacturers may
produce broadcast modules that are compatible with only certain models
of unmanned aircraft, either because of size, shape, power
requirements, or other design features. The FAA does not require
manufacturers to produce remote identification broadcast modules that
work with all types of unmanned aircraft, but if the broadcast module
is designed to meet the minimum performance requirements when installed
on only certain models or types of unmanned aircraft, those limitations
should be stated prominently in the installation instructions.
ii. Public Comments and FAA Response
Comments: A multitude of commenters indicated that the proposal
precluded the production and use of add-on remote identification
equipment and the retrofitting of older UAS with remote identification
equipment. Some commenters believed the proposed requirements would
make existing RC models, components, and electronics obsolete and un-
flyable. AiRXOS indicated that the proposal did not address owner-
initiated modifications, retrofits, compliance with maintenance
schedules, and use of approved replacement parts.
A significant number of commenters asked the FAA to incorporate
requirements for the production of an add-on remote identification
device that can be used to retrofit a UAS manufactured without remote
identification equipment (e.g., existing UAS). FPVFC and others
recommended allowing UAS to fly using add-on components or add-on
subassemblies manufactured to perform in a manner consistent with the
requirements and capabilities of remote identification. They mentioned
that a single module should be allowed to be plugged into all of the
owner's UAS, and meet the safety requirements by associating individual
serial numbers with operators.
Commenters provided a number of reasons in favor of the add-on
equipment including, but not limited to, extending the life of the
current UAS fleet, enhancing compliance with remote identification, and
cost considerations. Some commenters mentioned that without the add-on
equipment, operators would likely have to buy new UAS and producers
would spend additional resources developing and producing complete UAS
rather than the add-on equipment and component pieces.
Various commenters mentioned that some UAS might not be able to be
retrofitted with remote identification equipment. For example, certain
small UAS might exceed the weight limitations after retrofitting while
others might not have sufficient space to install the remote
identification equipment. Commenters also mentioned that adding remote
identification equipment to UAS, particularly certain small UAS, could
impact the performance of the unmanned aircraft and reduce its flight
capacity or capabilities (e.g., duration and distance).
One commenter expressed concerns that the design and production
requirements would preclude owners from upgrading the remote
identification electronics. This commenter, along with many others,
mentioned that the requirements would preclude a party from installing
remote identification electronics into a third-party airframe. This
commenter stated that, as proposed, the rule does not support the
development and growth of an FAA-certified avionics equipment industry.
Many commenters mentioned the lack of a retrofit option could price
many hobbyists out of the hobby. Commenters said the rule would require
almost every RC enthusiast to register as a manufacturer or to buy new
UAS.
FAA Response: After reviewing public comments and giving further
consideration, the FAA has decided to incorporate the remote
identification broadcast module concept into this rule. See section
VII.D of this preamble for a
[[Page 4458]]
discussion on the operating requirements for unmanned aircraft equipped
with remote identification broadcast modules. Accordingly, the FAA
adopts the production requirements for broadcast modules in Sec.
89.520. While these requirements are new, they are mostly identical to
the production requirements for standard remote identification unmanned
aircraft. The main differences are that the remote identification
broadcast module must be designed and produced to meet the minimum
performance requirements established in Sec. 89.320 and that the
producer must provide instructions for the installation and operation
of the broadcast modules. All requirements for remote identification
broadcast modules, including but not limited to the instruction
requirements, apply to both remote identification broadcast modules
secured to the unmanned aircraft and remote identification broadcast
modules implemented through a software upgrade using existing equipment
on the unmanned aircraft. See section IX of this preamble for a
discussion of the minimum performance requirements for remote
identification modules.
Comments: The Consumer Technology Association and other commenters
mentioned that the FAA should permit producers to continue selling non-
compliant UAS if retrofit modules were available to bring the aircraft
into compliance with the remote identification requirements.
FAA Response: As stated earlier, this rule only applies to the
design and production of standard remote identification unmanned
aircraft and remote identification broadcast modules. The FAA clarifies
that the Agency does not regulate the importation or sale of unmanned
aircraft.
Comments: Commenters, including senseFly, Recreational consumers,
National Association of State Aviation Officials, National Alliance of
Forest Owners, and many individuals indicated it would still be
expensive to retrofit existing UAS with remote identification
equipment. Theia stated the costs needed to obtain a declaration of
compliance are unknown but could be substantial depending on final
requirements; they urged the FAA to provide reduced cost declaration of
compliance for entities that build, operate, and insure their own
airframes.
FAA Response: The FAA acknowledges that this rule imposes certain
costs on the designers and producers of standard remote identification
unmanned aircraft and remote identification broadcast modules. These
costs are justified by the benefits that will result from the rule, and
both costs and benefits are evaluated and addressed in the Regulatory
Evaluation section of this rule and in the Regulatory Impact Analysis
available in the docket for this rulemaking.
4. Product Support and Notification for Standard Remote Identification
Unmanned Aircraft and Remote Identification Broadcast Modules
i. Discussion of the Final Rule
This rule finalizes the requirement that persons responsible for
the production of standard remote identification unmanned aircraft or
remote identification broadcast modules must maintain product support
and notification procedures to notify the public and the FAA of any
defect or condition that causes the unmanned aircraft or broadcast
module to no longer meet the requirements of subpart F within 15
calendar days of becoming aware of the defect or condition, as stated
in paragraph (b)(3) of Sec. 89.515 and paragraph (b)(3) of Sec.
89.520.
The FAA specifically sought comments on whether it should require
producers to notify the public and the FAA of any defect or condition
that causes the unmanned aircraft to no longer meet the requirements of
subpart F within 15 calendar days of the date the person becomes aware
of the defect or condition.
ii. Public Comments and FAA Response
Comments: The District of Columbia office of the Deputy Mayor for
Public Safety and Justice expressed its support for a 15 calendar day
notice period. AiRXOS recommended the requirement be ``as soon as
possible based on the assessment of the increased level of risk but no
later than 15 days,'' and for the FAA to establish a formal
notification process similar to Airworthiness Directives.
Airlines for America (A4A) recommended a shorter period of 3
calendar days to notify the FAA and the public if a defect or condition
might create an immediate safety or security issue. In contrast,
Droneport Texas LLC proposed a 60-calendar day notice period, and some
individuals proposed a 90-calendar day term.
FAA Response: The FAA received a wide range of comments suggesting
notification periods ranging from 3 to 90 days. Given the lack of
agreement on a time frame, the FAA is adopting the notification period
to be within 15 calendar days, as proposed. The FAA is requiring
producers to notify the public and the FAA of any defect or condition
that causes the unmanned aircraft to no longer meet the requirements of
subpart F within 15 calendar days of the date the person becomes aware
of the defect or condition. The FAA looked at overall impact to
security, safety and cost and has determined that 15 calendar days
provides a reasonable time for the producers to evaluate and confirm
the presence of a defect that requires public notification.
F. Accountability
1. Discussion of the Final Rule
In addition to the audit requirements prescribed in Sec. 89.515
for standard remote identification unmanned aircraft and Sec. 89.520
for remote identification broadcast modules, the FAA requested comments
regarding the appropriate time intervals for conducting independent
audits, including any time intervals specified in industry standards
related to independent audits of aviation systems as part of the design
and production requirements.
The FAA is adopting the audit requirements because the Agency has
determined it is necessary for producers to maintain product support
and notification procedures to notify the public and the FAA of any
defect or condition that causes the remote identification unmanned
aircraft or broadcast module to no longer meet the requirements of
subpart F.
2. Public Comments and FAA Response
Comments: Many commenters opposed including a requirement for
audits or FAA facility inspections and argued they are unnecessary and
burdensome for the industry. The Alliance for Drone Innovation, DJI
Technology, Inc., and others recommended the FAA undertake random spot
compliance checks by purchasing and testing products on the market to
determine whether these products comply with the requirements rather
than having to perform the proposed compliance audits. Some commenters
believe that competitors, product reviewers, and safety watchdogs would
also check product compliance independently and report non-compliance
or deviations to the FAA. Others mentioned that the requirements are
unnecessary because the FAA, law enforcement, and the public can assess
compliance by analyzing the broadcast and transmitted data because it
would be accessible by the public. Other comments mentioned that the
requirements would burden smaller producers and, in particular,
individual UAS builders.
[[Page 4459]]
FAA Response: The FAA does not agree that there is no need for
audits or inspections. The FAA also does not agree with the
recommendation of using spot testing, product reviews, or public
assessment for compliance in lieu of auditing requirement. Producer
audits and inspections help ensure continued compliance with applicable
requirements and are consistent with other types of producer
inspections performed by the Agency and its authorized representatives.
These inspections assist the FAA validation procedures, processes, and
methods used to demonstrate that the designers and producers of
unmanned aircraft and their produced remote identification unmanned
aircraft and remote identification broadcast modules meet the
requirements of subpart F.
Comments: AiRXOS and many individuals believed that the audit
requirement is unnecessary and difficult to enforce, particularly with
regards to the production of UAS used for research and development and
home-built UAS. AiRXOS and others asked the FAA to impose the audit and
inspection requirement only on commercial manufacturers. Some
commenters asked the FAA to conduct independent audits of all original
equipment manufacturers within the first 12 months of operation.
The FPVFC, multiple commercial UAS manufacturers, and a number of
persons identifying as homebuilders opposed the requirement to allow
the FAA to inspect facilities and witness any test necessary to
determine compliance with subpart F of part 89. Many commenters
mentioned that the FAA has no authority to enter facilities or
individuals' homes and argued that the requirement is unenforceable.
FPVFC specifically challenged the FAA to articulate any other lawful
recreational activity that would permit the government's inspection of
a participating civilian's home or places, papers, etcetera, without a
warrant, even if the activity were otherwise federally regulated. FPVFC
believed the requirement is beyond the FAA's authority, that it raises
4th Amendment issues, and detracts from the FAA's goals of regulating
the national airspace.
FAA Response: In accordance with Sec. 89.501(c), the requirements
of subpart F of this rule do not apply to home-built unmanned aircraft
or unmanned aircraft designed or produced exclusively for the purpose
of aeronautical research or to show compliance with regulations. This
means that persons producing such unmanned aircraft are not subject to
the requirements unless they voluntarily opt into subpart F.
The FAA considers the audit and inspection requirements to be
essential elements of the declaration of compliance process. Standard
remote identification unmanned aircraft produced in accordance with
Sec. 89.515 and remote identification broadcast modules produced in
accordance with Sec. 89.520 do not undergo part 21 certification. The
requirements of the declaration of compliance process, including the
audits, are meant to foster accountability and to ensure that the
unmanned aircraft and broadcast modules meet the requirements of
subpart F.
The audits are also necessary because this rule requires producers
to maintain a product support and notification system and procedures to
notify the public and the FAA of any defect or condition that may cause
a standard remote identification unmanned aircraft or remote
identification broadcast module to no longer comply with the
requirements of this rule. To satisfy these obligations, persons
responsible for the production of unmanned aircraft would have to
monitor their manufacturing processes, unmanned aircraft operational
usage (to the extent the producer has access to such information), and
collection of accident and incident data.
As for inspections, the FAA has determined whenever the Agency
identifies a safety issue that warrants review of a producer's data,
records, or facilities, it is in the interest of safety and security of
the airspace of the United States for producers subject to subpart F to
grant the FAA access to such data, records, or facilities and all data
and reports from the audits and investigations.
Therefore, the FAA has determined the audit and inspection
requirements are integral to ensuring compliance and conducting
oversight of the production. Since most unmanned aircraft can be used
for a number of purposes, the FAA has determined these requirements
apply to all designers and producers of remote identification unmanned
aircraft subject to subpart F.
Comments: Commenters expressed concerns that certain producers--
particularly foreign--might not share certain information with the FAA
or comply with certain requirements of the final rule.
FAA Response: No person may produce a standard remote
identification unmanned aircraft or remote identification broadcast
module unless the person complies with all of the design and production
requirements of subpart F and obtains an FAA-accepted declaration of
compliance authorizing the production of standard remote identification
unmanned aircraft or remote identification broadcast modules for use in
the airspace of the United States. Failure to comply with any of the
requirements--including the audit or inspection requirements--
constitutes grounds for the FAA to rescind its acceptance of a
declaration of compliance. Any standard remote identification unmanned
aircraft or a remote identification broadcast module listed under the
rescinded declaration of compliance would not be able to operate
outside of an FAA-recognized identification area.
Comments: Some commenters expressed concerns that the auditing
requirement could place a burden on UAS producers, particularly small
and new producers.
FAA Response: The FAA acknowledges that this rule imposes costs on
the designers and producers of unmanned aircraft. These costs are
justified by the benefits that will result from the rule, and both
costs and benefits are evaluated and addressed in the Regulatory
Evaluation section of this rule and in the Regulatory Impact Analysis
available in the docket for this rulemaking.
Comments: Wingcopter suggested that the FAA should exclude the
manufacturers of UAS produced under a design approval or production
approval issued under part 21 from having to comply with the audit
requirements under part 89 because part 21 already includes
requirements for audits and control of the quality system and
production system.
FAA Response: The FAA agrees with Wingcopter; as previously
discussed, the FAA has modified the rule to clarify which requirements
of subpart F apply to unmanned aircraft produced under a design
approval or production approval issued under part 21. The audit and
inspection requirements in subpart F do not apply to aircraft certified
under part 21 because they are subject to their own audits for quality
system and production system controls under part 21.
Comments: Droneport Texas LLC, Watts Innovations LLC, and others
believed the audits should be risk-based, and the frequency should be
determined by each UAS manufacturer-based on the complexity of the UAS
produced. A commenter mentioned that, unless an audit by the FAA is
being conducted for cause and in agreement with the host nation (if
required), a regular audit not being conducted at the request of
manufacturers should be scheduled no sooner than 2 calendar years from
the
[[Page 4460]]
date of the previous audit. The first audit should require a minimum of
60 calendar days prior notice from the inspecting organization. The
commenter mentioned that an audit for legal cause should be conducted
using best practices from the United States Department of Justice and
the justice agency of the host nation (if required).
FAA Response: The audit requirements in subpart F apply to
designers and producers of remote identification unmanned aircraft. As
previously stated, this includes any local or foreign producers or
designers that intends to produce unmanned aircraft for use in the
airspace of the United States. The FAA does not agree with the
suggestion for setting audit frequency. The FAA did not impose a
timeframe for the independent audits. It expects the person responsible
for the production of the standard remote identification unmanned
aircraft or remote identification broadcast module to apply industry
best practices to determine when and how often independent audits are
needed. The FAA has determined the audits should occur on a regular
basis and as many times as necessary. This grants flexibility to the
producer to adjust the recurrence of the audits, based on the
circumstances to ensure continuous compliance with the requirements of
this rule.
G. Filing a Declaration of Compliance
1. Discussion of the Final Rule
As discussed in section V.E of this preamble, the FAA is adding a
new definition in Sec. 89.1 to ensure clarity regarding the meaning of
a ``declaration of compliance.''
In addition, Sec. 89.530 prescribes the requirements for
submitting a declaration of compliance for FAA acceptance. Section
89.530 prescribes the eligibility requirements for submitting a
declaration of compliance, and details the information required in that
submission, whether for a standard remote identification unmanned
aircraft or a remote identification broadcast module. The FAA has
updated the information required in Sec. 89.530 to include the FCC
Identifier of the 47 CFR part 15-compliant radio frequency equipment
used and integrated into the standard remote identification unmanned
aircraft or the remote identification broadcast module.
In this rule, the FAA has revised the section to eliminate all
references to limited remote identification UAS and incorporate the
remote identification broadcast module concept. Section 89.530(c)
prescribes the information that must be submitted in a declaration of
compliance for remote identification broadcast modules.
2. Public Comments and FAA Response
i. Submission
Comments: Various commenters questioned the purpose and use of a
declaration of compliance. Some believed that the declaration of
compliance process is complex and that it makes it difficult for
persons to determine whether an unmanned aircraft complies with the
remote identification requirements. Commenters mentioned that the
requirements of subpart F should be simple and easy to follow, should
not deter potential producers from venturing into the market, and
should not stifle innovation.
FAA Response: The FAA believes a declaration of compliance is an
essential part of the remote identification framework. An FAA-accepted
declaration of compliance allows a person to produce standard remote
identification unmanned aircraft or remote identification broadcast
modules. It serves as an assurance that producers are using an FAA-
accepted means of compliance for the production of the unmanned
aircraft or broadcast module to meet the minimum performance
requirements of this rule and are complying with all other design and
production requirements of subpart F. Various commenters questioned the
use of the audit requirement and mentioned that the FAA could have
difficulties inspecting producers and ensuring the audits are
performed.
The FAA has determined that the audit requirement is necessary,
similar to the audit requirement under part 21, to ensure continued
compliance with remote identification requirements. The FAA believes
the audits would have to occur on a recurrent basis (as many times as
necessary), and whenever the FAA provides notice of noncompliance or of
potential noncompliance, to ensure and demonstrate the standard remote
identification unmanned aircraft or the remote identification broadcast
module meets the requirements of subpart F. A producer submitting a
declaration of compliance for FAA acceptance must make certain
assurances and meet certain requirements regarding inspections, audits,
product support and notification, and instructions. Failure to comply
with any of these requirements is grounds for rescission of the FAA's
acceptance of the declaration of compliance, which directly impacts
where the unmanned aircraft can be operated. An unmanned aircraft
listed under a declaration of compliance that has been rescinded is
only able to operate at an FAA-recognized identification area.
Similarly, a remote identification broadcast module listed under a
declaration of compliance that has been rescinded cannot be used to
meet the remote identification requirements.
Comments: Various commenters questioned the ability of the FAA to
enforce the requirements of subpart F, especially when anyone can
modify a UAS after it has been produced.
FAA Response: The production requirements of subpart F apply when a
person produces a standard remote identification unmanned aircraft or
remote identification broadcast modules. The production requirements do
not apply to third parties who subsequently modify the standard remote
identification unmanned aircraft or the remote identification broadcast
module. However, these modifications could render the standard remote
identification unmanned aircraft or remote identification broadcast
module non-compliant for purposes of meeting the requirements of
subpart B.
Comments: The NTSB expressed concerns with the declaration of
compliance process and mentioned that it would be unlikely for
producers under subpart F to conduct robust failure analysis equal to
the level required for certified aircraft under part 21. The NTSB
mentioned that an unforeseen combination of factors could affect an
aircraft in flight and cause a fly-away or other hazardous events. The
NTSB urged the FAA to consider potential unintended consequences of the
proposed requirements.
FAA Response: As stated earlier, the FAA adopts the regulatory
framework for remote identification with performance-based requirements
rather than prescriptive ones to provide a flexible regulation The FAA
appreciates the NTSB's concerns but believes they are addressed because
the minimum performance requirements include a specific requirement
that the remote identification equipment must not interfere with any
other system or equipment installed on the unmanned aircraft, and must
not interfere with the remote identification equipment. In addition,
though the declaration of compliance process is simpler than the
aircraft certification process of part 21, it provides the basic
information necessary for the FAA to determine that a producer has
complied with all applicable requirements and can produce standard
remote identification unmanned aircraft and remote identification
broadcast modules that
[[Page 4461]]
meet all of the minimum performance and production requirements for
remote identification.
Comments: Multiple commenters asked the FAA to adopt a risk-based
approach to certification where the type of certification required
(e.g., self-certification, partial certification, full certification)
is based on the risk of the operations conducted. The American
Petroleum Institute and other commenters believed the declaration of
compliance process amounts to self-certification and might not provide
appropriate rigor and oversight.
FAA Response: The FAA does not agree with proposed risk-based
approach for certification because the remote identification
requirements are operational requirements and applicable to all
unmanned aircraft irrespective of risk of the operation.
The FAA clarifies that the declaration of compliance process is not
a self-certification process and does not confer airworthiness. An FAA-
accepted declaration of compliance is not a type certificate or an
airworthiness certificate. The process is simpler than the aircraft
certification process of part 21 because it provides the basic
information necessary for the FAA to determine that a producer has
complied with all applicable requirements and can produce standard
remote identification unmanned aircraft and remote identification
broadcast modules that meet all of the minimum performance and
production requirements for remote identification.
Comments: The NAAA and others indicated that all UAS with remote
identification and component pieces should be subject to the
airworthiness certification process. Wingcopter indicated that part 21
includes design and production requirements for certificated aircraft.
They asked the FAA to clarify whether subpart F applies to all UAS or
only those produced without design approval or production approval
issued under part 21. The commenter also suggested that the FAA should
revise part 21 to include remote identification requirements and
mentioned that UAS certificated under part 21 should not be subject to
the declaration of compliance process in subpart F.
FAA Response: The production of unmanned aircraft under the part 89
declaration of compliance process is not a type certification or
airworthiness certification process. The FAA considered Wingcopter's
request to add remote identification requirements to part 21 and to
clarify that unmanned aircraft certificated under part 21 are not
subject to the declaration of compliance process in subpart F of part
89. The FAA has determined that it does not need to add remote
identification requirements to part 21. Remote identification
requirements are included in part 89. As previously discussed, the
Agency revised subpart F of part 89 of this rule to clarify which
design and production requirements apply to unmanned aircraft under a
design approval or production approval issued under part 21. The
revisions also clarify that the requirements in Sec. Sec. 89.525
through 89.545 for labeling and for the processes related to the
submission, acceptance, rescission, reconsideration, and record
retention of declarations of compliance only apply to unmanned aircraft
produced without a design approval or production approval issued under
part 21 and for remote identification broadcast modules. Unmanned
aircraft undergoing certification under part 21 must meet the
certification processes and requirements of part 21 and the
requirements in Sec. 89.510.
Comments: A number of comments asked the FAA to modify the
production requirements to allow persons to file declarations of
compliance for the production of remote identification add-on equipment
that can be installed on UAS manufactured without remote identification
capabilities. Commenters indicated that not doing so would place a
significant burden on small and new producers.
FAA Response: The FAA agrees with commenters and has modified this
rule by incorporating the remote identification broadcast module
concept. The production requirements for remote identification
broadcast modules are included in Sec. 89.520 of this rule. Remote
identification broadcast modules must also comply with the serial
number, labeling, and record retention requirements in subpart F. The
processes related to the submission, rescission, reconsideration, and
record retention in subpart F also apply to the remote identification
broadcast module. The costs related to the incorporation of the remote
identification broadcast module are justified by the benefits that will
result from the rule, and both costs and benefits are discussed in the
Regulatory Evaluation section of this rule and in the Regulatory Impact
Analysis available in the docket for this rulemaking.
ii. Information Required for a Declaration of Compliance
Comments: Northeast UAS Airspace recommended that producers list
the UAS model number in the declaration of compliance along with the
compliant firmware or software version instead of the serial number.
FAA Response: The FAA does not agree with the recommendation to
revise the requirements so that producers have to list the unmanned
aircraft model number in the declaration of compliance along with the
compliant firmware or software version instead of the serial number.
Besides the make and model, a producer must list in the declaration of
compliance all of the serial numbers that will be assigned to standard
remote identification unmanned aircraft or remote identification
broadcast modules under the declaration of compliance. Each standard
remote identification unmanned aircraft or remote identification
broadcast module produced under a declaration of compliance must be
assigned a unique serial number to allow it to be distinguished from
other standard remote identification unmanned aircraft or remote
identification broadcast modules.
Comments: Streamline Designs LLC, senseFly, DJI Technology, Inc.
and many individuals indicated that the requirement to list the serial
number of every UAS produced under a declaration of compliance is
overly restrictive. DJI Technology, Inc. believed the requirement for
the producer to list the serial numbers of all UAS manufactured under a
declaration of compliance is unnecessary because under the proposed
revisions to the registration requirements, the owner of a UAS would
have to include the serial number when registering the unmanned
aircraft. Some commenters mentioned that for foreign manufactured UAS,
the serial numbers should be provided at the time the UAS are declared
in a customs form by an import agent rather than at the time of
production.
FAA Response: The FAA does not agree with the commenters. The
Agency has determined the serial number is necessary to establish the
unique identity of the unmanned aircraft. Because the declaration of
compliance establishes that the standard remote identification unmanned
aircraft or the remote identification broadcast module meets the
minimum performance requirements, the consolidated list of all standard
remote identification unmanned aircraft or remote identification
broadcast modules produced under a declaration of compliance is
necessary to facilitate recognition of unmanned aircraft and broadcast
modules that meet the requirements. Lastly, the serial numbers must be
listed because under the operating requirements in subpart B, an
[[Page 4462]]
operator may only operate a standard remote identification unmanned
aircraft or remote identification broadcast module outside an FAA-
recognized identification area if its serial number is listed under an
FAA-accepted declaration of compliance.
Comments: Unifly and other commenters believe a manufacturer should
be able to update the list of serial numbers listed under an FAA-
accepted declaration of compliance without it being considered a change
to the declaration of compliance. Some commenters suggested that UAS
serial numbers be ``submitted to the FAA by the customs agent upon
entry into the United States'' and noted that listing all relevant
serial numbers in the declaration of compliance will increase the cost
of production management because the serial number is generated and
introduced to the UAS flight controller during the factory production
process, and therefore UAS meant to be sold in the United States would
have to be identified and distinguished from UAS meant to be sold in
other jurisdictions. Commenters suggested that an alternate method to
address this issue would be to submit the declaration of compliance
after production is complete and the UAS that are going to be sent to
the United States for sale have been identified. Commenters mentioned
that this alternative could create a delay in delivering UAS because
the UAS could not be sent to the United States until after the
declaration of compliance has been accepted by the FAA.
FAA Response: The FAA does not agree with these comments. The
producer is the party responsible for designing and producing standard
remote identification unmanned aircraft and remote identification
broadcast modules for operation in the United States and ensuring they
meet the remote identification requirements of part 89. Therefore, the
FAA has determined that the producer is responsible for all
requirements under subpart F, including the filing and amendment of
serial numbers.
The FAA does not agree with the request to allow designers and
producers of remote identification unmanned aircraft to be able to
update the list of serial numbers listed under an FAA-accepted
declaration of compliance without following the amendment process for a
declaration of compliance. An amendment is submitted to modify any
aspect of an FAA-accepted declaration of compliance. Reasons for
submitting an amendment include, but are not limited to: Resolving a
safety or non-compliance issue (e.g., replacing a means of compliance);
updating or correcting information (e.g., the name of the responsible
person or contact information); or including new serial numbers.
Comments: One commenter asked how the FAA intends to enforce the
requirements, particularly with regards to international manufacturers
of pre-fabricated racing UAS, which do not have GPS, barometers, or
broadcast telemetry. Commenters mentioned the requirements would
potentially impact the sport of UAS racing. Other commenters suggested
people may resort to importing UAS from outside the UAS or overriding
their UAS systems to circumvent these regulations.
FAA Response: No person may produce a standard remote
identification unmanned aircraft or remote identification broadcast
module unless the person complies with all of the design and production
requirements of subpart F, and obtains an FAA-accepted declaration of
compliance authorizing the production of standard remote identification
unmanned aircraft or remote identification broadcast modules for use in
the airspace of the United States. Failure to comply with any of the
requirements constitutes grounds for the FAA to rescind its acceptance
of a declaration of compliance. Any standard remote identification
unmanned aircraft or remote identification broadcast module listed
under the rescinded declaration of compliance would not be able to
operate outside of an FAA-recognized identification area.
This rule establishes production and operating requirements for
remote identification. The rule does not preclude the sale of unmanned
aircraft without remote identification nor does it prohibit someone
from buying and importing foreign-made unmanned aircraft. However, the
operating rules of part 89 continue to apply to all persons operating
unmanned aircraft in the airspace of the United States, including
persons operating foreign-made unmanned aircraft or unmanned aircraft
without remote identification.
Comments: Many commenters asked the FAA to revise the regulation so
that the producers of UAS do not have to file declarations of
compliance.
FAA Response: As previously mentioned, the producer is the party
responsible for designing and producing unmanned aircraft and broadcast
modules for operation in the airspace of the United States and ensuring
the unmanned aircraft and broadcast modules meet the remote
identification requirements of subpart F. The FAA has determined the
declaration of compliance must be submitted by the producers because it
is a condition precedent to being able to produce unmanned aircraft and
broadcast modules used in the airspace of the United States.
H. Acceptance of a Declaration of Compliance
1. Discussion of the Final Rule
Section 89.535 prescribes the requirements for the acceptance of
declarations of compliance. The Administrator will evaluate a
declaration of compliance that is submitted to the FAA and may request
additional information or documentation, as needed, to supplement the
declaration of compliance. If the Administrator determines that the
submitter has demonstrated compliance with the requirements of this
subpart, the FAA will notify the submitter that the Administrator has
accepted the declaration of compliance.
The FAA adopts the requirements for the acceptance of a declaration
of compliance as proposed.
2. Public Comments and FAA Response
Comments: Streamline Designs LLC, AiRXOS, and numerous others asked
the FAA to provide more information about the design and production
requirements, and how the Agency would assess compliance to issue an
acceptance of a declaration of compliance. For example, they asked the
Agency to define routine maintenance and to list all requirements that
must be met to obtain the FAA's approval of a declaration of
compliance. They also asked if FAA will require validation for each
producer. Various commenters asked the FAA to provide a list of all
FAA-accepted declarations of compliance on the FAA website to notify
the public of which declarations of compliance are valid.
FAA Response: The design and production requirements for remote
identification of unmanned aircraft are covered in subpart F. Any
person, whether in the United States or a foreign country, producing
such unmanned aircraft or broadcast module must file a declaration of
compliance, provide certain information, and agree to abide by the
production requirements and certain terms and conditions (e.g.,
inspection, audit, product support and notification, instructions). The
FAA will evaluate a declaration of compliance that is submitted to the
FAA to determine that the submitter has demonstrated compliance with
the requirements of this subpart, the FAA
[[Page 4463]]
will notify the submitter that the Administrator has accepted the
declaration of compliance. With the exception of including the FCC
identifier of the 47 CFR part 15-compliant radio frequency equipment
used and integrated into the standard remote identification unmanned
aircraft or the remote identification broadcast module, the FAA adopts
Sec. 89.530, the required information for submitting a declaration of
compliance for FAA acceptance, as proposed. The FAA will publish the
list of FAA-accepted declarations of compliance at https://www.faa.gov.
The FAA is establishing an advisory circular on the declaration of
compliance process for remote identification of unmanned aircraft. This
advisory circular provides guidance on the declaration of compliance
process described in part 89, and outlines the required information for
submitting a declaration of compliance. This guidance material is also
available in the docket for this rulemaking.
Comments: Aerospace Industries Association (AIA) and many other
commenters questioned whether the Agency had the necessary resources to
process all declarations of compliance submitted for acceptance in a
timely manner. The commenters also questioned whether the FAA had the
proper oversight and enforcement mechanisms. This commenter added that
as the UAS industry continues to grow, there will be an increase in
declaration of compliance submissions, which would require a huge
investment from the FAA, and other governmental stakeholders, to keep
up with the demand. Various commenters asked the Agency to commit to a
timeline for review of a declaration of compliance. For example, DJI
proposed a 30-day review period; Skydio proposed a 90-day period to
provide a decision to the producers.
FAA Response: The FAA is committed to the implementation of this
rule and is developing internal processes and identifying and
allocating the appropriate resources to facilitate all processes
required under subpart F of part 89. The FAA is committed to working
with internal and external stakeholders to ensure that the process of
submitting and obtaining FAA-acceptance of a declaration of compliance
is implemented in an effective and timely manner. That being said, the
FAA cannot commit to a specific timeline to review and approve the
declarations of compliance because the response time will vary based on
the complexity of the application, the technology, and a wide variety
of use cases. The Administrator might have a need to request additional
information (e.g., test results, etc.) or documentation, as needed, to
supplement the declaration of compliance and to ensure completeness and
compliance with the requirements of Sec. 89.530 of this rule.
Comments: Streamline Designs LLC, senseFly, DJI Technology, Inc.,
and many individuals believe that the process would increase the
administrative and compliance burden for manufacturers, operators, and
the FAA. They also said the process would delay the introduction of new
UAS into the market because producers would have to wait for the FAA to
accept their declarations of compliance. They believe the acceptance
process will likely create a backlog.
FAA Response: The declaration of compliance process does not impose
a burden on operators of unmanned aircraft because the requirements of
subpart F only apply to producers of unmanned aircraft. As previously
explained, the declaration of compliance process is an essential part
of the remote identification framework and is a condition precedent for
someone to be able to produce standard remote identification unmanned
aircraft or remote identification broadcast modules. The FAA has
determined the process is in the interest of safety and security of the
airspace of the United States because it ensures that producers produce
unmanned aircraft and broadcast modules that meet the minimum
performance requirements for remote identification in the United
States. The costs related to the process are justified by the benefits
that will result from the rule, and both costs and benefits are
discussed in the Regulatory Evaluation section of this rule and in the
Regulatory Impact Analysis available in the docket for this rulemaking.
Comments: Theia and other commenters asked the FAA to provide a
streamlined declaration of compliance process with lower costs and less
stringent requirements for persons or entities that build, operate, and
insure their own UAS. The Association for Unmanned Vehicle Systems
International (AUVSI), Skydio, DJI Technology Inc., and other
commenters asked the FAA to allow a producer to file a single
declaration of compliance that covers multiple makes and models of UAS,
rather than have to file an individual declaration of compliance for
each make and model.
FAA Response: The FAA determined that the declaration of compliance
process is simple, straightforward, and applies to all designers or
producers of non-certificated unmanned aircraft. The FAA also
determined that the declaration of compliance process provides the
basic information necessary to assess compliance with the remote
identification requirements. The information and assessment is
necessary for all aircraft, and the FAA has determined it should not
vary based on the number of aircraft manufactured by a person or the
fact that person manufactures the unmanned aircraft for his or her own
use.
A declaration of compliance needs to contain a single producer,
make, and model and serial number(s) to uniquely identify the standard
remote identification unmanned aircraft or remote identification
broadcast module.
I. Rescission of FAA Acceptance of a Declaration of Compliance
1. Discussion of the Final Rule
Section 89.540 establishes the grounds and procedures related to
the rescission of the FAA's acceptance of a declaration of compliance
and a petition for reconsideration of such decision. The Administrator
may rescind an accepted declaration of compliance if a standard remote
identification unmanned aircraft or remote identification broadcast
module listed under the declaration of compliance does not meet the
minimum performance requirements of the rule; if the declaration of
compliance does not meet a requirement of subpart F; or if the FAA
rescinds acceptance of the means of compliance listed in the
declaration of compliance.
The Administrator may provide a reasonable period of time for the
person who submitted the declaration of compliance to remediate the
noncompliance.
Notice of a rescission will be published in the Federal Register.
2. Public Comments and FAA Response
i. Rescission of a Declaration of Compliance
Comments: Commenters asked the FAA to publish a list of
declarations of compliance that have been rescinded to notify the
public of which declarations of compliance are no longer valid.
FAA Response: As explained in the NPRM and adopted in this rule,
the FAA will notify the submitter of its rescission and will publish a
list of declarations of compliance that are no longer accepted at
https://www.faa.gov.
[[Page 4464]]
ii. Petition To Reconsider the Rescission of FAA Acceptance of a
Declaration of Compliance
Comments: PRENAV and multiple individuals asked the FAA to remove
the 60-day limit to petition the Agency to reconsider its decision to
rescind a previously accepted declaration of compliance because, they
argued, issues typically take time to identify and resolve. Therefore,
they believed there should be no time limit on a manufacturer's ability
to petition for reconsideration of the rescission of the FAA's
acceptance of a declaration of compliance.
FAA Response: If the FAA determines it is in the public interest,
prior to rescission, it will provide a reasonable period of time for
the person holding the declaration of compliance to remediate the issue
of non-compliance. If the person does not take appropriate action to
resolve the issue promptly, the Agency would proceed with the
rescission. The FAA has determined the term is appropriate because it
grants sufficient time after the rescission for the producer to request
for reconsideration of the decision. Prior to the rescission, the FAA
would grant producers reasonable time to take action to resolve the
defects or conditions. The FAA would proceed with the rescission after
it has determined that no action can be taken, that the producer did
not act within a reasonable time, or that the producer is unwilling or
unable to resolve the defect or condition.
J. Record Retention
1. Discussion of the Final Rule
The FAA adopts Sec. 89.545 as proposed, except that it is deleting
references to the limited remote identification UAS concept and
replacing them with the remote identification broadcast module concept.
According to the requirements, a person must retain the following
information for as long as the standard remote identification unmanned
aircraft or remote identification broadcast module listed on that
declaration of compliance is produced plus an additional 24 calendar
months, and must make it available for inspection by the Administrator:
(a) The means of compliance, all documentation, and substantiating data
related to the means of compliance used; (b) records of all test
results; and (c) any other information necessary to demonstrate
compliance with the means of compliance so that the standard remote
identification unmanned aircraft or remote identification broadcast
module meets the remote identification requirements and the design and
production requirements of part 89.
2. Public Comments and FAA Response
Comments: Some commenters mentioned that UAS manufacturers could
have difficulties complying with the record retention requirements
because certain components of the UAS (e.g., beacons or transmitters),
could be procured from other persons (e.g., component manufacturers)
and used in the UAS produced by the manufacturer.
FAA Response: The FAA does not agree with these commenters. The
unmanned aircraft producer can obtain the data and documentation
necessary for compliance as a part of its procurement process.
Comments: The Small UAV Coalition and others expressed concerns
about the proposed requirement to retain ``all test results'' and
requested clarification of what tests were covered by the requirement.
FAA Response: The record retention requirements in Sec. 89.545 of
this rule apply to the production of standard remote identification
unmanned aircraft and remote identification broadcast modules.
Designers and producers of remote identification unmanned aircraft must
retain records of all test results showing that the standard remote
identification unmanned aircraft or the remote identification broadcast
module meet the minimum performance requirements in subpart D of part
89 and all production and design requirements in subpart F of part 89.
Comments: Multiple commenters expressed concerns that a person who
does not comply with the requirements of subpart F could face legal
liability.
FAA Response: No person may produce a standard remote
identification unmanned aircraft or remote identification broadcast
module unless the person complies with all design and production
requirements in subpart F and obtains the FAA's acceptance of a
declaration of compliance. Failure to comply with any of the
requirements--including the record keeping requirements--constitutes a
ground for the FAA to rescind its acceptance of a declaration of
compliance. The rescission would mean that the person would not be
authorized, under that declaration of compliance, to produce standard
remote identification unmanned aircraft or remote identification
broadcast modules for use in the airspace of the United States. Any
standard remote identification unmanned aircraft or unmanned aircraft
with a remote identification broadcast module listed in a rescinded
declaration of compliance would be restricted to operating in an FAA-
recognized identification area.
Comments: Various individuals expressed concerns that the record
retention requirements could prove costly for manufacturers. Western
Michigan University, Drone Delivery Systems, and others indicated that
the administrative costs and record keeping requirements might prevent
the home building of recreational UAS.
FAA Response: In accordance with Sec. 89.501(c), the requirements
of subpart F of this rule do not apply to home-built unmanned aircraft.
This means that persons producing home-built unmanned aircraft are not
subject to the record retention requirements unless they voluntarily
opt into subpart F by producing home-built standard remote
identification unmanned aircraft.
The FAA acknowledges that the record retention requirements in
Sec. 89.545 of this rule will impose certain costs to producers of
standard remote identification unmanned aircraft and remote
identification broadcast modules. The costs are justified by the
benefits that will result from the rule, and both costs and benefits
are discussed in the Regulatory Evaluation section of this rule and in
the Regulatory Impact Analysis available in the docket for this
rulemaking. The Agency has determined that the requirement is necessary
to verify demonstration of compliance with the minimum performance
requirements in subpart D of part 89, and all production and design
requirements in subpart F of part 89. In the event of an FAA
investigation or analysis, the Administrator needs to obtain data
necessary to reassess the acceptability of the declaration of
compliance. The additional 24 calendar months would ensure that the
data is still readily available while any FAA actions are being taken.
If the FAA requests the data, and the submitter did not retain the data
in accordance with this requirement, then the Administrator may choose
to rescind acceptance of the declaration of compliance.
XV. Registration
The FAA proposed that persons operating unmanned aircraft
registered or required to be registered under part 47 or 48 would have
to comply with the remote identification requirements of proposed part
89. The FAA proposed to tie the remote identification requirements to
the registration of unmanned aircraft because the FAA and law
enforcement agencies need the ability to correlate remote
identification information with registration data to
[[Page 4465]]
obtain more complete information regarding the ownership of unmanned
aircraft operating in the airspace of the United States.
Aircraft registration requirements serve the dual purposes of both
identifying aircraft and promoting accountability and the safe and
efficient use of the airspace of the United States by both manned and
unmanned aircraft. With limited exceptions, most unmanned aircraft are
required to be registered under part 47 or 48; therefore, nearly all
unmanned aircraft operating in the airspace of the United States will
have to comply with the remote identification requirements. Foreign
civil unmanned aircraft operating in the airspace of the United States
will also be required to comply with the remote identification
requirements. This will enhance the overall safety and efficiency of
the airspace of the United States.
Under the current registration requirements, no person may operate
an unmanned aircraft in the airspace of the United States unless the
unmanned aircraft has been registered by its owner under part 47 or 48,
or unless the aircraft is excepted from registration. There are two
exceptions to the registration requirements for unmanned aircraft: (1)
Unmanned aircraft of the Armed Forces of the United States; and (2)
most unmanned aircraft weighing 0.55 pounds or less on takeoff,
including everything that is on board or otherwise attached to the
aircraft. Small unmanned aircraft operating under 14 CFR part 91, 107,
or 135, or any other operating part are required to register under part
47 or 48 regardless of weight.\28\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\28\ Foreign civil aircraft remain subject to the requirements
of 14 CFR part 375 and, to the extent applicable, 14 CFR 48.125.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
U.S. owners of small unmanned aircraft used in civil operations
(including commercial operations), limited recreational operations, or
public aircraft operations, among others, are eligible to register the
unmanned aircraft under part 48 in one of two ways: (1) Under an
individual registration number issued to each unmanned aircraft; or (2)
under a single registration number issued to an owner of multiple
unmanned aircraft used exclusively for limited recreational operations.
The FAA's existing registration requirements were implemented through
the Registration and Marking Requirements for Small Unmanned Aircraft
interim final rule (Registration Rule), published on December 15, 2016.
In the NPRM, the FAA proposed changes to those registration
requirements to meet the objectives and intent of remote identification
of UAS. Specifically, the FAA proposed to require all unmanned
aircraft, including those used for limited recreational operations, to
obtain a unique registration number. The FAA also proposed requiring
owners to submit the unmanned aircraft's serial number and other
information as a part of the application process.
The FAA adopts the requirement tying remote identification
requirements to registration requirements and the requirements to
submit the unmanned aircraft's serial number and other information.
After reviewing comments and further consideration, the FAA decided not
to adopt the requirement that all unmanned aircraft, including those
used for limited recreational operations, obtain a unique registration
number. Those changes are described in the sections that follow.
A. Aircraft Registration Requirements
1. Discussion of the Final Rule
The Registration Rule implemented separate registration
requirements for ``small unmanned aircraft used exclusively as model
aircraft'' and ``small unmanned aircraft used as other than model
aircraft.'' The Registration Rule required small unmanned aircraft used
as other than model aircraft to be registered with a separate
Certificate of Aircraft Registration issued for each individual
aircraft. The Registration Rule required small unmanned aircraft used
exclusively as model aircraft to be registered with a single
Certificate of Aircraft Registration issued to the aircraft owner for
all aircraft owned by that person.
In the Remote Identification of Unmanned Aircraft Systems NPRM, the
FAA explained that the lack of aircraft-specific data for unmanned
aircraft registered under part 48 could inhibit the FAA and law
enforcement agencies from correlating the remote identification data
with data stored in the Aircraft Registry. Thus, the FAA proposed to
revise part 48 to require the individual registration of all small
unmanned aircraft and the provision of additional aircraft-specific
data. The FAA proposed that owners of small unmanned aircraft would
have to complete the registration application by providing aircraft-
specific information in addition to basic contact information.
After reviewing comments submitted in response to both the
Registration Rule and the Remote Identification NPRM, and after further
consideration, the FAA decided not to adopt this proposed change to
part 48. The FAA will maintain the current registration options and
will no longer revise part 48 to require the individual registration of
all small unmanned aircraft. Owners intending to operate all their
small unmanned aircraft exclusively in compliance with 49 U.S.C. 44809
may register once for all unmanned aircraft meeting that
description.\29\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\29\ The registration is based on the intended use of the
unmanned aircraft. An operator would violate FAA regulations if he
or she uses any of such aircraft for any purpose other than for
limited recreational operations under 49 U.S.C. 44809.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The FAA proposed to revise the registration framework to require
each unmanned aircraft to be registered under part 48. However, after
considering comments and incorporating the remote identification
broadcast module concept, the FAA determined that the current framework
for small unmanned aircraft registration in part 48 is sufficient for
remote identification and for statutory compliance with the FAA's
authority for aircraft registration. By maintaining the current
framework, the intent of the statutory requirement for aircraft
registration is achieved without being overly burdensome, particularly
considering the mitigation of cost for those individuals specifically
flying multiple aircraft exclusively in compliance with section 44809.
The FAA therefore will retain the current part 48 registration
framework.
Corresponding updates are applied to part 48 to reflect the
inclusion of the current statutory requirement for limited recreational
operations and to incorporate information relevant to remote
identification. Owners registering as exclusively compliant with
section 44809 will be required to submit the aircraft manufacturer and
model name of small unmanned aircraft associated with the registration
number provided by the Registry. Owners of aircraft operated
exclusively in compliance with section 44809 would be required to
obtain unique certificates of aircraft registration for any aircraft
that are ever operated outside of the statutory framework set forth in
section 44809, such as under part 107.
The FAA is clarifying that owners registering as exclusively
compliant with section 44809 may include more than one serial number--
of either a standard remote identification unmanned aircraft or a
remote identification broadcast module--on a single Certificate of
Aircraft Registration. Serial numbers of both standard remote
identification unmanned aircraft and remote
[[Page 4466]]
identification broadcast modules may be included on a single
Certificate of Aircraft Registration for owners registering as
exclusively compliant under section 44809.
The FAA reorders Sec. Sec. 48.100 through 48.115 to maximize
regulatory clarity and also revises Sec. Sec. 48.100 through 48.110 to
amend statutory references for 49 U.S.C. 44809 and to reflect the
inclusion of remote identification broadcast module serial number
information in the registration application.
2. Public Comments and FAA Response
Registration Rule Comments: The FAA received a comment from the
University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, which urged the FAA to
utilize the same system for recreational and commercial UAS, contending
that there are no mechanical differences between the two groups and
that having separate systems would likely lead to confusion. ALPA
supported the efforts to minimize the burden of registering multiple
small unmanned aircraft that are operated for hobby or recreational
purposes. Some commenters supported registration of remote pilots
instead of individual aircraft. Several commenters suggested that
though the FAA has the authority to register aircraft, it does not have
the authority to register pilots. A few individual commenters raised
concerns about a single Certificate of Registration for multiple small
unmanned aircraft owned by one operator.
Remote Identification NPRM Comments: A number of organizations
supported the FAA's proposal that all aircraft, regardless of use, must
be individually registered. The National Association of Tower Erectors
stated its belief that public safety demands that recreational users be
subject to the same remote identification requirements as commercial
users. A number of commenters supported unique registration of each
unmanned aircraft in the interest of safety and accountability and
because it is more consistent with other aviation registration
requirements. The American Association of Airport Executives (AAAE)
supported the proposal to require unique registration for each unmanned
aircraft because it would enable the FAA to trace each unmanned
aircraft back to its owner while also helping the FAA and industry to
assess the total number of unmanned aircraft in the airspace of the
United States.
In contrast, a significant number of organizations and numerous
individual commenters noted that many owners of aircraft used for
limited recreational operations have large numbers of fixed wing model
aircraft. The Chairperson of the Academy of Model Aeronautics (AMA)
Advanced Flight System Committee proposed instead that remote
identification modules be movable from aircraft to aircraft and that
the modules themselves be registered instead of the aircraft. Many
commenters mentioned that requiring pilots to register may be a better
option than requiring every aircraft to register, particularly with
regard to the hobby class of UAS because students and young persons
could freely fly various models. Other commenters stated the FAA
presented no evidence that requiring registration of each unmanned
aircraft would result in lower risk than applying one registration
number to multiple aircraft. The New Hampshire Department of
Transportation (NHDOT) suggested instead that UAS owners be allowed to
submit to the FAA a list of the unmanned aircraft that they own. NHDOT
added that the proposed changes to registration requirements do not
address current non-compliance with registration requirements, and that
the FAA should focus instead on increasing compliance. Numerous
commenters stated they own dozens of aircraft and requiring them to
register each one separately would be economically burdensome. Some of
the commenters who own aircraft used for limited recreational
operations noted they build the aircraft but rarely--if ever--fly them.
Other commenters discussed that owners of these aircraft frequently
disassemble these aircraft and switch out aircraft parts, creating
several new combinations of aircraft, and asked which specific
component of the aircraft needs to be registered. Another commenter
expressed concern about the costs to FAA of keeping track of ``hundreds
of millions'' of registrations and serial numbers.
Several commenters suggested that the requirement to register each
unmanned aircraft is discriminatory against modelers because some
manned aircraft such as ultralights are not required to be registered.
Many commenters objected to the proposal on the grounds that it is
impracticable and costly for hobbyists, especially for handmade and
kit-built aircraft, and that adopting the proposed rule will ``destroy
the RC aircraft hobby.''
Other commenters believed that registering every unmanned aircraft
is redundant and unnecessary, asserting that only one aircraft can be
in the air at one time. Commenters also mentioned that if an unmanned
aircraft is flown exclusively at an FAA-recognized identification area,
the aircraft should not be required to be registered because
information gathered from the registration process would serve no
purpose for remote identification. Several commenters suggested the FAA
should make a distinction between those operating commercially and
those operating recreationally.
The AMA stated that registration is unnecessary for operators
flying within visual line of sight because the operators are not far
from the aircraft and can easily be located. The AMA objected to what
they estimated would be a total collective burden of $8.1 million in
registration costs borne by their members. The AMA added that its
calculation of $8.1 million should be included in FAA's economic burden
estimates and that the Regulatory Impact Assessment should be updated
accordingly. Multiple individual commenters cited this same figure
($8.1 million), and asserted that it is excessively burdensome on AMA
members and other hobbyists. The Aircraft Owners and Pilots Association
(AOPA) echoed the AMA's $8.1 million estimate, and opposed the proposal
to require registration of each small unmanned aircraft. In addition,
AOPA expressed its opposition to registration requirements for aircraft
that will operate exclusively in FAA-recognized identification areas.
One commenter asked whether the FAA was prepared to certify
hundreds of thousands of UAS annually as may be required given the
current market for home-built and out-of-the-box UAS. One commenter
supported registering both commercial unmanned aircraft operating
within the UTM and unmanned aircraft flown BVLOS with the serial number
of each UAS, because the owner and UAS may be widely separated from one
another at the time of an incident.
Many commenters believed that only certain types of aircraft should
be required to be registered. Some of these commenters believed that
only rotorcraft, including ``quadcopters'' and other ``drones'' should
be required to register. Other commenters emphasized their use of
sailplanes and stated their belief that those aircraft should not be
required to register. Still other commenters believed that only those
aircraft used for commercial purposes should be required to register.
The FAA received several comments regarding the weight requirement
for small unmanned aircraft as it relates to registration. Commenters
expressed support for removing a weight requirement entirely, rewriting
the registration weight thresholds, and
[[Page 4467]]
maintaining the current exclusion for aircraft weighing 0.55 pounds or
less used for limited recreational operations under section 44809. The
Small UAV Coalition supported exempting unmanned aircraft weighing 0.55
pounds or less from registration requirements, unless those UAS are
used for commercial purposes or BVLOS.
Digital Aerolus, Inc. suggested that the FAA clarify that
registration and identification requirements are not applicable below
ground or indoors.
ALPA, along with numerous individuals, suggested that the FAA
should require registration at the point-of-sale. In the case of home-
made models, ALPA recommended that the FAA require that such aircraft
be registered prior to its first use outdoors.
Numerous commenters suggested that the FAA facilitate the
deregistration of UAS, in the case of destruction or theft, and clarify
the registration requirements when a UAS is sold or transferred. The
Utah Public Lands Policy Coordinating Office suggested that the FAA
make the UAS aircraft registration database searchable, like the
current aircraft registry. ALPA commented that the rule should clarify
that registration information will be available only to law enforcement
or the FAA.
FAA Response: For the reasons described above, the FAA agrees with
the commenters who suggested that it was not necessary to register each
individual unmanned aircraft operated for limited recreational purposes
and does not adopt the proposed change in this rule.
In addition, as the FAA discussed in the Registration Rule, the FAA
has consistently recognized that the term ``small unmanned aircraft''
includes both fixed wing and rotary aircraft, and has the same
definition as the colloquial term ``drone.'' The same is true for all
unmanned aircraft. All unmanned aircraft that fall within the
applicability of this regulation, not just those popularly referred to
as ``drones,'' are required to register.
With respect to comments regarding the minimum weight for small
unmanned aircraft registration, this rulemaking clarifies the
regulatory requirement with respect to operations under part 107. That
threshold was not at issue in this rulemaking, and accordingly,
comments requesting a change to the weight threshold are out of scope
of this rule.
The FAA clarifies, as it did in the Registration Rule, that
operations in the airspace of the United States only include operations
out-of-doors and above the surface of the Earth. With respect to
comments regarding point-of-sale registration, the FAA has statutory
authority that is limited to requiring registration prior to operation.
The FAA considered point-of-sale registration as an option, but it
presented difficulties for the Agency to overcome, including that the
individual purchasing the unmanned aircraft may not be the owner of the
unmanned aircraft. At this time, the FAA has declined to make the part
48 registry publicly available, though it reserves the ability to do so
in the System of Records Notice (SORN) 801 for this database. The
Agency is balancing the sensitive nature of the personal information
provided to the Agency by owners of small unmanned aircraft with the
public availability of the information.
B. Registration Fees for the Registration of Individual Aircraft
1. Discussion of the Final Rule
Noting the FAA is required by statute to charge a fee for
registration services, the Registration Rule imposed a $5 fee for
registration and a $5 fee for registration renewal. The registration
system permits the use of any credit, debit, gift, or prepaid card. If
none of these methods of payment is available to the registrant, the
Registration Rule noted that the registrant may register using the
existing paper-based system under part 47, which allows payment by
check or money order. The FAA also assesses a fee of $5 for a
Certificate of Registration for each manned aircraft.\30\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\30\ 14 CFR 47.17(a).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
To ease the financial burden on operators who previously registered
multiple model aircraft under a single registration number, in the
Remote Identification NPRM the FAA indicated it would explore ways to
minimize the registration fee when multiple aircraft are registered at
the same time and solicited comment.
After review of public comments and further consideration, the FAA
retains the requirement for small unmanned aircraft owners to pay a $5
registration fee and a $5 renewal fee, though this rule differs from
the proposal. As a result of the FAA's decision to maintain the current
registration framework, owners of aircraft operated exclusively in
compliance with 49 U.S.C. 44809 must only register once for all
aircraft meeting that description. Therefore, those owners would pay
the $5 fee one time every 3 years. As noted in the Registration Rule,
though 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.\31\ Accordingly,
the revenue stream generated by the fees collected under this rule
supports the development, maintenance, and operation of the Registry.
The payment system used by the Registry complies with all Federal laws
for online transactions, as discussed in the Registration Rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\31\ 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 and to adjust these fees when the Administrator determines
that the cost of the service has changed.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The applicability of the part 48 registration fee to public
aircraft operations is consistent with the requirement set forth in
part 47. 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. 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 or 48,
which includes payment of the fee. The fee for small unmanned aircraft
registration under part 48 must be submitted through the web-based
registration application process.
2. Public Comments and FAA Response
Registration Rule Comments: The Small UAV Coalition and a number of
individual commenters objected to the imposition of a registration fee.
The Small UAV Coalition said the FAA should not impose a registration
fee of any amount for small unmanned aircraft ``to promote broad
participation in the program.'' Some commenters referred to the $5 fee
as a ``tax.''
A number of commenters objected to the requirement to pay the
registration fee via the web-based system using credit or debit cards
due to perceived privacy and security implications. Another questioned
why the registration system requires a renewal fee every 3 years, when
small manned-aircraft pilots are only charged a one-time fee.
Remote Identification NPRM Comments: A number of commenters
objected to the size of the fee, as well as the requirement to pay to
register each aircraft individually. DJI and many other commenters
suggested that the $5 fee per aircraft is too high, and that the FAA
should maintain the current $5-per-three-year fee per registrant, not
per aircraft.
The District of Columbia office of the Deputy Mayor for Public
Safety and Justice recommended imposing a
[[Page 4468]]
discounted registration fee for those who comply prior to the proposed
regulatory deadline. Motorola Solutions, Inc., and one individual
argued that public aircraft operations such as those involving law
enforcement and search-and-rescue operations be exempt from the
proposed registration fee.
One commenter noted that a registration fee could cause a lower
level of overall compliance, added expense, and negative privacy
implications, while adding that charging more than $5 per person
contradicts the FAA's 2015 Registration Task Force recommendations.
FAA Response: As a result of the FAA's decision to maintain the
current registration framework, owners of aircraft operated exclusively
in compliance with 49 U.S.C. 44809 must only create one registration
for all aircraft meeting that description. Comments received on the use
of credit card payment are not within the scope of this rule. See the
Regulatory Impact Analysis available in the docket for more information
on the costs associated with the registration framework for this rule.
C. Information Included in the Application for Registration
1. Discussion of the Final Rule
In the Registration Rule, the FAA amended 14 CFR part 47 and
created part 48 to require individuals intending to use a small
unmanned aircraft exclusively as model aircraft to provide only basic
contact information (name, address, and email address) for the small
unmanned aircraft owner. For individuals intending to use a small
unmanned aircraft as other than a model aircraft, in addition to the
same basic contact information required for model aircraft, the
Registration Rule also required the individual to provide aircraft-
specific information (manufacturer and model name, and a serial number
for each aircraft being registered).\32\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\32\ The FAA notes that, currently, serial numbers may be
repeated because 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 small UAS manufacturers
collectively to standardize aircraft serial numbers, such that each
small unmanned aircraft will receive a unique serial number in
production.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The FAA adopts these requirements with one change. Applicants
registering aircraft as limited recreational operations under 44809
must provide manufacturer and model information but not a unique serial
number for each aircraft being registered.
In addition, the FAA proposed to update registration information
requirements to require one or more telephone number(s) for the
applicant. As the FAA explained in the NPRM, requiring owners of
unmanned aircraft to provide their telephone number(s) as part of the
registration process would assist FAA and law enforcement to
disseminate safety and security-related information to the registrant
in near real-time. This additional information will be retained by the
FAA and only disclosed as needed to authorized law enforcement or
Federal agencies. The FAA adopts this requirement as proposed.
2. Public Comments and FAA Response
Registration Rule Comments: The Small UAV Coalition recommended
that the information the FAA requires of registrants ``be no more than
is necessary to provide the FAA and law enforcement and national
security agencies with the ability to ensure proper and prompt
accountability in the event of an accident or incident.'' The Small UAV
Coalition also said that the regulatory responsibility to register an
unmanned aircraft should rest with the owner of the aircraft, as it is
with the current FAA Aircraft Registry, and as set forth in Chapter 441
of 49 U.S.C. and part 47 of 14 CFR. The Small UAV Coalition noted that
in most instances the owner and operator will be the same person, but
if the unmanned aircraft is leased to another person, then the owner-
lessor should remain the registrant.
A few individual commenters said that for registration to be
useful, the FAA should require additional information about the
individual aircraft; specifically, to include the serial number of
ready-to-fly aircraft and the serial number of electronic components
used to construct home-built aircraft.
Remote Identification NPRM Comments: The Southern Company, along
with Edison Electric Institute, the American Public Power Association,
and the National Rural Electric Cooperative Association, commenting
jointly, supported the proposal to require telephone numbers to be
included as part of the registration process. However, both commenters
suggested that only a company telephone should be required for
commercial operations, rather than individual telephone numbers for
company operations. Both commenters sought clarification of this point
in the final rule.
McInflight Aerospace, LLC, supported the proposed requirement, as
it would permit an operator to be contacted immediately if an unmanned
aircraft entered restricted airspace.
One commenter worried that registrants' phone numbers might be made
available to bad actors if there is a failure in data security.
FAA Response: As discussed in the Registration Rule, the
registration database complies with all Federal requirements for data
security. The FAA does not specify what sort of telephone number must
be included, beyond that it must be a way that the applicant can be
reached. The FAA considered all comments received and believes the
information required is the minimum information required to ensure
accountability from the aircraft owner.
D. Proposed Changes to the Registration Requirements To Require a
Serial Number as Part of the Registration Process
1. Discussion of the Final Rule
The FAA proposed to require a unique identifier as part of the
message elements used to identify remotely UAS. The proposed revision
of part 48 would require the provision of an unmanned aircraft's serial
number at the time of registration.
As the FAA explained in the NPRM, the serial number requirement
enables the FAA to correlate the data broadcast or transmitted by the
UAS with the registration data in the Aircraft Registry to associate an
unmanned aircraft with its registered owner. The requirement also
allows the FAA to associate an aircraft with its owner while operating
in the airspace of the United States and facilitates the identification
of non-registered unmanned aircraft operating in the airspace of the
United States, which may warrant additional oversight or action by the
FAA, national security agencies, or law enforcement agencies.
The FAA proposed to add a new Sec. 47.14 to require the owners of
standard remote identification unmanned aircraft and unmanned aircraft
using a broadcast module registered under part 47 to list in the
Certificate of Aircraft Registration the serial number issued by the
manufacturer of the unmanned aircraft or the manufacturer of the
broadcast module in accordance with the ANSI/CTA-2063-A serial number
standard.
The FAA also proposed to revise Sec. 48.100(a) to require a serial
number for every small unmanned aircraft. Consistent with the proposed
changes in part 47, Sec. 48.100(a)(5) would have required the owner of
any standard remote identification unmanned aircraft or limited remote
identification
[[Page 4469]]
unmanned aircraft to list in the Certificate of Aircraft Registration
the serial number issued by the producer of the unmanned aircraft in
accordance with the production requirements of part 89. Per the
production requirements in proposed Sec. 89.505, such serial number
would have to comply with the ANSI/CTA-2063-A serial number standard.
In the NPRM, the FAA acknowledged that some unmanned aircraft may
not have serial numbers that comply with the ANSI/CTA-2063-A serial
number standard. Some examples include unmanned aircraft manufactured
prior to the compliance date of a final rule (assuming the producer of
the unmanned aircraft is unable to modify the aircraft or upgrade the
software to assign an ANSI/CTA-2063-A compliant serial number), some
amateur-built unmanned aircraft, and foreign-built unmanned aircraft
with no serial numbers or with serial numbers that do not comply with
ANSI/CTA-2063-A. Since these unmanned aircraft would not comply with
the remote identification requirements for standard remote
identification UAS or limited remote identification UAS, the FAA
proposed to restrict their operation to FAA-recognized identification
areas. Accordingly, the FAA did not impose a requirement for the owners
of such unmanned aircraft to obtain an ANSI/CTA-2063-A compliant serial
number and to list it in the application for a Certificate of Aircraft
Registration or the notice of identification. The FAA sought detailed
comments on whether and why it should require the owners of UAS without
remote identification to obtain an ANSI/CTA-2063-A compliant serial
number and to list it in the application for a Certificate of Aircraft
Registration or the notice of identification and whether there would be
any costs associated with obtaining a compliant serial number. The FAA
also sought comments on whether the Agency should issue ANSI/CTA-2063-A
compliant serial numbers to such aircraft when registered or re-
registered by their owners.
The FAA adopts the requirement that owners of standard remote
identification unmanned aircraft and remote identification broadcast
modules must provide an ANSI/CTA-2063A compliant serial number on their
application for registration. After review of comments and further
consideration, the FAA determined not to require owners of unmanned
aircraft without remote identification to provide a serial number
during registration.
For unmanned aircraft registered individually and operated under
part 91, 107, or 135, or any other operating part, the FAA clarifies
that the serial number used to register a standard remote
identification unmanned aircraft or remote identification broadcast
module may only be associated with one registration application. The
FAA will not accept duplicate submissions of serial numbers under part
47 or 48. This means that a person may not move the remote
identification broadcast module amongst aircraft required to be
registered individually without removing the serial number from one
Certificate of Aircraft Registration before adding it to another.
Alternatively, the owner of such aircraft may obtain a unique remote
identification broadcast module (with a unique serial number that
complies with the ANSI/CTA-2063-A serial number standard) and include
it with the registration of each unmanned aircraft registered
individually and operated under part 91, 107, or 135, or any other
operating part.
For owners operating exclusively in compliance with 49 U.S.C.
44809, the remote identification broadcast module may be used for all
unmanned aircraft for which the owner is registered, but only one of
those aircraft may be operated at a time. An owner may submit multiple
remote identification broadcast module serial numbers for operation of
multiple aircraft simultaneously at a one-to-one aircraft-to-operator
ratio, as long as those operations would be compliant with section
44809. If an owner includes a serial number associated with a standard
remote identification unmanned aircraft in the registration application
for operations exclusively in compliance with section 44809, he or she
may also include a serial number for a remote identification broadcast
module linked to other unmanned aircraft registered under his or her
registration for operations exclusively in compliance with section
44809.
2. Public Comments and FAA Response
Comments: A number of commenters believed that requiring an
individual to obtain and assign an ANSI/CTA-2063-A serial number
imposed an unreasonable burden. Many stated that it would be impossible
for those with amateur-built aircraft to comply with this requirement,
as those aircraft do not come with serial numbers.
FAA Response: In response to comments regarding whether compliance
with the serial number requirements is too burdensome for owners of
model aircraft, the FAA notes that the revised requirements for remote
identification offer increased flexibility for individuals who are
equipping their unmanned aircraft with remote identification broadcast
modules or operating exclusively in FAA-recognized identification
areas.
The FAA determined that the serial number requirement is an
important element of the remote identification framework. Serial
numbers are used to provide a unique identity to unmanned aircraft
operating in the airspace of the United States. The requirement is
particularly necessary to identify unmanned aircraft operated for
recreational purposes when multiple unmanned aircraft are registered
under a single registration. The unique serial number of each standard
remote identification unmanned aircraft or remote identification
broadcast module allows the Agency and law enforcement to distinguish
among unmanned aircraft with the same registration number that are
flying outside of FAA-recognized identification areas.
Also, the FAA reaffirms that subpart F of this rule does not apply
to the production of home-built unmanned aircraft. As explained in
section XIV.A of this preamble, the FAA excepts producers of home-built
unmanned aircraft from the design and production requirements,
therefore home-built unmanned aircraft need not comply with the serial
number requirements as prescribed in Sec. 89.505. If a person intends
to produce a standard remote identification unmanned aircraft, or a
remote identification broadcast module to equip their unmanned aircraft
to comply with the remote identification requirements, then that person
would have to comply with the design and production requirements under
subpart F of part 89, which includes the requirement to issue a serial
number that conforms to the ANSI/CTA-2063-A standard.
Comments: Several commenters stated this requirement would make it
impossible to salvage parts from damaged aircraft for reuse, thus
rendering every accident or crash a total loss. Others, in a similar
vein, stated that this requirement would end the tradition of swapping
or exchanging modular parts from model to model.
A commenter suggested that because model aircraft are often unique,
the validity of their serial numbers would be unknowable to the FAA and
a modeler could swap serial number plates undetected. Another commenter
asked if the intent of the Agency is that the serial number is
associated with the air frame alone, and that the electronics can be
swapped between air frames. Another suggested that the FAA require
[[Page 4470]]
reporting of each aircraft's radio control receiver, not the aircraft
itself.
FAA Response: The FAA does not agree with commenters who believe
that the requirement to obtain a serial number to then use for aircraft
registration would render parts swapping obsolete. The FAA explains in
section XVIII.A of this preamble that discarded unmanned aircraft can
be disassembled into the following parts: Carbon (frame, frame parts),
plastic, metal parts (screws, standoffs), wire, electronics (flight
controller, ESC, motors, camera, VTX, RX), and batteries. Those parts
can be reused, especially if they remain in good condition. In
addition, home-built unmanned aircraft are excepted from the production
requirements of this rule including the requirement for a serial
number.
Comments: The U.S. Chamber of Commerce Technology Engagement Center
supported the proposed requirement, as it would lead to greater
standardization. ALPA, in comments echoed by AAAE, supported the
proposed requirement as ``a fundamental necessity and fail-safe method
of connecting each owner with the specific UAS being operated, thus
allowing the fulfillment of the central purpose of [proposed 14 CFR
part 89].''
One commenter suggested the serial-number requirement apply just to
a remote identification module, rather than the entire aircraft.
Another commenter predicted that ``hobby companies'' would be unable to
afford to submit declarations of compliance that contain compliant
serial numbers. A commenter suggested the FAA implement a waiver
process for the operation of model aircraft outside of FAA-recognized
identification areas.
The Edison Electric Institute, the American Public Power
Association, and the National Rural Electric Cooperative Association,
commenting jointly, supported the serial-number requirement, adding
that aircraft registration requirements are the foundation for both
identifying aircraft and promoting accountability. One commenter stated
the serial number requirement, along with other changes proposed in the
NPRM, is reasonable and would not pose an undue burden. Another agreed
and added the inclusion of a serial number could aid first responders
in the event of an accident. The District of Columbia office of the
Deputy Mayor for Public Safety and Justice also supported the
requirement, as it would aid in law enforcement and in determining
whether or not a UAS is operating in restricted airspace. However, the
District of Columbia office of the Deputy Mayor for Public Safety and
Justice added that the serial number should be issued by the FAA, to
reduce costs to users.
FAA Response: With respect to comments agreeing with the FAA's
proposed approach, the FAA believes that the revised final rule
requirement still provides sufficient information to ensure
accountability of unmanned aircraft owners operating in the airspace of
the United States. As of the publication of this rule, the ANSI/CTA-
2063-A standard is available for viewing and download free of charge.
While ANSI/CTA-2063-A was specifically developed to provide a serial
number format for small UAS serial numbers, the FAA has determined that
ANSI/CTA-2063-A is appropriate to issue serial numbers under this rule
regardless of the size of the unmanned aircraft or broadcast module
because it enables the issuance of unique serial numbers, and promotes
worldwide standardization of unmanned aircraft remote identification
requirements. The use of ANSI/CTA-2063-A would provide a single
accepted format for serial numbers, helping to ensure consistency in
the transmission of this message element.
Subpart F of part 89 does not apply to unmanned aircraft without
remote identification manufactured prior to the compliance date of the
production requirement of this rule. The serial number requirement in
Sec. 89.505 applies to standard remote identification unmanned
aircraft and remote identification broadcast modules produced after the
effective date of this rule. This rule does not require producers to
assign a serial number to any unmanned aircraft without remote
identification produced prior to the compliance date of the design and
production requirements.\33\ The requirements also do not make the
existing unmanned aircraft fleet obsolete because operators can
continue to operate existing unmanned aircraft subject to the operating
rules in subpart B of this rule. This means that operators may fly
existing unmanned aircraft without remote identification equipment at
FAA-recognized identification areas or may equip existing unmanned
aircraft with remote identification broadcast modules to meet the
operating requirements of this rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\33\ Producers may choose to assign an ANSI/CTA-2063-A compliant
serial number to an unmanned aircraft produced prior to the
compliance date of the design and production requirements of this
rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
E. Serial Number Marking
1. Discussion of the Final Rule
Small unmanned aircraft registered under part 48 may not operate
unless they display a unique identifier in a way that is readily
accessible and visible upon inspection of the aircraft. The unique
identifier must be either: (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; or (2) the small
unmanned aircraft serial number, if authorized by the Administrator and
provided with the application for Certificate of Aircraft Registration.
In the NPRM, the FAA emphasized that small unmanned aircraft owners
are not required to affix the serial number to the exterior of the
aircraft, though nothing would preclude them from doing so. The FAA
sought specific comments on whether UAS producers should be required to
affix the serial number to the exterior of all standard remote
identification unmanned aircraft and limited remote identification
unmanned aircraft.
After review of comments and further consideration, the FAA decided
not to impose such a requirement. The current registration marking
requirements already require the registration number be marked on an
external surface of the unmanned aircraft; this information allows the
FAA to tie the aircraft to the FAA registration information including
the serial number of the unmanned aircraft or broadcast module.
See section XIV.C of this preamble for a discussion of the serial
number requirements of this rule.
2. Public Comments and FAA Response
Comments: Many commenters did not think it is necessary to display
the serial number on the exterior of the unmanned aircraft, and many
noted that the current requirement to display the registration number
is sufficient. Some commenters, including Wingcopter, mentioned their
support for external marking of unmanned aircraft with a serial number.
FAA Response: The FAA considered the above comments and is not
prepared to permit serial number marking in lieu of registration
identifier marking at this time. The NPRM proposal remains unchanged.
The Administrator reserves the ability to permit serial number marking
in the future. Comments regarding the external marking requirement are
out of scope of this rulemaking.
[[Page 4471]]
F. Compliance Dates
As discussed in section XV.A of this preamble, the FAA proposed
that all unmanned aircraft be required to register individually. In
light of that change, the FAA proposed that Sec. 48.5 be amended to
establish new compliance dates for updating registrations to meet that
requirement. Because this rule will not adopt those changes, there is
no longer a need to establish new compliance dates.
This rule therefore removes and reserves Sec. 48.5. Existing Sec.
48.5 established the initial compliance time periods for registration
which expired in 2016. Because this provision is no longer necessary
and the existing Sec. 48.5 includes terminology that is outdated
following the 2018 FAA Reauthorization, the FAA is removing and
reserving Sec. 48.5 in this rule.
XVI. Foreign Registered Civil Unmanned Aircraft Operated in the United
States
A. Discussion of the Final Rule
In the NPRM, the FAA explained the need to correlate the remote
identification message elements transmitted or broadcast by foreign
civil unmanned aircraft operated in the United States against
information that helps FAA and law enforcement identify a person
responsible for the operation of the foreign civil unmanned aircraft.
Where unmanned aircraft are registered in a foreign jurisdiction, the
FAA may not have access to information regarding the unmanned aircraft
or its registered owner. The FAA proposed to allow a person to operate
foreign-registered civil unmanned aircraft in the United States only if
the person submits a notice of identification to the Administrator that
includes certain information that allows the FAA to associate the
foreign civil unmanned aircraft to a responsible person. The FAA
explained that after a person submits a notice of identification, the
Agency would issue a confirmation of identification. The Agency also
clarified that the notice of identification and the confirmation of
identification did not constitute, nor had the effect of, a United
States aircraft registration.
After review of comments and further consideration, the FAA revised
Sec. 89.130(a) to clarify that the requirement to file a notice of
identification applies to persons operating foreign-registered civil
unmanned aircraft with remote identification in the airspace of the
United States. These are persons operating foreign-registered unmanned
aircraft that meet the remote identification requirements of part 89
(i.e., a foreign-registered standard remote identification unmanned
aircraft or a foreign-registered unmanned aircraft with a remote
identification broadcast module). Foreign-registered unmanned aircraft
that do not meet the remote identification requirements of part 89 may
only operate in the United States in an FAA-recognized identification
area.\34\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\34\ Foreign civil unmanned aircraft that are not registered in
their home country are not eligible to file a notice of
identification. Because such aircraft may not be able to register
under part 47 or 48 and cannot file a notice of identification, they
may be unable to meet the operating requirements of Sec. Sec.
89.110 and 89.115(a). Therefore, unregistered foreign civil unmanned
aircraft would be required to fly at an FAA-recognized
identification area. These requirements are in addition to any other
applicable requirements under 14 CFR part 375.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In response to comments noting that some countries register
operators instead of aircraft, the FAA is revising Sec. 89.130(a)(8)
by deleting the phrase ``of the aircraft'' so that the requirement for
the filing of the notice of identification allows the operator to
provide the registration number of the unmanned aircraft issued by the
country of registry or the registration number issued to the operator
of the unmanned aircraft by the country of registry, as applicable.
In light of the revisions addressed above, as of the effective date
of this rule, no person will be permitted to operate a foreign
registered civil unmanned aircraft with remote identification in the
airspace of the United States unless, prior to the operation, the
person submits a notice of identification that includes:
(1) The name of the person operating the foreign registered civil
unmanned aircraft in the United States, and, if applicable, the
person's authorized representative.
(2) The physical address of the person operating the foreign
registered civil unmanned aircraft in the United States, and, if
applicable, the physical address for the person's authorized
representative. If the operator or authorized representative does not
receive mail at the physical address, a mailing address must also be
provided.
(3) The telephone number(s) where the person operating the foreign
registered civil unmanned aircraft in the United States, and, if
applicable, the person's authorized representative can be reached while
in the United States.
(4) The email address of the person operating the foreign
registered civil unmanned aircraft in the United States, and, if
applicable, the email address of the person's authorized
representative.
(5) The unmanned aircraft manufacturer and model name.
(6) The serial number of the unmanned aircraft or remote
identification broadcast module.
(7) The country of registration of the unmanned aircraft.
(8) The registration number.
Once the notice is submitted, the FAA will issue a confirmation of
identification. In accordance with Sec. 89.130(c), a person operating
a foreign-registered unmanned aircraft in the airspace of the United
States has to maintain the confirmation of identification at the
unmanned aircraft control station, and has to produce it when requested
by the FAA or a law enforcement officer. The holder of a confirmation
of identification must ensure that the information provided remains
accurate and must update the information prior to operating a foreign-
registered civil unmanned aircraft in the airspace of the United
States.
As specified in Sec. 89.130(b)(2), the filing of the notice of
identification and the issuance of a confirmation of identification
under this rule do not have the effect of United States aircraft
registration.
B. Public Comments and FAA Response
Comments: The Small UAV Coalition supported the proposed notice of
identification and confirmation of identification requirement for
foreign-registered civil UAS with remote identification operating in
the airspace of the United States.
The European Union Aviation Safety Agency (EASA) noted that in the
European Union, it is the operator who is required to be registered and
not the unmanned aircraft (unless the unmanned aircraft is certified).
EASA mentioned the requirement to include the registration number of
the aircraft in the notice of identification would be burdensome
because it would entail an obligation for operators registered in the
European Union to register their unmanned aircraft in the United States
as well.
FAA Response: The FAA acknowledges EASA's comments with respect to
differences in the unmanned aircraft registration regimes. For example,
some jurisdictions require the registration of all unmanned aircraft,
some jurisdictions require the registration of certificated unmanned
aircraft, some jurisdictions require the registration of the operator
of uncertificated unmanned aircraft, and some jurisdictions have not
implemented a registration system for unmanned aircraft. Section
89.130(a) is meant to assist the Administrator in obtaining certain
information that allows the FAA to associate the foreign-
[[Page 4472]]
registered civil unmanned aircraft to the operator, as the responsible
person for the operation of the unmanned aircraft. Recognizing the
differences in registration regimes, the FAA is revising Sec.
89.130(a)(8) by deleting the phrase ``of the aircraft'' so that the
requirement for the filing of the notice of identification allows the
operator to provide the registration number of the unmanned aircraft
issued by the country of registry or the registration number issued to
the operator of the unmanned aircraft by the country of registry, as
applicable.
Comments: Wing Aviation recommended removing the requirement to
provide a physical address for the foreign operator in the United
States as part of the process for the confirmation of identification
and indicated that a physical address, a mailing address, and an
authorized representative should be sufficient to support oversight and
enforcement action. The commenter suggested the rule should not assume
operators will be, or need to be, collocated with the aircraft or
flight area to ensure safe and compliant operations. According to Wing,
this rule will set a global precedent for the implementation of remote
identification and such a requirement, if followed by other
jurisdictions, would significantly limit the ability of United States
companies to scale competitively across international markets.
FAA Response: While operators have to submit their physical address
under Sec. 89.130(a)(2), such address is not necessarily required to
be in the United States. The FAA and law enforcement have a need to
locate the operator, as the responsible party, when physically located
in the United States for oversight and enforcement purposes. The FAA
also believes that providing the operator's physical address in the
United States fosters accountability. Therefore, the FAA will finalize
the requirement as proposed.
Comments: A few commenters expressed their concerns about this rule
imposing operational limitations on persons operating foreign UAS in
the airspace of the United States. Another commenter asked whether
foreign-registered UAS had to re-register in the United States to be
eligible to operate in the United States. The commenter asked whether
the United States would recognize foreign certification and
registration of UAS. Various commenters noted that foreign UAS may not
have an ANSI/CTA-2063-A compliant serial number and might not comply
with the remote identification requirements of this rule. The
commenters sought clarification of whether such aircraft could operate
in the United States and whether the FAA is prohibiting their sale in
the United States.
FAA Response: While this rule does require all persons operating
foreign unmanned aircraft in the airspace of the United States to
comply with the remote identification operating requirements of part
89, it does not alter the operating rules for UAS operating in the
airspace of the United States. This means that the operation of foreign
unmanned aircraft in the airspace of the United States--just as with
the operation of U.S.-registered unmanned aircraft--will continue to be
subject to the UAS operating rules in effect in the United States
(e.g., part 91, part 107, 49 U.S.C. 44809, part 375). Foreign-
registered unmanned aircraft do not have to re-register in the United
States. However, the operators of foreign-registered UAS must ensure
they comply with all applicable regulations and obtain the appropriate
safety authority issued by the FAA and economic authority issued by the
Department of Transportation, as applicable, prior to operating in the
airspace of the United States.
FAA regulations do not prohibit the sale of unmanned aircraft
without remote identification in the United States. The regulations do
regulate the manufacturing of unmanned aircraft produced for operation
in the airspace of the United States and the operation of all unmanned
aircraft in the airspace of the United States, as further described in
this rule.
XVII. ADS-B Out and Transponders for Remote Identification
A. Discussion of the Final Rule
The FAA proposed to prohibit the use of ADS-B Out equipment as a
form of remote identification of UAS under part 89. The FAA also
proposed changes to parts 91 and 107 to generally prohibit the use of
ADS-B Out and transponders on UAS, unless otherwise authorized.
The FAA adopts Sec. 89.125, ADS-B Out prohibition as proposed,
with minor edits for clarity. This prohibits the use of ADS-B Out
equipment as a form of remote identification under part 89.
The FAA adopts the proposed modifications to Sec. 91.215, which
state that ATC transponder and altitude-reporting equipment and use
requirements do not apply to persons operating unmanned aircraft,
unless the operation is conducted under a flight plan and the person
operating the unmanned aircraft maintains two-way communication with
ATC, or the use of a transponder is otherwise authorized by the
Administrator. In addition, Sec. 91.215(e)(2) prohibits the use of ATC
transponders by persons operating unmanned aircraft unless the
operation is conducted under a flight plan and the person operating the
unmanned aircraft maintains two-way communication with ATC, or the use
of a transponder is otherwise authorized by the Administrator.
The FAA adopts the modifications to Sec. 91.225(a)-(f) and (i)
with some additional revisions for clarification. Per this section, no
person may operate an unmanned aircraft under a flight plan and in two-
way communication with ATC unless that aircraft has equipment installed
that meets the performance requirements in TSO-C166b or TSO-C154c, and
the equipment meets the requirements of Sec. 91.227
In addition, Sec. 91.225(i)(2) prohibits the use of ADS-B Out
equipment by persons operating unmanned aircraft unless the operation
is conducted under a flight plan and the person operating that unmanned
aircraft maintains two-way communication with ATC, or the use of ADS-B
Out is otherwise authorized by the Administrator.
Lastly, the FAA adopts Sec. Sec. 107.52 and 107.53 as proposed,
which prohibit the use of ADS-B Out and ATC transponders on small UAS.
Under Sec. 107.52, no person may operate a small UAS under part 107
with a transponder on, unless otherwise authorized by the
Administrator. Under Sec. 107.53, no person may operate a small UAS
under part 107 with ADS-B Out equipment in transmit mode unless
otherwise authorized by the Administrator.
B. Public Comments and FAA Response
Comments: Many commenters supported prohibiting ADS-B Out on UAS to
prevent high volumes of UAS traffic using ADS-B Out from interfering
with ADS-B used by manned aircraft and Air Traffic Control (ATC).
Multiple commenters wanted to ensure that the use of ADS-B Out on UAS
must first be proven not to interfere with manned aircraft before being
widely allowed. They asked the FAA to continue to monitor radio
frequency spectrum concerns if some UAS are authorized to use ADS-B Out
by exception. They also noted that ADS-B Out does not accommodate
sharing all of the proposed message elements. Airlines for America
recommended that the FAA clearly state that UAS remote identification
is prohibited from interfering with existing electronic surveillance
technologies used for manned aircraft, and that the FAA consider
permitting the use of ADS-B Out for more sophisticated UAS
[[Page 4473]]
operations near commercial airports and manned aircraft.
FAA Response: The FAA agrees with commenters that supported
prohibiting ADS-B Out on most UAS due to the likelihood that the high
density of UAS operations compared to manned aircraft may generate
signal saturation and create a safety hazard for manned aircraft. The
FAA notes that unmanned aircraft remote identification equipment
broadcasting in the frequency bands allowed under 47 CFR part 15 is
prohibited by FCC regulations from interfering with existing, licensed
frequencies used by existing surveillance technologies.
Comments: Many commenters also supported limited exceptions
permitting ADS-B Out on larger UAS operating at higher altitudes and
participating in ATC services. Some commenters challenged the FAA to
justify remote identification requirements for unmanned aircraft that
fly at higher altitudes. Boeing and other commenters recommended
permitting ADS-B Out in lieu of remote identification for UAS operating
primarily above 400 feet and not operating under 14 CFR part 107 (e.g.,
part 91, part 135). AERO Corporation recommended permitting the use of
ADS-B Out on UAS operating above 400 feet under 14 CFR part 91, 107, or
135. The General Aviation Manufacturers Association recommended
allowing ADS-B Out or transponder use for UAS of sufficient gross
weight, based on the operations being performed.
The National Business Aviation Association agreed with prohibiting
ADS-B Out and transponders on low altitude UAS such as those operating
under 14 CFR part 107, but recommended clarifying the regulations to
ensure UAS are not operating at higher altitudes typically used by
manned aircraft while transmitting remote identification that is not
directly available to manned aircraft. They recommended the FAA
consider specifying UAS operations that are permitted or required to
use ADS-B Out or a transponder instead of authorizing by exception,
such as for UAS operating at higher altitudes, under a flight plan, or
in communication with Air Traffic Control. Johns Hopkins University
Applied Physics Lab asked the FAA to clarify that use of ``ADS-B Out''
in this proposal specifically refers to current use of 978 and 1090 MHz
and does not preclude potential future systems on alternate frequencies
that may meet remote identification requirements.
FAA Response: The FAA agrees with commenters that recommended
permitting use of ADS-B Out instead of remote identification equipment
by unmanned aircraft that are participating in ATC services and are
likely to be integrated with manned aircraft, or by limited exception.
For this reason, persons operating unmanned aircraft equipped with ADS-
B Out, when operating under a flight plan and where the operator is in
communication with ATC, do not have to meet the remote identification
requirements in part 89. This is consistent with a recommendation by
the UAS-ID ARC. Unmanned aircraft not operated in this specific manner
must be equipped with remote identification unless authorized by the
Administrator as permitted by Sec. 89.105, which is being finalized to
permit such exceptions on a case-by-case basis.
In response to the comment regarding future systems or alternate
frequencies for ADS-B, the FAA notes that any changes to the current
ADS-B Out equipment performance requirements, which include the 978 and
1090 MHz broadcast frequencies, would require a separate rulemaking
activity and are outside the scope of this final rule.
Comments: Many commenters said that the rule does not clearly state
that UAS authorized by the FAA to use ADS-B Out or transponders are
excepted from meeting part 89 remote identification requirements. They
suggested that remote identification would be unsuitable for use at
traditional manned aircraft altitudes as well as unnecessary and
redundant on UAS specifically approved to use ADS-B Out. Garmin
similarly stated that requiring remote identification for UAS equipped
with ADS-B would be unnecessarily duplicative.
FAA Response: The FAA agrees with commenters, and finalizes a
change to Sec. 89.101 which clarifies that the unmanned aircraft
remote identification requirements do not apply to persons operating
unmanned aircraft when the unmanned aircraft is equipped with ADS-B Out
and operated in accordance with Sec. 91.225.
However, as explained in section XIV.E.1 of this preamble, nothing
in the rule precludes producers from producing unmanned aircraft that
have both the remote identification and ADS-B capabilities identified
in the regulation. Therefore, depending on the operation, with a few
exceptions, unmanned aircraft must comply with remote identification
requirements when the operation does not qualify for use of ADS-B Out
under Sec. 91.225. Operations that do qualify for use of ADS-B Out
must comply with Sec. 91.225.
Comments: Many commenters wanted the FAA to mandate the use of ADS-
B Out on UAS instead of remote identification. Commenters objected to
the FAA's rationale that ADS-B Out is not appropriate due to
infrastructure issues (ground radars and ADS-B receivers) and noted
that remote identification will also require substantial new
infrastructure, such as Remote ID USS, UAS equipment, and potentially
greater internet coverage. Other commenters suggested that ADS-B Out
should be a permitted option to meet the remote identification
requirement.
FAA Response: In the NPRM, the FAA explained the range of
considerations that influenced its decision not to propose ADS-B Out as
a solution for unmanned aircraft remote identification, including
coverage at low altitudes and the absence of any information about the
control station location. The FAA declines to require the use of ADS-B
Out as the means of providing unmanned aircraft remote identification.
The FAA reiterates that the ADS-B system serves a unique purpose of
enabling surveillance for air traffic control purposes while remote
identification enables the FAA, law enforcement, and the public to
identify unmanned aircraft and locate their operators. Due to the
prospects of signal saturation and the differences in the types of
information being shared, ADS-B Out is not a suitable alternative for
remote identification equipment.
Comments suggesting that a greater number of receiver sites and
software patches to limit ATC display clutter could address the issue
with ADS-B Out were found to be impractical, in terms of both the time
and the cost necessary to develop them. Further, they would not address
the fundamental issues of signal saturation and insufficient message
elements that made ADS-B unsuitable for remote identification. In
addition, the FAA notes that the remote identification requirements, as
being finalized, no longer require the referenced USS network
infrastructure for the time being.
Comments: Several commenters were concerned about punishing UAS
operators who were early adopters of ADS-B Out, and suggested
permitting ADS-B Out or similar broadcast remote identification devices
that are interchangeable between multiple UAS. AT&T Services asked the
FAA to permit ADS-B Out on UAS responding to emergencies, noting that
their UAS providing emergency cellular service in disaster areas
currently use ADS-B Out to share UAS location information with manned
emergency aircraft. The Academy of Model Aeronautics
[[Page 4474]]
proposed permitting a single ADS-B Out unit to identify an FAA-
recognized identification area so manned aircraft and other UAS are
aware of active model aircraft operations. They also proposed pairing
this with ADS-B In and a warning system at some locations so members
would be alerted when cooperative manned aircraft are in the area.
FAA Response: The FAA has determined that ADS-B Out as presently
implemented for surveillance purposes is inadequate to meet unmanned
aircraft remote identification requirements. This rule includes
provisions in Sec. Sec. 89.105 and 91.225 to permit use of ADS-B Out
on unmanned aircraft on a case-by-case basis as authorized by the
Administrator. The FAA declines to require the use of ADS-B Out to
identify an FAA-recognized identification area because it was not
intended to be used to identify physical locations where UAS may be
operating without remote identification.
Comments: One commenter expressed concern about the volume of UAS
users that will be transmitting on Wi-Fi frequencies as well as range
and altitude coverage on these frequencies.
A commenter was concerned about future expansion of manned aircraft
operations if ADS-B Out radio frequency spectrum could be saturated by
UAS, and suggested the ADS-B Out system be upgraded to support UAS
operations as well. Another commenter suggested requiring ADS-B Out in
remote, uncontrolled airspace where is it unlikely to cause frequency
saturation, and requiring network remote identification in controlled
and urban airspace where data and cellular coverage is readily
available.
FAA Response: Regarding broadcast on Wi-Fi frequencies, the FAA
notes that, by FCC rule, 47 CFR part 15 devices, including those used
for the remote identification broadcast, may not cause harmful
interference and must accept any interference received. In addition,
remote identification equipment may not cause harmful interference to
the unmanned aircraft command and control datalink or otherwise be in
violation of FCC regulations. Unmanned aircraft remote identification
equipment broadcasting in the 47 CFR part 15 radio frequency spectrum
is also prohibited from interfering with existing, licensed frequencies
used by existing surveillance technologies. With regard to the use of
ADS-B Out in less dense environments where signal saturation would not
be as likely a hazard, the FAA emphasizes that the ADS-B message set
does not provide an indication of the control station location which is
one of the reasons that ADS-B is not a suitable alternative.
Comments: Some commenters, including the Aviators Code Initiative,
suggested that UAS operating under part 91 and future Urban Air
Mobility (UAM) operations be required to use ADS-B Out unless future
frequency saturation issues develop or remote identification is proven
to be an adequate substitute for these operations.
FAA Response: The FAA partially agrees with comments that suggest
ADS-B use is appropriate for unmanned aircraft operating under part 91
and UAM operations, and adopts the requirements necessary for unmanned
aircraft to operate with ADS-B Out instead of remote identification.
The FAA believes that the performance-based requirements in this rule
provide multiple technical solutions for unmanned aircraft remote
identification and support the evolution of remote identification
solutions as UAS technology evolves.
Comments: A number of commenters challenged the FAA to justify its
position that ADS-B functionality as a whole would be adversely
impacted by a sharp increase in ADS-B users. uAvionix noted that radio
frequency spectrum studies to date have focused on UAS operating in
high traffic density below 400 feet AGL, but there are no studies at
higher altitudes. uAvionix and Sagetech Avionics stated the part 91
prohibition introduces the possibility of non-cooperative part 91 UAS
unless otherwise required to equip with remote identification (or
``otherwise authorized by the Administrator'' to use ADS-B Out or
transponders). uAvionix, McInflight Aerospace, Sagetech Avionics, and
NBAA recommended considering alternatives such as ADS-B Out. They also
noted these licensed frequencies would be more reliable than 47 CFR
part 15, Remote Identification Frequencies.
FAA Response: In the NPRM, the FAA referenced a study titled ``ADS-
B Surveillance System Performance with Small UAS at Low Altitudes'' as
the basis for proposing that an ADS-B Out solution for unmanned
aircraft remote identification would cause adverse impacts to the
existing ADS-B surveillance system. The FAA agrees with the analysis
and information contained in this study. Related comments suggesting
that lower-power ADS-B Out transmitters could be developed to meet
remote identification requirements, accompanied by additional receiver
sites and software patches to limit ATC display clutter, were found to
be impractical, both in terms of the time and the cost necessary to
develop them. The FAA agrees with commenters concerned about the
possibility of non-cooperative unmanned aircraft in areas where remote
identification is required, and notes that in accordance with Sec.
89.101, part 89 applies to all unmanned aircraft operations except for
those unmanned aircraft operations under part 91 of this chapter that
are transmitting ADS-B Out pursuant to Sec. 91.225.
Comments: Many commenters noted that both UAS and manned aircraft
would benefit from shared situational awareness if UAS were equipped
with ADS-B Out, which would provide UAS position information to manned
aircraft pilots (and vice versa) via ADS-B In. Another commenter
recommended that all manned aircraft and commercial UAS be required to
equip with ADS-B Out (and ADS-B In for UAS), while permitting
recreational UAS without remote identification to operate in Class G
airspace.
Several commenters suggested that UAS remote identification and
location information should be available to operators via the ADS-B In
system, similar to current traffic and weather information, and noted a
potential risk of reduced collision prevention capability because
remote identification and ADS-B systems do not share information.
Several manned pilots objected to needing to purchase new equipment to
gain access to UAS remote identification information after already
being required to purchase ADS-B equipment.
A number of commenters discussed potential safety advantages
associated with UAS equipping with ADS-B In as a means of remaining
well clear of all ADS-B Out equipped aircraft. Several commenters
suggested that ADS-B In should be required or optional for UAS, either
in general or specifically for larger UAS or for UAS capable of BVLOS
such as delivery operations, and the National Agricultural Aviation
Association noted that ADS-B In for UAS remains essential.
FAA Response: As the FAA stated in the NPRM, the primary purpose of
UAS remote identification is to identify UAS operating in the airspace
and provide an indication of the location of the operator. The FAA
discussed other potential uses of remote identification information,
such as situational awareness or future aircraft separation
applications.
The FAA recognizes the benefit of shared situational awareness and
encourages unmanned aircraft operators to equip with ADS-B In for
increased traffic awareness, if practicable. The
[[Page 4475]]
FAA notes that ADS-B In is not required equipment for aircraft
operations under part 91, and any changes to require ADS-B In for
manned or unmanned aircraft are outside the scope of this rule.
XVIII. Environmental Analysis
A. Public Comments and FAA Response
Comments: The FAA received several comments addressing the
potential environmental impacts associated with the proposed rule.
Commenters expressed concerns with the potential environmental impacts
associated with the disposal for UAS that would potentially become
obsolete under the rule requirements.
Some commenters suggested that additional analysis should be done
under the National Environmental Policy Act, particularly in the areas
of historic or socioeconomic impacts of the proposed rule. Other
commenters indicated that the rule would increase the number of UAS
operations with resulting impacts on noise and quality of life,
wildlife, birds, light and visual impacts, and other similar
environmental impacts.
FAA Response: The FAA believes the changes in this final rule
compared to the NPRM provide the flexibility necessary for recreational
unmanned aircraft designers, producers, and operators to continue to
operate safely in the airspace of the United States. Specifically, this
rule allows for the retrofit of existing unmanned aircraft and home-
built unmanned aircraft and increases the availability of FAA-
recognized identification areas where operations may occur without
remote identification. For these reasons, FAA does not anticipate that
this rule would result in an increase in unmanned aircraft disposal.
The FAA notes that a discarded unmanned aircraft can be disassembled
into the following parts: Carbon (frame, frame parts), plastic, metal
parts (screws, standoffs), wire, electronics (flight controller, ESC,
motors, camera, VTX, RX), and batteries. Recycling centers and online
vendors can assist with the proper management of used unmanned aircraft
parts. In addition, parts in good working condition could potentially
be reused.
The FAA considers that though this rulemaking action establishes
requirements for the remote identification of unmanned aircraft, it
does not, by itself, enable routine expanded operations, affect the
frequency of UAS operations in the airspace of the United States, or
authorize additional UAS operations. Nor does the rule open up new
areas of airspace to UAS. With regard to the specific comments on
impacts to birds, the FAA's experience has been that current levels of
UAS operations do not produce negative impacts to Endangered Species
Act-covered species or other migratory birds. The FAA also emphasizes
that this rule does not relieve operators from other legal obligations
that may be applicable to them, such as ones imposed by the Endangered
Species Act or the Migratory Bird Treaty Act. For these reasons, the
FAA has determined that it is appropriate to apply a categorical
exclusion to this rule and that it does not require preparation of an
Environmental Assessment or an Environmental Impact Statement under the
National Environmental Policy Act.
XIX. Effective and Compliance Dates
A. Effective Date of This Rule
1. Discussion of the Final Rule
As with most new regulations, the FAA recognized that some elements
of the NPRM would take time to implement fully. The FAA also recognized
it would need to implement requirements that address ongoing safety and
security needs quickly. Therefore, the FAA proposed that the effective
date of remote identification requirements would be the first day of
the calendar month following 60 days from the date of publication of a
final rule. The FAA also proposed the production compliance date would
be 2 years after the proposed effective date, and the operational
compliance date would be 3 years after the proposed effective date.
However, given the changes in policy concepts since the publication
of the NPRM, the FAA has instead decided to change the effective date
of this rule to 60 days from the date of publication--with the
exception of subpart C concerning FAA-recognized identification areas,
which becomes effective 18 months following the 60 day effective date.
The FAA also adopts the production compliance date as 18 months after
the rule's effective date, and the operational compliance date as 30
months after the rule's effective date.
The FAA decided not to adopt the proposed requirement for owners of
small unmanned aircraft used exclusively for limited recreational
operations to register each aircraft individually. The FAA decided to
maintain the current registration options, and will no longer revise
part 48 to require individual aircraft registration as proposed.
Therefore, it is no longer necessary for the final rule to be effective
on the first day of a calendar month following 60 days after the
publication date.
2. Public Comments and FAA Response
Comments: Several commenters objected to mandating the use of
technologies for remote identification of UAS and Remote ID USS, which
do not exist and may not be developed by the proposed effective date,
and noted that it is very difficult to estimate costs for operators
accurately without existing technology. An individual commenter found
it hard to envision third party companies completing implementation of
an airspace-wide UAS equivalent to the current ATC system by the
proposed effective date. Another commenter who also had issues with the
proposed date recommended phasing in requirements initially in small
geographic areas with limited technical requirements and then gradually
expand to national use, adding additional technical requirements upon
successful completion of each phase.
FAA Response: The FAA notes that technologies for unmanned aircraft
remote identification are not required to be developed or available on
the rule effective date, but rather this date establishes a starting
point for the 18-month production compliance date. Producers will have
to comply with the rule's requirements by the production compliance
date, which is 18 months after the effective date. Operators will have
to comply with the rule's requirements by the operational compliance
date, which is 30 months after the effective date.
Comments expressing concern about the readiness of Remote ID USS
and the USS network by the rule effective date are no longer applicable
because the FAA is no longer adopting those proposed requirements.
The FAA received many comments regarding the proposed timeline for
accepting FAA-recognized identification areas applications, and how
that policy would impact the rule. Those public comments and FAA
responses are discussed in section XII of this preamble. Section XII.C
of this preamble also discusses the FAA rationale for eliminating the
12-month deadline, and the impact of that elimination on the
effectivity of subpart C of part 89.
B. Production Requirements Compliance Date
1. Discussion of the Final Rule
The FAA proposed a 24-month compliance date for the production of
remote identification unmanned aircraft. The FAA discussed how persons
responsible for the production
[[Page 4476]]
of unmanned aircraft would not be able to submit declarations of
compliance until the FAA accepts at least one means of compliance. Once
a means of compliance is accepted by the FAA, persons responsible for
the production of unmanned aircraft would need time to design, develop,
and test unmanned aircraft using that means of compliance. For that
reason, the FAA proposed a 24-month period before compliance with the
production requirements would be required. As proposed, the 24-month
period would have provided time for the development and deployment of
Remote ID USS to support the requirements of the proposed rule. Prior
to the 24-month compliance date, the FAA proposed that the rule would
allow for the production and operation of both unmanned aircraft with
and without remote identification.
As being finalized, this rule requires persons producing standard
remote identification unmanned aircraft for operation in the airspace
of the United States to comply with the requirements of subpart F by
September 16, 2022. The compliance date has been reduced by 6 months
and now begins 18 months after the effective date of this rule. The
change from the proposed 24-month production compliance date for
standard remote identification unmanned aircraft is supported by the
removal of the requirement for the unmanned aircraft to connect to the
internet and transmit information to a Remote ID USS. The change is
also supported by the elimination of any schedule or technical risks
associated with the development and deployment of a Remote ID USS
network. The FAA also considered the maturity of existing standards for
unmanned aircraft remote identification, such as ASTM F3411-19, and
notes that the UAS-ID ARC suggested that industry consensus standards
could be updated in as little as 6 months. For these reasons, this rule
establishes an 18-month compliance date for the production of standard
remote identification unmanned aircraft.
As promulgated, this rule also requires persons producing remote
identification broadcast modules to comply with the requirements of
subpart F by March 16, 2021. This requirement is because of the
introduction of the remote identification broadcast module concept that
replaces the proposed limited remote identification UAS concept, as
further discussed throughout this rule. The requirement will support
early adoption of remote identification.
2. Public Comments and FAA Response
Comments: A few commenters supported the 24-month production
compliance date, as proposed, including Zipline International and
Airlines for America. An individual commenter supported the 2-year
production timeline if the remote identification requirements were
changed to ``broadcast or network'' but not both. This commenter
believed this change would simplify the complexity of UAS and support
faster development. Another individual stated that while the 2-year
production compliance date is appropriate for ``mass produced
commercial UAS,'' it should not apply to any recreational UAS.
Similarly, another individual commenter noted it will be hard to
incorporate remote identification on fixed wing model aircraft and
suggested that additional time should be allowed for model aircraft.
Many commenters stated the 24-month compliance date for production
of UAS with remote identification is not long enough for the
introduction of a new technology like UAS remote identification. Some
of these commenters provided specific recommendations for a different
compliance date, while others stated their disagreement without
providing a recommendation. An individual commenter suggested that
because remote identification is a new technology, introduction should
happen slowly, and UAS with remote identification should be available
before the rule is adopted. Another commenter noted that ADS-B
technology was being developed and tested before the ADS-B rule was
adopted, and that 10 years was provided for manned aircraft to equip
with ADS-B technology. This commenter raised the concern that UAS
remote identification technology has not been developed and tested, yet
the FAA still intends to finalize the rule. Some commenters wanted the
FAA to provide further guidance to allow adequate time for UAS service
operators to replace, update, or upgrade hardware to meet any new
requirement.
Droneport Texas LLC recommended a 3-year production compliance date
because ``the time required for rule assessment, engineering, testing,
manufacturing and marketing to provide remote ID unit consumption at
levels that allow for economies of scale to become practical is
estimated to begin at a minimum of 36 months.'' A separate individual
commenter recommended a production compliance period of 48 months
because the commenter believed it is unlikely that the infrastructure
necessary to enable remote identification will be ready in 2 years.
In contrast to commenters who recommended a longer production
compliance period, commenters that supported a production period
shorter than the 2 years proposed include the Small UAV Coalition,
American Association of Airport Executives, and Verizon/Skyward. The
Small UAV Coalition stated the production compliance date should be
shortened by 1 year on the basis that the ASTM F38 UAS Remote
Identification standard has been published and the 1-year allocated to
development and acceptance of a means of compliance can be eliminated.
The American Association of Airport Executives also supported a 1-year
production compliance period, stating that ``this is a more reasonable
balance between the needs of airports and many other stakeholders, and
the time needed to implement the proposed framework.'' Verizon and
Skyward noted that ``USS Remote ID compliance is technically feasible
today for a very high percentage of existing UAS through software
upgrades and for manufacturers with minimal changes'' and suggested a
production compliance date of 10 months after the rule's effective
date.
An individual commenter suggested that the FAA should allow for a
1-year vendor proposal period where UAS producers would compete to
manufacture a system that meets FAA requirements, at which point the
FAA should approve the qualified bidder with the lowest cost. The
Consumer Technology Association and other commenters said that the FAA
should permit producers to continue selling non-compliant UAS if
retrofit modules were available to bring the aircraft into compliance
with the remote identification requirements.
FAA Response: As stated above, the FAA is no longer requiring
standard remote identification unmanned aircraft to connect to the
internet and transmit information to a Remote ID USS. As a result, any
schedule or technical risks associated with the development and
deployment of a Remote ID USS network are no longer applicable. Since
FAA is adopting a broadcast-only remote identification requirement, the
decision to eliminate the network requirement for remote identification
at this time supports a reduction of the production compliance date
from 24 months to 18 months.
The FAA acknowledges that though persons responsible for the
production of unmanned aircraft will not be able to submit declarations
of compliance until the FAA accepts at least one means of compliance,
the FAA anticipates an
[[Page 4477]]
expedited revision to the ASTM F3411-19 Standard Specification for
Remote ID and Tracking to occur after publication of this final rule.
Once the standard is revised to meet the minimum performance
requirements, it could be submitted for consideration as an FAA-
accepted means of compliance. The FAA also notes that any person,
including unmanned aircraft manufacturers, may submit a means of
compliance for consideration by the FAA. This provides additional
opportunities for the UAS industry to develop means of compliance,
potentially on an accelerated schedule. Finally, the FAA believes the
18-month production compliance date provides sufficient time for
unmanned aircraft manufacturers to design, develop, and test standard
remote identification unmanned aircraft using an FAA-accepted means of
compliance.
C. Operational Requirements Compliance Date
1. Discussion of the Final Rule
The FAA proposed that the requirements for the operation of
unmanned aircraft with remote identification would begin 36 months
after the effective date of a final rule. This 36-month period would
run concurrently with the proposed 24-month period provided for the
development of means of compliance, and for the design and production
of unmanned aircraft with remote identification. The FAA explained in
the NPRM that once unmanned aircraft with remote identification become
widely available, this rule would allow an additional 1-year time
period for unmanned aircraft owners and operators to purchase and
transition to operations of unmanned aircraft with remote
identification.
As promulgated, this rule requires persons operating unmanned
aircraft in the airspace of the United States to comply with the
operational rules in subpart B by September 16, 2023. The compliance
date has been reduced by 6 months and now begins 30 months after the
effective date of this rule as compared to the proposed 36-month
compliance date in the NPRM. The FAA notes that the 30-month
operational compliance date is still 1 year later than the 18-month
production compliance date, so the difference between the two dates has
been maintained in this final rule compared to the NPRM. The FAA
believes that an operational compliance date that is 1 year after the
production compliance date provides adequate time for unmanned aircraft
operators to acquire standard remote identification unmanned aircraft.
In addition, because there is no production compliance date for
remote identification broadcast modules, the FAA anticipates that a
means of compliance may be developed and submitted to the FAA for
consideration soon after the rule is effective, potentially resulting
in broadcast modules being available well in advance of the 30-month
operational compliance date. The FAA believes that a 30-month
operational compliance date is appropriate for operators of standard
remote identification unmanned aircraft, as well as unmanned aircraft
equipped with remote identification broadcast modules.
2. Public Comments and FAA Response
Comments: The FAA received some comments that supported the
operational compliance date as proposed, including comments from the
Golden Gate Bridge, Highway and Transportation District, and various
individuals that noted a 3-year phase-in period is reasonable for
developing initial solutions. However, many commenters did not agree
with the FAA's proposed 3-year operational compliance date, of which
some suggested alternative time periods that are longer or shorter than
the proposed operational compliance date.
Many commenters raised the concern that there is only 1 year
between the production and operational compliance dates, resulting in
some UAS being ineligible to operate after only 1 year of ownership.
Instead, an individual commenter suggested that a 3-year operational
compliance date, after the manufacturing compliance date, would be
preferable and would preclude having to throw away or discontinue using
UAS purchased only a year prior to the operational compliance date.
Many individual commenters, however, stated the FAA's belief that a
typical UAS would reach the end of its useful life in 3 years is
incorrect, and therefore opposed the proposed operational compliance
date of 3 years after the effective date of the rule. An individual
stated that while a ``commercial quadcopter (drone)'' may have a
lifespan of 3 years, certain R/C model aircraft can have a lifespan of
30-40 years or more. Another commenter stated that with proper care and
maintenance, the lifespan of a UAS can be extended past 3 years. An
individual suggested the government pay for the loss of use of UAS
equipment that lasts for greater than 3 years. Another individual
recommended that additional time be provided to allow the price of UAS
with remote identification to come down. This commenter also noted that
its existing fleet of UAS without remote identification will have no
resale value
In contrast to the commenters that requested additional time to
comply with the operational compliance period, others suggested an
operational compliance date shorter than the proposed 3 years.
Organizations including: Amazon, AUVSI, the National Sheriff's
Association, Zipline International, sports organizations (NFL, MLB,
NASCAR, and NCAA), U.S. Rail Operating Subsidiaries of the Canadian
National Railway Company, FlyGuys, Inc., Tampa International Airport/
Hillsborough County Aviation Authority, and UPS, all supported the
expeditious implementation of the rule. These commenters generally
opposed an operational compliance date longer than 3 years. Verizon and
Skyward stated the operational compliance date could be as soon as 12
months after the rule's effective date. The U.S. Chamber of Commerce
supported 18 months for the operational compliance date, and suggested
that the FAA follow the recommendations of the Drone Advisory Committee
(DAC) related to early compliance with remote identification
requirements. The Small UAV Coalition supported an operational
compliance period of 18 to 24 months.
DRONERESPONDERS Public Safety Alliance, Airlines for America,
International Association of Fire Fighters, Medina County EMA, American
Association of Airport Executives, and Motorola Solutions, Inc.
supported a 2-year operational compliance date while generally agreeing
that shortening the operational compliance date serves to expedite the
safety and security benefits of the rule. An individual believed that
UAS manufacturers would have sufficient time to incorporate remote
identification into their UAS, and that the operational compliance date
should be reduced to a time period of 1 year to 18 months. Another
individual commenter recommended shortening the operational compliance
date because of existing UAS operations that are in violation of the
regulations.
Kittyhawk stated the 3-year compliance date is too long because the
FAA has made it clear that ``routine (i.e., waiverless) advanced
operations like those beyond visual line of sight, operations over
people, or operations at night, require Remote ID.'' Kittyhawk supports
a tiered approach for establishing compliance dates, which would allow
some operations to be conducted with remote identification
[[Page 4478]]
immediately upon the rule effective date. The National Association of
Tower Erectors (NATE) suggested reducing the 3-year operational
compliance period both to enhance safety and enable earlier expanded
operations such as BVLOS. The National Agricultural Aviation
Association stated they do not believe it should take 3 years to
implement the rule, but did not provide a specific alternative
timeline. AirMap, Aerospace Industries Association, and the Commercial
Drone Alliance supported an immediate implementation of the rule
compared to the proposed 3-year compliance date. WhiteFox Defense
Technologies supported a shorter operational compliance period if the
rule was modified to allow retrofit modules for existing UAS.
Several individual commenters recommended a 5-year timeline for the
operational compliance date because they believed it would better align
with the typical lifespan of UAS, and allow time for the technology to
be widely available. The Academy of Model Aeronautics supported a
``more reasonable timeline,'' including incentives similar to those
that were provided for the general aviation community to equip with
ADS-B. Several individual commenters referenced the 10-year operational
compliance period in the ADS-B rule as justification for extending the
proposed 3-year operational compliance date; most of these commenters
suggested an operational compliance date between 5 and 10 years from
the rule's publication date. Other commenters recommended additional
time, ranging from 10-15 years, for the operational compliance date
because remote identification technology does not exist. Several
individual commenters recommended a 5-7 year operational compliance
date, and for the FAA to not rush the implementation of remote
identification.
To simplify compliance, multiple individuals supported the idea of
an FAA ``grandfathering'' provision that would not require existing UAS
to comply with the rules for remote identification for 10 years. A
commenter suggested grandfathering all existing recreational UAS, with
remote identification required for recreational UAS only if they are
new. This commenter recommended a 5-year operational compliance date
for part 107 operators. Another commenter noted that many recreational
UAS operators are still not registered, and asked why the FAA thinks
these unregistered operators will comply with a 3-year operational
compliance period. San Diego County Water requested that additional 3-
year waivers be available for operators that are not able to comply
with the 3-year remote identification operational compliance date.
Rather than requiring a fixed time period, an individual suggested
that the operational compliance date be based on the availability of
remote identification technology. Another individual suggested a phased
approach for operational compliance dates, with UAS conducting higher
risk operations having an earlier date than those conducing low risk
operations. Utah Public Lands policy recommended that ``the FAA should
initiate a pilot program, working with UAS developers, USS suppliers,
and UAS operators, to better understand how these various components
can be successfully brought together and proven and, only then,
determine an implementation or compliance period accompanied with known
costs and technology solutions.'' Another individual asked how the 3-
year operational compliance date would apply to existing UAS.
FAA Response: The FAA does not agree with grandfathering or broadly
excepting existing unmanned aircraft from meeting remote identification
requirements. However, after considering the comments received, the FAA
has updated this rule to permit less complex, cost-effective solutions
to prevent obsolescence of existing unmanned aircraft, and support
continued unmanned aircraft operations in compliance with remote
identification requirements. Removing the requirements to transmit
remote identification information to a Remote ID USS will make it more
straightforward for manufacturers to upgrade or retrofit existing
unmanned aircraft to meet the broadcast remote identification
requirements, or to upgrade unmanned aircraft which are produced before
the production compliance date. Most unmanned aircraft produced without
remote identification will be able to equip with a remote
identification broadcast module, or will be able to operate in an FAA-
recognized identification area. The FAA anticipates this rule, which
permits additional organizations to apply for an FAA-recognized
identification area, with no deadline for submitting an application,
will result in an increased number of FAA-recognized identification
areas for operators without remote identification.
Though the finalized remote identification requirements support
reducing the production compliance date by 6 months, the FAA does not
agree with commenters that suggested further shortening the operational
compliance date. A 1-year time period, as originally proposed in the
NPRM, is necessary for unmanned aircraft owners and operators to
purchase new unmanned aircraft, upgrade or retrofit existing unmanned
aircraft, and transition to operations of those unmanned aircraft which
meet remote identification requirements. Therefore, the FAA is adopting
a 30-month operational compliance period which runs concurrently with
the amended 18-month production compliance date. Requirements that
prohibit operation of UAS without remote identification would begin 30
months after the effective date of the rule. This 30-month period
provides sufficient time for the development of means of compliance for
the design and production of unmanned aircraft with remote
identification, and time for operators to procure standard remote
identification unmanned aircraft or remote identification broadcast
modules to comply with the operating requirements of this rule.
Comments: Commenters, including Unifly and the District of Columbia
government, believed that UAS operating under a waiver should still be
required to have remote identification. These operations include
nighttime operations, operations over people, or BVLOS operations. In
contrast, an individual member of the FPVFC suggested that if the UAS
has remote identification, operations over people and at night should
be allowed without a waiver. This individual added that if the UAS has
LAANC authorization, then no remote identification equipment should be
required for operating over people or at night. Other commenters also
referenced similar recommendations made by the DAC, and stated that UAS
that meet the remote identification requirements should not be required
to seek a waiver for small UAS operations at night or over people.
FAA Response: The unmanned aircraft remote identification
requirements in this rule are separate from, and in addition to, the
UAS operating rules as well as any waivers or exemptions issued from
those operating rules. The FAA agrees that all UAS operations,
including those subject to waiver or exemption, must meet the unmanned
aircraft remote identification requirements in part 89. The FAA does
not agree with commenters who suggest equipping an unmanned aircraft
with remote identification is a basis for operating without a waiver
when a waiver would otherwise be required. Having remote identification
equipment
[[Page 4479]]
does not address the operational safety issues associated with
operating an unmanned aircraft at night or over people, and does not
support relief from any existing operating requirements, including
requirements for airspace authorizations.
D. Incentives for Early Compliance
1. Discussion of the Final Rule
The FAA explained that early compliance may benefit both industry
and UAS operators, and encourages regulated parties to implement remote
identification of unmanned aircraft sooner than the established
compliance dates. The FAA requested comments on the NPRM providing
specific proposals and ideas on how to build an early compliance
framework into the regulation. The Agency stated it is interested in
comments related to how an early compliance framework would work and
how it would fit into the overarching remote identification framework
proposed by the FAA.
The FAA received many comments addressing incentives for early
compliance. The FAA has reviewed the comments supporting an incentive
for early compliance with remote identification, and views these
incentives as part of the implementation methodology and not part of
this rule.
2. Public Comments and FAA Response
Comments: A commenter suggested allowing operations in certain
restricted airspace as an incentive for early compliance with the
remote identification requirements. AUVSI, Small UAV Coalition,
Consumer Technology Association, Aerospace Industries Association, and
WhiteFox Defense Technologies expressed their support for incentivizing
early compliance, including support of the DAC recommendations. AUVSI
identified many possible incentives for early compliance with the
remote identification requirements, such as permitting expanded
operations through waivers and exemptions for operators who equip
early, providing ``preferential treatment'' for UAS equipped with
remote identification, increased access to airspace such as temporary
flight restrictions, restricted areas, and controlled airspace, and
various financial incentives. AiRXOS stated that ``early compliance
with remote identification should be incentivized through applied use
in advanced operational approvals.'' Fortem Technologies supported
expedited waiver approvals for operators that use UAS equipped with
remote identification.
FAA Response: The FAA commits to conducting an analysis of any
waivers or exemptions that use remote identification industry consensus
standards and communicating any additional information needed for the
FAA to give credit for, as appropriate, using remote identification as
part of a waiver application. This is how operators may take advantage
of the availability of industry consensus standards prior to a final
rule concerning remote identification. While voluntary adoption of
remote identification will not equate to automatic waiver approval, the
FAA's evaluation of part 107 waiver applications may consider early
adoption of remote identification prior to any required compliance date
set forth by this rule.
To be considered as a benefit for a particular operation,
applicants will need to demonstrate in their waiver application that
the unmanned aircraft are equipped with remote identification
capability and will remain compliant with this rule during operations.
The FAA will evaluate applicants' ability to demonstrate early
compliance with remote identification in their DroneZone applications.
The FAA anticipates such updates will result in handling applications
for waiver in an efficient manner.
The FAA supports the proposition that remote identification will
provide security benefits, which underlies the DAC's recommendations
regarding increasing access by unmanned aircraft with remote
identification to airspace restricted for security reasons. The Agency
is committed to working with interagency security partners to realize
those benefits where appropriate, including using remote identification
equipage as a positive consideration in authorizing access to airspace
to which security instructions have been applied. Remote identification
equipage will be, however, only one of many complex factors driving
decisions made by the FAA to enable access by UAS to this sort of
secured airspace. The FAA will continue to coordinate with security
agencies, as well as industry, to determine how to best leverage the
security benefits offered by remote identification. The FAA commits to
considering the added safety and security benefits provided by remote
identification equipage in development of future rules related to UAS
and airspace access.
Comments: Many commenters provided input and ideas that would allow
for an early compliance framework into the regulation. Both AUVSI and
SenseFly suggested the FAA follow the recommendations provided by the
DAC \35\ as an early compliance framework for UAS remote identification
requirements, while Wing Aviation LLC suggested the FAA accepts the
ASTM F3411-19 Standard Specification for Remote ID and Tracking as an
idea for early compliance. An individual member of the FPVFC suggested
that the FAA should adopt the incentives proposed in the DAC's October
2019 submission to the FAA. Verizon and Skyward and also expressed
support for incentivizing early compliance.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\35\ October 17, 2019 Drone Advisory Committee (DAC) Meeting
Materials, https://www.faa.gov/uas/programs_partnerships/drone_advisory_committee/media/eBook_10172019_DAC_Meeting.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Unifly recommended allowing operators to use an add-on retrofit for
remote identification as a solution for achieving early compliance. An
individual commenter stated the FAA should utilize open source
technology to build an early compliance framework, and provided web-
links to those sources. This commenter stated that working with these
resources may require new partnerships or contracts, but they can be
tremendously beneficial to the FAA. Another individual commenter
suggested the FAA provide monetary subsidies for operators to adopt
remote identification technology similar to the rebates that were
offered for ADS-B. The Albuquerque Radio Control Club recommended
subsidizing purchases of equipment over $50 to help ensure widespread
compliance, and the Aviators Code Initiative suggested offering
subsidies for installation of remote identification equipment on UAS
manufactured without broadcast capability. Some commenters suggested
the government subsidize UAS operators to speed the replacement of
current UAS with remote identification UAS, similar to the incentives
for manned aircraft to equip with ADS-B Out.
Droneport Texas LLC raised the concern that ``since a regulation
cannot be followed until it is implemented, attempts at creating an
early compliance framework will only confuse those attempting to
enforce the law and create an easily-challenged situation for those
required to adjudicate on this slippery slope.''
FAA Response: The Agency will review all comments and incentive
methods for potential inclusion in implementation after this rule is
published.
Incentives for government procurement and contracting would require
compliance with certain specific
[[Page 4480]]
regulations and standards. To be fair and equitable, the FAA's
procurement processes do not enable preferential treatment for
voluntary early adoption of equipment or compliance to regulations.
Regarding early equipage, as stated in the FAA's remote
identification NPRM, the FAA will maintain an online database of
designers and producers of remote identification unmanned aircraft that
have declared compliance with an industry consensus standard recognized
by the FAA as a means of compliance with the remote identification
rule. The FAA will begin this database with the first declaration of
compliance. This online list will be linked to all applicable FAA apps,
including B4UFLY, and on all relevant web pages. The FAA will endeavor
to ensure information is disseminated as far as possible.
As stated in the FAA's remote identification NPRM, the FAA is
willing to consider methods to offset the registration costs associated
with final remote identification rule compliance. 84 FR 72438, 72463
(Dec. 31, 2019) at Sec. IX.C. The FAA will consider opportunities for
cost reduction and off-setting, while remaining mindful of statutory
requirements that apply to the collection of registration fees.
Finally, the FAA strongly encourages the industry to continue
collaborating in the area of early adoption incentives. It is important
to recognize that the broad safety and security benefits of remote
identification equipage for UAS are realized only with widespread
compliance with the rule and equipage standards. The result is a
cooperative user community that becomes its own mitigation against risk
presented by other unmanned air traffic, especially in circumstances
with the unmanned aircraft flying beyond visual line-of-sight. The FAA
recognizes that while this may not be a direct incentive for individual
operators and recreational flyers, it should broadly incentivize the
unmanned aircraft producer or designer community to produce aircraft in
compliance with published industry consensus standards (e.g., the
serial number standard) as early and quickly as possible.
XX. Comments on the Regulatory Impact Analysis--Benefits and Costs
A. General Comments About Cost Impacts of the Rule
Comments: Many commenters stated the remote identification
requirements as proposed would be too costly for many recreational
operators and businesses, many of which are small, to comply.
Commenters suggested that retail hobby businesses already operate on
low margins. Any impact on these businesses would also have negative
downstream effects on the community. The affected groups include retail
hobby shops, designers and producers of UAS and suppliers of model
aircraft, parts and equipment, and aerial photographers. The commenters
suggested that many recreational operators and owners, especially those
involved in flying and building remote controlled aircraft, would cease
pursuing the hobby or business, because of the cost to either upgrade
or replace existing aircraft to meet the proposed standard and the cost
to subscribe to internet service. Many commenters expressed concern for
the potential impact of the rule on businesses and consumers who cannot
afford to retrofit or replace UAS at a low cost. Commenters suggested
that there does not exist an off-the-shelf solution, such as software
upgrades, to retrofit most recreational aircraft. One commenter
provided an estimate of $12 billion in sales for the model aircraft
industry for 2021. Another commenter reported $1 billion to $20 billion
per year based on IBIS World's 2020 Hobby and Toy Store industry.
Commenters state that by requiring standard remote identification UAS
to both broadcast and provide information over the internet, the FAA is
violating the requirement of E.O. 13563 to maximize net benefits and
design regulations to impose the least burden. Allowing the option of
remote broadcast alone would allow UAS owners to save the Remote ID USS
subscription fee. The broadcast-only option would also not reduce
demand from operators who do not want to send flight data to a Remote
ID USS. Removal of the requirement for both kinds of transmission would
also eliminate the need for ``Limited'' remote identification UAS and
streamline the regulation. DJI Technology estimated a one-time cost of
$2 or less per unit for a large quantity when manufacturing new UAS or
a cost for existing UAS of $15 or less per unit for a large quantity
without requiring screens, sim cards, internet connections, data plans,
or centralized data aggregation like a network solution would require.
A commenter states that the FAA neglects the increased cost of customer
support because UASs will not be able to fly unless Remote ID USS is
functional. The reason a UAS is not working will not always be clear,
and designers and producers of remote identification UAS or sellers may
need to provide support to determine the reason the UAS is not
functioning. Using data on customer complaint rates for the
telecommunications sector tracked by the Australian Communications and
Media Authority (ACMA) on complaint rates and an estimate of the cost
of a customer service call by the Harvard Business Review of $10 per
call, the commenter estimates a 10-year cost of $80 million.
FAA Response: The FAA acknowledges that recreational and business
operators of unmanned aircraft will incur out-of-pocket costs as a
result of this rule. However, the FAA has attempted to alleviate
complexity and costs of compliance for all operators of unmanned
aircraft by removing the network requirement from this rule and
allowing remote identification using a stand-alone broadcast module for
the time being. The concept allows unmanned aircraft built without
remote identification (e.g., existing unmanned aircraft fleet, home-
built unmanned aircraft) to be operated outside of FAA-recognized
identification areas because the broadcast modules enable the unmanned
aircraft to broadcast the remote identification message elements
required by this rule.
The FAA decided to incorporate this concept into this rule after
reviewing public comments and considering the significant concerns
raised with respect to the remote identification UAS framework. The FAA
determined a remote identification broadcast module facilitates
compliance with this rule and meets the safety and security needs of
the FAA, national security agencies, and law enforcement. The concept
is broadcast-based and does not require a person to connect to the
internet to identify remotely, as the limited remote identification UAS
proposal did. This shift allows unmanned aircraft with remote
identification broadcast modules to operate in areas where the internet
is unavailable. In addition, by making this a broadcast solution, the
FAA has determined that the 400-foot range limitation included in the
proposed requirements for limited remote identification UAS is no
longer warranted and has removed the design constraint.
Comments: Multiple commenters expressed concern with displacing
hobbyists, recreational operators and amateur builders in favor of
creating opportunities for new commercial operations. In particular,
one commenter believed that the FAA's proposed approach highly favors
current monolithic vendors and delivery fleet operators of UAS (DJI,
Amazon, Google, UPS, etc.), and would harm or eliminate small UAS
integrator-owners
[[Page 4481]]
by forcing UAS owners to purchase them only from a limited number of
commercial corporations. Thus, the rule would severely limit or
eliminate independent UAS electronic vendors.
FAA Response: The FAA recognizes that this rule places a burden on
all operators of unmanned aircraft, and has eliminated the internet
connectivity requirement to reduce the negative impact to independent
UAS electronic vendors and the hobby industry. The FAA does not agree
that it favors creating opportunities for new commercial operations at
the expense of hobbyists, recreational operators and home-builders.
While recreational users of unmanned aircraft have been operating in
the airspace of the United States for decades, commercial operations of
unmanned aircraft are in their infancy. Commercial operations of
unmanned aircraft are creating economic opportunities and facilitating
safer operating environments by substituting unmanned aircraft for
manned operations. The evolution of this nascent industry has spawned
educational programs from elementary school through college, which in
turn could produce a new generation of model aircraft enthusiasts and
recreational operators.
Comments: Many commenters suggested that designers and producers of
remote identification UAS are likely to pass on the costs of additional
parts, equipment, and software necessary to meet the proposed standard
to consumers in the form of higher prices for aircraft. One commenter
stated the cost of implementing the proposed nationwide infrastructure,
broadcasting and monitoring system of UAS will be paid by consumers
including UAS manufacturers' new costs that would be passed on to UAS
buyers. Commenters suggested that the additional cost of UAS production
and operation would also result in fewer designers and producers of
remote identification UAS and near elimination of the hobby market. One
commenter expressed concern that the remote identification requirements
would limit competition and innovation in UAS technologies leading to
adverse impacts on employment and the United States economy.
FAA Response: The FAA agrees that designers and producers of remote
identification unmanned aircraft will likely pass the costs of
producing standard remote identification unmanned aircraft to
consumers, though the elimination of the network requirement at this
time should reduce consumer costs. As well, the infrastructure required
to receive broadcast messages would be borne by the entity requiring
access to the information, and not the consumer. In addition, in its
preliminary regulatory impact analysis, FAA acknowledged uncertainties
regarding direct or indirect effects of the rule on the small toy
unmanned aircraft market. Producers of toy unmanned aircraft where the
unmanned aircraft currently weigh more than 0.55 pounds would need to
make a business decision weighing the costs and practicality of
producing small toy unmanned aircraft with remote identification using
an FAA-accepted means of compliance. As a result, the market for small
toy unmanned aircraft where the unmanned aircraft weighs more than 0.55
pounds may be negatively affected by the rule, while the market for
unmanned aircraft weighing 0.55 pounds or less may be positively
affected. Nonetheless, the UAS industry is evolving rapidly as
demonstrated by the success of beyond visual line of sight operations
and small-cargo delivery operations occurring on a limited basis in the
airspace of the United States, and therefore, the FAA does not believe
this rule would limit innovation in the technologies supporting
integration of UAS into the airspace of the United States.
Comments: Many commenters expressed concern with the option of
flying within designated fields (FAA-recognized identification areas)
because of their inconvenient locations, scarcity, and the membership
costs required for usage. Commenters indicated the impracticality of
using designated flying fields compared with using one's own
residential property. Other comments stated that limiting first-person-
view (FPV) UAS to a few FAA-recognized identification areas will harm
the FPV UAS market because hobbyists will not have access to a wide
variety of interesting places. Similarly, amateur photographers with
substantial investments in equipment (e.g., $5,000) will only be able
to fly at an FAA-recognized identification area near home. Commenters
expressed concern that the rule will devalue current equipment and end
the recreational UAS photography hobby.
FAA Response: The FAA concedes that the proposed rule imposed
opportunity costs and out-of-pocket costs for individuals that would
only be able to comply with the proposed rule by travelling to an FAA-
recognized identification area. This rule allows operators to equip
their unmanned aircraft with remote identification broadcast modules,
which would enable affected individuals to operate at locations other
than FAA-recognized identification areas so long as a remote
identification broadcast module is securely installed into their
aircraft. The FAA acknowledges that these individuals will incur a cost
for purchase of the broadcast module, and anticipates that owners of
UAS without remote identification would prefer to incur this cost in
exchange for the freedom to fly at locations other than FAA-recognized
identification areas.
Comments: Commenters stated the FAA underestimated the time and
resource cost burden for the CBOs to complete FAA-recognized
identification area requests. A commenter asserted that the burden
threatens the viability of CBOs.
FAA Response: The FAA agrees that it could have underestimated the
time and resource cost burden for CBOs to complete FAA-recognized
identification area requests. However, to revise the estimates, the FAA
requires a cost for the time and resource burden, with documentation
supporting the estimate. The FAA expects that submitting an FAA-
recognized identification area requests could become automated at some
point, alleviating some of the burden on CBOs to complete the FAA-
recognized identification area request.
Comments: Commenters suggested that the proposed rule would
implicitly force operators to purchase additional equipment, such as
transmitters or transponders, which could cost about $100 to $500.
FAA Response: The FAA agrees that operators with a desire to
operate beyond the boundaries of an FAA-recognized identification area
will be required to purchase broadcast equipment of some kind (i.e.,
standard remote identification unmanned aircraft or a remote
identification broadcast module). The FAA expects that the incremental
cost to a consumer will range between $20 and $50 per unit. The FAA
determined remote identification facilitates compliance with this rule
and meets the safety and security needs of the FAA, national security
agencies, and law enforcement.
Commenters: Multiple commenters suggested that many recreational
operators may ultimately decide not to comply with the rule because of
the perception that the cost of compliance is overly burdensome.
Commenters suggested that a high level of non-compliance would have an
overall negative effect on safety.
FAA Response: The FAA has greatly reduced the burden for
recreational operators to comply with this rule. The two most impactful
changes for recreational operators are: (1) The
[[Page 4482]]
network connectivity requirement has been removed at this time, and (2)
the proposed requirement to register each aircraft individually is not
adopted. The FAA does not agree that there will be a high-level of non-
compliance by recreational operators. The FAA is continually engaging
the recreational community regarding safely operating in the airspace
of the United States, and asserts that this community is, by and large,
aware that FAA regulations lead to a safer, more secure operating
environment for all (users and non-users alike).\36\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\36\ https://www.faa.gov/uas/resources/community_engagement/.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Comments: Many commenters expressed concern with the potential
obsolescence of existing aircraft equipment and their financial impact.
DJI noted that no manufacturer would be willing to certify that
retrofits comply with remote identification requirements because
previously sold models are no longer in their control. The manufacturer
certification requirement therefore reduces the retrofit rate to zero.
Commenters provided examples of equipment that may become obsolete,
including UAS camera platforms with retail value of $3,000 and UASs
with values of $10,000 or more. Another commenter noted that many
hobbyists own dozens of UAS, some of which are nearly 50 years old,
some of which are unique and difficult or impossible to replace, and
some of which cost over $15,000. Commenters asserted a wide variation
in retail values of existing UAS and accessories, including
transmitters and ground control stations. Investments in equipment and
licenses range from hundreds to hundreds of thousands or even millions
of dollars. One commenter provided an estimate of $880 as the average
UAS priced based on a survey of members of the First Person View
Freedom Coalition. In addition to obsolescence of equipment, another
commenter stated there would be obsolescence in terms of training based
on existing equipment for some UAS operators.
FAA Response: First, the FAA appreciates the estimate of $880 as
the average UAS price based on a survey of First Person View Freedom
Coalition members. Second, this rule will allow pilots to attach a
remote identification broadcast module to unmanned aircraft that will
make the aircraft remote identification compliant. The FAA acknowledges
that the relief provided in this rule will still be considered a burden
by some operators. Nonetheless, the rule will create a safe and secure
airspace and is a stepping stone toward integration of increasingly
complex UAS operations.
Comments: Commenters expressed concerns with the costs associated
with a Remote ID USS, suggesting that the FAA underestimated
subscription costs in the regulatory evaluation. The commenters also
suggest that businesses would not be able to incur the cost of a data
plan, which would adversely affect their ability to continue
operations. Some estimates ranged from $25 to $100 per month for
subscription fees. Multiple commenters expressed concern with the
purchase of cellular service or a data plan for the purposes of
transmitting remote identification information from their UAS.
Commenters were also concerned about the cost to switch to data plans
with better coverage for those with cellular service plans.
FAA Response: The FAA acknowledges the complexity of creating
Remote ID USS and requiring network connectivity by operators to a
Remote ID USS. The requirement that the remote identification UAS
connect to the internet and transmit remote identification message
elements through the internet to a Remote ID USS is not adopted at this
time.
Comments: A commenter stated the FAA incorrectly assumes that there
may be no price charged for USS subscriptions and therefore no societal
cost. The commenter stated that no matter what pricing strategy a USS
provider selects, it must recover the real resource cost of designing,
building and maintaining the system.
FAA Response: The FAA recognizes that if Remote ID USS were to
exist, they would do so with intent to recover the cost of designing,
building, and maintaining the system. However, the FAA acknowledges the
complexity of designing a Remote ID USS and did not adopt the proposed
network connectivity requirement at this time.
Comments: Many commenters stated the costs of the proposed rule
include additional unmanned aircraft registration fees as well as
subscription fees for remote identification service providers. These
fees would increase barriers to entry and reduce the accessibility of
UAS to lower income individuals while shifting the market to larger
corporations that can sell the remote identification hardware and
software. Droneport Texas noted that the costs of Remote ID USS
subscriptions were not included in the FAA-recognized identification
area analysis but is required for remote identification UAS operating
in an FAA-recognized identification area as proposed. The International
Association of Fire Fighters and the Coconino County Sheriff's Office
noted the increased cost for emergency response organizations to comply
with the proposed rule. One commenter suggested Remote ID USS
subscriptions should be provided free if it is required for emergency
service operators.
FAA Response: The FAA agrees that registration and subscription
fees could reduce the accessibility of unmanned aircraft to lower
income individuals and notes that the proposed requirement that
recreational operators register each aircraft individually is not
adopted. In addition, the proposed network connectivity requirement is
not adopted at this time, and thus subscription fees are eliminated.
Instead, this rule requires that small unmanned aircraft operating
beyond the boundaries of an FAA-recognized identification area do so
with either standard remote identification or with a remote
identification broadcast module.
Comments: One commenter stated the FAA should not have included the
cost of obsolescence for UAS purchased in the first year of the rule
implementation. The commenter also asserted that the FAA incorrectly
applied an 80 percent retrofit rate in the calculation of obsolescence
cost, inconsistent with the stated assumption of a 20 percent retrofit
rate.
FAA Response: The FAA appreciates the commenter's observations
regarding the cost of obsolescence. FAA has carefully reviewed the
obsolescence section of the regulatory impact analysis and provides
clarity to the commenter. On page 75 of the analysis, it is stated that
20 percent of the recreational fleet purchased during year 1 could be
retrofit. Based on the assumption that 20 percent of the recreational
fleet purchased during year 1 could be retrofit, the FAA determined
that the remaining 80 percent of the fleet could become obsolete prior
to the end of its lifespan.
To estimate the size of the fleet that would become obsolete, the
FAA spread the estimated sales of recreational aircraft that could not
be retrofit equally over a 12-month period during year 1. Based on the
assumption that a small unmanned aircraft has a 3-year lifespan (36
months), those unmanned aircraft purchased during the earlier part of
year 1 would have less loss of use compared to those aircraft purchased
near the end of year 1. For calculating obsolescence, sales of unmanned
aircraft were presumed to occur on the first day of the month.
Therefore, units sold in January of year 1 of the analysis period are
fully depreciated by December of year 3, and thus there is no loss of
useful life; units
[[Page 4483]]
sold in February of year 1 lose one month of useful life (which is
January of year 4); units sold in March of year 1 lose two months of
useful life (which are January-February of year 4); units sold in April
of year 1 lose three months of useful life (which are January-March of
year 4); etc. This calculation is shown on Appendix G of the regulatory
impact analysis.
Comments: Commenters stated that many areas in which UAS operations
take place, such as for aerial photography, inspections, or survey
mapping, tend to be rural locations or coastlines where internet
connection and cellular service does not exist. The requirement to
transmit via internet would therefore create geographic limitations for
many businesses. It would prevent operators from providing services in
those areas without cellular service.
FAA Response: The FAA recognizes the complexities and nuances of a
remote identification rule that requires network connectivity,
including the geographic limitations it creates for many businesses.
The proposed requirement to transmit via internet is not part of this
rule at this time. Instead, this rule requires that small unmanned
aircraft operating beyond the boundaries of an FAA-recognized
identification area do so with either standard remote identification or
with a remote identification broadcast module.
Comments: Commenters provided alternative estimates of the number
of Academy of Model Aeronautics members ranging from 180,000 to 195,000
with 9 to 10 as the average number of aircraft owned by AMA members.
Based on these estimates of membership and aircraft ownership,
commenters develop an estimated cost of $8.1 million to $9.75 million
associated with registration. Multiple commenters expressed concern
with the burden associated with the registration process and fee for
each owned aircraft. Many commenters opposed having to register each
aircraft.
FAA Response: The FAA appreciates information provided by AMA
regarding the number of its members and the average number of aircraft
owned by each member. The proposal to require recreational operators
register each aircraft individually is not adopted. By maintaining the
current framework, the intent of the statutory requirement for aircraft
registration is achieved without being overly burdensome, particularly
considering the mitigation of cost for those individuals specifically
flying multiple aircraft exclusively in compliance with section 44809.
The FAA therefore will retain the current part 48 registration
framework. Corresponding updates are applied to part 48 to reflect the
inclusion of the current statutory requirement for limited recreational
operations and to incorporate information relevant to remote
identification. Owners registering as exclusively compliant with
section 44809 will be required to submit the aircraft manufacturer and
model name.
Comments: A commenter stated requiring one control station for each
aircraft would increase costs substantially. Another commenter stated
the cost of replacing a commercial fleet due to the lack of serial
numbers would be cost-prohibitive for many small businesses.
FAA Response: The FAA notes that the serial number requirement in
Sec. 89.505 applies to standard remote identification unmanned
aircraft and remote identification broadcast modules produced after the
effective date of this rule. This rule does not require designers and
producers of remote identification unmanned aircraft to assign a serial
number to any unmanned aircraft produced prior to the compliance date
of the design and production requirements. The requirements also do not
make the existing unmanned aircraft fleet obsolete because operators
can continue to operate existing unmanned aircraft subject to the
operating rules in subpart B of this rule.\37\ This rule does not
require any person to assign an ANSI/CTA-2063-A compliant serial number
to any existing unmanned aircraft produced prior to the compliance date
of the design and production requirements. In addition, the rule
neither requires serial numbers to be assigned to control stations nor
prevents operators from swapping out control stations. The serial
number requirements are specific to the unmanned aircraft, not to the
entire UAS.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\37\ Producers may choose to assign an ANSI/CTA-2063-A compliant
serial number to an unmanned aircraft produced prior to the
compliance date of the design and production requirements of this
rule (e.g., through a software upgrade). The assignment of the
serial number--by itself--does not make the unmanned aircraft a
standard remote identification unmanned aircraft or a compliant
unmanned aircraft that is properly equipped with a remote
identification broadcast module. Persons who wish to ``upgrade'' an
unmanned aircraft produced prior to the compliance date of this rule
to make it a standard remote identification unmanned aircraft or an
unmanned aircraft equipped with a remote identification broadcast
module may do so by meeting all design and production requirements
in subpart F. Subpart F contains the design and production
requirements for a standard remote identification unmanned aircraft
and a remote identification broadcast module.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Comments: Many commenters suggested that UAS on the market last
more than the three years that FAA assumed in its regulatory impact
analysis. Some commenters estimated the lifespan to be 10 years with an
average cost per UAS for recreational operators to be $600-$700.
FAA Response: The FAA appreciates commenters' estimates for the
average lifespan of an unmanned aircraft and the average cost for
unmanned aircraft used for recreational operators. At this time, the
FAA continues to assume an average lifespan of unmanned aircraft to be
three years, which is the assumption used by the FAA in its published
2020 UAS fleet forecasts.\38\ The FAA welcomes estimates of UAS
lifespan and UAS costs when informed by supporting documentation, and
would consider use of such estimates in its regulatory impact analyses.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\38\ https://www.faa.gov/data_research/aviation/aerospace_forecasts/media/FY2020-40_FAA_Aerospace_Forecast.pdf.
Pages 41-63.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Comments: One commenter questioned whether the proposed rule would
meet the threshold under the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act.
FAA Response: The FAA recognizes that the Unfunded Mandates Reform
Act (UMRA) was enacted to avoid imposing unfunded Federal mandates on
State, local, and tribal governments (SLTG), or the private sector.
Most of UMRAs provisions apply to proposed and final rules for which a
general notice of proposed rulemaking was published and that include a
Federal mandate that may result in the expenditure of funds by SLTG, in
the aggregate, or by the private sector of $100 million or more in any
year. The FAA notes that the threshold of $100 million (in 1995
dollars) or more in any 1 year was not exceeded in either the proposed
rule or the final rule.
Comments: A commenter stated the proposed rule did not address the
costs of equipping 18,000 police departments with technology required
to access remote identification data and the required training of
750,000 officers to use the technology. The commenter asserted that
these costs should be included in the cost analysis for the final rule
and suggested that the FAA should conduct a survey of law enforcement
departments to determine if they are equipped with remote
identification technology, and what the cost and funding needs would be
if they need to obtain the technology. Further, the commenter suggested
that the FAA delay the implementation of the final rule until funding
and implementation
[[Page 4484]]
plans for law enforcement groups are available.
FAA Response: The FAA recognizes that equipping 18,000 police
departments with technology to access remote identification data, and
then training 750,000 officers to use the technology has costs. The
regulatory impact analysis for this rule identifies the qualitative
safety and security benefits of remote identification information used
to distinguish compliant operations from non-compliant operations. The
FAA does not place any requirements on local law enforcement; to the
contrary, the purpose is to make a resource available so that they can
use it in the discharge of their responsibilities. The FAA assumes that
security and law enforcement entities would incur costs relative to the
scope of their needs (e.g., scaled to national, regional and locality
needs, based on the level of UAS operations).
Comments: Some commenters expressed concerns that the rule would
adversely impact UAS manufactured in the United States, causing
manufacturing to move offshore as the Western products and products in
the United States become less competitive. One commenter gave examples
of certain companies that supply radio systems that have abandoned
their markets and cut back on their research and development because
foreign companies have copied their technologies and undercut their
manufacturing costs.
FAA Response: The FAA acknowledges that at the time of this
rulemaking, foreign companies produce a majority of the unmanned
aircraft already being operated in the United States. Accordingly, the
FAA does not expect this rule to negatively impact United States
designers and producers of remote identification unmanned aircraft at a
greater rate than their foreign counterparts.
Comments: A commenter asserted the FAA incorrectly neglects the
value of lost UAS sales due to the cost of the rule. The commenter
stated the FAA implicitly and incorrectly assumes that the UAS
elasticity of demand is zero and that designers and producers of remote
identification UAS will pass all costs to consumers, but that the
quantity demanded will be unaffected. The commenter argued that the
other possible assumption is that the manufacturer will absorb all
costs, but the market is competitive so this will not happen. The
commenter provided an estimate based on a survey that the demand for
new UAS would decline by 10.6 percent due to the increase in cost. The
commenter further asserted that demand may decrease because of the loss
of privacy from the requirement to disclose location and flight data to
the government and the public.
FAA Response: The FAA appreciates these comments, and recognizes
that the final rule could change consumer behavior and result in
reduced demand for unmanned aircraft. However, for purposes of the
regulatory impact analysis, three scenarios were considered--a base
scenario (which is the preliminary estimate), a low case scenario, and
a high case scenario. The low case scenario is reflective of a reduced
demand for unmanned aircraft.
B. Comments on Benefits and Cost Savings
Comments: Commenters did not agree that the cost of conducting
investigations would decrease under the remote identification
requirement. Some commenters suggested remote identification will
increase the total cost of investigating UAS incidents. Commenters
argued that by increasing the amount of available data from remote
identification, there would be an increase in the number of incidents
requiring investigations. Commenters also argued that there would be an
increase in the cost of investigations due to potential non-compliance
among amateur flyers or hobbyists.
FAA Response: The FAA recognizes the commenters concerns and notes
that since Fiscal Year 2017, the number of UAS investigations conducted
by the FAA has declined.\39\ The FAA continually conducts community
outreach with the recreational and part 107 communities regarding safe
operation of UAS in the airspace of the United States. Similarly, part
107 remote pilots must pass recurrent knowledge testing every 24
calendar months on topics related to operating safely and complying
with regulations.\40\ The FAA believes that a vast majority of pilots
in each of the communities are compliant with regulations and operate
safely.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\39\ The FAA recorded 2,141 investigations in FY 2017; 2,002
investigations in FY 2018, 1,955 investigations in FY 2019; and it
is estimated that there will be approximately 1,460 investigations
in FY 2020.
\40\ The FAA notes the requirements for recurrent knowledge
testing were proposed to be removed and replaced with recurrent
knowledge training in the Operations of Small Unmanned Aircraft
Systems over People notice of proposed rulemaking. 84 FR 3856,
February 13, 2019.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
For purposes of the regulatory impact analysis the FAA presents a
range for estimating the FAA costs of UAS investigations using three
scenarios based on UAS fleet size. The regulatory impact analysis also
acknowledges security partners and law enforcement communities incur
costs investigating UAS incidents, and discusses them qualitatively in
the regulatory impact analysis for the final rule.
Comments: Commenters asserted that because of the safety record of
limited recreational aircraft and first-person view quadcopter
operators, there are no incremental safety or security benefits from
applying the remote identification requirements to recreational flyers.
The rule would not necessarily prevent malicious actors from building
their own unmanned aircraft without complying.
FAA Response: FAA agrees with commenters that the final rule for
the remote identification of unmanned aircraft would not prevent
malicious actors from building their own unmanned aircraft that do not
comply with the requirements of this rule. However, as discussed
earlier in this preamble, an unmanned aircraft flying in violation of
this rule would be a data point that law enforcement could use in
deciding what action to take in response to that aircraft. In addition,
broadcast remote identification does not rely on internet availability,
and is a secure method which is less susceptible to widespread failure
caused by malicious actors or systems outages. The FAA has determined
that a requirement for unmanned aircraft to broadcast remote
identification information will provide the FAA, law enforcement, the
general public, and other parts of the aviation community with real-
time information about unmanned aircraft operations in any area in
which broadcast signals can be received. The broadcast will permit
detection of unmanned aircraft and will permit law enforcement and the
general public who receive those broadcasted message elements to have
information about the aircraft location as well as information about
the control station or takeoff location.
Comments: Commenters asserted that the FAA should make the data on
UAS incidents available to the public to assess the level of safety
benefits.
FAA Response: The FAA values the commenters concern. At this time,
the FAA does not report on UAS investigations. The FAA does publish a
quarterly UAS sightings report, however the FAA acknowledges that
reported UAS sightings do not necessarily involve the violation of
regulations or unsafe conditions.\41\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\41\ https://www.faa.gov/uas/resources/public_records/uas_sightings_report/.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Comments: A commenter stated the FAA incorrectly includes benefits
of
[[Page 4485]]
extended operations though the proposed rule does not enable flight at
night, operations over people, or flights beyond visual line of sight.
The commenter asserted that it is incorrect to include the benefits
from future rules in the analysis. In addition, there is no evidence
that remote identification is necessary to expand UAS operations.
FAA Response: The FAA acknowledges that the reader of the
regulatory impact analysis may have the impression that the benefits of
extended operations were included in its estimates of the proposed
rule, however, they were not and it was not the FAA's intent to mislead
the reader. The FAA provided estimated cost savings due to a reduction
in waiver processing for operations over people and night operations in
Appendix C of its preliminary regulatory impact analysis (page 162),
however these cost savings were not used for the proposed rule's
estimated net costs.
C. Comments on Data and Assumptions
Comments: Many commenters argued the FAA substantially
underestimated the current UAS fleet size and UAS sales. Commenters did
not agree with the assumptions regarding the average number of aircraft
owned, suggesting that the FAA underestimated the number of affected
aircraft. The AMA stated their members own on average of at least nine
model aircraft and many AMA members own 100 to 200 aircraft.
Recreational flyers of model aircraft frequently buy, sell, and trade
aircraft. The requirement to register an aircraft every time ownership
changes is impractical and costly. Some recreational flyers replace
aircraft more frequently than the three-year lifespan assumed by the
FAA. Some hobbyists frequently exchange and recombine aircraft
components making it difficult to identify distinct aircraft. One
commenter provided an average estimate of 15 UAS owned, based on a
survey of members from the First-Person View Freedom Coalition. One
commenter suggested it will take 15 minutes to complete an aircraft
registration because of the additional complexity of the proposed
requirement.
FAA Response: The FAA values the response on the average number of
aircraft owned by recreational flyers. The FAA recognizes its fleet
forecast for recreational unmanned aircraft is most likely
underestimated, and is pursuing resources to assist with developing a
forecast that accurately reflects the number of aircraft in the fleet.
In the NPRM, the FAA explained that the lack of aircraft-specific data
for unmanned aircraft registered under part 48 could inhibit the FAA
and law enforcement agencies from correlating the remote identification
data with data stored in the FAA's Aircraft Registry. Thus, the Agency
proposed to revise part 48 to require the individual registration of
all small unmanned aircraft and the provision of additional aircraft-
specific data. The FAA proposed that owners of small unmanned aircraft
would have to complete the registration application by providing
aircraft specific information in addition to basic contact information.
After evaluating the comments and incorporating the new remote
identification broadcast module option for part 89 compliance, the FAA
determined it will maintain the current registration framework and will
no longer revise part 48 to require the individual registration of all
small unmanned aircraft. Owners intending to operate all their small
unmanned aircraft exclusively in compliance with 49 U.S.C. 44809 may
maintain one registration for all unmanned aircraft meeting that
description.\42\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\42\ The registration is based on the intended use of the
unmanned aircraft. An operator would violate FAA regulations if he
or she uses any of such aircraft for any purpose other than for
limited recreational operations under 49 U.S.C. 44809.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Comments: A commenter suggested the regulatory impact analysis
should include the cost of cell phones and data plans because not all
recreational flyers own cell phones. Commenters also expressed concern
that some flyers may incur costs of switching to data plans with better
coverage. A commenter stated the FAA overestimated the percentage of
UAS that are already connected to the internet, but did not provide an
alternative estimate. Many commenters did not agree with the FAA
assumption that most unmanned aircraft would only need a software
upgrade to comply. Compliance would require the addition of hardware
that would add weight and cost. In some cases, retrofitting aircraft to
connect to the internet is not technically feasible, especially for
small aircraft. The weight of additional equipment would adversely
impact the performance of UAS, especially in speed, safety, endurance
and races. A commenter stated that the regulatory evaluation omitted or
underestimated the cost of service to retrofit the aircraft for
connection to the internet. Commenters stated that the FAA's assumption
of monthly Remote ID USS subscription fee per aircraft based on LAANC
fees underestimates the actual cost. The commenter suggested that the
median monthly fee would be approximately $10 per month based on
internet pet and car location and tracking services. A commenter did
not agree with the FAA's assumption that all LAANC providers will
become Remote ID USS and stated the FAA did not provide data to support
its estimate of the number of USS providers. Another commenter asserted
that the FAA does not have sufficient resources to monitor the USS
network and enforce the proposed requirements.
FAA Response: The FAA appreciates that comments received on the
regulatory impact analysis for the rule. The NPRM proposed requiring
both standard remote identification and limited remote identification
UAS to transmit the remote identification message elements through an
internet connection to a Remote ID USS. After careful consideration of
public comments on the implementation challenges associated with this
requirement, the FAA decided to eliminate this requirement. Without the
requirement to transmit remote identification through the internet,
limited remote identification UAS is no longer a viable concept. In its
place, the FAA incorporates a modified regulatory framework under which
persons can retrofit an unmanned aircraft with a remote identification
broadcast module to satisfy the remote identification requirements of
this rule. While the FAA recognizes that there are potential benefits
associated with establishing a network of Remote ID USS, the FAA
believes that, for the time being and given the types of unmanned
aircraft operations that are currently allowed, the broadcast remote
identification solution fulfills agency and law enforcement needs to
maintain the safety and security of the airspace of the United States.
In addition, FAA acknowledges that the weight of additional
equipment to an unmanned aircraft adversely impacts its performance and
discusses this cost of the rule qualitatively in the regulatory impact
analysis for the final rule.
Comments: Some recreational flyers did not agree with the
assumption that all modelers belong to the AMA. Commenters also stated
the FAA incorrectly assumed that most AMA members operate exclusively
at flight sites and that only 10 percent of members will be displaced
due to denials of FAA-recognized identification area requests.
FAA Response: The FAA appreciates the comments on the composition
of the recreational flyer population. The FAA is aware that not all
recreational flyers belong to the AMA, and provides clarity on this
point in the regulatory impact
[[Page 4486]]
analysis of the final rule. The regulatory impact analysis for the
final rule acknowledges that AMA members do not operate exclusively at
flight sights. The regulatory impact analysis will reflect that all
recreational flyers belonging to a community-based organization will
choose to purchase a remote identification broadcast module to equip
their unmanned aircraft to be in compliance with the final rule when
operating outside of the boundaries of an FAA-recognized identification
area. Lastly, the FAA acknowledges comments which state that over 10
percent of AMA members would be displaced from flight sites due to
denials of FAA-recognized identification area requests. The FAA
acknowledges that the public may have access to information or data
that would enable the FAA to estimate costs with greater accuracy, and
encourages the public to provide such information with supporting
documentation.
Comments: Commenters stated that the FAA underestimated the average
lifespan of UAS, asserting that some aircraft have decades of useful
life rather than an average of three years. Commenters requested that
the data used to estimate the lifespan of UAS be available to the
public for review. A commenter provided an estimated average lifespan
of 6 years based on a survey of members in the First Person View
Freedom Coalition. Other commenters contended that the average lifespan
of recreational UAS is much lower than 3 years due to accidents.
FAA Response: The FAA values the information provided by commenters
touching on the lifespan assumption used for the regulatory impact
analysis. The 3-year lifespan is not an assumption created specifically
to analyze the costs and benefits of the remote identification
rulemaking. Rather, the lifespan is one element used to forecast the
unmanned aircraft fleet, which is available to the public in a document
titled FAA Aerospace Forecast 2020-2040.\43\ The FAA continues to seek
resources and information that inform unmanned aircraft lifespan
assumptions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\43\ https://www.faa.gov/data_research/aviation/aerospace_forecasts/media/FY2020-40_FAA_Aerospace_Forecast.pdf.
Pages 41-63.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
D. Comments on Regulatory Alternatives
Comments: Multiple commenters suggested alternatives to reduce the
burden on operators. One alternative would be to grandfather older UAS
or to allow for a grace period for compliance. Over time as the
existing unmanned aircraft fleet becomes obsolete, fewer unmanned
aircraft not equipped with remote identification capabilities would
make up the market. Some commenters also proposed additional time to
come into compliance. Others suggested a notification system that would
allow pilots to call-in to identify themselves before flying their
unmanned aircraft. Some commenters suggested requiring internet
transmission of remote identification for BVLOS operations only.
Several commenters supported the concept of remote identification, but
suggested establishing simpler alternatives to the rule, such as a
simple remote beacon that would have less performance impact on smaller
aircraft. Others preferred to use a simple application on the phone or
an FAA-approved application to register pre-flight model and location
to ``check-out'' airspace. Some commenters proposed a government buy-
back program to compensate for the loss of use for aircraft that cannot
comply through software upgrades or government subsidization. Many
commenters suggested the FAA should compensate or reimburse UAS owners
for aircraft rendered obsolete by the rule. One commenter suggested the
use of network publishing utilizing a network connection to transmit
remote identification as an alternative to broadcasting which would
require equipment upgrades. The commenter noted that the proposed
solution was recommended by the UAS Identification and Tracking
Aviation Rulemaking Committee in its final report. Commenters express
concern that the compliance deadline of 1 year is too soon. The
proposed compliance period would benefit designers and producers of
remote identification UAS by increasing sales at the expense of UAS
owners who have to purchase new equipment to comply.
FAA Response: The FAA values the abundance of commenter suggestions
for reducing the burden of the rulemaking on operators of unmanned
aircraft, and will not adopt the network requirement as proposed for
the time being. Instead, operators of unmanned aircraft can comply with
the final rule in one of three ways, which include: (1) Operating
standard remote identification unmanned aircraft, or (2) attaching a
remote identification broadcast module to an unmanned aircraft that is
not able to otherwise broadcast, or (3) operating unmanned aircraft
within the boundaries of an FAA-recognized identification area.
The FAA decided to incorporate this concept after reviewing public
comments and considering the significant concerns raised with respect
to the remote identification UAS framework. The FAA determined a remote
identification broadcast module facilitates compliance with this rule
and meets the safety and security needs of the FAA, national security
agencies, and law enforcement. The concept is broadcast based and does
not require a person to connect to the internet to identify remotely,
as the limited remote identification UAS proposal did. This shift
allows unmanned aircraft with remote identification broadcast modules
to operate in areas where the internet is unavailable. In addition, by
making this a broadcast solution, the FAA has determined that the 400-
foot range limitation included in the proposed requirements for limited
remote identification UAS is no longer warranted and has removed the
design constraint.
E. Miscellaneous Comments
Comments: Some commenters expressed concern that the existing 4G
and LTE cellular networks will be adversely affected by the potential
increase in usage due to UAS surveillance and monitoring.
FAA Response: The FAA acknowledges the concern that existing 4G and
LTE cellular networks would be adversely affected by the potential
increase in usage due to UAS surveillance and monitoring, and did not
adopt the proposed requirement for network connectivity at this time.
Comments: The Fourth Branch Project of the Mercatus Center at
George Mason University suggested that the FAA had not established how
much risk a UAS without remote identification poses to manned aircraft
when operating in Class G airspace and away from airports and
heliports, and noted that increased costs of network remote
identification as well as dependence on Remote ID USS and internet
connectivity is likely excessive considering that risk is likely very
low. Many other comments also noted that given the safety record of UAS
operators, the safety benefits would be minimal. Some also noted that
the FAA did not produce data to support the claim of safety benefits.
DJI also noted that some of the improvements in safety may have
occurred even without the remote identification rule.
FAA Response: The FAA acknowledges the comments related to risk,
and notes that this rule will play a critical role in threat
discrimination by law enforcement and national security entities,
similar to radar data for manned aircraft and license plates on road
vehicles. Law enforcement officials have made clear that it can be very
difficult to make a decision about the risk posed by a person
manipulating the
[[Page 4487]]
flight controls of the UAS with the limited information available from
visually observing an unmanned aircraft. Remote identification
information will enable better threat discrimination, an immediate and
appropriate law enforcement response, and an effective follow-on
investigation. This is because remote identification information can be
correlated with unmanned aircraft registry information to inform law
enforcement officers about the registered owner. This information,
along with the real-time location of the UAS operator, provide critical
input to a law enforcement officer's decision on whether intervention
is appropriate. In addition, a careless or clueless operator may be
introducing unnecessary risk into the airspace of the United States
without realizing it. Remote identification allows appropriate
authorities to identify the operator for follow up or education on how
to operate safely and in compliance with the FAA's rules.
XXI. Guidance Documents
The FAA is promulgating several guidance documents to supplement
the requirements in this rule. Copies of the guidance documents are
available in the docket for this rulemaking.
The FAA is establishing an advisory circular on the means of
compliance process for remote identification of unmanned aircraft
systems. This advisory circular provides guidance on the means of
compliance process described in part 89. This AC outlines the required
information for submitting a means of compliance.
The FAA is establishing an advisory circular on the declaration of
compliance process for remote identification of unmanned aircraft
systems. This advisory circular provides guidance on the declaration of
compliance process described in part 89. This AC outlines the required
information for submitting a declaration of compliance.
The FAA is revising AC 107-2, Small Unmanned Aircraft Systems, to
describe the requirements of remote identification. The advisory
circular also describes where the various small UAS are permitted to
operate.
The FAA is establishing a new advisory circular for FAA-recognized
identification areas. This advisory circular provides guidance to
persons requesting the establishment of an FAA-recognized
identification area under Sec. 89.210. This AC also provides guidance
for persons responsible for FAA-recognized identification areas, as
well as persons operating UAS at FAA-recognized identification areas
under Sec. 89.115(b).
XXII. Regulatory Notices and Analyses
Changes to Federal regulations must undergo several economic
analyses. First, Executive Order 12866 and Executive Order 13563 direct
that each Federal agency shall propose or adopt a regulation only upon
a reasoned determination that the benefits of the intended regulation
justify its costs. In addition, DOT rulemaking procedures in subpart B
of 49 CFR part 5 instruct DOT agencies that if the regulatory action is
expected to impose costs, then the rulemaking shall include either a
reasoned determination that the benefits outweigh the costs or, if the
particular rulemaking is mandated by statute or compelling safety need
notwithstanding a negative cost-benefit assessment, a detailed
discussion of the rationale supporting the specific regulatory action
proposed, and an explanation of why a less costly alternative is not an
option. Second, the Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 (Pub. L. 96-354)
requires agencies to analyze the economic impact of regulatory changes
on small entities. Third, the Trade Agreements Act of 1979 (Pub. L. 96-
39) prohibits agencies from setting standards that create unnecessary
obstacles to the foreign commerce of the United States. In developing
United States standards, this Trade Act requires agencies to consider
international standards and, where appropriate, that they be the basis
of United States standards. Fourth, the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of
1995 (Pub. L. 104-4) requires agencies to prepare a written assessment
of the costs, benefits, and other effects of proposed or final rules
that include a Federal mandate likely to result in the expenditure by
State, local, or tribal governments, in the aggregate, or by the
private sector, of $100 million or more annually (adjusted for
inflation with base year of 1995). The FAA has provided a detailed
Regulatory Impact Analysis in the docket of this rulemaking. This
portion of the preamble summarizes the FAA's analysis of the economic
impacts of this rule.
In conducting these analyses, the FAA has determined that this
rule: (1) Has benefits that justify its costs; (2) is a ``significant
regulatory action'' as defined in section 3(f) of Executive Order
12866; (3) is ``significant'' as defined in DOT's general rulemaking
procedures at 49 CFR 5.13(a)(1); (4) will have a significant economic
impact on a substantial number of small entities; (4) will not create
unnecessary obstacles to the foreign commerce of the United States; and
(5) will not impose an unfunded mandate on State, local, or tribal
governments, or on the private sector by exceeding the threshold
identified above.
A. Regulatory Evaluation
1. Key Assumptions and Data Sources
The analysis of the rule is based on findings from the Unmanned
Aircraft Systems Identification and Tracking Aviation Rulemaking
Committee (UAS-ID ARC), as well as data and information from the FAA
and industry stakeholders. The analysis for the regulatory evaluation
is based on the following assumptions and data sources.
The analysis uses 2020 constant dollars. Year 1 of the
period of analysis, which would correlate with the effective date of
the final rule, is used as the base year.
The FAA uses a 10-year time period of analysis to capture
the effects of the compliance period and recurring effects of the
rule.\44\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\44\ The FAA typically uses a 5-year time period for Regulatory
Impact Analysis of UAS rulemakings to align with historical and
current FAA UAS Forecasts (see https://www.faa.gov/data_research/aviation/aerospace_forecasts/media/Unmanned_Aircraft_Systems.pdf).
In addition, the FAA acknowledges uncertainty in estimating
incremental impacts of this proposed rule beyond 5 years due to
rapid changes in UAS technology and innovation.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The analysis includes the 18-month phase-in period from
the effective date of the rule for compliance by persons responsible
for the production of unmanned aircraft. At the end of 30 months from
the effective date, operators must fly either a standard remote
identification unmanned aircraft or an unmanned aircraft equipped with
a remote identification broadcast module, or operate within the
boundaries of an FAA-recognized identification area.
The FAA uses a three percent and seven percent discount
rate to quantify present value costs and cost savings as prescribed by
OMB in Circular A-4.\45\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\45\ OMB Circular A-4, Regulatory Analysis (2003), https://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/whitehouse.gov/files/omb/circulars/A4/a-4.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The analysis of costs and cost savings of this rule are
based on the fleet forecast for small unmanned aircraft as published in
the FAA Aerospace Forecast 2020-2040.\46\ The forecast includes base,
low, and high scenarios. The analysis provides a range of net impacts
from low to high based on these forecast scenarios. The FAA considers
[[Page 4488]]
the primary estimate of net impacts of the rule to be the base
scenario.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\46\ FAA Aerospace Forecast Fiscal Years 2020-2040 at 41-63,
available at http://www.faa.gov/data_research/aviation/aerospace_forecasts/media/FY2020-40_FAA_Aerospace_Forecast.pdf
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Based on the FAA part 48 unmanned aircraft registry, the
FAA estimates that 87.6 percent of small unmanned aircraft sold in the
United States are produced by foreign entities.
Each unmanned aircraft producer will incur an estimated
one-time cost of $85 for the purchase of a remote identification
standard from a consensus standards body.\47\ The serial number
standard is available at no cost.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\47\ https://www.astm.org/Standards/F3411.htm. Accessed August
4, 2020. The price for the Standard Specification for Remote ID and
Tracking is listed as $85.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The FAA estimates that potentially as many as 191 United
States and 351 foreign producers would submit a declaration of
compliance for 391 United States and 891 foreign models of unmanned
aircraft for FAA during year 2 of the analysis period.\48\ During each
of the remaining years of the analysis period, the FAA assumes an
additional nine new producers would submit a declaration of compliance
annually for one model of unmanned aircraft each, and nine new models
will be produced by preexisting producers, for a total of eighteen new
models of unmanned aircraft annually.\49\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\48\ Based on analysis of the Association for Unmanned Vehicle
Systems International (AUVSI) Unmanned Systems & Robotics Database.
\49\ Based on analysis of the Association for Unmanned Vehicle
Systems International (AUVSI) Unmanned Systems & Robotics Database.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The FAA assumes that five percent of the declarations of
compliance submitted by persons responsible for the production of
standard remote identification unmanned aircraft and remote
identification broadcast modules to the FAA would not be accepted. The
declaration of compliance would then be rewritten and resubmitted to
the FAA for acceptance, and the FAA would accept the resubmission.
Producers will maintain product support and notification
procedures to notify the public and the FAA of any defect or condition
that causes the unmanned aircraft or broadcast module to not to meet
the requirements of proposed part 89.
The FAA assigns the United States Department of
Transportation guidance on the hourly value of travel time savings for
personal purposes (for limited recreational flyers only). This value is
equal to $14.37 per hour and is applicable for the 10-year analysis
period.\50\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\50\ Time savings is estimated to be median hourly wage plus
benefits as described in the U.S. Department of Transportation
Revised Departmental Guidance on Valuation of Travel Time in
Economic Analysis (Sept. 27, 2016).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The FAA assumes that all Academy of Model Aeronautics
(AMA) flying sites, about 2,200 as of this writing,\51\ will submit
requests to establish FAA-recognized identification areas, and that 90
percent of the requests will be approved. The remaining 10 percent are
assumed to be in sensitive areas and therefore will not be approved to
become an FAA-recognized identification area. The FAA also assumes that
1,700 United States Army Junior ROTC clubs and 66 institutions
identified as awarding undergraduate degrees in aerospace engineering
will submit requests to establish FAA-recognized identification areas,
and that 90 percent of the requests will be approved as well.\52\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\51\ https://www.modelaircraft.org/club-finder. Accessed August
26, 2020. The FAA notes that a subset of AMA clubs has flying sites.
\52\ http://www.usarmyjrotc.com/general/program_overview.php.
Accessed August 26, 2020. https://ira.asee.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/07/2018-Engineering-by-Numbers-Engineering-Statistics-UPDATED-15-July-2019.pdf. P. 18. Accessed August 26, 2020.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The FAA estimates it will conduct approximately 1,500 to
1,600 investigations of UAS incidents annually for each year of the
analysis period and that each investigation will range between 0 and 40
hours.\53\ This is used to estimate cost savings from reduced hours for
FAA UAS investigations.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\53\ The FAA conducted 2,002 investigations in FY 2018; 1,995
investigations in FY 2019; and as of May 18, 2020, the FAA has
conducted 920 investigations.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The FAA determines the cost of a broadcast module to be
$50.\54\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\54\ The FAA received company proprietary information from
potential U.S. manufacturers of a broadcast module that may meet
remote identification requirements. One U.S. manufacturer estimated
a cost of $50 for a self-contained module with its own power and
GPS, with a decrease in cost as production volume increases. Another
U.S. manufacturer stated an estimate would not be available until
the rule's final requirements were published. Commercially available
modules that comply with French remote identification laws range
from 40 euros (equivalent to $47.48 US dollars on 9/14/2020), and
up.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The FAA notes the analysis of this rule reflects industry
conditions that predate the public health emergency concerning the
coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). While there is currently a lack of
data to forecast the timing of recovery from COVID-19 impacts relative
to implementation of the rule, the analysis provides information on the
types of impacts that may be experienced in the future as the economy
returns to baseline levels.
2. Benefits Summary
The FAA expects this rule will result in several important benefits
and enhancements to support safety and security in the airspace of the
United States. Remote identification provides information that helps
address existing challenges of the FAA, law enforcement entities, and
national security agencies responsible for the safety and security of
the airspace of the United States. As UAS operations increase, so does
the risk of unmanned aircraft being operated in close proximity to
manned aircraft or in airspace that is not open to the operations.
Remote identification provides a means to identify these aircraft and
locate the person that controls them (e.g., operators, pilots in
command). It allows law enforcement and national security agencies to
distinguish compliant airspace users from those potentially posing a
safety or security risk. It permits the FAA and law enforcement to
conduct oversight of persons operating UAS and to determine whether
compliance actions, enforcement, educational, training, or other types
of actions are needed to mitigate safety or security risks and foster
increased compliance with regulations. Remote identification data also
informs users of the airspace of the United States of the operations
that are being conducted at any given moment in a particular airspace.
The FAA expects this rule will result in important benefits and
enhancements to support the safe integration of expanded UAS operations
in the United States airspace. Remote identification provides greater
situational awareness of UAS operations to airport operators and other
aircraft in the vicinity of those operations. Manned aircraft,
especially those operating at low altitudes where UAS operations are
anticipated to be the most prevalent (such as helicopters and
agricultural aircraft), could carry the necessary equipment to display
the location of UAS operating nearby. In addition, towered airports
could use remote identification information for situational awareness,
especially for landing and takeoff operations.
3. Cost and Savings Summary
The costs of this rule include UAS owners including additional
information when completing the unmanned aircraft certificate of
registration; UAS operators flying compliant remote identification
unmanned aircraft or travelling to FAA-recognized identification areas
to operate without remote identification; the producers of standard
remote identification unmanned aircraft and the producers of broadcast
modules submitting a declaration of compliance to the FAA for
acceptance; entities submitting means of compliance to the FAA for
acceptance; entities submitting
[[Page 4489]]
requests to establish FAA-recognized identification areas; FAA
approving means of compliance, declarations of compliance, and requests
for designated flying fields, and developing information technology in
support of the rule. The cost savings of this rule include relief
provided to the FAA from avoided aviation safety inspector costs
resulting from a reduction in hours expended on UAS investigations.
The FAA bases the analysis of this rule on a fleet forecast for
small unmanned aircraft that includes base, low, and high scenarios.
Accordingly, this analysis provides a range of net impacts from low to
high based on these forecast scenarios. The FAA considers the base
scenario as the primary estimate of net impacts of this rule. For the
primary estimate, over a 10 year period of analysis this rule will
result in present value net costs of $227.1 million at a three percent
discount rate, with annualized net costs of $26.6 million. At a seven
percent discount rate, this rule will result in present value net costs
of $186.5 million, with annualized net costs of $26.6 million. The
following table summarizes the quantified costs and cost savings of
this rule for the three forecast scenarios.
Table 2--Net Costs of Final Rule ($Millions) *
[Base scenario--Primary estimate]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
10 Year present Annualized (at 10 Year present Annualized (at
Affected entity/category value (at 3%) 3%) value (at 7%) 7%)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
UAS Owners/Operators.......................... 181.3 21.2 144.9 20.6
UAS Producers (US and Foreign)................ 33.8 4.0 30.9 4.4
Developers of Remote Identification Means of 2.9 0.3 2.4 0.3
Compliance...................................
FAA-Recognized Identification Area Requests... 0.6 0.1 0.6 0.1
FAA Costs..................................... 12.1 1.4 10.6 1.5
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total Costs............................... 230.7 27.0 189.4 27.0
Cost Savings.............................. (3.6) (0.4) (2.9) (0.4)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Net Costs................................. 227.1 26.6 186.5 26.6
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
*Table notes: (i) Column totals may not sum due to rounding and parenthesis, ``( )'', around numbers to indicate
savings. (ii) The low and high forecast scenarios are not symmetric around the base--please see the forecast
report for more information. The FAA Aerospace Forecast Fiscal Years 2020-2040, available at https://www.faa.gov/data_research/aviation/aerospace_forecasts/media/FY2020-40_FAA_Aerospace_Forecast.pdf. The
forecast provides a base with high and low scenarios.
Table 3--Net Costs of Final Rule ($Millions) *
[Low scenario]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
10 Year present Annualized (at 10 Year present Annualized (at
Affected entity/category value (at 3%) 3%) value (at 7%) 7%)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
UAS Owners/Operators.......................... 167.7 19.7 134.1 19.1
UAS Producers (US and Foreign)................ 33.8 4.0 30.9 4.4
Developers of Remote Identification Means of 2.9 0.3 2.4 0.3
Compliance...................................
FAA-Recognized Identification Area Requests... 0.6 0.1 0.6 0.1
FAA Costs..................................... 12.1 1.4 10.6 1.5
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total Costs............................... 217.1 25.4 178.6 25.4
Cost Savings.............................. (3.5) (0.4) (2.8) (0.4)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Net Costs................................. 213.6 25.0 175.8 25.0
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Table notes: Column totals may not sum due to rounding and parenthesis, ``( )'', around numbers to indicate
savings.
Table 4--Net Costs of Final Rule ($Millions) *
[High scenario]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
10 Year present Annualized (at 10 Year present Annualized (at
Affected entity/category value (at 3%) 3%) value (at 7%) 7%)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
UAS Owners/Operators.......................... 200.8 23.5 160.4 22.8
UAS Producers (US and Foreign)................ 33.8 4.0 30.9 4.4
Developers of Remote Identification Means of 2.9 0.3 2.4 0.3
Compliance...................................
FAA-Recognized Identification Area Requests... 0.6 0.1 0.6 0.1
FAA Costs..................................... 12.1 1.4 10.6 1.5
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total Costs............................... 250.2 29.3 204.9 29.2
Cost Savings.............................. (3.7) (0.4) (3.0) (0.4)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Net Costs................................. 246.4 28.9 201.9 28.7
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
*Table notes: Column totals may not sum due to rounding and parenthesis, ``( )'', around numbers indicate
savings.
[[Page 4490]]
The following table presents an itemized list of the base scenario
or primary estimate of costs and cost savings from this rule.
Table 5--Remote Identification Costs and Cost Savings ($Millions)
[Base scenario--Primary estimate]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
10 Year present 10 Year present
Affected entity value (at 3%) value (at 7%)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
UAS Owners/Operators Recreational:
Registration Updates...................................................... 0.82 0.67
Travel Expense (Travel to FAA-recognized Identification Areas)............ 85.18 66.17
Broadcast Module.......................................................... 27.15 23.57
Standard Unmanned Aircraft................................................ 51.17 40.68
Part 107:
Registration.............................................................. 2.35 1.92
Broadcast Module.......................................................... 3.62 3.23
Standard Unmanned Aircraft................................................ 10.97 8.65
FAA-recognized Identification Area Requests:
Letters of Agreement Submission........................................... 0.64 0.56
UAS Manufacturers:
Declaration of Compliance................................................. 31.53 28.83
Industry Consensus Standard--Remote Identification........................ 0.05 0.05
Industry Consensus Standard--Serial Number*............................... 0.00 0.00
Labeling Requirement...................................................... 2.22 2.03
Developers of Remote Identification Means of Compliance:
Industry Consensus Standard............................................... 1.25 1.10
Developers of Means of Compliance (Others)................................ 1.65 1.30
FAA Costs:
Accept/Not Accept Means of Compliance..................................... 0.15 0.12
Accept/Not Accept Mfr Declaration of Compliance **........................ 0.00 0.00
Web Portal Update--Registration/Notification.............................. 0.73 0.70
Approve/Disapprove Designated FAA-recognized Identification Areas......... 6.46 5.65
Website for Receiving Declarations of Compliance.......................... 4.72 4.14
---------------------------------
Total Costs........................................................... 230.69 189.38
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Cost Savings: Reduced Hours for FAA UAS Investigations................ (3.58) (2.85)
Net Costs............................................................. 227.11 186.53
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Annualized Net Costs.................................................. 26.62 26.56
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
*Serial number standard is available at zero cost to manufacturers.
**Automated approval through FAA DroneZone portal at no additional costs.
Note: Column totals may not sum due to rounding.
The key cost drivers of the rule are the total costs for remote
identification equipage followed by travel expenses for a select group
of recreational flyers. Total costs for remote identification equipage
are about $93 million at a three percent discount rate and about $76
million at a seven percent discount rate. The annualized equipage cost
is about $11 million at both a three percent discount rate and a seven
percent discount rate. This impact represents 40.3 percent of the
rule's total costs. The cost for a select group of operators to travel
to an FAA-recognized identification area is 36.9 percent of the rule's
total costs.
The FAA expects this rule will also provide important unquantified
savings and efficiencies from reduced operational costs. The ability to
identify and locate UAS provides additional situational awareness to
manned and unmanned aircraft and critical information to law
enforcement and other government officials. This will become
increasingly important as the number of UAS operations in all classes
of airspace grow. The following table summarizes unquantified savings
from the final rule.
Table 6--Unquantified Savings
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Savings Summary
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Reduced obsolescence of Operators will be able to attach a remote
unmanned aircraft. identification broadcast module to their
unmanned aircraft that enables them to
identify remotely. Without this option,
operators would be allowed to only
operate within the boundaries of an FAA-
recognized identification area.
Refined threat assessment.... Remote identification provides near real-
time information to security agencies
and law enforcement organizations that
will enhance threat assessments.
Promotes safety.............. Availability of near real-time
information facilitated by remote
identification discourages unsafe flying
by operators of unmanned aircraft,
thereby promoting safety for other users
of the airspace of the United States and
for those on the ground.
Supports industry innovation. Supports future industry and technology
innovation by providing a performance-
based framework for the development of
current and future industry standards
and means of compliance.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 4491]]
4. Alternatives Considered
The FAA considered both higher and lower cost alternatives for the
final rule. The alternatives and the FAA's reasons for rejecting those
alternatives are discussed below.
i. Alternative Compliance Periods--Producers
The chosen compliance period to estimate producer costs is 18
months beyond the effective date of the final rule. The FAA proposed a
2-year compliance date in the NPRM, and considered it for the final
rule as well. The reduction in the producer compliance period by 6
months reflects that the final rule removes the network requirement
which alleviates technical complexities for producers of unmanned
aircraft. Though no FAA-accepted means of compliance is currently
available for producers to build to, there is an ASTM Standard
Specification for Remote ID and Tracking available. Accordingly, the
FAA believes it is practical for this industry consensus standard to be
modified and submitted for acceptance as a means of compliance 6 months
after the effective date of the final rule, allowing an additional year
for producers to design, build, and test unmanned aircraft that meet
the standard.
The final rule does not preclude earlier producer compliance, and
there potentially could be economic incentive to comply earlier.
ii. Alternative Operational Compliance Period
The FAA considered allowing 3 years beyond the effective date of
the final rule for owners and operators to comply with the remote
identification requirements of this rule. However, the FAA determined
that period of time was less preferable because it prolonged safety and
security risks to air traffic and airports by delaying the ability of
law enforcement personnel to identify unauthorized UAS operations. To
reduce the delay in implementing remote identification, the owner/
operator compliance period was reduced from 3 years after the effective
date of the final rule to 30 months after the effective date of the
final rule. For UAS purchased prior to the final rule or after the
final rule is published, a broadcast module could be purchased to
continue operating the unmanned aircraft for the entirety of its
lifespan. In addition, the adopted alternative is more likely to reduce
uncertainty of adverse impacts to producers with inventories of UAS
produced before the compliance date that would likely not meet the
remote identification provisions of the proposal.
iii. Requiring ADS-B Out
The FAA could have required transponders or ADS-B Out for unmanned
aircraft as a means to identify those aircraft remotely. The FAA is
prohibiting the use of transponders or ADS-B Out for remote
identification of unmanned aircraft operations, with limited
exceptions, for two primary reasons. First, the FAA expects that, due
to the volume of unmanned aircraft operations projected, the additional
radio frequency signals would saturate the available spectrum and
degrade the overall cooperative surveillance system. Second,
transponders and ADS-B Out do not provide any information about the
location of control stations or takeoff locations, as these systems
were designed for manned aircraft. For these reasons, the FAA has
determined that existing cooperative surveillance systems are incapable
of supporting unmanned aircraft remote identification. In addition,
there would be a higher cost to equip under this alternative compared
to the rule. The cost to equip unmanned aircraft with transponders and
ADS-B Out would be $3,999 per aircraft.
iv. UAS Service Suppliers
The final rule considered a network solution that would require
Remote ID USS to come forward to offer remote identification services
to individuals operating UAS in the airspace of the United States.
Throughout its integration of UAS into the airspace of the United
States, the FAA has taken a phased, incremental approach that fosters
industry innovation while meeting the safety and security concerns
presented by the operations. The FAA believes this should be the case
with remote identification of unmanned aircraft as well and has
carefully considered the intent of the remote identification of
unmanned aircraft.
Though the FAA continues to work toward full integration of UAS
into the airspace of the United States, the FAA believes that the most
appropriate step, at this time, is to establish a broadcast based
remote identification system that provides for immediate awareness of
unmanned aircraft in the widest variety of settings. The FAA is not
adopting the requirement to transmit message elements through the
internet to a Remote ID USS in this rule. The FAA believes broadcast
alone is sufficient for the time being, given the types of unmanned
aircraft operations that are currently allowed, to maintain the safety
and security of the airspace of the United States.
v. Require Network Connectivity and Broadcast Capability
The FAA considered requiring network connectivity through a USS and
a broadcast requirement for the final rule, but as adopted the rule
contains only a broadcast requirement at this time. The FAA recognized
concerns about an internet connectivity requirement including internet
availability or connectivity issues, and increased costs for UAS
upgrades, internet data plans, and Remote ID USS subscriptions. The FAA
acknowledges that the ability to connect to the internet is dependent
on a variety of factors including geographic coverage of cellular
internet networks, wide-scale network disruptions, or natural
disasters.
The FAA notes that many current UAS are capable of broadcast but
may have difficulty with the potential complexity and cost of
integrating network capabilities to meet the standard remote
identification requirements proposed in the NPRM. By shifting to the
broadcast-only requirement, the dependency on an internet connection as
the sole means of providing remote identification information is
removed and allows the unmanned aircraft to operate in areas where the
internet is unavailable. In addition, by incorporating a broadcast
requirement, the FAA has determined that the 400-foot range limitation
is no longer warranted and has removed this design constraint.
vi. Requiring Separate Certificate of Aircraft Registration for Each
Section 44809 Unmanned Aircraft
This rule retains the requirement for small unmanned aircraft
owners to pay a $5 registration fee and a $5 renewal fee, but this
final rule differs from the proposal which required a separate
registration for each individual aircraft. As a result of the FAA's
decision to maintain the current registration framework, owners of
aircraft operated exclusively in compliance with 49 U.S.C. 44809 must
only register once every 3 years for all aircraft meeting that
description. Therefore, those owners would pay the $5 fee one time
every 3 years, and not a $5 fee for each aircraft registered.
vii. Open FAA-Recognized Identification Areas to Entities Other Than
CBOs
The FAA considered allowing educational institutions and State and
[[Page 4492]]
local governments to request FAA-recognized identification areas. The
intent for allowing FAA-recognized identification areas is to minimize
the regulatory burden for operators of existing unmanned aircraft used
exclusively for educational purposes or by State and local government
that do not have remote identification equipment, while still meeting
the intent of the rule.
By identifying a defined location where operations of unmanned
aircraft without remote identification would be occurring, the FAA-
recognized identification area itself becomes the form of
identification. Though the FAA considers that FAA-recognized
identification areas may not be necessary for the majority of unmanned
aircraft operators under this rule with the addition of the remote
identification broadcast module option, the FAA recognizes an ongoing
need for some operators such as educational science, technology,
engineering, and math programs to have an option for flying their
unmanned aircraft without remote identification. To support science,
technology, engineering, and math programs and encourage participation
in aviation for educational purposes, this rule will expand eligibility
to educational institutions including institutions of primary and
secondary education, trade schools, colleges, and universities. As
adopted, community-based organizations will continue to be eligible to
apply.
The FAA is including educational institutions at all levels in
recognition of the critical role they play in providing pathways to
aviation careers, whether through science, technology, engineering, and
math curricula; the building and flight of unmanned aircraft; or other
educational activities. The FAA determines it is appropriate to allow
these educational institutions to request the establishment of FAA-
recognized identification areas for their educational purposes. The FAA
believes that extending the ability to request establishment of FAA-
recognized identification areas to educational institutions will
provide a greater number of convenient locations for those operations
and reduce costs associated with travel time to FAA-recognized
identification areas.
The FAA also considered expanding eligibility for FAA-recognized
identification areas to State and local governments. The FAA considers
that expanding eligibility to CBOs and educational institutions at all
levels is sufficient, and declines to expand eligibility to State and
local governments. With the addition of the remote identification
broadcast module option, the FAA considers there is now an available
option for unmanned aircraft operators to retrofit their unmanned
aircraft produced prior to the production compliance date. Expanding
eligibility to State and local governments could expand the scope of
FAA-recognized identification areas to an extent that would undermine
the effectiveness of remote identification.
B. Regulatory Flexibility Act
The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 (Pub. L. 96-354) (RFA)
establishes ``as a principle of regulatory issuance that agencies shall
endeavor, consistent with the objectives of the rule and of applicable
statutes, to fit regulatory and informational requirements to the scale
of the businesses, organizations, and governmental jurisdictions
subject to regulation. To achieve this principle, agencies are required
to solicit and consider flexible regulatory proposals and to explain
the rationale for their actions to assure that such proposals are given
serious consideration.'' The RFA covers a wide range of small entities,
including small businesses, not-for-profit organizations, and small
governmental jurisdictions.
Agencies must perform a review to determine whether a rule will
have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small
entities. If the Agency determines that it will, section 604 of the Act
requires agencies to prepare a Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis
describing the impact of final rules on small entities.
The FAA has determined this rule will have a significant economic
impact on a substantial number of small entities. Therefore, under the
requirements in section 604 of the RFA, the Final Regulatory
Flexibility Analysis must address:
A statement of the need for, and objectives of, the rule;
A statement of the significant issues raised by the public
comments in response to the initial regulatory flexibility analysis, a
statement of the assessment of the Agency of such issues, and a
statement of any changes made in the proposed rule as a result of such
comments;
The response of the Agency to any comments filed by the
Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business Administration in
response to the proposed rule, and a detailed statement of any change
made to the proposed rule in the final rule as a result of the
comments;
A description of and an estimate of the number of small
entities to which the rule will apply or an explanation of why no such
estimate is available;
A description of the projected reporting, recordkeeping,
and other compliance requirements of the rule, including an estimate of
the classes of small entities that will be subject to the requirement
and the type of professional skills necessary for preparation of the
report or record; and
A description of the steps the Agency has taken to
minimize the significant economic impact on small entities consistent
with the stated objectives of applicable statutes, including a
statement of the factual, policy, and legal reasons for selecting the
alternative adopted in the final rule and why each one of the other
significant alternatives to the rule considered by the Agency which
affect the impact on small entities was rejected.
1. A Statement of the Need for, and Objectives of, the Rule
The remote identification of unmanned aircraft is necessary to
ensure public safety and the safety and efficiency of the airspace of
the United States. The remote identification framework provides
unmanned aircraft-specific data, which could be used in tandem with new
technologies and infrastructure to facilitate advanced operational
capabilities (such as detect-and-avoid and aircraft-to-aircraft
communications that support beyond visual line of sight operations).
Remote identification of unmanned aircraft will allow the FAA, national
security agencies, and law enforcement entities, to discern compliant
airspace users from those potentially posing a safety or security risk.
Current rules for registration and marking of unmanned aircraft
facilitate the identification of the owners of unmanned aircraft, but
normally only upon physical examination of the aircraft. Existing
electronic surveillance technologies, like transponders and ADS-B, were
considered as potential solutions for the remote identification of
unmanned aircraft but were determined to be unsuitable due to the lack
of infrastructure for these technologies at lower altitudes and
potential saturation of available radio frequency spectrum. Currently,
the lack of real-time data regarding unmanned aircraft operations
affects the ability of the FAA to oversee the safety and security of
the airspace of the United States, creates challenges for national
security agencies and law enforcement entities in identifying threats,
and impedes the further integration of UAS into the airspace of the
United States. The FAA addresses
[[Page 4493]]
the identification issues associated with UAS by requiring the use of
systems and technology to enable the remote identification of unmanned
aircraft.
The final rule is consistent with the FAA's missions of promoting
safe flight of civil aircraft through regulations necessary for safety
in air commerce and national security and promoting the safe and
efficient use of the navigable airspace. The rule also strengthens the
FAA's oversight of UAS operations and supports efforts of law
enforcement to address and mitigate disruptive behavior and hazards,
which may threaten the safety and security of the airspace of the
United States, other UAS, manned aviation, and persons and property on
the ground. The near real-time access to remote identification
information will also assist Federal security partners in threat
discrimination--allowing them to identify an operator and make an
informed decision regarding the need to take actions to mitigate a
perceived security or safety risk. The final rule enhances the FAA's
ability to monitor compliance with applicable regulations; contributes
to the FAA's ability to undertake compliance, enforcement, and
educational actions required to mitigate safety risks; and
incrementally advances the safe and secure integration of UAS into the
airspace of the United States.
Statement of the legal basis. The FAA promulgates this rulemaking
pursuant to various authorities. First, under 49 U.S.C. 40103(b)(1) and
(2), the FAA is directed to issue regulations: (1) To ensure the safety
of aircraft and the efficient use of airspace; and (2) to govern the
flight of aircraft for purposes of navigating, protecting and
identifying aircraft, and protecting individuals and property on the
ground.
Second, under 49 U.S.C. 44701(a)(5), the FAA must promote safe
flight of civil aircraft by prescribing regulations the FAA finds
necessary for safety in air commerce and national security.
Third, under section 2202 of Public Law 114-190, the Administrator
must convene industry stakeholders to facilitate the development of
consensus standards for remotely identifying operators and owners of
UAS and associated unmanned aircraft and to issue regulations or
guidance based on any standards developed.
Fourth, under 49 U.S.C. 44805, the Administrator must establish a
process for, among other things, accepting risk-based consensus safety
standards related to the design and production of small UAS.
Fifth, under 49 U.S.C. 44805(b)(7), the Administrator must take
into account any consensus identification standard regarding remote
identification of unmanned aircraft developed pursuant to section 2202
of Public Law 114-190.
Sixth, under 49 U.S.C. 44809(f), the Administrator is not
prohibited from promulgating rules generally applicable to unmanned
aircraft, including those unmanned aircraft eligible for the exception
for limited recreational operations of UAS. Among other things, this
authority extends to rules relating to the registration and marking of
unmanned aircraft and the standards for remotely identifying owners and
operators of UAS and associated unmanned aircraft.
Seventh, the FAA has authority to regulate registration of aircraft
under 49 U.S.C. 44101-44106 and 44110-44113, which require aircraft to
be registered as a condition of operation and establish registration
requirements and registration processes.
Lastly, 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.
40101(d), which authorizes the FAA to consider in the public interest,
among other things, the enhancement of safety and security as the
highest priorities in air commerce, the regulation of civil and
military operations in the interest of safety and efficiency, and
assistance to law enforcement agencies in the enforcement of laws
related to regulation of controlled substances, to the extent
consistent with aviation safety.
Objectives for the final rule. The FAA is integrating UAS
operations into the airspace of the United States through a phased,
incremental, and risk-based approach.\55\ On June 28, 2016, the FAA
achieved a major step towards UAS integration when it issued the final
rule for Operation and Certification of Small Unmanned Aircraft
Systems.\56\ This was one of multiple UAS-related regulatory actions
taken by the FAA to enable the safe integration of UAS into the
airspace of the United States. As technology progresses and the utility
of UAS increases, the FAA anticipates a need for further rulemaking to
continue to foster the safe, secure, and efficient use of the airspace
of the United States. The FAA believes that the next step in the
regulatory process involves the enactment of regulatory requirements to
enable the remote identification of UAS operating in the airspace of
the United States.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\55\ Consult http://www.faa.gov/uas for additional information
regarding UAS operations.
\56\ 81 FR 42064.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
This action would implement requirements for the remote
identification of UAS. The remote identification of UAS in the airspace
of the United States would address safety, security, and law
enforcement concerns regarding the further integration of these
aircraft into the airspace.
2. A Statement of the Significant Issues Raised by the Public Comments
in Response to the Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis, a Statement
of the Assessment of the Agency of Such Issues, and a Statement of Any
Changes Made in the Proposed Rule as a Result of Such Comments
FAA is not aware of any comments specific to the regulatory
flexibility analysis; however, many commenters stated that small
businesses would be adversely affected. Commenters that stated that
compliance with the remote identification requirements as proposed
would be too costly for many recreational operators and businesses,
many of which are small. The commenters suggested that many
recreational operators and owners, especially those involved in flying
and building remote controlled aircraft, would cease pursuing the hobby
or business, because of the cost to either upgrade or replace existing
aircraft to meet the proposed standard and the cost to subscribe to
internet service. Commenters suggested that there does not exist an
off-the-shelf solution, such as software upgrades, to retrofit most
recreational aircraft.
The FAA has attempted to alleviate complexity and costs of
compliance for all operators of unmanned aircraft by removing the
network requirement from the final rule and allowing remote
identification using a stand-alone broadcast module at this time. The
concept allows unmanned aircraft built without remote identification
(e.g., existing unmanned aircraft fleet, home-built unmanned aircraft)
to be operated outside of FAA-recognized identification areas because
the broadcast modules enable the unmanned aircraft to broadcast the
remote identification message elements required by this rule.
The FAA decided to incorporate this new concept into this rule
after reviewing public comments and considering the significant
concerns raised with respect to the remote identification UAS
framework. The FAA determined a remote identification broadcast module
facilitates compliance with this rule and meets the safety and security
needs under this rule of the
[[Page 4494]]
FAA, national security agencies, and law enforcement. The concept is
broadcast-based and does not require a person to connect to the
internet to identify remotely, as the limited remote identification UAS
proposal did. This shift allows unmanned aircraft equipped with remote
identification broadcast modules to operate in areas where the internet
is unavailable. In addition, by making this a broadcast solution, the
FAA has determined that the 400-foot range limitation included in the
proposed requirements for limited remote identification UAS is no
longer warranted and has removed the design constraint.
3. The Response of the Agency to Any Comments Filed by the Chief
Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business Administration in Response
to the Proposed Rule, and a Detailed Statement of Any Change Made to
the Proposed Rule in the Final Rule as a Result of the Comments
The Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business did not submit
comments to the proposed rule.
4. A Description of and an Estimate of the Number of Small Entities to
Which the Rule Will Apply or an Explanation of Why No Such Estimate is
Available
The rule could apply to three communities of small entities:
Producers of unmanned aircraft, entities that either own or operate
UAS, and community-based organizations.
For purposes of this rulemaking, the FAA estimates that there are
approximately 188 United States entities that produce small unmanned
aircraft.\57\ Out of these 188 United States entities, data on entity
size, as defined by number of employees, was available for 157 of the
entities. Out of these 157, 132 are categorized as small, 11 are
categorized as medium, and 12 are categorized as large.\58\ Data for
the remaining entities was not available and thus the categorization by
entity size could not be determined, however a majority of these
entities are believed to be small. NAICS code 336411 is titled
``Miscellaneous Aircraft Manufacturing,'' and includes the manufacture
of unmanned and robotic aircraft. The SBA defines industries within
this code to be small if they employ 1,500 employees or less.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\57\ AUVSI Air Platform Database. Accessed July 2020.
\58\ This is based on AUVSI criteria for number of employees.
The AUVSI criteria for a manufacturer of unmanned aircraft to be
identified as a small entity is 49 employees or fewer. The criteria
to be identified as a medium entity is 50-499 employees. Large
entities are determined to have 500 or more employees.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The next group of entities affected by the final rule are owners
and operators of UAS that conduct operations for purposes other than
recreational. While the FAA does not collect entity size information
when owners register unmanned aircraft, the Association for Unmanned
Vehicle Systems International (AUVSI) has performed an analysis of part
107 waivers issued and determined that 92 percent of the waivers were
issued to entities with fewer than 100 employees.\59\ Based on the
AUVSI analysis, the FAA determines that a majority of entities
operating unmanned aircraft for other than recreational purposes are
small.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\59\ (AUVSI) Association of Unmanned Vehicle Systems
International. As of April 2020, 4,144 waivers had been issued. For
those waivers that could be identified by entity size, 85.5 percent
were granted to entities with less than 10 employees), and 6.7
percent were granted to entities with 10 to 100 employees.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Model aircraft clubs \60\ currently operating flying sites are
affected by this rulemaking. To have an established flying site
approved as an FAA-recognized identification area, these organizations
would be required to submit a request to the FAA. Based on an AMA
(Academy of Model Aeronautics) membership of 180,000,\61\ it is
estimated that each flying club has, on average, 82 members.\62\ For
NAICS code 713990 ``All Other Amusement and Recreation Activities'' the
SBA standard for small entity size is less than $7.5 million in annual
receipts. Financial records for these individual community-based
organizations are not public information, but it is believed that none
have receipts totaling $7.5 million, and thus each is considered a
small entity.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\60\ Academy of Model Aeronautics (AMA), http://www.modelaircraft.org/aboutama/whatisama.aspx; more than 2,500 AMA
clubs.
\61\ http://amablog.modelaircraft.org/amagov/files/2020/02/AMA-Letter-to-Sec-Chao-on-Remote-ID-Hobbyist-Impact-2-12-20-.pdf.
\62\ Ibid. Based on 2020 AMA membership of 180,000 and
approximately 2,200 AMA fields, the average membership per field is
estimated to be 82 individuals.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The FAA determines that a majority of entities impacted by this
proposed rule are small. Therefore, the FAA determines this proposed
rule would have a significant economic impact on a substantial number
of small entities.
5. A Description of the Projected Reporting, Recordkeeping and Other
Compliance Requirements of the Rule, Including an Estimate of the
Classes of Small Entities That Will Be Subject to the Requirement and
the Type of Professional Skills Necessary for Preparation of the Report
or Record
This rule imposes recordkeeping requirements. The FAA proposed
changes to the registration requirements for all unmanned aircraft,
including small unmanned aircraft, in the NPRM. While the FAA is not
finalizing all of the registration changes proposed, this final rule
finalizes certain requirements for all persons registering unmanned
aircraft. As of the effective date of this final rule, an applicant
requesting registration of an unmanned aircraft is required to submit
the following information: The applicant's name, physical address,
email address, and telephone number(s); the aircraft manufacturer and
model name; the serial number of the standard remote identification
unmanned aircraft or the serial number of the remote identification
broadcast module; and other information as required by the
Administrator.
Next, the FAA requires persons who develop standards that the FAA
may accept as a means of compliance to submit those standards for
review and acceptance by the FAA. A person who submits a means of
compliance is required to retain the data for as long as the means of
compliance is accepted, plus an additional 24 calendar months.
The FAA is requiring persons who produce unmanned aircraft with
remote identification to meet the minimum performance requirements of
the rule using an FAA-accepted means of compliance. To demonstrate the
unmanned aircraft has been produced to meet the minimum performance
requirements using an FAA-accepted means of compliance, persons
responsible for the production of unmanned aircraft would be required
to submit to the FAA a declaration of compliance. A person who submits
a declaration of compliance is required to retain the data submitted
for 24 calendar months after the cessation of production of the
unmanned aircraft with remote identification.
The rule requires a producer to label the unmanned aircraft to show
that it was produced with remote identification technology capable of
meeting the rule. The labeling requirement would inform the operator
that the unmanned aircraft is eligible to conduct operations within the
airspace of the United States.
[[Page 4495]]
Standard remote identification unmanned aircraft and unmanned
aircraft equipped with a remote identification broadcast module must be
designed and produced to broadcast certain message elements using
unlicensed radio frequency spectrum. The disclosure of this information
in the form of message elements is necessary to comply with the
statutory requirement to develop standards for remotely identifying
operators and owners of UAS and associated unmanned aircraft. Remote
identification of unmanned aircraft would provide airspace awareness to
the FAA, national security agencies, law enforcement entities, and
other government officials which could be used to distinguish compliant
airspace users from those potentially posing a safety or security risk.
Authorized representatives of CBOs and educational institutions may
request the establishment of an FAA-recognized identification area by
submitting an application in a form and manner acceptable to the
Administrator. The application will collect certain information
regarding the location and requirements of the flying site, and require
the CBO representative to confirm certain information regarding the
site.
6. A Description of the Steps the Agency Has Taken To Minimize the
Significant Economic Impact on Small Entities Consistent With the
Stated Objectives of Applicable Statutes, Including a Statement of the
Factual, Policy, and Legal Reasons for Selecting the Alternative
Adopted in the Final Rule and Why Each One of the Other Significant
Alternatives to the Rule Considered by the Agency Which Affect the
Impact on Small Entities Was Rejected
The FAA considered both higher and lower cost alternatives as part
of the proposed rule because the RFA requires the Agency to consider
significant regulatory alternatives that meet the Agency's statutory
objectives and minimize the costs to small entities. The FAA rejected
the costlier alternatives due to policy considerations and the undue
burden imposed on small unmanned aircraft operators. The less costly
alternatives and the FAA's reasons for either rejecting those
alternatives, or adopting them for the final rule, are discussed below.
i. Alternative Compliance Periods--Producers
The chosen compliance period to estimate producer costs is 18
months beyond the effective date of the final rule. The FAA proposed a
2-year compliance date in the NPRM, and considered it for the final
rule as well. The reduction in the producer compliance period by 6
months reflects that the final rule removes the network requirement for
the time being, which alleviates technical complexities for producers
of unmanned aircraft. Though no FAA-accepted means of compliance is
currently available for producers to build to, there is an ASTM
Standard Specification for remote identification and tracking
available. Accordingly, the FAA believes it is practical for this
industry consensus standard to be modified and submitted for acceptance
as a means of compliance 6 months after the effective date of the final
rule, allowing an additional year for producers to design, build, and
test unmanned aircraft that meet the standard.
The FAA has not identified or analyzed an alternative based on the
final rule's requirements. The rule does not preclude earlier producer
compliance, and there potentially could be economic incentive to comply
earlier.
ii. Alternative Operational Compliance Periods
The FAA considered allowing 3 years beyond the effective date of
the final rule for owners and operators to comply with the remote
identification requirements of this rule. However, the FAA determined
that period of time was less preferable because it prolonged safety and
security risks to air traffic and airports by delaying the ability of
law enforcement personnel to identify unauthorized UAS operations. To
reduce the delay in implementing remote identification, the owner/
operator compliance period was reduced from 3 years after the effective
date of the final rule to 30 months after the effective date of the
final rule. For UAS purchased prior to the final rule or after the
final rule is published, a stand-alone broadcast module could be
purchased to continue operating the unmanned aircraft for its natural
lifespan. Permitting stand-alone broadcast modules is a simple and
minimally burdensome solution that lowers the cost for existing
manufactured and amateur-built unmanned aircraft to meet the remote
identification requirements via broadcast. In addition, this
alternative is likely to reduce uncertainty of adverse impacts to
producers with inventories of unmanned aircraft produced before the
compliance date that would likely not meet the remote identification
provisions of the proposal.
iii. Require Network Connectivity and Broadcast Capability
The FAA considered requiring network connectivity through a USS in
addition to the broadcast requirement that the final rule adopts.
However, the FAA recognized concerns about an internet connectivity
requirement including internet availability or connectivity issues;
increased costs for unmanned aircraft upgrades, internet data plans,
and Remote ID USS subscriptions; and reduced air and ground risk when
operating in remote areas with less air traffic and lower population
density. The FAA acknowledges that the ability to connect to the
internet is dependent on a variety of factors including geographic
coverage of cellular internet networks, wide-scale network disruptions,
or natural disasters.
There are some remote areas where an operator cannot connect to the
internet, such as locations where cellular or other internet signals
are not available or sufficient to establish and maintain a connection
to a Remote ID USS. While loss of the broadcast capability is an
indication of a remote identification equipment failure, loss of
connectivity to the internet or a Remote ID USS could be attributed to
a lack of internet availability that is outside the control of the UAS
operator. A functioning broadcast capability is necessary for remote
identification information to be available in areas that do not have
internet availability. Therefore, the proposed regulations have been
updated to reflect that the required remote identification message
elements must be broadcast from the unmanned aircraft, with no internet
connectivity or Remote ID USS transmission requirements.
The FAA notes that many current unmanned aircraft are capable of
broadcasting information but may have difficulty with the potential
complexity and cost of integrating network capabilities to meet
proposed standard remote identification requirements. By incorporating
the broadcast-only requirement, the dependency on an internet
connection as the sole means of providing remote identification
information is removed, and allows the unmanned aircraft to operate in
areas where the internet is unavailable. In addition, by incorporating
a broadcast requirement, the FAA has determined that the 400-foot range
limitation is no longer warranted and has removed this design
constraint. The previously proposed limited remote identification UAS
concept is being replaced with the remote identification broadcast
module to provide a simpler, cost-effective
[[Page 4496]]
method for existing and amateur-built unmanned aircraft to meet the
remote identification requirements.
iv. Requiring Separate Certificate of Aircraft Registration for Each
Section 44809 Unmanned Aircraft
This rule retains the requirement for small unmanned aircraft
owners to pay a $5 registration fee and a $5 renewal fee, though this
rule differs from the proposal in the NPRM to require a separate
registration for each individual aircraft. As a result of the FAA's
decision to maintain the current registration framework, owners of
aircraft operated exclusively in compliance with 49 U.S.C. 44809 must
only register once for all aircraft meeting that description.
Therefore, those owners would pay the $5 fee one time every 3 years,
and not a $5 fee for each aircraft registered.
v. Open FAA-Recognized Identification Areas to Entities Other Than CBOs
The FAA considered allowing educational institutions and State and
local governments to request FAA-recognized identification areas if it
would reduce regulatory burden while meeting the intent of the rule.
By identifying a defined location where operations of UAS without
remote identification would be occurring, the FAA-recognized
identification area itself becomes the form of identification. Though
the FAA considers that FAA-recognized identification areas may not be
necessary for the majority of unmanned aircraft operators under this
rule with the addition of the remote identification broadcast module
option, the FAA recognizes an ongoing need for some operators such as
educational science, technology, engineering, and math programs to have
an option for operating without remote identification. To support
science, technology, engineering, and math programs and encourage
participation in aviation for educational purposes, this rule will
expand eligibility to educational institutions including institutions
of primary and secondary education, trade schools, colleges, and
universities. As adopted, community-based organizations will continue
to be eligible to apply.
The FAA is including educational institutions at all levels in
recognition of the critical role they play in providing pathways to
aviation careers, whether through science, technology, engineering, and
math curricula; the building and flight of unmanned aircraft; or other
educational activities. The FAA determines it is appropriate to allow
these educational institutions to request the establishment of FAA-
recognized identification areas. The FAA believes that extending the
ability to request establishment of FAA-recognized identification areas
to educational institutions will provide more convenient locations for
those operations and reduce costs associated with travel time to FAA-
recognized identification areas.
The FAA also considered expanding eligibility for FAA-recognized
identification areas to State and local governments. The FAA considers
that expanding eligibility to CBOs and educational institutions at all
levels is sufficient, and declines to expand eligibility to State and
local governments. With the addition of the remote identification
broadcast module option, the FAA considers there is now an available
option for operators to retrofit their unmanned aircraft produced prior
to the production compliance date. Expanding eligibility to State and
local governments could expand the scope of FAA-recognized
identification areas to an extent that would undermine the
effectiveness of remote identification.
C. International Trade Impact Assessment
The Trade Agreements Act of 1979 (Pub. L. 96-39), as amended by the
Uruguay Round Agreements Act (Pub. L. 103-465), prohibits Federal
agencies from establishing standards or engaging in related activities
that create unnecessary obstacles to the foreign commerce of the United
States. Pursuant to these Acts, the establishment of standards is not
considered an unnecessary obstacle to the foreign commerce of the
United States, so long as the standard has a legitimate domestic
objective, such as the protection of safety, and does not operate in a
manner that excludes imports that meet this objective. The statute also
requires consideration of international standards and, where
appropriate, that they be the basis for United States standards.
The FAA has assessed the potential effect of this rule and
determined that it ensures the safety of the American public and does
not exclude imports that meet this objective. As a result, the FAA does
not consider this final rule as creating an unnecessary obstacle to
foreign commerce.
D. Unfunded Mandates Assessment
Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-
4) requires each Federal agency to prepare a written statement
assessing the effects of any Federal mandate in a proposed or final
agency rule that may result in an expenditure of $100 million or more
(in 1995 dollars) in any 1 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 about $155 million in lieu of $100
million. This final rule does not contain such a mandate; therefore,
the requirements of Title II of the Act do not apply.
E. Paperwork Reduction Act
The Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3507(d)) requires
that the FAA consider the impact of paperwork and other information
collection burdens imposed on the public. The FAA sought public
comments on all of the information collections being established or
revised in this rule. The FAA did not receive any comments specific to
the information collection-related aspects of the proposed rule. The
FAA is implementing these collections based on the requirements of this
rule as published in the NPRM.
Five new information collections are established as part of this
rule.
1. New Information Collection: 2120-0785: Additional Elements for Small
Unmanned Aircraft Registration System
This rule finalizes several changes to the registration
requirements for small unmanned aircraft registering under part 48.
Specifically, the FAA is establishing a new information collection to
add the following information to the list of information collected upon
registration or registration renewal of small unmanned aircraft under
information collection 2120-0765, Small Unmanned Aircraft Registration
System:
(1) Applicant's telephone number(s) and, for an applicant other
than an individual, the telephone number(s) of the authorized
representative.
(2) For any standard remote identification unmanned aircraft, the
serial number issued by the manufacturer of the unmanned aircraft in
accordance with the design and production requirements of part 89. The
serial number provided in this application must not be listed on more
than one Certificate of Aircraft Registration at the same time.
(3) For any unmanned aircraft equipped with a remote identification
broadcast module, the serial number issued by the manufacturer of the
remote identification broadcast module in accordance with the design
and production requirements of part 89. An applicant may submit the
serial number
[[Page 4497]]
of more than one remote identification broadcast module as part of the
application for aircraft registration under Sec. 48.105. The serial
number of a remote identification broadcast module provided in this
application must not be listed on more than one Certificate of Aircraft
Registration at the same time.
The FAA recognizes that persons who currently register their small
unmanned aircraft other than exclusively for limited recreational
operations are already required to provide the manufacturer, model, and
serial number, if available. Therefore, these persons will only need to
update their registration with one or more telephone numbers.
Persons who have registered their unmanned aircraft exclusively for
limited recreational operations will need to provide one or more
telephone numbers, and will need to list one or more unmanned aircraft
serial numbers or remote identification broadcast module serial numbers
if they wish to operate their unmanned aircraft outside FAA-recognized
identification areas.
Use: The FAA would use the telephone number, manufacturer, model,
and serial number of the unmanned aircraft or remote identification
broadcast module to assist with the remote identification of unmanned
aircraft systems. The serial number, which may be broadcast as the
unique identifier of an unmanned aircraft, would help to identify the
aircraft and associate the aircraft with its owner. The FAA would use
the telephone number of the owner to disseminate safety and security-
related information to the registrant as well as issues related to
compliance.
Table 7--Small Unmanned Aircraft Registration--Incremental Hourly Burden and Cost
[$Mil.]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total cost
Year Registrations Hourly burden ($Mil.)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1............................................................ 552,046 9,201 $0.29
2............................................................ 819,428 13,657 0.37
3............................................................ 748,983 12,483 0.36
--------------------------------------------------
Total.................................................... 2,120,457 35,341 1.02
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Row and column totals may not sum due to rounding.
2. New Information Collection: 2120-0782, Identification of Foreign-
Registered Civil Unmanned Aircraft Operating in the Airspace of the
United States
The FAA is extending the operational requirements of part 89 to
persons operating foreign civil unmanned aircraft in the United States.
These persons must comply with the remote identification requirements,
which means that these persons are required to operate foreign civil
unmanned aircraft that qualify as standard remote identification
unmanned aircraft, unmanned aircraft equipped with a remote
identification broadcast module, or that have no remote identification
equipment, but are operated within an FAA-recognized identification
area.
The FAA will allow a person to operate foreign-registered civil
unmanned aircraft in the United States only if the person submits a
notice of identification to the Administrator. The notice is required
to have the following information to allow FAA to associate an unmanned
aircraft to a responsible person:
(1) The name of the person operating the foreign registered civil
unmanned aircraft in the United States, and, if applicable, the
person's authorized representative.
(2) The physical address of the person operating the foreign
registered civil unmanned aircraft in the United States, and, if
applicable, the physical address for the person's authorized
representative. If the operator or authorized representative does not
receive mail at the physical address, a mailing address must also be
provided.
(3) The telephone number(s) where the person operating the foreign
registered civil unmanned aircraft in the United States, and, if
applicable, the person's authorized representative can be reached while
in the United States.
(4) The email address of the person operating the foreign
registered civil unmanned aircraft in the United States, and, if
applicable, the email address of the person's authorized
representative.
(5) The unmanned aircraft manufacturer and model name.
(6) The serial number of the unmanned aircraft or remote
identification broadcast module.
(7) The country of registration of the unmanned aircraft.
(8) The registration number.
Once a person submits a notice of identification, the FAA will
issue a confirmation of identification. A person operating a foreign-
registered civil unmanned aircraft in the United States will have to
maintain the confirmation of identification at the unmanned aircraft'
control station, and will have to produce it when requested by the FAA
or a law enforcement officer. The holder of a confirmation of
identification will have to ensure that the information provided
remains accurate and is current prior to operating a foreign-registered
civil unmanned aircraft in the United States.
Use: The FAA uses information provided by operators of foreign-
registered civil unmanned aircraft operating in the airspace of the
United States to identify those aircraft.
Table 8--Notice of Identification
[Unit cost]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Minutes to
establish Additional Total Part 107 opportunity cost of time Recreational flyer opportunity cost
Year account minutes per minutes ($0.794/minute) \64\ of time ($0.242/minute) \65\
\63\ aircraft
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1.................................. 5 1 6 $4.76/notification................... $1.45/notification.
2.................................. 5 1 6 4.76/notification.................... 1.45/notification.
[[Page 4498]]
3.................................. 5 1 6 4.76/notification.................... 1.45/notification.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\63\ https://www.faa.gov/news/updates/media/2015-12-13_2120-AK82_RIA.pdf. See Page 13 of the Regulatory Impact Analysis of the
Interim Final Rule Regulatory Evaluation for the Registration and
Marking Requirements for Small Unmanned Aircraft. RIN 2120-AK82.
\64\ The hourly wage earned by part 107 operators is estimated
to be $33.33 per hour. The fully-burdened hourly wage (compensation
+ benefits) uses a load factor 1.43 for a total of $47.66 per hour.
($0.794 per minute).
\65\ Department of Transportation Departmental Guidance on
Valuation of Travel Time in Economic Analysis, September 27, 2016.
Table 4 Recommended Hourly Values of Travel Time Savings, Page 17.
In constant dollars, the hourly value of time for personal travel is
$14.52 per hour ($.242 per minute). This value is used as a proxy
for the value of time of someone operating UAS for recreational
operations.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
3. New Information Collection: 2120-0781, Remote Identification Means
of Compliance, Declaration of Compliance, and Labeling Requirements
i. Means of Compliance
The FAA is requiring persons who develop standards that the FAA may
accept as means of compliance for the production of standard remote
identification unmanned aircraft and remote identification broadcast
modules to submit those standards for review and acceptance by the FAA.
The means of compliance will include requirements for producer
demonstration of how the standard remote identification unmanned
aircraft or remote identification broadcast module performs its
intended functions and meets the performance requirements by analysis,
ground test, or flight test, as appropriate. A person who submits a
means of compliance that is accepted by the FAA is required to retain
the following data for as long as the means of compliance is accepted
and an additional 24 calendar months: All documentation and
substantiating data submitted for the acceptance of the means of
compliance; records of all test procedures, methodology, and other
procedures, if applicable; and any other information necessary to
justify and substantiate how the means of compliance enables compliance
with the remote identification requirements of part 89.
Use: The FAA uses the means of compliance as a way for persons
responsible for the production of standard remote identification
unmanned aircraft or remote identification broadcast modules to
demonstrate compliance with the requirements for remote identification
of unmanned aircraft.
Table 9--Means of Compliance Hourly Burden and Cost
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Means of
Year compliance Total pages Hours per Total hours Cost per hour Total cost
submitted page
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1....................................................... 1 12 1 12 $94.52 $1,134.24
2....................................................... 1 12 1 12 94.52 1,134.24
3....................................................... 1 12 1 12 94.52 1,134.24
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total............................................... 3 36 3 36 .............. 3,402.72
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Row and column totals may not sum due to rounding.
ii. Declaration of Compliance
The FAA is requiring persons responsible for the production of
standard remote identification unmanned aircraft and remote
identification broadcast modules to produce those unmanned aircraft and
broadcast modules to meet the minimum performance requirements of the
rule using an FAA-accepted means of compliance.
To demonstrate that a standard remote identification unmanned
aircraft has been produced using an FAA-accepted means of compliance,
producers are required to submit to the FAA a declaration of compliance
containing:
The name, physical address, telephone number, and email
address of the person responsible for production of the standard remote
identification unmanned aircraft.
The unmanned aircraft make and model.
The unmanned aircraft's serial number, or the range of
serial numbers for which the person responsible for production is
declaring compliance.
The FCC Identifier of the 47 CFR part 15-compliant radio
frequency equipment used and integrated into the unmanned aircraft.
The means of compliance used in the design and production
of the unmanned aircraft.
Whether the declaration of compliance is an initial
declaration or an amended declaration, and if the declaration of
compliance is an amended declaration, the reason for the amendment.
A declaration that the person responsible for the
production of the unmanned aircraft:
[cir] Can demonstrate that the unmanned aircraft was designed and
produced to meet the minimum performance requirements of standard
remote identification unmanned aircraft by using an FAA-accepted means
of compliance.
[cir] Will, upon request, allow the Administrator to inspect its
facilities, technical data, and any unmanned aircraft produced with
remote identification, and to witness any tests necessary to determine
compliance with part 89, subpart D.
[cir] Will perform independent audits on a recurring basis, and
whenever the
[[Page 4499]]
FAA provides notice of noncompliance or of potential noncompliance, to
demonstrate compliance with the requirements of subpart F of part 89,
and will provide the results of those audits to the FAA upon request.
[cir] Will maintain product support and notification procedures to
notify the public and the FAA of any defect or condition that causes
the unmanned aircraft to no longer meet the requirements of subpart F
of part 89, within 15 calendar days of the date the person becomes
aware of the defect or condition.
A statement that 47 CFR part 15-compliant radio frequency
equipment is used and is integrated into the unmanned aircraft without
modification to its authorized radio frequency parameters.\66\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\66\ As part of the acceptance process, the FAA will rely on an
applicant's statement that the equipment complies with FCC
regulations. The FAA's acceptance of a declaration of compliance is
not a determination that the equipment is in compliance with FCC
regulations. The FAA notes that an applicant who falsely asserts
that the equipment is in compliance with FCC regulations may be
subject to civil and criminal penalties, as well as administrative
action pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 1001 and 14 CFR 89.5.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
To demonstrate that a remote identification broadcast module has
been produced using an FAA-accepted means of compliance, producers are
required to submit to the FAA a declaration of compliance containing:
The name, physical address, telephone number, and email
address of the person responsible for production of the remote
identification broadcast module.
The remote identification broadcast module make and model.
The remote identification broadcast module serial number,
or the range of serial numbers for which the person responsible for
production is declaring compliance.
The FCC Identifier of the 47 CFR part 15-compliant radio
frequency equipment used and integrated into the remote identification
broadcast module.
The means of compliance used in the design and production
of the remote identification broadcast module.
Whether the declaration of compliance is an initial
declaration or an amended declaration, and if the declaration of
compliance is an amended declaration, the reason for the amendment.
A declaration that the person responsible for the
production of the remote identification broadcast module:
[cir] Can demonstrate that the broadcast module was designed and
produced to meet the minimum performance requirements of remote
identification broadcast modules by using an FAA-accepted means of
compliance.
[cir] Will, upon request, allow the Administrator to inspect its
facilities, technical data, and any remote identification broadcast
modules produced, and to witness any tests necessary to determine
compliance with part 89, subpart D.
[cir] Will perform independent audits on a recurring basis, and
whenever the FAA provides notice of noncompliance or of potential
noncompliance, to demonstrate compliance with the requirements of
subpart F of part 89, and will provide the results of those audits to
the FAA upon request.
[cir] Will maintain product support and notification procedures to
notify the public and the FAA of any defect or condition that causes
the remote identification broadcast module to no longer meet the
requirements of subpart F of part 89, within 15 calendar days of the
date the person becomes aware of the defect or condition.
[cir] Will make available instructions for installing and operating
the remote identification broadcast module to any person operating an
unmanned aircraft with the remote identification broadcast module.
A statement that 47 CFR part 15-compliant radio frequency
equipment is used and is integrated into the remote identification
broadcast module without modification to its authorized radio frequency
parameters, and a statement that instructions have been provided for
installation of 47 CFR part 15-compliant remote identification
broadcast module without modification to the broadcast module's
authorized radio frequency parameters.
A person who submits a declaration of compliance that is accepted
by the FAA is required to retain the following data for 24 calendar
months after the cessation of production of the standard remote
identification unmanned aircraft or remote identification broadcast
module: The means of compliance, all documentation, and substantiating
data related to the means of compliance used; records of all test
results; and any other information necessary to demonstrate compliance
with the means of compliance so that the unmanned aircraft or broadcast
module meets the remote identification requirements of part 89.
Use: The FAA uses the declaration of compliance to determine that
the person responsible for the production of standard remote
identification unmanned aircraft or remote identification broadcast
modules has demonstrated compliance with the requirements for remote
identification of unmanned aircraft.
Table 10--Declaration of Compliance Hourly Burden and Cost
[$Mil]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Declaration of Pages per
Year compliance declaration Hours per Hourly burden Cost per hour Total cost
submitted of compliance page
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1....................................................... .............. .............. .............. .............. .............. ..............
2....................................................... 1,346.1 50 1 67,305 $83.79 $5.64
3....................................................... 18.9 50 1 945 83.79 0.08
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total............................................... 1,365 .............. .............. 68,250 83.79 5.72
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Row and column totals may not sum due to rounding.
iii. Labeling
For standard remote identification unmanned aircraft and remote
identification broadcast modules, the rule requires the person
responsible for production of the unmanned aircraft or broadcast module
to label the unmanned aircraft or broadcast module to show that it was
produced with remote identification technology that meets the
requirements of the rule. The label would be in English and be legible,
prominent, and permanently affixed to the unmanned aircraft or
broadcast module. The proposed labeling
[[Page 4500]]
requirement assists the operator to know that his or her unmanned
aircraft or broadcast module is eligible to conduct operations within
the airspace of the United States.
Use: The labeling requirement assists the FAA and owners and
operators of unmanned aircraft and broadcast modules to determine if
the unmanned aircraft or broadcast module meets the remote
identification requirements of the rule.
Table 11--Labeling Requirement Hourly Burden and Cost
[$Mil.]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Number of Hours per
Year platforms design Hourly burden Cost per hour Total cost
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1............................... .............. .............. .............. .............. ..............
2............................... 1,282 2 2,564 $83.79 $0.215
3............................... 18 2 36 83.79 0.003
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total....................... 1,300 .............. 2,600 83.79 0.218
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Row and column totals may not sum due to rounding.
4. New Information Collection: 2120-0783, Remote Identification Message
Elements
Standard remote identification unmanned aircraft and unmanned
aircraft equipped with a remote identification broadcast module must be
designed and produced to broadcast certain message elements using
unlicensed radio frequency spectrum. The remote identification
requirements to broadcast the message elements are consistent with the
statutory authority allowing FAA to promulgate rules generally
applicable to unmanned aircraft relating to the standards for remotely
identifying owners and operators of UAS and associated unmanned
aircraft.\67\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\67\ See 49 U.S.C. 44809.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Remote identification of unmanned aircraft would provide airspace
awareness to the FAA, national security agencies, law enforcement
entities, and other government officials. The information can be used
to distinguish compliant airspace users from those potentially posing a
safety or security risk.
No person would be able to operate an unmanned aircraft required to
have remote identification within the airspace of the United States
unless the unmanned aircraft is capable of broadcasting certain message
elements. Persons operating unmanned aircraft would comply with remote
identification in one of three ways. First, standard remote
identification unmanned aircraft would broadcast those message elements
directly from the unmanned aircraft. These message elements would
include the unique identifier (either the unmanned aircraft's serial
number or session ID), latitude, longitude, and geometric altitude of
both the control station and the unmanned aircraft, the velocity of the
unmanned aircraft, a time mark, and an emergency status code that would
be broadcast-only when applicable. A standard remote identification
unmanned aircraft that could no longer broadcast the message elements
would have to land as soon as practicable.
Second, unmanned aircraft without remote identification could equip
with a remote identification broadcast module by either a software
upgrade or by securing the module to the unmanned aircraft prior to
takeoff. The broadcast module would broadcast the message elements
directly from the unmanned aircraft. These message elements would
include the unique identifier (the unmanned aircraft's serial number);
latitude, longitude, and geometric altitude of both the takeoff
location and the unmanned aircraft; the velocity of the unmanned
aircraft; and a time mark. Unmanned aircraft with remote identification
broadcast modules would have to be operated such that the person
manipulating the flight controls of the UAS is able to see the unmanned
aircraft at all times throughout the operation.
The third way to comply with the unmanned aircraft remote
identification requirements would be to operate an unmanned aircraft
without remote identification at an FAA-recognized identification area.
Because these types of operations do not involve the broadcast of
message elements, they were not considered as part of this information
collection.
Use: The remote identification message elements are broadcast from
the standard remote identification unmanned aircraft or remote
identification broadcast module using unlicensed radio frequency
spectrum.
The following table shows the number of estimated respondents that
would broadcast messages.
Table 12--Broadcast Message Elements
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Remote ID
Year respondents
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1....................................................... ..............
2....................................................... 269,600
3....................................................... 1,160,669
---------------
Total................................................. 1,430,269
------------------------------------------------------------------------
5. New Information Collection: 2120-0784, Application for FAA-
Recognized Identification Areas
The FAA will allow CBO representatives and representatives of
educational institutions to submit applications for flying sites to
become FAA-recognized identification areas in a form and manner
acceptable to the FAA. The application collects certain information
regarding the location of the flying site, and requires the
representative to confirm certain information regarding the site.
An applicant for an FAA-recognized identification area would be
required to submit: (1) The name of the eligible person under Sec.
89.205; (2) the name of the individual making the request on behalf of
the eligible person; (3) a declaration that the individual making the
request has the authority to act on behalf of the entity; (4) the name
and contact information, including telephone number, of the primary
point of contact for communications with the FAA; (5) the physical
address of the proposed FAA-recognized identification area; (6) the
location of the proposed FAA-recognized identification area; (7) if
applicable, a copy of any existing letter of agreement regarding the
flying site; (8) a description of the intended purpose of the FAA-
recognized identification area and why the proposed FAA-recognized
identification area is necessary for that purpose, and
[[Page 4501]]
(9) any other information required by the Administrator.
Use: Applications permit community-based organizations and
educational institutions to apply for FAA-recognized identification
areas.
Table 13--Request for FAA-Recognized Identification Area Hourly Burden and Cost
[$Mil]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Requests Pages per Hours per
Year submitted request Total pages page Total hours Hourly burden Total cost
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2....................................... 3,966 4 15,864 0.5 7,932 $58.47 $0.46
3....................................... 50 4 200 0.5 100 58.47 0.01
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total............................... 4,016 .............. 16,064 .............. 8,032 .............. 0.47
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Row and column totals may not sum due to rounding.
F. International Compatibility and Cooperation
In keeping with United States obligations under the Convention on
International Civil Aviation, it is FAA policy to conform to
International Civil Aviation Organization Standards and Recommended
Practices to the maximum extent practicable. The FAA has reviewed the
existing ICAO Standards and Recommended Practices and has determined
that no Standards and Recommended Practices correspond to these
regulations. The FAA regularly reaches out to its international
partners on a bilateral and multilateral basis to harmonize regulations
to the maximum extent possible. The FAA's international outreach
efforts include the following:
Discussions with the Switzerland Federal Office of Civil
Aviation (FOCA) regarding plans for use of remote identification to
facilitate U-Space operations and plans to allow multiple UAS Service
Suppliers to provide a range of services, similar in concept to current
and future FAA USS plans.
Collaboration with the European Union Aviation Safety
Agency (EASA) on the EASA U-Space Regulatory Framework.
Cooperation in the Joint Authorities for Rulemaking on
Unmanned Systems (JARUS) on UTM/U-Space and other regulatory
recommendations under development.
Collaboration with the Transport Canada Civil Aviation
(TCCA) Remotely Piloted Aircraft Systems (RPAS) Task Force on policy,
rulemaking, regulatory, and research and development topics related to
UAS and beyond visual line of sight operations.
The FAA hosted a workshop on Sharing Best Practices for
Managing UAS with the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN)
Member States in Singapore.
Meetings with the Australia Civil Aviation Safety
Authority (CASA) to share best practices and lessons learned on UAS
integration.
Shared the remote identification NPRM announcement with
FAA international Regional Directors, and also shared the NPRM directly
with 35 civil aviation authorities, air navigation service providers,
trade associations and embassies.
The FAA met with Transport Canada Civil Aviation (TCCA),
briefed them on the remote identification NPRM, and learned of TCCA
plans to issue proposed BVLOS rulemaking with potential remote
identification content by the end of 2020.
The FAA Associate Administrator for Aviation Safety gave a
speech on the remote identification NPRM at the Singapore Airshow.
The FAA met with United Kingdom National Air Traffic
Services organization to discuss UTM, including the status of the
remote identification rulemaking and comments received to date.
The FAA Administrator met with the French Minister of
Transportation in discussions that included the remote identification
NPRM.
The FAA met with EASA to discuss comments received and the
status of the respective U-Space rulemaking by EASA and remote
identification rulemaking of the FAA, and learned that EASA had
received approximately 2,600 comments on their U-Space Opinion compared
to the 53,000 comments received on the remote identification NPRM.
The FAA held webinars with 52 countries, and
representatives from the International Civil Aviation Organization
(ICAO) and the Latin American Civil Aviation Commission (LACAC), ICAO
Regional Offices, and the Africa Civil Aviation Commission (AFCAC) to
discuss the FAA UTM Concept of Operations, including its relationship
to remote identification transmissions, answering questions on the
status of remote identification rulemaking.
In addition, the FAA has assessed the European Commission
regulations for UAS remote identification and compared them to the
requirements in this final rule. Similar to the proposed European
Commission regulations, the FAA adopts a broadcast-only requirement for
remote identification information. Other similarities include that the
European regulation and the FAA's rule both include the position of the
unmanned aircraft and the control station as remote identification
message elements. One difference is the proposed European regulation
requires the broadcast of both the unmanned aircraft registration
number and the serial number, whereas the FAA's rule uses the unmanned
aircraft or remote identification broadcast module serial number or a
session ID as the unique identifier in the remote identification
message set. Other differences include that the European regulation
requires message elements for the route course and speed of the
unmanned aircraft, while the FAA's rule only includes velocity of the
unmanned aircraft, and the FAA rule includes remote identification
message elements for emergency status and a time mark, but the European
regulation does not.
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 (NEPA) in the absence of extraordinary circumstances. The FAA
determined that the categorical exclusion in FAA Order 1050.1F,
paragraph 5-6.6.f. applies to this action. The FAA has determined that
none of the extraordinary circumstances in FAA Order 1050.1F, paragraph
5-2 exist.
This rulemaking action provides a framework and establishes
requirements for the remote identification of all UAS operating in the
airspace of the United States. It will not alone enable routine
expanded operations, affect the frequency of UAS operations in the
[[Page 4502]]
airspace of the United States, or authorize additional UAS operations.
Nor does the rule by itself open up new areas of airspace to UAS.
Subpart C provides the requirements for an applicant to request the
establishment of an FAA-recognized identification area. At the time
that FAA establishes any such area, the FAA will conduct any necessary
environmental reviews.
For these reasons, the FAA has reviewed the implementation of the
rulemaking action and determined it is categorically excluded from
further environmental review. Possible extraordinary circumstances that
would preclude the use of a categorical exclusion have been examined
and the FAA has determined that no such circumstances exist. After
careful and thorough consideration of the rulemaking action, the FAA
finds that it does not require preparation of an Environmental
Assessment or an Environmental Impact Statement in accordance with the
requirements of NEPA, Council on Environmental Quality regulations, and
FAA Order 1050.1F.
XXIII. Executive Order Determinations
A. Executive Order 13132, Federalism
The FAA has analyzed this rule under the principles and criteria of
Executive Order 13132, Federalism. The Agency has determined that this
action would not have a substantial direct effect on the States, or the
relationship between the Federal Government and the States, or on the
distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of
government, and, therefore, would not have federalism implications.
B. Executive Order 13175, Consultation and Coordination With Indian
Tribal Governments
Consistent with Executive Order 13175, Consultation and
Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments,\68\ and FAA Order 1210.20,
American Indian and Alaska Native Tribal Consultation Policy and
Procedures,\69\ the FAA ensures that Federally Recognized Tribes
(Tribes) are given the opportunity to provide meaningful and timely
input regarding proposed Federal actions that have the potential to
have substantial direct effects on one or more Indian tribes, on the
relationship between the Federal Government and Indian tribes, or on
the distribution of power and responsibilities between the Federal
Government and Indian tribes; or to affect uniquely or significantly
their respective Tribes.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\68\ 65 FR 67249 (Nov. 6, 2000).
\69\ FAA Order No. 1210.20 (Jan. 28, 2004), available at http://www.faa.gov/documentLibrary/media/1210.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
One tribe, the Choctaw Nation, provided comments on the proposed
rule. See Comment ID FAA-2019-1100-34477. In these comments, the
Choctaw Nation expressed that remote identification would help expand
unmanned aircraft operations and build confidence in local communities.
It also requested that FAA be mindful of issues facing rural
communities in development of the final rule, including the potential
for unique broadband and communication issues.
At this point, the FAA has not identified any substantial direct
effects or any unique or significant effects on tribes resulting from
this rule.
The FAA continues to develop its involvement with tribes within the
broader UAS integration effort.\70\ In particular, the FAA has
partnered with the Choctaw Nation in a pilot program under which State,
local, and tribal governments test and evaluate the integration of
civil and public UAS operations into the low-altitude airspace of the
United States to promote the safe operation of UAS and enable the
development of UAS technologies and their use in agriculture, commerce,
emergency management, human transportation, and other sectors.\71\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\70\ 81 FR 42064, 42189.
\71\ Federal Aviation Administration, UAS Integration Pilot
Program (May 7, 2018), available at https://www.faa.gov/uas/programs_partnerships/uas_integration_pilot_program/.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The FAA has also conducted outreach to tribes to ensure they are
familiar with UAS-related rules and that they are aware of FAA's plans
for additional rulemakings to integrate UAS into the airspace of the
United States. As part of that recent outreach, the FAA has:
Presented information on UAS for public safety at the
Osage Nation 2019 Public Safety Drone Conference (Tulsa, Oklahoma,
November 5, 2019); and
Provided information to the National Congress of American
Indians on the proposed rule for remote identification of UAS.
(February 6, 2020).
The FAA will continue to respond to tribes that express interest in
or concerns about UAS operations, and will engage in government-to-
government consultation with tribes as appropriate, in accordance with
Executive Orders and FAA guidance.
C. Executive Order 13211, Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy
Supply, Distribution, or Use
The FAA analyzed this rule under Executive Order 13211, Actions
Concerning Regulations that Significantly Affect Energy Supply,
Distribution, or Use (May 18, 2001). The Agency has determined that it
would not be a ``significant energy action'' under the executive order
and would not be likely to have a significant adverse effect on the
supply, distribution, or use of energy.
D. Executive Order 13609, Promoting International Regulatory
Cooperation
Executive Order 13609, Promoting International Regulatory
Cooperation, (77 FR 26413, May 4, 2012) promotes international
regulatory cooperation to meet shared challenges involving health,
safety, labor, security, environmental, and other issues and to reduce,
eliminate, or prevent unnecessary differences in regulatory
requirements.
For significant regulations that the Agency identifies as having
significant international impacts, the FAA has to consider, to the
extent feasible, appropriate, and consistent with law, any regulatory
approaches by a foreign government that the United States has agreed to
consider under a regulatory cooperation council work plan. A
significant regulatory action under Executive Order 13609 has the same
meaning as in section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866. An international
impact, as defined in Executive Order 13609, means ``a direct effect
that a proposed or final regulation is expected to have on
international trade and investment, or that otherwise may be of
significant interest to the trading partners of the United States.''
As discussed in the International Compatibility and Cooperation
section of this rule, in keeping with United States obligations under
the Convention on International Civil Aviation, the FAA seeks to
conform to International Civil Aviation Organization Standards and
Recommended Practices to the maximum extent practicable. The FAA has
reviewed the corresponding ICAO Standards and Recommended Practices and
has identified no differences with these regulations. In addition, the
FAA regularly reaches out to its international partners on a bi-lateral
and multi-lateral basis to harmonize regulations to the maximum extent
possible. Thus, the FAA believes that the rule should have no effect on
international regulatory cooperation.
The FAA identified a direct effect that may be of significant
interest to the trading partners of the United States. Even though a
majority of the costs and the benefits of the rule are accrued by
United States entities and United States
[[Page 4503]]
commerce,\72\ the rule is estimated to cost foreign producers
approximately $121.8 million at 3 percent present value and $86 million
at 7 percent present value. These costs exceed those borne by United
States producers because presently a vast majority of UAS operated in
the United States are manufactured overseas (> 80 percent). On a per
unit basis, the costs to foreign and United States producers of UAS are
expected to be the same.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\72\ Thus, the FAA estimates that the primary impact of the rule
will be on U.S. entities.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
E. Executive Order 13771, Reducing Regulation and Controlling
Regulatory Costs
This final rule is an Executive Order 13771 regulatory action.
Details on the estimated impacts of this final rule are in the rule's
economic analysis.
XXIV. Additional Information
A. Availability of Rulemaking Documents
An electronic copy of rulemaking documents may be obtained from the
internet by:
Searching the Federal eRulemaking Portal (https://www.regulations.gov);
Visiting the FAA's Regulations and Policies at https://www.faa.gov/regulations_policies; or
Accessing the Government Publishing Office at https://www.govinfo.gov.
Copies may also be obtained by sending a request to the Federal
Aviation Administration, Office of Rulemaking, ARM-1, 800 Independence
Avenue SW, Washington, DC 20591, or by calling (202) 267-9677.
Commenters must identify the docket or notice number of this
rulemaking.
All documents the FAA considered in developing this proposed rule,
including economic analyses and technical reports, may be accessed from
the internet through the Federal eRulemaking Portal referenced above.
B. Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act
The Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996
(SBREFA) requires the 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 https://www.faa.gov/regulations_policies/rulemaking/sbre_act/.
List of Subjects
14 CFR Part 1
Air transportation.
14 CFR Part 11
Administrative practice and procedure, Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements.
14 CFR Part 47
Aircraft, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
14 CFR Part 48
Aircraft, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
14 CFR Part 89
Aircraft, Airmen, Air traffic control, Aviation safety,
Incorporation by reference, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements,
Security measures.
14 CFR Part 91
Air traffic control, Aircraft, Airmen, Aviation safety, Reporting
and recordkeeping requirements, Security measures.
14 CFR Part 107
Aircraft, Airmen, Aviation safety, Security measures.
The Amendment
In consideration of the foregoing, the Federal Aviation
Administration amends chapter I of title 14, Code of Federal
Regulations as follows:
PART 1--DEFINITIONS AND ABBREVIATIONS
0
1. The authority citation for part 1 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(f), 106(g), 40113, 44701.
0
2. In Sec. 1.1, add the definition for ``Unmanned aircraft system'' in
alphabetical order to read as follows:
Sec. 1.1 General definitions.
* * * * *
Unmanned aircraft system means an unmanned aircraft and its
associated elements (including communication links and the components
that control the unmanned aircraft) that are required for the safe and
efficient operation of the unmanned aircraft in the airspace of the
United States.
* * * * *
PART 11--GENERAL RULEMAKING PROCEDURES
0
3. The authority citation for part 11 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(f), 106(g), 40101, 40103, 40105, 40109,
40113, 44110, 44502, 44701-44702, 44711, 46102, and 51 U.S.C. 50901-
50923.
0
4. Amend Sec. 11.201(b) by adding the entry ``Part 89'' in numerical
order to read as follows:
Sec. 11.201 Office of Management and Budget (OMB) control numbers
assigned under the Paperwork Reduction Act.
* * * * *
(b) * * *
------------------------------------------------------------------------
14 CFR part or section identified and
described Current OMB control No.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
* * * * *
Part 89................................... 2120-0781, 2120-0782, 2120-
0783, 2120-0785.
* * * * *
------------------------------------------------------------------------
PART 47--AIRCRAFT REGISTRATION
0
5. The authority citation for part 47 is revised to read as follows:
Authority: 4 U.S.T. 1830; Pub. L. 108-297, 118 Stat. 1095 (49
U.S.C. 40101 note, 49 U.S.C. 44101 note); 49 U.S.C. 106(f), 106(g),
40113-40114, 44101-44108, 44110-44113, 44703-44704, 44713, 44809(f),
45302, 45305, 46104, 46301.
0
6. Add Sec. 47.14 to read as follows:
Sec. 47.14 Serial numbers for unmanned aircraft.
(a) The unmanned aircraft serial number provided as part of any
application for aircraft registration of any standard remote
identification unmanned aircraft must be the serial number issued by
the manufacturer of the unmanned aircraft in accordance with the design
and production requirements of part 89 of this chapter. The serial
number provided in this application must not be listed on more than one
Certificate of Aircraft Registration at the same time.
(b) The unmanned aircraft serial number provided as part of any
application for registration of any unmanned aircraft with a remote
identification broadcast module must be the serial number issued by the
manufacturer of the remote identification broadcast module in
accordance with the design and production requirements of part 89 of
this chapter. The serial number provided in this application must not
be listed on more than one Certificate of Aircraft Registration at the
same time.
[[Page 4504]]
PART 48--REGISTRATION AND MARKING REQUIREMENTS FOR SMALL UNMANNED
AIRCRAFT
0
7. The authority citation for part 48 is revised to read as follows:
Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(f), 106(g), 40101, 40103, 40113-40114,
41703, 44101-44103, 44105-44106, 44110-44113, 44809(f), 45302,
45305, 46104, 46301, 46306.
Sec. 48.5 [Removed and Reserved]
0
8. Remove and reserve Sec. 48.5.
0
9. Amend Sec. 48.15 by revising paragraph (b) to read as follows:
Sec. 48.15 Requirement to register.
* * * * *
(b) The aircraft is operated exclusively in compliance with 49
U.S.C. 44809 and weighs 0.55 pounds or less on takeoff, including
everything that is on board or otherwise attached to the aircraft; or
* * * * *
0
10. Amend Sec. 48.25 by revising paragraph (a) to read as follows:
Sec. 48.25 Applicants.
(a) To register a small unmanned aircraft in the United States
under this part, a person must provide the information required by
Sec. 48.110 to the Registry in a form and manner prescribed by the
Administrator. Upon submission of this information, the FAA issues a
Certificate of Aircraft Registration to that person.
* * * * *
0
11. Amend Sec. 48.30 by revising paragraphs (a) and (b) to read as
follows:
Sec. 48.30 Fees.
(a) The fee for issuing or renewing a Certificate of Aircraft
Registration as described in Sec. 48.100 is $5.00 per aircraft.
(b) The fee for issuing or renewing a Certificate of Aircraft
Registration as described in Sec. 48.105 is $5.00 per certificate.
* * * * *
Sec. Sec. 48.100, 48.105, 48.110, and 48.115 [Redesignated as
Sec. Sec. 48.110, 48.115, 48.100, and 48.105]
0
12. Redesignate Sec. Sec. 48.100 through 48.115 as follows:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Old section New section
------------------------------------------------------------------------
48.100.................................................. 48.110
48.105.................................................. 48.115
48.110.................................................. 48.100
48.115.................................................. 48.105
------------------------------------------------------------------------
0
13. Amend newly redesignated Sec. 48.100 by revising the section
heading and paragraphs (a) and (c)(1) to read as follows:
Sec. 48.100 Registration: Small unmanned aircraft operated for any
purpose other than exclusively limited recreational operations.
(a) Certificate of Aircraft Registration. A Certificate of Aircraft
Registration issued in accordance with Sec. 48.110 to a small unmanned
aircraft used for any purpose other than operating exclusively in
compliance with 49 U.S.C. 44809 constitutes registration for the small
unmanned aircraft identified on the application.
* * * * *
(c) * * *
(1) The holder of a Certificate of Aircraft Registration must renew
the Certificate by verifying, in a form and manner prescribed by the
Administrator, that the information provided in accordance with Sec.
48.110 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.
* * * * *
0
14. Amend newly redesignated Sec. 48.105 by revising the section
heading and paragraphs (a) and (c)(1) to read as follows:
Sec. 48.105 Registration: Small unmanned aircraft intended
exclusively for limited recreational operations.
(a) Certificate of Aircraft Registration. A Certificate of Aircraft
Registration issued in accordance with Sec. 48.110 for small unmanned
aircraft to be operated exclusively in compliance with 49 U.S.C. 44809
constitutes registration for all the small unmanned aircraft used
exclusively for operations in compliance with 49 U.S.C. 44809 owned by
the individual identified on the application.
* * * * *
(c) * * *
(1) The holder of a Certificate of Aircraft Registration must renew
the Certificate by verifying, in a form and manner prescribed by the
Administrator, that the information provided in accordance with Sec.
48.110 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.
* * * * *
0
15. Revise newly redesignated Sec. 48.110 to read as follows:
Sec. 48.110 Application.
(a) Required information. Each applicant for a Certificate of
Aircraft Registration issued under this part must submit all of the
following information to the Registry:
(1) Applicant's 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 of the authorized representative.
If the applicant or authorized representative cannot receive mail at a
physical address, then provide a mailing address.
(3) Applicant's email address or, for applicants other than
individuals, the email address of the authorized representative.
(4) Applicant's telephone number(s) and, for an applicant other
than an individual, the telephone number(s) of the authorized
representative.
(5) The aircraft manufacturer and model name.
(6) For any standard remote identification unmanned aircraft, the
serial number issued by the manufacturer of the unmanned aircraft in
accordance with the design and production requirements of part 89 of
this chapter. The serial number provided in this application must not
be listed on more than one Certificate of Aircraft Registration at the
same time.
(7) For any unmanned aircraft equipped with a remote identification
broadcast module, the serial number issued by the manufacturer of the
remote identification broadcast module in accordance with the design
and production requirements of part 89 of this chapter. An applicant
may submit the serial number of more than one remote identification
broadcast module as part of the application for aircraft registration
under Sec. 48.105. The serial number of a remote identification
broadcast module provided in this application must not be listed on
more than one Certificate of Aircraft Registration at the same time.
(8) Other information as required by the Administrator.
(b) Provision of information. The information identified in
paragraph (a) 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.
(c) 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) of this section.
0
16. Amend newly redesignated Sec. 48.115 by revising paragraphs (a)
and (b)(1) to read as follows:
[[Page 4505]]
Sec. 48.115 Requirement to maintain current information.
(a) The holder of a Certificate of Aircraft Registration must
ensure that the information provided under Sec. 48.110 remains
accurate.
(b) * * *
(1) A change in the information provided under Sec. 48.110.
* * * * *
0
17. Amend Sec. 48.200 by revising paragraph (b)(2) to read as follows:
Sec. 48.200 General.
* * * * *
(b) * * *
(2) If authorized by the Administrator, the small unmanned aircraft
serial number provided with the application for Certificate of Aircraft
Registration under Sec. 48.110(a).
0
18. Add part 89 to subchapter F to read as follows:
PART 89--REMOTE IDENTIFICATION OF UNMANNED AIRCRAFT
Sec.
Subpart A--General
89.1 Definitions.
89.5 Falsification, reproduction, alteration, or omission.
Subpart B--Operating Requirements
89.101 Applicability.
89.105 Remote identification requirement.
89.110 Operation of standard remote identification unmanned
aircraft.
89.115 Alternative remote identification.
89.120 Operations for aeronautical research or to show compliance
with regulations.
89.125 Automatic Dependent Surveillance-Broadcast (ADS-B) Out
prohibition.
89.130 Confirmation of identification.
Subpart C--[Reserved]
Subpart D--Requirements for Standard Remote Identification Unmanned
Aircraft and Remote Identification Broadcast Modules
89.301 Applicability.
89.305 Minimum message elements broadcast by standard remote
identification unmanned aircraft.
89.310 Minimum performance requirements for standard remote
identification unmanned aircraft.
89.315 Minimum message elements broadcast by remote identification
broadcast modules.
89.320 Minimum performance requirements for remote identification
broadcast modules.
Subpart E--Means of Compliance
89.401 Applicability.
89.405 Submission of a means of compliance for FAA acceptance.
89.410 Acceptance of a means of compliance.
89.415 Rescission.
89.420 Record retention.
Subpart F-- Remote Identification Design and Production
89.501 Applicability.
89.505 Serial numbers.
89.510 Production requirements for unmanned aircraft produced under
a design approval or production approval issued under part 21 of
this chapter.
89.515 Production requirements for unmanned aircraft without design
approval or production approval issued under part 21 of this
chapter.
89.520 Production requirements for remote identification broadcast
modules.
89.525 Labeling.
89.530 Submission of a declaration of compliance for FAA acceptance.
89.535 Acceptance of a declaration of compliance.
89.540 Rescission and reconsideration.
89.545 Record retention.
Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(f), 106(g), 40101(d), 40103(b), 44701,
44805, 44809(f); Section 2202 of Pub. L. 114-190, 130 Stat. 629.
Subpart A--General
Sec. 89.1 Definitions.
The following definitions apply to this part.
Declaration of compliance means a record submitted to the FAA by
the producer of a standard remote identification unmanned aircraft or
remote identification broadcast module to attest that all the
requirements of subpart F of this part have been met.
Home-built unmanned aircraft means an unmanned aircraft that an
individual built solely for education or recreation.
Sec. 89.5 Falsification, reproduction, alteration, or omission.
(a) No person may make or cause to be made any of the following:
(1) Any fraudulent or intentionally false statement in any document
related to any acceptance, application, approval, authorization,
certificate, declaration, designation, qualification, record, report,
request for reconsideration, or similar, submitted under this part.
(2) Any fraudulent or intentionally false statement in any document
required to be developed, provided, kept, or used to show compliance
with any requirement under this part.
(3) Any reproduction or alteration, for fraudulent purpose, of any
document related to any acceptance, application, approval,
authorization, certificate, declaration, designation, qualification,
record, report, request for reconsideration, or similar, submitted or
granted under this part.
(b) No person may, by omission, knowingly conceal or cause to be
concealed, a material fact in--
(1) Any document related to any acceptance, application, approval,
authorization, certificate, declaration, designation, qualification,
record, report, request for reconsideration, or similar, submitted
under this part; or
(2) Any document required to be developed, provided, kept, or used
to show compliance with any requirement under this part.
(c) The commission by any person of an act prohibited under
paragraph (a) or (b) of this section is a basis for--
(1) Denial, suspension, rescission, or revocation of any
acceptance, application, approval, authorization, certificate,
declaration, declaration of compliance, designation, document, filing,
qualification, means of compliance, record, report, request for
reconsideration, or similar instrument issued or granted by the
Administrator and held by that person; or
(2) A civil penalty.
Subpart B--Operating Requirement
Sec. 89.101 Applicability.
(a) Except as provided in paragraph (b) of this section, this
subpart applies to the following:
(1) Persons operating unmanned aircraft registered or required to
be registered under part 47 or 48 of this chapter.
(2) Persons operating foreign civil unmanned aircraft in the United
States.
(b) This subpart does not apply to unmanned aircraft operations
under part 91 of this chapter that are transmitting ADS-B Out pursuant
to Sec. 91.225.
Sec. 89.105 Remote identification requirement.
Except as otherwise authorized by the Administrator or as provided
in Sec. 89.120, after September 16, 2023, no person may operate an
unmanned aircraft within the airspace of the United States unless the
operation meets the requirements of Sec. 89.110 or Sec. 89.115.
Sec. 89.110 Operation of standard remote identification unmanned
aircraft.
Unless otherwise authorized by the Administrator, a person may
comply with the remote identification requirement of Sec. 89.105 by
operating a standard remote identification unmanned aircraft under the
following conditions:
(a) Operational requirements. A person may operate a standard
remote identification unmanned aircraft only if the person operating
the standard remote identification unmanned aircraft ensures that all
of the following conditions are met:
(1) From takeoff to shutdown, the standard remote identification
[[Page 4506]]
unmanned aircraft must broadcast the message elements of Sec. 89.305.
(2) The person manipulating the flight controls of the unmanned
aircraft system must land the unmanned aircraft as soon as practicable
if the standard remote identification unmanned aircraft is no longer
broadcasting the message elements of Sec. 89.305.
(b) Standard remote identification unmanned aircraft requirements.
A person may operate a standard remote identification unmanned aircraft
only if the unmanned aircraft meets all of the following requirements:
(1) Its serial number is listed on an FAA-accepted declaration of
compliance, or the standard remote identification unmanned aircraft is
covered by a design approval or production approval issued under part
21 of this chapter and meets the requirements of subpart F of this
part.
(2) Its remote identification equipment is functional and complies
with the requirements of this part from takeoff to shutdown.
(3) Its remote identification equipment and functionality have not
been disabled.
(4) The Certificate of Aircraft Registration of the unmanned
aircraft used in the operation must include the serial number of the
unmanned aircraft, as per applicable requirements of parts 47 and 48 of
this chapter, or the serial number of the unmanned aircraft must be
provided to the FAA in a notice of identification pursuant to Sec.
89.130 prior to the operation.
Sec. 89.115 Alternative remote identification.
A person operating an unmanned aircraft that is not a standard
remote identification unmanned aircraft may comply with the remote
identification requirement of Sec. 89.105 by meeting all of the
requirements of either paragraph (a) or (b) of this section.
(a) Remote identification broadcast modules. Unless otherwise
authorized by the Administrator, a person may operate an unmanned
aircraft that is not a standard remote identification unmanned aircraft
if all of the following conditions are met:
(1) Equipage. (i) The unmanned aircraft used in the operation must
be equipped with a remote identification broadcast module that meets
the requirements of Sec. 89.320 and the serial number of the remote
identification broadcast module must be listed on an FAA-accepted
declaration of compliance.
(ii) The Certificate of Aircraft Registration of the unmanned
aircraft used in the operation must include the serial number of the
remote identification broadcast module, as per applicable requirements
of parts 47 and 48 of this chapter, or the serial number of the
unmanned aircraft must be provided to the FAA in a notice of
identification pursuant to Sec. 89.130 prior to the operation.
(2) Remote identification operating requirements. Unless otherwise
authorized by the Administrator, a person may operate an unmanned
aircraft under this paragraph (a) only if all of the following
conditions are met:
(i) From takeoff to shutdown, the person operating the unmanned
aircraft must ensure that the remote identification broadcast module
broadcasts the remote identification message elements of Sec. 89.315
directly from the unmanned aircraft.
(ii) The person manipulating the flight controls of the unmanned
aircraft system must be able to see the unmanned aircraft at all times
throughout the operation.
(3) Pre-flight requirement. Prior to takeoff, the person
manipulating the flight controls of the unmanned aircraft system must
ensure the remote identification broadcast module is functioning in
accordance with this subpart.
(4) In-flight loss of remote identification broadcast. The person
manipulating the flight controls of the unmanned aircraft system must
land the unmanned aircraft as soon as practicable if the unmanned
aircraft is no longer broadcasting the message elements of Sec.
89.315.
(b) Operations at FAA-recognized identification areas. Unless
otherwise authorized by the Administrator, a person may operate an
unmanned aircraft without remote identification equipment only if all
of the following conditions are met:
(1) The unmanned aircraft and the person manipulating the flight
controls of the unmanned aircraft system remain within the boundaries
of an FAA-recognized identification area throughout the operation; and
(2) The person manipulating the flight controls of the unmanned
aircraft system must be able to see the unmanned aircraft at all times
throughout the operation.
Sec. 89.120 Operations for aeronautical research or to show
compliance with regulations.
The Administrator may authorize operations without remote
identification where the operation is solely for the purpose of
aeronautical research or to show compliance with regulations.
Sec. 89.125 Automatic Dependent Surveillance-Broadcast (ADS-B) Out
prohibition.
Automatic Dependent Surveillance-Broadcast (ADS-B) Out equipment
cannot be used to comply with the remote identification requirements of
this part.
Sec. 89.130 Confirmation of identification.
(a) Notification requirement. No person may operate a foreign
registered civil unmanned aircraft with remote identification in the
airspace of the United States unless, prior to the operation, the
person submits a notice of identification in a form and manner
acceptable to the Administrator. The notice of identification must
include all of the following:
(1) The name of the person operating the foreign registered civil
unmanned aircraft in the United States, and, if applicable, the
person's authorized representative.
(2) The physical address of the person operating the foreign
registered civil unmanned aircraft in the United States, and, if
applicable, the physical address for the person's authorized
representative. If the operator or authorized representative does not
receive mail at the physical address, a mailing address must also be
provided.
(3) The telephone number(s) where the person operating the foreign
registered civil unmanned aircraft in the United States, and, if
applicable, the person's authorized representative can be reached while
in the United States.
(4) The email address of the person operating the foreign
registered civil unmanned aircraft in the United States, and, if
applicable, the email address of the person's authorized
representative.
(5) The unmanned aircraft manufacturer and model name.
(6) The serial number of the unmanned aircraft or remote
identification broadcast module.
(7) The country of registration of the unmanned aircraft.
(8) The registration number.
(b) Issuance of a Confirmation of Identification. (1) The FAA will
issue a Confirmation of Identification upon completion of the
notification requirements provided in paragraph (a) of this section.
(2) The filing of a notification under paragraph (a) of this
section and the Confirmation of Identification issued under paragraph
(b)(1) of this section do not have the effect of United States aircraft
registration.
(c) Proof of notification. No person may operate a foreign
registered civil unmanned aircraft with remote identification in the
United States
[[Page 4507]]
unless the person obtains a Confirmation of Identification under
paragraph (b)(1) of this section, maintains such Confirmation of
Identification at the unmanned aircraft's control station, and produces
the Confirmation of Identification when requested by the FAA or a law
enforcement officer.
(d) Requirement to maintain current information. The holder of a
Confirmation of Identification must ensure that the information
provided under paragraph (a) of this section remains accurate and must
update the information prior to operating a foreign registered civil
unmanned aircraft in the United States.
Subpart C [Reserved]
Subpart D--Requirements for Standard Remote Identification Unmanned
Aircraft and Remote Identification Broadcast Modules
Sec. 89.301 Applicability.
This subpart prescribes the minimum message element set and minimum
performance requirements for standard remote identification unmanned
aircraft and remote identification broadcast modules.
Sec. 89.305 Minimum message elements broadcast by standard remote
identification unmanned aircraft.
A standard remote identification unmanned aircraft must be capable
of broadcasting the following remote identification message elements:
(a) The identity of the unmanned aircraft, consisting of:
(1) A serial number assigned to the unmanned aircraft by the person
responsible for the production of the standard remote identification
unmanned aircraft; or
(2) A session ID.
(b) An indication of the latitude and longitude of the control
station.
(c) An indication of the geometric altitude of the control station.
(d) An indication of the latitude and longitude of the unmanned
aircraft.
(e) An indication of the geometric altitude of the unmanned
aircraft.
(f) An indication of the velocity of the unmanned aircraft.
(g) A time mark identifying the Coordinated Universal Time (UTC)
time of applicability of a position source output.
(h) An indication of the emergency status of the unmanned aircraft.
Sec. 89.310 Minimum performance requirements for standard remote
identification unmanned aircraft.
A standard remote identification unmanned aircraft must meet the
following minimum performance requirements:
(a) Control station location. The location of the control station
of the unmanned aircraft must be generated and encoded into the message
elements and must correspond to the location of the person manipulating
the flight controls of the unmanned aircraft system.
(b) Time mark. The time mark message element must be synchronized
with all other remote identification message elements.
(c) Self-testing and monitoring. (1) Prior to takeoff, the unmanned
aircraft must automatically test the remote identification
functionality and notify the person manipulating the flight controls of
the unmanned aircraft system of the result of the test.
(2) The unmanned aircraft must not be able to take off if the
remote identification equipment is not functional.
(3) The unmanned aircraft must continuously monitor the remote
identification functionality from takeoff to shutdown and must provide
notification of malfunction or failure to the person manipulating the
flight controls of the unmanned aircraft system.
(d) Tamper resistance. The unmanned aircraft must be designed and
produced in a way that reduces the ability of a person to tamper with
the remote identification functionality.
(e) Error correction. The remote identification equipment must
incorporate error correction in the broadcast of the message elements
in Sec. 89.305.
(f) Interference considerations. The remote identification
equipment must not interfere with other systems or equipment installed
on the unmanned aircraft, and other systems or equipment installed on
the unmanned aircraft must not interfere with the remote identification
equipment.
(g) Message broadcast. (1) The unmanned aircraft must be capable of
broadcasting the message elements in Sec. 89.305 using a non-
proprietary broadcast specification and using radio frequency spectrum
compatible with personal wireless devices in accordance with 47 CFR
part 15, where operations may occur without an FCC individual license.
(2) Any broadcasting device used to meet the requirements of this
section must be integrated into the unmanned aircraft without
modification to its authorized radio frequency parameters and designed
to maximize the range at which the broadcast can be received, while
complying with 47 CFR part 15 and any other applicable laws in effect
as of the date the declaration of compliance is submitted to the FAA
for acceptance.
(h) Message elements performance requirements. (1) The reported
geometric position of the unmanned aircraft and the control station
must be accurate to within 100 feet of the true position, with 95
percent probability.
(2) The reported geometric altitude of the control station must be
accurate to within 15 feet of the true geometric altitude, with 95
percent probability.
(3) The reported geometric altitude of the unmanned aircraft must
be accurate to within 150 feet of the true geometric altitude, with 95
percent probability.
(4) The unmanned aircraft must broadcast the latitude, longitude,
and geometric altitude of the unmanned aircraft and its control station
no later than 1.0 seconds from the time of measurement to the time of
broadcast.
(5) The unmanned aircraft must broadcast the message elements at a
rate of at least 1 message per second.
(i) Take-off limitation. The unmanned aircraft must not be able to
take off unless it is broadcasting the message elements in Sec.
89.305.
Sec. 89.315 Minimum message elements broadcast by remote
identification broadcast modules.
Remote identification broadcast modules must be capable of
broadcasting the following remote identification message elements:
(a) The identity of the unmanned aircraft, consisting of the serial
number assigned to the remote identification broadcast module by the
person responsible for the production of the remote identification
broadcast module.
(b) An indication of the latitude and longitude of the unmanned
aircraft.
(c) An indication of the geometric altitude of the unmanned
aircraft.
(d) An indication of the velocity of the unmanned aircraft.
(e) An indication of the latitude and longitude of the take-off
location of the unmanned aircraft.
(f) An indication of the geometric altitude of the take-off
location of the unmanned aircraft.
(g) A time mark identifying the Coordinated Universal Time (UTC)
time of applicability of a position source output.
Sec. 89.320 Minimum performance requirements for remote
identification broadcast modules.
Remote identification broadcast modules must meet the following
minimum performance requirements:
(a) Take-off location. The remote identification broadcast module
must be
[[Page 4508]]
capable of determining the take-off location of the unmanned aircraft.
(b) Time mark. The time mark message element must be synchronized
with all other remote identification message elements.
(c) Self-testing and monitoring. (1) Prior to take-off, the remote
identification broadcast module must automatically test the remote
identification functionality and notify the person manipulating the
flight controls of the unmanned aircraft system of the result of the
test.
(2) The remote identification broadcast module must continuously
monitor the remote identification functionality from takeoff to
shutdown and must provide notification of malfunction or failure to the
person manipulating the flight controls of the unmanned aircraft
system.
(d) Tamper resistance. The remote identification broadcast module
must be designed and produced in a way that reduces the ability of a
person to tamper with the remote identification functionality.
(e) Error correction. The remote identification broadcast module
must incorporate error correction in the broadcast of the message
elements in Sec. 89.315.
(f) Interference considerations. The remote identification
broadcast module must not interfere with other systems or equipment
installed on compatible unmanned aircraft, and other systems or
equipment installed on compatible unmanned aircraft must not interfere
with the remote identification equipment.
(g) Message broadcast. (1) The remote identification broadcast
module must be capable of broadcasting the message elements in Sec.
89.315 using a non-proprietary broadcast specification and using radio
frequency spectrum compatible with personal wireless devices in
accordance with 47 CFR part 15, where operations may occur without an
FCC individual license.
(2) The remote identification broadcast module must be designed to
maximize the range at which the broadcast can be received, while
complying with 47 CFR part 15 and any other applicable laws in effect
as of the date the declaration of compliance is submitted to the FAA
for acceptance.
(h) Message elements performance requirements. (1) The reported
geometric position of the unmanned aircraft must be accurate to within
100 feet of the true position, with 95 percent probability.
(2) The reported geometric altitude of the unmanned aircraft must
be accurate to within 150 feet of the true geometric altitude, with 95
percent probability.
(3) The reported geometric position of the take-off location must
be accurate to within 100 feet of the true geometric position, with 95
percent probability.
(4) The reported geometric altitude of the take-off location must
be accurate to within 150 feet of the true geometric altitude, with 95
percent probability.
(5) The remote identification broadcast module must broadcast the
latitude, longitude, and geometric altitude of the unmanned aircraft no
later than 1.0 seconds from the time of measurement to the time of
broadcast.
(6) The remote identification broadcast module must broadcast the
message elements at a rate of at least 1 message per second.
Subpart E--Means of Compliance
Sec. 89.401 Applicability.
This subpart prescribes--
(a) Requirements for means of compliance with subpart D of this
part.
(b) Procedural requirements for the submission and acceptance of
means of compliance used in the design and production of standard
remote identification unmanned aircraft or remote identification
broadcast modules to ensure they meet the minimum performance
requirements of this part.
(c) Rules governing persons submitting means of compliance for FAA
acceptance.
Sec. 89.405 Submission of a means of compliance for FAA acceptance.
(a) Eligibility. Any person may submit a means of compliance for
acceptance by the FAA.
(b) Required information. A person requesting acceptance of a means
of compliance must submit the following information to the FAA in a
form and manner acceptable to the Administrator:
(1) The name of the person or entity submitting the means of
compliance, the name of the main point of contact for communications
with the FAA, the physical address, email address, and other contact
information.
(2) A detailed description of the means of compliance.
(3) An explanation of how the means of compliance addresses all of
the minimum performance requirements established in subpart D of this
part so that any standard remote identification unmanned aircraft or
remote identification broadcast module designed and produced in
accordance with such means of compliance meets the remote
identification requirements of this part.
(4) Any substantiating material the person wishes the FAA to
consider as part of the request.
(c) Testing and validation. A means of compliance submitted for
acceptance by the FAA must include testing and validation procedures
for persons responsible for the production of standard remote
identification unmanned aircraft or remote identification broadcast
modules to demonstrate through analysis, ground test, or flight test,
as appropriate, how the standard remote identification unmanned
aircraft or the remote identification broadcast module performs its
intended functions and meets the requirements in subpart D of this
part, including any applicable FAA performance requirements for radio
station operation.
Sec. 89.410 Acceptance of a means of compliance.
(a) A person requesting acceptance of a means of compliance must
demonstrate to the Administrator that the means of compliance addresses
all of the requirements of subparts D and E of this part, and that any
standard remote identification unmanned aircraft or remote
identification broadcast module designed and produced in accordance
with such means of compliance would meet the performance requirements
of subpart D of this part.
(b) The Administrator will evaluate a means of compliance that is
submitted to the FAA and may request additional information or
documentation, as needed, to supplement the submission.
(c) If the Administrator determines the person has demonstrated
that the means of compliance meets the requirements of subparts D and E
of this part, the FAA will notify the person that the Administrator has
accepted the means of compliance.
Sec. 89.415 Rescission.
(a) Rescission of an FAA-accepted means of compliance. (1) A means
of compliance is subject to ongoing review by the Administrator. The
Administrator may rescind acceptance of a means of compliance if the
Administrator determines that a means of compliance does not meet any
or all of the requirements of subpart D or E of this part.
(2) The Administrator will publish a notice of rescission in the
Federal Register.
(b) Inapplicability of part 13, subpart D, of this chapter. Part
13, subpart D, of this chapter does not apply to the procedures of
paragraph (a) of this section.
[[Page 4509]]
Sec. 89.420 Record retention.
A person who submits a means of compliance that is accepted by the
Administrator under this subpart must retain the following information
for as long as the means of compliance is accepted plus an additional
24 calendar months, and must make available for inspection by the
Administrator the following:
(a) All documentation and substantiating data submitted to the FAA
for acceptance of the means of compliance.
(b) Records of all test procedures, methodology, and other
procedures, as applicable.
(c) Any other information necessary to justify and substantiate how
the means of compliance enables compliance with the remote
identification requirements of this part.
Subpart F-- Remote Identification Design and Production
Sec. 89.501 Applicability.
(a) This subpart prescribes--
(1) Requirements for the design and production of unmanned aircraft
with remote identification produced for operation in the airspace of
the United States.
(2) Requirements for the design and production of remote
identification broadcast modules.
(3) Procedural requirements for the submission, acceptance, and
rescission of declarations of compliance.
(4) Rules governing persons submitting declarations of compliance
for FAA acceptance under this part.
(b) Except as provided in paragraph (c) of this section, this
subpart applies to the design and production of all unmanned aircraft
operated in the airspace of the United States.
(c) Except for unmanned aircraft designed and produced to be
standard remote identification unmanned aircraft, this subpart does not
apply to the design or production of:
(1) Home-built unmanned aircraft.
(2) Unmanned aircraft of the United States Government.
(3) Unmanned aircraft that weigh 0.55 pounds or less on takeoff,
including everything that is on board or otherwise attached to the
aircraft.
(4) Unmanned aircraft designed or produced exclusively for the
purpose of aeronautical research or to show compliance with
regulations.
Sec. 89.505 Serial numbers.
No person may produce a standard remote identification unmanned
aircraft under Sec. 89.510 or Sec. 89.515 or a remote identification
broadcast module under Sec. 89.520, unless the producer assigns to the
unmanned aircraft or remote identification broadcast module a serial
number that complies with ANSI/CTA-2063-A. ANSI/CTA-2063-A, Small
Unmanned Aerial Systems Serial Numbers (September 2019) is incorporated
by reference into this section with the approval of the Director of the
Office of the Federal Register under 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR part 51.
All approved material is available for inspection at the FAA's Office
of Rulemaking (ARM-1), 800 Independence Avenue SW, Washington, DC 20590
(telephone 202-267-9677) and is available from Consumer Technology
Association (CTA), 1919 South Eads Street, Arlington, VA 22202,
CTA@CTA.tech, 703-907-7600 or at https://www.cta.tech. It is also
available for inspection at the National Archives and Records
Administration (NARA). For information on the availability of this
material at NARA, email fedreg.legal@nara.gov, or go to
www.archives.gov/federal-register/cfr/ibr-locations.html.
Sec. 89.510 Production requirements for unmanned aircraft produced
under a design approval or production approval issued under part 21 of
this chapter.
After September 16, 2022, no person may produce an unmanned
aircraft for operation in the airspace of the United States under a
design approval or production approval issued under part 21 of this
chapter unless:
(a) All applicable requirements of part 21 of this chapter are met;
and
(b) The unmanned aircraft is--
(1) Designed and produced to meet the minimum performance
requirements for standard remote identification unmanned aircraft
established in Sec. 89.310 in accordance with an FAA-accepted means of
compliance; or
(2) Equipped with Automatic Dependent Surveillance-Broadcast (ADS-
B) Out equipment that meets the requirements of Sec. 91.225 of this
chapter.
Sec. 89.515 Production requirements for unmanned aircraft without
design approval or production approval issued under part 21 of this
chapter.
Except as provided in Sec. 89.510, after September 16, 2022, no
person may produce an unmanned aircraft for operation in the airspace
of the United States unless--
(a) The unmanned aircraft is designed and produced to meet the
minimum performance requirements for standard remote identification
unmanned aircraft established in Sec. 89.310 in accordance with an
FAA-accepted means of compliance; and
(b) All of the following conditions are met:
(1) Inspection requirements for production of standard unmanned
aircraft. A person responsible for the production of standard remote
identification unmanned aircraft must, upon request, allow the
Administrator to inspect the person's facilities, technical data, and
any standard remote identification unmanned aircraft the person
produces, and to witness any tests necessary to determine compliance
with this subpart.
(2) Audit requirements. A person responsible for the production of
standard remote identification unmanned aircraft must cause independent
audits to be performed on a recurring basis, and additionally whenever
the FAA provides notice of noncompliance or potential noncompliance, to
demonstrate the unmanned aircraft listed under a declaration of
compliance meet the requirements of this subpart. The person
responsible for the production of standard remote identification
unmanned aircraft must provide the results of all such audits to the
FAA upon request.
(3) Product support and notification. A person responsible for the
production of standard remote identification unmanned aircraft must
maintain product support and notification procedures to notify the
public and the FAA of any defect or condition that causes an unmanned
aircraft to no longer meet the requirements of this subpart, within 15
calendar days of the date the person becomes aware of the defect or
condition.
Sec. 89.520 Production requirements for remote identification
broadcast modules.
After March 16, 2021, no person may produce remote identification
broadcast modules unless:
(a) The remote identification broadcast module is designed and
produced to meet the minimum performance requirements for remote
identification broadcast modules established in Sec. 89.320 in
accordance with an FAA-accepted means of compliance; and
(b) All of the following conditions are met:
(1) Inspection requirements for production of remote identification
broadcast modules. A person responsible for the production of remote
identification broadcast modules must, upon request, allow the
Administrator to inspect the person's facilities, technical data, and
any remote identification broadcast modules the person produces, and to
witness any
[[Page 4510]]
tests necessary to determine compliance with this subpart.
(2) Audit requirements. A person responsible for the production of
remote identification broadcast modules must cause independent audits
to be performed on a recurring basis, and additionally whenever the FAA
provides notice of noncompliance or potential noncompliance, to
demonstrate the remote identification broadcast modules listed under a
declaration of compliance meet the requirements of this subpart. The
person responsible for the production of remote identification
broadcast modules must provide the results of all such audits to the
FAA upon request.
(3) Product support and notification. A person responsible for the
production of remote identification broadcast modules must maintain
product support and notification procedures to notify the public and
the FAA of any defect or condition that causes the remote
identification broadcast module to no longer meet the requirements of
this subpart, within 15 calendar days of the date the person becomes
aware of the defect or condition.
(4) Instructions. A person responsible for the production of a
remote identification broadcast module must make available instructions
for installing and operating the remote identification broadcast module
to any person operating an unmanned aircraft with the remote
identification broadcast module.
Sec. 89.525 Labeling.
(a) No person may produce a standard remote identification unmanned
aircraft under Sec. 89.515 unless it displays a label indicating that
the unmanned aircraft meets the requirements of this part. The label
must be in English and be legible, prominent, and permanently affixed
to the unmanned aircraft.
(b) No person may produce a remote identification broadcast module
under Sec. 89.520 unless it displays a label indicating that the
equipment meets the requirements of this part. The label must be in
English and be legible, prominent, and permanently affixed to the
broadcast module.
Sec. 89.530 Submission of a declaration of compliance for FAA
acceptance.
(a) Eligibility. A person responsible for the production of a
standard remote identification unmanned aircraft under Sec. 89.515 or
a remote identification broadcast module under Sec. 89.520 must submit
a declaration of compliance for acceptance by the FAA.
(b) Required information for standard remote identification
unmanned aircraft. The person responsible for the production of a
standard remote identification unmanned aircraft requesting acceptance
of a declaration of compliance must declare that the unmanned aircraft
complies with the requirements of this subpart by submitting a
declaration of compliance to the FAA in a form and manner acceptable to
the Administrator. The declaration must include at a minimum the
following information:
(1) The name, physical address, telephone number, and email address
of the person responsible for production of the unmanned aircraft.
(2) The unmanned aircraft's make and model.
(3) The unmanned aircraft's serial number, or the range of serial
numbers for which the person responsible for production is declaring
compliance.
(4) The FCC Identifier of the 47 CFR part 15-compliant radio
frequency equipment used and integrated into the unmanned aircraft.
(5) The means of compliance used in the design and production of
the unmanned aircraft.
(6) Whether the declaration of compliance is an initial declaration
or an amended declaration, and if the declaration of compliance is an
amended declaration, the reason for the amendment.
(7) A declaration that the person responsible for the production of
the unmanned aircraft:
(i) Can demonstrate that the unmanned aircraft was designed and
produced to meet the minimum performance requirements of Sec. 89.310
by using an FAA-accepted means of compliance.
(ii) Complies with the requirements of Sec. 89.515(b).
(8) A statement that 47 CFR part 15-compliant radio frequency
equipment is used and is integrated into the unmanned aircraft without
modification to its authorized radio frequency parameters.
(c) Required information for remote identification broadcast
modules. The person responsible for the production of a remote
identification broadcast module under Sec. 89.520 that is requesting
acceptance of a declaration of compliance must declare that the remote
identification broadcast module complies with the requirements of this
subpart by submitting a declaration of compliance to the FAA in a form
and manner acceptable to the Administrator. The declaration must
include at a minimum the following information:
(1) The name, physical address, telephone number, and email address
of the person responsible for production of the remote identification
broadcast module.
(2) The remote identification broadcast module's make and model.
(3) The remote identification broadcast module's serial number, or
the range of serial numbers for which the person responsible for
production is declaring compliance.
(4) The FCC Identifier of the 47 CFR part 15-compliant radio
frequency equipment used and integrated into the remote identification
broadcast module.
(5) The means of compliance used in the design and production of
the remote identification broadcast module.
(6) Whether the declaration of compliance is an initial declaration
or an amended declaration, and if the declaration of compliance is an
amended declaration, the reason for the amendment.
(7) A declaration that the person responsible for the production of
the remote identification broadcast module:
(i) Can demonstrate that the remote identification broadcast module
was designed and produced to meet the minimum performance requirements
of Sec. 89.320 by using an FAA-accepted means of compliance.
(ii) Complies with the requirements of Sec. 89.520(b).
(8) A statement that 47 CFR part 15-compliant radio frequency
equipment is used and is integrated into the remote identification
broadcast module without modification to its authorized radio frequency
parameters, and a statement that instructions have been provided for
installation of 47 CFR part 15-compliant remote identification
broadcast module without modification to the broadcast module's
authorized radio frequency parameters.
Sec. 89.535 Acceptance of a declaration of compliance.
(a) The Administrator will evaluate a declaration of compliance
that is submitted to the FAA and may request additional information or
documentation, as needed, to supplement the declaration of compliance.
(b) If the Administrator determines that the submitter has
demonstrated compliance with the requirements of this subpart, the FAA
will notify the submitter that the Administrator has accepted the
declaration of compliance.
Sec. 89.540 Rescission and reconsideration.
(a) Rescission of the FAA's acceptance of a declaration of
compliance. (1) A declaration of compliance is subject to ongoing
review by the Administrator. The Administrator may rescind acceptance
of a declaration of
[[Page 4511]]
compliance under circumstances including but not limited to the
following:
(i) A standard remote identification unmanned aircraft or remote
identification broadcast module listed under an accepted declaration of
compliance does not meet the minimum performance requirements of Sec.
89.310 or Sec. 89.320.
(ii) A previously FAA-accepted declaration of compliance does not
meet a requirement of this subpart; or
(iii) The FAA rescinds acceptance of the means of compliance listed
in an FAA-accepted declaration of compliance.
(2) The Administrator will notify the person who submitted the FAA-
accepted declaration of compliance of any issue of noncompliance.
(3) If the Administrator determines that it is in the public
interest, prior to rescinding acceptance of a declaration of
compliance, the Administrator may provide a reasonable period of time
for the person who submitted the declaration of compliance to remediate
the noncompliance. A failure to remediate the noncompliance constitutes
cause for rescission of the FAA's acceptance of the declaration of
compliance.
(4) The Administrator will notify the person who submitted the
declaration of compliance of the decision to rescind acceptance of the
declaration of compliance by publishing a notice of rescission in the
Federal Register.
(b) Petition to reconsider the FAA's decision to rescind acceptance
of a declaration of compliance. (1) The person who submitted the FAA-
accepted declaration of compliance or any person adversely affected by
the rescission of the Administrator's acceptance of a declaration of
compliance may petition for a reconsideration of the decision by
submitting a request to the FAA in a form and manner acceptable to the
Administrator within 60 calendar days of the date of publication in the
Federal Register of notification of rescission.
(2) A petition to reconsider the rescission of the Administrator's
acceptance of a declaration of compliance must show that the petitioner
is an interested party and has been adversely affected by the decision
of the FAA. The petition must also demonstrate at least one of the
following:
(i) The petitioner adduces a significant additional fact not
previously presented to the FAA.
(ii) The Administrator made a material error of fact in the
decision to rescind acceptance of the declaration of compliance.
(iii) The Administrator did not correctly interpret a law,
regulation, or precedent.
(3) Upon consideration of the information submitted by the
petitioner, the Administrator will notify the petitioner and the person
who submitted the declaration of compliance (if different) of the
decision on whether to reinstate the Administrator's acceptance of the
declaration of compliance.
(c) Inapplicability of part 13, subpart D, of this chapter. Part
13, subpart D, of this chapter does not apply to the procedures of
paragraphs (a) and (b) of this section.
Sec. 89.545 Record retention.
A person who submits a declaration of compliance under this subpart
that is accepted by the Administrator must retain the following
information for as long as the standard remote identification unmanned
aircraft or remote identification broadcast module listed on that
declaration of compliance is produced plus an additional 24 calendar
months, and must make available for inspection by the Administrator the
following:
(a) The means of compliance, all documentation, and substantiating
data related to the means of compliance used.
(b) Records of all test results.
(c) Any other information necessary to demonstrate compliance with
the means of compliance so that the standard remote identification
unmanned aircraft or remote identification broadcast module meets the
remote identification requirements and the design and production
requirements of this part.
0
19. Effective September 16, 2022, add subpart C to part 89 to read as
follows:
Subpart C--FAA-Recognized Identification Areas
89.201 Applicability.
89.205 Eligibility.
89.210 Requests for establishment of an FAA-recognized
identification area.
89.215 Approval of FAA-recognized identification areas.
89.220 Amendment.
89.225 Duration of an FAA-recognized identification area.
89.230 Expiration and termination.
Subpart C--FAA-Recognized Identification Areas
Sec. 89.201 Applicability.
This subpart prescribes procedural requirements to establish an
FAA-recognized identification area.
Sec. 89.205 Eligibility.
Only the following persons are eligible to apply for the
establishment of an FAA-recognized identification area under this
subpart:
(a) A community-based organization recognized by the Administrator.
(b) An educational institution, including primary and secondary
educational institutions, trade schools, colleges, and universities.
Sec. 89.210 Requests for establishment of an FAA-recognized
identification area.
(a) Application. An eligible person requesting the establishment of
an FAA-recognized identification area under this subpart may submit an
application in a form and manner acceptable to the Administrator.
(b) Required documentation. A request under this subpart must
contain all of the following information:
(1) The name of the eligible person under Sec. 89.205.
(2) The name of the individual making the request on behalf of the
eligible person.
(3) A declaration that the individual making the request has the
authority to act on behalf of the community-based organization or
educational institution.
(4) The name and contact information of the primary point of
contact for communications with the FAA.
(5) The physical address of the proposed FAA-recognized
identification area.
(6) The location of the proposed FAA-recognized identification area
in a form and manner prescribed by the Administrator.
(7) If applicable, a copy of any existing letter of agreement
regarding the flying site.
(8) Description of the intended purpose of the FAA-recognized
identification area and why the proposed FAA-recognized identification
area is necessary for that purpose.
(9) Any other information required by the Administrator.
Sec. 89.215 Approval of FAA-recognized identification areas.
The Administrator will assess applications for FAA-recognized
identification areas and may require additional information or
documentation, as needed, to supplement an application. The
Administrator will approve or deny an application, and may take into
consideration matters such as, but not limited to:
(a) The existence of any FAA established flight or airspace
restriction limiting the operation of unmanned aircraft systems, such
as special use
[[Page 4512]]
airspace designations under part 73 of this chapter, temporary flight
restrictions issued under part 91 of this chapter, or any other special
flight rule, restriction or regulation in this chapter limiting the
operation of unmanned aircraft systems in the interest of safety,
efficiency, national security and/or homeland security, which overlaps
with the proposed FAA-recognized identification area.
(b) The safe and efficient use of airspace by other aircraft.
(c) The safety and security of persons or property on the ground.
(d) The need for an FAA-recognized identification area in the
proposed location and proximity of other FAA-recognized identification
areas.
Sec. 89.220 Amendment.
(a) From the time of application until expiration or termination of
an FAA-recognized identification area, any change to the information
submitted in the application including but not limited to a change to
the point of contact for the FAA-recognized identification area or a
change to the FAA-recognized identification area's organizational
affiliation must be submitted to the FAA within 10 calendar days of the
change.
(b) If the person who has been granted an FAA-recognized
identification area wishes to change the geographic boundaries of the
FAA-recognized identification area, the person must submit a request
describing the change to the FAA for review. The geographic boundaries
of the FAA-recognized identification area will not change unless the
requested change is approved in accordance with Sec. 89.215.
(c) The establishment of an FAA-recognized identification area is
subject to ongoing review in accordance with Sec. 89.215 by the
Administrator that may result in the termination of the FAA-recognized
identification area pursuant to Sec. 89.230 or modification of the
FAA-recognized identification area.
Sec. 89.225 Duration of an FAA-recognized identification area.
(a) Duration. Except as otherwise provided in this subpart, an FAA-
recognized identification area will be in effect for 48 calendar months
after the date the FAA approves the request for establishment of an
FAA-recognized identification area.
(b) Renewal. A person wishing to renew an FAA-recognized
identification area must submit a request for renewal no later than 120
days prior to the expiration of the FAA-recognized identification area
in a form and manner acceptable to the Administrator. The Administrator
may deny requests submitted after that deadline or requests submitted
after the expiration.
Sec. 89.230 Expiration and termination.
(a) Expiration. Unless renewed, an FAA-recognized identification
area issued under this subpart will expire automatically and will have
no further force or effect as of the day that immediately follows the
date of expiration.
(b) Termination prior to expiration--(1) Termination by request. An
individual identified as the point of contact for an approved FAA-
recognized identification area may submit a request to the
Administrator to terminate that FAA-recognized identification area.
(2) Termination by FAA. (i) The FAA may terminate an FAA-recognized
identification area upon a finding that--
(A) The FAA-recognized identification area may pose a risk to
aviation safety, public safety, homeland security, or national
security;
(B) The FAA-recognized identification area is no longer associated
with a person eligible for an FAA-recognized identification area; or
(C) The person who submitted a request for establishment of an FAA-
recognized identification area provided false or misleading information
during the submission, amendment, or renewal process.
(ii) The Administrator will notify the primary point of contact of
the decision to terminate the FAA-recognized identification area and
the reasons for the termination. Except as provided in paragraph (c) of
this section, if the FAA terminates an FAA-recognized identification
area based upon a finding that the FAA-recognized identification area
may pose a risk to aviation safety, public safety, homeland security,
or national security, that area will no longer be eligible to be an
FAA-recognized identification area for as long as those conditions
remain in effect.
(c) Petition to reconsider the FAA's decision to terminate an FAA-
recognized identification area. No later than 30 calendar days after
the termination of an FAA-recognized identification area, a person may
petition the Administrator for reconsideration of the decision. The
petition must state the reasons justifying the request for
reconsideration and include any supporting documentation. Upon
consideration of the information submitted by the petitioner, the
Administrator will notify the petitioner of the decision on the request
for reconsideration.
(d) Inapplicability of part 13, subpart D, of this chapter. Part
13, subpart D, of this chapter does not apply to the procedures of
paragraphs (b) and (c) of this section.
PART 91--GENERAL OPERATING AND FLIGHT RULES
0
20. The authority citation for part 91 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(f), 106(g), 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, Pub. L. 114-190, 130 Stat. 615 (49 U.S.C.
44703 note); articles 12 and 29 of the Convention on International
Civil Aviation (61 Stat. 1180), (126 Stat. 11).
0
21. Amend Sec. 91.215 by revising paragraphs (b) introductory text and
(c) and adding paragraph (e) to read as follows:
Sec. 91.215 ATC transponder and altitude reporting equipment and
use.
* * * * *
(b) All airspace. Unless otherwise authorized or directed by ATC,
and except as provided in paragraph (e)(1) of this section, no person
may operate an aircraft in the airspace described in paragraphs (b)(1)
through (5) of this section, unless that aircraft is equipped with an
operable coded radar beacon transponder having either Mode 3/A 4096
code capability, replying to Mode 3/A interrogations with the code
specified by ATC, or a Mode S capability, replying to Mode 3/A
interrogations with the code specified by ATC and intermode and Mode S
interrogations in accordance with the applicable provisions specified
in TSO C-112, and that aircraft is equipped with automatic pressure
altitude reporting equipment having a Mode C capability that
automatically replies to Mode C interrogations by transmitting pressure
altitude information in 100-foot increments. The requirements of this
paragraph (b) apply to--
* * * * *
(c) Transponder-on operation. Except as provided in paragraph
(e)(2) of this section, while in the airspace as specified in paragraph
(b) of this section or in all controlled airspace, each person
operating an aircraft equipped with an operable ATC transponder
maintained in accordance with Sec. 91.413 shall operate the
transponder, including Mode C equipment if installed, and shall reply
on the appropriate code or as assigned by ATC, unless otherwise
directed by ATC when transmitting
[[Page 4513]]
would jeopardize the safe execution of air traffic control functions.
* * * * *
(e) Unmanned aircraft. (1) The requirements of paragraph (b) of
this section do not apply to a person operating an unmanned aircraft
under this part unless the operation is conducted under a flight plan
and the person operating the unmanned aircraft maintains two-way
communication with ATC.
(2) No person may operate an unmanned aircraft under this part with
a transponder on unless:
(i) The operation is conducted under a flight plan and the person
operating the unmanned aircraft maintains two-way communication with
ATC; or
(ii) The use of a transponder is otherwise authorized by the
Administrator.
* * * * *
0
22. Amend Sec. 91.225 by revising paragraphs (a) introductory text,
(b) introductory text, (d) introductory text, and (f) introductory text
and adding paragraph (i) to read as follows:
Sec. 91.225 Automatic Dependent Surveillance-Broadcast (ADS-B) Out
equipment and use.
(a) After January 1, 2020, unless otherwise authorized by ATC, no
person may operate an aircraft in Class A airspace unless the aircraft
has equipment installed that--
* * * * *
(b) After January 1, 2020, except as prohibited in paragraph (i)(2)
of this section or unless otherwise authorized by ATC, no person may
operate an aircraft below 18,000 feet MSL and in airspace described in
paragraph (d) of this section unless the aircraft has equipment
installed that--
* * * * *
(d) After January 1, 2020, except as prohibited in paragraph (i)(2)
of this section or unless otherwise authorized by ATC, no person may
operate an aircraft in the following airspace unless the aircraft has
equipment installed that meets the requirements in paragraph (b) of
this section:
* * * * *
(f) Except as prohibited in paragraph (i)(2) of this section, each
person operating an aircraft equipped with ADS-B Out must operate this
equipment in the transmit mode at all times unless--
* * * * *
(i) For unmanned aircraft:
(1) No person may operate an unmanned aircraft under a flight plan
and in two way communication with ATC unless:
(i) That aircraft has equipment installed that meets the
performance requirements in TSO-C166b or TSO-C154c; and
(ii) The equipment meets the requirements of Sec. 91.227.
(2) No person may operate an unmanned aircraft under this part with
Automatic Dependent Surveillance-Broadcast Out equipment in transmit
mode unless:
(i) The operation is conducted under a flight plan and the person
operating that unmanned aircraft maintains two-way communication with
ATC; or
(ii) The use of ADS-B Out is otherwise authorized by the
Administrator.
PART 107--SMALL UNMANNED AIRCRAFT SYSTEMS
0
23. The authority citation for part 107 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(f), 40101 note, 40103(b), 44701(a)(5),
44807.
Sec. 107.53 [Redesignated as Sec. 107.56]
0
24. Redesignate Sec. 107.53 as Sec. 107.56.
0
25. Add Sec. 107.52 and new Sec. 107.53 to read as follows:
Sec. 107.52 ATC transponder equipment prohibition.
Unless otherwise authorized by the Administrator, no person may
operate a small unmanned aircraft system under this part with a
transponder on.
Sec. 107.53 Automatic Dependent Surveillance-Broadcast (ADS-B) Out
prohibition.
Unless otherwise authorized by the Administrator, no person may
operate a small unmanned aircraft system under this part with ADS-B Out
equipment in transmit mode.
Issued in Washington, DC, under the authority of 49 U.S.C.
106(f), 40101, 40103, 44701(a)(5), 44805, 44809, and section 2202 of
Public Law 114-190.
Steve Dickson,
Administrator.
[FR Doc. 2020-28948 Filed 1-8-21; 4:15 pm]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P