1
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P
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: Except for subpart C of part 89, this rule is effective [INSERT DATE
60 DAYS AFTER DATE OF PUBLICATION IN THE FEDERAL REGISTER]. Subpart C of
part 89 is effective INSERT DATE 60 DAYS AND 18 MONTHS AFTER DATE OF
PUBLICATION IN THE FEDERAL REGISTER]. The incorporation by reference of certain
publications listed in the rule is approved by the Director of the Federal Register as of [INSERT
DATE 60 DAYS AFTER DATE OF PUBLICATION IN THE FEDERAL REGISTER].
Compliance dates: Compliance with §§ 89.510 and 89.515 is required [INSERT DATE 60
DAYS AND 18 MONTHS AFTER DATE OF PUBLICATION IN THE FEDERAL
REGISTER]. Compliance with §§ 89.105, 89.110, and 89.115, and subpart C of part 89 is
This is a copy of the final rule that h
as been submitted to the Federal Register for publication.
2
required [INSERT DATE 60 DAYS AND 30 MONTHS AFTER DATE OF PUBLICATION IN
THE FEDERAL REGISTER].
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ben Walsh, Flight Technologies and
Procedures Division, Federal Aviation Administration, 470 L’Enfant Plaza S.W., Suite 4102,
Washington, D.C, 20024; telephone 1-844-FLY-MY-UA (1-844-359-6981);
email: [email protected].
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
3
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
4
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
5
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
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
6
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,
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.
7
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.
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
8
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 [INSERT DATE 60 DAYS
AND 18 MONTHS AFTER DATE OF PUBLICATION IN THE FEDERAL REGISTER] and
no unmanned aircraft can be operated in the airspace of the United States after [INSERT DATE
60 DAYS AND 30 MONTHS AFTER DATE OF PUBLICATION IN THE FEDERAL
REGISTER].
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
9
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 § 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 [INSERT
DATE 60 DAYS AND 30 MONTHS AFTER DATE OF PUBLICATION IN THE FEDERAL
REGISTER].
Operating requirements for standard remote identification unmanned aircraft are
discussed in greater detail in section VII.C of this preamble.
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
10
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 § 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 [INSERT DATE 60 DAYS AND 30 MONTHS AFTER DATE OF
PUBLICATION IN THE FEDERAL REGISTER].
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.
11
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 [INSERT
DATE 60 DAYS AND 30 MONTHS AFTER DATE OF PUBLICATION IN THE FEDERAL
REGISTER]. 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.
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 [INSERT
DATE 60 DAYS AND 18 MONTHS AFTER DATE OF PUBLICATION IN THE FEDERAL
REGISTER]. 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.
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.
12
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 [INSERT
DATE 60 DAYS AFTER DATE OF PUBLICATION IN THE FEDERAL REGISTER].
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
13
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 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
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
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.
14
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
[INSERT DATE 60 DAYS AND 18 MONTHS AFTER DATE OF PUBLICATION IN THE
FEDERAL REGISTER].
A person producing a remote identification broadcast module must comply with the
requirements of subpart F of part 89 by [INSERT DATE 60 DAYS AFTER DATE OF
PUBLICATION IN THE FEDERAL REISTER].
15
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.
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
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.
5
80 FR 78593.
16
Unmanned Aircraft Systems NPRM. See section XV of this preamble for more information
about registration requirements.
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.
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
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.
17
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 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.
18
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 $26.6 million.
The following table presents a summary of the primary estimates of the quantified costs
and cost savings of this rule, as well as estimates for the low and high forecast scenarios.
Additional details are provided in the Regulatory Evaluation section of this rule and in the
Regulatory Impact Analysis available in the docket for this rulemaking.
Table 1: Costs and Savings of Final Rule ($Millions)*
Forecast Scenario
10 Year
Present
Value (3%)
Annualized
(3%)
10 Year
Present
Value (7%)
Annualized
(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)
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.
19
Forecast Scenario
10 Year
Present
Value (3%)
Annualized
(3%)
10 Year
Present
Value (7%)
Annualized
(7%)
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,
20
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 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.
21
Section 2202 of Pub. L. 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 Pub. L. 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
22
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
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
9
49 C.F.R. § 5.5(e).
10
80 FR 78594.
23
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.
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 Pub. L. 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.
The 2016 Rule also imposed certain restrictions on small UAS operations. The
restrictions included a prohibition on nighttime operations, limitations on operations conducted
11
81 FR 42064.
24
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 section 333 of Pub. L.
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.
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 Pub. L. 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
12
See, e.g., 14 C.F.R. § 107.41 (requiring prior FAA authorization for small unmanned aircraft operation in certain
types of airspace).
25
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.
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
13
See 49 U.S.C. 44809.
14
84 FR 3669.
15
84 FR 3856.
16
84 FR 3732.
26
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.
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
27
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
28
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 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
29
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
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
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.
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, Pub. L. No. 114-
190, § 2209, 130 Stat. 615, 633-635 (2016).
30
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.
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
31
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 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
32
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
33
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
34
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
35
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 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.
36
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
37
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 § 1.1. The
FAA also proposed several definitions to be included in § 89.1, including the definitions for
broadcast, amateur-built unmanned aircraft system, and Remote ID USS.
38
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.
39
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 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
§ 107.31(a). The FAA proposed that because visual line of sight will now be used in multiple
parts, providing a definition in § 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
40
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.
41
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 &
42
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 remote identification
broadcast modules in greater detail.
43
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
44
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
45
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
46
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 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.”
47
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 § 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.
48
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
part 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
49
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 § 89.101 the FAA adopts the
requirement that all unmanned aircraft registered or required to be registered under part 47 or
part 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 § 89.101 that the operating
requirements do not apply to unmanned aircraft operations under part 91 that are transmitting
ADS-B Out pursuant to § 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
50
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 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
51
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
52
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 [INSERT DATE 60 DAYS AND 30 MONTHS AFTER
THE DATE OF PUBLICATION IN THE FEDERAL REGISTER], all persons operating
unmanned aircraft registered or required to be registered under part 47 or part 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 § 89.101(b); 2) the
53
Administrator authorizes a deviation for aeronautical research or to show compliance with
regulations, in accordance with § 89.120; or 3) the Administrator authorizes the operator to
deviate from the operating requirements, in accordance with § 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
54
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 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 § 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
55
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 part 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 part 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 § 89.105
to deviate from the operating requirements or under § 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
56
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, § 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
57
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 § 89.101(b) for persons conducting unmanned
aircraft operations under part 91 that are transmitting ADS-B Out pursuant to § 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 § 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.
58
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 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 § 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 § 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 § 89.115(b) of this rule.
59
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.
60
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
61
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
62
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
63
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.
64
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.
65
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 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.
66
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
67
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
68
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.
69
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.
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
70
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
71
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
72
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.
73
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 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.
74
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
75
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.
76
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
77
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 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
78
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 § 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
79
modifications in § 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
§ 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, § 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
80
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 § 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 remote identification
unmanned aircraft. The Agency intends for compliance with the remote identification
requirements to be simple and straightforward for individuals operating standard remote
81
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 part 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 § 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.
82
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 § 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
83
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
§ 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
84
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
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 § 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
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 C.F.R. §§ 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.
85
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
§ 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 § 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
86
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.
87
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 § 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 part 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 § 89.130 prior to the
operation in the airspace of the United States. The requirements that apply to foreign registered
88
civil unmanned aircraft operating in the airspace of the United States are discussed in section
XVI of this preamble.
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
89
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.
90
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.
91
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
92
should end upon shutdown because it would grant additional time for law enforcement and other
security partners to locate the unmanned aircraft, after it 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
93
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.
94
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 § 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.
95
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
operation of unmanned aircraft without remote identification is allowed: 1) under § 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 § 89.120 when the Administrator authorizes operations without remote
96
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
97
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.
98
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
99
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 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.
100
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.
101
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.
102
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.,
103
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.
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.
104
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.
105
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
106
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
107
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.
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
108
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
109
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 C.F.R. § 5.41(a).
110
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
111
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 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.
112
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.
113
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,
114
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 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
115
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
116
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
117
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.
118
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 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.
119
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.
120
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
121
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
122
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
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.
123
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
124
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.
125
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.
126
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.
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.
127
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.
128
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
129
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.
130
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 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
131
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.
132
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 USC 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
133
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 § 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 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
134
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
135
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.
136
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
137
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 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
138
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.
139
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
140
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.
141
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 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
142
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.
143
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
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
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.
144
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.
145
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 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 § 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
146
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.
147
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.
148
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
149
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. 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
150
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:
151
• 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
152
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
153
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.
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
154
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
155
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.
156
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
157
the unmanned aircraft, the FAA is adopting a geometric altitude accuracy requirement that is
compatible with commercial off the shelf position 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
158
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.
159
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.
160
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 § 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
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
161
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.
162
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
163
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
164
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 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
165
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
166
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.
167
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.
168
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 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
169
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
170
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
171
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
172
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 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.
173
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
174
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
175
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.
176
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 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
177
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
178
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
179
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.
180
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.
181
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.
182
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
183
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 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
184
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
[INSERT DATE 60 DAYS AND 18 MONTHS AFTER DATE OF PUBLICATION IN THE
FEDERAL REGISTER].
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,
185
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
186
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
[INSERT DATE 60 DAYS AND 18 MONTHS AFTER DATE OF PUBLICATION IN THE
FEDERAL REGISTER].
D. Process to Request an FAA-Recognized Identification Area and FAA Review for Approval
1. Discussion of the Final Rule
The NPRM proposed in § 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 § 89.205; (2) the name of the individual making the
request on behalf of eligible persons (i.e., the CBO or educational institution per § 89.205); (3) a
declaration that the individual making the request has the authority to act on behalf of the
187
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 § 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 § 89.215 to explain how the FAA may evaluate the
requested location of an FAA-recognized identification area. In § 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.
188
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
189
“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.
190
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-
191
established requirements than to risk FAA disapproval because their application did not meet the
generalized criteria of § 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 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
192
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 § 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 § 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 § 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
193
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 § 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.
194
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 § 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.
195
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 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.
196
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
197
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 § 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.
198
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 § 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 § 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
199
identification area for as long as those conditions remain in effect. The FAA is also adding
“homeland security” to the list of considerations in § 89.230(b)(2) that may necessitate
termination, for consistency with other changes made in § 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
200
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, §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 § 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.
201
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
202
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.
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.
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 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
23
See OMB Circular A-4.
24
Pub. L. 104-113; 15 U.S.C. 3701 et seq.
25
49 C.F.R. § 5.5(e).
203
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.
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
26
OMB Circular A-119, Section 5d.
204
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 § 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.
205
C. Submission of a Means of Compliance
1. Discussion of the Final Rule
In accordance with § 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
206
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 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
207
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, § 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
208
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 § 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 part 89 and part 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
209
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).
210
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 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
211
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 § 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
212
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
213
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
214
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 § 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 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
215
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 § 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.
216
The record retention requirement in § 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.
217
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 § 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.
218
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 § 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 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
219
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 § 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
220
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
221
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 § 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, § 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 § 89.501(c). Section 89.501(c)(1) was revised
to replace the term “amateur-built unmanned aircraft system” with the term “home-built
222
unmanned aircraft,” which is consistent with the terminology change addressed in section V.D of
this preamble. Furthermore, in § 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 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
223
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
224
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
§ 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
225
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 part 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
§ 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
226
Association (MPA) expressed concerns with excepting home-built 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 § 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
227
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
§ 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.
228
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
§ 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 § 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
229
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 part 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 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
230
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 § 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
231
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, 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.
232
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 § 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
233
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 § 89.501(c)(4) so that UAS could be produced without remote identification for
other purposes such as educational activities; science, 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 § 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 § 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 § 89.501(c)(1) of this
rule. The aeronautical research exception is meant to allow the testing of prototype UAS,
234
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 § 89.505, no person may produce a standard remote identification
unmanned aircraft under part 21 or part 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
235
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 § 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
236
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
§ 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 § 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
237
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 § 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 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 § 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 § 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
238
identification add-on equipment could be used to meet the serial number requirement in
§ 89.505.
Other commenters believed that the serial number requirement in § 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 § 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
239
compliant serial number to any existing unmanned aircraft produced prior to the compliance date
of the design and production requirements.
27
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.
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.
240
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
241
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 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 § 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.
242
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 § 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.
243
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 § 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
244
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 § 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-
A standard is available for review and download, free of charge, at the time of publication of this
rule.
245
D. Labeling Requirements
1. Discussion of the Final Rule
According to § 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 § 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.
246
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
247
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.
248
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 § 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.
249
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 § 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
§ 89.505.
Second, type certificated unmanned aircraft must meet the production requirements in
§ 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 § 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 § 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
250
“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.
251
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 § 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 § 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 § 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.
252
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.
253
At this time, the FAA does not agree with commenters asking the Agency to certify all
standard remote identification unmanned aircraft and remote 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 § 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).
254
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
255
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
256
excepted from the design and production requirement in accordance with § 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 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
257
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 § 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 § 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
258
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
259
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
260
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 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 § 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 § 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
261
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.
262
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 § 89.515 and (b)(3) of § 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.
263
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 § 89.515 for standard remote
identification unmanned aircraft and § 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
264
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.
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
265
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 § 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 § 89.515 and remote identification broadcast modules produced in accordance
with § 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.
266
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
267
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.
268
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 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.
269
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
§ 89.1 to ensure clarity regarding the meaning of a “declaration of compliance.”
In addition, § 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 § 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
270
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
271
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,
272
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 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
273
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
§§ 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 § 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
274
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 § 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
275
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 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.
276
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
277
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
278
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.
279
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 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 § 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.
280
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
281
supplement the declaration of compliance and to ensure completeness and compliance with the
requirements of § 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
282
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.
283
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.
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
284
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 § 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.
285
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 § 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
286
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 § 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 § 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.
287
XV. Registration
The FAA proposed that persons operating unmanned aircraft registered or required to be
registered under part 47 or part 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
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 part 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 part 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
288
unmanned aircraft operating under 14 CFR part 91, part 107, part 135, or any other operating
part are required to register under part 47 or part 48 regardless of weight.
28
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.
28
Foreign civil aircraft remain subject to the requirements of 14 CFR part 375 and, to the extent applicable, 14 CFR
§ 48.125.
289
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
290
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
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
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.
291
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 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 §§ 48.100-48.115 to maximize regulatory clarity and also revises
§§ 48.100-48.110 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
292
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
293
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.
294
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 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.
295
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.
296
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
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
30
14 CFR 47.17(a).
297
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.
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 part 48, which includes payment of the
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.
298
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 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.
299
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
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.
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.
300
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
301
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
302
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 § 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 § 48.100(a) to require a serial number for every small
unmanned aircraft. Consistent with the proposed changes in part 47, § 48.100(a)(5) would have
required the owner of any standard remote identification unmanned aircraft or limited remote
identification 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 § 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
303
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, part 107,
part 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 part 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
304
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, part 107, part 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
305
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 § 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.
306
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 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
307
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
308
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 § 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.
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
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.
309
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
310
the future. Comments regarding the external marking requirement are out of scope of this
rulemaking.
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 § 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 § 48.5. Existing § 48.5 established the initial
compliance time periods for registration which expired in 2016. Because this provision is no
longer necessary and the existing § 48.5 includes terminology that is outdated following the 2018
FAA Reauthorization, the FAA is removing and reserving § 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
311
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 § 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
In response to comments noting that some countries register operators instead of aircraft,
the FAA is revising § 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
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 part 48 and cannot file a notice of
identification, they may be unable to meet the operating requirements of § 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.
312
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 § 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
313
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 § 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-registered civil unmanned aircraft to the
314
operator, as the responsible person for the operation of the unmanned aircraft. Recognizing the
differences in registration regimes, the FAA is revising § 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
§ 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.
315
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.
316
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 § 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 § 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, § 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 § 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 91.227
317
In addition, § 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 §§ 107.52 and 107.53 as proposed, which prohibit the use of
ADS-B Out and ATC transponders on small UAS. Under § 107.52, no person may operate a
small UAS under part 107 with a transponder on, unless otherwise authorized by the
Administrator. Under § 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 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
318
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
319
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 § 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 § 89.101
which clarifies that the unmanned aircraft remote identification requirements do not apply to
320
persons operating unmanned aircraft when the unmanned aircraft is equipped with ADS-B Out
and operated in accordance with § 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 § 91.225. Operations that do qualify for
use of ADS-B Out must comply with § 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
321
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
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 § 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
322
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.
323
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
324
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 § 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 § 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
325
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 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
326
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
327
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
328
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.
329
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
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 [INSERT DATE 60 DAYS AND 18 MONTHS AFTER DATE OF
PUBLICATION IN THE FEDERAL REGISTER]. 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
330
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 [INSERT DATE 60 DAYS AFTER
DATE OF PUBLICATION IN THE FEDERAL REGISTER]. 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
331
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
332
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
333
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 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
334
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 [INSERT DATE 60
DAYS AND 30 MONTHS AFTER DATE OF PUBLICATION IN THE FEDERAL
REGISTER]. 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
335
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
336
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 immediately upon the rule effective date. The National Association of
Tower Erectors (NATE) suggested reducing the 3-year operational compliance period both to
337
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.
338
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
339
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
340
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 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.
341
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
342
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
343
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.
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
35
October 17, 2019 Drone Advisory Committee (DAC) Meeting Materials
https://www.faa.gov/uas/programs_partnerships/drone_advisory_committee/media/eBook_10172019_DAC_Meetin
g.pdf
344
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 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 webpages. 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
345
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
346
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 EO 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
347
(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.
348
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 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
349
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.
350
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.
351
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
network connectivity requirement has been removed at this time, and 2) the proposed
352
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
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.
36
https://www.faa.gov/uas/resources/community_engagement/
353
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.
354
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.
355
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 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.
356
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
357
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 § 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
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.
358
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.
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.
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
38
https://www.faa.gov/data_research/aviation/aerospace_forecasts/media/FY2020-
40_FAA_Aerospace_Forecast.pdf. Pages 41-63.
359
$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 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
360
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.
361
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.
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
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.
362
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.
363
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
Comments: A commenter stated the FAA incorrectly includes benefits of 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
41
https://www.faa.gov/uas/resources/public_records/uas_sightings_report/
364
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
365
unmanned aircraft exclusively in compliance with 49 U.S.C. 44809 may maintain one
registration for all unmanned aircraft meeting that description.
42
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.
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.
366
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
367
AMA, and provides clarity on this point in the regulatory impact 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,
368
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.
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
43
. https://www.faa.gov/data_research/aviation/aerospace_forecasts/media/FY2020-
40_FAA_Aerospace_Forecast.pdf. Pages 41-63.
369
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.
370
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 flight controls of the UAS with the limited information
available from visually observing an unmanned aircraft. Remote identification information will
371
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.
372
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 § 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 § 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
373
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.
374
• 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
• 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
• 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 the
primary estimate of net impacts of the rule to be the base scenario.
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.
45
OMB Circular A-4, Regulatory Analysis (2003),
https://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/whitehouse.gov/files/omb/circulars/A4/a-4.pdf
.
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
375
• 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.
• 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
• 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.
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.
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.
376
• 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
• 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
• 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
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).
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.
377
range between 0 and 40 hours.
53
This is used to estimate cost savings from reduced hours
for FAA UAS investigations.
• The FAA determines the cost of a broadcast module to be $50.
54
• 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
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.
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.
378
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 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
379
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
Affected Entity/Category
10 Year
Present
Value
(at 3%)
Annualized
(at 3%)
10 Year
Present
Value
(at 7%)
Annualized
(at 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 Compliance
2.9
0.3
2.4
0.3
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 ($Millions)*
Low Scenario
Affected Entity/Category
10 Year
Present
Value
(at 3%)
Annualized
(at 3%)
10 Year
Present
Value
(at 7%)
Annualized
(at 7%)
UAS Owners/Operators
167.7
19.7
134.1
19.1
380
Affected Entity/Category
10 Year
Present
Value
(at 3%)
Annualized
(at 3%)
10 Year
Present
Value
(at 7%)
Annualized
(at 7%)
UAS Producers (US and Foreign)
33.8
4.0
30.9
4.4
Developers of Remote Identification Means of Compliance
2.9
0.3
2.4
0.3
FAA-Recognized Identification Area Requests
0.6
0.1
0.6
0.1
FAA Costs
12.1
1.4
10.6
1.5
Total Costs
217.1
25.4
178.6
25.4
Cost Savings
(3.5)
(0.4)
(2.8)
(0.4)
Net Costs
213.6
25.0
175.8
25.0
Table notes: Column totals may not sum due to rounding and parenthesis, “( )”, around numbers to indicate savings.
Table 4: Net Costs of Final Rule ($Millions)*
High Scenario
Affected Entity/Category
10 Year
Present
Value
(at 3%)
Annualized
(at 3%)
10 Year
Present
Value
(at 7%)
Annualized
(at 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 Compliance
2.9
0.3
2.4
0.3
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.
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
Affected Entity
10 Year
Present
Value
(at 3%)
10 Year
Present
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
381
Affected Entity
10 Year
Present
Value
(at 3%)
10 Year
Present
Value
(at 7%)
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.
382
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 unmanned aircraft
Operators will be able to attach a remote 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.
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
383
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 this proposal.
384
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
385
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.
386
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 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
387
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
388
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;
389
• 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
390
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 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
391
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 Pub. L. 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 Pub. L. 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.
392
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.
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.
55
Consult http://www.faa.gov/uas for additional information regarding UAS operations.
56
81 FR 42064.
393
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
394
facilitates compliance with this rule and meets the safety and security needs under this rule 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 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
57
AUVSI Air Platform Database. Accessed July 2020.
395
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.
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.
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
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.
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.
60
Academy of Model Aeronautics (AMA), http://www.modelaircraft.org/aboutama/whatisama.aspx; more than
2,500 AMA clubs.
396
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.
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
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.
397
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.
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
398
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.
399
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
400
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 this 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
401
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 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.
402
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.
403
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.
404
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:
405
(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 of more than one remote identification broadcast module as part of the application
for aircraft registration under § 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
406
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.)
Year
Registrations
Hourly
Burden
Total
Cost
($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:
407
(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
408
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)
Year
Minutes to
Establish
Account
63
Additional
Minutes Per
Aircraft
Total
Minutes
Part 107
Opportunity Cost
of Time
($0.794/Minute)
64
Recreational Flyer
Opportunity Cost
of Time
($0.242/Minute)
65
1
5
1
6
$4.76/notification
$1.45/notification
2
5
1
6
$4.76/notification
$1.45/notification
3
5
1
6
$4.76/notification
$1.45/notification
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
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.
409
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
Year
Means Of
Compliance
Submitted
Total
Pages
Hrs Per
Page
Total
Hrs
Cost Per
Hour
Total Cost
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
410
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:
o 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.
o 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.
411
o 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.
o 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
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.
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.
412
• 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:
o 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.
o 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.
o 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.
o 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.
413
o 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)
Year
Declaration
of
Compliance
Submitted
Pages Per
Declaration of
Compliance
Hours Per
Page
Hourly
Burden
Cost Per
Hour
Total Cost
414
1
2
1,346.1
50
1 hour
67,305
$83.79
$5.64
3
18.9
50
1 hour
945
$83.79
$0.08
Total
1,365
68,250
$83.79
$5.72
Row and column totals may not sum due to rounding.
iii. Labeling
For standard remote identification unmanned aircraft and remote identification broadcast
modules, the rule requires the person responsible for production of the unmanned aircraft or
broadcast module to label the unmanned aircraft or broadcast module to show that it was
produced with remote identification technology that meets the requirements of the rule. The label
would be in English and be legible, prominent, and permanently affixed to the unmanned aircraft
or broadcast module. The proposed labeling requirement assists the operator to know that his or
her unmanned aircraft or broadcast module is eligible to conduct operations within the airspace
of the United States.
Use: The labeling requirement assists the FAA and owners and operators of unmanned
aircraft and broadcast modules to determine if the unmanned aircraft or broadcast module meets
the remote identification requirements of the rule.
Table 11: Labeling Requirement
Hourly Burden and Cost ($Mil.)
Year
Number of
Platforms
Hours Per
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.
415
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
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
67
See 49 U.S.C. 44809.
416
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
Year
Remote ID
Respondents
1
2
269,600
3
1,160,669
417
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 § 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 (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)
Year
Requests
Submitted
Pages Per
Request
Total
Pages
Hrs Per
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
418
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.
419
• 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 2600 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
420
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.
421
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 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
422
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.
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.
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.
423
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
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
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/.
424
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.
425
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 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.
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.
72
Thus, the FAA estimates that the primary impact of the rule will be on U.S. entities.
426
Copies may also be obtained by sending a request to the Federal Aviation Administration,
Office of Rulemaking, ARM-1, 800 Independence Avenue S.W., Washington, D.C. 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.
427
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
1. The authority citation for part 1 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(f), 106(g), 40113, 44701.
2. In § 1.1, add the term “unmanned aircraft system” in alphabetical order to read as
follows:
§ 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.
* * * * *
428
PART 11—GENERAL RULEMAKING PROCEDURES
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.
4. Amend § 11.201 by revising paragraph (b) to read as follows:
§ 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 number
* * * * * * *
Part 89
2120-0781, 2120-0782, 2120-0783,
2120-0785
* * * * * * *
PART 47—AIRCRAFT REGISTRATION
5. The authority citation for part 47 is revised to read as follows:
Authority: 4 U.S.T. 1830; Public Law 108-297, 118 Stat. 1095 (49 U.S.C. 40101 note, 49
U.S.C. 44101 note); 49 U.S.C. 106(f), 106(g), 40113-40114, 44101-44108, 44110-44113, 44703-
44704, 44713, 44809(f), 45302, 45305, 46104, 46301.
6. Add § 47.14 to read as follows:
§ 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
429
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.
PART 48—REGISTRATION AND MARKING REQUIREMENTS FOR SMALL
UNMANNED AIRCRAFT
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.
§ 48.5 [Removed and reserved]
8. Remove and reserve § 48.5.
9. Amend § 48.15 by revising paragraph (b) to read as follows:
§ 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
* * * * *
430
10. Amend § 48.25 by revising paragraph (a) to read as follows:
§ 48.25 Applicants.
(a) To register a small unmanned aircraft in the United States under this part, a person
must provide the information required by § 48.110 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.
* * * * *
11. Amend § 48.30 by revising paragraphs (a) and (b) to read as follows:
§ 48.30 Fees.
(a) The fee for issuing or renewing a Certificate of Aircraft Registration as described in
§ 48.100 is $5.00 per aircraft.
(b) The fee for issuing or renewing a Certificate of Aircraft Registration as described in
§ 48.105 is $5.00 per certificate.
* * * * *
12. Redesignate §§ 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
13. Amend newly-redesignated § 48.100 by revising the section heading and paragraphs
(a) and (c)(1) to read as follows:
§ 48.100 Registration: Small unmanned aircraft operated for any purpose other than
exclusively limited recreational operations.
431
(a) Certificate of Aircraft Registration. A Certificate of Aircraft Registration issued in
accordance with § 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 § 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.
* * * * *
14. Amend newly-redesignated § 48.105 by revising the section heading and paragraphs
(a) and (c)(1) to read as follows:
§ 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 § 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) * * *
432
(1) The holder of a Certificate of Aircraft Registration must renew the Certificate by
verifying, in a form and manner prescribed by the Administrator, that the information provided
in accordance with § 48.110 of this part is accurate and if it is not, provide updated information.
The verification may take place at any time within the six months preceding the month in which
the Certificate of Aircraft registration expires.
* * * * *
15. Revise newly-redesignated § 48.110 to read as follows:
§ 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
433
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 § 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.
16. Amend newly-redesignated § 48.115 by revising paragraphs (a) and (b)(1) to read as
follows:
§ 48.115 Requirement to maintain current information.
(a) The holder of a Certificate of Aircraft Registration must ensure that the information
provided under § 48.110 remains accurate.
(b) * * *
(1) A change in the information provided under § 48.110.
434
* * * * *
17. Amend § 48.200 by revising paragraph (b)(2) to read as follows:
§ 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 § 48.110(a).
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.
89.125 Automatic Dependent Surveillance-Broadcast (ADS-B) Out prohibition.
89.130 Confirmation of identification.
Subpart C—[Reserved]
89.201 through 89.299 [Reserved]
Subpart D—Requirements for Unmanned Aircraft with Remote Identification
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.
435
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.
89.515 Production requirements for unmanned aircraft without design approval or production
approval issued under part 21.
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.
Subpart A—General
§ 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.
§ 89.5 Falsification, reproduction, alteration, or omission.
436
(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 paragraphs (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
437
(2) A civil penalty.
Subpart B—Operating Requirements
§ 89.101 Applicability.
(a) Except as provided in paragraph (b), this subpart applies to the following:
(1) Persons operating unmanned aircraft registered or required to be registered under
part 47 or part 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 § 91.225.
§ 89.105 Remote identification requirement.
Except as otherwise authorized by the Administrator or as provided in § 89.120, after
[INSERT DATE 60 DAYS AND 30 MONTHS AFTER DATE OF PUBLICATION IN THE
FEDERAL REGISTER] no person may operate an unmanned aircraft within the airspace of the
United States unless the operation meets the requirements of § 89.110 or § 89.115.
§ 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 § 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 unmanned aircraft must
broadcast the message elements of § 89.305.
438
(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 § 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.
(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 § 89.130 prior to the operation.
§ 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 § 89.105 by
meeting all of the requirements of either paragraph (a) or paragraph (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:
439
(1) Equipage. (i) The unmanned aircraft used in the operation must be equipped with a
remote identification broadcast module that meets the requirements of § 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 § 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 § 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 subpart B.
(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 § 89.315.
440
(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 established in accordance with subpart C 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.
§ 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.
§ 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.
§ 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.
441
(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 unless the person obtains a Confirmation
442
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 § 89.130(a) remains accurate and
must update the information prior to operating a foreign registered civil unmanned aircraft in the
United States.
Subpart C [Reserved]
§§ 89.201 through 89.299 [Reserved]
Subpart D—Requirements for Standard Remote Identification Unmanned Aircraft and
Remote Identification Broadcast Modules.
§ 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.
§ 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.
443
(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.
§ 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.
444
(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 § 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 § 89.305 using a non-proprietary broadcast specification and using radio
frequency spectrum compatible with personal wireless devices in accordance with part 15 of
title 47, Code of Federal Regulations, 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.
445
(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 § 89.305.
§ 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.
446
(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.
§ 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 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.
447
(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 § 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 § 89.315 using a non-proprietary broadcast specification
and using radio frequency spectrum compatible with personal wireless devices in accordance
with part 15 of title 47, Code of Federal Regulations, 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.
448
(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
§ 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.
§ 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.
449
(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.
450
§ 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, the FAA will notify the person that the
Administrator has accepted the means of compliance.
§ 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.
§ 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
451
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
§ 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.
452
(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.
§ 89.505 Serial numbers.
Serial number required. No person may produce a standard remote identification
unmanned aircraft under § 89.510 or § 89.515 or a remote identification broadcast module under
§ 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, [email protected]h, 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
[email protected], or go to www.archives.gov/federal-register/cfr/ibr-locations.html.
§ 89.510 Production requirements for unmanned aircraft produced under a design
approval or production approval issued under part 21.
After [INSERT DATE 60 DAYS AND 18 MONTHS AFTER DATE OF
PUBLICATION IN THE FEDERAL REGISTER], no person may produce an unmanned aircraft
453
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 § 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 § 91.225 of this chapter.
§ 89.515 Production requirements for unmanned aircraft without design approval or
production approval issued under part 21.
Except as provided in § 89.510, after [INSERT DATE 60 DAYS AND 18 MONTHS
AFTER DATE OF PUBLICATION IN THE FEDERAL REGISTER], 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 § 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.
454
(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.
§ 89.520 Production requirements for remote identification broadcast modules.
After [INSERT DATE 60 DAYS AFTER DATE OF PUBLICATION IN THE
FEDERAL REGISTER], 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 §
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
455
identification broadcast modules 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 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.
§ 89.525 Labeling.
(a) No person may produce a standard remote identification unmanned aircraft under
§ 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.
456
(b) No person may produce a remote identification broadcast module under § 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.
§ 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 § 89.515 or a remote identification broadcast module under § 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.
457
(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 § 89.310 by using an FAA-accepted means of
compliance.
(ii) Complies with the requirements of § 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 § 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.
458
(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 § 89.320 by using an FAA-
accepted means of compliance.
(ii) Complies with the requirements of § 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.
§ 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.
459
(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.
§ 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 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 § 89.310 or § 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.
460
(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.
461
(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.
§ 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.
19. Effective [INSERT DATE 60 DAYS and 18 months after date OF PUBLICATION
IN THE FEDERAL REGISTER], add subpart C to part 89 to read as follows:
PART 89—REMOTE IDENTIFICATION OF UNMANNED AIRCRAFT
Sec.
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.
462
Subpart C—FAA-Recognized Identification Areas
§ 89.201 Applicability.
This subpart prescribes procedural requirements to establish an FAA-recognized
identification area.
§ 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.
§ 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 § 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.
463
(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.
§ 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 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.
§ 89.220 Amendment.
464
(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 § 89.215.
(c) The establishment of an FAA-recognized identification area is subject to ongoing
review in accordance with § 89.215 by the Administrator that may result in the termination of the
FAA-recognized identification area pursuant to § 89.230 or modification of the FAA-recognized
identification area.
§ 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.
§ 89.230 Expiration and termination.
465
(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.
466
(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
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).
21. Amend § 91.215 by revising paragraphs (b) introductory text and (c) and adding
paragraph (e) to read as follows:
§ 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
467
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. This requirement applies—
* * * * *
(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 § 91.413 of this part 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 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.
468
22. Amend § 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:
§ 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:
469
(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 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
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.
§ 107.53 [Redesignated as § 107.56]
24. Redesignate § 107.53 as § 107.56.
25. Add §§ 107.52 and new 107.53 to subpart B to read as follows:
§ 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.
§ 107.53 ADS-B Out Prohibition.
Unless otherwise authorized by the Administrator, no person may operate a small
unmanned aircraft system under this part with Automatic Dependent Surveillance-Broadcast
(ADS-B) Out equipment in transmit mode.
470
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 Pub. L. 114-190, on December 23, 2020.
/s/
Steve Dickson,
Administrator.
